Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues
March 5, 2016 2:09 AM Subscribe
It's another day of multi-state voting in the live version of House of Cards otherwise known as Election 2016. On the Republican side, four candidates remain: Rafael Edward Cruz, John Richard Kasich, Marco Antonio Rubio, and Donald John Trump. On the Democrat side, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and Bernard Sanders continue their fight. As the math becomes clearer, and with several months still to go before potentially feisty party conventions, the odds [Oddschecker] [PredictWise] remain on both Clinton and Trump as the favorites to win their respective nominations. More on today's voting from ABC, Fortune and USA Today, while on the horizon, in-person voting begins in Florida...
Today (5th):
- Kansas (Democratic and Republican caucuses)
- Kentucky (Republican caucus)
- Louisiana (Democratic and Republican primaries)
- Maine (Republican caucus)
- Nebraska (Democratic caucus)
Tomorrow (6th):
- Maine (Democratic caucus)
Tuesday (8th):
- Hawaii (Republican caucus)
- Idaho (Republican primary)
- Michigan (Democratic and Republican primaries)
- Mississippi (Democratic and Republican primaries)
Next Saturday (12th):
- District of Columbia (Republican caucus)
- Wyoming (Republican caucus)
Since Super Tuesday or thereabouts...
- Mitt Romney has removed himself from Donald Trumps Christmas Card list.
- Republican candidates debated the thing.
- Jim Webb has removed himself from Hillary Clintons Christmas Card list.
- Ben Carson has fully withdrawn from the race.
- Chris Christie removed himself from many Republicans Christmas Card lists.
- Donald Trump avoided an event.
Previously on MetaFilter...
- Super Tuesday.
- Nevada and South Carolina.
- New Hampshire.
- Iowa.
(Please play nicely. MetaFilter moderators are people too, my friend)
Today (5th):
- Kansas (Democratic and Republican caucuses)
- Kentucky (Republican caucus)
- Louisiana (Democratic and Republican primaries)
- Maine (Republican caucus)
- Nebraska (Democratic caucus)
Tomorrow (6th):
- Maine (Democratic caucus)
Tuesday (8th):
- Hawaii (Republican caucus)
- Idaho (Republican primary)
- Michigan (Democratic and Republican primaries)
- Mississippi (Democratic and Republican primaries)
Next Saturday (12th):
- District of Columbia (Republican caucus)
- Wyoming (Republican caucus)
Since Super Tuesday or thereabouts...
- Mitt Romney has removed himself from Donald Trumps Christmas Card list.
- Republican candidates debated the thing.
- Jim Webb has removed himself from Hillary Clintons Christmas Card list.
- Ben Carson has fully withdrawn from the race.
- Chris Christie removed himself from many Republicans Christmas Card lists.
- Donald Trump avoided an event.
Previously on MetaFilter...
- Super Tuesday.
- Nevada and South Carolina.
- New Hampshire.
- Iowa.
(Please play nicely. MetaFilter moderators are people too, my friend)
*cries*
posted by Mezentian at 3:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Mezentian at 3:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
How are we going to last until November? Every week brings a fresh new hell.
The best/worst part of the last Republican debate? Trump is a fraud, a con-man, a danger to the party and the nation, a liar, advocates war crimes, is completely unfit to lead, and hell-yes we'll support him if he's the nominee!
posted by Justinian at 3:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [82 favorites]
The best/worst part of the last Republican debate? Trump is a fraud, a con-man, a danger to the party and the nation, a liar, advocates war crimes, is completely unfit to lead, and hell-yes we'll support him if he's the nominee!
posted by Justinian at 3:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [82 favorites]
There are more of us than there are of them. If we turn out, Dems win in a landslide. So do all you can to make sure everyone you know votes in November!
posted by persona au gratin at 3:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by persona au gratin at 3:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
Mod note: Just to remind everyone, to keep this from filling up with thousands of comments right away, let's try to avoid general chit-chat and focus on sharing more significant news, updates and info on this round of caucuses and primaries. Other threads remain open for general election commenting.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
How are we going to last until November?
There isn't long to go now. And after the election in November, our attention can turn elsewhere.
Seriously, if anyone is voting or caucusing today I'd like to read how it went. What was the procedures at your station, was it busy/quiet, what was the mood like, are you served tea or coffee, anything like that.
posted by Wordshore at 3:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There isn't long to go now. And after the election in November, our attention can turn elsewhere.
Seriously, if anyone is voting or caucusing today I'd like to read how it went. What was the procedures at your station, was it busy/quiet, what was the mood like, are you served tea or coffee, anything like that.
posted by Wordshore at 3:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm curious to know what the stats are regarding voter turnout on weekend primaries vs. weekday primaries, if anyone knows.
posted by teponaztli at 3:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by teponaztli at 3:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
That was a rather elliptical way to inform me that Sanders doesn't have a middle name.
posted by dgaicun at 3:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by dgaicun at 3:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
- Jim Webb has removed himself from Hillary Clintons Christmas Card list.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out of the party
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Don't let the door hit you on the way out of the party
posted by vibratory manner of working at 4:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Donald Trump Reverses Position on Torture
I don't know how to beat a candidate who has the political superpower to "unsay" things he previously said and still be taken seriously...
posted by mmoncur at 4:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
I don't know how to beat a candidate who has the political superpower to "unsay" things he previously said and still be taken seriously...
posted by mmoncur at 4:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
One thing that surprised me was hearing from a friend that his son, who just turned 18 and will be voting for the first time, is going for Trump. And I was like WTF? He said that son told him that's cos Trump is for business, and this is based on the kid's after school job at the local golf course.
Millenials for Trump? Wasn't this mentioned in a recent Cracked article as well? That Trump'll be able to reach all the segments currently "alienated".
posted by infini at 4:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Millenials for Trump? Wasn't this mentioned in a recent Cracked article as well? That Trump'll be able to reach all the segments currently "alienated".
posted by infini at 4:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jim Webb is an irrelevant politician struggling to stake a claim for himself in the emerging political landscape. The man can see the writing on the wall for the current party dynamic in the US. The Republican Party is eating itself alive, and if it splits apart and tries to reform with a cogent philosophy, the Democrats will have to pivot and undergo major changes themselves within a few years. In a decade or two, the labels Democrat and Republican may have entirely new meanings (or they might be be relics).
I think Webb understands that his core constituency has a lot of overlap with Trump's, and is seizing the moment to try and regain his relevance. He probably won't be successful, but he hardly has anything to lose; and I am certain that we're going to see quite a few political chameleons step forward in the next several years.
posted by duffell at 4:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Webb understands that his core constituency has a lot of overlap with Trump's, and is seizing the moment to try and regain his relevance. He probably won't be successful, but he hardly has anything to lose; and I am certain that we're going to see quite a few political chameleons step forward in the next several years.
posted by duffell at 4:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have always thought it so bizarre the whole concept of primaries where candidates verbally brutalize each other and then, once one of them is chosen, make like friends into the general election. I know that, to quote The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's strictly business.", but I've still wondered how people can separate the two during a particularly viscous campaign.
And now we have 2016 with Rubio and Cruz throwing everything they can at Trump hoping something will stick. Yet they still say they will support him if he gets nominated, which seems very counterproductive to their efforts to paint him as the worst thing that could ever happen to the Republican party and the nation. So strange.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 4:23 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
And now we have 2016 with Rubio and Cruz throwing everything they can at Trump hoping something will stick. Yet they still say they will support him if he gets nominated, which seems very counterproductive to their efforts to paint him as the worst thing that could ever happen to the Republican party and the nation. So strange.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 4:23 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bill Clinton's appearance at a polling station has irked supporters of Bernie Sanders, and an online petition to have Clinton arrested under campaign laws has been signed by more than 80,000 people.
No, Clinton should not have been inside polling places, or using a bullhorn outside of one to tell people to vote for his wife. The people advocating his arrest look silly, especially because they are addressing the wrong authority.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
No, Clinton should not have been inside polling places, or using a bullhorn outside of one to tell people to vote for his wife. The people advocating his arrest look silly, especially because they are addressing the wrong authority.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Kasich May Have Cut Off Rubio’s Path To The Nomination
The dynamic described in that article is really interesting: Kasich is presumably lowering vote totals that would go to Rubio, but now that Rubio has to go through a contested convention to have a realistic shot at winning, it's better for both of them if Kasich is in the race through Ohio.
posted by graymouser at 4:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The dynamic described in that article is really interesting: Kasich is presumably lowering vote totals that would go to Rubio, but now that Rubio has to go through a contested convention to have a realistic shot at winning, it's better for both of them if Kasich is in the race through Ohio.
posted by graymouser at 4:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has anyone done an analysis of the number of news stories written about the Republican race vs the Democratic side? I look at Memeorandum every day and by the news collected there, you'd almost never know that Clinton and Sanders were running. It's all Trump 24/7.
posted by octothorpe at 4:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Now Markos has decreed that his site will be moderating criticism of Clinton and Sanders so they can concentrate on the general election, down ballot races, and to more effectively shill for Clinton and the DNC.
OK, nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by sudogeek at 4:45 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
OK, nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by sudogeek at 4:45 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, Clinton should not have been inside polling places, or using a bullhorn outside of one to tell people to vote for his wife. The people advocating his arrest look silly, especially because they are addressing the wrong authority.
What if Trump were standing outside of a polling place with a bullhorn?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:46 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
What if Trump were standing outside of a polling place with a bullhorn?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:46 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Christ Almighty Americans, do you think you could wrap this shit up? I was willing to play along for a bit out of politeness but now I think you're dragging it out on purpose. It does not take this long to elect somebody. You've held your practice votes (that's what primaries are, right?). It's time for the main event. You're ready. I believe in you. C'mon.
Alright, fuck it. I'll be sitting in the car.
posted by um at 4:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [47 favorites]
Alright, fuck it. I'll be sitting in the car.
posted by um at 4:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [47 favorites]
Christ Almighty Americans, do you think you could wrap this shit up?
Only eight more months to go until we're done with this. You can tough it out.
posted by octothorpe at 4:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Only eight more months to go until we're done with this. You can tough it out.
posted by octothorpe at 4:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Now Markos has decreed that his site will be moderating criticism of Clinton and Sanders so they can concentrate on the general election, down ballot races, and to more effectively shill for Clinton and the DNC.
From TFA:
posted by duffell at 4:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [42 favorites]
From TFA:
There’s a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Do I need to spell it out? It’s the difference between “We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.”Well how dare they.
posted by duffell at 4:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [42 favorites]
What if Trump were standing outside of a polling place with a bullhorn?
Seems like something better dealt with through a fine than an arrest.
posted by sallybrown at 4:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seems like something better dealt with through a fine than an arrest.
posted by sallybrown at 4:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm caucusing today in Kansas. There are relatively few registered Democrats in this state, and the state party has little money, so the caucus locations are far and few between. I'm driving 100 miles to Independence, KS. A town of around 2,000 souls that somehow has its own zoo.
This will be my first caucus. And I'll not only be voting but I'll be there as a volunteer for Bernie. My group of volunteers voted me "Caucus Captain". Feels like the blind leading the blind, considering the number of people in my group who are caucusing for the first time, but the process doesn't look too complicated. We're a small district so only 100 people total (out of a potential 1500) are expected. My sheet of Bernie supporters who indicated (from web or Bernie event registration) they'll show up is only around 3 pages. I'll have a Sanders staff member on call in case of problems but none on site. They'll all be at the larger districts. The campaign is spread thin. Will be interesting to see how many Clinton volunteers / staff show up in this middle-of-nowhere town. I haven't read much about her ground game.
The Sanders campaign has placed a lot of importance on Kansas. Bernie has appeared here twice in the past week. Large crowds both times. Current poll is 33% for HRC, 23% for Sanders, and 44% undecided. Have no idea how my district will go.
Should be an interesting, and all-too long day. Leaving at 10, picking up a case of water (for people stuck in the line) and a couple of volunteers along the way, enter the site at 12:30, caucus line shuts down at 3:00, caucus formally starts at 4:00. Might be out by 5. Will report back afterwards if we all survive the boredom and the polite tension with the Clinton supporters.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2016 [62 favorites]
This will be my first caucus. And I'll not only be voting but I'll be there as a volunteer for Bernie. My group of volunteers voted me "Caucus Captain". Feels like the blind leading the blind, considering the number of people in my group who are caucusing for the first time, but the process doesn't look too complicated. We're a small district so only 100 people total (out of a potential 1500) are expected. My sheet of Bernie supporters who indicated (from web or Bernie event registration) they'll show up is only around 3 pages. I'll have a Sanders staff member on call in case of problems but none on site. They'll all be at the larger districts. The campaign is spread thin. Will be interesting to see how many Clinton volunteers / staff show up in this middle-of-nowhere town. I haven't read much about her ground game.
The Sanders campaign has placed a lot of importance on Kansas. Bernie has appeared here twice in the past week. Large crowds both times. Current poll is 33% for HRC, 23% for Sanders, and 44% undecided. Have no idea how my district will go.
Should be an interesting, and all-too long day. Leaving at 10, picking up a case of water (for people stuck in the line) and a couple of volunteers along the way, enter the site at 12:30, caucus line shuts down at 3:00, caucus formally starts at 4:00. Might be out by 5. Will report back afterwards if we all survive the boredom and the polite tension with the Clinton supporters.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2016 [62 favorites]
Christ Almighty Americans, do you think you could wrap this shit up? I was willing to play along for a bit out of politeness but now I think you're dragging it out on purpose. It does not take this long to elect somebody. You've held your practice votes (that's what primaries are, right?). It's time for the main event. You're ready. I believe in you. C'mon.
Yes, it's astounding how much energy and media coverage is poured into this. President of the US is certainly a important position, but there (still) are some constitutional limitations that make the president much less powerful than many people think. Just think about how much resistance Obama faced just in order to institute decent healthcare, or how much that was watered down in th end.
It's almost as if it's a ploy to divert attention away from lot's of smaller decisions, which sum up to be just as important, if not much more.
posted by sour cream at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yes, it's astounding how much energy and media coverage is poured into this. President of the US is certainly a important position, but there (still) are some constitutional limitations that make the president much less powerful than many people think. Just think about how much resistance Obama faced just in order to institute decent healthcare, or how much that was watered down in th end.
It's almost as if it's a ploy to divert attention away from lot's of smaller decisions, which sum up to be just as important, if not much more.
posted by sour cream at 5:08 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Well how dare they.
The more they tighten their grip, the more people that will slip through their fingers.
posted by anti social order at 5:11 AM on March 5, 2016
The more they tighten their grip, the more people that will slip through their fingers.
posted by anti social order at 5:11 AM on March 5, 2016
How are we going to last until November?
Fuck alone knows.
I'm sure there are all sorts of fascinating historical reasons for the incomprehensible nomination rigmarole of primulas, caucasians, Enormous Wednesdays, brokered conniptions, &c., but... mightn't it be a good idea to have a think about simplifying and tightening things up a wee bit?
It's not quite the same thing, obviously, but we elected a party leader in the UK recently. It went like this:
1. MPs nominate some candidates for leader and deputy leader (9th June)
2. Everyone has a big shouty argument for a while
3. Party members (and some sort-of-members) vote online or by post, using the alternative vote system. (1th August - 10 September)
4. Votes are counted, winners declared (12th September)
Presumably the two US parties already have the home/email addresses of all their members - is there actually anything stopping them saying, 'You know what, gang, this time we'll do three months of campaigning followed by a one member, one vote election'?
I mean, when the current nominee selection process looks utterly absurd to someone who lives in a country that selects its head of state by making incredibly posh people fuck each other, it might be worth a rethink…
posted by jack_mo at 5:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [36 favorites]
Fuck alone knows.
I'm sure there are all sorts of fascinating historical reasons for the incomprehensible nomination rigmarole of primulas, caucasians, Enormous Wednesdays, brokered conniptions, &c., but... mightn't it be a good idea to have a think about simplifying and tightening things up a wee bit?
It's not quite the same thing, obviously, but we elected a party leader in the UK recently. It went like this:
1. MPs nominate some candidates for leader and deputy leader (9th June)
2. Everyone has a big shouty argument for a while
3. Party members (and some sort-of-members) vote online or by post, using the alternative vote system. (1th August - 10 September)
4. Votes are counted, winners declared (12th September)
Presumably the two US parties already have the home/email addresses of all their members - is there actually anything stopping them saying, 'You know what, gang, this time we'll do three months of campaigning followed by a one member, one vote election'?
I mean, when the current nominee selection process looks utterly absurd to someone who lives in a country that selects its head of state by making incredibly posh people fuck each other, it might be worth a rethink…
posted by jack_mo at 5:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [36 favorites]
So you're saying you'll have plenty of time to post updates throughout the day, honestcoyote?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:19 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:19 AM on March 5, 2016
It's almost as if it's a ploy to divert attention away from lot's of smaller decisions, which sum up to be just as important, if not much more.
If only it were.
Rather, it's all just entertainment. Governing ourselves is work, and no one wants to watch work on TV.
posted by nothing.especially.clever at 5:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If only it were.
Rather, it's all just entertainment. Governing ourselves is work, and no one wants to watch work on TV.
posted by nothing.especially.clever at 5:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
What if Trump were standing outside of a polling place with a bullhorn?
Then the cops (who are always in place at MA polling stations) should tell him to stop. They should have told Clinton to stop, but they didn't. Apparently, the MA Secretary of State's office told the Clinton people it was OK. They didn't ask me. Anyway, the opportunity to do something appropriate is past.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Then the cops (who are always in place at MA polling stations) should tell him to stop. They should have told Clinton to stop, but they didn't. Apparently, the MA Secretary of State's office told the Clinton people it was OK. They didn't ask me. Anyway, the opportunity to do something appropriate is past.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Presumably the two US parties already have the home/email addresses of all their members - is there actually anything stopping them saying, 'You know what, gang, this time we'll do three months of campaigning followed by a one member, one vote election'?
There's only so many political ads that you can buy in any given time and three months isn't nearly enough time to spend all those millions of dollars of campaign money. All those local TV network affiliates need to make their money somehow.
posted by octothorpe at 5:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's only so many political ads that you can buy in any given time and three months isn't nearly enough time to spend all those millions of dollars of campaign money. All those local TV network affiliates need to make their money somehow.
posted by octothorpe at 5:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think there will be much to update. Honestly expecting a quiet day. The Bernie staff I'm working with are a little paranoid about "dirty tricks", but even they didn't think the Clinton side will act up much. Interestingly, they were also almost equally concerned about their own supporters getting over-enthusiastic and breaking rules. The staff are all veterans of Iowa and that was, apparently, pure chaos.
But, this is Kansas. A backwater and sideshow to the whole mess. People will line up, quietly grumble about one side or the other, and then they'll find common ground in grumbling about our idiot tea party Koch-bought governor.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
But, this is Kansas. A backwater and sideshow to the whole mess. People will line up, quietly grumble about one side or the other, and then they'll find common ground in grumbling about our idiot tea party Koch-bought governor.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's not quite the same thing, obviously, but we elected a party leader in the UK recently. It went like this:
I can see your point, but maybe that wasn't the best example to choose, as the missing step is:
5. Endless news coverage about how unpopular the leader is within his own party and if or when he will be toppled / forced to stand down / overthrown, over and over.
And the other main party (the one in power) has had pretty much a simmering and oft-mentioned leadership contest since before the last general election thanks to 'Dave' saying he won't stand again. Cue the current shenanigans with opportunistic Boris, George 'um, yeah, better not tinker with pension reform just yet' and others.
The only main party leader in England who seems safe is that Tim bloke running what is left of the Liberal thingies, possibly as hardly anyone cares.
The main - and massive - difference with the USA is that elections there are multi-billion dollar a year full time industries pumping money into all manner of media, lobbying, election, ephemera and other businesses. In England, it's so small scale a politician will have a limit of dunno three shillings and sixpence to last for the entire campaign.
Some odds on these and other perpetual British election or leadership contest things.
posted by Wordshore at 5:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can see your point, but maybe that wasn't the best example to choose, as the missing step is:
5. Endless news coverage about how unpopular the leader is within his own party and if or when he will be toppled / forced to stand down / overthrown, over and over.
And the other main party (the one in power) has had pretty much a simmering and oft-mentioned leadership contest since before the last general election thanks to 'Dave' saying he won't stand again. Cue the current shenanigans with opportunistic Boris, George 'um, yeah, better not tinker with pension reform just yet' and others.
The only main party leader in England who seems safe is that Tim bloke running what is left of the Liberal thingies, possibly as hardly anyone cares.
The main - and massive - difference with the USA is that elections there are multi-billion dollar a year full time industries pumping money into all manner of media, lobbying, election, ephemera and other businesses. In England, it's so small scale a politician will have a limit of dunno three shillings and sixpence to last for the entire campaign.
Some odds on these and other perpetual British election or leadership contest things.
posted by Wordshore at 5:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
no one wants to watch work on TV
Maybe some rebranding is in order. Coming this fall on C-SPAN - THE OBSTRUCTORZ starring Mainly White Guys
Pfizer already booked all the ad space but small product placement situations may still be available
posted by mintcake! at 5:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe some rebranding is in order. Coming this fall on C-SPAN - THE OBSTRUCTORZ starring Mainly White Guys
Pfizer already booked all the ad space but small product placement situations may still be available
posted by mintcake! at 5:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know how to beat a candidate who has the political superpower to "unsay" things he previously said and still be taken seriously
Everyone does this. It's a dance move called the Washington Walkback. (Although, surely, some are more effective at it than others.)
I look at Memeorandum every day and by the news collected there, you'd almost never know that Clinton and Sanders were running. It's all Trump 24/7.
I think it's every news outlet. Even the left-leaning ones (i.e. Democracy Now) cover Trump more than any other candidate -- at least, that's my subjective perception.
I think it's because 1) Trump is just an outrageous figure that does a lot of (perceived) news-worthy stuff 2) there's more candidate turmoil on the Republican side 3) there's more Republican campaign events (thanks, DWS!).
How are we going to last until November?
In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:33 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everyone does this. It's a dance move called the Washington Walkback. (Although, surely, some are more effective at it than others.)
I look at Memeorandum every day and by the news collected there, you'd almost never know that Clinton and Sanders were running. It's all Trump 24/7.
I think it's every news outlet. Even the left-leaning ones (i.e. Democracy Now) cover Trump more than any other candidate -- at least, that's my subjective perception.
I think it's because 1) Trump is just an outrageous figure that does a lot of (perceived) news-worthy stuff 2) there's more candidate turmoil on the Republican side 3) there's more Republican campaign events (thanks, DWS!).
How are we going to last until November?
In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:33 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The other problem with the UK leadership elections is that they don't need to occur on a fixed schedule, which contributes to a constant simmering tension. I don't know if that's preferable to a massive quadrennial blowout though.
posted by adrianhon at 5:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adrianhon at 5:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's only so many political ads that you can buy in any given time and three months isn't nearly enough time to spend all those millions of dollars of campaign money. All those local TV network affiliates need to make their money somehow.
Late stage capitalism strikes again!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Late stage capitalism strikes again!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Fox News to Host Live Event With Bernie Sanders
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:42 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:42 AM on March 5, 2016
honestcoyote: thank you for the interesting observations, and hope it goes okay today.
posted by Wordshore at 5:43 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 5:43 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
> The more they tighten their grip, the more people that will slip through their fingers.
If Daily Kos had ever tolerated words like that in reference to Hillary, I'm mostly disappointed that they took this long to realize they shouldn't have. It's not a political or speech issue, it's an asshattery issue.
posted by ardgedee at 5:46 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
If Daily Kos had ever tolerated words like that in reference to Hillary, I'm mostly disappointed that they took this long to realize they shouldn't have. It's not a political or speech issue, it's an asshattery issue.
posted by ardgedee at 5:46 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Only eight more months to go until we're done with this.
Unless we go back to the Supreme Court, which now only has 8 people on it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless we go back to the Supreme Court, which now only has 8 people on it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Apparently, the MA Secretary of State's office told the Clinton people it was OK.
False. The Massachusetts Secretary of State sent a gentle reminder to Hillary Clinton’s camp today — neither former President Bill Clinton, nor anyone else, can campaign at the polls today.
People reported delays of two hours because of this sideshow. This was a cheap trick in a state and district that was favorable to Sanders. (Clinton got 50.1%, Sanders got 48.7%.)
posted by Room 641-A at 5:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
False. The Massachusetts Secretary of State sent a gentle reminder to Hillary Clinton’s camp today — neither former President Bill Clinton, nor anyone else, can campaign at the polls today.
People reported delays of two hours because of this sideshow. This was a cheap trick in a state and district that was favorable to Sanders. (Clinton got 50.1%, Sanders got 48.7%.)
posted by Room 641-A at 5:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
There are relatively few registered Democrats in this state, and the state party has little money, so the caucus locations are far and few between. I'm driving 100 miles to Independence, KS. A town of around 2,000 souls that somehow has its own zoo.
Thank you for putting in that effort (regardless of which candidate you support), and I hope everything goes as well as possible.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Thank you for putting in that effort (regardless of which candidate you support), and I hope everything goes as well as possible.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
And they did this at multiple precincts.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
~Christ Almighty Americans, do you think you could wrap this shit up?
~Only eight more months to go until we're done with this. You can tough it out.
That's for 2016. The run for the 2018 midterms starts on November 9th.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
~Only eight more months to go until we're done with this. You can tough it out.
That's for 2016. The run for the 2018 midterms starts on November 9th.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:59 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Christ Almighty Americans, do you think you could wrap this shit up?
Psst! I can't help you with the rest of the world, but for anyone tired of seeing US election stuff on the site: Go to "My Mefi" in site tabs on the front page > "Set preferences" > "Enter a list of excluded tags separated by spaces" > type in election2016. Leave the section "Enter a list of your favorite tags separated by spaces" empty. Use My Mefi to browse the site, and you should see everything but the current US election-related posts.
posted by taz at 6:04 AM on March 5, 2016 [37 favorites]
Psst! I can't help you with the rest of the world, but for anyone tired of seeing US election stuff on the site: Go to "My Mefi" in site tabs on the front page > "Set preferences" > "Enter a list of excluded tags separated by spaces" > type in election2016. Leave the section "Enter a list of your favorite tags separated by spaces" empty. Use My Mefi to browse the site, and you should see everything but the current US election-related posts.
posted by taz at 6:04 AM on March 5, 2016 [37 favorites]
That's for 2016. The run for the 2018 midterms starts on November 9th.
As soon as this Novembers POTUS election is over, potential candidates in the losing party will start looking at dates and calculating, as speculation in the news begins.
posted by Wordshore at 6:06 AM on March 5, 2016
As soon as this Novembers POTUS election is over, potential candidates in the losing party will start looking at dates and calculating, as speculation in the news begins.
posted by Wordshore at 6:06 AM on March 5, 2016
Asshattery, perhaps. Certainly not the most felicitous turn of phrase anyway. I didn't search Kos for "corporatist whore" to see if it was invective or imaginary on Markos' part.
We have a choice between the National Front in Trump, several species of theocratic apologists for the oligarchs, a moderate Republican of the McCain school in HRC, and one Democrat. That Sanders is considered an extreme leftist is a sad commentary on the state of politics in the US.
Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare even being discussed for the next 2-3 cycles, the TPP is a fait accompli, military interventions, 'smart' or not, will continue apace, and the increasing economic divide will, well, continue to increase.
Canada? I'm thinking Cuba.
posted by sudogeek at 6:07 AM on March 5, 2016 [22 favorites]
We have a choice between the National Front in Trump, several species of theocratic apologists for the oligarchs, a moderate Republican of the McCain school in HRC, and one Democrat. That Sanders is considered an extreme leftist is a sad commentary on the state of politics in the US.
Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare even being discussed for the next 2-3 cycles, the TPP is a fait accompli, military interventions, 'smart' or not, will continue apace, and the increasing economic divide will, well, continue to increase.
Canada? I'm thinking Cuba.
posted by sudogeek at 6:07 AM on March 5, 2016 [22 favorites]
In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
I think we already live in that Dystopia.
posted by Mezentian at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think we already live in that Dystopia.
posted by Mezentian at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare
Wait.... what?
I mean, I can't vote for her, and would not if I could, but I always assumed she was for this sort of general kind of thing.
Seriously, America: get your shit together.
the TPP is a fait accompli, military interventions, 'smart' or not, will continue apace, and the increasing economic divide will, well, continue to increase.
I think this is a given, regardless.
posted by Mezentian at 6:16 AM on March 5, 2016
Wait.... what?
I mean, I can't vote for her, and would not if I could, but I always assumed she was for this sort of general kind of thing.
Seriously, America: get your shit together.
the TPP is a fait accompli, military interventions, 'smart' or not, will continue apace, and the increasing economic divide will, well, continue to increase.
I think this is a given, regardless.
posted by Mezentian at 6:16 AM on March 5, 2016
I mean, I can't vote for her, and would not if I could, but I always assumed she was for this sort of general kind of thing.
Part of her campaign against Sanders is that single payer healthcare is unrealistic and never going to happen.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Part of her campaign against Sanders is that single payer healthcare is unrealistic and never going to happen.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare
There's no chance for that, no matter who is elected, as long as the Republicans hold both chambers of Congress. And, even if the Dems somehow managed to get the Senate back, there's still no realistic chance even with a Sanders Presidency.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [25 favorites]
There's no chance for that, no matter who is elected, as long as the Republicans hold both chambers of Congress. And, even if the Dems somehow managed to get the Senate back, there's still no realistic chance even with a Sanders Presidency.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [25 favorites]
In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
we already live in a world so screwed up that a sitting president with something like 20% of his term left cannot fulfill his constitutional duty of nominating a supreme court justice because reasons... i mean, how much lower can we go? (i don't want to know but i think i'm about to find out)
posted by entropicamericana at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
we already live in a world so screwed up that a sitting president with something like 20% of his term left cannot fulfill his constitutional duty of nominating a supreme court justice because reasons... i mean, how much lower can we go? (i don't want to know but i think i'm about to find out)
posted by entropicamericana at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The main - and massive - difference with the USA is that elections there are multi-billion dollar a year full time industries pumping money into all manner of media, lobbying, election, ephemera and other businesses. In England, it's so small scale a politician will have a limit of dunno three shillings and sixpence to last for the entire campaign.
In case anybody was wondering, the entire party political spend for the whole UK General Election in 2015 was about £37 million (non-party spend was less than £2 million). That's about $52 million, or a little over a dollar a voter. To date, US presidential candidates (and their allies) have spent something like $700 million, or nearly three dollars a voter. We can expect that number to triple or more by the time the whole thing is over.
To give even more perspective, Republican candidates who never contested a single primary and ended their campaigns last year still outspent the whole UK General Election, and Roman emperors used to import live hippos and rhinos from Africa to entertain the urban masses with mock hunts?
posted by Emma May Smith at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
In case anybody was wondering, the entire party political spend for the whole UK General Election in 2015 was about £37 million (non-party spend was less than £2 million). That's about $52 million, or a little over a dollar a voter. To date, US presidential candidates (and their allies) have spent something like $700 million, or nearly three dollars a voter. We can expect that number to triple or more by the time the whole thing is over.
To give even more perspective, Republican candidates who never contested a single primary and ended their campaigns last year still outspent the whole UK General Election, and Roman emperors used to import live hippos and rhinos from Africa to entertain the urban masses with mock hunts?
posted by Emma May Smith at 6:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just took a YouGov poll that floated the possibility of a hypothetical Paul Ryan candidacy.
Is that actually a thing?
posted by box at 6:27 AM on March 5, 2016
Is that actually a thing?
posted by box at 6:27 AM on March 5, 2016
Ah yes, the American mantra of the 21st century: "It can't be done."
posted by entropicamericana at 6:27 AM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 6:27 AM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
Conclusion: Despite the media proclaiming that the nominations are all sewed up, in fact both races are still to be determined
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just took a YouGov poll that floated the possibility of a hypothetical Paul Ryan candidacy. Is that actually a thing?
Though the odds are still long for either a Romney or a Ryan candidacy, they have been slowly creeping in over the past few weeks.
posted by Wordshore at 6:30 AM on March 5, 2016
Though the odds are still long for either a Romney or a Ryan candidacy, they have been slowly creeping in over the past few weeks.
posted by Wordshore at 6:30 AM on March 5, 2016
Roman emperors used to import live hippos and rhinos from Africa to entertain the urban masses with mock hunts
Despite the animal cruelty, in many ways that would be a less awful spectacle than the Presidential debate the other night. And there's always the chance that the field accidentally gets narrowed.
posted by graymouser at 6:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Despite the animal cruelty, in many ways that would be a less awful spectacle than the Presidential debate the other night. And there's always the chance that the field accidentally gets narrowed.
posted by graymouser at 6:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Part of her campaign against Sanders is that single payer healthcare is unrealistic
If I am wrong: the UK and Australia (and NZ) offer alternative views with "working", socialised healthcare, which don't work well, but work well enough (in comparison).
As an outsider, I am just baffled by US politics, and each cycle I try to understand it, and with each development it just gets worse.
Is that actually a thing?
My understanding is that anyone can tip their hat for the next few weeks, but circa March 31: that's it.
Of course, I am spending far too much time wondering how the US got so fucked up that someone worse that Bush got on the ticket.
Conclusion: Despite the media proclaiming that the nominations are all sewed up, in fact both races are still to be determined
Past election cycles seem to suggest it is.
For USians, if you can, the Australian ABC does a thing called 'Planet America', if you are curious about how the world is trying to understand you.
John Barron is hella smart (and he has a silky voice) and Chas Licciardello once dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and ran a blockade. And did not get shot.
posted by Mezentian at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
If I am wrong: the UK and Australia (and NZ) offer alternative views with "working", socialised healthcare, which don't work well, but work well enough (in comparison).
As an outsider, I am just baffled by US politics, and each cycle I try to understand it, and with each development it just gets worse.
Is that actually a thing?
My understanding is that anyone can tip their hat for the next few weeks, but circa March 31: that's it.
Of course, I am spending far too much time wondering how the US got so fucked up that someone worse that Bush got on the ticket.
Conclusion: Despite the media proclaiming that the nominations are all sewed up, in fact both races are still to be determined
Past election cycles seem to suggest it is.
For USians, if you can, the Australian ABC does a thing called 'Planet America', if you are curious about how the world is trying to understand you.
John Barron is hella smart (and he has a silky voice) and Chas Licciardello once dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and ran a blockade. And did not get shot.
posted by Mezentian at 6:34 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Although my vote has already been tallied for Democrats Abroad ("The Primary That No One Cares About!"), voting is still ongoing. However, in a result that is not at all a surprise to anyone, so far Sanders is crushin' it.
posted by kyrademon at 6:35 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 6:35 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Achieving universal health care is incremental. As Churchill once observed, Americans will eventually do the right thing after trying everything else.
First is the public option, a buy in to Medicare as an alternative to the failure of the ACA "marketplaces." This is the camel's nose. The key to the initial steps is not cutting out the insurance industry - they still get to sell the Medigap policies.
For more info, see Physicians for a National Health Program.
posted by sudogeek at 6:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
First is the public option, a buy in to Medicare as an alternative to the failure of the ACA "marketplaces." This is the camel's nose. The key to the initial steps is not cutting out the insurance industry - they still get to sell the Medigap policies.
For more info, see Physicians for a National Health Program.
posted by sudogeek at 6:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I just took a YouGov poll that floated the possibility of a hypothetical Paul Ryan candidacy. Is that actually a thing?
Trump will, barring some sort of black swan event, have more delegates than the other candidates by the time the convention rolls around. But he may not have the magic number of delegates to guarantee his nomination. In that event, all pledged delegates are free to support other candidates. If the party wanted to throw a palace coup, they'd likely throw their support behind the person with the second most delegates -- probably Cruz or Rubio. But there's nothing save common sense that prevents them from giving those delegates to anybody, which is why Ryan and Romney are floated as potential nominees.
And as much as I dislike the fact that this race has turned into a reality show, this intriguing possibility is very fun to ponder. As a Democrat, there's really nothing I would find more enjoyable (politically speaking) than a contested Republican convention where the party elders eschew the wishes of their voters and nominate a party figurehead who hasn't spent a single day campaigning.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump will, barring some sort of black swan event, have more delegates than the other candidates by the time the convention rolls around. But he may not have the magic number of delegates to guarantee his nomination. In that event, all pledged delegates are free to support other candidates. If the party wanted to throw a palace coup, they'd likely throw their support behind the person with the second most delegates -- probably Cruz or Rubio. But there's nothing save common sense that prevents them from giving those delegates to anybody, which is why Ryan and Romney are floated as potential nominees.
And as much as I dislike the fact that this race has turned into a reality show, this intriguing possibility is very fun to ponder. As a Democrat, there's really nothing I would find more enjoyable (politically speaking) than a contested Republican convention where the party elders eschew the wishes of their voters and nominate a party figurehead who hasn't spent a single day campaigning.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is ridiculous. In Australia our prime minister is talking about an election maybe in october, perhaps sooner. We've changed governments during the US election campaign, and may again before they get to the ballot. This has been going on for almost two years.
And it's gross. It's disgusting. Obscene, pornographic, appalling. Get your shit together, please!
posted by adept256 at 6:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
And it's gross. It's disgusting. Obscene, pornographic, appalling. Get your shit together, please!
posted by adept256 at 6:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The best/worst part of the last Republican debate? Trump is a fraud, a con-man, a danger to the party and the nation, a liar, advocates war crimes, is completely unfit to lead, and hell-yes we'll support him if he's the nominee!
That was a bizarre capstone to a truly weird debate, but I guess they were trying hard to separate themselves from the blowback that Romney's speech has gotten. It seemed like a supremely defeatist moment and quite disappointing, but I'm not sure another alternative was realistic.
where the party elders eschew the wishes of their voters
The split at this moment in the GOP between the party establishment and a large percentage of their voters (at least half, and maybe more) is fascinating. I've never seen that in my lifetime, and I am not at all sure how they will resolve this without an actual divide.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
That was a bizarre capstone to a truly weird debate, but I guess they were trying hard to separate themselves from the blowback that Romney's speech has gotten. It seemed like a supremely defeatist moment and quite disappointing, but I'm not sure another alternative was realistic.
where the party elders eschew the wishes of their voters
The split at this moment in the GOP between the party establishment and a large percentage of their voters (at least half, and maybe more) is fascinating. I've never seen that in my lifetime, and I am not at all sure how they will resolve this without an actual divide.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
And it's gross. It's disgusting. Obscene, pornographic, appalling. Get your shit together, please!
You think that we don't know that? Or that we have any choice in the matter?
We're already miserable, we don't need other people pointing and laughing at our misery, thanks.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [42 favorites]
You think that we don't know that? Or that we have any choice in the matter?
We're already miserable, we don't need other people pointing and laughing at our misery, thanks.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [42 favorites]
Romney has explored blocking Trump at the RNC, and despite any denials still wants to be in it.
posted by graymouser at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by graymouser at 6:44 AM on March 5, 2016
In Australia we have changed Prime Minister how many times since 2007? Out of how many elections?
We're looking at Italian levels of Shit Democracy.
Plus, we have Campbell Newman, Australia's Trump.
And we can to change the electoral rules to make it so minor parties have almost no chance of getting elected.
(Despite the fact you can get elected with almost no votes).
This thread ain't about us, but we're also fucked up, democratically.
posted by Mezentian at 6:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
We're looking at Italian levels of Shit Democracy.
Plus, we have Campbell Newman, Australia's Trump.
And we can to change the electoral rules to make it so minor parties have almost no chance of getting elected.
(Despite the fact you can get elected with almost no votes).
This thread ain't about us, but we're also fucked up, democratically.
posted by Mezentian at 6:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
There’s a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Do I need to spell it out? It’s the difference between “We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.”
This is a clear political agenda masquerading as language policing. There's no reason why "unity" has to be the order of the day, especially until after the primaries.
It should be noted that Mar(Kos) is part owner of Vox Media. And also how irrelevant DailyKos has become.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:49 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is a clear political agenda masquerading as language policing. There's no reason why "unity" has to be the order of the day, especially until after the primaries.
It should be noted that Mar(Kos) is part owner of Vox Media. And also how irrelevant DailyKos has become.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:49 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
> Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare even being discussed for the next 2-3 cycles...
Hillary chaired the Clinton Administration's Health Security Act of 1993, which eventually went down in flames thanks to the usual suspects. You can be for her or against her for all kinds of reasons, including the specifics of any particular policy she supports (including the terms of the HSA), but thinking she's opposed in principle to a federal health care mandate is only possible in your imagination.
posted by ardgedee at 6:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [37 favorites]
Hillary chaired the Clinton Administration's Health Security Act of 1993, which eventually went down in flames thanks to the usual suspects. You can be for her or against her for all kinds of reasons, including the specifics of any particular policy she supports (including the terms of the HSA), but thinking she's opposed in principle to a federal health care mandate is only possible in your imagination.
posted by ardgedee at 6:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [37 favorites]
No we are not this effed up. In Australia the Prime Minister says we're going to have an election and then every Australian sets out on a pilgrimage, on foot, to the Voting Mountain where they climb to the top and enter the Voting Cave where the Voting Monks record their vote. And then they have a cider or a banana smoothie or something. And then they go home. Bing bang boom. Whole thing is done in 8 weeks. You're welcome.
posted by um at 6:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by um at 6:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
> We're already miserable, we don't need other people pointing and laughing at our misery, thanks.
For me, the more laughter, the better. It's the only way anticipating the coming 8 months is tolerable.
posted by ardgedee at 6:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
For me, the more laughter, the better. It's the only way anticipating the coming 8 months is tolerable.
posted by ardgedee at 6:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wish people would stop confusing single payer with universal coverage. One can have universal health care coverage without having a single payer system.
posted by jclarkin at 6:55 AM on March 5, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by jclarkin at 6:55 AM on March 5, 2016 [31 favorites]
Ha ha.
Remember when Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were going to be shoo-ins, and we were going to spend all this time working on improving representation at state and local levels?
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:59 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Remember when Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton were going to be shoo-ins, and we were going to spend all this time working on improving representation at state and local levels?
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:59 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whole thing is done in 8 weeks. You're welcome.
Actually, it starts about a year out. You get you pre-electionbribe budget and all the hallmarks of the "when/how soon/Double D" debate.
Yes, it is quicker than the baffling US system overall, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make it out.
Could the US do it better? Yes.
Should they take lessons from us? Yes.
Are we super-awesome? Nope.
On the plus side, we have no Kochs, or PACS, and people don't vote based on race (mostly).
posted by Mezentian at 7:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Actually, it starts about a year out. You get you pre-election
Yes, it is quicker than the baffling US system overall, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make it out.
Could the US do it better? Yes.
Should they take lessons from us? Yes.
Are we super-awesome? Nope.
On the plus side, we have no Kochs, or PACS, and people don't vote based on race (mostly).
posted by Mezentian at 7:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The split at this moment in the GOP between the party establishment and a large percentage of their voters (at least half, and maybe more) is fascinating. I've never seen that in my lifetime, and I am not at all sure how they will resolve this without an actual divide.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what Sanders supporters are upset about regarding superdelegates?
posted by Literaryhero at 7:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what Sanders supporters are upset about regarding superdelegates?
posted by Literaryhero at 7:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The main - and massive - difference with the USA is that elections there are multi-billion dollar a year full time industries pumping money into all manner of media, lobbying, election, ephemera and other businesses. In England, it's so small scale a politician will have a limit of dunno three shillings and sixpence to last for the entire campaign.
I thought the main and massive difference between UK and US elections was that in the UK you vote for a party, often at the local level, and those results trickle up to form the proportional representation of Parliament and thus determine the Prime Minister position based on which party won the election. Whereas in the US, all elections are about the individual seeking election, from city level to the Presidency, and so people in the US aren't voting for a specific party, but instead for individual people. Am I wrong in this somehow?
posted by hippybear at 7:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought the main and massive difference between UK and US elections was that in the UK you vote for a party, often at the local level, and those results trickle up to form the proportional representation of Parliament and thus determine the Prime Minister position based on which party won the election. Whereas in the US, all elections are about the individual seeking election, from city level to the Presidency, and so people in the US aren't voting for a specific party, but instead for individual people. Am I wrong in this somehow?
posted by hippybear at 7:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
> I wish people would stop confusing single payer with universal coverage.
Fair enough. After having repeatedly seen other people state as fact that she's going to dismantle Obamacare as well, I got itchy.
posted by ardgedee at 7:02 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fair enough. After having repeatedly seen other people state as fact that she's going to dismantle Obamacare as well, I got itchy.
posted by ardgedee at 7:02 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Consider, if Clinton is elected, there is no chance of universal healthcare even being discussed for the next 2-3 cycles...
Everyone knows that *nothing* is going to happen, except maybe some sort of "grand bargain" to bleed social security to satisfy imaginary deficit fears, with a Dem president and a R congress. this is why the whole "single payer" announcement was not good politics for Sanders. the ACA is doing very little to halt the collapse of the US health care system. hospitals are closing. primary care is, generally, no longer a profitable business. employer insurance is dying the death of a thousand copays, etc. anyone who is outside of the "good insurance" bubble in a well-served area knows things are fucked. Sanders needs to communicate to those people who getting fucked, but single payer is practically meaningless to someone facing real problems with US health care. there are so many little proposals, which while they are also never going happen, communicate an awareness that things are fucked and a practical understanding of the challenges we face in that fucked system.
But, the fundamental problem with Sanders is that the sort of hippy-crunchy prius driving new england progressive who is the base of Sanders constituency in VT, lives in a very well sealed bubble. The irony of his campaign is that, despite the soaring rhetoric, he has done little in terms of populist appeals: concrete proposals to working people.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everyone knows that *nothing* is going to happen, except maybe some sort of "grand bargain" to bleed social security to satisfy imaginary deficit fears, with a Dem president and a R congress. this is why the whole "single payer" announcement was not good politics for Sanders. the ACA is doing very little to halt the collapse of the US health care system. hospitals are closing. primary care is, generally, no longer a profitable business. employer insurance is dying the death of a thousand copays, etc. anyone who is outside of the "good insurance" bubble in a well-served area knows things are fucked. Sanders needs to communicate to those people who getting fucked, but single payer is practically meaningless to someone facing real problems with US health care. there are so many little proposals, which while they are also never going happen, communicate an awareness that things are fucked and a practical understanding of the challenges we face in that fucked system.
But, the fundamental problem with Sanders is that the sort of hippy-crunchy prius driving new england progressive who is the base of Sanders constituency in VT, lives in a very well sealed bubble. The irony of his campaign is that, despite the soaring rhetoric, he has done little in terms of populist appeals: concrete proposals to working people.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The irony of his campaign is that, despite the soaring rhetoric, he has done little in terms of populist appeals: concrete proposals to working people.
And yet (as an Australian) I'd vote for him.
posted by Mezentian at 7:09 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And yet (as an Australian) I'd vote for him.
posted by Mezentian at 7:09 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And yet (as an Australian) I'd vote for him.
Not technically legal.
posted by beerperson at 7:14 AM on March 5, 2016
Not technically legal.
posted by beerperson at 7:14 AM on March 5, 2016
Not even remotely legal, as far as I know.
But he's centrist for us.
Common-sensible.
But, hey, I have $US2 around somewhere in note form.
I'll buy a vote, if anyone's selling.
(Wait... Trump aside, that's not even remotely legal is it?)
posted by Mezentian at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
But he's centrist for us.
Common-sensible.
But, hey, I have $US2 around somewhere in note form.
I'll buy a vote, if anyone's selling.
(Wait... Trump aside, that's not even remotely legal is it?)
posted by Mezentian at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm just baffled by the comparison to House of Cards. The character of Francis Urquhart has come down to this?
posted by edd at 7:20 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by edd at 7:20 AM on March 5, 2016
DEAR GUARDIAN !!! I see what you did to adversely edit Hillary Clinton's portrait on your front page today. The sexism, the mysogyny responsible for this is duly noted. If this were a glam portrait of say, Kaitlyn Jenner, the skin surface effects would be entirely different.
Shame on you.
posted by Oyéah at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shame on you.
posted by Oyéah at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
in the UK you vote for a party, often at the local level, and those results trickle up to form the proportional representation of Parliament...
Simply: in the UK the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also the President. No separate elections. No proportional representation: first-past-the-post, just like your House of Representatives.
posted by alasdair at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Simply: in the UK the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also the President. No separate elections. No proportional representation: first-past-the-post, just like your House of Representatives.
posted by alasdair at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
DEAR GUARDIAN !!! I see what you did to adversely edit Hillary Clinton's portrait on your front page today. The sexism, the mysogyny responsible for this is duly noted. If this were a glam portrait of say, Kaitlyn Jenner, the skin surface effects would be entirely different.
Link?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Link?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
jclarkin: I wish people would stop confusing single payer with universal coverage. One can have universal health care coverage without having a single payer system.
Americans Don't Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:24 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Americans Don't Know What ‘Single Payer’ Means
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:24 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Simply: in the UK the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also the President.
Is this true?
Because under my understanding of Westminster, the speaker is supposed to be the impartial arbiter of parliamentary rules (aka not like Bronwyn Bishop) and is nothing like the President or anything,
posted by Mezentian at 7:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is this true?
Because under my understanding of Westminster, the speaker is supposed to be the impartial arbiter of parliamentary rules (aka not like Bronwyn Bishop) and is nothing like the President or anything,
posted by Mezentian at 7:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Back when we actually had a coalition for single payer healthcare in my town, we usually called it "Medicare for All." That was the upshot of the bill we supported (HR 676) and it was a better popular slogan.
posted by graymouser at 7:27 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by graymouser at 7:27 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mezentian: yes, I think you misunderstood what alasdair was saying. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, not of the Commons.
posted by edd at 7:29 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by edd at 7:29 AM on March 5, 2016
Alasdair has the right of it, in that in a Westminter-style parliament, voting for a party and proportional representation are orthogonal. I live in Canada, where both the current and the most recent governments are or were majority governments, despite each receiving less than 40% of the total electorate's vote.
Famously, in 1993 the incumbent Conservatives went down in a spectacular implosion and wound up with two seats of 295. A regional party, the Bloc Québécois, became the official opposition, with 54 seats in the legislature. The BQ received 13.5% of the votes cast; the Tories just over 16%.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Famously, in 1993 the incumbent Conservatives went down in a spectacular implosion and wound up with two seats of 295. A regional party, the Bloc Québécois, became the official opposition, with 54 seats in the legislature. The BQ received 13.5% of the votes cast; the Tories just over 16%.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what Sanders supporters are upset about regarding superdelegates?
The superdelegates, as I understand it, exist as an insurance policy to prevent a wild-card candidate from winning the nomination without the party establishment's approval. I don't think that has actually been tested, and it won't be this year, either. Clinton will win the popular primary vote as well as the delegate count; Sanders will contest up to the end as he should and then things will move forward relatively politely and respectfully.
There is nothing on the D side that comes close to the current split on the GOP between base and establishment, either in substance or intensity. The quote the other day was something like, "the Democrats are falling in line, and the Republicans are falling apart," and that was before Romney's speech.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The superdelegates, as I understand it, exist as an insurance policy to prevent a wild-card candidate from winning the nomination without the party establishment's approval. I don't think that has actually been tested, and it won't be this year, either. Clinton will win the popular primary vote as well as the delegate count; Sanders will contest up to the end as he should and then things will move forward relatively politely and respectfully.
There is nothing on the D side that comes close to the current split on the GOP between base and establishment, either in substance or intensity. The quote the other day was something like, "the Democrats are falling in line, and the Republicans are falling apart," and that was before Romney's speech.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Australia, USA, whatevs... settler colonial states gonna be settler colonialist.
As for "a particularly viscous campaign season" I would have disagreed until Ted Cruz ate a booger on national TV. That shit was viscous!
posted by spitbull at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
As for "a particularly viscous campaign season" I would have disagreed until Ted Cruz ate a booger on national TV. That shit was viscous!
posted by spitbull at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Get your shit together, please!
Our system needs a lot of fixing, but when it does get fixed, it won't be for the benefit of randos from other countries. You all aren't getting the ads and the wall-to-wall news coverage, so I'm pretty sure you can bear whatever sufferings are induced in you by the structure of governance of a completely different country.
posted by praemunire at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
Our system needs a lot of fixing, but when it does get fixed, it won't be for the benefit of randos from other countries. You all aren't getting the ads and the wall-to-wall news coverage, so I'm pretty sure you can bear whatever sufferings are induced in you by the structure of governance of a completely different country.
posted by praemunire at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
I have not learned bow to make clickable links on thisnphone of mine. But here is the dead link to the Hillary pboto.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/05/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-gereral-election-battle-american-future
posted by Oyéah at 7:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/05/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-gereral-election-battle-american-future
posted by Oyéah at 7:48 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
how do you fix it? what do you fix?
i don't see either established party fixing anything, because that would damage how they make a living.
it may be that the only way to fix things is to go through some kind of painfully, revolutionary process.
and maybe that process starts with trump?
[that's a photo deliberately chosen to be unflattering. but i suspect it's mainly the light and angle, not photoshop.]
posted by andrewcooke at 7:49 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
i don't see either established party fixing anything, because that would damage how they make a living.
it may be that the only way to fix things is to go through some kind of painfully, revolutionary process.
and maybe that process starts with trump?
[that's a photo deliberately chosen to be unflattering. but i suspect it's mainly the light and angle, not photoshop.]
posted by andrewcooke at 7:49 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
...I don't think that photo is unusual or that unflattering, compared to coverage here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The choosing unflattering photos thing is universal and bipartisan. I wish leftie media wouldn't do it so much. I like a clean game.
posted by Trochanter at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
"What if Trump were standing outside of a polling place with a bullhorn?"
I've been a poll attorney, it happens every year, you ask them nicely to leave, it's illegal but it's also not super-strongly enforced or a very big deal. My brother has also been a poll attorney and had to call the cops once on a big American city mayoral candidate who was actively threatening voters inside the polling station and wouldn't leave when asked. The cops escorted him out but he didn't get arrested and it didn't even make the news.
Clinton shouldn't have done it, but the fact that it made the news is almost unheard-of levels of coverage and opprobrium.
I early voted yesterday (in IL), pulled a GOP ticket, and it was very discouraging. I love voting so this is the first time I've really understood how nightmare candidates could suppress turnout, that left me feeling dirty and sad.
(I am content with either Hilary or Bernie, whereas I have strong opinions on the GOP side and there was also a local GOP primary race for a municipal office where there will be no contest in the general and I felt pretty strongly about that one. Probably would have pulled a GOP ticket anyway because of the local race -- literally none on the Dem side locally. This is our municipal off-year.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've been a poll attorney, it happens every year, you ask them nicely to leave, it's illegal but it's also not super-strongly enforced or a very big deal. My brother has also been a poll attorney and had to call the cops once on a big American city mayoral candidate who was actively threatening voters inside the polling station and wouldn't leave when asked. The cops escorted him out but he didn't get arrested and it didn't even make the news.
Clinton shouldn't have done it, but the fact that it made the news is almost unheard-of levels of coverage and opprobrium.
I early voted yesterday (in IL), pulled a GOP ticket, and it was very discouraging. I love voting so this is the first time I've really understood how nightmare candidates could suppress turnout, that left me feeling dirty and sad.
(I am content with either Hilary or Bernie, whereas I have strong opinions on the GOP side and there was also a local GOP primary race for a municipal office where there will be no contest in the general and I felt pretty strongly about that one. Probably would have pulled a GOP ticket anyway because of the local race -- literally none on the Dem side locally. This is our municipal off-year.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
For USians, if you can, the Australian ABC does a thing called 'Planet America', if you are curious about how the world is trying to understand you.
I'm watching this with my morning coffee; thanks. (The video does work for me here in the US.)
Stupid question: I've noticed, on MetaFilter and elsewhere, that non-USians seem to be far better informed about the United States' politics than USians are about non-USian politics. (At least in the Anglophone world.) Now, there are a few possible explanations for that:
I mean, that's awesome! We should be paying that kind of attention to each other. It's just so different than what we get here in the US. Even most of our Serious Journals don't give that kind of attention to foreign politics. Occasionally I'll look at the New Yorker or the Atlantic, and there'll be an article like "hey, they're having an election in Iran; something something hardliners something reformers", but that's about it. I don't really know what TV news is like these days, but it certainly doesn't follow non-US politics that closely.
So. I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)? Cable news, news websites, blogs, comedy shows, etc.? Is your interest in US politics considered unusual and wonkish in your country, or common and unremarkable?
(I do realize how silly this may sound.)
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm watching this with my morning coffee; thanks. (The video does work for me here in the US.)
Stupid question: I've noticed, on MetaFilter and elsewhere, that non-USians seem to be far better informed about the United States' politics than USians are about non-USian politics. (At least in the Anglophone world.) Now, there are a few possible explanations for that:
- Selection bias: people who are likely to post about US politics on a US-centric site such as MetaFilter are naturally more likely to have a pre-existing interest in the subject
- The old stereotype (not entirely unfounded) that USians can't be bothered to pay attention to not-US
- The United States' outsize power and influence on the world stage
I mean, that's awesome! We should be paying that kind of attention to each other. It's just so different than what we get here in the US. Even most of our Serious Journals don't give that kind of attention to foreign politics. Occasionally I'll look at the New Yorker or the Atlantic, and there'll be an article like "hey, they're having an election in Iran; something something hardliners something reformers", but that's about it. I don't really know what TV news is like these days, but it certainly doesn't follow non-US politics that closely.
So. I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)? Cable news, news websites, blogs, comedy shows, etc.? Is your interest in US politics considered unusual and wonkish in your country, or common and unremarkable?
(I do realize how silly this may sound.)
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:06 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
We should be paying that kind of attention to each other. It's just so different than what we get here in the US.
The basic isolationism of the US media is one of the things that shocked me when I was an exchange student 30 years ago. The rest of the world has much more information about what is going on around the globe than the US has at any given moment. This applies not only to news, but also other basic media like movies and television. Part of this is US media hegemony that extends its reach to every corner of the planet, but another part of this is the unwillingness of US media to take seriously anything that hasn't been created in LA or NYC.
posted by hippybear at 8:11 AM on March 5, 2016 [21 favorites]
The basic isolationism of the US media is one of the things that shocked me when I was an exchange student 30 years ago. The rest of the world has much more information about what is going on around the globe than the US has at any given moment. This applies not only to news, but also other basic media like movies and television. Part of this is US media hegemony that extends its reach to every corner of the planet, but another part of this is the unwillingness of US media to take seriously anything that hasn't been created in LA or NYC.
posted by hippybear at 8:11 AM on March 5, 2016 [21 favorites]
I would guess that only a very small number of Americans could name more than one or two world leaders. I read political news constantly and off the top of my head, I can think of Merkel, Trudeau and Cameron. I have no idea who's the prime minister of Australia without looking it up.
posted by octothorpe at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
[that's a photo deliberately chosen to be unflattering. but i suspect it's mainly the light and angle, not photoshop.]
It's a crappy photo, but they also clearly jacked up the sharpness, probably to accentuate her wrinkles. It's done in the most amateurish way possible. In their defense, it is probably really hard to find a decent photo of an incredibly obscure politician like Hillary Clinton.
posted by snofoam at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's a crappy photo, but they also clearly jacked up the sharpness, probably to accentuate her wrinkles. It's done in the most amateurish way possible. In their defense, it is probably really hard to find a decent photo of an incredibly obscure politician like Hillary Clinton.
posted by snofoam at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)?
From MeFi, of course.
posted by sour cream at 8:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
From MeFi, of course.
posted by sour cream at 8:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have no idea who's the prime minister of Australia without looking it up.
That might be because they've had four different ones in the last three years or so.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 8:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
That might be because they've had four different ones in the last three years or so.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 8:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
information about US politics
nakedcapitalism.com
Gotta get Yves Smith to run the Fed or one of the watchdogs. That lady brings it.
posted by Trochanter at 8:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
nakedcapitalism.com
Gotta get Yves Smith to run the Fed or one of the watchdogs. That lady brings it.
posted by Trochanter at 8:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would guess that only a very small number of Americans could name more than one or two world leaders. I read political news constantly and off the top of my head, I can think of Merkel, Trudeau and Cameron.
Just realised as an Englishman I can't name that many, possibly because most of my political reading is about England/UK and the USA (places where I live or want to move to). The list of non-English leaders I can quickly name is uh Sturgeon, Putin, Merkel, Obama, Hollande ... I really should know more than those.
Sorry Canada, Ireland and other places.
posted by Wordshore at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just realised as an Englishman I can't name that many, possibly because most of my political reading is about England/UK and the USA (places where I live or want to move to). The list of non-English leaders I can quickly name is uh Sturgeon, Putin, Merkel, Obama, Hollande ... I really should know more than those.
Sorry Canada, Ireland and other places.
posted by Wordshore at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Endless news coverage about how unpopular the leader is within his own party and if or when he will be toppled / forced to stand down / overthrown, over and over.
And the other main party (the one in power) has had pretty much a simmering and oft-mentioned leadership contest since before the last general election thanks to 'Dave' saying he won't stand again. Cue the current shenanigans with opportunistic Boris, George 'um, yeah, better not tinker with pension reform just yet' and others.
Good point.
Still, it is only a simmer, and that seems preferable to the rolling boil that Americans have to endure for two years out of every four.
On the simplicity front, honestcoyote is
Leaving at 10, picking up a case of water (for people stuck in the line) and a couple of volunteers along the way, enter the site at 12:30, caucus line shuts down at 3:00, caucus formally starts at 4:00. Might be out by 5.
instead of taking five minutes tops to log into a website and fill out a form. Why does honestcoyote have to go through all that awful time-consuming faff just to vote for the nominee they prefer? It's silly.
And if you have a weekend job, kids, a disability, are elderly, skint, &c., it's pretty much impossible to take part, presumably. Oh, right *penny drops*.
posted by jack_mo at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
And the other main party (the one in power) has had pretty much a simmering and oft-mentioned leadership contest since before the last general election thanks to 'Dave' saying he won't stand again. Cue the current shenanigans with opportunistic Boris, George 'um, yeah, better not tinker with pension reform just yet' and others.
Good point.
Still, it is only a simmer, and that seems preferable to the rolling boil that Americans have to endure for two years out of every four.
On the simplicity front, honestcoyote is
Leaving at 10, picking up a case of water (for people stuck in the line) and a couple of volunteers along the way, enter the site at 12:30, caucus line shuts down at 3:00, caucus formally starts at 4:00. Might be out by 5.
instead of taking five minutes tops to log into a website and fill out a form. Why does honestcoyote have to go through all that awful time-consuming faff just to vote for the nominee they prefer? It's silly.
And if you have a weekend job, kids, a disability, are elderly, skint, &c., it's pretty much impossible to take part, presumably. Oh, right *penny drops*.
posted by jack_mo at 8:28 AM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I would guess that only a very small number of Americans could name more than one or two world leaders. I read political news constantly and off the top of my head, I can think of Merkel, Trudeau and Cameron. I have no idea who's the prime minister of Australia without looking it up.
So in fairness, probably at least 25% of Americans would recognize who Putin and Kim are.
But also in fairness, Americans are generally almost as ignorant of their own country as they are about other ones. Yeah, most Americans know who the President is, but it's common for only a minority of Americans to know who the sitting Speaker and majority leader of the Senate are.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
So in fairness, probably at least 25% of Americans would recognize who Putin and Kim are.
But also in fairness, Americans are generally almost as ignorant of their own country as they are about other ones. Yeah, most Americans know who the President is, but it's common for only a minority of Americans to know who the sitting Speaker and majority leader of the Senate are.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
"the unwillingness of US media to take seriously anything that hasn't been created in LA or NYC."
Yeah, coastal media coverage of the Midwest is so laughably bad that I think it negatively impacts the Democrats' campaign strategy some years when they learn who its Midwestern constituents are through CNN rather than by fucking asking us or knowing the first thing about us. (Not too bad this year so far because the media is paying a lot of attention to realigning coalitions, which means closely examining smaller voting blocks, but the 2014 midterms were painful and 2008 was fucking offensive when the media was so repeatedly shocked Midwesterners would vote for a black guy.)
I means half these news outlets can't find Des Moines or Cincinnati or Little Rock without an atlas; you can't expect they know where Prague is. Because it's not New York or LA or SF or Orlando, so they're not gonna have a clue.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, coastal media coverage of the Midwest is so laughably bad that I think it negatively impacts the Democrats' campaign strategy some years when they learn who its Midwestern constituents are through CNN rather than by fucking asking us or knowing the first thing about us. (Not too bad this year so far because the media is paying a lot of attention to realigning coalitions, which means closely examining smaller voting blocks, but the 2014 midterms were painful and 2008 was fucking offensive when the media was so repeatedly shocked Midwesterners would vote for a black guy.)
I means half these news outlets can't find Des Moines or Cincinnati or Little Rock without an atlas; you can't expect they know where Prague is. Because it's not New York or LA or SF or Orlando, so they're not gonna have a clue.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
he has done little in terms of populist appeals: concrete proposals to working people.
That's a huge problem. People saying this despite the clear policy proposals Sanders has been publishing for years. e.g.: Universal Medicare: Go read the 2013 Bill he introduced for it for all the details.
posted by mikelieman at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's a huge problem. People saying this despite the clear policy proposals Sanders has been publishing for years. e.g.: Universal Medicare: Go read the 2013 Bill he introduced for it for all the details.
posted by mikelieman at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)?
As a Brit, my main sources are BBC Radio 4, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert's current Road To The White House segments. I'm a lot more interested in American politics than most of my countrymen are, though.
posted by Paul Slade at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a Brit, my main sources are BBC Radio 4, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert's current Road To The White House segments. I'm a lot more interested in American politics than most of my countrymen are, though.
posted by Paul Slade at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
So in fairness, probably at least 25% of Americans would recognize who Putin and Kim are.
And that would give them a significant headstart in the next presidential election cycle. And just like Trump and Cruz, they both also have that cartoonishly evil supervillain thing nailed. All they need to do is keep the media focused on them 24/7 and Putin/Kim 2020 will be a landslide!
posted by sour cream at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016
And that would give them a significant headstart in the next presidential election cycle. And just like Trump and Cruz, they both also have that cartoonishly evil supervillain thing nailed. All they need to do is keep the media focused on them 24/7 and Putin/Kim 2020 will be a landslide!
posted by sour cream at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2016
I spent a little time in the former Soviet Union in 1987. I could speak English with old people and folks under about 22, who had been learning the language in school, but not with anyone educated during the Cold War. Anyway, those young people were amazed that we weren't learning Russian in school, didn't understand their political system, and couldn't name their star hockey players. All of that seemed to be understood as evidence that we were either dissing their country as a super power or even more backward than suspected.
posted by carmicha at 8:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by carmicha at 8:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)?
- Politico
- A very select few people on Twitter and Facebook (quite like Jessica Taylor's tweets in particular)
- MetaFilter
- BBC Newsnight
- Last Week Tonight
- BBC Radio Four
- The Onion and The New Yorker
That list used to include The Guardian and Channel Four news, but I got fed up of the oft judgemental, condescending and sneery "Look at the stupid Americans" tone or wording of US election stuff (made much more explicit in comments sections).
posted by Wordshore at 8:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
- Politico
- A very select few people on Twitter and Facebook (quite like Jessica Taylor's tweets in particular)
- MetaFilter
- BBC Newsnight
- Last Week Tonight
- BBC Radio Four
- The Onion and The New Yorker
That list used to include The Guardian and Channel Four news, but I got fed up of the oft judgemental, condescending and sneery "Look at the stupid Americans" tone or wording of US election stuff (made much more explicit in comments sections).
posted by Wordshore at 8:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
where do you get your information about US politics
In Mexico (¡hola!) the U.S. is a permanent fixture of the International section of the newspaper. Even something as random as the State of the Union is covered widely here. The main news/culture/politics weekly/monthly magazines (Letras Libres, Nexos, Proceso) all have in-depth election articles. It's always been this way, that I can remember, but with the Trump thing more so.
posted by Omon Ra at 8:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Mexico (¡hola!) the U.S. is a permanent fixture of the International section of the newspaper. Even something as random as the State of the Union is covered widely here. The main news/culture/politics weekly/monthly magazines (Letras Libres, Nexos, Proceso) all have in-depth election articles. It's always been this way, that I can remember, but with the Trump thing more so.
posted by Omon Ra at 8:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
octothorpe, it's Malcolm Turnbull. But you'd be forgiven for not knowing, since we've changed Prime Ministers with dizzying frequency in the last few years of party leader roulette.
escape from the potato planet, you know the old saying, "When America sneezes, the whole world gets a cold"? You're the superpower, we have to keep an eye on what you're up to. These days I get US news mainly via MetaFilter and the Australian ABC news site, plus news programs and docos on ABC and SBS television. Occasionally I buy a Guardian Weekly to read while cafe-lounging.
I've paid attention to US presidential elections since 2004, when in perplexity I turned to the internet for information on how Bush could possibly have been elected for a second term. That led me to the forums at Democratic Underground, where I followed US politics through to Obama's re-election and then found MeFi a better and altogether more suitable fit.
This is the first time, however, that I've followed closely from the first primaries and whoa, the horror! But I. Can't. Look. Away. Nobody I know is as into it as I am though.
posted by valetta at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
escape from the potato planet, you know the old saying, "When America sneezes, the whole world gets a cold"? You're the superpower, we have to keep an eye on what you're up to. These days I get US news mainly via MetaFilter and the Australian ABC news site, plus news programs and docos on ABC and SBS television. Occasionally I buy a Guardian Weekly to read while cafe-lounging.
I've paid attention to US presidential elections since 2004, when in perplexity I turned to the internet for information on how Bush could possibly have been elected for a second term. That led me to the forums at Democratic Underground, where I followed US politics through to Obama's re-election and then found MeFi a better and altogether more suitable fit.
This is the first time, however, that I've followed closely from the first primaries and whoa, the horror! But I. Can't. Look. Away. Nobody I know is as into it as I am though.
posted by valetta at 8:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
where do you get your information about US politics
American in France here, without a TV who doesn't read printed news, but who, as an American, gets approached by people curious about these things. They are really well informed, and most tell me they get it from TV news and a few French online sources.
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan. I work with a lot of people who've literally paid for our US foreign policy, and they know I don't approve of it, so we generally talk about things other than the States. As a result, the only person lately who's been making small talk about the elections with me has been my physical therapist. I thought he was pulling my arm (I broke my arm so have adapted the idiom) when he told me Trump was winning stuff, up until two weeks ago when he said, "no seriously, are you registered to vote in the primaries?" (see, he knows what US primaries are) "Because Trump is ACTUALLY WINNING... please tell me you're not going to let a dude who's uglier, dumber, and scarier than Le Pen win..."
Me: "Oh fuck. It's not a joke, is it. I need to update my address."
PT: "Well if he wins he'll solve the voting issue for you."
Me: "How's that?"
PT: "By revoking your US citizenship as an overseas traitor of course."
We laughed.
I updated my voter registration.
posted by fraula at 9:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [29 favorites]
American in France here, without a TV who doesn't read printed news, but who, as an American, gets approached by people curious about these things. They are really well informed, and most tell me they get it from TV news and a few French online sources.
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan. I work with a lot of people who've literally paid for our US foreign policy, and they know I don't approve of it, so we generally talk about things other than the States. As a result, the only person lately who's been making small talk about the elections with me has been my physical therapist. I thought he was pulling my arm (I broke my arm so have adapted the idiom) when he told me Trump was winning stuff, up until two weeks ago when he said, "no seriously, are you registered to vote in the primaries?" (see, he knows what US primaries are) "Because Trump is ACTUALLY WINNING... please tell me you're not going to let a dude who's uglier, dumber, and scarier than Le Pen win..."
Me: "Oh fuck. It's not a joke, is it. I need to update my address."
PT: "Well if he wins he'll solve the voting issue for you."
Me: "How's that?"
PT: "By revoking your US citizenship as an overseas traitor of course."
We laughed.
I updated my voter registration.
posted by fraula at 9:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [29 favorites]
Yeah, coastal media coverage of the Midwest is so laughably bad that I think it negatively impacts the Democrats' campaign strategy some years when they learn who its Midwestern constituents are through CNN rather than by fucking asking us or knowing the first thing about us.
Everyone involved in politics in this country is just so condescending. I threw a few bucks in the pot when Lessig started his Mayday PAC, but it turned out their entire political strategy was "people are dumb and will vote for whoever spends more." And then they seemed utterly befuddled when it didn't work.
Neither party has thought of their constituency as engaged, intelligent people worthy of respect for decades now. That needs to change really, really quickly.
posted by phooky at 9:03 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Everyone involved in politics in this country is just so condescending. I threw a few bucks in the pot when Lessig started his Mayday PAC, but it turned out their entire political strategy was "people are dumb and will vote for whoever spends more." And then they seemed utterly befuddled when it didn't work.
Neither party has thought of their constituency as engaged, intelligent people worthy of respect for decades now. That needs to change really, really quickly.
posted by phooky at 9:03 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh, if things are quiet on current US election threads in MeFi I might lurk awhile in DU for more news and views and article links, but they shout a lot over there. Always a relief to return to the saner level of discourse on the blue.
posted by valetta at 9:07 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by valetta at 9:07 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd be really interested to hear from non-USians: where do you get your information about US politics (and—to keep things on topic—about this election in particular)? Cable news, news websites, blogs, comedy shows, etc.?
All of those places, except cable news which doesn't exist here - it's just standard for UK news outlets of every stripe to cover US politics. More than they should, I'd say, and at the expense of other international news.
Also, post-web the UK press is courting US readers, so we end up reading, e.g., the most comprehensive coverage of US police atrocities anywhere in the world, including the US, in one of our daily papers.
Is your interest in US politics considered unusual and wonkish in your country, or common and unremarkable?
Completely unremarkable. If you talk about politics at all, US politics will come up. I'm probably a wee bit more informed on some topics, thanks to MeFi, but not by much.
posted by jack_mo at 9:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
All of those places, except cable news which doesn't exist here - it's just standard for UK news outlets of every stripe to cover US politics. More than they should, I'd say, and at the expense of other international news.
Also, post-web the UK press is courting US readers, so we end up reading, e.g., the most comprehensive coverage of US police atrocities anywhere in the world, including the US, in one of our daily papers.
Is your interest in US politics considered unusual and wonkish in your country, or common and unremarkable?
Completely unremarkable. If you talk about politics at all, US politics will come up. I'm probably a wee bit more informed on some topics, thanks to MeFi, but not by much.
posted by jack_mo at 9:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a crappy photo, but they also clearly jacked up the sharpness, probably to accentuate her wrinkles. It's done in the most amateurish way possible.
Absolutely. It's almost as bad as the distorted affiliate out-link photos, especially if you enlarge it. Using an unflattering photo is common (look at most every photo of Trump) but this is really awful. FWIW, I noticed that msnbc has been using very flattering (i.e., normal) photos of all the candidates.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on March 5, 2016
Absolutely. It's almost as bad as the distorted affiliate out-link photos, especially if you enlarge it. Using an unflattering photo is common (look at most every photo of Trump) but this is really awful. FWIW, I noticed that msnbc has been using very flattering (i.e., normal) photos of all the candidates.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on March 5, 2016
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan.
You didn't have to be living abroad to think that...
posted by Trochanter at 9:12 AM on March 5, 2016
You didn't have to be living abroad to think that...
posted by Trochanter at 9:12 AM on March 5, 2016
Yes, that photo is grossly over-sharpened. I'd expect better from a major news organization.
posted by valetta at 9:14 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by valetta at 9:14 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Psychiatric hospitals filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump.
posted by Wordshore at 9:15 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 9:15 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think all national Danish media had live coverage of super Tuesday. It's the Trump-thing. Both scary and fascinating.
But across the globe there is this sense that you need to know what Americans are up to, because you never know when the US military-industrial complex will descend upon you. When I visited Iran, I was really surprised at how knowledgeable even religious people were about US-politics. But then you could see during the negotiations how they used this knowledge, and not least the fact that they knew how ignorant members of congress were.
posted by mumimor at 9:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
But across the globe there is this sense that you need to know what Americans are up to, because you never know when the US military-industrial complex will descend upon you. When I visited Iran, I was really surprised at how knowledgeable even religious people were about US-politics. But then you could see during the negotiations how they used this knowledge, and not least the fact that they knew how ignorant members of congress were.
posted by mumimor at 9:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Sanders campaign has placed a lot of importance on Kansas.
If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, my hope is that he goes for DNC chair and rallies the party to get and vote in state legislative elections between now and 2020. 2020 is the year of the next census, i.e. the next time we have the opportunity for House redistricting -- a duty which falls to the state legislatures. We didn't effectively get out the vote last time, and the result has been 6+ years of GOP reggressiveness.
At one point, Howard Dean was the shining hope for this sort of thing. His "50 State Strategy" was supposed to rally the electorate in places like Kansas, which the Democrats often write off as hopeless. I don't know whatever happened with that, but I think Bernie would do a much better job than Dean. Although I'm supporting Clinton in the primary, I really do admire the doggedness and determination of Bernie and his supporters. I truly hope they carry this energy through to the general elections and the midterms beyond.
2020 is our only hope for a sane political future.
posted by panama joe at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
If Sanders doesn't win the nomination, my hope is that he goes for DNC chair and rallies the party to get and vote in state legislative elections between now and 2020. 2020 is the year of the next census, i.e. the next time we have the opportunity for House redistricting -- a duty which falls to the state legislatures. We didn't effectively get out the vote last time, and the result has been 6+ years of GOP reggressiveness.
At one point, Howard Dean was the shining hope for this sort of thing. His "50 State Strategy" was supposed to rally the electorate in places like Kansas, which the Democrats often write off as hopeless. I don't know whatever happened with that, but I think Bernie would do a much better job than Dean. Although I'm supporting Clinton in the primary, I really do admire the doggedness and determination of Bernie and his supporters. I truly hope they carry this energy through to the general elections and the midterms beyond.
2020 is our only hope for a sane political future.
posted by panama joe at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan.
He was, but the Republican establishment didn't bother to take the pan off the stove, and he escalated to full-on grease fire. Now they're trying to put him out with water, which is just spreading the fire around their kitchen.
If they'd just deprived him of oxygen before he was burning out of control, they could have avoided this. Instead, they're in danger of burning down their own house.
Ok, end of annoying extended metaphor.
Sorry.
posted by dersins at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [55 favorites]
He was, but the Republican establishment didn't bother to take the pan off the stove, and he escalated to full-on grease fire. Now they're trying to put him out with water, which is just spreading the fire around their kitchen.
If they'd just deprived him of oxygen before he was burning out of control, they could have avoided this. Instead, they're in danger of burning down their own house.
Ok, end of annoying extended metaphor.
Sorry.
posted by dersins at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2016 [55 favorites]
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan.
There was a period where every week or so one of the candidates would shoot up in the polls, and then drop. Carson went way up for a little while, for example, and so did most of the others (poor Jeb was the exception). So when Trump went up I figured he was just the latest flavor of the moment and it took a very long time for me to understand that it wasn't a momentary flirtation.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
There was a period where every week or so one of the candidates would shoot up in the polls, and then drop. Carson went way up for a little while, for example, and so did most of the others (poor Jeb was the exception). So when Trump went up I figured he was just the latest flavor of the moment and it took a very long time for me to understand that it wasn't a momentary flirtation.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:20 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
And, yes, I know "flash in the pan" refers to a different kind of pan than that.
posted by dersins at 9:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dersins at 9:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
My sister and her husband have been working in Malmo on a UN contract for the last 4 years. When it came time to come home, they re-upped for another 4 years (even with a great job offer in the US).
She was always the smart one.
posted by sudogeek at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2016
She was always the smart one.
posted by sudogeek at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2016
As for myself, I honest-to-gosh thought Trump was a flash in the pan.
He was, but the Republican establishment didn't bother to take the pan off the stove, and he escalated to full-on grease fire. Now they're trying to put him out with water, which is just spreading the fire around their kitchen.
Excuse me, I believe they're actually putting out the fire with gasoliiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIINNNNNNE!!!!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 9:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
He was, but the Republican establishment didn't bother to take the pan off the stove, and he escalated to full-on grease fire. Now they're trying to put him out with water, which is just spreading the fire around their kitchen.
Excuse me, I believe they're actually putting out the fire with gasoliiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIINNNNNNE!!!!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 9:25 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
And yet (as an Australian) I'd vote for him.
Not technically legal.
That's a bit harsh just because they were once a penal colony.
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2016
Not technically legal.
That's a bit harsh just because they were once a penal colony.
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2016
His "50 State Strategy" was supposed to rally the electorate in places like Kansas, which the Democrats often write off as hopeless. I don't know whatever happened with that
If I remember correctly, there was some debate over its effectiveness vis a vis the traditional "throw all the money at close races approach", and then it was quietly dropped. I've heard it suggested that the DNC dropped it specifically to avoid what both they and the Republicans are now facing - radical grassroots insurgencies more or less explicitly targeting the Party machine's capacity to act as gatekeeper. Don't know if that's tin-foil hat territory or not.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
If I remember correctly, there was some debate over its effectiveness vis a vis the traditional "throw all the money at close races approach", and then it was quietly dropped. I've heard it suggested that the DNC dropped it specifically to avoid what both they and the Republicans are now facing - radical grassroots insurgencies more or less explicitly targeting the Party machine's capacity to act as gatekeeper. Don't know if that's tin-foil hat territory or not.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Whenever Howard Dean gets mentioned wistfully around here I feel obligated to point out that he is a big pharma lobbyist now, supporting Clinton and going on the media to call Sanders' single payer healthcare plan unworkable.
So yeah Howard Dean, phony progressive hero from Vermont.
posted by spitbull at 9:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
So yeah Howard Dean, phony progressive hero from Vermont.
posted by spitbull at 9:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
> So yeah Howard Dean, phony progressive hero from Vermont.
However, the organization that grew out of his campaign is not half bad.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
However, the organization that grew out of his campaign is not half bad.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also DGAF version Obama should troll this whole situation by making an obviously falsely sincere endorsement of Trump.
posted by spitbull at 9:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 9:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Worth the read: Why Isn't Bernie Sanders Doing Well with Black Voters? is a (frozen) thread from the "neutral politics" forum on Reddit (do they call them forums? I'm not a reddit reader). I found a lot of this very enlightening. Not so much sharing it to push either candidate as to show what I think is a good answer to a question a lot of people are asking.
(Caveat: unfortunately, it repeats the inaccurate myth that black voters pushed CA's Prop 8 through when they turned out for Obama in '08--something now discounted.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:34 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Caveat: unfortunately, it repeats the inaccurate myth that black voters pushed CA's Prop 8 through when they turned out for Obama in '08--something now discounted.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:34 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
He was, but the Republican establishment didn't bother to take the pan off the stove
But it's the media that decided to go on Flaming Pan Watch. That's your oxygen.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:35 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But it's the media that decided to go on Flaming Pan Watch. That's your oxygen.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:35 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
DFA ain't half bad but it ain't much good either.
Obama actually showed us that the original 50 state strategy was inefficient. Reaching out to new voters or constituencies in the states where Dems have a chance of winning either the presidential ring or congressional seats is a better use of resources than what Sanders is having to do by necessity right now, which is to win with the very progressive minority of Dems in places like Kansas.
That said if Trump wins the GOP nomination, states are going to be in play for Hillary (and maybe for him) that aren't usually in play.
posted by spitbull at 9:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama actually showed us that the original 50 state strategy was inefficient. Reaching out to new voters or constituencies in the states where Dems have a chance of winning either the presidential ring or congressional seats is a better use of resources than what Sanders is having to do by necessity right now, which is to win with the very progressive minority of Dems in places like Kansas.
That said if Trump wins the GOP nomination, states are going to be in play for Hillary (and maybe for him) that aren't usually in play.
posted by spitbull at 9:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Surely one needn't have recourse to the periodicals for the minutiae of a foreign State's governance? One simply writes to one's Ambassador (or High Commissioner, should a colony be in question) and asks for a briefing via cable. One is then fully au fait with the national gossip, as if one had attended all the relevant balls, soirées, etc one's self. Good grief, one should never rely upon a mere gazette - how would one know thereby the fashionable cut of trouser, or correct mode of headdress to be worn at the foreign Prince's court? You chaps certainly do have some odd notions from time to time!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [60 favorites]
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [60 favorites]
ACA (Obamacare) is the best possible health care reform President Obama could negotiate, and that was with a much friendlier Congress. The current Congress has tried everything it can to overturn it. Unless there's a pretty massive shift in the makeup of Congress, there's no way the US will be getting single payer. Sanders is campaigning on ideals, and I admire that, but it's incredibly unlikely he can deliver on many of his campaign issues. He knows that, and I think he'd say we should still try. Clinton is clearly a pragmatist. She has an excellent understanding of health care issues, and will do her best to protect the ACA.
I would love to see any expanded role for Sanders if he is not the nominee, but having him in the Senate, especially with his new national constituency, is a good thing. (He's only barely a Democrat and is quite unlikely to have any significant DNC role.)
The GOP candidate group are horrid and nasty, and I think the lack of a reasonable GOP candidate has left them wide open for someone like Trump, who appears to have something like charisma, as peculiar as that seems to me. His avowed assholery, 'reality' tv celebrity status, involvement in gambling, bankruptcies, mob connections, treatment of Trump employees, etc., make him repulsive to me, but the Duck Dynasty constituency seems to be pretty large. This is a very odd time to be an American.
posted by theora55 at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would love to see any expanded role for Sanders if he is not the nominee, but having him in the Senate, especially with his new national constituency, is a good thing. (He's only barely a Democrat and is quite unlikely to have any significant DNC role.)
The GOP candidate group are horrid and nasty, and I think the lack of a reasonable GOP candidate has left them wide open for someone like Trump, who appears to have something like charisma, as peculiar as that seems to me. His avowed assholery, 'reality' tv celebrity status, involvement in gambling, bankruptcies, mob connections, treatment of Trump employees, etc., make him repulsive to me, but the Duck Dynasty constituency seems to be pretty large. This is a very odd time to be an American.
posted by theora55 at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
quidnunc, thank you for always cracking us up.
I know where my #1 vote is going.
posted by spitbull at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I know where my #1 vote is going.
posted by spitbull at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whenever Howard Dean gets mentioned wistfully around here I feel obligated to point out that he is a big pharma lobbyist now, supporting Clinton and going on the media to call Sanders' single payer healthcare plan unworkable.
... which is a criticism that completely fails to stick unless you're already a Bernie supporter. Pretty typical Bernie supporter argument. However, I don't want to specifically pick on Bernie supporters for this, as the current state of the American political dialogue doesn't really engender the sort of putting-yourself-in-someone-else's-moccasins that's necessary to actually persuade people to change their viewpoint.
I don't know about you, but I'll always remember Dean as the man who pioneered online political fundraising. You know, the sort of small donation support that Bernie's always bragging about? The thing without which his entire campaign would cease to exist?
So yeah, Dean was a disappointment, but his campaign was innovative in a lot of important ways. And I'll stand by my assertion that midterm elections and the 2020 census are our only chance at a sane political future. Dunno how we're gonna get there, but we need to figure it out. With a quickness.
posted by panama joe at 9:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
... which is a criticism that completely fails to stick unless you're already a Bernie supporter. Pretty typical Bernie supporter argument. However, I don't want to specifically pick on Bernie supporters for this, as the current state of the American political dialogue doesn't really engender the sort of putting-yourself-in-someone-else's-moccasins that's necessary to actually persuade people to change their viewpoint.
I don't know about you, but I'll always remember Dean as the man who pioneered online political fundraising. You know, the sort of small donation support that Bernie's always bragging about? The thing without which his entire campaign would cease to exist?
So yeah, Dean was a disappointment, but his campaign was innovative in a lot of important ways. And I'll stand by my assertion that midterm elections and the 2020 census are our only chance at a sane political future. Dunno how we're gonna get there, but we need to figure it out. With a quickness.
posted by panama joe at 9:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I am in rural Mexico right now, and get lots of questions about the US elections from very well informed people. TV coverage here is way more biased and self censored than in the US, but people go out of their way to read the papers and political magazines, as well as online sources.
If you are an Athenian you would go out of your way to find out what is going on in Minotaur elections. If you are the Minotaur, all you need to know is that Athenian youth remain as tasty as ever.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2016 [35 favorites]
If you are an Athenian you would go out of your way to find out what is going on in Minotaur elections. If you are the Minotaur, all you need to know is that Athenian youth remain as tasty as ever.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2016 [35 favorites]
Donald Trump Reverses Position on Torture
I keep seeing people say this, and I see no evidence of it. He didn't change his position — he changed his tone and emphasis.
posted by John Cohen at 10:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep seeing people say this, and I see no evidence of it. He didn't change his position — he changed his tone and emphasis.
posted by John Cohen at 10:10 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm feeling a little guilty about that last tamale I enjoyed so much.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:12 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by benito.strauss at 10:12 AM on March 5, 2016
ACA (Obamacare) is the best possible health care reform President Obama could negotiate
I strongly disagree. They took the public option off the table almost immediately. There only reason we don't have the public option is because Democrats in congress were bought and paid for by the insurance industry.
People aren't for Bernie just because he's proposing single payer it's also the rejection of corporate control of the government.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:13 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
I strongly disagree. They took the public option off the table almost immediately. There only reason we don't have the public option is because Democrats in congress were bought and paid for by the insurance industry.
People aren't for Bernie just because he's proposing single payer it's also the rejection of corporate control of the government.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:13 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
Honestly, okay, *takes a deep breath*, I've decided we're gonna win this, and its going to be a mandate. Let me be truthful, while I'm okay with Secretary Clinton's incremental approach to progressivism, especially in contrast with the alternatives, I find her character troubling. Just to cut off cries of sexism from the start, let me be clear Senator Warren was my first choice this year, combining pro-people policies with admirable morals and ethics, but mysteriously she sat this one out. So did Joe Biden, and a number of heavyweight Democrats. I wonder why...
Fine, if Secretary Clinton wants a coronation, then so be it. I really admire Senator Sanders for his integrity and scrappiness. How is he even still in this? Mad mad props, Senator Sanders is the kind of guy I want to be at 74, hah, Senator Sanders is the kind of guy I wanted to be at 30 but I just am not that awesome. He inspires me to be a better human being, and that is as much an important part of being President as a list of policies.
Still, I will vote for Secretary Clinton in the general. I don't like that the Clintons play by their own rules. Bill, how dare you show up at the polls in MA. Hillary, you want us to trust the government but then you setup a private email server? Also what was the deal with Libya? And seriously...the speechs... what did you tell Goldman Sachs? Why won't you tell us?
Meh, I'm over it. We're going to win this, hell or high water. And then we're going to clean up some of this gerrymandering in the 2020 census, and thats it. I mean, it won't be the end of racism / sexism / xenophobia / nationalism, but it will be the end of shit like Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. It will be the end of actual honest-to-GD monsters rampaging around on a national stage. This shit dies here.
I'm still pulling for Senator Sanders, or if an indictment comes may it come early enough that we can scramble. May our low voter turnout in the primary be a sign of a contented electorate amenable to whichever candidate prevails, and may the influence of Senator Sanders and the new left be heard for generations to come. Amen, and amen.
With that, sweet wonderful metafilter, I'll see you all in November! Thank you so much mods for these posts. I wish I had the stamina, but I don't so /lurk_mode on.
PS Sorry world, please forgive us while we undergo a dramatic realignment of our political parties. In a few months this will just be a bad memory.
PPS what on earth is going on with the DNC? This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck. I'm inclined to blame the Clinton's and all of the old guard Democrats, still this is embarassing. We're replacing the most popular President in over 20 years and yet we can't get our act together.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 10:14 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fine, if Secretary Clinton wants a coronation, then so be it. I really admire Senator Sanders for his integrity and scrappiness. How is he even still in this? Mad mad props, Senator Sanders is the kind of guy I want to be at 74, hah, Senator Sanders is the kind of guy I wanted to be at 30 but I just am not that awesome. He inspires me to be a better human being, and that is as much an important part of being President as a list of policies.
Still, I will vote for Secretary Clinton in the general. I don't like that the Clintons play by their own rules. Bill, how dare you show up at the polls in MA. Hillary, you want us to trust the government but then you setup a private email server? Also what was the deal with Libya? And seriously...the speechs... what did you tell Goldman Sachs? Why won't you tell us?
Meh, I'm over it. We're going to win this, hell or high water. And then we're going to clean up some of this gerrymandering in the 2020 census, and thats it. I mean, it won't be the end of racism / sexism / xenophobia / nationalism, but it will be the end of shit like Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. It will be the end of actual honest-to-GD monsters rampaging around on a national stage. This shit dies here.
I'm still pulling for Senator Sanders, or if an indictment comes may it come early enough that we can scramble. May our low voter turnout in the primary be a sign of a contented electorate amenable to whichever candidate prevails, and may the influence of Senator Sanders and the new left be heard for generations to come. Amen, and amen.
With that, sweet wonderful metafilter, I'll see you all in November! Thank you so much mods for these posts. I wish I had the stamina, but I don't so /lurk_mode on.
PS Sorry world, please forgive us while we undergo a dramatic realignment of our political parties. In a few months this will just be a bad memory.
PPS what on earth is going on with the DNC? This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck. I'm inclined to blame the Clinton's and all of the old guard Democrats, still this is embarassing. We're replacing the most popular President in over 20 years and yet we can't get our act together.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 10:14 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's a huge problem. People saying this despite the clear policy proposals Sanders has been publishing for years. e.g.: Universal Medicare: Go read the 2013 Bill he introduced for it for all the details.
i think electoral politics is pretty simple on some level. The candidate is trying to answer the question: what can you do for me? for as many voters as they can. Saying, "my large complicated policy proposal, which we both know will never get passed, will solve all your problems because everything will be different" just doesn't cut it. I mean, even with the single payer proposal as it's been rolled out, it's been very easy for the media to talk about the "huge" tax increases it would involve, without accounting for the huge insurance savings it would give to people paying for insurance. It's lazy to blame media-bias because the Sanders campaign never went into what specifically sucks so bad about *having* health insurance: the copays, the endless forms, the denials, the constant calls, etc. Each of those problems could be addressed specifically by a policy proposal that would promote very specifically that having private insurance sucks... which everyone can identify with.
I think Bernie the "heatlh insurance sucks" candidate has a much broader appeal than "single payer" Bernie and if you follow the implication to the end both positioning ends up in the same place.
But Bernie is worse, even, on work and job issues. "Free trade" or the TTP didn't close the Carrier plant and move it to Mexico. It was the CEO of Carrier who did that. This specificity is part of how Trump's spiel about sitting the CEO of Ford down and telling him whats what is so effective. Making things personal and concrete is how populism works, how any good marketing works. Right now, Bernie's campaign amounts to: "Trust Me. I'm good," which works because his opponent has such high negatives. If he wants to start a political revolution he needs to be very specific about how he is going to get those ex-Carrier employees good jobs.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
i think electoral politics is pretty simple on some level. The candidate is trying to answer the question: what can you do for me? for as many voters as they can. Saying, "my large complicated policy proposal, which we both know will never get passed, will solve all your problems because everything will be different" just doesn't cut it. I mean, even with the single payer proposal as it's been rolled out, it's been very easy for the media to talk about the "huge" tax increases it would involve, without accounting for the huge insurance savings it would give to people paying for insurance. It's lazy to blame media-bias because the Sanders campaign never went into what specifically sucks so bad about *having* health insurance: the copays, the endless forms, the denials, the constant calls, etc. Each of those problems could be addressed specifically by a policy proposal that would promote very specifically that having private insurance sucks... which everyone can identify with.
I think Bernie the "heatlh insurance sucks" candidate has a much broader appeal than "single payer" Bernie and if you follow the implication to the end both positioning ends up in the same place.
But Bernie is worse, even, on work and job issues. "Free trade" or the TTP didn't close the Carrier plant and move it to Mexico. It was the CEO of Carrier who did that. This specificity is part of how Trump's spiel about sitting the CEO of Ford down and telling him whats what is so effective. Making things personal and concrete is how populism works, how any good marketing works. Right now, Bernie's campaign amounts to: "Trust Me. I'm good," which works because his opponent has such high negatives. If he wants to start a political revolution he needs to be very specific about how he is going to get those ex-Carrier employees good jobs.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck.
When was the last time the Democrats were able to successfully replace a sitting President though?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on March 5, 2016
When was the last time the Democrats were able to successfully replace a sitting President though?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on March 5, 2016
> As an outsider, I am just baffled by US politics, and each cycle I try to understand it, and with each development it just gets worse.
No, that's correct. You understand it fine.
> In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
So the future is Iowa?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:21 AM on March 5, 2016
No, that's correct. You understand it fine.
> In the future, the news media will be in one continuous presidential election cycle.
So the future is Iowa?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:21 AM on March 5, 2016
When was the last time the Democrats were able to successfully replace a sitting President though?
JFK?
too soon?
posted by el io at 10:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
JFK?
too soon?
posted by el io at 10:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
The US Primaries: It's like EuroVision for assholes.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck.
I don't know why so many people are confused about just how bad the economy is. Most people have spent the last 8 years getting squeezed and "more of the same" will be just more of the same.
Sometimes when all the crabs in the pot get angry at the same time, they can push the lid off. Although, it doesn't necessarily lead to anything better...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:40 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't know why so many people are confused about just how bad the economy is. Most people have spent the last 8 years getting squeezed and "more of the same" will be just more of the same.
Sometimes when all the crabs in the pot get angry at the same time, they can push the lid off. Although, it doesn't necessarily lead to anything better...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:40 AM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Umm Panama Joe, I'm a Clinton supporter! I love Bernie but I'm voting for Hillary.
I still find Howard Dean working as a pharma lobbyist appalling.
posted by spitbull at 10:44 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still find Howard Dean working as a pharma lobbyist appalling.
posted by spitbull at 10:44 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
also:
I'm okay with Secretary Clinton's incremental approach to progressivism...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:45 AM on March 5, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'm okay with Secretary Clinton's incremental approach to progressivism...
BlackRock is far from a household name, but it is the largest asset management firm in the world, controlling $4.6 trillion in investor funds — about a trillion dollars more than the annual federal budget, and five times the assets of Goldman Sachs. And Larry Fink, BlackRock’s CEO, has assembled a veritable shadow government full of former Treasury Department officials at his company.this is Clinton's approach to "progressivism".
Fink has made clear his desire to become treasury secretary someday. The Obama administration had him on the short list to replace Timothy Geithner. When that didn’t materialize, he pulled several members of prior Treasury Departments into high-level positions at the firm, which may improve the prospects of realizing his dream in a future Clinton administration.
And his priorities appear to be so in sync with Clinton’s that it’s not entirely clear who shares whose agenda.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:45 AM on March 5, 2016 [32 favorites]
Clinton is not really a progressive. If DINO is a thing, I think she would be that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Presumably the two US parties already have the home/email addresses of all their members - is there actually anything stopping them saying, 'You know what, gang, this time we'll do three months of campaigning followed by a one member, one vote election'?
This isn't how American parties work, though, at least with the Republican and Democratic parties. There are two types of primaries, open and closed. Open means any registered voter can vote in whatever primary they want. Closed means only declared party supporters (declared via voter registration) can vote in that party's primary. Primaries are conducted by each state, just like a general election, whereas caucuses are conducted by the party.
The McGovern–Fraser Commission, formed after the disastrous 1968 Democratic convention, indirectly caused an almost wholesale change in the nomination procedures. Before 1972, most delegates were chosen by the party in each state in closed state-level conventions.
The primary election season of 2016 is making me think that, at least on the GOP side, the RNC is going to massively overhaul their nominating procedures to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again.
Indeed, the idea that average voters with no real investment in the party have the biggest say in who each party's nominee will be is a very weird idea, and there's no real reason why a party's nominating procedures should be open to the public (or to people that simply have to declare a party preference on their voter registration.)
Of course, it's entirely possible that the RNC is going to pick someone to run on another party's ticket (who already should have 50 state access to the ballot), and we could be seeing the end of the GOP and the birth of another party. But that seems... unlikely. Although I thought that Trump would flame out in the fall, so who knows. This election is showing that the conventional wisdom about presidential politics can't be counted on anymore.
posted by Automocar at 10:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
This isn't how American parties work, though, at least with the Republican and Democratic parties. There are two types of primaries, open and closed. Open means any registered voter can vote in whatever primary they want. Closed means only declared party supporters (declared via voter registration) can vote in that party's primary. Primaries are conducted by each state, just like a general election, whereas caucuses are conducted by the party.
The McGovern–Fraser Commission, formed after the disastrous 1968 Democratic convention, indirectly caused an almost wholesale change in the nomination procedures. Before 1972, most delegates were chosen by the party in each state in closed state-level conventions.
The primary election season of 2016 is making me think that, at least on the GOP side, the RNC is going to massively overhaul their nominating procedures to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again.
Indeed, the idea that average voters with no real investment in the party have the biggest say in who each party's nominee will be is a very weird idea, and there's no real reason why a party's nominating procedures should be open to the public (or to people that simply have to declare a party preference on their voter registration.)
Of course, it's entirely possible that the RNC is going to pick someone to run on another party's ticket (who already should have 50 state access to the ballot), and we could be seeing the end of the GOP and the birth of another party. But that seems... unlikely. Although I thought that Trump would flame out in the fall, so who knows. This election is showing that the conventional wisdom about presidential politics can't be counted on anymore.
posted by Automocar at 10:47 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
PPS what on earth is going on with the DNC? This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck.
Mmmmm, not so much. 2016 is a weird election for the Democrats. Honestly, I think a lot of potential candidates just didn't want to run against Hillary because (a) she's a strong candidate with lots of pre-existing support and (b) many feel like she got stiffed in 2008 and see 2016 as "her turn". Bernie didn't really have much to lose by mounting a serious campaign -- what did he care if he pissed off the Democratic establishment. The other Democrats that were briefly in the race weren't serious contenders; I suspect they were merely attempting to further their careers with all the free exposure.
It's interesting to think about -- if the Democrats win in 2016 and then again in 2020 (and assuming nobody challenges the Democratic incumbent), 2024 will be our first Democratic primary in 16 years where Hillary isn't running. It might be a completely different dynamic.
I hope Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris is ready by then. Or maybe Michele Obama? One can hope...
posted by panama joe at 10:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mmmmm, not so much. 2016 is a weird election for the Democrats. Honestly, I think a lot of potential candidates just didn't want to run against Hillary because (a) she's a strong candidate with lots of pre-existing support and (b) many feel like she got stiffed in 2008 and see 2016 as "her turn". Bernie didn't really have much to lose by mounting a serious campaign -- what did he care if he pissed off the Democratic establishment. The other Democrats that were briefly in the race weren't serious contenders; I suspect they were merely attempting to further their careers with all the free exposure.
It's interesting to think about -- if the Democrats win in 2016 and then again in 2020 (and assuming nobody challenges the Democratic incumbent), 2024 will be our first Democratic primary in 16 years where Hillary isn't running. It might be a completely different dynamic.
I hope Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris is ready by then. Or maybe Michele Obama? One can hope...
posted by panama joe at 10:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know why so many people are confused about just how bad the economy is
Count me in among the confused. The US seems to be doing much, much better than the rest of the world. The Apocalypse from the Housing Bubble seems to have been largely contained. Unemployment is coming down. Yes, inequality is a huge problem, but the US economy seems to be chugging along much better than most other places and it doesn't seem that hopeless.
posted by Omon Ra at 10:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Count me in among the confused. The US seems to be doing much, much better than the rest of the world. The Apocalypse from the Housing Bubble seems to have been largely contained. Unemployment is coming down. Yes, inequality is a huge problem, but the US economy seems to be chugging along much better than most other places and it doesn't seem that hopeless.
posted by Omon Ra at 10:51 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
PPS what on earth is going on with the DNC? This should have been a cakewalk for us, replace a popular sitting President with just more of the same, but instead its a clusterfuck. I'm inclined to blame the Clinton's and all of the old guard Democrats, still this is embarassing. We're replacing the most popular President in over 20 years and yet we can't get our act together.
This isn't a clusterfuck, though--the DNC did what the RNC should have done, and quietly talked to Biden, Warren, etc. and got them not to run. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is has a lot more to do with the mood of the country, the rise of social media and its effect on, well, everything, etc. I mean, I love the guy, but Sanders is a marginal crank from a really small state, with almost no presence on the national stage.
A clusterfuck would have been a 4-person race with Clinton, Sanders, Biden, and Warren. Although if Warren had gotten in, I doubt Sanders would have. So we'd probably be seeing Clinton and Biden splitting the establishment vote and Warren would probably be winning it.
posted by Automocar at 10:53 AM on March 5, 2016
This isn't a clusterfuck, though--the DNC did what the RNC should have done, and quietly talked to Biden, Warren, etc. and got them not to run. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is has a lot more to do with the mood of the country, the rise of social media and its effect on, well, everything, etc. I mean, I love the guy, but Sanders is a marginal crank from a really small state, with almost no presence on the national stage.
A clusterfuck would have been a 4-person race with Clinton, Sanders, Biden, and Warren. Although if Warren had gotten in, I doubt Sanders would have. So we'd probably be seeing Clinton and Biden splitting the establishment vote and Warren would probably be winning it.
posted by Automocar at 10:53 AM on March 5, 2016
-the DNC did what the RNC should have done, and quietly talked to Biden, Warren, etc. and got them not to run.
This is some serious fan fiction.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is some serious fan fiction.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Umm Panama Joe, I'm a Clinton supporter! I love Bernie but I'm voting for Hillary.
I still find Howard Dean working as a pharma lobbyist appalling.
Fair enough. I mean, there's no doubt that Dean ultimately wound up disappointing us. But I gotta give credit where credit is due. I was an early Dean supporter, and was part of the initial wave of excitement at seeing him raise large amounts of money from small donations over the internet. It had sort of been a given that the GOP had big money on their side, and the idea that we had a weapon of our own to strike back with was exhilarating. But yeah, he couldn't take the limelight, and his post-2004 career has been anything but inspiring.
I'd still be interested in hearing more about what happened to his "50 State Strategy", if anything so that we can better prepare for statewide elections in the run-up to the 2020 census. Why did it fail? What can we learn? What can we do better next time? Why are the Republicans so much better than we at motivating people to vote for statewide offices? I feel like Bernie may have a lot to offer us here, although it remains to be seen how much the Democratic party wants to have anything to do with him after the primary. I hope we find a way to keep him and his supporters engaged, as I feel they have a lot to offer.
posted by panama joe at 10:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I still find Howard Dean working as a pharma lobbyist appalling.
Fair enough. I mean, there's no doubt that Dean ultimately wound up disappointing us. But I gotta give credit where credit is due. I was an early Dean supporter, and was part of the initial wave of excitement at seeing him raise large amounts of money from small donations over the internet. It had sort of been a given that the GOP had big money on their side, and the idea that we had a weapon of our own to strike back with was exhilarating. But yeah, he couldn't take the limelight, and his post-2004 career has been anything but inspiring.
I'd still be interested in hearing more about what happened to his "50 State Strategy", if anything so that we can better prepare for statewide elections in the run-up to the 2020 census. Why did it fail? What can we learn? What can we do better next time? Why are the Republicans so much better than we at motivating people to vote for statewide offices? I feel like Bernie may have a lot to offer us here, although it remains to be seen how much the Democratic party wants to have anything to do with him after the primary. I hope we find a way to keep him and his supporters engaged, as I feel they have a lot to offer.
posted by panama joe at 10:56 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why are people so damn determined to draft Michelle Obama into a thing she hates and has never shown any interest in? Are there no other Democrats? Or have people never listened to a single word she's said?
She's awesome, but she's been quite clear -- from way back when Obama was in the Illinois statehouse -- that politics is not for her and she has zero personal interest in running for anything.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [40 favorites]
She's awesome, but she's been quite clear -- from way back when Obama was in the Illinois statehouse -- that politics is not for her and she has zero personal interest in running for anything.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [40 favorites]
Hahaha, good point. But we like her! We like her a lot.
Ah well. Whatever she winds up doing, it'll probably be awesome.
posted by panama joe at 10:58 AM on March 5, 2016
Ah well. Whatever she winds up doing, it'll probably be awesome.
posted by panama joe at 10:58 AM on March 5, 2016
"Why are the Republicans so much better than we at motivating people to vote for statewide offices?"
For one thing, they hand out a LOT MORE MONEY. Democrats running locally have to do a lot more of their own fundraising. Republicans typically provide a baseline that pays for local campaign mailers and xeroxing costs and whatnot. Local government campaigns run in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $5,000 (mostly mailers and signs) but that's a significant amount of money to personally commit to your own campaign, or to try to raise from friends and family as a first-time candidate with no record of success.
In my area, if you run as a Democrat, you get a lot of coaching on all the unions you're going to approach for donations and they help you set the meetings, and they teach you how to throw fundraisers but you have to arrange the fundraisers yourself. First-time GOP candidates, especially if running in an otherwise-uncontested race, get a check from the local or state party, or from wealthy local businessmen who are movers and shakers in the party. (Or sometimes from the local Chamber of Commerce, although those relationships have gotten more strained locally as the Tea Party has put forward more candidates, I've noticed. Also they give their $1,000 per race to at least one local Democrat in every cycle to preserve the appearance of nonpartisanship.) $2,000 is a pittance for a state party or a major donor, but it lets first time candidates run a relatively professional campaign with a lot of publicity.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:03 AM on March 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
For one thing, they hand out a LOT MORE MONEY. Democrats running locally have to do a lot more of their own fundraising. Republicans typically provide a baseline that pays for local campaign mailers and xeroxing costs and whatnot. Local government campaigns run in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $5,000 (mostly mailers and signs) but that's a significant amount of money to personally commit to your own campaign, or to try to raise from friends and family as a first-time candidate with no record of success.
In my area, if you run as a Democrat, you get a lot of coaching on all the unions you're going to approach for donations and they help you set the meetings, and they teach you how to throw fundraisers but you have to arrange the fundraisers yourself. First-time GOP candidates, especially if running in an otherwise-uncontested race, get a check from the local or state party, or from wealthy local businessmen who are movers and shakers in the party. (Or sometimes from the local Chamber of Commerce, although those relationships have gotten more strained locally as the Tea Party has put forward more candidates, I've noticed. Also they give their $1,000 per race to at least one local Democrat in every cycle to preserve the appearance of nonpartisanship.) $2,000 is a pittance for a state party or a major donor, but it lets first time candidates run a relatively professional campaign with a lot of publicity.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:03 AM on March 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is some serious fan fiction.
Except it's really not. Biden met with DNC officials several times in the fall of 2015. What could they have been meeting about...?
posted by Automocar at 11:03 AM on March 5, 2016
Except it's really not. Biden met with DNC officials several times in the fall of 2015. What could they have been meeting about...?
posted by Automocar at 11:03 AM on March 5, 2016
Eyebrows McGee : Fascinating! Yeah, I recall reading an article (can't remember where) about exactly that. How there used to be sort of a system for grooming young Democratic leaders and shepherding them through the process, from their first elections at the local level to higher-profile elections at the state and eventually national level. I believe the main thrust of this article was that this system had essentially broken down, which is why the Democrats have been suffering over the last couple decades. I'd definitely be interested in learning more about this, with an eye to how we can best restore or replace this system in advance of the 2020 House redistricting.
posted by panama joe at 11:13 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 11:13 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Neither Warren or Biden seem like the type of person to me that would back down from running for POTUS because of the DNC. Either of them would be far better off as the candidate right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:15 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:15 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why are the Republicans so much better than we at motivating people to vote for statewide offices?
Money, as E.McGee noted, but also a big part of it is that they don't have to. You know who's one of the most reliably large Republican voting blocs? Old people. You know who has nothing else to do on any given Tuesday? Old people. Let me repeat a conversation I had approximately a billion times the last time I did GOTV for a Democrat in an off-cycle election:
"So that's why you should vote for [Candidate]."
"Yeah, I totally should."
"You know that the election is this Tuesday, right?"
"Sure..."
"And you know that you vote at that Methodist church right over there, right?"
"Yeah..."
"When do you think you'll vote?"
"I guess after work... oh, wait, I have to pick up my son after school and take him to soccer..."
"Polls are open until eight."
"Hm... I can probably make that..."
And come Tuesday, as I drive around to check polling locations and make more GOTV visits, every single polling location has half a dozen old people sitting around with signs for every Republican up and down the ballot.
posted by Etrigan at 11:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Money, as E.McGee noted, but also a big part of it is that they don't have to. You know who's one of the most reliably large Republican voting blocs? Old people. You know who has nothing else to do on any given Tuesday? Old people. Let me repeat a conversation I had approximately a billion times the last time I did GOTV for a Democrat in an off-cycle election:
"So that's why you should vote for [Candidate]."
"Yeah, I totally should."
"You know that the election is this Tuesday, right?"
"Sure..."
"And you know that you vote at that Methodist church right over there, right?"
"Yeah..."
"When do you think you'll vote?"
"I guess after work... oh, wait, I have to pick up my son after school and take him to soccer..."
"Polls are open until eight."
"Hm... I can probably make that..."
And come Tuesday, as I drive around to check polling locations and make more GOTV visits, every single polling location has half a dozen old people sitting around with signs for every Republican up and down the ballot.
posted by Etrigan at 11:26 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yeah, it's truly shameful the hoops we make people jump through just to vote. Just holding elections on a Saturday would make a huge difference to working people. And of course, ending the blatantly racist GOP efforts at voter suppression.
Is there actually good faith argument for why voter registration should even exist at all? Why aren't we automatically registered when we renew our drivers' licenses or file an I-9 at a new job? If you drive or pay income tax, the federal government already knows who you are, how old you are, and where you live.
posted by panama joe at 11:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is there actually good faith argument for why voter registration should even exist at all? Why aren't we automatically registered when we renew our drivers' licenses or file an I-9 at a new job? If you drive or pay income tax, the federal government already knows who you are, how old you are, and where you live.
posted by panama joe at 11:39 AM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
They need an Uber for voting and/or an app for that. Etrigan's insight is clear evidence of a barrier to voting that's probably invisible to most campaigns, and perhaps critical this year to save teh planet from that guy.
posted by infini at 11:42 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by infini at 11:42 AM on March 5, 2016
Forget Uber for voting, get some volunteers doing polling station child care.
posted by deludingmyself at 11:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by deludingmyself at 11:52 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, I used to go to a farmer's market where people would watch my dog while he played with other dogs so that I could get my fresh produce on unencumbered, surely someone could make this work for voting.
posted by deludingmyself at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by deludingmyself at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kasich May Have Cut Off Rubio’s Path To The Nomination
Man, this kind of coverage is exactly why I've been so disappointed with 538 this year. This framing makes it clear that they've become part of the myopic punditsphere, no longer objective analysts at all. First of all, they make the misleading assumption that Rubio would get all of Kasich's voters, which they acknowledge is "conservative" but is actually pure fantasy - if you look at the second-choice polls, less than a quarter of Kasich's voters would actually go to Rubio. Yes, they vaguely acknowledge this toward the end of the piece, but to frame the whole argument around a completely false premise is just silly. It's not arbitrary, either - people all over the pundit world are making similar arguments about how Kasich was "stealing" the voters that Rubio rightfully "deserved," as if voters had no say in the matter whatsoever, no political beliefs at all, and were supposed to just sort themselves by demographics and call it a day. Framing a piece around "what if Kasich's voters were more compliant with what the GOP establishment wants them to think?" is just so revealing about their perspective these days.
Further, if they're going to make such a dumb oversimplified argument, couldn't they equally say that Rubio is cutting off Kasich's path to the nomination? The way they assume Rubio as a frontrunner despite the fact that he's barely performed any better than Kasich with actual voters is indicative of the way they tailor their coverage to mostly agree with all the other "serious" people making terrible predictions that have all been wrong this year. It's the same reason he ignored his own numbers to make thinly justified arguments for why Trump wasn't going to be the nominee all year long. I'm really disappointed in the way they've gone from being "objective analysts" to being pundits who are good at making the same dumb arguments everyone else is making, but with better charts.
posted by dialetheia at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Man, this kind of coverage is exactly why I've been so disappointed with 538 this year. This framing makes it clear that they've become part of the myopic punditsphere, no longer objective analysts at all. First of all, they make the misleading assumption that Rubio would get all of Kasich's voters, which they acknowledge is "conservative" but is actually pure fantasy - if you look at the second-choice polls, less than a quarter of Kasich's voters would actually go to Rubio. Yes, they vaguely acknowledge this toward the end of the piece, but to frame the whole argument around a completely false premise is just silly. It's not arbitrary, either - people all over the pundit world are making similar arguments about how Kasich was "stealing" the voters that Rubio rightfully "deserved," as if voters had no say in the matter whatsoever, no political beliefs at all, and were supposed to just sort themselves by demographics and call it a day. Framing a piece around "what if Kasich's voters were more compliant with what the GOP establishment wants them to think?" is just so revealing about their perspective these days.
Further, if they're going to make such a dumb oversimplified argument, couldn't they equally say that Rubio is cutting off Kasich's path to the nomination? The way they assume Rubio as a frontrunner despite the fact that he's barely performed any better than Kasich with actual voters is indicative of the way they tailor their coverage to mostly agree with all the other "serious" people making terrible predictions that have all been wrong this year. It's the same reason he ignored his own numbers to make thinly justified arguments for why Trump wasn't going to be the nominee all year long. I'm really disappointed in the way they've gone from being "objective analysts" to being pundits who are good at making the same dumb arguments everyone else is making, but with better charts.
posted by dialetheia at 11:54 AM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
They need an Uber for voting and/or an app for that.
I can see the headline now: Musk/Paul Ticket Wins Presidency With Astounding 104% Of Vote
posted by entropicamericana at 11:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can see the headline now: Musk/Paul Ticket Wins Presidency With Astounding 104% Of Vote
posted by entropicamericana at 11:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
They took the public option off the table almost immediately. There only reason we don't have the public option is because Democrats in congress were bought and paid for by the insurance industry.
This is just flat out false. The bill put before the Senate by Harry Reid included a public option. But because of Republican obstruction, the bill required 60 votes for passage. After the 2008 election the Democrats had 60 votes, but the seating of Al Franken was delayed until July 2009 by a recount and court challenge. Then shortly after that Ted Kennedy died. And then Republican Scott Brown replaced him.
The Democrats held a filibuster proof majority for only a few months late in 2009. This required the support of Joe Lieberman who had run as an independent against the Democratic candidate. As voting on the bill approached, Joe Lieberman announced "I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company." The public option written in bill had to be removed or Lieberman would filibuster it and there would be no ACA.
So it wasn't the Democrats who removed the public option. It was Independent Joe Lieberman, a guy who campaigned for John McCain against Obama.
posted by JackFlash at 11:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [61 favorites]
This is just flat out false. The bill put before the Senate by Harry Reid included a public option. But because of Republican obstruction, the bill required 60 votes for passage. After the 2008 election the Democrats had 60 votes, but the seating of Al Franken was delayed until July 2009 by a recount and court challenge. Then shortly after that Ted Kennedy died. And then Republican Scott Brown replaced him.
The Democrats held a filibuster proof majority for only a few months late in 2009. This required the support of Joe Lieberman who had run as an independent against the Democratic candidate. As voting on the bill approached, Joe Lieberman announced "I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company." The public option written in bill had to be removed or Lieberman would filibuster it and there would be no ACA.
So it wasn't the Democrats who removed the public option. It was Independent Joe Lieberman, a guy who campaigned for John McCain against Obama.
posted by JackFlash at 11:57 AM on March 5, 2016 [61 favorites]
a barrier to voting that's probably invisible to most campaigns
Believe me, the parties are well aware of this barrier to voting - that's why Dems tend to be in favor of early voting and/or vote-by-mail programs, and Republicans tend to want to limit or shut down those programs. You can also see plenty of instances where white suburban lean-Republican districts have like thirty-two nice new voting machines, and black urban Democrat districts get three beat up ones (meaning if you want to vote in those districts you have to stand in line for a loooooong time, or maybe even give up because you just don't have time.)
And given the (entirely justified, IMO) concerns about the security of electronic voting machines, hell no we don't need an app.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Believe me, the parties are well aware of this barrier to voting - that's why Dems tend to be in favor of early voting and/or vote-by-mail programs, and Republicans tend to want to limit or shut down those programs. You can also see plenty of instances where white suburban lean-Republican districts have like thirty-two nice new voting machines, and black urban Democrat districts get three beat up ones (meaning if you want to vote in those districts you have to stand in line for a loooooong time, or maybe even give up because you just don't have time.)
And given the (entirely justified, IMO) concerns about the security of electronic voting machines, hell no we don't need an app.
posted by soundguy99 at 12:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
What, no thread this year on who funds Diebold? That was a fun debate in 2000
posted by infini at 12:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by infini at 12:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Curious to see Clintons' numbers for Michigan. Alot of voters were furious with the 2008 Democratic primary process when state legislature pushed up the voting date contrary to the rules.
A Roman analogy to this whole thing is when the establishment denied Caeser a Triumph and a run for Council, he went into debt, hooked with Lucceius but was seated with Bibulus; months later people were joking about the Councilship of "Julius and Caesar".
That primary caused a big rift between Obama and Clinton. They played good after but Trumps early speeches in Michigan and how "well" they were received is interesting but this seems more local politics and having nothing much to do with the general election.
posted by clavdivs at 12:07 PM on March 5, 2016
A Roman analogy to this whole thing is when the establishment denied Caeser a Triumph and a run for Council, he went into debt, hooked with Lucceius but was seated with Bibulus; months later people were joking about the Councilship of "Julius and Caesar".
That primary caused a big rift between Obama and Clinton. They played good after but Trumps early speeches in Michigan and how "well" they were received is interesting but this seems more local politics and having nothing much to do with the general election.
posted by clavdivs at 12:07 PM on March 5, 2016
this kind of coverage is exactly why I've been so disappointed with 538 this year
Matt Bruenig seems to be the guy this cycle who's just crunching numbers, and getting things right a lot of times.
posted by Trochanter at 12:10 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Matt Bruenig seems to be the guy this cycle who's just crunching numbers, and getting things right a lot of times.
posted by Trochanter at 12:10 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is just flat out false. The bill put before the Senate by Harry Reid included a public option. But because of Republican obstruction, the bill required 60 votes for passage.
And the democrats had a chance to change the rules of the senate and didn't do so. So now we still have this stupid majority equals 60% thing.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Matt Bruenig seems to be the guy this cycle who's just crunching numbers, and getting things right a lot of times.
Carl Diggler is a front for the Matt Bruenig Election Team #MBET
posted by ennui.bz at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Carl Diggler is a front for the Matt Bruenig Election Team #MBET
posted by ennui.bz at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Conclusion: Despite the media proclaiming that the nominations are all sewed up, in fact both races are still to be determined
And the reason it says the Democratic race is yet to be determined is the possibility that Clinton will be indicted and the superdelegates will then give the nomination to Sanders. When you're hanging your hat on a federal criminal indictment you know you're reaching.
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the reason it says the Democratic race is yet to be determined is the possibility that Clinton will be indicted and the superdelegates will then give the nomination to Sanders. When you're hanging your hat on a federal criminal indictment you know you're reaching.
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Matt Bruenig seems to be the guy this cycle who's just crunching numbers, and getting things right a lot of times.
also, while Bruenig does "crunch" a lot of numbers related to social policy. The MBET is kind of a meta-joke on data and modelling driven "explainers" like 538. The MBET "method" is just taking the polls at face value.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
also, while Bruenig does "crunch" a lot of numbers related to social policy. The MBET is kind of a meta-joke on data and modelling driven "explainers" like 538. The MBET "method" is just taking the polls at face value.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is just flat out false. The bill put before the Senate by Harry Reid included a public option. But because of Republican obstruction, the bill required 60 votes for passage.
And the democrats had a chance to change the rules of the senate and didn't do so. So now we still have this stupid majority equals 60% thing.
His whole argument that the Dems didn't kill the public option comes down to calling former VP candidate Lieberman an "independent" Senator ie. doesn't pass the laugh test.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the democrats had a chance to change the rules of the senate and didn't do so. So now we still have this stupid majority equals 60% thing.
His whole argument that the Dems didn't kill the public option comes down to calling former VP candidate Lieberman an "independent" Senator ie. doesn't pass the laugh test.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
According to Tom Daschle, who was very involved in this process, and also Ryan Kirkpatrick's reporting for the NYT, the public option was taken off the table as part of the deal to convince hospitals and insurers to sign onto the bill: "I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay."
There is a ton of controversy over this though - some people specifically blame Joe Lieberman, some people blame Ben Nelson and the rest of the conservative Democratic caucus, etc etc. Regardless, it's notable to me that so many Democrats don't want to touch ACA to improve it or try to put the public option back when it was one of the most popular parts of the entire bill - without the public option, it's basically just a requirement to enrich private health insurance companies. Even Clinton has abandoned the idea of a federal public option and only wants to allow states to try it (which is basically meaningless because most states won't do it, and the bargaining power of a federal public option was a huge part of its appeal in the first place).
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay."
There is a ton of controversy over this though - some people specifically blame Joe Lieberman, some people blame Ben Nelson and the rest of the conservative Democratic caucus, etc etc. Regardless, it's notable to me that so many Democrats don't want to touch ACA to improve it or try to put the public option back when it was one of the most popular parts of the entire bill - without the public option, it's basically just a requirement to enrich private health insurance companies. Even Clinton has abandoned the idea of a federal public option and only wants to allow states to try it (which is basically meaningless because most states won't do it, and the bargaining power of a federal public option was a huge part of its appeal in the first place).
posted by dialetheia at 12:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
Even Clinton has abandoned the idea of a federal public option and only wants to allow states to try it (which is basically meaningless because most states won't do it, and the bargaining power of a federal public option was a huge part of its appeal in the first place).
The "public option" is a nonsensical idea. The premise is that there is a market failure in the insurance industry that the government could correct by creating a competitior. But, the way a government funds insurance is by selling itself government bonds; it can never be a competitor in the insurance markets. it either offers a 'bad' policy which is irrelevant or it raises the money to create a 'good' policy, which immediately pushes all other "competitors" out of the market.
The 'public option' only makes sense if you think health insurance can be an efficient free market if only the government would intervene in the market...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:34 PM on March 5, 2016
The "public option" is a nonsensical idea. The premise is that there is a market failure in the insurance industry that the government could correct by creating a competitior. But, the way a government funds insurance is by selling itself government bonds; it can never be a competitor in the insurance markets. it either offers a 'bad' policy which is irrelevant or it raises the money to create a 'good' policy, which immediately pushes all other "competitors" out of the market.
The 'public option' only makes sense if you think health insurance can be an efficient free market if only the government would intervene in the market...
posted by ennui.bz at 12:34 PM on March 5, 2016
The whole argument that the Dems didn't kill the public option comes down to calling former VP candidate Lieberman an "independent" Senator ie. doesn't pass the laugh test.
The Connecticut Democrats rejected Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary, selecting progressive Ned Lamont. Lieberman then ran Independent and split the vote with the Republican so that Lamont lost. Democrats did their best to ditch Lieberman. Then Lieberman endorsed and campaigned for John McCain. Lieberman was tossed from the Democratic Party and went Republican years before the Obamacare vote.
It's bizarre that people make such ridiculous statements who either never knew or have forgotten history.
posted by JackFlash at 12:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
The Connecticut Democrats rejected Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary, selecting progressive Ned Lamont. Lieberman then ran Independent and split the vote with the Republican so that Lamont lost. Democrats did their best to ditch Lieberman. Then Lieberman endorsed and campaigned for John McCain. Lieberman was tossed from the Democratic Party and went Republican years before the Obamacare vote.
It's bizarre that people make such ridiculous statements who either never knew or have forgotten history.
posted by JackFlash at 12:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Jim Webb is an irrelevant politician struggling to stake a claim for himself in the emerging political landscape.
Is this an elegant way of saying that Jim Webb would like to be Trump's running mate?
posted by coldhotel at 12:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is this an elegant way of saying that Jim Webb would like to be Trump's running mate?
posted by coldhotel at 12:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 'public option' only makes sense if you think health insurance can be an efficient free market if only the government would intervene in the market...
I have yet to see any evidence that the health insurance market is efficient or free. It acts as a wall between the consumer (patient) and the provider (doctor) and entirely obfuscates costs in a way that it is often not only impossible for the consumer to have any idea what any service provided actually costs, but also for the provider to tell the consumer what anything costs, even when they ask.
posted by hippybear at 12:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
I have yet to see any evidence that the health insurance market is efficient or free. It acts as a wall between the consumer (patient) and the provider (doctor) and entirely obfuscates costs in a way that it is often not only impossible for the consumer to have any idea what any service provided actually costs, but also for the provider to tell the consumer what anything costs, even when they ask.
posted by hippybear at 12:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [38 favorites]
it raises the money to create a 'good' policy, which immediately pushes all other "competitors" out of the market.
This is exactly how ACA was sold to liberals, though, IIRC - that the public option would be such an obvious success that it would help pave the way for single-payer once people saw how much better it was to use a system that wasn't subject to so many market distortions.
Anyway, I don't mean to keep the public option derail going - I just think it's interesting that Clinton doesn't even want to add it back to ACA even though it was one of the the most popular parts of the program that was pitched to voters. As grateful as I am for ACA, Democrats still need to have some sort of argument for how they are going to improve it - so many people are still lacking coverage, unable to afford to use the coverage they have due to high deductibles, and/or buried in medical debt even with the ACA that to act like health care reform is a finished process is a tough sell. Even if there's little chance of getting a bill through Congress (which may or may not be the case, especially given how much of a drag people think Trump will be on downticket races), people need to see that the candidates they're voting for acknowledge the problems with the current systems, and Clinton is currently not doing that well enough, at least from my perspective as someone who still can't afford health insurance.
posted by dialetheia at 12:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is exactly how ACA was sold to liberals, though, IIRC - that the public option would be such an obvious success that it would help pave the way for single-payer once people saw how much better it was to use a system that wasn't subject to so many market distortions.
Anyway, I don't mean to keep the public option derail going - I just think it's interesting that Clinton doesn't even want to add it back to ACA even though it was one of the the most popular parts of the program that was pitched to voters. As grateful as I am for ACA, Democrats still need to have some sort of argument for how they are going to improve it - so many people are still lacking coverage, unable to afford to use the coverage they have due to high deductibles, and/or buried in medical debt even with the ACA that to act like health care reform is a finished process is a tough sell. Even if there's little chance of getting a bill through Congress (which may or may not be the case, especially given how much of a drag people think Trump will be on downticket races), people need to see that the candidates they're voting for acknowledge the problems with the current systems, and Clinton is currently not doing that well enough, at least from my perspective as someone who still can't afford health insurance.
posted by dialetheia at 12:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not to add to the derail, but most functioning health-care systems across the globe are a mix of public and private and they have developed into what they are now over time. Even in the UK, where the NHS is the main provider, there are private options. One of the problems in the US seems (from the outside) to be the lack of political control of the insurance companies, health-care providers and pharma.
Also - there is not "a European health-care system" for many good reasons. So while I would be a Sanders voter if I were American, I can see good arguments for the states having the responsibility for this. A Scottish socialist is going to have very different ideas about health-care than a conservative in Bavaria, and as long as both systems provide universal care of high quality, I can't see why they shouldn't make decisions locally.
posted by mumimor at 12:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also - there is not "a European health-care system" for many good reasons. So while I would be a Sanders voter if I were American, I can see good arguments for the states having the responsibility for this. A Scottish socialist is going to have very different ideas about health-care than a conservative in Bavaria, and as long as both systems provide universal care of high quality, I can't see why they shouldn't make decisions locally.
posted by mumimor at 12:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
We Wouldn't Have Donald Trump If the Media Hadn't Helped Destroy the Democratic Process First: The corporate media is heavily to blame for Donald Trump’s rise, but not for the reasons most people think.
posted by homunculus at 12:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
Nearly 60 years ago, the historian Daniel Boorstin in his seminal book The Image described a society in which things were increasingly staged expressly for the media without any intrinsic merit of their own – things like photo ops, press conferences, award ceremonies. He labeled these “pseudo-events” because they only looked like real events, while being hollow inside. And Boorstin defined pseudo-people too – people whose activities, as he put it, had no intrinsic value either. He called them “celebrities,” and he defined them as people who were known for being well-known.It's been like this for a long time obviously, but between them I think the media and Trump have turned 2016 into the first true pseudo-election. This is something I've found particularly unnerving throughout Trump's rise: it seems we've finally reached the point where people can't tell the difference between reality and reality TV anymore, and I'm afraid that a lot of poeple who normally wouldn't vote at all are going to vote for Trump because they'll feel like it's their chance to be a guest star on a reality TV show.
posted by homunculus at 12:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
These Photoshops of 'Little Marco' In a Giant Chair Are Getting Brutal
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is exactly how ACA was sold to liberals, though, IIRC - that the public option would be such an obvious success that it would help pave the way for single-payer once people saw how much better it was to use a system that wasn't subject to so many market distortions.
that's the problem. it's either immediately a single payer program or irrelevant, there is no progression. but the basic problem is that the government has no reason to pretend to be a private insurance company. it can invest money much more cheaply. so, it would never make sense for the government to be a "competitor" in the insurance market.
the fact that the "public option" is so transparently nonsensical as policy tells you something, that it was introduced into the debate as something that could both signal to the activist base that the Obama administration was on their side and then withdrawn later to "compromise." it's exactly the kind of game the democratic party leadership plays *against* it's base.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
that's the problem. it's either immediately a single payer program or irrelevant, there is no progression. but the basic problem is that the government has no reason to pretend to be a private insurance company. it can invest money much more cheaply. so, it would never make sense for the government to be a "competitor" in the insurance market.
the fact that the "public option" is so transparently nonsensical as policy tells you something, that it was introduced into the debate as something that could both signal to the activist base that the Obama administration was on their side and then withdrawn later to "compromise." it's exactly the kind of game the democratic party leadership plays *against* it's base.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks like Cruz in Kansas! He's doing decently early in Maine as well.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on March 5, 2016
I have trouble following the all-or-nothing argument, since in the abstract it seems to me that the public option could be understood as a mechanism to set a ceiling on profit-taking and other inefficiencies in health insurance provision, sort of an institutionalized, practical, technocratic signal that health insurance can cost this much and no more (because if you try to charge more than the cost of the public option, no one will buy your insurance). Insurance companies would be provided with an amount of wiggle room under that ceiling, and incentivized to search for efficiencies and reduce profit taking in order to stay below that ceiling.
Alternately, I guess, health insurance more expensive than the public option could be possible, so long as the health insurance company in question had done enough to make their insurance seem sufficiently desirable enough to enough of the market to be worth the extra cost.
In political terms I understand that health insurance companies desire to take in as much profit as possible and find the idea of a government program to exert downward price pressure on insurance abhorrent. Moreover, I understand that in practical terms, the interests of the decisionmakers within health insurance companies are deeply relevant to policymakers in government, while the interest of the electorate is largely irrelevant — they are stakeholders that must be kept at the table for any plan to go through, while we are dispensable. In political terms the public option was therefore a dead letter. In technocratic terms, though, it seems on the surface (to this relatively uninformed voter) to be a plausible mechanism for instituting price controls on the market without necessarily removing the market from health care altogether.
I mean if you're into that sort of thing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
Alternately, I guess, health insurance more expensive than the public option could be possible, so long as the health insurance company in question had done enough to make their insurance seem sufficiently desirable enough to enough of the market to be worth the extra cost.
In political terms I understand that health insurance companies desire to take in as much profit as possible and find the idea of a government program to exert downward price pressure on insurance abhorrent. Moreover, I understand that in practical terms, the interests of the decisionmakers within health insurance companies are deeply relevant to policymakers in government, while the interest of the electorate is largely irrelevant — they are stakeholders that must be kept at the table for any plan to go through, while we are dispensable. In political terms the public option was therefore a dead letter. In technocratic terms, though, it seems on the surface (to this relatively uninformed voter) to be a plausible mechanism for instituting price controls on the market without necessarily removing the market from health care altogether.
I mean if you're into that sort of thing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
>"The Image described a society in which things were increasingly staged expressly for the media without any intrinsic merit of their own – things like photo ops, press conferences, award ceremonies. He labeled these “pseudo-events” because they only looked like real events, while being hollow inside."
Hence the Pseudo-Bully Pulpit. The postion or holding of office in which to use that BP has been removed. It effectivley elimates reprecussions from holding office if the BP backfires, like if TRs media folks choose the "Teddy Rhino". It allows anyone to grab an issue and raise a base to rally behind your campaign/crusade. Then you run for office. Money really helps there.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2016
Hence the Pseudo-Bully Pulpit. The postion or holding of office in which to use that BP has been removed. It effectivley elimates reprecussions from holding office if the BP backfires, like if TRs media folks choose the "Teddy Rhino". It allows anyone to grab an issue and raise a base to rally behind your campaign/crusade. Then you run for office. Money really helps there.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2016
If anyone is interested, they can read the text of the Senate ACA bill with your own eyes here (large PDF).
Search for "Sec. 1323 on page 182. This is the public option written into Obamacare. This section was stricken immediately before the vote by the filibuster demand of Joe Lieberman. The U.S. was one Democrat short of already having a public option. Elections have consequences.
posted by JackFlash at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
Search for "Sec. 1323 on page 182. This is the public option written into Obamacare. This section was stricken immediately before the vote by the filibuster demand of Joe Lieberman. The U.S. was one Democrat short of already having a public option. Elections have consequences.
posted by JackFlash at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what Sanders supporters are upset about regarding superdelegates?
Not just Sanders supporters, either - Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words against the superdelegate system recently: "I'm not a believer in the sway of superdelegates deciding who is going to be the nominee," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think we have a democratic process where people vote on both sides of the aisle … and that that should determine who the nominee is." ... "If somebody has the majority of the delegates from the votes of the people, I think that you change that to your peril," she said. "Whatever party you are."
posted by dialetheia at 1:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not just Sanders supporters, either - Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words against the superdelegate system recently: "I'm not a believer in the sway of superdelegates deciding who is going to be the nominee," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think we have a democratic process where people vote on both sides of the aisle … and that that should determine who the nominee is." ... "If somebody has the majority of the delegates from the votes of the people, I think that you change that to your peril," she said. "Whatever party you are."
posted by dialetheia at 1:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Times to watch:
Kansas · GOP finished, DEM begin at 5:00 PM ET
Kentucky · Last poll closes at 5:00 PM ET (DEM caucus May 17th)
Maine · Last poll closes at 7:00 PM ET (DEM caucus tomorrow)
Louisiana · Last poll closes at 9:00 PM ET
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kansas · GOP finished, DEM begin at 5:00 PM ET
Kentucky · Last poll closes at 5:00 PM ET (DEM caucus May 17th)
Maine · Last poll closes at 7:00 PM ET (DEM caucus tomorrow)
Louisiana · Last poll closes at 9:00 PM ET
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Louis C. K. just included a postscript to the latest message to his mailing list. Guy has a few things to say about Trump.
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm going to be generous to Louis C.K. and assume that the Kasich thing is not a genuine opinion but instead an attempt to make his argument appeal to Republican voters. Which would be fine if Kasich were a decent guy instead of a misogynist sleazebag.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is something I've found particularly unnerving throughout Trump's rise: it seems we've finally reached the point where people can't tell the difference between reality and reality TV anymore
I hear what you're saying but the nuance is that part of Trump's popularity comes from pointing out that the old GOP stories being told by Bush, Romney, etc., are as unreal as anything on reality TV.
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I hear what you're saying but the nuance is that part of Trump's popularity comes from pointing out that the old GOP stories being told by Bush, Romney, etc., are as unreal as anything on reality TV.
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Well these are some...interesting optics:
@wpjenna: Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:46 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
@wpjenna: Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:46 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now can we call Trump a Fascist?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Neither Warren or Biden seem like the type of person to me that would back down from running for POTUS because of the DNC. Either of them would be far better off as the candidate right now.
If there's one place where I hang my head in shame, it's the weakness of the Dem bench - it's so shallow as as to be non-extant. Where are the fire-breathing lefty up-and-comers? I'm fairly far left for the US, so I know that a completely-orthagonal candidate is never gonna happen in my lifetime, but still I'd like to see some youthful, intelligent, late-30's early-40's candidates start to take the reins of power. Seriously, where's the next generation?
posted by eclectist at 1:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
If there's one place where I hang my head in shame, it's the weakness of the Dem bench - it's so shallow as as to be non-extant. Where are the fire-breathing lefty up-and-comers? I'm fairly far left for the US, so I know that a completely-orthagonal candidate is never gonna happen in my lifetime, but still I'd like to see some youthful, intelligent, late-30's early-40's candidates start to take the reins of power. Seriously, where's the next generation?
posted by eclectist at 1:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which would be fine if Kasich were a decent guy instead of a misogynist sleazebag.
Don't forget warmonger! Kasich wants us to send ground troops to Syria and Libya, and so does Marco Rubio. Daniel Larison had more to say about Kasich's bizarrely hawkish foreign policy statements at the last debate here: "Kasich distinguished himself by steering clear of squabbling with his rivals and stuck to endorsing horrible foreign policy ideas instead. While he criticized Clinton for the Libyan war, he ruined his answer by talking about the need for a large U.S. force to occupy Libya, and threw in a reference to committing ground forces to Syria and Iraq at the same time."
posted by dialetheia at 1:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't forget warmonger! Kasich wants us to send ground troops to Syria and Libya, and so does Marco Rubio. Daniel Larison had more to say about Kasich's bizarrely hawkish foreign policy statements at the last debate here: "Kasich distinguished himself by steering clear of squabbling with his rivals and stuck to endorsing horrible foreign policy ideas instead. While he criticized Clinton for the Libyan war, he ruined his answer by talking about the need for a large U.S. force to occupy Libya, and threw in a reference to committing ground forces to Syria and Iraq at the same time."
posted by dialetheia at 1:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I'm not advocating for Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but frankly I wish the next president was a conservative only because we had Obama for eight years and we need balance.
Do we have any evidence this was actually written by CK? If so, ew.
posted by panama joe at 1:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Do we have any evidence this was actually written by CK? If so, ew.
posted by panama joe at 1:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Drumpf should stop by Munich and have his supporters take over the place using a beer hall as their base. "I'm not just a Hitler, I am the best Hitler. Way better than that Adolph guy."
posted by XMLicious at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
alternately and more realistically the pressure wasn't applied to the candidates themselves, but instead to the consulting firms they'd need to run an effective campaign — a sort of gentle suggestion that firms that worked with anyone but Clinton could expect to get not quite so much work from the Democratic Party in the future.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I really wish Sepia Mutiny was still around to weigh in on this. NY Post: "This Hindus for Trump poster is causing an uproar"
posted by Apocryphon at 2:01 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 2:01 PM on March 5, 2016
Seriously, where's the next generation?
Consequence of nobody bothering to vote in off-year elections. The GOP controls the majority of state governorships and legislatures.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Consequence of nobody bothering to vote in off-year elections. The GOP controls the majority of state governorships and legislatures.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah - right after I wrote that and read it, the cynical angel on my left should answered: "Where's the next generation? Looking for a better job and cheaper rent, dummy."
posted by eclectist at 2:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by eclectist at 2:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seriously, where's the next generation?
It's a great question. Most of the young people who are really enthusiastic about politics that I know are pretty squarely to the left of the party as a whole, and my experience with the people who tend to run local politics is that there's a certain insularity and hostility to listening to younger peoples' ideas - think of the condescension toward these dumb idealistic young Sanders voters we've seen all election, but on a more personal, local scale. Older party folks seem to love the enthusiasm and labor of young people, but are not very open to letting them take on serious responsibility or acting on their ideas. I'm sure other people have had different experiences too, though.
But by and large, the younger people who might be working with the party under other circumstances seem to direct much of their political energy to issue-based movements like Occupy or Fight for 15 rather than the Democratic party. Why that is, I'm not sure - a lot of them are working hard for Sanders right now, though.
posted by dialetheia at 2:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's a great question. Most of the young people who are really enthusiastic about politics that I know are pretty squarely to the left of the party as a whole, and my experience with the people who tend to run local politics is that there's a certain insularity and hostility to listening to younger peoples' ideas - think of the condescension toward these dumb idealistic young Sanders voters we've seen all election, but on a more personal, local scale. Older party folks seem to love the enthusiasm and labor of young people, but are not very open to letting them take on serious responsibility or acting on their ideas. I'm sure other people have had different experiences too, though.
But by and large, the younger people who might be working with the party under other circumstances seem to direct much of their political energy to issue-based movements like Occupy or Fight for 15 rather than the Democratic party. Why that is, I'm not sure - a lot of them are working hard for Sanders right now, though.
posted by dialetheia at 2:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Now can we call Trump a Fascist?
Hmmm, maybe when those arms are wearing bands.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:16 PM on March 5, 2016
Hmmm, maybe when those arms are wearing bands.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:16 PM on March 5, 2016
Hmmm, maybe when those arms are wearing bands.
What? No, these armbands are made with a backstitch and the Hitler ones were made with a hemming stitch. Totally different. Jeesh.
posted by ian1977 at 2:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
What? No, these armbands are made with a backstitch and the Hitler ones were made with a hemming stitch. Totally different. Jeesh.
posted by ian1977 at 2:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
no. we can only call him a fascist after he grows a little mustache.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
What? This little soup strainer? It's my tribute to Charlie Chaplin, america's lovable scamp.
posted by ian1977 at 2:31 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:31 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But by and large, the younger people who might be working with the party under other circumstances seem to direct much of their political energy to issue-based movements like Occupy or Fight for 15 rather than the Democratic party.
...and we get piece after piece on Slate, etc. about college kids buying into obsessive cults because they refuse to take things seriously like everyone else.
posted by teponaztli at 2:34 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
...and we get piece after piece on Slate, etc. about college kids buying into obsessive cults because they refuse to take things seriously like everyone else.
posted by teponaztli at 2:34 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Worth the read: Why Isn't Bernie Sanders Doing Well with Black Voters?
There are a lot of similarities between this and one I put up from Stephen White, but I (someone else too) also put up a graph that shows there's just a locked together correlation between the climb in Sander's name recognition among black people and his favorability among black people.
So you tell me.
posted by Trochanter at 2:35 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are a lot of similarities between this and one I put up from Stephen White, but I (someone else too) also put up a graph that shows there's just a locked together correlation between the climb in Sander's name recognition among black people and his favorability among black people.
So you tell me.
posted by Trochanter at 2:35 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what Sanders supporters are upset about regarding superdelegates?
The superdelegates, as I understand it, exist as an insurance policy to prevent a wild-card candidate from winning the nomination without the party establishment's approval.
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists.” Critics say the unelected superdelegate system is rigged. Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically admitted this is true
posted by homunculus at 2:37 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
The superdelegates, as I understand it, exist as an insurance policy to prevent a wild-card candidate from winning the nomination without the party establishment's approval.
Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists.” Critics say the unelected superdelegate system is rigged. Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically admitted this is true
posted by homunculus at 2:37 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Looks like Kansas has been called for Cruz, he's currently ahead by 25 points. This is very far off the polling, most polls showed Trump with a slight lead. I wonder whether the polling was bad or whether the debate really did some damage.
posted by zug at 2:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zug at 2:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I'm fairly far left for the US, so I know that a completely-orthagonal candidate is never gonna happen in my lifetime, but still I'd like to see some youthful, intelligent, late-30's early-40's candidates start to take the reins of power. Seriously, where's the next generation?"
I wouldn't propose this as a widespread dynamic without evidence, but one dynamic I saw at work in my LOCAL Democratic party (as a young candidate in my 30s) was that senior Democrats around here come in two primary flavors: union guys and "ethnic" Democrats (Irish, Polish, Black politicians, who were outright excluded from the GOP back in the day). And their attitude towards a lot of younger candidates (especially, it must be said, younger female college-educated candidates) is that, "You're just out of college, of course you're a Democrat, we're not gonna take you seriously unless you're a steamfitter, you're just going to buy a house in the suburbs and start voting against taxing yourself as soon as your kids are school-age, you'll be as Republican as the rest of them."
And my social group is mostly young urban professionals -- doctors, lawyers, engineers, six sigma blackbelts, professors -- who could easily afford to move out to the suburbs but who on-purpose choose to be in the city limits (paying the highest property taxes in the state, among the highest in the nation), sending our children to struggling public schools, and showing up for all these community events ... and voting Democrat. And I get that the party bosses are the union stalwarts who watched all the hippies turn yuppie, move out of the city, and start voting Republican. But there's just such SUSPICION of young Democrats being fair-weather friends who will naturally abandon the party, there's not a lot of willingness to nurture young candidates, unless they're in the trade unions or they're Black (the local Black community does a LOT MORE to nourish its young politicians, and the Democrats trust them to stay Democrat, and it shows by which younger politicians are being sent to the statehouse from our community).
Anyway, there's a legit culture clash, my crowd is more cosmopolitan technocratic Obama Democrats and less old-school Richard J. Daley machine Democrats and there are obviously going to be some issues where we disagree and there is intergenerational and intraparty tension. But it's very frustrating how shut-out younger Democrats are locally. (And, incidentally, how FUCKING UNFRIENDLY the local party is to parents, especially woman, with small children. The local GOP is a lot lot LOT friendlier with the child-friendly meeting times and the casual childcare at meetings and finding ways for parents to volunteer with kids in tow to keep them engaged until they can offer more full-time volunteer efforts like poll-watching and just being a lot NICER about taking your kids places. But I'd be even less inclined to generalize that experience, I expect a lot of local GOP parties are not kid-friendly.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [26 favorites]
I wouldn't propose this as a widespread dynamic without evidence, but one dynamic I saw at work in my LOCAL Democratic party (as a young candidate in my 30s) was that senior Democrats around here come in two primary flavors: union guys and "ethnic" Democrats (Irish, Polish, Black politicians, who were outright excluded from the GOP back in the day). And their attitude towards a lot of younger candidates (especially, it must be said, younger female college-educated candidates) is that, "You're just out of college, of course you're a Democrat, we're not gonna take you seriously unless you're a steamfitter, you're just going to buy a house in the suburbs and start voting against taxing yourself as soon as your kids are school-age, you'll be as Republican as the rest of them."
And my social group is mostly young urban professionals -- doctors, lawyers, engineers, six sigma blackbelts, professors -- who could easily afford to move out to the suburbs but who on-purpose choose to be in the city limits (paying the highest property taxes in the state, among the highest in the nation), sending our children to struggling public schools, and showing up for all these community events ... and voting Democrat. And I get that the party bosses are the union stalwarts who watched all the hippies turn yuppie, move out of the city, and start voting Republican. But there's just such SUSPICION of young Democrats being fair-weather friends who will naturally abandon the party, there's not a lot of willingness to nurture young candidates, unless they're in the trade unions or they're Black (the local Black community does a LOT MORE to nourish its young politicians, and the Democrats trust them to stay Democrat, and it shows by which younger politicians are being sent to the statehouse from our community).
Anyway, there's a legit culture clash, my crowd is more cosmopolitan technocratic Obama Democrats and less old-school Richard J. Daley machine Democrats and there are obviously going to be some issues where we disagree and there is intergenerational and intraparty tension. But it's very frustrating how shut-out younger Democrats are locally. (And, incidentally, how FUCKING UNFRIENDLY the local party is to parents, especially woman, with small children. The local GOP is a lot lot LOT friendlier with the child-friendly meeting times and the casual childcare at meetings and finding ways for parents to volunteer with kids in tow to keep them engaged until they can offer more full-time volunteer efforts like poll-watching and just being a lot NICER about taking your kids places. But I'd be even less inclined to generalize that experience, I expect a lot of local GOP parties are not kid-friendly.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [26 favorites]
The reason the superdelegate system exists is to prevent something like the Trump phenomenon from happening. Don't you guys kinda wish the Republicans had superdelegates at this point?
posted by Justinian at 2:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is definitely an election where the Democrats wished they didn't have superdelegates, and the Republicans (and probably most of the rest of us) wished they did.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:52 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:52 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The reason the superdelegate system exists is to prevent something like the Trump phenomenon from happening. Don't you guys kinda wish the Republicans had superdelegates at this point?
Honestly, as bad as Trump is, no I don't. We live in a democracy, even if many of the other people who live here with us don't vote the way we would like. The way to stop Trump is at the ballot box, not with undemocratic backroom dealing that only fuels candidates like him.
posted by dialetheia at 2:54 PM on March 5, 2016 [25 favorites]
Honestly, as bad as Trump is, no I don't. We live in a democracy, even if many of the other people who live here with us don't vote the way we would like. The way to stop Trump is at the ballot box, not with undemocratic backroom dealing that only fuels candidates like him.
posted by dialetheia at 2:54 PM on March 5, 2016 [25 favorites]
The superdelegate thing is a red herring and I'm tired of hearing about it. The superdelegates favored Clinton in 2008 until Obama took the lead, and it was clear where the popular vote was going. If the popular vote favored Sanders, I could only imagine the superdelegates would follow. Why? Because there's no realistic, non-mustache-twirling scenario where they wouldn't. Even in a close election, why would they risk fracturing the party by going against the will of the electorate? At a time when the Republicans are in such a state of disarray, why would the Democratic party want to throw itself into a similar state of affairs? Many Democrats already have a beef with Clinton; a superdelegate-driven victory could only weaken our efforts to get out the vote in November.
posted by panama joe at 2:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 2:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why are people so damn determined to draft Michelle Obama into a thing she hates and has never shown any interest in?
Because they may claim to be fans of democracy, but what they really want, down deep, is to dispense with all the mess of democracy and have a series of kings and queens to rule them, monarchs to be bowed to rather than politicians to serve them.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Because they may claim to be fans of democracy, but what they really want, down deep, is to dispense with all the mess of democracy and have a series of kings and queens to rule them, monarchs to be bowed to rather than politicians to serve them.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Because there's no realistic, non-mustache-twirling scenario where they wouldn't.
Then what is the point of having them at all?
posted by dialetheia at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Then what is the point of having them at all?
posted by dialetheia at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
... or maybe we just like her?
posted by panama joe at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by panama joe at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because they may claim to be fans of democracy, but what they really want, down deep, is to dispense with all the mess of democracy and have a series of kings and queens to rule them, monarchs to be bowed to rather than politicians to serve them.
I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but that's a little uncharitable, isn't it? I think people want familiar faces, because God knows we don't exactly have a lot of faith in the current crop of candidates.
posted by teponaztli at 2:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but that's a little uncharitable, isn't it? I think people want familiar faces, because God knows we don't exactly have a lot of faith in the current crop of candidates.
posted by teponaztli at 2:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
is to dispense with all the mess of democracy and have a series of kings and queens to rule them
Well that, except the American thing to do is want celebrities to rule them, not monarchs. Which is why having Joe Biden come roaring back as a unity figure is an attractive fantasy, why even boring John Kerry gets his name floated around for that spot, it's all about the name recognition, man.
Just why hasn't anyone suggested bringing Al Gore out of retirement?
posted by Apocryphon at 2:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well that, except the American thing to do is want celebrities to rule them, not monarchs. Which is why having Joe Biden come roaring back as a unity figure is an attractive fantasy, why even boring John Kerry gets his name floated around for that spot, it's all about the name recognition, man.
Just why hasn't anyone suggested bringing Al Gore out of retirement?
posted by Apocryphon at 2:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then what is the point of having them at all?
To prevent the kind of situation the Republicans are currently dealing with. It's meant as a safety valve. It's not a very good one, but it's not there to do something that would needlessly antagonize the electorate. The Democratic establishment doesn't like Bernie, but he's far from a worst case scenario.
posted by panama joe at 2:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
To prevent the kind of situation the Republicans are currently dealing with. It's meant as a safety valve. It's not a very good one, but it's not there to do something that would needlessly antagonize the electorate. The Democratic establishment doesn't like Bernie, but he's far from a worst case scenario.
posted by panama joe at 2:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but that's a little uncharitable, isn't it?
Yeah, it is. But I will admit that I'm feeling increasingly uncharitable towards our American friends as this shitwagon picks up speed. Apologies if they are desired.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it is. But I will admit that I'm feeling increasingly uncharitable towards our American friends as this shitwagon picks up speed. Apologies if they are desired.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I will admit that I'm feeling increasingly uncharitable towards our American friends as this shitwagon picks up speed.
So you don't even live here? OK.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
So you don't even live here? OK.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
You're not Canadian, are you? Because that would be maximum irony.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:04 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 3:04 PM on March 5, 2016
If there's one place where I hang my head in shame, it's the weakness of the Dem bench - it's so shallow as as to be non-extant.
Listing them doesn't mean I like them, and lots of them are 50 or older, but just off the top of my head:
Cory Booker
Julian Castro
Antonio Villaraigosa
Amy Klobuchar
Kirsten Gillibrand
Andrew Cuomo
Deval Patrick
Tammy Baldwin
The current governor of Oregon whose name escapes me
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Listing them doesn't mean I like them, and lots of them are 50 or older, but just off the top of my head:
Cory Booker
Julian Castro
Antonio Villaraigosa
Amy Klobuchar
Kirsten Gillibrand
Andrew Cuomo
Deval Patrick
Tammy Baldwin
The current governor of Oregon whose name escapes me
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kate Brown is the governor of Oregon.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:06 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:06 PM on March 5, 2016
Don't forget Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris.
posted by panama joe at 3:08 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by panama joe at 3:08 PM on March 5, 2016
It's over in my KS district caucus. 41 to 20 for Bernie. Which means 2 delegates to 1 split for the candidates. 5 for B to 3 in a neighboring district. 6 to 3 in another one. Will write more about the process when I get home. Some chaos but not total pandemonium.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by honestcoyote at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Tammy Duckworth, though she can't run for President
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016
So you don't even live here? OK.
Nope, not American, as I try not to repeat so often as to be annoying.
But sadly, the outcome of American presidential elections have enormous and frequently negative consequences for the rest of us out here, nearly as much as for actual Americans, although we can't vote, of course. As was discussed upthread, there may well be more nonAmericans around the world more engaged in your elections than there are actual Americans engaged in them. OK?
You're not Canadian, are you? Because that would be maximum irony.
Why yes, I am. Although it's been decades since I've lived there, and although I prefer Justin Trudeau to the warm bowl of dogshit that was Stephen Harper, I am clearly no fan of dynasty. Trudeau's election is not ironic at all in light of my distaste for dynasty -- it's part of the impetus for it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Nope, not American, as I try not to repeat so often as to be annoying.
But sadly, the outcome of American presidential elections have enormous and frequently negative consequences for the rest of us out here, nearly as much as for actual Americans, although we can't vote, of course. As was discussed upthread, there may well be more nonAmericans around the world more engaged in your elections than there are actual Americans engaged in them. OK?
You're not Canadian, are you? Because that would be maximum irony.
Why yes, I am. Although it's been decades since I've lived there, and although I prefer Justin Trudeau to the warm bowl of dogshit that was Stephen Harper, I am clearly no fan of dynasty. Trudeau's election is not ironic at all in light of my distaste for dynasty -- it's part of the impetus for it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
And Tulsi Gabbard, come to think of it - resigning the DNC vice was a ballsy move. I guess there's more than I thought.
Thanks, guys!
posted by eclectist at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016
Thanks, guys!
posted by eclectist at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016
I have trouble following the all-or-nothing argument, since in the abstract it seems to me that the public option could be understood as a mechanism to set a ceiling on profit-taking and other inefficiencies in health insurance provision, sort of an institutionalized, practical, technocratic signal that health insurance can cost this much and no more (because if you try to charge more than the cost of the public option, no one will buy your insurance). Insurance companies would be provided with an amount of wiggle room under that ceiling, and incentivized to search for efficiencies and reduce profit taking in order to stay below that ceiling.
We've already put this into the ACA, actually, without the public option. There's a percentage of premiums which must be spent on care - 80 or 85% IIRC, depending on the organization of the insurance company - and administration and profits have to come out of the remaining percentage. There's also a lot of other things going on in the ACA to work to reduce provider costs, as well as things like mandating publication of hospital chargemasters in order to provide some consumer (in every sense of the word and at every level) transparency.
For all that it's sausage and a horse designed by committee there's a lot of really good stuff in the ACA. It's flat out fucking madness that you don't hear about those things all the damned time.
posted by phearlez at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
We've already put this into the ACA, actually, without the public option. There's a percentage of premiums which must be spent on care - 80 or 85% IIRC, depending on the organization of the insurance company - and administration and profits have to come out of the remaining percentage. There's also a lot of other things going on in the ACA to work to reduce provider costs, as well as things like mandating publication of hospital chargemasters in order to provide some consumer (in every sense of the word and at every level) transparency.
For all that it's sausage and a horse designed by committee there's a lot of really good stuff in the ACA. It's flat out fucking madness that you don't hear about those things all the damned time.
posted by phearlez at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bolshoi spasibo, tovarisch. Tovarischii? I forget lots of these people because they're mostly just data to me. Hell, I even forget who the current NY Speaker is half the time now that it isn't Shelly Silver anymore (but I can always remember who Carl Heastie is, weirdly).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:10 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:10 PM on March 5, 2016
Tammy Duckworth, though she can't run for President
Why not?
posted by peeedro at 3:13 PM on March 5, 2016
Why not?
posted by peeedro at 3:13 PM on March 5, 2016
It's flat out fucking madness that you don't hear about those things all the damned time.
I agree with this too, but I think the reason we don't hear more about it is that many people have such high deductibles they can't even afford to access care, even with insurance. There are lots of great things about ACA but when many people can't even use the insurance they're now required to pay for, those positive things are overshadowed.
posted by dialetheia at 3:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree with this too, but I think the reason we don't hear more about it is that many people have such high deductibles they can't even afford to access care, even with insurance. There are lots of great things about ACA but when many people can't even use the insurance they're now required to pay for, those positive things are overshadowed.
posted by dialetheia at 3:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Tammy Duckworth, though she can't run for President
Why not?
Indeed, her dad was an American. If John McCain and Ted Cruz are eligible, surely she is.
posted by dhens at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why not?
Indeed, her dad was an American. If John McCain and Ted Cruz are eligible, surely she is.
posted by dhens at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, political dynasties are so fucking scary. They give us awful leaders like those Kennedys. What a bunch of losers! What we really need right now is an outsider, someone not beholden to the system. Someone like....
posted by panama joe at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by panama joe at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016
What? This little soup strainer? It's my tribute to Charlie Chaplin, america's lovable scamp.
Who was run out of the country for being a commie sympathizer.
posted by Trochanter at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016
Who was run out of the country for being a commie sympathizer.
posted by Trochanter at 3:16 PM on March 5, 2016
Just why hasn't anyone suggested bringing Al Gore out of retirement?
For the same reason that Romney isn't going to be the 2016 candidate: nobody gets a second chance to lose a contest that costs as much as this one.
The superdelegate thing is a red herring and I'm tired of hearing about it.
Ditto, but get used to it. You'll hear about it and about what sorts of shenanigans the Republicans could pull with their convention to deny Trump the spot for as long as media outlets can justify writing them. It creates a sense of drama and conflict despite the fact that the party - either one - is not going to engage in the self-destructive behavior that subverting their voters would cause.
posted by phearlez at 3:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the same reason that Romney isn't going to be the 2016 candidate: nobody gets a second chance to lose a contest that costs as much as this one.
The superdelegate thing is a red herring and I'm tired of hearing about it.
Ditto, but get used to it. You'll hear about it and about what sorts of shenanigans the Republicans could pull with their convention to deny Trump the spot for as long as media outlets can justify writing them. It creates a sense of drama and conflict despite the fact that the party - either one - is not going to engage in the self-destructive behavior that subverting their voters would cause.
posted by phearlez at 3:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then what is the point of having them at all?
Imagine if Clinton has a narrow majority of delegates and gets indicted but won't step aside.
Imagine there's a Republican incumbent, and so no real contest there, and the narrow winner of the delegate count only won because of record turnout by Republicans in open-primary states.
Honestly, as bad as Trump is, no I don't. We live in a democracy
The primary system we have now dates all the way back to 1972. We had a functional, if sexually and racially limited, democracy for like 130-140 years before that. Primaries in general are bad and wrong. It's like having the starting pitcher for the Yankees be determined by popular vote, and a vote in which Red Sox fans can vote if they want to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Imagine if Clinton has a narrow majority of delegates and gets indicted but won't step aside.
Imagine there's a Republican incumbent, and so no real contest there, and the narrow winner of the delegate count only won because of record turnout by Republicans in open-primary states.
Honestly, as bad as Trump is, no I don't. We live in a democracy
The primary system we have now dates all the way back to 1972. We had a functional, if sexually and racially limited, democracy for like 130-140 years before that. Primaries in general are bad and wrong. It's like having the starting pitcher for the Yankees be determined by popular vote, and a vote in which Red Sox fans can vote if they want to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: "I wouldn't propose this as a widespread dynamic without evidence, but one dynamic I saw at work in my LOCAL Democratic party"
How far would you generalize from this, do you think? After growing up in Peoria, I feel like Peoria's super-sharp class and racial divides all basically arise from Caterpillar's overwhelming influence in the area. Caterpillar workers (African-Americans and unionized blue-collar whites) = Democrats, Caterpillar college-educated engineers & managers = Republicans. Is that fair, do you think?
But not even all of Central Illinois is like this. You have places where the manufacturing sector has just completely collapsed (so much of the region): Kankakee, Decatur, etc. I would imagine in those places there are virtually no Democrats. Urbana-Champagne is just a different story. Maybe the closest parallel to Peoria might be the local insurance/manufacturing/university hub of Bloomington-Normal, but even there I would imagine probably more complicated dynamics? I would think ISU's presence in Bloomington-Normal would give their Democratic elders more confidence that younger Democrats will be loyal as they age. How unique do you think Peoria is?
posted by crazy with stars at 3:18 PM on March 5, 2016
How far would you generalize from this, do you think? After growing up in Peoria, I feel like Peoria's super-sharp class and racial divides all basically arise from Caterpillar's overwhelming influence in the area. Caterpillar workers (African-Americans and unionized blue-collar whites) = Democrats, Caterpillar college-educated engineers & managers = Republicans. Is that fair, do you think?
But not even all of Central Illinois is like this. You have places where the manufacturing sector has just completely collapsed (so much of the region): Kankakee, Decatur, etc. I would imagine in those places there are virtually no Democrats. Urbana-Champagne is just a different story. Maybe the closest parallel to Peoria might be the local insurance/manufacturing/university hub of Bloomington-Normal, but even there I would imagine probably more complicated dynamics? I would think ISU's presence in Bloomington-Normal would give their Democratic elders more confidence that younger Democrats will be loyal as they age. How unique do you think Peoria is?
posted by crazy with stars at 3:18 PM on March 5, 2016
I think Duckworth's father was not active-duty at the time (unlike McCain's), which makes a difference, maybe, but we won't know until they litigate it? (And her mother was not a citizen at the time.) Anyway, I could be wrong, I don't pay close enough attention to anti-Duckworth attack ads to know the details of the argument, and it's kind-of a derail: Duckworth is great, hope she wins the Senate seat, looking forward to voting for her in November and seeing her at the national level for many years to come.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:19 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:19 PM on March 5, 2016
...nobody gets a second chance to lose a contest that costs as much as this one.
Except for Nixon. You won't have Mitt Nixon to kick around anymore!
posted by chimaera at 3:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Except for Nixon. You won't have Mitt Nixon to kick around anymore!
posted by chimaera at 3:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just why hasn't anyone suggested bringing Al Gore out of retirement?
Hounding a legit masseuse for a "happy ending" wasn't a good look, either.
posted by msalt at 3:20 PM on March 5, 2016
Hounding a legit masseuse for a "happy ending" wasn't a good look, either.
posted by msalt at 3:20 PM on March 5, 2016
Speaking of shenanigans, as someone who remembers 2000, I'm a little concerned about Florida this year. Anybody know if they ever got around to fixing their ballot and voting machine issues?
posted by panama joe at 3:21 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by panama joe at 3:21 PM on March 5, 2016
Yeah, political dynasties are so fucking scary. They give us awful leaders like those Kennedys. What a bunch of losers!
Seriously, that's where you want to take the tangent? Well, carry on then: I'm not going to waste my time on a pointless slapfight.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Seriously, that's where you want to take the tangent? Well, carry on then: I'm not going to waste my time on a pointless slapfight.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
"How unique do you think Peoria is?"
I have no idea, which is why I wouldn't generalize. I do hear from Democrat friends in the Chicago area that they face some similar dynamics, and I read about younger Democratic politicians who culture-clash with older-style Democratic politicians (lots of ink spilled lately about "machine" Democrats of the Mike Madigan vintage vs. younger Democrats in the statehouse of more recent vintage and whether the GOP can successfully peel off younger Democrats from supporting Madigan by exploiting those cultural differences; the answer is "probably not"). I expect it is one general dynamic in many places where the Democratic Party was strongly union or strongly an ethnic machine coalition, but I doubt it's the only dynamic at play and in plenty of parts of the country the Democrats don't have that background. But I'd think in the Midwest and the Northeast it might be a consideration? If the older generation is mostly union or ethnic machine, and the younger generation is mostly college-educated progressive technocrats, that could lead to some real tensions and differing priorities that might lead to not-great mentoring and development of younger candidates who are outside the comfort zone of the older leadership.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea, which is why I wouldn't generalize. I do hear from Democrat friends in the Chicago area that they face some similar dynamics, and I read about younger Democratic politicians who culture-clash with older-style Democratic politicians (lots of ink spilled lately about "machine" Democrats of the Mike Madigan vintage vs. younger Democrats in the statehouse of more recent vintage and whether the GOP can successfully peel off younger Democrats from supporting Madigan by exploiting those cultural differences; the answer is "probably not"). I expect it is one general dynamic in many places where the Democratic Party was strongly union or strongly an ethnic machine coalition, but I doubt it's the only dynamic at play and in plenty of parts of the country the Democrats don't have that background. But I'd think in the Midwest and the Northeast it might be a consideration? If the older generation is mostly union or ethnic machine, and the younger generation is mostly college-educated progressive technocrats, that could lead to some real tensions and differing priorities that might lead to not-great mentoring and development of younger candidates who are outside the comfort zone of the older leadership.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Duckworth's father was not active-duty at the time (unlike McCain's), which makes a difference, maybe, but we won't know until they litigate it?
I don't think birthright citizenship only extends to the children of active duty service members. It wasn't an issue for George Romney anyhow.
posted by peeedro at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2016
I don't think birthright citizenship only extends to the children of active duty service members. It wasn't an issue for George Romney anyhow.
posted by peeedro at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2016
Indeed, her dad was an American. If John McCain and Ted Cruz are eligible, surely she is.
Yeah but it's only ok if you're a republican. When a democrat is born outside the country it's because they're a secret muslim sleeper agent.
I think it's bullshit (though the born American thing is pretty much bullshit too) but there is some small difference with McCain being born in Panama.
Except for Nixon
Fair enough point, though in those 56 years we've gone from a 10M spend on the Nixon side in 1960 to an almost 500M spend by Romney in the last election. There's interesting stuff here about it, including some charts to show inflation adjustment. And while he somewhat waves aside the PAC component that isn't included there, I'd call that a big portion of my "nobody goes twice" argument.
posted by phearlez at 3:28 PM on March 5, 2016
Yeah but it's only ok if you're a republican. When a democrat is born outside the country it's because they're a secret muslim sleeper agent.
I think it's bullshit (though the born American thing is pretty much bullshit too) but there is some small difference with McCain being born in Panama.
Except for Nixon
Fair enough point, though in those 56 years we've gone from a 10M spend on the Nixon side in 1960 to an almost 500M spend by Romney in the last election. There's interesting stuff here about it, including some charts to show inflation adjustment. And while he somewhat waves aside the PAC component that isn't included there, I'd call that a big portion of my "nobody goes twice" argument.
posted by phearlez at 3:28 PM on March 5, 2016
Mod note: Okay, enough on the dynasty derail.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 3:32 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 3:32 PM on March 5, 2016
Eyebrows, diathelia, crazy with stars: do you think that the pushback from establishment party players against newcomers splits more along class lines or along generational lines, or is simply a culture/seniority/johnny-come-lately thing(sorry in advance if this is piling on to a derail)?
posted by eclectist at 3:42 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by eclectist at 3:42 PM on March 5, 2016
where do you get your information about US politics
My main sources have been mostly mentioned in this thread. Also, both Dutch and Finnish news (and comedy news) are following the whole circus closely. Honestly, I think it's mostly because of the entertainment value, this early on. That, and the impending doom for the free world...
On a lighter note, here you have the Google translation of the current American campaigns explained to elementary school aged Dutch children on the Jeugdjournaal, Youth News. (The news are here part of the school curriculum from very early on.) The main candidates in a nutshell:
posted by sively at 3:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
My main sources have been mostly mentioned in this thread. Also, both Dutch and Finnish news (and comedy news) are following the whole circus closely. Honestly, I think it's mostly because of the entertainment value, this early on. That, and the impending doom for the free world...
On a lighter note, here you have the Google translation of the current American campaigns explained to elementary school aged Dutch children on the Jeugdjournaal, Youth News. (The news are here part of the school curriculum from very early on.) The main candidates in a nutshell:
- [Clinton] would prefer to work for the rights of minorities and ordinary Americans. -- Trump is known as someone who makes a lot of arguing and he wants to have the least number of foreigners coming to America. He finds two very important things: money and win. -- [Sanders] wants to do a lot for poor Americans and found that rich people should pay more. -- Ted Cruz won as a child much debate competitions and likes to wear cowboy boots. [sic]
posted by sively at 3:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd say it's class lines. What's funny is people that I get into disagreements will believe it is generational/seniority. I once got my university dean to wryly complain to me (while a grad student) that my kind of conflict with them "seems to be a generational difference"!
But it's not generational, or at least not bi-generational. Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter are examples of people, i.e. elders, who have actively argued the message that the democratic system has been bought out. Thus this is not an intergenerational conflict: these are examples of figures that young people do turn to for ideas.
posted by polymodus at 3:49 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But it's not generational, or at least not bi-generational. Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter are examples of people, i.e. elders, who have actively argued the message that the democratic system has been bought out. Thus this is not an intergenerational conflict: these are examples of figures that young people do turn to for ideas.
posted by polymodus at 3:49 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"(though the born American thing is pretty much bullshit too)"
To be fair, Chaplin was English, American comics don't have the talent fight fascists without employing violence.
Their clowns, like the politicans they prop up.
posted by clavdivs at 3:54 PM on March 5, 2016
To be fair, Chaplin was English, American comics don't have the talent fight fascists without employing violence.
Their clowns, like the politicans they prop up.
posted by clavdivs at 3:54 PM on March 5, 2016
To be fair, we employ our comics to make us laugh; it's really not in their job description to destroy fascism.
posted by el io at 3:56 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by el io at 3:56 PM on March 5, 2016
I expect it is one general dynamic in many places where the Democratic Party was strongly union or strongly an ethnic machine coalition, but I doubt it's the only dynamic at play and in plenty of parts of the country the Democrats don't have that background. But I'd think in the Midwest and the Northeast it might be a consideration?
Here in Pittsburgh, I've seen an almost complete switch-over in the last fifteen years from the old union/ethnic/machine Democrats to younger college educated technocratic types. I think that there's only one city council person without a college degree and quite a few of them have masters degrees. I'm actually older than the mayor and all but one council person. I could see at least a couple of them moving on to bigger things in the state or nationally, especially Dan Gillian and Natalia Rudiak.
posted by octothorpe at 3:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here in Pittsburgh, I've seen an almost complete switch-over in the last fifteen years from the old union/ethnic/machine Democrats to younger college educated technocratic types. I think that there's only one city council person without a college degree and quite a few of them have masters degrees. I'm actually older than the mayor and all but one council person. I could see at least a couple of them moving on to bigger things in the state or nationally, especially Dan Gillian and Natalia Rudiak.
posted by octothorpe at 3:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everybody knows guitars destroy fascists, not comics.
posted by mmoncur at 3:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 3:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I did find it funny that the Jeugdjournaal article didn't mention Little Marco at all.
posted by dhens at 4:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dhens at 4:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in the giant game of What-On-Earth-Is-Going-On that has been and continues to be the Republican primary ...
Have Cruz's Super Tuesday victories finally put him in place as the anti-Trump?
Or do closed primaries and caucuses really keep out that much of Trump's base?
Or are Cruz's messages finding their audience?
Or is this a statistical blip?
Does anybody have the faintest idea what is going on tonight?
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on March 5, 2016
Have Cruz's Super Tuesday victories finally put him in place as the anti-Trump?
Or do closed primaries and caucuses really keep out that much of Trump's base?
Or are Cruz's messages finding their audience?
Or is this a statistical blip?
Does anybody have the faintest idea what is going on tonight?
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on March 5, 2016
I did find it funny that the Jeugdjournaal article didn't mention Little Marco at all.
He's easy to overlook.
I'll show myself out
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:03 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's easy to overlook.
I'll show myself out
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:03 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
do you think that the pushback from establishment party players against newcomers splits more along class lines or along generational lines, or is simply a culture/seniority/johnny-come-lately thing(sorry in advance if this is piling on to a derail)?
Another great question. My experience is that it's largely generational and based more in petty/territorial personal politics than in anything ideological, but there definitely could be class elements too, especially for older people who tend to see college education as a luxury rather than a minimal requirement to find a job with a living wage, which it has increasingly become.
Class differences and generational differences can be really difficult to tease apart, too. In my experience, a lot of older people seem to think that younger people are richer and more spoiled than they really are, just because trade deals with e.g. China and Mexico have made clothes and technology so much cheaper that young people appear to have more material wealth than older people did at their ages. Meanwhile, young people are paying so much more for college and health care (and housing, if you want one of those good "creative-class" jobs in big cities that are increasingly our only ladder into the middle class) that they are actually worse off economically than previous generations were. This article has a great figure showing how prices for material goods have gone way down even while costs for college and health care have risen precipitously, and this piece shows how much more important a college education is for escaping poverty; while only 7% of early boomers with only a high school education lived in poverty in 1979, 22% of millenials without college educations live in poverty today.
Those costs are mostly invisible, though, and older people see younger people with their smartphones and televisions and assume they must be rich; in actuality, they can afford those things only because of crappy trade deals (and other factors, like reduced demand from the middle class due to income inequality) that left them with such decreased middle-class job prospects that they're basically screwed on making a living wage if they don't go to college.
posted by dialetheia at 4:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Another great question. My experience is that it's largely generational and based more in petty/territorial personal politics than in anything ideological, but there definitely could be class elements too, especially for older people who tend to see college education as a luxury rather than a minimal requirement to find a job with a living wage, which it has increasingly become.
Class differences and generational differences can be really difficult to tease apart, too. In my experience, a lot of older people seem to think that younger people are richer and more spoiled than they really are, just because trade deals with e.g. China and Mexico have made clothes and technology so much cheaper that young people appear to have more material wealth than older people did at their ages. Meanwhile, young people are paying so much more for college and health care (and housing, if you want one of those good "creative-class" jobs in big cities that are increasingly our only ladder into the middle class) that they are actually worse off economically than previous generations were. This article has a great figure showing how prices for material goods have gone way down even while costs for college and health care have risen precipitously, and this piece shows how much more important a college education is for escaping poverty; while only 7% of early boomers with only a high school education lived in poverty in 1979, 22% of millenials without college educations live in poverty today.
Those costs are mostly invisible, though, and older people see younger people with their smartphones and televisions and assume they must be rich; in actuality, they can afford those things only because of crappy trade deals (and other factors, like reduced demand from the middle class due to income inequality) that left them with such decreased middle-class job prospects that they're basically screwed on making a living wage if they don't go to college.
posted by dialetheia at 4:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's beginning to look like Cruz might take 4 of 5 states in play, which is good news all around, I think.
It makes Trump stumble, it keeps things up in the air for the Republicans, and if things do end up coalescing around Cruz, well, he's not a winner in the general under any circumstances, I don't think. He wouldn't be quite as damaging to the GOP itself as Trump would be, but nearly so.
Sanders also appears to be set to do well, which is heartening. Harder to tell if it's a good thing in terms of the dirty machinations of politicking and winning elections, but as someone who would like to see his ideas get more airplay and more traction, I'm happy to see it, at least.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
It makes Trump stumble, it keeps things up in the air for the Republicans, and if things do end up coalescing around Cruz, well, he's not a winner in the general under any circumstances, I don't think. He wouldn't be quite as damaging to the GOP itself as Trump would be, but nearly so.
Sanders also appears to be set to do well, which is heartening. Harder to tell if it's a good thing in terms of the dirty machinations of politicking and winning elections, but as someone who would like to see his ideas get more airplay and more traction, I'm happy to see it, at least.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
"it's really not in their job description to destroy fascism."
Perhaps your right, the first amendment is pesky about that. How about business, because it was basically verboten to criticize fascists on American radio, see Eddie Cantor and others.
No, we don't want our comedians speaking up when powerful interests stifle them.
posted by clavdivs at 4:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Perhaps your right, the first amendment is pesky about that. How about business, because it was basically verboten to criticize fascists on American radio, see Eddie Cantor and others.
No, we don't want our comedians speaking up when powerful interests stifle them.
posted by clavdivs at 4:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or ... is tonight about the penis thing? Did that finally make both Rubio and Trump looks so unpresidential that the votes are going to Cruz?
Did Rubio just sacrifice himself by throwing his candidacy on the live grenade of Donald Trump's penis?
(And how is it possible that I am writing those words in that order? How?)
posted by kyrademon at 4:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [33 favorites]
Did Rubio just sacrifice himself by throwing his candidacy on the live grenade of Donald Trump's penis?
(And how is it possible that I am writing those words in that order? How?)
posted by kyrademon at 4:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [33 favorites]
This is superb. The Republican race is turning into an even bigger mess! Cruz is cleaning up, Rubio is tanking, and Trump is stumbling badly!
I am so happy. A toast! Confusion to our enemies! Sláinte!
posted by Justinian at 4:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I am so happy. A toast! Confusion to our enemies! Sláinte!
posted by Justinian at 4:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
In my town, it's not straight class or generational. It's a more complex insider/ outsider thing. You can become an insider in a lot of ways: you can come from an established political family, you can be vouched for by a union, or you can have spent a long time being involved in certain highly proscribed ways that prove your loyalty and reliability. You can also be a charismatic young man, and the dudes in charge may be blown away by your eloquence and intelligence and how much you remind them of themselves as a young man and invite you to a seat at the table. As far as I can tell, that's not a path open to young women.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:19 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I just got back from voting (New Orleans). It was my 18 year old's first time voting - they made a big deal about it, showed her how to use the booth, clapped when she came out and gave her candy. The girl after her was a first-time voter too so more clapping and candy. My daughter's boyfriend voted about a mile away (also for the first time) and no one cared at all or noticed over there so he is very offended.
So for their first time voting, they get to vote against Trump. The first time I ever voted, it was to vote against David Duke. Good times.
posted by artychoke at 4:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [30 favorites]
So for their first time voting, they get to vote against Trump. The first time I ever voted, it was to vote against David Duke. Good times.
posted by artychoke at 4:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [30 favorites]
"As far as I can tell, that's not a path open to young women."
Yeah, I felt like it was a combination of class and generational factors that I was observing in general, but it's very complicated by exclusion that I felt was clearly due to my gender, and a certain amount of provincialism very common in my local politics where if you weren't BORN here (into the right sort of family), you're not taken very seriously. It's a little tough for me to disentangle my personal experience from the more general trends I saw. (And, again, impossible for me to generalize those trends without a lot more information.)
It was also clear to me there was a complex hierarchy of union membership (steamfitters were more respected than plumbers) that affected who was encouraged to run for what, but I only caught the barest hints of that, not being union myself.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:25 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I felt like it was a combination of class and generational factors that I was observing in general, but it's very complicated by exclusion that I felt was clearly due to my gender, and a certain amount of provincialism very common in my local politics where if you weren't BORN here (into the right sort of family), you're not taken very seriously. It's a little tough for me to disentangle my personal experience from the more general trends I saw. (And, again, impossible for me to generalize those trends without a lot more information.)
It was also clear to me there was a complex hierarchy of union membership (steamfitters were more respected than plumbers) that affected who was encouraged to run for what, but I only caught the barest hints of that, not being union myself.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:25 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Cruz has won Maine and Kansas. Kentucky is fairly close though Trump has a slight lead. He better hope he hangs on there. If Trump loses three out of four tonight there are giant holes in the USS TRUMP.
posted by Justinian at 4:35 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:35 PM on March 5, 2016
Been saying it will be Cruz. But if Trump has the most delegates he will win, because he would feel free to disregard his earlier pledge to not run as an independent. You can bet his election lawyers have the applications ready to go. If the GOP comes in third, you have to ask about electoral viability. So they will cave.
Alternatively, the one guy that can end Trump instantly is Donald Trump. I could see him just up and quitting. If he starts losing state after state, he could bolt the GOP pre-convention.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Alternatively, the one guy that can end Trump instantly is Donald Trump. I could see him just up and quitting. If he starts losing state after state, he could bolt the GOP pre-convention.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
How would nominee Cruz do in the face of a shellshocked party? Doesn't the establishment hate him, too? How would the base feel towards him?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:38 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 4:38 PM on March 5, 2016
I hope SNL draws up something good tonight against this maniac. Something memorable.
posted by cashman at 4:41 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by cashman at 4:41 PM on March 5, 2016
“Went to a Donald Trump speech on acid SUPER BAD VIBES”
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Alternatively, the one guy that can end Trump instantly is Donald Trump. I could see him just up and quitting.
Yeah, that's pretty much the fantasy scenario I've concocted for myself. But he won't quit soon, he'll wait until October 29th, and have a press conference where he comes out supporting Clinton, and tell the world that they should have seen it coming
"I gave money to her campaign, I've supported a pro-immigration stance, I've been actively pro-choice! What makes you fools believe this shit I've been shoveling to you for the past few months? SUCKERS! Vote Hillary; you literally have no choice!"
a man can dream.
posted by el io at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's pretty much the fantasy scenario I've concocted for myself. But he won't quit soon, he'll wait until October 29th, and have a press conference where he comes out supporting Clinton, and tell the world that they should have seen it coming
"I gave money to her campaign, I've supported a pro-immigration stance, I've been actively pro-choice! What makes you fools believe this shit I've been shoveling to you for the past few months? SUCKERS! Vote Hillary; you literally have no choice!"
a man can dream.
posted by el io at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the establishment hate him, too?
The establishment hates Ted Cruz like the sun is a mildly warm globe of gas.
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
The establishment hates Ted Cruz like the sun is a mildly warm globe of gas.
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm simply leery of the "old people this, young people that" narrative. It requires evidence that merely being old influences an individual's political views in some essential way, and I feel that's a difficult argument to construct. One can observe that a particular generation tends to lean towards certain politics, but that's different that explaining it as due to age.
Simple example: baby boomers are a generation, by definition. But their particularities are usually explained and discussed by teasing apart the context of their socioeconomic class. It's partly a conceptual taxonomy—the original question was, is it because class or because generations? But why does that question really matter, i.e. what is the implication if one perspective is favored or the other? For example, I thought the question was about causation. So the formulation and motivation of the question is an underlying issue.
posted by polymodus at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2016
Simple example: baby boomers are a generation, by definition. But their particularities are usually explained and discussed by teasing apart the context of their socioeconomic class. It's partly a conceptual taxonomy—the original question was, is it because class or because generations? But why does that question really matter, i.e. what is the implication if one perspective is favored or the other? For example, I thought the question was about causation. So the formulation and motivation of the question is an underlying issue.
posted by polymodus at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2016
"Vote Hillary; you literally have no choice!"
I wish MeFi can still post pictures, because
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I wish MeFi can still post pictures, because
posted by Apocryphon at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
We live in a democracy, even if many of the other people who live here with us don't vote the way we would like. The way to stop Trump is at the ballot box, not with undemocratic backroom dealing that only fuels candidates like him.
The primary process is not really fundamental to democracy in any way, and its current form is a pretty recent development, as mentioned upthread. I believe many democracies have nothing like our primary system. It's easy to overlook this. Even if superdelegates are kinda dumb and the DNC really does push "their" candidates, that's kinda their prerogative as a party.
posted by snofoam at 4:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The primary process is not really fundamental to democracy in any way, and its current form is a pretty recent development, as mentioned upthread. I believe many democracies have nothing like our primary system. It's easy to overlook this. Even if superdelegates are kinda dumb and the DNC really does push "their" candidates, that's kinda their prerogative as a party.
posted by snofoam at 4:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Kentucky Republican caucuses were a disaster; reporters I work with saw dozens of people turned away in multiple counties after waiting in line for hours because the polls closed at 4:00PM and they arbitrarily decided the cut-off point of getting in to vote was "the entrance to the parking lot" or "the doorway of the church." Lots of people angry they waited in their cars or walked on the Interstate to get in line to vote and weren't able to caucus. Only one polling site per county in most counties; some counties didn't even have that. Pretty badly organized across the board.
Of note: the party changed from a primary to a caucus so Rand Paul could run for both president and Senate at the same time; of course, Paul dropped out a month ago.
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 4:47 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Of note: the party changed from a primary to a caucus so Rand Paul could run for both president and Senate at the same time; of course, Paul dropped out a month ago.
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 4:47 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
I hope SNL draws up something good tonight against this maniac. Something memorable.
The entire show will be wall-to-wall dick jokes.
posted by zarq at 4:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The entire show will be wall-to-wall dick jokes.
posted by zarq at 4:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Apropos of nothing (other than the primaries), around six hours ago Trump had a ~72% chance of becoming Republican nominee on Predictwise. When the first results started coming in, favouring Cruz, he dropped to a low of 60%, but as of now Trump has bounced back up to 68%...
posted by adrianhon at 4:54 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by adrianhon at 4:54 PM on March 5, 2016
As an American living overseas for close to 17 years now, what I find increasingly frustrating is how the hype around the presidential race has increased over this period of time, resulting in two related effects: people of the establishment left and right increasingly believing the US president is some blend of medieval king and powerful wizard, while (naturally) overlooking the actually, vitally important midterms and local elections.
I mean if someone is voting X for president because they promise a bunch of changes that require legislation, it makes zero sense to then sit at home when elections for actual lawmakers come up. So why does it happen? For a whole slew of reasons that help support the inaccurate but wildly popular idea that a president is a godking who merely waves his magic staff over the lands and voila, progress.
I don't mean to dismiss what kind of power the president actually has; but the presidency itself distracts people who seem to care about specific issues from voting in local and congressional elections where those changes could actually happen. After all, better to have legislators on your side than the president. But the simplicity of "if we get X in the White House all our problems are over/if we don't get X in the White House we are doomed" is deceptively appealing.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I mean if someone is voting X for president because they promise a bunch of changes that require legislation, it makes zero sense to then sit at home when elections for actual lawmakers come up. So why does it happen? For a whole slew of reasons that help support the inaccurate but wildly popular idea that a president is a godking who merely waves his magic staff over the lands and voila, progress.
I don't mean to dismiss what kind of power the president actually has; but the presidency itself distracts people who seem to care about specific issues from voting in local and congressional elections where those changes could actually happen. After all, better to have legislators on your side than the president. But the simplicity of "if we get X in the White House all our problems are over/if we don't get X in the White House we are doomed" is deceptively appealing.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
do you think that the pushback from establishment party players against newcomers splits more along class lines or along generational lines, or is simply a culture/seniority/johnny-come-lately thing
I dunno, in this race, honestly, I think a lot of the divisions come down to whether or not you see "outsider" status as a good thing. Personally, I don't get the outsider thing. Seeking an "outsider" for the presidency is tantamount to hiring an orchestral composer to run a potato farm. I see an election as essentially a hiring decision, so I'm going to hire the person best qualified for the job. Of course, this identifies me as part of the Old Evil Establishment. But I think that's where the sharpest dividing line is.
(of course, depending on your definition, you could argue that neither Democratic candidate is an "outsider")
posted by panama joe at 5:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I dunno, in this race, honestly, I think a lot of the divisions come down to whether or not you see "outsider" status as a good thing. Personally, I don't get the outsider thing. Seeking an "outsider" for the presidency is tantamount to hiring an orchestral composer to run a potato farm. I see an election as essentially a hiring decision, so I'm going to hire the person best qualified for the job. Of course, this identifies me as part of the Old Evil Establishment. But I think that's where the sharpest dividing line is.
(of course, depending on your definition, you could argue that neither Democratic candidate is an "outsider")
posted by panama joe at 5:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's kind of how I see it. I wouldn't look for an outsider when I need a heart transplant and choosing a head of state/government seems about as important for our people.
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The way I usually frame it with less-politics-obsessed acquaintances is 'this isn't a personal ad, it's a job interview.'
posted by box at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
How would nominee Cruz do in the face of a shellshocked party? Doesn't the establishment hate him, too? How would the base feel towards him?
I feel like "at least he's not Trump" is cover enough for the establishment to line up behind him, and certainly as hated as he is by the establishment nobody would be singling him out in the way Mitt did to Trump because he's not an existential threat to the party, but support would probably be half-hearted and I could definitely see Senate hopefuls with a serious Dem challenger scrambling to distance themselves from him after all of his shutdown hijinks.
In general I really can't see Cruz inspiring a lot of enthusiasm from much of anybody, though. He'd come across like weak tea after the bombast of Trump. I mean Mitt's whole thing basically felt like dad threatened to pull the car over if the kids didn't calm down and go with Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, that kind of puts a damper on the energy. Any other year and Cruz would be the most outrageous guy up there with that tantrum-throwing dogwhistling energy that he and his Tea Party pals rode into office on, but Trump just made even the Tea Party nutbags look like boring stuffed shirts.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like "at least he's not Trump" is cover enough for the establishment to line up behind him, and certainly as hated as he is by the establishment nobody would be singling him out in the way Mitt did to Trump because he's not an existential threat to the party, but support would probably be half-hearted and I could definitely see Senate hopefuls with a serious Dem challenger scrambling to distance themselves from him after all of his shutdown hijinks.
In general I really can't see Cruz inspiring a lot of enthusiasm from much of anybody, though. He'd come across like weak tea after the bombast of Trump. I mean Mitt's whole thing basically felt like dad threatened to pull the car over if the kids didn't calm down and go with Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, that kind of puts a damper on the energy. Any other year and Cruz would be the most outrageous guy up there with that tantrum-throwing dogwhistling energy that he and his Tea Party pals rode into office on, but Trump just made even the Tea Party nutbags look like boring stuffed shirts.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think there's some confusion of "outsiders" here. It was brought up re: local party apparatus.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
what I find increasingly frustrating is how the hype around the presidential race has increased over this period of time, resulting in two related effects: people of the establishment left and right increasingly believing the US president is some blend of medieval king and powerful wizard, while (naturally) overlooking the actually, vitally important midterms and local elections.
I agree with your point about many people thinking the president is all-powerful, but turnout for midterm elections has been much lower since at least the 1950s. While it has slipped a bit and 2014 was especially bad, I'm not sure it's as recent of a trend as it might seem.
Re: "establishment"/"outsiders, the "outsider" thing is less about experience and more about the candidates' degree of culpability for the current state of affairs. I'm not too surprised that Republican voters would rather not vote for the same people who have screwed everything up for all the years they've been in power. To follow that kinda-problematic "hiring" metaphor (public service is different from business, and framing it in terms of business decisions benefits people like Trump) - would you promote someone who delivers terrible results just because they'd been hanging around for the last 20 years, or would you take a chance on someone else who might not have that experience, but who can at least correctly identify the problems caused by the earlier crew?
posted by dialetheia at 5:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree with your point about many people thinking the president is all-powerful, but turnout for midterm elections has been much lower since at least the 1950s. While it has slipped a bit and 2014 was especially bad, I'm not sure it's as recent of a trend as it might seem.
Re: "establishment"/"outsiders, the "outsider" thing is less about experience and more about the candidates' degree of culpability for the current state of affairs. I'm not too surprised that Republican voters would rather not vote for the same people who have screwed everything up for all the years they've been in power. To follow that kinda-problematic "hiring" metaphor (public service is different from business, and framing it in terms of business decisions benefits people like Trump) - would you promote someone who delivers terrible results just because they'd been hanging around for the last 20 years, or would you take a chance on someone else who might not have that experience, but who can at least correctly identify the problems caused by the earlier crew?
posted by dialetheia at 5:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Outsider" is most typically a way of saying said candidate is not a cynical carreer politician saying whatever needs to be said to stay in office and keep the coffers full of lobbyist cash. Which I think left and right have had a bit much of, and is why voters are sick of them.
And while it's easy to just think of picking a candidate as a "hiring decision", I think it's a little inaccurate to compare presidenting to potato farming or friggin' heart surgery. I mean, it's a job that requires skills, but most of these skills (e.g. diplomacy, rallying, policy crafting) are not ones that require a Masters in Presidentiating. Democracy is not (or shouldn't be) run like a business. The whole point is anyone can participate.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
And while it's easy to just think of picking a candidate as a "hiring decision", I think it's a little inaccurate to compare presidenting to potato farming or friggin' heart surgery. I mean, it's a job that requires skills, but most of these skills (e.g. diplomacy, rallying, policy crafting) are not ones that require a Masters in Presidentiating. Democracy is not (or shouldn't be) run like a business. The whole point is anyone can participate.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
So I'm seeing some internet ranting--random people on the internet, not even people pretending to be journalists--repeating this idea that Cruz wins "closed" primaries where people have to be registered as Republicans, while Trump wins the "open" primaries where anyone can vote for any party's candidates. The end result is that Democrats are pushing Trump to victory.
If this is because Trump draws in the crazies and bigots from both parties, this makes sense to me. It's not like Republicans have a monopoly on racism. The other possible explanation--strategic primary voting to saddle the GOP with their shittiest candidate--seems really far-fetched to me. I can't see how you'd assemble a critical mass of such voters without a directed effort, and that would come out into the open really fast.
But damn, I would feel a lot better about this whole mess if Trump's support was in large part just a giant trolling op by Democrats who'll destroy him in the general. I don't believe it for a second, but it sure is a nice thought.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If this is because Trump draws in the crazies and bigots from both parties, this makes sense to me. It's not like Republicans have a monopoly on racism. The other possible explanation--strategic primary voting to saddle the GOP with their shittiest candidate--seems really far-fetched to me. I can't see how you'd assemble a critical mass of such voters without a directed effort, and that would come out into the open really fast.
But damn, I would feel a lot better about this whole mess if Trump's support was in large part just a giant trolling op by Democrats who'll destroy him in the general. I don't believe it for a second, but it sure is a nice thought.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, it's a job that requires skills, but most of these skills (e.g. diplomacy, rallying, policy crafting) are not ones that require a Masters in Presidentiating.
No, but they do require experience, personal knowledge, and connections to the other politicians who will be key to pushing and supporting your agenda. Obama's biggest weakness as a President, in my opinion, is that he lacks those connections and does not deal well with Congress. Look at Biden for someone who is his polar opposite in that regard. And has been quite important in helping Obama with this weakness. But a VP is no substitute for the P.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, but they do require experience, personal knowledge, and connections to the other politicians who will be key to pushing and supporting your agenda. Obama's biggest weakness as a President, in my opinion, is that he lacks those connections and does not deal well with Congress. Look at Biden for someone who is his polar opposite in that regard. And has been quite important in helping Obama with this weakness. But a VP is no substitute for the P.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
And while it's easy to just think of picking a candidate as a "hiring decision", I think it's a little inaccurate to compare presidenting to potato farming or friggin' heart surgery.
Disagreed. In my lifetime, I've seen successful presidents (Obama, Clinton, and (for better or for worse) Reagan) and unsuccessful presidents (Bush I and Bush II). I'm going to choose the candidate who has the best chance at being good at their job.
I mean, think of Bush II. Not only did he disagree with me, he sucked at his job. Post-invasion Iraq, Katrina, the economy. He fucked up. Couldn't handle his job. By any measure, he sucked. I'd rather elect someone who disagreed with me sometimes but would discharge their duties with competence and professionalism than someone I agreed with 100% whom I didn't think would succeed at their job.
posted by panama joe at 5:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Disagreed. In my lifetime, I've seen successful presidents (Obama, Clinton, and (for better or for worse) Reagan) and unsuccessful presidents (Bush I and Bush II). I'm going to choose the candidate who has the best chance at being good at their job.
I mean, think of Bush II. Not only did he disagree with me, he sucked at his job. Post-invasion Iraq, Katrina, the economy. He fucked up. Couldn't handle his job. By any measure, he sucked. I'd rather elect someone who disagreed with me sometimes but would discharge their duties with competence and professionalism than someone I agreed with 100% whom I didn't think would succeed at their job.
posted by panama joe at 5:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think there's some confusion of "outsiders" here. It was brought up re: local party apparatus.
You're absolutely right, but the confusion has made me think more about the current outsider/insider rhetoric in the GOP. It's interesting that the same language is being used to describe two phenomena that are similar: difficulty getting into local party organizations vs difficulty getting into national party organizations. It's like that phrase that someone in another thread said about both the left and the right being for smaller government: the left for less local control and more federal involvement and the right the other way 'round. Interesting.
posted by eclectist at 5:20 PM on March 5, 2016
You're absolutely right, but the confusion has made me think more about the current outsider/insider rhetoric in the GOP. It's interesting that the same language is being used to describe two phenomena that are similar: difficulty getting into local party organizations vs difficulty getting into national party organizations. It's like that phrase that someone in another thread said about both the left and the right being for smaller government: the left for less local control and more federal involvement and the right the other way 'round. Interesting.
posted by eclectist at 5:20 PM on March 5, 2016
Trump is the only one running as an outsider with zero political experience. Everyone else has had years, if not decades, in office. I think it's a mistake to conflate "outsider" with "lack of experience."
posted by teponaztli at 5:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 5:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
How would nominee Cruz do in the face of a shellshocked party? Doesn't the establishment hate him, too? How would the base feel towards him?
“Don’t vote for Trump.”posted by zombieflanders at 5:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
“Ok I’ll vote for Cruz.”
“Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo”
— Republican Establishment
"while Trump wins the "open" primaries where anyone can vote for any party's candidates. The end result is that Democrats are pushing Trump to victory. If this is because Trump draws in the crazies and bigots from both parties, this makes sense to me."
It's actually that people who are not registered as Republicans are pushing Trump to victory. An AWFUL LOT of people who are reliably Republican or Democrat are not registered as members of the party they vote for; many more who consider themselves "independents" (but reliably vote for one party) refuse to register with a party. I mean, I ran for office and I'm not registered as a Democratic voter (my state is also an open primary state so it doesn't really matter, unless you want to work as a poll watcher, in which case you must state a party affiliation).
A lot of people won't register as a member of a party because a) it's public information and that's uncomfortable to have all your neighbors and employers know about you and b) it gets you on a lot of mailing lists.
I expect most of the people voting for Trump in open primaries are reliable right-wing voters who, either because they consider themselves independents or because they don't want to publicly identify their party affiliation (either for personal reasons or to stay off mailing lists) or because they are lazy, have not registered as Republicans. Closed primaries draw a lot more people who are active in party activities and unabashed about their identification with that party and, therefore, tend to be friendlier to establishment candidates.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's actually that people who are not registered as Republicans are pushing Trump to victory. An AWFUL LOT of people who are reliably Republican or Democrat are not registered as members of the party they vote for; many more who consider themselves "independents" (but reliably vote for one party) refuse to register with a party. I mean, I ran for office and I'm not registered as a Democratic voter (my state is also an open primary state so it doesn't really matter, unless you want to work as a poll watcher, in which case you must state a party affiliation).
A lot of people won't register as a member of a party because a) it's public information and that's uncomfortable to have all your neighbors and employers know about you and b) it gets you on a lot of mailing lists.
I expect most of the people voting for Trump in open primaries are reliable right-wing voters who, either because they consider themselves independents or because they don't want to publicly identify their party affiliation (either for personal reasons or to stay off mailing lists) or because they are lazy, have not registered as Republicans. Closed primaries draw a lot more people who are active in party activities and unabashed about their identification with that party and, therefore, tend to be friendlier to establishment candidates.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Actually, I would argue that Ben Carson was the only real actual outsider, from either party. But in an election cycle so fueled by emotion and populist sentiment, "outsider" is very much a matter of perception.
posted by panama joe at 5:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 5:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kansas has been called for Sanders!
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Actually, I would argue that Ben Carson was the only real actual outsider in this entire election cycle.
Oh yeah, Carson! How quickly one forgets, it seems.
posted by teponaztli at 5:30 PM on March 5, 2016
Oh yeah, Carson! How quickly one forgets, it seems.
posted by teponaztli at 5:30 PM on March 5, 2016
Wow, and they're even calling it with 0% in - he must have done better than expected.
posted by dialetheia at 5:30 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:30 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jesus fucking Christ. Just as I was starting to get a little bit inured to his filth, I come across this little gem, buried at the bottom of a story about Trump asking a crowd to pledge to vote for him in the primary:
"You know, we have a divided country, folks. We have a terrible president who happens to be African-American. There has never been a greater division than just about what we have right now. The hatred, the animosity. I will bring people together. You watch," Trump said.
posted by HotToddy at 5:31 PM on March 5, 2016
"You know, we have a divided country, folks. We have a terrible president who happens to be African-American. There has never been a greater division than just about what we have right now. The hatred, the animosity. I will bring people together. You watch," Trump said.
posted by HotToddy at 5:31 PM on March 5, 2016
Yup: little-known fact about Iowa is that a plurality of Iowa voters are registered No Party, rather than Democrat or Republican. They are mostly not really independent: they lean one way or the other but have ideological or practical reasons not to want to declare.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:32 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:32 PM on March 5, 2016
I expect most of the people voting for Trump in open primaries are reliable right-wing voters...
I hope you're right. My read is that a lot of people who gave up on either party are wading back in to support Trump.
Has anyone polled whether the "new voters" are just new to the primaries or re/engaging voters?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:32 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope you're right. My read is that a lot of people who gave up on either party are wading back in to support Trump.
Has anyone polled whether the "new voters" are just new to the primaries or re/engaging voters?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:32 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Somebody tell Jello Biafra he needs to update California Uber Alles for Trump.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:35 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by entropicamericana at 5:35 PM on March 5, 2016
On Jello Biafra's whiteboard:
California Über AllesWe've Got A Bigger Problem Now- Just WTF America?
It kind of occurs to me - the Democratic nominee this time around will pretty much have to campaign not only against the Republican nominee, but also against the Republicans in Congress. I can't see either of them failing to raise the point that everything Obama got done was by the skin of his teeth, all because of Congress's stubborn refusal to do anything whatsoever. And even Obama hasn't REALLY gone there, has he? I wonder if having it repeatedly brought up during this window when more people are actually paying attention to politics could swing a few districts?
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maine GOP: We're going to announce the winner of our caucuses...but first a word from our sponsors!
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Economists Who Bashed Bernie Sanders' Tax Plan Admit They're Clueless: "We're Not Really Experts"
However, the analysis was fundamentally disingenuous, as it analyzes the tax increases in a vacuum and does not account for the tremendous amount of savings that would be realized by families using public health insurance and colleges. It also does not account for the overall economic benefit of 13 million new public sector jobs and the resulting flow of new money into the economy.
“We do not account for the effects of the new government programs on income,” TPC co-founder Leonard Burman told Politico, in a revealing quote buried thirteen paragraphs below Politico‘s misleading headline. “We’re not really experts on the spending component.”
Neither Politico nor the TPC bothered to compare Sanders’ new tax rates, which most adversely affect the richest 0.1 percent of Americans, with the amount of money families would save should Sanders’ proposals become reality.
Warren Gunnels, who serves as Sen. Sanders’ senior policy adviser, pointed out in a scathing press release that had the TPC bothered to do the comparative math, they would have found that an overwhelming majority would have more money in their pockets under Sanders’ proposals, not less. Gunnels pointed to a study by the nonpartisan think tank Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), which compared the new taxes to fund Sanders’ health care plan with the money families would save under a hypothetical single-payer health care system in the US.
posted by futz at 5:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
Gavin Newsom
Fucked his best friend's wife. I'd look elsewhere.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fucked his best friend's wife. I'd look elsewhere.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
instead of taking five minutes tops to log into a website and fill out a form. Why does honestcoyote have to go through all that awful time-consuming faff just to vote for the nominee they prefer? It's silly.
And if you have a weekend job, kids, a disability, are elderly, skint, &c., it's pretty much impossible to take part, presumably. Oh, right *penny drops*.
My parents, both retirees (and one of them has some mobility issues) tried to vote in the Kansas Democratic caucus and finally gave up and went home, too many long lines and too much standing. My sister (also in Kansas) had to skip voting because it's a Saturday and her kids have activities, soccer practice, etc. What a stupid system, makes me glad we have primaries here in Virginia.
posted by photo guy at 5:51 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
And if you have a weekend job, kids, a disability, are elderly, skint, &c., it's pretty much impossible to take part, presumably. Oh, right *penny drops*.
My parents, both retirees (and one of them has some mobility issues) tried to vote in the Kansas Democratic caucus and finally gave up and went home, too many long lines and too much standing. My sister (also in Kansas) had to skip voting because it's a Saturday and her kids have activities, soccer practice, etc. What a stupid system, makes me glad we have primaries here in Virginia.
posted by photo guy at 5:51 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
In my caucus everyone was really really cool about anyone that had mobility issues, elderly, carrying a baby, etc get ahead in line. It made me kinda misty eyed.
posted by ian1977 at 5:53 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 5:53 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some very strong 3st- and 4st-place showings for Marco. Feel the Rubiomentum!
posted by zombieflanders at 5:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 5:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
He can see 1st place from his big chair!
posted by ian1977 at 5:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 5:58 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump really sucks in caucus states, huh?
posted by leotrotsky at 6:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 6:01 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
In a caucus you have to absolutely be there in person, right? There is no way around that at all? My brain sometimes doesn't remember what my body can't do and if I were in a caucus state there would be no way for me to participate. If I have my facts right this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
In MN you had to show up but yo could totally just drop your ballot off and leave. Not sure how the republican caucus differs.
posted by ian1977 at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
Completely depends on the state. A lot of states allow absentee or proxy voting at caucuses. Iowa doesn't, and that's the caucus that most people pay the most attention to.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
> We should be paying that kind of attention to each other. It's just so different than what we get here in the US... I don't really know what TV news is like these days, but it certainly doesn't follow non-US politics that closely.
Al Jazeera America is still on and they do a lot of international news. The US election accounts for a refreshingly small part of their newscasts.
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
Al Jazeera America is still on and they do a lot of international news. The US election accounts for a refreshingly small part of their newscasts.
posted by homunculus at 6:04 PM on March 5, 2016
MSNBC calls Nebraska for Sanders, too!
posted by dialetheia at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
(Actually, it depends on the party and state. Democrats and Republicans can make up their own rules.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump really sucks in caucus states, huh?
Caucus states reward organization and smart ground game. Trump has neither of those, which is why Cruz has been largely dominating the caucus states. Trump has passionate and uninformed voters, which is why he's been dominating primaries. Rubio has no organization, no ground game, and no passionate voters, but he does have the ability to make people feel pity for him occasionally, which is why he won Minnesota.
posted by mightygodking at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Caucus states reward organization and smart ground game. Trump has neither of those, which is why Cruz has been largely dominating the caucus states. Trump has passionate and uninformed voters, which is why he's been dominating primaries. Rubio has no organization, no ground game, and no passionate voters, but he does have the ability to make people feel pity for him occasionally, which is why he won Minnesota.
posted by mightygodking at 6:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
I do wonder if trumpistas don't want to be publicly outed as Trump voters (which might happen at a caucus -- can someone enlighten me)?
Instead of dropping out now and endorsing Cruz, Rubio will stay in until at least Florida, mucking things up further.
posted by dhens at 6:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Instead of dropping out now and endorsing Cruz, Rubio will stay in until at least Florida, mucking things up further.
posted by dhens at 6:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
In a caucus you have to absolutely be there in person, right? There is no way around that at all? My brain sometimes doesn't remember what my body can't do and if I were in a caucus state there would be no way for me to participate. If I have my facts right this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
In WA, you can fill out a Surrogate Affidavit Form. (Democratic form linked, I'm sure the Republicans have one, too.)
FWIW: I'm in WA, and caucusing generally works fine for me (not this year, but hey, affidavit)...and I absolutely despise this system. It works great if you can check off most of the boxes on the social privilege checklist and you're socially outgoing like me. If you don't fit that description, it sucks. If you can't make it there for whatever reason, it sucks. If you suffer from any kind of social anxiety, it sucks. And guess how badly it sucks if you're vulnerable to any sort of voter intimidation, be it from an abusive partner or a bunch of crazies living in your neighborhood?
We need to get rid of caucusing. If you're thinking it's great because it gets people participating in democracy the way it should be, you're forgetting all the people who habitually get shut out of our democracy.
Mail-in ballots, private voting booths open all day (as a holiday), or GTFO.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [21 favorites]
In WA, you can fill out a Surrogate Affidavit Form. (Democratic form linked, I'm sure the Republicans have one, too.)
FWIW: I'm in WA, and caucusing generally works fine for me (not this year, but hey, affidavit)...and I absolutely despise this system. It works great if you can check off most of the boxes on the social privilege checklist and you're socially outgoing like me. If you don't fit that description, it sucks. If you can't make it there for whatever reason, it sucks. If you suffer from any kind of social anxiety, it sucks. And guess how badly it sucks if you're vulnerable to any sort of voter intimidation, be it from an abusive partner or a bunch of crazies living in your neighborhood?
We need to get rid of caucusing. If you're thinking it's great because it gets people participating in democracy the way it should be, you're forgetting all the people who habitually get shut out of our democracy.
Mail-in ballots, private voting booths open all day (as a holiday), or GTFO.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [21 favorites]
I'm really envious of Saturday primaries. Here in Massachusetts, for example, we had the primary on Super Tuesday. There's only early voting for state elections on even years (apparently), so early voting wasn't an option. To get an absentee ballot, you have to be unable to vote due to being 1) out of town, 2) disabled), or 3) can't vote because of religious reasons. I mean, in retrospect I guess technically to go to work I hopped over my town lines, even though I work 15 minutes away from my apartment. (I mean, I could literally walk 2 minutes and be in a different town, because we're pretty scrunched together in the Greater Boston Area.) But I feel like if you're not going to offer early voting, you should really allow anyone to get an absentee ballot.
I had to be at work from 10 am to 10 pm on that particular Tuesday, so yeah, I could have gone in before then, but mornings kill me, and I already was at work for 12 hours on Monday, and I spend a good 9 hours on my feet, so I just said fuck it, even though I felt a lot of guilt and disappointment about not voting. I also have a job where I absolutely have to be there unless I'm literally in the hospital or an immediate family member just died. But even with all that, at least I don't have any dependents to take into account.
I just feel like you can do better, Massachusetts, and any other state (aka it sounds like most states) that make voting way harder than it should be.
On preview: Mail-in ballots, private voting booths open all day (as a holiday), or GTFO.
Yes! We have all these fake holidays (like Columbus day), so why can't we have voting days be national holidays? If not, I still pick Saturday, and also making it super easy for anyone to vote by mail if they want to.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I had to be at work from 10 am to 10 pm on that particular Tuesday, so yeah, I could have gone in before then, but mornings kill me, and I already was at work for 12 hours on Monday, and I spend a good 9 hours on my feet, so I just said fuck it, even though I felt a lot of guilt and disappointment about not voting. I also have a job where I absolutely have to be there unless I'm literally in the hospital or an immediate family member just died. But even with all that, at least I don't have any dependents to take into account.
I just feel like you can do better, Massachusetts, and any other state (aka it sounds like most states) that make voting way harder than it should be.
On preview: Mail-in ballots, private voting booths open all day (as a holiday), or GTFO.
Yes! We have all these fake holidays (like Columbus day), so why can't we have voting days be national holidays? If not, I still pick Saturday, and also making it super easy for anyone to vote by mail if they want to.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Thanks sbd for the information. I would hope that there would be a mechanism for all people to participate whatever their situation. I could probably show up and drop a ballot off but no long lines or standing/sitting around for me.
Caucus's seem like they are ripe for fraud or intimidation or underhanded shenanigans.
posted by futz at 6:18 PM on March 5, 2016
Caucus's seem like they are ripe for fraud or intimidation or underhanded shenanigans.
posted by futz at 6:18 PM on March 5, 2016
The weird thing about Iowa's fucked-up caucus system is that we're genuinely great on voting access for everything but the caucus. You don't need a reason to get a mail-in ballot. We have in-person voting for weeks before the election at the county auditor's office but also at satellite voting stations set up at libraries, grocery stores, etc. It is so easy to vote in elections in Iowa, but we have this stupid, exclusionary caucus system because it's Tradition.
My sense is that the caucuses this time were such a mess that there might actually be some momentum towards changing them. Which would be great, because caucuses are super stupid.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
My sense is that the caucuses this time were such a mess that there might actually be some momentum towards changing them. Which would be great, because caucuses are super stupid.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of the two things that Arizona gets really right* is early voting. I'm on the permanent early ballot list and every election they just mail me a ballot and I fill it out and mail it back at my leisure. And if I don't mail it in time, I can just drop it off at the polling place without waiting in line. I don't know why everyone doesn't do it. There's absolutely no excuse not to vote in Arizona.
*The other thing is when they decided to not observe daylight savings time. The clocks never change! It's great!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
*The other thing is when they decided to not observe daylight savings time. The clocks never change! It's great!
posted by Weeping_angel at 6:23 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
They were a mess last time, too, just ask Rick Santorum.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 6:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Perhaps Trump does poorly in caucus states because you have to show up and put your face with your vote.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 6:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
We have all these fake holidays (like Columbus day), so why can't we have voting days be national holidays?
Just take Columbus Day, move it, and make it Democracy Day. That way the business interests that don't want another public holiday will have less to bitch about.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
Just take Columbus Day, move it, and make it Democracy Day. That way the business interests that don't want another public holiday will have less to bitch about.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [23 favorites]
Also, this is from a little while up thread, but:
But by and large, the younger people who might be working with the party under other circumstances seem to direct much of their political energy to issue-based movements like Occupy or Fight for 15 rather than the Democratic party.
When I was in high school, I was super into participating in politics. I spent weekends registering voters in the mall (two years before I could vote myself). I went to all the meetings at my local democratic party headquarters. I phone banked after school. I wrote letters to the editors. I pissed off a bunch of my evangelical Christian/Republican friends (and their parents); probably pissed off some teachers too, although most of them were pretty good natured about it. I also watched cable news way more than was healthy for my own sanity. I truly thought my future would be in politics.
And then I was crushed by the 2004 presidential election. I mean, seriously, USA? At least in 2000 the majority of voters did vote for Gore.* But in 2004, after everything that happened, a lump of coal should have beat George W.
It's not exactly that I swore off of politics after that. It's just that I was so scarred that I couldn't stomach it any more. It may not have hit me so hard if I wasn't completely surrounded my W's supporters who would swear up and down (probably to this day), that Saddam Hussein was totally behind 9/11 and also America and also Freedom Fries and also the gays and the Jews** are going to hell and taking the US with them.
Anyway, the point is, maybe some members of my cohort, like me, were disillusioned very early on about the possibility of accomplishing anything with party politics. I mean, don't get me wrong; I still take voting very seriously (see my other comment); I still cling to a shred of hope that maybe some day the tides will turn before global warming destroys us all. But most days, I just fantasize about moving to London. Or anywhere in the UK. Or really anywhere in Western Europe. I hear great things about Denmark! Also, Mads Mikkelsen is my all time movie star crush, so there's that.
(Sorry, Canada, but I think you're probably too cold for me. Last year's Boston winter pretty much destroyed any desire I had to move farther north in North America.)
*Don't get me started on the electoral college.
**I'm Jewish, and people said this implicitly and occasionally explicitly to my face. If I were openly gay, I can't even imagine what it would have been like for me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
But by and large, the younger people who might be working with the party under other circumstances seem to direct much of their political energy to issue-based movements like Occupy or Fight for 15 rather than the Democratic party.
When I was in high school, I was super into participating in politics. I spent weekends registering voters in the mall (two years before I could vote myself). I went to all the meetings at my local democratic party headquarters. I phone banked after school. I wrote letters to the editors. I pissed off a bunch of my evangelical Christian/Republican friends (and their parents); probably pissed off some teachers too, although most of them were pretty good natured about it. I also watched cable news way more than was healthy for my own sanity. I truly thought my future would be in politics.
And then I was crushed by the 2004 presidential election. I mean, seriously, USA? At least in 2000 the majority of voters did vote for Gore.* But in 2004, after everything that happened, a lump of coal should have beat George W.
It's not exactly that I swore off of politics after that. It's just that I was so scarred that I couldn't stomach it any more. It may not have hit me so hard if I wasn't completely surrounded my W's supporters who would swear up and down (probably to this day), that Saddam Hussein was totally behind 9/11 and also America and also Freedom Fries and also the gays and the Jews** are going to hell and taking the US with them.
Anyway, the point is, maybe some members of my cohort, like me, were disillusioned very early on about the possibility of accomplishing anything with party politics. I mean, don't get me wrong; I still take voting very seriously (see my other comment); I still cling to a shred of hope that maybe some day the tides will turn before global warming destroys us all. But most days, I just fantasize about moving to London. Or anywhere in the UK. Or really anywhere in Western Europe. I hear great things about Denmark! Also, Mads Mikkelsen is my all time movie star crush, so there's that.
(Sorry, Canada, but I think you're probably too cold for me. Last year's Boston winter pretty much destroyed any desire I had to move farther north in North America.)
*Don't get me started on the electoral college.
**I'm Jewish, and people said this implicitly and occasionally explicitly to my face. If I were openly gay, I can't even imagine what it would have been like for me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
Caucus's seem like they are ripe for fraud or intimidation or underhanded shenanigans.
I went to my Seattle neighborhood caucus in '08 feeling perfectly happy with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. What I remember is being in a room with a whole ton of strangers who were ostensibly supposed to talk things over and try to sway one another to switch sides, but pretty much everyone had made their minds up already. At that point, it's just awkward. In the end, you go to your respective corners and do a head-count and it feels like a very badly-managed middle school class activity. In the end, it's arbitrary as fuck. The Sorting Hat from Hogwarts would give you a more ethical and accurate result.
When that's done, you start trying to sort out who will serve as delegates to the state convention or caucus or wherever the whole thing is formally done. Theoretically you can volunteer for that regardless of who you supported in the initial headcount, but realistically nobody wants you as a delegate for Candidate A when you initially stood up for Candidate B.
My neighborhood caucus was fairly mellow, if awkward as I noted above. And it's also worth noting that I'm a straight white male, no physical handicaps, loud and clear voice, socially outgoing. I'm also a veteran & I've taught high school for ten years, so "Not Worried What Others Think of Me" is one of my best-cultivated traits. I'm not afraid to disagree with the crowd. But I can't imagine what this shit must be like if you don't walk in with all those advantages.
I want a system where my vote carries no more weight than that of the most disadvantaged person in the room. And where we don't have to both show up in a narrow, unforgiving window of time.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I went to my Seattle neighborhood caucus in '08 feeling perfectly happy with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. What I remember is being in a room with a whole ton of strangers who were ostensibly supposed to talk things over and try to sway one another to switch sides, but pretty much everyone had made their minds up already. At that point, it's just awkward. In the end, you go to your respective corners and do a head-count and it feels like a very badly-managed middle school class activity. In the end, it's arbitrary as fuck. The Sorting Hat from Hogwarts would give you a more ethical and accurate result.
When that's done, you start trying to sort out who will serve as delegates to the state convention or caucus or wherever the whole thing is formally done. Theoretically you can volunteer for that regardless of who you supported in the initial headcount, but realistically nobody wants you as a delegate for Candidate A when you initially stood up for Candidate B.
My neighborhood caucus was fairly mellow, if awkward as I noted above. And it's also worth noting that I'm a straight white male, no physical handicaps, loud and clear voice, socially outgoing. I'm also a veteran & I've taught high school for ten years, so "Not Worried What Others Think of Me" is one of my best-cultivated traits. I'm not afraid to disagree with the crowd. But I can't imagine what this shit must be like if you don't walk in with all those advantages.
I want a system where my vote carries no more weight than that of the most disadvantaged person in the room. And where we don't have to both show up in a narrow, unforgiving window of time.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:29 PM on March 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Just take Columbus Day, move it, and make it Democracy Day. That way the business interests that don't want another public holiday will have less to bitch about.
Sounds good for November elections. President's day seems like it would make a nice (and fitting!) primary day.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:30 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sounds good for November elections. President's day seems like it would make a nice (and fitting!) primary day.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:30 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Current status, via 538:
Republicans:
Kansas — Called for Cruz, who won by 25 percentage points.
Maine — Called for Cruz, who won by 13 points.
Louisiana — Called for Trump by AP; he’s up big based on early votes.
Kentucky — Still counting. Trump up by 9 points, although some of Cruz’s potentially better areas are outstanding.
Democrats:
Kansas — Called for Sanders, no data on margin of victory yet.
Nebraska — Called for Sanders, who’s up 10 percentage points with 75 percent reporting.
Louisiana — Called for Clinton, who will win huge.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:32 PM on March 5, 2016
Republicans:
Kansas — Called for Cruz, who won by 25 percentage points.
Maine — Called for Cruz, who won by 13 points.
Louisiana — Called for Trump by AP; he’s up big based on early votes.
Kentucky — Still counting. Trump up by 9 points, although some of Cruz’s potentially better areas are outstanding.
Democrats:
Kansas — Called for Sanders, no data on margin of victory yet.
Nebraska — Called for Sanders, who’s up 10 percentage points with 75 percent reporting.
Louisiana — Called for Clinton, who will win huge.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:32 PM on March 5, 2016
Last year's Boston winter pretty much destroyed any desire I had to move farther north in North America.
Move to Windsor.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Move to Windsor.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mail-in ballots, private voting booths open all day (as a holiday), or GTFO.
Holiday? As in only one day? Fuck that. Open the vote for thirty days. There's no damned reason to limit this to a short period except to gratify media (and you can be sure their deep pockets are part of why this gets little traction) and their need to horse race it all. Make at-a-time turnout smaller and you can better have the polls run by actual paid professionals instead of relying on volunteers.
(I love and appreciate our volunteers and I was one for years, but putting something this important on the backs of people who can wrangle free time to do that long days for no pay and who aren't necessarily up to date on the laws du jour is bullshit)
posted by phearlez at 6:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Holiday? As in only one day? Fuck that. Open the vote for thirty days. There's no damned reason to limit this to a short period except to gratify media (and you can be sure their deep pockets are part of why this gets little traction) and their need to horse race it all. Make at-a-time turnout smaller and you can better have the polls run by actual paid professionals instead of relying on volunteers.
(I love and appreciate our volunteers and I was one for years, but putting something this important on the backs of people who can wrangle free time to do that long days for no pay and who aren't necessarily up to date on the laws du jour is bullshit)
posted by phearlez at 6:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I still cling to a shred of hope that maybe some day the tides will turn before global warming destroys us all. But most days, I just fantasize about moving to London. Or anywhere in the UK. Or really anywhere in Western Europe. I hear great things about Denmark! [...] (Sorry, Canada, but I think you're probably too cold for me. "
But the global warming will drown London and Denmark and render Canada so pleasant!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:36 PM on March 5, 2016
But the global warming will drown London and Denmark and render Canada so pleasant!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:36 PM on March 5, 2016
Oh, and if we're in fantasy land, here's my thought about an overhaul of primary season:
Okay, so let's say we don't want to do all the primaries in one go because Political Theater or whatever.
Let's do regional primaries; divide the country up into 4-6 regions. Every week or every other week, we have one region do primary voting. None of this one state spread out every three weeks or whatever.
Most importantly, the order rotates. If the South East starts this presidential election, it goes last next time. And so on.
I mean, it's so crazy that somehow Iowa and New Hampshire basically get to be the end all and be all for like 5 months. (Nothing against those two states; it doesn't matter what state it is. Just the entire idea on it's face is ridiculous.)
And as for the electoral college, it can go die in a fire. Whoever wins the popular vote should win the election, end of story. Again, doing it any other way just seems ridiculous. Like, I live in Massachusetts. My vote matters for a lot of races (see Scott Brown or Charlie Baker, our current Republican governor), but almost certainly not for the presidential election. (I'll still vote, since at least I'll be able to early vote for the general election, supposedly.)
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Okay, so let's say we don't want to do all the primaries in one go because Political Theater or whatever.
Let's do regional primaries; divide the country up into 4-6 regions. Every week or every other week, we have one region do primary voting. None of this one state spread out every three weeks or whatever.
Most importantly, the order rotates. If the South East starts this presidential election, it goes last next time. And so on.
I mean, it's so crazy that somehow Iowa and New Hampshire basically get to be the end all and be all for like 5 months. (Nothing against those two states; it doesn't matter what state it is. Just the entire idea on it's face is ridiculous.)
And as for the electoral college, it can go die in a fire. Whoever wins the popular vote should win the election, end of story. Again, doing it any other way just seems ridiculous. Like, I live in Massachusetts. My vote matters for a lot of races (see Scott Brown or Charlie Baker, our current Republican governor), but almost certainly not for the presidential election. (I'll still vote, since at least I'll be able to early vote for the general election, supposedly.)
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:38 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holiday? As in only one day? Fuck that. Open the vote for thirty days.
Hey, WA has mail-in ballots with a wide time window for actual elections. It's great. (Okay, I actually like going into a voting booth, but I concede this is fairer & more efficient.) That system only makes our primary caucusing look even dumber by comparison, though.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:39 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hey, WA has mail-in ballots with a wide time window for actual elections. It's great. (Okay, I actually like going into a voting booth, but I concede this is fairer & more efficient.) That system only makes our primary caucusing look even dumber by comparison, though.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:39 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
"As in only one day? Fuck that. Open the vote for thirty days. There's no damned reason to limit this to a short period except to gratify media (and you can be sure their deep pockets are part of why this gets little traction)"
The race changes over time, though -- even with just early voting you get people who say, after a news story breaks, "If only I'd known X about candidate Y, I would have voted differently." I feel like a 30-day voting period would be highly susceptible to changing voter preferences and people wanting to change their votes; you'd almost have to pair it with a ban on campaigning during the 30 days, which wouldn't fly. Campaigns would strategically hold oppo on opposing candidates until halfway through the voting period to try to split opponent votes (i.e., it'd be like the primary where now the goal is to divide-and-conquer the GOP).
Which countries have multi-day voting periods, and are there any with such LONG open voting periods? I'd really have to see it in action before I was convinced it was a better, and not a worse, expression of voter desire; and not open to horrific manipulation by campaigns and media.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
The race changes over time, though -- even with just early voting you get people who say, after a news story breaks, "If only I'd known X about candidate Y, I would have voted differently." I feel like a 30-day voting period would be highly susceptible to changing voter preferences and people wanting to change their votes; you'd almost have to pair it with a ban on campaigning during the 30 days, which wouldn't fly. Campaigns would strategically hold oppo on opposing candidates until halfway through the voting period to try to split opponent votes (i.e., it'd be like the primary where now the goal is to divide-and-conquer the GOP).
Which countries have multi-day voting periods, and are there any with such LONG open voting periods? I'd really have to see it in action before I was convinced it was a better, and not a worse, expression of voter desire; and not open to horrific manipulation by campaigns and media.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd be fine with a 7 day open period.
Most importantly, the order rotates. If the South East starts this presidential election, it goes last next time. And so on.
I think it'd be better if each tranche was mixed - some from each region, mix of racial balance, urban/rural, etc.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:43 PM on March 5, 2016
Most importantly, the order rotates. If the South East starts this presidential election, it goes last next time. And so on.
I think it'd be better if each tranche was mixed - some from each region, mix of racial balance, urban/rural, etc.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:43 PM on March 5, 2016
How about a primary season by region and it changes each year based on turn out. That is, southwest had the highest turnout last election? Congrats your first in this years primary.
posted by ian1977 at 6:44 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The race changes over time, though -- even with just early voting you get people who say, after a news story breaks, "If only I'd known X about candidate Y, I would have voted differently." I feel like a 30-day voting period would be highly susceptible to changing voter preferences and people wanting to change their votes; you'd almost have to pair it with a ban on campaigning during the 30 days, which wouldn't fly.Iowa has early voting starting in late September. Anyone can do it, and a big part of Democratic strategy is getting people to vote as early as possible. We actually had a lot of votes in the bag before the presidential debates in 2012. Weird, but true.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:45 PM on March 5, 2016
Holiday? As in only one day? Fuck that. Open the vote for thirty days.
I actually think the mail in ballots is one of the best options. Also, for anyone without a primary address or whatever, let them go pick up a ballot whenever in person and drop it off/send it in by the deadline.
I mean, at the bare minimum, Saturday voting, and no excuse needed mail in ballots for all states, every election.
Of course, that's all assuming we're trying to maximize the ease with which people can vote, and clearly for a lot of people, that's not the goal.
And yeah, for anyone not living in the US, please don't rub it in. We know it's fucked and we're fucked. There is a very long list of other countries I would move to in a heart beat if immigration would let me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually think the mail in ballots is one of the best options. Also, for anyone without a primary address or whatever, let them go pick up a ballot whenever in person and drop it off/send it in by the deadline.
I mean, at the bare minimum, Saturday voting, and no excuse needed mail in ballots for all states, every election.
Of course, that's all assuming we're trying to maximize the ease with which people can vote, and clearly for a lot of people, that's not the goal.
And yeah, for anyone not living in the US, please don't rub it in. We know it's fucked and we're fucked. There is a very long list of other countries I would move to in a heart beat if immigration would let me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about a primary season by region and it changes each year based on turn out. That is, southwest had the highest turnout last election? Congrats your first in this years primary.
My concern is that this would do more to demoralize than encourage. I feel like it should be a blank slate, especially considering as currently discussed, there are so many barriers preventing people from voting if they want to.
I think it'd be better if each tranche was mixed - some from each region, mix of racial balance, urban/rural, etc.
I like this idea! Although this seems like it might make logistics more challenging. One other thing I like about the rotating (large) regions idea is that it seems like it would make it easier for people to know when there primary is. If you start segmenting by locality within states, and then change things each year, seems like that would make it harder to follow.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:52 PM on March 5, 2016
My concern is that this would do more to demoralize than encourage. I feel like it should be a blank slate, especially considering as currently discussed, there are so many barriers preventing people from voting if they want to.
I think it'd be better if each tranche was mixed - some from each region, mix of racial balance, urban/rural, etc.
I like this idea! Although this seems like it might make logistics more challenging. One other thing I like about the rotating (large) regions idea is that it seems like it would make it easier for people to know when there primary is. If you start segmenting by locality within states, and then change things each year, seems like that would make it harder to follow.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:52 PM on March 5, 2016
Move to Windsor.
literally nobody in the world deserves to be given this advice
Windsor is a place where the primary benefit of living there is "being next to Detroit"
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SEC
posted by mightygodking at 6:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
literally nobody in the world deserves to be given this advice
Windsor is a place where the primary benefit of living there is "being next to Detroit"
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SEC
posted by mightygodking at 6:55 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
I actually think the mail in ballots is one of the best options.
Yes! I lived in Oregon for many years and miss that system terribly. They also sent out useful voter information pamphlets, so I could just sit on the couch with my pamphlet and my ballot, do internet research while I voted, etc. and then just mail it in at my convenience. I had to go vote at the library in person this year (forgot to file for an absentee ballot) and it was bizarre and awful compared to the luxury of voting from my couch. Vote by mail is a vastly superior experience. Plus Oregon just passed automatic voter registration - I'll be interested to see how turnout responds.
On another Oregon note, this map of Trump support by county has been passed around a lot tonight, and I was totally unsurprised to see how well Trump does in Art Robinson country. I remember driving to Crescent City on 199 during the house race when he was running and the breathless overheated Tea Party racist anti-Obama signage was ubiquitous. It was the the most racist, hyperconservative signage I've ever seen in the west and it was on damn near every property.
posted by dialetheia at 6:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes! I lived in Oregon for many years and miss that system terribly. They also sent out useful voter information pamphlets, so I could just sit on the couch with my pamphlet and my ballot, do internet research while I voted, etc. and then just mail it in at my convenience. I had to go vote at the library in person this year (forgot to file for an absentee ballot) and it was bizarre and awful compared to the luxury of voting from my couch. Vote by mail is a vastly superior experience. Plus Oregon just passed automatic voter registration - I'll be interested to see how turnout responds.
On another Oregon note, this map of Trump support by county has been passed around a lot tonight, and I was totally unsurprised to see how well Trump does in Art Robinson country. I remember driving to Crescent City on 199 during the house race when he was running and the breathless overheated Tea Party racist anti-Obama signage was ubiquitous. It was the the most racist, hyperconservative signage I've ever seen in the west and it was on damn near every property.
posted by dialetheia at 6:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, what if we do it by time zones???
That way, we also don't have any of this, getting the results from the east coast while people in the west coast have polls that won't close for another 3 hours. (Okay, that may not help Alaska and Hawaii; maybe they get to pick their region? Or just include them in Pacific Time.)
We draw straws to see who starts, and also flip a coin to decide whether we go east or west. So let's say Central Time wins. And heads goes to "West".
So, for 2020, it goes Central -> Mountain -> Pacific -> Eastern
For 2024: Mountain -> Pacific -> Eastern -> Central
And so on.
Of course, this means not everyone in each state will vote on the same day, but maybe that's better. Mixes things up a bit. For example, based on this rubric, most of Florida would be voting in the last set, but the Western part of the panhandle gets to vote first.
I mean, it's not perfect, but it seems like it would be better than what we have now, although to be fair, that's a pretty low bar.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:57 PM on March 5, 2016
That way, we also don't have any of this, getting the results from the east coast while people in the west coast have polls that won't close for another 3 hours. (Okay, that may not help Alaska and Hawaii; maybe they get to pick their region? Or just include them in Pacific Time.)
We draw straws to see who starts, and also flip a coin to decide whether we go east or west. So let's say Central Time wins. And heads goes to "West".
So, for 2020, it goes Central -> Mountain -> Pacific -> Eastern
For 2024: Mountain -> Pacific -> Eastern -> Central
And so on.
Of course, this means not everyone in each state will vote on the same day, but maybe that's better. Mixes things up a bit. For example, based on this rubric, most of Florida would be voting in the last set, but the Western part of the panhandle gets to vote first.
I mean, it's not perfect, but it seems like it would be better than what we have now, although to be fair, that's a pretty low bar.
posted by litera scripta manet at 6:57 PM on March 5, 2016
I mean, at the bare minimum, Saturday voting
I think a traditional concern there is it discriminates against observant Jews. At the least, I think you'd want Sat and Sun.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think a traditional concern there is it discriminates against observant Jews. At the least, I think you'd want Sat and Sun.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Doesn't WA have both mail-in primaries *and* caucuses? And the parties get to decide how many delegates come from each process? I remember thinking (in 2008) that the dual system was ridiculous and wasteful.
It looks like for WA this year, the Republicans are 100% from the primary and the Democrats are 100% from the caucus. Maybe that's why no one talked about the WA Republican caucus on Feb 20 where I guess folks just voted for... not president. Is it unusual in a state for one party to pick one process and the other to pick the other (and the infrastructure to exist for both, for both)?
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 7:01 PM on March 5, 2016
It looks like for WA this year, the Republicans are 100% from the primary and the Democrats are 100% from the caucus. Maybe that's why no one talked about the WA Republican caucus on Feb 20 where I guess folks just voted for... not president. Is it unusual in a state for one party to pick one process and the other to pick the other (and the infrastructure to exist for both, for both)?
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 7:01 PM on March 5, 2016
I don't think that Saturday would be a problem as long as there was a provision for absentee voting. It was a big issue when there was a proposal to move the Iowa caucuses to Saturday, but that's because there's no way to participate if you can't go.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 PM on March 5, 2016
I think a traditional concern there is it discriminates against observant Jews. At the least, I think you'd want Sat and Sun.
Oh, yeah, of course. I should have thought of that. I mean, I'm Jewish, not observant, but still. But Saturday and Sunday seems like a good balance. Hell, maybe throw in Monday too for people who work on weekends. And also, mail in ballots for everyone!
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, yeah, of course. I should have thought of that. I mean, I'm Jewish, not observant, but still. But Saturday and Sunday seems like a good balance. Hell, maybe throw in Monday too for people who work on weekends. And also, mail in ballots for everyone!
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
And loads of people work on Saturday. You might even argue that Saturday-only voting is biased against people in non-white collar jobs.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:03 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:03 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie Sanders omitted in Democratic sample ballot of Chicago.
This is an advertisement put out by the Illinois DEM Party and it isn't illegal but it isn't right IMO. Things like this are very confusing to low information voters and others. And Bernie is obviously on the legal ballot but his name is last. From reddit: On the real ballot, Hillary is listed first, and Bernie is listed dead last after Martin O'Malley, Willie Wilson and Rocky De La Fuente.
Which leads me to ask how is the order of candidates chosen on a ballot?
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on March 5, 2016
This is an advertisement put out by the Illinois DEM Party and it isn't illegal but it isn't right IMO. Things like this are very confusing to low information voters and others. And Bernie is obviously on the legal ballot but his name is last. From reddit: On the real ballot, Hillary is listed first, and Bernie is listed dead last after Martin O'Malley, Willie Wilson and Rocky De La Fuente.
Which leads me to ask how is the order of candidates chosen on a ballot?
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on March 5, 2016
"Which leads me to ask how is the order of candidates chosen on a ballot?"
In Illinois, by order of filing or, should multiple candidates file at the same time (i.e., be in line all at once when filing opens), by lottery.
Strategically they tell you to be either first or last on the ballot; if you can't file on the very first day when the filing period opens, or if too many other candidates are filing then and will create a lottery, many candidates choose to file on the very last day -- often in the last HOUR -- to try to be last on the ballot. Which is to say, Bernie being last is almost certainly a strategic decision by the Sanders campaign to avoid the first-day lottery and seek the last spot.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
In Illinois, by order of filing or, should multiple candidates file at the same time (i.e., be in line all at once when filing opens), by lottery.
Strategically they tell you to be either first or last on the ballot; if you can't file on the very first day when the filing period opens, or if too many other candidates are filing then and will create a lottery, many candidates choose to file on the very last day -- often in the last HOUR -- to try to be last on the ballot. Which is to say, Bernie being last is almost certainly a strategic decision by the Sanders campaign to avoid the first-day lottery and seek the last spot.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:09 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm not going to post 538 all night, but this seems interesting:
The very earliest returns in Louisiana, which were substantially composed of votes cast before election day, showed Trump at 48 percent, Cruz at 23 percent, and Rubio at 20 percent. Now? It’s Trump 43, Cruz 34 and Rubio 14, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State. The differences suggest a major gap between early votes and election-day returns, with Cruz surging in the past couple of days at the expense of both Trump and Rubio.
When added to the Maine and Kansas results, seems possibly indicative of a real movement from Trump to Cruz?
posted by Chrysostom at 7:10 PM on March 5, 2016
The very earliest returns in Louisiana, which were substantially composed of votes cast before election day, showed Trump at 48 percent, Cruz at 23 percent, and Rubio at 20 percent. Now? It’s Trump 43, Cruz 34 and Rubio 14, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State. The differences suggest a major gap between early votes and election-day returns, with Cruz surging in the past couple of days at the expense of both Trump and Rubio.
When added to the Maine and Kansas results, seems possibly indicative of a real movement from Trump to Cruz?
posted by Chrysostom at 7:10 PM on March 5, 2016
Doesn't WA have both mail-in primaries *and* caucuses? And the parties get to decide how many delegates come from each process?
Hell, there's even this weird thing where we have an "election" sometime AFTER the caucuses, I think May, which is a totally non-binding beauty pageant. The whole thing is a mess.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:12 PM on March 5, 2016
Hell, there's even this weird thing where we have an "election" sometime AFTER the caucuses, I think May, which is a totally non-binding beauty pageant. The whole thing is a mess.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:12 PM on March 5, 2016
Bernie is the only candidate other than Hillary to file a full slate of delegates in Illinois (around 120), which means their campaign is well-organized and they probably COULD have filed on the first day; it's even possible that Sanders' campaign went to the Secretary of State's office to scope out how many other presidential campaigns were filing on the first morning of filing (everyone's in line by 8 a.m. for 9 a.m. filing, usually; it's cold) and then decided to file on the last day. They may have also pre-emptively decided to avoid the first-day lottery, correctly assuming that Clinton would file on day 1 and that the other, weaker candidates would file either on day one or as soon as they had enough signatures, and they could snipe off the last position at leisure.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:14 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most importantly, the order rotates. If the South East starts this presidential election, it goes last next time. And so on.
Primaries everywhere all on the same day in September. This fucking travelling minstrel circus show and half a term campaign season is unique to the developed world and the results speak for themselves. Every other civilized country gets their election over in six weeks.
posted by Talez at 7:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Primaries everywhere all on the same day in September. This fucking travelling minstrel circus show and half a term campaign season is unique to the developed world and the results speak for themselves. Every other civilized country gets their election over in six weeks.
posted by Talez at 7:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
This fucking travelling minstrel circus show and half a term campaign season is unique to the developed world ...
Not sure about the uniqueness, but the fact that we have scheduled elections means there's an arms race to increase the run-up. OTOH, I'm not sure short-notice elections are preferable.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:18 PM on March 5, 2016
Not sure about the uniqueness, but the fact that we have scheduled elections means there's an arms race to increase the run-up. OTOH, I'm not sure short-notice elections are preferable.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:18 PM on March 5, 2016
A week is too short. 30 days guarantees it'll cross at least one work period for people such that they'll have a day off (assuming they get them at all). I don't buy that this plays into gaming things; why would anyone hold on to opposition research? You have no idea when whose supporters will vote. You strike when you can.
posted by phearlez at 7:19 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by phearlez at 7:19 PM on March 5, 2016
Wow, political Twitter is all but demanding AP and the networks retract calling LA for Trump. It looks like the margin between him and Cruz is closing by ~1% every 10 minutes.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016
Most fun thing about the timezone idea is it could lead to gerrymandered time zones.
posted by joeyh at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by joeyh at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoa, NYT is reporting that Sanders' margin in Kansas is 68% Sanders to 32% Clinton, with 100% reporting. The only poll I saw on Kansas was from a week ago and had Clinton up by 10. Apparently turnout was up 10% from 2008, even.
posted by dialetheia at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:20 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Not sure about the uniqueness, but the fact that we have scheduled elections means there's an arms race to increase the run-up. OTOH, I'm not sure short-notice elections are preferable.
There's an arms race because every shitty little state wants to be noticed and get the massive amount of election $$$ that comes with starting momentum. So instead of a primary election you have 50 little mini elections, two parties, so 100 possible fucking dates to hold what is essentially the same contest.
You have everyone able to vote from September 1st-30th I guarantee you nobody will give a flying fuck prior to August.
posted by Talez at 7:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's an arms race because every shitty little state wants to be noticed and get the massive amount of election $$$ that comes with starting momentum. So instead of a primary election you have 50 little mini elections, two parties, so 100 possible fucking dates to hold what is essentially the same contest.
You have everyone able to vote from September 1st-30th I guarantee you nobody will give a flying fuck prior to August.
posted by Talez at 7:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only poll I saw on Kansas was from a week ago and had Clinton up by 10.
It's a small state caucus which are notoriously hard to poll. That's why nobody polled it.
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a small state caucus which are notoriously hard to poll. That's why nobody polled it.
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
No "election holiday" is going to work out perfectly. I mean, if you're concerned with people getting to the polls, you'd need to consider that lower-income folks are more likely to have to work on federal holidays than people in higher-paying jobs. Add to that the complication of public transportation (relied on more heavily by people with lower incomes) running on a diminished holiday schedule.
Might still be better than running elections on a regular work day, but there'd be inequality baked into it nonetheless. Like a shitty, shitty pie filling.
posted by duffell at 7:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Might still be better than running elections on a regular work day, but there'd be inequality baked into it nonetheless. Like a shitty, shitty pie filling.
posted by duffell at 7:24 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
We should have instant run off voting by pushing a button in a chip implanted in our left hand.
posted by ian1977 at 7:37 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 7:37 PM on March 5, 2016
So, now for a slightly fuller report. Not a bad day. Great result at the end. Like I said earlier, we counted heads and got 41 vs. 20 Clinton supporters on the other side of the room. My group's whips gathered the Bernie supporters into groups of ten. Took surprisingly long for such a simple thing. Herding cats. To be fair to the voters, while the instructions were not complicated, it wasn't something they had done since grade school (or maybe boot camp for some). The Clinton caucus captain and I (the Bernie captain) agreed on the total, shook hands, and it went down in the history books. Have to say this was one of my favorite handshakes ever. Felt like the end of a high school game ("good game!" "good game..."), and I felt just a tiny bit badass about accepting my opponents defeat and having a small effect on the upcoming national convention.
We shared the space (an elementary school) with another district. While ours went smoothly, the other, larger district had around 200-300 voters. Took them around 30-45 minutes to get an accurate count. Lots of confused voters wandering around. Bernie won that one: 5 delegates to 3. I never did hear what the vote count was.
I kinda knew Bernie had these districts in the bag from the very beginning. Lots more Bernie t-shirts (favorite: Bernie is my Patronus), and pins, and stickers in the crowd. We had 250 pins to give away and had exhausted them within an hour. The following hour had an eternal stream of "I heard you had pins..." I brought bottled water to give away, which I think swayed a couple of people to switch sides. Made quite a few people happy. Gave some bottles to Hillary supporters too, though I teased a few with offering water only if they changed sides, but I made sure they knew I wasn't serious.
And that was generally the attitude between the two groups today. Extremely friendly. Can't tell you how many conversations I had or overheard which the gist was: "I love your candidate! I just think mine is better right now." Had one woman lightly (and very slightly jokingly) chastise some of my female friends for being in the Bernie camp. She seemed happy though when we all said we'd happily vote for Hillary in November. Overall though, this was a large gathering of Democrats in a very red state, ruled by the arguably worst tea party idiot of them all. So, while people were grumbling about having to stand around instead of voting and leaving, there was a lot of "I never knew there were so many of us." It's probably hard for Democrats in blue states to imagine, but this was like the best support group ever. Even if your fellow liberal was supporting the "wrong" candidate, we still just couldn't get over hanging out with hundreds of people who shared our worldviews.
Everything was oriented around "Democrats first, maybe candidates later." Our voting phase was opened with a caucus official saying a botched quote from LBJ: "The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican". (Deafening cheers on this from both sides) That really was the mood of the day. Everything ran smoothly. People were registered quickly. Lines never overwhelmed the place. People could change party registrations on the spot. Very few were denied entry and everyone who was in line at the closing time of 3 was allowed to vote.
Here's a picture of the 2 districts gathered together in the school gym for the pre-game speeches. Was a really good day for Democrats being Democrats, and I'd like to think I'd feel just as happy about it even if Bernie lost.
posted by honestcoyote at 7:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [58 favorites]
We shared the space (an elementary school) with another district. While ours went smoothly, the other, larger district had around 200-300 voters. Took them around 30-45 minutes to get an accurate count. Lots of confused voters wandering around. Bernie won that one: 5 delegates to 3. I never did hear what the vote count was.
I kinda knew Bernie had these districts in the bag from the very beginning. Lots more Bernie t-shirts (favorite: Bernie is my Patronus), and pins, and stickers in the crowd. We had 250 pins to give away and had exhausted them within an hour. The following hour had an eternal stream of "I heard you had pins..." I brought bottled water to give away, which I think swayed a couple of people to switch sides. Made quite a few people happy. Gave some bottles to Hillary supporters too, though I teased a few with offering water only if they changed sides, but I made sure they knew I wasn't serious.
And that was generally the attitude between the two groups today. Extremely friendly. Can't tell you how many conversations I had or overheard which the gist was: "I love your candidate! I just think mine is better right now." Had one woman lightly (and very slightly jokingly) chastise some of my female friends for being in the Bernie camp. She seemed happy though when we all said we'd happily vote for Hillary in November. Overall though, this was a large gathering of Democrats in a very red state, ruled by the arguably worst tea party idiot of them all. So, while people were grumbling about having to stand around instead of voting and leaving, there was a lot of "I never knew there were so many of us." It's probably hard for Democrats in blue states to imagine, but this was like the best support group ever. Even if your fellow liberal was supporting the "wrong" candidate, we still just couldn't get over hanging out with hundreds of people who shared our worldviews.
Everything was oriented around "Democrats first, maybe candidates later." Our voting phase was opened with a caucus official saying a botched quote from LBJ: "The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican". (Deafening cheers on this from both sides) That really was the mood of the day. Everything ran smoothly. People were registered quickly. Lines never overwhelmed the place. People could change party registrations on the spot. Very few were denied entry and everyone who was in line at the closing time of 3 was allowed to vote.
Here's a picture of the 2 districts gathered together in the school gym for the pre-game speeches. Was a really good day for Democrats being Democrats, and I'd like to think I'd feel just as happy about it even if Bernie lost.
posted by honestcoyote at 7:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [58 favorites]
Whoa, NYT is reporting that Sanders' margin in Kansas is 68% Sanders to 32% Clinton, with 100% reporting. The only poll I saw on Kansas was from a week ago and had Clinton up by 10. Apparently turnout was up 10% from 2008, even.
Kansas is another fracking state. [WaPo] Bernie did well in the south along the OK border.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:49 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kansas is another fracking state. [WaPo] Bernie did well in the south along the OK border.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:49 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's incredible -- I think Donald Trump has been speaking for about 15 minutes, so far? And I don't think he's said one word about any actual policy. It's all personalities and horse-race and media mockery. Totally content-free.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
We should have instant run off voting by pushing a button in a chip implanted in our left hand.
RUNNER!
posted by clavdivs at 8:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
RUNNER!
posted by clavdivs at 8:05 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie is going to run this 5 minute documentary ad on Univision. It's pretty great, IMO.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:06 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 8:06 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Totally content-free.
And he got asked about policy/his position on gay marriage, and he berated the reporter and acted like it was a horrible question. Terrible. Pray for me, because if anybody I know says they're voting for this clown they're going to get an earful from me.
posted by cashman at 8:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
And he got asked about policy/his position on gay marriage, and he berated the reporter and acted like it was a horrible question. Terrible. Pray for me, because if anybody I know says they're voting for this clown they're going to get an earful from me.
posted by cashman at 8:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
On waterboarding/torture: Trump almost said "I wanna play..." (by the same rules as ISIS) but then realized mid-sentence that he probably shouldn't say that and pivoted....
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:21 PM on March 5, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:21 PM on March 5, 2016
Trump almost said "I wanna play..." (by the same rules as ISIS) but then realized mid-sentence that he probably shouldn't say that and pivoted....
A pivot mid-sentence! He's like a ballet dancer of bullshit.
posted by el io at 8:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
A pivot mid-sentence! He's like a ballet dancer of bullshit.
posted by el io at 8:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Florida Sun-Sentinel endorses None of the Above for the Republican primary.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:36 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Might still be better than running elections on a regular work day, but there'd be inequality baked into it nonetheless. Like a shitty, shitty pie filling.
No system is perfect, but I think if you stream line voter registration (online/mail in/in person options) AND make absentee voting dead simple, and offer voting on maybe Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday, it seems like a good way to help accommodate a range of people.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
No system is perfect, but I think if you stream line voter registration (online/mail in/in person options) AND make absentee voting dead simple, and offer voting on maybe Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday, it seems like a good way to help accommodate a range of people.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
When added to the Maine and Kansas results, seems possibly indicative of a real movement from Trump to Cruz?
Okay, scratch all my other ideas. Let's draft a Declaration of Dependence and beg the UK to take us back:
Dear UK,
You're right, we were wrong. Forget the Revolutionary War. Take us under your wing. Force us to have universal, single payer healthcare. Take away our guns. Make us pay more taxes and improve welfare programs.
PRETTY PLEASE. YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE.
I'll even swear allegiance to the monarch of your choice.
And, you know, we've got lots of land, if you want it. And...other things...I'm sure.
(Also, it would be great if EU citizenship could be included in this whole deal. Just saying.)
Oh, and if the UK doesn't want us, any other countries interested in taking another stab at colonizing (part of) North America? Spain, perhaps? Italy? France? Germany? Denmark? Sweden? Switzerland? Anyone????
Or maybe Canada would like to expand their borders? We've actually got places that aren't frozen tundras, if you like that kind of thing.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Okay, scratch all my other ideas. Let's draft a Declaration of Dependence and beg the UK to take us back:
Dear UK,
You're right, we were wrong. Forget the Revolutionary War. Take us under your wing. Force us to have universal, single payer healthcare. Take away our guns. Make us pay more taxes and improve welfare programs.
PRETTY PLEASE. YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE.
I'll even swear allegiance to the monarch of your choice.
And, you know, we've got lots of land, if you want it. And...other things...I'm sure.
(Also, it would be great if EU citizenship could be included in this whole deal. Just saying.)
Oh, and if the UK doesn't want us, any other countries interested in taking another stab at colonizing (part of) North America? Spain, perhaps? Italy? France? Germany? Denmark? Sweden? Switzerland? Anyone????
Or maybe Canada would like to expand their borders? We've actually got places that aren't frozen tundras, if you like that kind of thing.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:56 PM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Let's draft a Declaration of Dependence and beg the UK to take us back
I've got the hat for you.
posted by honestcoyote at 8:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've got the hat for you.
posted by honestcoyote at 8:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Okay, scratch all my other ideas. Let's draft a Declaration of Dependence and beg the UK to take us back:
Make America Great Britain?
posted by dersins at 8:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Make America Great Britain?
posted by dersins at 8:59 PM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yes, this is definitely the live version of House of Cards. I was simultaneously streaming the show and refreshing Politico's homepage, and it's scary how easy it is to mix up the show with reality (only on episode 4 so far). On a serious note, it is interesting that Bernie is having such a hard time winning predominantly nonwhite districts. On a not so serious note, there were some pleasant feelings when I read Ted Cruz upset Trump in Kansas and Maine, and I never thought I would be hoping for Ted Cruz to win ANYTHING. Closing the Politico tab and continuing my House of Cards stream now.
posted by Become A Silhouette at 9:00 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Become A Silhouette at 9:00 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.
I’m keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton’s largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders’ strongest states will vote.
What this means is simple:
posted by Trochanter at 9:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I’m keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton’s largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders’ strongest states will vote.
What this means is simple:
Hillary Clinton will grow her lead until the March 15 states have voted.If you want to stop reading here, this is all you need to know.
Bernie Sanders will erase that lead — partly or completely — after March 15.
How much of Clinton’s lead he will erase depends on your not buying what the media is selling — that the contest is over.
In most scenarios where Sanders wins, he doesn’t retake the lead until June 7, when five states including California cast their ballots.
March 15 is the Ides of March; a good way to remember the date. The message — gear up for a battle after the Ides of March, and don’t let the establishment media tell you what to think. They won’t be right until the last state has voted.
posted by Trochanter at 9:18 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I went to my first caucus ever, here in NE. I wasn't sure what lines would be like, so I ended up getting there relatively early and sitting in the lunchroom while the volunteers taped up signs and got themselves organized. I have been registered as an independent but changed my affiliation to Dem before heading over; since that hadn't made it through the system yet I still had to fill out a short form, but it wasn't a big deal.
Once things got underway, my precinct was sent, along with several others, to the gym. We were one of the biggest, and it was also clear that most of the people there were Bernie supporters - I saw two Hilary signs compared to dozens of Bernie tshirts, signs, buttons, etc. The whole process was a little awkward (you're in a middle school gym lining up like you had to do when you were in PE) and they didn't find the rack of folding chairs until an hour had passed, but everyone was cheerful and respectful and applauded everybody. It was a long three hours, and I'm glad I had my phone, but it wasn't too difficult even though I was by myself and I'm not a particularly social person. My precinct went something like 48-Hilary to 170-Bernie. Lots of kids and a few service dogs and people of all ages. Not fantastic diversity but not an entirely white crowd. All in all it was a very interesting experience.
posted by PussKillian at 9:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Once things got underway, my precinct was sent, along with several others, to the gym. We were one of the biggest, and it was also clear that most of the people there were Bernie supporters - I saw two Hilary signs compared to dozens of Bernie tshirts, signs, buttons, etc. The whole process was a little awkward (you're in a middle school gym lining up like you had to do when you were in PE) and they didn't find the rack of folding chairs until an hour had passed, but everyone was cheerful and respectful and applauded everybody. It was a long three hours, and I'm glad I had my phone, but it wasn't too difficult even though I was by myself and I'm not a particularly social person. My precinct went something like 48-Hilary to 170-Bernie. Lots of kids and a few service dogs and people of all ages. Not fantastic diversity but not an entirely white crowd. All in all it was a very interesting experience.
posted by PussKillian at 9:28 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trochanter, that article says, "In the narrowest of these winning scenarios, the March 15 bulge is quite large, +184 delegates for Clinton." Given the current deficit is +200 something for Hillary, and likely to grow quite a bit on March 15, I'm not sure how this is a very reassuring article for Bernie supporters...
posted by bepe at 9:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bepe at 9:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'll take what I can get.
posted by Trochanter at 9:35 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 9:35 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some reports from Omaha caucuses: "Isaiah Miller, 19, of Leigh, Nebraska, choked up when speaking out for Sanders. He pulled an expired food stamp card from his wallet as a symbol of the importance of Sanders' pledge to help low-income people.
Josh Waltjer, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, said he grew up in a family led by a single mother who relied on social programs to survive. He such Sanders would see that such help continues."
Both Kansas and Nebraska had record turnout!
posted by dialetheia at 9:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Josh Waltjer, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, said he grew up in a family led by a single mother who relied on social programs to survive. He such Sanders would see that such help continues."
Both Kansas and Nebraska had record turnout!
posted by dialetheia at 9:48 PM on March 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Arab American News, the weekly bilingual newspaper of Dearborn, MI, endorses Sanders: "The newspaper does not trust Clinton's interventionist inclinations. As secretary of state, she was a leading force behind the bombing campaign in Libya in 2011. There is no doubt that Muammar Gaddafi was a dictator who abused his people. But the hasty war on Libya, which was dubbed as humanitarian, led to that North African nation becoming a failed state. Now, two governments and countless militant groups, including ISIS, rule the once-stable country."
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 PM on March 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Michigan Muslims are mostly pro-Sanders, from what I hear from my family there.
posted by bardophile at 10:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 10:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes, this is definitely the live version of House of Cards.
Heh, it's funny because I'm rewatching Veep today, and I think that show also is a live version of the race.
posted by FJT at 10:15 PM on March 5, 2016
Heh, it's funny because I'm rewatching Veep today, and I think that show also is a live version of the race.
posted by FJT at 10:15 PM on March 5, 2016
So, our current election is...
House of Cards
A Face in The Crowd
Veep
...
Any others?
posted by el io at 10:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
House of Cards
A Face in The Crowd
Veep
...
Any others?
posted by el io at 10:40 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Potentially the Nixon Tapes.
posted by futz at 10:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 10:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Any others?
others?
posted by el io at 1:40 AM on 3/6
Potentially "Three's Company"
posted by glaucon at 10:44 PM on March 5, 2016
others?
posted by el io at 1:40 AM on 3/6
Potentially "Three's Company"
posted by glaucon at 10:44 PM on March 5, 2016
The Simpsons. Started out funny and mildly surreal, took a sharp turn toward not funny at all, and will only end with the extinction of all human life from the planet.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:54 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:54 PM on March 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"
posted by Chitownfats at 11:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Chitownfats at 11:21 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
By the way, the FPP doesn't mention March 6 (Sunday)'s Republican primary in Puerto Rico.
posted by dhens at 11:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dhens at 11:33 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The best/worst part of the last Republican debate? Trump is a fraud, a con-man, a danger to the party and the nation, a liar, advocates war crimes, is completely unfit to lead, and hell-yes we'll support him if he's the nominee!
and...
That was a bizarre capstone to a truly weird debate, but I guess they were trying hard to separate themselves from the blowback that Romney's speech has gotten.
This odditity BTW was explained by Karen Tumulty (WaPo) in this article, in which she said:
"Nonetheless, Rubio said he will support Trump if the mogul is the party’s nominee. So did the other two Republican candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Gov. John Kasich (Ohio).
"That is in part because the party put itself in handcuffs on that question in September, when its leaders were terrified that Trump would bolt and run as an independent. He signed an oath to support whoever wins the nomination.
"Now, it is arguable that Republicans would be better off if Trump had launched a third-party bid. Presumably, he would have been training most of his fire on Clinton, rather than the Republicans he mocks as 'Little Marco' and 'Lyin’ Ted.'"
So there ya go. It was nothing more than that the Republicans had shot themselves in the foot months ago trying to prevent a third-party run by Trump by forcing a pledge of loyalty from HIM.
In the recent debate, those other candidates DID NOT WANT to be pledging support to Trump under any circumstances ever. They looked the way Chris Christie did during his endorsement speech--like they'd just sold their souls. Which in fact they kinda had, months ago, through their silly short-sighted political machinations.
No surprise; Republicans haven't demonstrated in years that they possess anything other than silly short-sighted cynical strategies; and selling their souls also shouldn't feel like anything new.
posted by torticat at 12:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
and...
That was a bizarre capstone to a truly weird debate, but I guess they were trying hard to separate themselves from the blowback that Romney's speech has gotten.
This odditity BTW was explained by Karen Tumulty (WaPo) in this article, in which she said:
"Nonetheless, Rubio said he will support Trump if the mogul is the party’s nominee. So did the other two Republican candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Gov. John Kasich (Ohio).
"That is in part because the party put itself in handcuffs on that question in September, when its leaders were terrified that Trump would bolt and run as an independent. He signed an oath to support whoever wins the nomination.
"Now, it is arguable that Republicans would be better off if Trump had launched a third-party bid. Presumably, he would have been training most of his fire on Clinton, rather than the Republicans he mocks as 'Little Marco' and 'Lyin’ Ted.'"
So there ya go. It was nothing more than that the Republicans had shot themselves in the foot months ago trying to prevent a third-party run by Trump by forcing a pledge of loyalty from HIM.
In the recent debate, those other candidates DID NOT WANT to be pledging support to Trump under any circumstances ever. They looked the way Chris Christie did during his endorsement speech--like they'd just sold their souls. Which in fact they kinda had, months ago, through their silly short-sighted political machinations.
No surprise; Republicans haven't demonstrated in years that they possess anything other than silly short-sighted cynical strategies; and selling their souls also shouldn't feel like anything new.
posted by torticat at 12:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Whoa, NYT is reporting that Sanders' margin in Kansas is 68% Sanders to 32% Clinton, with 100% reporting. The only poll I saw on Kansas was from a week ago and had Clinton up by 10. Apparently turnout was up 10% from 2008, even.
Another day of Primaries, and Clinton only adds a few delegates? As the race goes on, a +200 delegate margin is going to be thinner and thinner. I'm waiting to see what happens in Michigan.
posted by mikelieman at 1:02 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Another day of Primaries, and Clinton only adds a few delegates? As the race goes on, a +200 delegate margin is going to be thinner and thinner. I'm waiting to see what happens in Michigan.
posted by mikelieman at 1:02 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm really envious of Saturday primaries. Here in Massachusetts, for example, we had the primary on Super Tuesday.
Here in Oregon they mail you your ballot and you have a couple weeks to study all the measures and candidates, discuss with your friends, etc. before you mail it in or drop it off.
We also have legal weed and great microbrews. But people keep moving here for some reason which is annoying.
posted by msalt at 1:32 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here in Oregon they mail you your ballot and you have a couple weeks to study all the measures and candidates, discuss with your friends, etc. before you mail it in or drop it off.
We also have legal weed and great microbrews. But people keep moving here for some reason which is annoying.
posted by msalt at 1:32 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Which leads me to ask how is the order of candidates chosen on a ballot?"
In Oregon it's rotated among different batches of ballots IIRC. But I'm just bragging at this point.
posted by msalt at 1:40 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
In Oregon it's rotated among different batches of ballots IIRC. But I'm just bragging at this point.
posted by msalt at 1:40 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
eclectist
still I'd like to see some youthful, intelligent, late-30's early-40's candidates start to take the reins of power.
What do you think of Castro? See here, not the best link I could find, but it'll do. His resume seems a bit thin to me (HUV and mayor of a small town?) but he does have some good qualifications for Clinton's VP.
jason_steakums
I feel like "at least he's not Trump" is cover enough for the establishment to line up behind him, and certainly as hated as he is by the establishment nobody would be singling him out in the way Mitt did to Trump
Really? I don't know. The Rep establishment hates Cruz (I do too). I can't imagine if it comes to that they would back him any more than Trump. Cruz in congress has fought against every initiative/compromise Republicans have offered (and those are scarce). If there is a brokered convention (which would be nuts), I believe they'll pick someone else. Maybe Bloomberg? Who knows. But it's hard to imagine they'd risk SO MUCH (a brokered convention would be yuge) only to support Cruz? I guess that would be trading the devil you think you maybe know for the devil you do (Trump)--but it would still be GOP suicide.
However I'm not seeing any out for the GOP at this point except suicide anyway, so oh well.
posted by torticat at 2:13 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
still I'd like to see some youthful, intelligent, late-30's early-40's candidates start to take the reins of power.
What do you think of Castro? See here, not the best link I could find, but it'll do. His resume seems a bit thin to me (HUV and mayor of a small town?) but he does have some good qualifications for Clinton's VP.
jason_steakums
I feel like "at least he's not Trump" is cover enough for the establishment to line up behind him, and certainly as hated as he is by the establishment nobody would be singling him out in the way Mitt did to Trump
Really? I don't know. The Rep establishment hates Cruz (I do too). I can't imagine if it comes to that they would back him any more than Trump. Cruz in congress has fought against every initiative/compromise Republicans have offered (and those are scarce). If there is a brokered convention (which would be nuts), I believe they'll pick someone else. Maybe Bloomberg? Who knows. But it's hard to imagine they'd risk SO MUCH (a brokered convention would be yuge) only to support Cruz? I guess that would be trading the devil you think you maybe know for the devil you do (Trump)--but it would still be GOP suicide.
However I'm not seeing any out for the GOP at this point except suicide anyway, so oh well.
posted by torticat at 2:13 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Another day of Primaries, and Clinton only adds a few delegates?According to the New York Times, Clinton added 51 delegates last night and Sanders added 47.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:34 AM on March 6, 2016
Correction: Clinton 55 and Sanders 47. She actually expanded her lead.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
By the way, the FPP doesn't mention March 6 (Sunday)'s Republican primary in Puerto Rico.
Thanks, and yes. Woke up, turned on the TV news (here in England) and Puerto Rico today was mentioned. Gah! My bad for not checking the data against several sources; the ones I got it from listed states only. Apologies. Just asked the mods but the response is it's too late to change an FPP.
On more thorough checking, there are in fact two omissions:
For the 6th (today) there is also:
- Puerto Rico (Republican primary)
For the 12th there is also:
- Northern Mariana Islands (Democratic caucus)
posted by Wordshore at 2:53 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thanks, and yes. Woke up, turned on the TV news (here in England) and Puerto Rico today was mentioned. Gah! My bad for not checking the data against several sources; the ones I got it from listed states only. Apologies. Just asked the mods but the response is it's too late to change an FPP.
On more thorough checking, there are in fact two omissions:
For the 6th (today) there is also:
- Puerto Rico (Republican primary)
For the 12th there is also:
- Northern Mariana Islands (Democratic caucus)
posted by Wordshore at 2:53 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoa; that's a rather massive change in the odds on the Republican side. Effectively a two horse race according to punters placing money, and Rubio is no longer one of the horses.
posted by Wordshore at 3:45 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 3:45 AM on March 6, 2016
What do you think of Castro? See here, not the best link I could find, but it'll do. His resume seems a bit thin to me (HUV and mayor of a small town?) but he does have some good qualifications for Clinton's VP.
San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the US.
posted by casaubon at 4:41 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the US.
posted by casaubon at 4:41 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Castro seems overly groomed (I knew too many kids in college who were already structuring their lives around running for office someday, and it made them risk-averse and dull to a ridiculous degree) but as long as he's not exposing himself to masseuses (ugh Al Gore how did I not know about this) or fucking his best friend's wife while in office (can't stand Gavin Newsome), he seems pretty ok compared to the rest of the male back bench.
The strongest message I got from the Penis Debate was that we need a whole hell of a lot more women in higher office on both sides. I've had enough of these political sausage-fests.
posted by sallybrown at 5:50 AM on March 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
The strongest message I got from the Penis Debate was that we need a whole hell of a lot more women in higher office on both sides. I've had enough of these political sausage-fests.
posted by sallybrown at 5:50 AM on March 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
After weeks of hearing that Republican voters need to find an alternative to Trump, it seems that they've finally made their choice. And the reaction has been a near unanimous, "not that guy!".
To be fair, that was likely the reaction (in varying degrees) no matter which choice they made.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:28 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
To be fair, that was likely the reaction (in varying degrees) no matter which choice they made.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:28 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
The penis debate reminds me of The Anthony Weiner award for technology.
posted by clavdivs at 6:33 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 6:33 AM on March 6, 2016
Joe Biden on Cruz:
I don't want to make predictions, but I really don't think that Cruz can win the election. It is really hard to overcome a media narrative that says that the most important fact about you are hated by literally every single person who has ever met you.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 AM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Ted Cruz? An inspiration to every kid in America who worries that he’ll never be able to run for president because nobody likes him. He’s running. And look, I told Barack, if you really, really want to remake the Supreme Court, nominate Cruz. Before you know it, you’ll have eight vacancies.You know how I said that Rubio doesn't have the comedic chops to take down Trump? I think Biden might be the guy who does.
I don't want to make predictions, but I really don't think that Cruz can win the election. It is really hard to overcome a media narrative that says that the most important fact about you are hated by literally every single person who has ever met you.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 AM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
I really despise Ted Cruz but I'm pretty disappointed by how many people are jumping on the "just look at the guy -- he's ugly and weird!" bandwagon. It's shitty and it's not that dissimilar to stuff people say about Clinton. I think there are enough reasons to fight like hell to keep him from ever being President.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:59 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:59 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
> "And the reaction has been a near unanimous, 'not that guy!'."
I think a lot of us are secretly hoping they all go into a brokered convention and ... just never come out.
posted by kyrademon at 6:59 AM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think a lot of us are secretly hoping they all go into a brokered convention and ... just never come out.
posted by kyrademon at 6:59 AM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
The buzz on Cruz isn't that he's ugly or weird. It's that he's an amazing, epic asshole: literally just a horrible, horrible person on a strictly interpersonal level. For instance, when he was in law school he announced that he would only be in a study group with people who went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton, because he had nothing but disdain for people who went to the "lesser Ivies." The implication was that anyone who didn't go to an Ivy was not even worth mentioning. He truly appears to be universally despised, in a way that merely weird or socially-inept people generally aren't.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:03 AM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:03 AM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mentioning anyone's looks, or what their name used to be, etc., is bottom of the barrel. Do better.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:09 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah only a fraction of the Cruz criticism I've seen says anything about his appearance (the most prominent meme being his uncanny resemblance to sketches of the Zodiac Killer). Most of it has been "holy crap but Cruz is a deeply unpleasant person". Which, who knows, his campaign team might try spinning as "Cruz isn't trying to win any popularity contests he just wants what's best for AMERICA such conviction much moral compass wow".
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:10 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:10 AM on March 6, 2016
> "Clinton is not really a progressive. If DINO is a thing, I think she would be that."
"[W]ith a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses ... That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).
"Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats ... She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members ... Clinton rates as a 'hard core liberal' per the OnTheIssues.org scale."
Clinton's Crowdpac score ... places her slightly right to rival Bernie Sanders by 1.7 points and matches Barack Obama's score.
posted by kyrademon at 7:12 AM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
"[W]ith a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses ... That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).
"Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats ... She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members ... Clinton rates as a 'hard core liberal' per the OnTheIssues.org scale."
Clinton's Crowdpac score ... places her slightly right to rival Bernie Sanders by 1.7 points and matches Barack Obama's score.
posted by kyrademon at 7:12 AM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
All that goes to show is how shitty the Senate is to start.
It won't be "Progressive" until right after the Pledge, they sing Woody Guthrie...
posted by mikelieman at 7:25 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
It won't be "Progressive" until right after the Pledge, they sing Woody Guthrie...
posted by mikelieman at 7:25 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Does anyone have any information on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary opponent, Tim Canova? I've been to his website, which is encouraging. And goodness knows that I'm not happy with her right now and have the chance to make a difference, but I also don't want to be a low information voter.
I'm big on people need to vote outside of presidential elections, but I wish there was an easier way to access information about local candidates and ballot issues.
posted by JustKeepSwimming at 7:31 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm big on people need to vote outside of presidential elections, but I wish there was an easier way to access information about local candidates and ballot issues.
posted by JustKeepSwimming at 7:31 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
ArbitraryAndCapricious, I wasn't calling you out and sorry if you took it that way. I think bringing up the fact that Cruz is arrogant and obstructionist and relies on brinksmanship to make a name for himself is completely relevant to the race and speaks to the kind of President he would be (god forbid). My point about the "he's ugly/weird" stuff has to do with the reports about how Cruz has a scientifically proven "punchable face," that he looks like a melted ham sandwich, etc. I'll admit it's amusing but if we're going to give in to that stuff and make that a reason why Cruz won't/shouldn't be President, then we don't get to complain when the right inevitably does the same stuff to Clinton. Which, like, of course it will, if my aunt's Facebook wall is any indication of what the summer and fall are going to be like.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:39 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:39 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, part of the issue with Cruz's personality is that he's proven totally incapable of accomplishing anything unless it can be accomplished through individual grandstanding (like filibustering); he's passed one bill, and that was when he was new in the Senate before anybody was accustomed to his antics. Since then he's made a career (literally) of throwing his colleagues under the bus and -- what irritates them more -- grandstanding about how they COULD do [something clearly unconstitutional] but they're all too-liberal cowards, when he KNOWS it's procedurally or constitutionally impossible, and they KNOW he knows that and is just seeking publicity and he's willing to break the system and damage colleagues for his own personal PR gain. So I think the point about his terrible personality is actually quite relevant; he talks well (to the far right) and he's good at getting PR, but it doesn't translate into the ability to accomplish anything. He'd be likely to turn out a sort of (evil) Jimmy Carter who can't get anything through Congress because Congress has no desire to throw themselves under his bus over and over again.
" I wish there was an easier way to access information about local candidates and ballot issues."
Are you familiar with ballotpedia? Here's Florida 23, here's Wasserman Schultz, and here's Canova.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:49 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
" I wish there was an easier way to access information about local candidates and ballot issues."
Are you familiar with ballotpedia? Here's Florida 23, here's Wasserman Schultz, and here's Canova.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:49 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find the appearance stuff really weird because Cruz looks like you took a was sculpture of my adoptive father and melted it a little while Clinton looks kinda like my mom if you take your glasses off and are maybe a little drunk.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wired: Donald Trump Is Winning Instagram by Being Himself: A Big Troll
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:14 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:14 AM on March 6, 2016
I think a lot of us are secretly hoping they all go into a brokered convention and ... just never come out.
Hey, now - we just built the new convention center in Cleveland; we'd prefer to not have it haunted by the lost souls of Republican delegates and candidates, thankyouverymuch.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:16 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hey, now - we just built the new convention center in Cleveland; we'd prefer to not have it haunted by the lost souls of Republican delegates and candidates, thankyouverymuch.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:16 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
You should have thought of that before you built it over a hellmouth.
posted by dersins at 8:18 AM on March 6, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:18 AM on March 6, 2016 [27 favorites]
I feel so bad for Cleveland having to host this crapfest.
posted by octothorpe at 8:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was just wondering a couple days ago if she was still alive.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:01 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by dirigibleman at 9:01 AM on March 6, 2016
So, our current election is...
House of Cards
A Face in The Crowd
Veep
...
Any others?
I'm still going with my West Wing/Hunger Games mashup theory.
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:03 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
May she be remembered for a moment of silence at 4:20 today.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 9:22 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 9:22 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
> For instance, when he was in law school he announced that he would only be in a study group with people who went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton, because he had nothing but disdain for people who went to the "lesser Ivies." The implication was that anyone who didn't go to an Ivy was not even worth mentioning. He truly appears to be universally despised, in a way that merely weird or socially-inept people generally aren't.
Here's the thing that made me really appreciate how universally despised Cruz is among people who have to interact with him on a regular basis. Remember Ted Cruz's college roommate, the guy who keeps going on twitter to talk shit about him?
That guy was a freshman when Cruz was a senior.
Literally everyone who knew Ted Cruz categorically refused to share a room with him. All the seniors. All the juniors. All the sophomores. Everyone who at any point had had any contact whatsoever with Cruz knew better than to be his roommate.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2016 [14 favorites]
Here's the thing that made me really appreciate how universally despised Cruz is among people who have to interact with him on a regular basis. Remember Ted Cruz's college roommate, the guy who keeps going on twitter to talk shit about him?
That guy was a freshman when Cruz was a senior.
Literally everyone who knew Ted Cruz categorically refused to share a room with him. All the seniors. All the juniors. All the sophomores. Everyone who at any point had had any contact whatsoever with Cruz knew better than to be his roommate.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hm, well, Nancy Reagan dying is going to mean a whole lot of photo montages and retrospectives that will vividly remind Republicans of what the world was like in their "good old days." I wonder what the effect will be.
posted by HotToddy at 9:57 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by HotToddy at 9:57 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the US.
Good grief, thanks casaubon. To be honest I didn't even know where Castro had been mayor (I knew nothing of him until recently)--just read "small town" somewhere. My bad, and apologies to the city of San Antonio!
posted by torticat at 10:03 AM on March 6, 2016
Good grief, thanks casaubon. To be honest I didn't even know where Castro had been mayor (I knew nothing of him until recently)--just read "small town" somewhere. My bad, and apologies to the city of San Antonio!
posted by torticat at 10:03 AM on March 6, 2016
I don't think people should read too much into those political comparison sites based on voting record. I've seen all these comparisons of Hillary and Bernie, for example, and they place their positions within a few percent of each other based on voting record. How can that be, when their positions are really quite different? Sanders is clearly and obviously to the left of Hillary - he's talking about raising taxes to fund education, and taxing wall street, things which no democrat has dared to suggest in my lifetime.
So why do those scores get it so wrong? The thing about those scientific political voting record scores is that they're bound, by definition, to consideration of the bills that actually make it to the floor of the senate. The kinds of bills that would differentiate Hillary and Bernie never make it to the floor for a vote because they're too left for Congress. This is less relevant on the republican side, because Congress has moved so far right that extreme right-wing bills are making it to the floor for a vote, especially in the House. Barely anything left of center makes it to the floor these days, so there's no real way to distinguish the leftmost part of the democrats from each other on record alone. Saying "Hillary was the 10th most liberal senator" just means that in a group of center-right democrats, she's the most liberal of them. It doesn't mean she's actually liberal - listening to her views makes it pretty clear she's a pro-business mainstream centrist.
posted by zug at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
So why do those scores get it so wrong? The thing about those scientific political voting record scores is that they're bound, by definition, to consideration of the bills that actually make it to the floor of the senate. The kinds of bills that would differentiate Hillary and Bernie never make it to the floor for a vote because they're too left for Congress. This is less relevant on the republican side, because Congress has moved so far right that extreme right-wing bills are making it to the floor for a vote, especially in the House. Barely anything left of center makes it to the floor these days, so there's no real way to distinguish the leftmost part of the democrats from each other on record alone. Saying "Hillary was the 10th most liberal senator" just means that in a group of center-right democrats, she's the most liberal of them. It doesn't mean she's actually liberal - listening to her views makes it pretty clear she's a pro-business mainstream centrist.
posted by zug at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
Hey, now - we just built the new convention center in Cleveland; we'd prefer to not have it haunted by the lost souls of Republican delegates and candidates, thankyouverymuch.
C'mon, Cleveland. Take one for the team.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
C'mon, Cleveland. Take one for the team.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:52 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's really stupid about all of the non-Trump candidates admitting at the end of the debate that they will indeed support Trump if he wins the Republican nomination is that this question is so very easy to evade. All you have to do is just say that the question is moot because Trump will not be the nominee; I will be the nominee. Then do not back down if faced with a follow-up question that challenges your premise.
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 10:54 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 10:54 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo: Sanders keeps raising millions — and spending them, a potential problem for Clinton
Sanders’s unique success at attracting political money, combined with his powerful appeal to young voters, means that he will keep raising and spending millions of dollars across the country — forcing Clinton to spend, too, and potentially allowing him to score enough victories to drag out the nominating contest and delay what is widely seen as Clinton’s inevitable pivot to the general election.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:01 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Since then he's made a career (literally) of throwing his colleagues under the bus and -- what irritates them more -- grandstanding about how they COULD do [something clearly unconstitutional] but they're all too-liberal cowards, when he KNOWS it's procedurally or constitutionally impossible, and they KNOW he knows that and is just seeking publicity and he's willing to break the system and damage colleagues for his own personal PR gain.
Ah, comity. Participate in a group exercise that denies unemployment benefits, food assistance, insurance to the needy? Play chicken with the economy by refusing to do what's necessary to pay the bills you already racked up in past budgets? Drag college students into hearings about birth control so you can slut-shame them? Hold endless hearings about false assertions so you can defund a charity that helps needy women get health care that, less than 1 time in 10, includes abortion? All while collecting a salary and generous retirement package? You're okay. Keep on truckin'.
Do shitty things to make your cow orkers look bad and maybe harm their careers for yours? A bridge too far, you horrible human being you.
Fuckin congress.
posted by phearlez at 11:08 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ah, comity. Participate in a group exercise that denies unemployment benefits, food assistance, insurance to the needy? Play chicken with the economy by refusing to do what's necessary to pay the bills you already racked up in past budgets? Drag college students into hearings about birth control so you can slut-shame them? Hold endless hearings about false assertions so you can defund a charity that helps needy women get health care that, less than 1 time in 10, includes abortion? All while collecting a salary and generous retirement package? You're okay. Keep on truckin'.
Do shitty things to make your cow orkers look bad and maybe harm their careers for yours? A bridge too far, you horrible human being you.
Fuckin congress.
posted by phearlez at 11:08 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
> "The thing about those scientific political voting record scores is that they're bound, by definition, to consideration of the bills that actually make it to the floor of the senate."
Except that several of those scores take into account not just voting record but stated policy, public stands on issues, etc.
Look, the contention I was talking about is the idea that Hillary Clinton is a "Democrat In Name Only", which is, frankly, ridiculous. If you say that, you have to say that at least 70% of Senate Democrats are "Democrats In Name Only", and it becomes pretty obvious that the term has no meaning when used that way.
However, if you say, "The Democratic Party is a center-left party, not a leftist party," I will absolutely agree. Hillary Clinton is a relatively left-wing member of a party with a center-left platform. And if you say, "Bernie Sanders is to the left of Hillary Clinton", I will agree and so will all the places I was quoting.
But if someone makes the argument that Hillary Clinton is conservative by the standards of the current Democratic party, they are simply wrong.
posted by kyrademon at 11:16 AM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Except that several of those scores take into account not just voting record but stated policy, public stands on issues, etc.
Look, the contention I was talking about is the idea that Hillary Clinton is a "Democrat In Name Only", which is, frankly, ridiculous. If you say that, you have to say that at least 70% of Senate Democrats are "Democrats In Name Only", and it becomes pretty obvious that the term has no meaning when used that way.
However, if you say, "The Democratic Party is a center-left party, not a leftist party," I will absolutely agree. Hillary Clinton is a relatively left-wing member of a party with a center-left platform. And if you say, "Bernie Sanders is to the left of Hillary Clinton", I will agree and so will all the places I was quoting.
But if someone makes the argument that Hillary Clinton is conservative by the standards of the current Democratic party, they are simply wrong.
posted by kyrademon at 11:16 AM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
You know that photoshop of Trump's mouth replacing his eyes? Someone did a video version.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:17 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:17 AM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Just comparing Senate records doesn't capture her entire record, though - a lot of the stuff that makes her much more centrist to me is more recent, like her support for intervention and regime change in Libya, her refusal to take a stance on Keystone XL until forced, her support of the promotion of fracking all over the planet, her support for the Honduran coup, her support of TPP before she was against it, her making right-wing arguments about Sanders voters only wanting "free stuff", etc.
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
I wonder what the effect will be.
On the bright side: it's a great way to show that even Ronald Reagan, awful and deserving of scorn as he is, was not as bad as the assholes running now. He couldn't win a primary these days on the platform and the sentiments he used. And Republicans should be slapped with that over and over again.
As much as I despise Reagan, I'd take him in a heartbeat over the crapfest the Republicans are offering now.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the bright side: it's a great way to show that even Ronald Reagan, awful and deserving of scorn as he is, was not as bad as the assholes running now. He couldn't win a primary these days on the platform and the sentiments he used. And Republicans should be slapped with that over and over again.
As much as I despise Reagan, I'd take him in a heartbeat over the crapfest the Republicans are offering now.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders is clearly and obviously to the left of Hillary - he's talking about raising taxes to fund education, and taxing wall street, things which no democrat has dared to suggest in my lifetime.
Actually, both Clinton and Sanders have advocated taxing Wall Street and raising taxes to fund education. The difference between their plans is to what extent they will tax Wall Street and spend on education - one of degree. Also...multiple Democrats have "dared" to suggest these basic concepts, not just Sanders. These positions are really not all that radical - the fact that they are perceived as such makes me sad about the extent to which Republican orthodoxy has swept this country (and how politically conservative some of Obama's cabinet appointments have been...).
posted by sallybrown at 11:21 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Actually, both Clinton and Sanders have advocated taxing Wall Street and raising taxes to fund education. The difference between their plans is to what extent they will tax Wall Street and spend on education - one of degree. Also...multiple Democrats have "dared" to suggest these basic concepts, not just Sanders. These positions are really not all that radical - the fact that they are perceived as such makes me sad about the extent to which Republican orthodoxy has swept this country (and how politically conservative some of Obama's cabinet appointments have been...).
posted by sallybrown at 11:21 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
As much as I despise Reagan, I'd take him in a heartbeat over the crapfest the Republicans are offering now.
To me, the difference now is that we have things like social media and cell phones with video and the ability to create massive protests simultaneously. Whereas groups like ACT-UP that had to combat the Reagan and Bush administration had a much harder time, and were at the mercy of mainstream media.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:23 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
To me, the difference now is that we have things like social media and cell phones with video and the ability to create massive protests simultaneously. Whereas groups like ACT-UP that had to combat the Reagan and Bush administration had a much harder time, and were at the mercy of mainstream media.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:23 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's a fun sentence: Arnold Schwarzenegger just officially announced his endorsement of John Kasich on Snapchat
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2016
I think people using the DINO are talking either in a world context or a historical context, not a modern context. The current dems are the most right-wing they've been since roughly 1903. I think there is an earnest desire for more leftist candidates from younger and more progressive voters and Hillary isn't that.
But yeah, DINO is a pretty big stretch.
posted by zug at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
But yeah, DINO is a pretty big stretch.
posted by zug at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Another day of Primaries, and Clinton only adds a few delegates? As the race goes on, a +200 delegate margin is going to be thinner and thinner. I'm waiting to see what happens in Michigan.
A week ago, Hillary led by 29 delegates, 141 to 112.
Wednesday, she led by 198 delegates, 608 to 410.
Today, she leads by 206, 663 to 457.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate that to Bernie-mentum. Did Obama ever have a lead of more than 200 delegates before June in 2008?
posted by msalt at 11:30 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
A week ago, Hillary led by 29 delegates, 141 to 112.
Wednesday, she led by 198 delegates, 608 to 410.
Today, she leads by 206, 663 to 457.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate that to Bernie-mentum. Did Obama ever have a lead of more than 200 delegates before June in 2008?
posted by msalt at 11:30 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the difference is that Hillary was largely done by March. Bernie Sanders will campaign until there is a candidate at the convention. And winning both caucuses proves that he's not done yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:32 AM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:32 AM on March 6, 2016
he's made a career (literally) of throwing his colleagues under the bus and -- what irritates them more -- grandstanding about how they COULD do [something clearly unconstitutional] but they're all too-[moderate] cowards, when he KNOWS it's procedurally or constitutionally impossible, and they KNOW he knows that and is just seeking publicity
There are candidates in both parties who this reminds me of.
posted by msalt at 11:34 AM on March 6, 2016
There are candidates in both parties who this reminds me of.
posted by msalt at 11:34 AM on March 6, 2016
I think the difference is that Hillary was largely done by March. Bernie Sanders will campaign until there is a candidate at the convention. And winning both caucuses proves that he's not done yet.
How does that explain Hillary's 200+ delegate lead, which is larger than what Obama had in 2008? I'm confused. BTW, the Clinton campaign kept fighting all the way too, the point where she was criticized for racking up cheap meaningless victories.
posted by msalt at 11:36 AM on March 6, 2016
How does that explain Hillary's 200+ delegate lead, which is larger than what Obama had in 2008? I'm confused. BTW, the Clinton campaign kept fighting all the way too, the point where she was criticized for racking up cheap meaningless victories.
posted by msalt at 11:36 AM on March 6, 2016
I think the difference is that Hillary was largely done by March. Bernie Sanders will campaign until there is a candidate at the convention. And winning both caucuses proves that he's not done yet.
What does this mean about his practical influence at the convention? Does a certain number of delegates guarantee you some kind of influence in creating the platform, or is it a more logical calculation on the part of whoever is in charge (e.g., his success means we should incorporate some of his ideas). And once he exerts influence onto the platform, is there any guarantee that these idea will actually be implemented through policy?
posted by sallybrown at 11:38 AM on March 6, 2016
What does this mean about his practical influence at the convention? Does a certain number of delegates guarantee you some kind of influence in creating the platform, or is it a more logical calculation on the part of whoever is in charge (e.g., his success means we should incorporate some of his ideas). And once he exerts influence onto the platform, is there any guarantee that these idea will actually be implemented through policy?
posted by sallybrown at 11:38 AM on March 6, 2016
So Schwarzenegger is endorsing Kasich, and Ventura is pondering a run as a Libertarian…
Has Carl Weathers weighed in?
posted by nicepersonality at 11:45 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Has Carl Weathers weighed in?
posted by nicepersonality at 11:45 AM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
okay not to harp on the hilarious offputtingness of college-age Cruz or anything, but the other thing that's great about his "lesser Ivies" thing — "he would only be in a study group with people who went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton, because he had nothing but disdain for people who went to the 'lesser Ivies'"— is that you can immediately identify from that list what school he went to.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:51 AM on March 6, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:51 AM on March 6, 2016 [24 favorites]
I think people using the DINO are talking either in a world context or a historical context, not a modern context. The current dems are the most right-wing they've been since roughly 1903.
Wha...? I mean, I could see world context, maybe, if by "world" you mean "Western Europe+Canada", but historical? Or maybe I've just forgotten all those 1903 Democrats who backed gay marriage, increases in the minimum wage, affirmative action, and enthusiastically worked for four years with a black president. The Democratic Party is more conservative economically than it was in the 1970s (although I'd argue not, overall, than it was in the 1950s, given the heft of the Dixiecrats in the party at the time), but its more socially liberal than it has ever been on pretty much every other metric I can think of (perhaps foreign policy would be an exception, again, contrasting to the late 60s and 70s).
I think the difference is that Hillary was largely done by March. Bernie Sanders will campaign until there is a candidate at the convention. And winning both caucuses proves that he's not done yet.
He has essentially no reason to quit campaigning before convention. I mean, his two goals here are to win the nomination and to swing the Democratic Party's internal discourse leftward, and those two goals are both best served by keeping on to the very end. Hillary in 2008 had her eye on potentially running again down the road or working in the Cabinet, she had good reason to cut her losses at that stage. Sanders is unlikely to end up in the cabinet and his Senate seat is safer than safe - that's where he'll go to continue the good fight if he loses the nom. The only thing that would stop Sanders from continuing to run would be running out of money and that is the only thing less likely to happen than a Kasich presidency.
What does this mean about his practical influence at the convention? Does a certain number of delegates guarantee you some kind of influence in creating the platform, or is it a more logical calculation on the part of whoever is in charge (e.g., his success means we should incorporate some of his ideas). And once he exerts influence onto the platform, is there any guarantee that these idea will actually be implemented through policy?
I don't know anything about the convention, but Sanders seems to be aiming for more popular pressure for progressive measures going forward, beyond the election itself. He wants a movement that will maintain pressure externally on a Democratic president, whether or not she feels it from within the ranks of the party machinery. I'm not sure he's thinking, "aha, if I do well, we'll get some bargains made at the convention."
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:51 AM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wha...? I mean, I could see world context, maybe, if by "world" you mean "Western Europe+Canada", but historical? Or maybe I've just forgotten all those 1903 Democrats who backed gay marriage, increases in the minimum wage, affirmative action, and enthusiastically worked for four years with a black president. The Democratic Party is more conservative economically than it was in the 1970s (although I'd argue not, overall, than it was in the 1950s, given the heft of the Dixiecrats in the party at the time), but its more socially liberal than it has ever been on pretty much every other metric I can think of (perhaps foreign policy would be an exception, again, contrasting to the late 60s and 70s).
I think the difference is that Hillary was largely done by March. Bernie Sanders will campaign until there is a candidate at the convention. And winning both caucuses proves that he's not done yet.
He has essentially no reason to quit campaigning before convention. I mean, his two goals here are to win the nomination and to swing the Democratic Party's internal discourse leftward, and those two goals are both best served by keeping on to the very end. Hillary in 2008 had her eye on potentially running again down the road or working in the Cabinet, she had good reason to cut her losses at that stage. Sanders is unlikely to end up in the cabinet and his Senate seat is safer than safe - that's where he'll go to continue the good fight if he loses the nom. The only thing that would stop Sanders from continuing to run would be running out of money and that is the only thing less likely to happen than a Kasich presidency.
What does this mean about his practical influence at the convention? Does a certain number of delegates guarantee you some kind of influence in creating the platform, or is it a more logical calculation on the part of whoever is in charge (e.g., his success means we should incorporate some of his ideas). And once he exerts influence onto the platform, is there any guarantee that these idea will actually be implemented through policy?
I don't know anything about the convention, but Sanders seems to be aiming for more popular pressure for progressive measures going forward, beyond the election itself. He wants a movement that will maintain pressure externally on a Democratic president, whether or not she feels it from within the ranks of the party machinery. I'm not sure he's thinking, "aha, if I do well, we'll get some bargains made at the convention."
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:51 AM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't think people should read too much into those political comparison sites based on voting record. I've seen all these comparisons of Hillary and Bernie, for example, and they place their positions within a few percent of each other based on voting record. How can that be, when their positions are really quite different? Sanders is clearly and obviously to the left of Hillary - he's talking about raising taxes to fund education, and taxing wall street, things which no democrat has dared to suggest in my lifetime.
I know, right? It's almost as if talk and action are two different things!
posted by dersins at 11:56 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know, right? It's almost as if talk and action are two different things!
posted by dersins at 11:56 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders has every right and reason to continue, given the primary calendar this cycle. Super Tuesday was weighted pretty heavily in favor of the Deep South this year (hence the "SEC Primary" moniker), so given her existing demographic advantages you'd expect Clinton to mount a sizable lead at this point. But the rest of the calendar is more favorable to him, especially Rust Belt states that could be receptive to his economic message. If Clinton stumbles or Sanders improves his standing beyond his current base, it's not out of the question that he could win overall. Not likely, but possible enough that he shouldn't drop out right away.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 12:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
The current dems are the most right-wing they've been since roughly 1903.
Doesn't that graph show the opposite, with Democratic conservativeness having peaked during WWII and dropped back down around 1903 levels since the late 20th century?
posted by XMLicious at 12:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
He doesn't have any reason to drop out. He's still got plenty of money. His being in the race prevents Hillary from pivoting to the right. It keeps the race interesting, which is good for the Democrats, because otherwise the Republicans get all the publicity. And there is a chance that something will change the race, such as Hillary getting hit by a bus or indicted or abducted by aliens or there being some huge sea change in the mood of the country or something, and as long as it's possible for him to win, there's no reason to drop out. And seriously, Democrats should stop whining about it. Hillary is not entitled to start the national campaign now. Besides which, I think that building up primary and caucus ground teams will help her in the general anyway.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:08 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:08 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
The primaries aren't over, either. Hillary's only halfway to taking the majority, and that's counting all the pledged super delegates.
If Bernie wins more states, then her super delegate count will change too, hopefully.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2016
If Bernie wins more states, then her super delegate count will change too, hopefully.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2016
So why do those scores get it so wrong? The thing about those scientific political voting record scores is that they're bound, by definition, to consideration of the bills that actually make it to the floor of the senate.
Yeah, sort of. If you want to distinguish where two people are on some unobservable dimension, it helps a lot to have instances where they made different choices. In the lingo, where they're on different sides of the separating hyperplane.
But, just to note, nominate scores will also include Sanders' time in the House. And as kyrademon notes, other ideal-point estimators rely on things other than votes. I'm unfamiliar with crowdpac, but Bonica's scores do similar things with donations that nominate or ideal does with votes; the picture they provide is still that both are quite liberal, Sanders a little more, but both within a standard error of each other.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:41 PM on March 6, 2016
Yeah, sort of. If you want to distinguish where two people are on some unobservable dimension, it helps a lot to have instances where they made different choices. In the lingo, where they're on different sides of the separating hyperplane.
But, just to note, nominate scores will also include Sanders' time in the House. And as kyrademon notes, other ideal-point estimators rely on things other than votes. I'm unfamiliar with crowdpac, but Bonica's scores do similar things with donations that nominate or ideal does with votes; the picture they provide is still that both are quite liberal, Sanders a little more, but both within a standard error of each other.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:41 PM on March 6, 2016
Doesn't that graph show the opposite, with Democratic conservativeness having peaked during WWII and dropped back down around 1903 levels since the late 20th century?
Gah. That's what I get for reading graphs pre-coffee.
posted by zug at 12:42 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gah. That's what I get for reading graphs pre-coffee.
posted by zug at 12:42 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know no one could possibly know this, but could one of you please convince me Trump or Cruz won't be president? I desperately need to not live in the universe where that happens. If it does, I'll have to face the reality that my country and I want completely opposite things. It's like finding out your fiancé wants to go to a monster truck show for your honeymoon instead of playing with elephants in Thailand, or, more accurately, you find out he wants to use your honeymoon money to finally get that Nazi memorabilia business off the ground.
posted by bluecore at 12:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bluecore at 12:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know who's going to convince you, or that you should be convinced. Nothing's done till it's done. But the odds are against both of them.
posted by phearlez at 12:51 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by phearlez at 12:51 PM on March 6, 2016
Trump is harder to predict, although he has a record of racist and crazy statements to go by. And is going to turn left on health care, as some predicted, now that he's put his whole, blah and GOP-style same-ey health care proposal on his website? He's still has a significant block of conservatives who do not and will never trust him, so turnout could be dampened.
Cruz, though, he's disliked by most in the Senate, his personality is abrasive, he has a track record as an obstructionist, and most his views are extreme right. Even if Hillary were indicted and some other Dem. were to come along (long, long, long shot), I would bet on a Electoral College landslide the likes of which the U.S. has not seen since 1984. Not quite that bad, still, but nothing like the red-blue maps since 2000.
posted by raysmj at 12:54 PM on March 6, 2016
Cruz, though, he's disliked by most in the Senate, his personality is abrasive, he has a track record as an obstructionist, and most his views are extreme right. Even if Hillary were indicted and some other Dem. were to come along (long, long, long shot), I would bet on a Electoral College landslide the likes of which the U.S. has not seen since 1984. Not quite that bad, still, but nothing like the red-blue maps since 2000.
posted by raysmj at 12:54 PM on March 6, 2016
the other thing that's great about his "lesser Ivies" thing — "he would only be in a study group with people who went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton, because he had nothing but disdain for people who went to the 'lesser Ivies'"— is that you can immediately identify from that list what school he went to.
You mean, the lesser greater Ivy?
posted by msalt at 12:54 PM on March 6, 2016
You mean, the lesser greater Ivy?
posted by msalt at 12:54 PM on March 6, 2016
The current dems are the most right-wing they've been since roughly 1903.
You know that Jack Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon (and General Eisenhower) militarily by making "the missile gap" one of his biggest campaign issues, right?
could one of you please convince me Trump or Cruz won't be president? I desperately need to not live in the universe where that happens. If it does, I'll have to face the reality that my country and I want completely opposite things.
It's hard, I'm not gonna lie. But some of us survived landslide victories by both Nixon and Reagan. You find a way to get through life. One step in front of the other, go through the motions, muddle through.
posted by msalt at 1:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know that Jack Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon (and General Eisenhower) militarily by making "the missile gap" one of his biggest campaign issues, right?
could one of you please convince me Trump or Cruz won't be president? I desperately need to not live in the universe where that happens. If it does, I'll have to face the reality that my country and I want completely opposite things.
It's hard, I'm not gonna lie. But some of us survived landslide victories by both Nixon and Reagan. You find a way to get through life. One step in front of the other, go through the motions, muddle through.
posted by msalt at 1:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Heavy turnout reported in Democratic caucus between Clinton and Sanders:
As of 2 p.m., the advertised cut-off time for registered Democrats to be in line, the queue stretched for at least one-half mile from the side entrance of Deering High School, snaking down three streets.
I'm hearing anecdotally that it's a mess out there. One precinct ran out of forms and had to get more from the next town over.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
As of 2 p.m., the advertised cut-off time for registered Democrats to be in line, the queue stretched for at least one-half mile from the side entrance of Deering High School, snaking down three streets.
I'm hearing anecdotally that it's a mess out there. One precinct ran out of forms and had to get more from the next town over.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jimmy Carter speaks out, calls US an oligarchy: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members.”
posted by dialetheia at 1:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
We are committed ensuring all eligible Mainers can participate in today's caucus. Please stay in line to make your voice heard.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:20 PM on March 6, 2016
Isn't Maine pretty much a foregone conclusion for Bernie? It's the whitest state in the nation, for one thing, and it's a neighbor of Vermont.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:27 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:27 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:29 PM on March 6, 2016
Also, the continued "only white people vote for Sanders" is really annoying and Metafilter should be better than that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:30 PM on March 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:30 PM on March 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
Isn't Maine pretty much a foregone conclusion for Bernie? It's the whitest state in the nation, for one thing
Is the implication of this argument that Clinton has trouble winning among white voters?
posted by dialetheia at 1:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is the implication of this argument that Clinton has trouble winning among white voters?
posted by dialetheia at 1:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
He didn't say that only white people vote for Sanders, he said that Sanders success is correlated with the % of white vote. Which it is?
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Marco Rubio wins Puerto Rico Republican primary
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on March 6, 2016
Is the implication of this argument that Clinton has trouble winning among white voters?Clinton hasn't done well in overwhelmingly-white states. That's just a fact, the same as it's a fact that Bernie hasn't done well in states where a large portion of the electorate is voters of color.
He didn't say that only white people vote for Sanders, he said that Sanders success is correlated with the % of white vote.I'm a woman.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think its controversial to point out HRC has done very well with African-Americans, and less well with whites.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Which it is?
Not really, no. Clinton has done well with people of color in the south. Let's see what else happens.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2016
Not really, no. Clinton has done well with people of color in the south. Let's see what else happens.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:35 PM on March 6, 2016
Oh sorry, I didn't look at your profile, AAC.
Not really, no.
You're saying that there has been no relationship of any kind between state's demographics and Sanders vote totals? That's so... weird.
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not really, no.
You're saying that there has been no relationship of any kind between state's demographics and Sanders vote totals? That's so... weird.
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's just strange how people are acting like Sanders doing well with white voters is some sort of electoral liability. Clinton is the presumptive front-runner - why is she having so much trouble reaching white voters?
posted by dialetheia at 1:43 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 1:43 PM on March 6, 2016
You're saying that there has been no relationship of any kind between state's demographics and Sanders vote totals? That's so... weird.
I'm saying we have no data on more than 30 states.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:43 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm saying we have no data on more than 30 states.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:43 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clearly the 20 states we have data on are outliers.
posted by Justinian at 1:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Uh, okay. I'm not going to argue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:47 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:47 PM on March 6, 2016
MeFi's own Adam Savage: "So, I know you didn’t ask me who I liked, but I don’t think you have to look very deeply into my history to figure out that Bernie would be my guy." (Reddit AMA)
posted by Room 641-A at 1:59 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 1:59 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're saying that there has been no relationship of any kind between state's demographics and Sanders vote totals?
Fair. One complicating factor is that we have no data on his big wins in MN, CO, NE, and KS because they are caucus states. There's a good deal of evidence that he carried counties that have higher Latino and Native American populations in those states, but since we don't have entrance polls, it's hard to make a data-based case that doesn't rely on ecological fallacies. Suffice it to say that not all non-white groups are voting as heavily against him as Black people, and there is some evidence that some non-white groups are actually supporting him - he's had much better luck with Native Americans, Arab Americans, and even Latinos in western states, winning majority-Latino districts in CO and at worst tying Clinton in NV. It's true that he does better with white voters, but I have trouble seeing that as anything but an electoral liability for Clinton, given that she is supposed to be the presumptive nominee walking away with this thing.
posted by dialetheia at 2:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fair. One complicating factor is that we have no data on his big wins in MN, CO, NE, and KS because they are caucus states. There's a good deal of evidence that he carried counties that have higher Latino and Native American populations in those states, but since we don't have entrance polls, it's hard to make a data-based case that doesn't rely on ecological fallacies. Suffice it to say that not all non-white groups are voting as heavily against him as Black people, and there is some evidence that some non-white groups are actually supporting him - he's had much better luck with Native Americans, Arab Americans, and even Latinos in western states, winning majority-Latino districts in CO and at worst tying Clinton in NV. It's true that he does better with white voters, but I have trouble seeing that as anything but an electoral liability for Clinton, given that she is supposed to be the presumptive nominee walking away with this thing.
posted by dialetheia at 2:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, this is totally late, but here is one more update to the (now-closed) Election Prediction Demolition Derby thread!
* * *
Welp, out of 74 total entries, only three farsighted MeFites have managed to call all six races correctly thus far -- pretty impressive (or lucky) coming from the day before the Iowa caucuses! All three think Clinton and Trump will be the nominees, so without further ado here are their final predictions, with links to their original entries/analysis:
octothorpe
mightygodking
posted by Rhaomi at 2:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
* * *
Welp, out of 74 total entries, only three farsighted MeFites have managed to call all six races correctly thus far -- pretty impressive (or lucky) coming from the day before the Iowa caucuses! All three think Clinton and Trump will be the nominees, so without further ado here are their final predictions, with links to their original entries/analysis:
octothorpe
Clinton-Booker vs. Trump-RubioDrinky Die
Result: Clinton - GOP House - Dem Senate
"I put Clinton in as the eventual winner because my brain just won't acknowledge the possibility of Trump winning."
Clinton-Castro vs. Trump-RubioCash4Lead
Result: Clinton - GOP House - GOP Senate
"This could all fall apart in Iowa if Trump does lose and defeat pops the bubble that tricks people into thinking he is a winner. If so, Rubio is in the game but I think we end up with Cruz in that scenario. Trump still feels most likely to me, but I'm far from sure. Hillary I'm sure about. "
Clinton-Kaine vs. Trump-ChristieHonorable mentions: if you grant a mulligan on the Iowa Democratic caucus, which was a virtual tie, two more users have perfect slates so far:
Result: Clinton - GOP House - Dem Senate
"[...] The Clinton-Trump debate reminds a lot of people of Clinton before the Benghazi committee, as Trump's bluster compares unfavorably with Clinton's poise. Christie roughs up Kaine in the VP debate, but you can tell his heart's not in it. Clinton will win, but will lose a formerly reliable Blue state from the upper Midwest."
mightygodking
Clinton-Castro vs. Trump-RubioAutomacar
Result: Clinton - GOP House - Dem Senate
Clinton-Biden vs. Trump-(Ivanka) Trump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯BONUS EDIT: A look at the colorful prediction spreadsheet!
Result: Clinton - GOP House - GOP Senate
" I think the caucus system is going to work for Sanders and against Trump. But Clinton will win SC, NC, and Florida and Trump will win NH and voters will split between Rubio and Cruz in later contests, leaving Trump ascendant. Demographic and electoral college trends will put Clinton in the White House."
posted by Rhaomi at 2:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
the other thing that's great about his "lesser Ivies" thing
Lesser Ivies would be a good band name. It has a pretty cadence.
posted by aka burlap at 2:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Lesser Ivies would be a good band name. It has a pretty cadence.
posted by aka burlap at 2:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the broader context of this particular horse race, there have been some really interesting articles lately on where the left should focus its efforts in the future, whether we should try to transform the Democratic party from the inside or whether we would build an independent movement that often works in concert with the Democratic party but aims to keep it accountable from the outside by resisting co-option. A few interesting pieces:
Stop laughing, Democrats, as the GOP goes down in flames, your civil war is almost here: "The post-Bernie landscape is fraught with danger for the electoral left, and also with opportunity. You can feel both of those things in the combination of smugness and high anxiety found among Hillary Clinton supporters, who are not content to be victorious but must also seek to prove the unprovable thesis that their Potemkin political party is “progressive” and that their victory points toward the future rather than the past. To the extent that the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party believes that the war is over and they won and it’s safe to retreat into the ossified institutional politics that have brought them nothing but misery and defeat and have rendered their party nearly irrelevant in most non-coastal states, they are inviting their own version of Trumpian apocalypse. For the insurgents of the Sanders wing, the question now becomes how many of them are willing to turn to the more difficult and less exciting work of rebuilding democracy from the ground up, and taking the Democratic Party back from the lawyers and technology millionaires and Hollywood executives and foreign-policy apparatchiks who have become its principal proprietors."
Ralph Nader: What will Sanders voters do after July?: "The energetic Sanders supporters, including the Millennials who voted so heavily for Bernie, could form a New Progressive movement to exercise a policy pull on the establishment Democrats before November and to be a growing magnet after November with the objective of taking over the Democratic Party starting with winning local elections. This will have long-term benefits for our country."
Socialists and the horse race: "We are small — whether we’re an organized group or not, whether we’re Green or not — and those of us who believe that things need to change, that this is a rotten system, and people are suffering and dying because of it, have to step up and put the small amount of resources that we have to build that national independent campaign now. That doesn’t mean that we don’t look at the local level — in 2017 and all the off election years, the most important thing is running candidates on the local level from the Black Lives Matter movement, from the single-payer health care movement, from the stop mass incarceration movement, etc. We are a part of that. The Bernie Sanders campaign is a tool. For some socialists it’s a tool to recruit or to talk about socialism. To the Democratic Party that campaign is a tool to keep people in the Democratic Party. So electoral work, electoral campaigns in general are a tool that socialists and those on the Left need to use more."
posted by dialetheia at 2:19 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Stop laughing, Democrats, as the GOP goes down in flames, your civil war is almost here: "The post-Bernie landscape is fraught with danger for the electoral left, and also with opportunity. You can feel both of those things in the combination of smugness and high anxiety found among Hillary Clinton supporters, who are not content to be victorious but must also seek to prove the unprovable thesis that their Potemkin political party is “progressive” and that their victory points toward the future rather than the past. To the extent that the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party believes that the war is over and they won and it’s safe to retreat into the ossified institutional politics that have brought them nothing but misery and defeat and have rendered their party nearly irrelevant in most non-coastal states, they are inviting their own version of Trumpian apocalypse. For the insurgents of the Sanders wing, the question now becomes how many of them are willing to turn to the more difficult and less exciting work of rebuilding democracy from the ground up, and taking the Democratic Party back from the lawyers and technology millionaires and Hollywood executives and foreign-policy apparatchiks who have become its principal proprietors."
Ralph Nader: What will Sanders voters do after July?: "The energetic Sanders supporters, including the Millennials who voted so heavily for Bernie, could form a New Progressive movement to exercise a policy pull on the establishment Democrats before November and to be a growing magnet after November with the objective of taking over the Democratic Party starting with winning local elections. This will have long-term benefits for our country."
Socialists and the horse race: "We are small — whether we’re an organized group or not, whether we’re Green or not — and those of us who believe that things need to change, that this is a rotten system, and people are suffering and dying because of it, have to step up and put the small amount of resources that we have to build that national independent campaign now. That doesn’t mean that we don’t look at the local level — in 2017 and all the off election years, the most important thing is running candidates on the local level from the Black Lives Matter movement, from the single-payer health care movement, from the stop mass incarceration movement, etc. We are a part of that. The Bernie Sanders campaign is a tool. For some socialists it’s a tool to recruit or to talk about socialism. To the Democratic Party that campaign is a tool to keep people in the Democratic Party. So electoral work, electoral campaigns in general are a tool that socialists and those on the Left need to use more."
posted by dialetheia at 2:19 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
As an outsider: it would be amazing, from the point of view of everyone in the whole rest of the world, if the left of the Democratic party engaged in local and down-ballot politics. Hurrah!! Thank you!!
(why haven't you guys thought of this before?)
Also as an outsider: it appears to be a fact that Sanders, who is the only politician in the US who remotely resembles European politicians, has more appeal in majority white states. Why would anyone argue about facts?
posted by mumimor at 2:39 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
(why haven't you guys thought of this before?)
Also as an outsider: it appears to be a fact that Sanders, who is the only politician in the US who remotely resembles European politicians, has more appeal in majority white states. Why would anyone argue about facts?
posted by mumimor at 2:39 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also as an outsider: it appears to be a fact that Sanders, who is the only politician in the US who remotely resembles European politicians, has more appeal in majority white states. Why would anyone argue about facts?
Because it's March 6th, and the convention is in the summer. Correlation does not equal causation yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:44 PM on March 6, 2016
Because it's March 6th, and the convention is in the summer. Correlation does not equal causation yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:44 PM on March 6, 2016
it appears to be a fact that Sanders, who is the only politician in the US who remotely resembles European politicians
Oh, I dunno - Trump would fit in pretty well in Hungary these days, I think.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:44 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, I dunno - Trump would fit in pretty well in Hungary these days, I think.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:44 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Isn't Italy still in Europe?
posted by valkane at 2:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by valkane at 2:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I dunno - Trump would fit in pretty well in Hungary these days, I think.Trump is disturbingly Berlusconi-esque.
why is she having so much trouble reaching white voters?That's an interesting question, although I think it's sort of misleading. She's getting a much higher percentage of white voters than Sanders is of black voters. (I haven't seen a ton of stats on Latino voters, but the maps I saw of Texas made it look like Clinton also did very well in heavily-Latino areas. I don't know whether there's polling data on Native Americans or Asians or other racial groups.) But here's the thing: you can't win the Democratic primary if you don't do well with voters of color. You also can't win a presidential election, which is why the Republicans are pretty screwed this election unless Trump pulls out something weird and for the long term unless they can change things or convince a lot of current people of color that they're white. (Not joking about that: convincing Latinos that they're white is probably their best bet.) Obama lost the white vote in 2012. He just won enough white voters (about 40%, I think) and such an overwhelming percentage of all the other voters that he pulled out the election. Clinton's coalition looks like one that wins presidential elections. Bernie's, not so much.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
(why haven't you guys thought of this before?)
That's a fairly condescending way to put it. There are a lot of reasons why the left has been marginalized among traditional Democratic voters in the years following the Reagan revolution, starting with the centrist push from the DLC and New Democrats which certainly influenced the thinking of rank-and-file voters. It has forced the left into more of a protest-group position, from the WTO to the anti-Iraq movement to Occupy. Farther left candidates are often marginalized by local parties or the DSCC/DCCC/DNC for higher offices, making it more difficult to get the institutional backing and funding that are increasingly necessary to holding higher office. Besides, Sanders did exactly that - he worked his way up from Mayor of Burlington through to the House and then the Senate, remember. The country is just starting to be more open to farther left politics at a mainstream level, and we're trying to make the best of that situation now. I can't imagine that many people with left politics in e.g. Kansas or Oklahoma knew that there was enough support to overwhelmingly choose a socialist in their primary this year, but now they know. Hopefully that will help embolden the left; I think many of us just assumed our politics would be a dealbreaker before seeing how far the Democratic electorate has swung to the left this year.
Clinton's coalition looks like one that wins presidential elections.
What about young people? She's losing them nearly as badly as Sanders is losing Black voters in many states, and Sanders keeps the margin much closer with young Black voters.
posted by dialetheia at 2:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's a fairly condescending way to put it. There are a lot of reasons why the left has been marginalized among traditional Democratic voters in the years following the Reagan revolution, starting with the centrist push from the DLC and New Democrats which certainly influenced the thinking of rank-and-file voters. It has forced the left into more of a protest-group position, from the WTO to the anti-Iraq movement to Occupy. Farther left candidates are often marginalized by local parties or the DSCC/DCCC/DNC for higher offices, making it more difficult to get the institutional backing and funding that are increasingly necessary to holding higher office. Besides, Sanders did exactly that - he worked his way up from Mayor of Burlington through to the House and then the Senate, remember. The country is just starting to be more open to farther left politics at a mainstream level, and we're trying to make the best of that situation now. I can't imagine that many people with left politics in e.g. Kansas or Oklahoma knew that there was enough support to overwhelmingly choose a socialist in their primary this year, but now they know. Hopefully that will help embolden the left; I think many of us just assumed our politics would be a dealbreaker before seeing how far the Democratic electorate has swung to the left this year.
Clinton's coalition looks like one that wins presidential elections.
What about young people? She's losing them nearly as badly as Sanders is losing Black voters in many states, and Sanders keeps the margin much closer with young Black voters.
posted by dialetheia at 2:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Young people don't matter. Lower your expectations and surrender your votes. We will add your demographic and political distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
You know that photoshop of Trump's mouth replacing his eyes? Someone did a video version.
That's some high-octane nightmare fuel, right there. Nice one.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:56 PM on March 6, 2016
That's some high-octane nightmare fuel, right there. Nice one.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:56 PM on March 6, 2016
You know that photoshop of Trump's mouth replacing his eyes? Someone did a video version.
That's some high-octane nightmare fuel, right there. Nice one.
Yeah, if you could peek into my mind while I was watching that video, you'd see a screaming mouth filled with more screaming mouths filled with still more screaming mouths, stretching out to infinity.
posted by duffell at 3:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's some high-octane nightmare fuel, right there. Nice one.
Yeah, if you could peek into my mind while I was watching that video, you'd see a screaming mouth filled with more screaming mouths filled with still more screaming mouths, stretching out to infinity.
posted by duffell at 3:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
This electoral turnout/affiliation calculator from 538 is really interesting. I was surprised at how little turnout matters in any group - e.g. on the Stop-Trump front, increasing non-college-educated white turnout by 20% doesn't win the election for him, but swinging just 7% more of those voters to vote for Republicans does since that swings those Rust Belt states to his favor. The turnout-related thresholds for Democrats are interesting too - it takes surprisingly large decreases in turnout to meaningfully affect the outcome.
posted by dialetheia at 3:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Even the most far right and fascist politicians in Europe are to the left of most American politicians
No one in Europe would contest universal healthcare.
Even though some governments pretend to be belligerent, no one wants to match US military.
Every single politician in Europe is for free trade, and every single politician is for regulation that protects consumers and workers.
The EU is taking on the big monopolies.
And obviously, there are tons of huge problems in EU.
I'm not at all suggesting that the EU is better than the US. That would be stupid. Our problems are serious, and as usual, we are more likely to to start a world war than the US is.
But, our voters do actually vote. And we do take on the relevant questions. We are not good at it, but we do it. Actually we are really, really bad. But what is scary about the American system is that the people involved just give up and let someone else decide.
posted by mumimor at 3:05 PM on March 6, 2016
No one in Europe would contest universal healthcare.
Even though some governments pretend to be belligerent, no one wants to match US military.
Every single politician in Europe is for free trade, and every single politician is for regulation that protects consumers and workers.
The EU is taking on the big monopolies.
And obviously, there are tons of huge problems in EU.
I'm not at all suggesting that the EU is better than the US. That would be stupid. Our problems are serious, and as usual, we are more likely to to start a world war than the US is.
But, our voters do actually vote. And we do take on the relevant questions. We are not good at it, but we do it. Actually we are really, really bad. But what is scary about the American system is that the people involved just give up and let someone else decide.
posted by mumimor at 3:05 PM on March 6, 2016
Clinton's coalition looks like one that wins presidential elections.
What about young people? She's losing them nearly as badly as Sanders is losing Black voters in many states, and Sanders keeps the margin much closer with young Black voters.
Voting rates track with age? I think that for a lot of political analysts Clinton's losing among the youth is her losing votes that were never going to be cast in any case. Even most of the discussion of Sanders' popularity among the young seems to be based around the premise that by energizing them now he'll affect their policy outlook and ergo votes as they age.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:06 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
What about young people? She's losing them nearly as badly as Sanders is losing Black voters in many states, and Sanders keeps the margin much closer with young Black voters.
Voting rates track with age? I think that for a lot of political analysts Clinton's losing among the youth is her losing votes that were never going to be cast in any case. Even most of the discussion of Sanders' popularity among the young seems to be based around the premise that by energizing them now he'll affect their policy outlook and ergo votes as they age.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:06 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Without the increase in young people voting, Obama wouldn't have done as well in 2008 and would have lost in 2012: "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." Young voters are a crucial part of the Obama coalition, too.
posted by dialetheia at 3:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
That 538 link is amazing, dialetheia, thanks!
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 'public option' only makes sense if you think health insurance can be an efficient free market if only the government would intervene in the market...
Quite true, but this sort of strategy often makes a lot of sense in situations similar to the one we are actually in, where many people (and many people in power) worship at the altar of the free market.
In that case, having an option on the table that is like "supercharged free market" helps get them at the table and talking at all.
It's not enough to have the best policies--you also must have a strategy to get from where we actually are now TO that policy, step by step.
That oftentimes means, having different strategies for bringing current opponents on board with the plan, neutralizing their opposition, moving public opinion, and so on.
That is the spectrum of activities that public option fits into, not "here is the world's greatest be-all-end-all solution all wrapped into one neat package".
posted by flug at 3:13 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Quite true, but this sort of strategy often makes a lot of sense in situations similar to the one we are actually in, where many people (and many people in power) worship at the altar of the free market.
In that case, having an option on the table that is like "supercharged free market" helps get them at the table and talking at all.
It's not enough to have the best policies--you also must have a strategy to get from where we actually are now TO that policy, step by step.
That oftentimes means, having different strategies for bringing current opponents on board with the plan, neutralizing their opposition, moving public opinion, and so on.
That is the spectrum of activities that public option fits into, not "here is the world's greatest be-all-end-all solution all wrapped into one neat package".
posted by flug at 3:13 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
This electoral turnout/affiliation calculator from 538 is really interesting.
Great find. If the analysis is accurate, it shows the danger Trump poses if the DNC can't convince enough white people, educated or not, to vote for Hillary.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:23 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Great find. If the analysis is accurate, it shows the danger Trump poses if the DNC can't convince enough white people, educated or not, to vote for Hillary.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:23 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why would anyone argue about facts?
Every time I hear something like this it reminds me of the Mad Men episode where Pete Campbell's dad dies and he recalls their last conversation as a fight about whether their neighbor's dog was a French bulldog or a Boston terrier - "'Fighting about facts,' my mother calls it. We do it all the time. Argue about something that's actually one way or another."
Fighting about implications of facts is a different matter entirely.
posted by sallybrown at 3:24 PM on March 6, 2016
Every time I hear something like this it reminds me of the Mad Men episode where Pete Campbell's dad dies and he recalls their last conversation as a fight about whether their neighbor's dog was a French bulldog or a Boston terrier - "'Fighting about facts,' my mother calls it. We do it all the time. Argue about something that's actually one way or another."
Fighting about implications of facts is a different matter entirely.
posted by sallybrown at 3:24 PM on March 6, 2016
I spent my afternoon at my Maine caucus. Large Sanders turnout - a little over 2/3 for him, 1/3 for Clinton. I'll be a Clinton delegate to the state convention. Many newly registered voters, which is a great thing. All was orderly, not highly organized. The Portland caucus was mobbed, and people had to wait in long lines. Maine Dems need to organize the caucuses or give up and have primaries.
posted by theora55 at 3:29 PM on March 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 3:29 PM on March 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Young people don't matter. Lower your expectations and surrender your votes. We will add your demographic and political distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
It's only a matter of time til you join us.
Literally.
posted by dersins at 3:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's only a matter of time til you join us.
Literally.
posted by dersins at 3:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
If I were a young Sanders supporter, people writing off my choice before we're even half way through the primaries is exactly the kind of thing that would make me think "Fuck the Democratic Party. I'm just going to sit this one out/vote third party". I wish people would stop talking as if it's already Hillary's nomination; I think they're making it less likely she could win in November.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 3:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [21 favorites]
benito.strauss, that is often how I feel, even in this thread, and I'm not that young.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oddly enough, it is the same crap I got here eight years ago when I was a Clinton supporter.
(To be honest, though, I ignored it then and cheerfully voted for Obama in the general, and I will ignore it now that I'm a Sanders supporter and will cheerfully vote for whichever one of Sanders or Clinton wins in the general. I'm trying my best to pay attention to signal rather than noise this time around ...)
posted by kyrademon at 4:03 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
(To be honest, though, I ignored it then and cheerfully voted for Obama in the general, and I will ignore it now that I'm a Sanders supporter and will cheerfully vote for whichever one of Sanders or Clinton wins in the general. I'm trying my best to pay attention to signal rather than noise this time around ...)
posted by kyrademon at 4:03 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
could one of you please convince me Trump or Cruz won't be president? I desperately need to not live in the universe where that happens.
There are no guarantees. But there are things to remember:
1. In 2012, the media worked its ass off to portray Romney vs Obama as some nail-biter "anything could happen" race, but in hindsight the outcome was never in doubt. The drama was only there to drive ratings. Common goddamn sense could tell you that Romney wasn't going to win, and Romney is a far more sympathetic figure than either Trump or Cruz. Remember that during all this hype: a scared and riveted viewership is good for ratings, and our media cares much more about ratings than sober, accurate journalism. This is all sensationalized for the sake of profit. Trump is good for TV.
2. Neither Trump nor Cruz have serious backing from the GOP like pretty much every other candidate before them has enjoyed. Trump is an outright racist, misogynist, xenophobe, and fascist, and the simple fact remains that no, the entire GOP isn't of a like mind or even close. Sane Republicans are a thing that actually exists. I know that sounds fucking crazy, but it happens. We've all met them.
3. The anti-Trump narrative is now up and running and getting loud. Very, very loud. It's showing in the primary voting this weekend, too. Cruz is doing better as a primary candidate, yes, but there's just no way a guy wins the White House when he's got zero charisma, he has a track record of shutting down the government to no discernible gain, and practically everyone on the planet thinks he's an asshole. The GOP may support Cruz, but they're doing it as a lesser evil to save the party. They know putting Cruz up as the nominee is basically throwing the election.
4. Yes, Trump is going to draw out the Angry White Racist vote. No doubt. And it's scary to wonder just how many people will actually vote that way in the privacy of the voting booth. Conversely, they didn't stop us from electing a black president twice, and the demographics that helped elect Obama have only gotten stronger.
5. The vetting hasn't really gone into full strength yet. Trump and Cruz both have weak points that haven't even been targeted. Neither of them are as unassailable as they'd like us to believe.
I think we're gonna be okay. We can't take it for granted, but it's pretty clear that neither Bernie nor Hillary are of a mind to do that after so much has already gone crazy this year. I'm only worried about the damage that will be done in the meantime, 'cause Trump and Cruz are still jockeying for the primary and they've already done real damage to the US. But again: I think we're gonna be okay in the end.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
There are no guarantees. But there are things to remember:
1. In 2012, the media worked its ass off to portray Romney vs Obama as some nail-biter "anything could happen" race, but in hindsight the outcome was never in doubt. The drama was only there to drive ratings. Common goddamn sense could tell you that Romney wasn't going to win, and Romney is a far more sympathetic figure than either Trump or Cruz. Remember that during all this hype: a scared and riveted viewership is good for ratings, and our media cares much more about ratings than sober, accurate journalism. This is all sensationalized for the sake of profit. Trump is good for TV.
2. Neither Trump nor Cruz have serious backing from the GOP like pretty much every other candidate before them has enjoyed. Trump is an outright racist, misogynist, xenophobe, and fascist, and the simple fact remains that no, the entire GOP isn't of a like mind or even close. Sane Republicans are a thing that actually exists. I know that sounds fucking crazy, but it happens. We've all met them.
3. The anti-Trump narrative is now up and running and getting loud. Very, very loud. It's showing in the primary voting this weekend, too. Cruz is doing better as a primary candidate, yes, but there's just no way a guy wins the White House when he's got zero charisma, he has a track record of shutting down the government to no discernible gain, and practically everyone on the planet thinks he's an asshole. The GOP may support Cruz, but they're doing it as a lesser evil to save the party. They know putting Cruz up as the nominee is basically throwing the election.
4. Yes, Trump is going to draw out the Angry White Racist vote. No doubt. And it's scary to wonder just how many people will actually vote that way in the privacy of the voting booth. Conversely, they didn't stop us from electing a black president twice, and the demographics that helped elect Obama have only gotten stronger.
5. The vetting hasn't really gone into full strength yet. Trump and Cruz both have weak points that haven't even been targeted. Neither of them are as unassailable as they'd like us to believe.
I think we're gonna be okay. We can't take it for granted, but it's pretty clear that neither Bernie nor Hillary are of a mind to do that after so much has already gone crazy this year. I'm only worried about the damage that will be done in the meantime, 'cause Trump and Cruz are still jockeying for the primary and they've already done real damage to the US. But again: I think we're gonna be okay in the end.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think Sanders supporters should cheerfully continue to vote for him right up to the convention. That's how this works. But I'm not going to pretend that both Sanders and Clinton still have an equal chance at the nomination? What does that get us.
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
but there's just no way a guy wins the White House when he's got zero charisma, he has a track record of shutting down the government to no discernible gain, and practically everyone on the planet thinks he's an asshole.
I agree, but I wish the Clinton vs. Cruz polling was more favorable. Even if it's not predictive and the electoral college is obviously what counts, it's uncomfortably close. It's weird that Sanders beats Cruz by so much more, and that his margin over the GOP candidates has only widened as people have become more familiar with Sanders. I know these are not predictive, but when Cruz beats Clinton by 1 point while Sanders beats Cruz by 17 in the same set of polling, that's more than meaningless noise. I'm sure someone will respond that nobody has attacked him, which I'll grant, but it's still interesting how Sanders outperforms her vs. Cruz by over 15 points in the current snapshot.
posted by dialetheia at 4:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree, but I wish the Clinton vs. Cruz polling was more favorable. Even if it's not predictive and the electoral college is obviously what counts, it's uncomfortably close. It's weird that Sanders beats Cruz by so much more, and that his margin over the GOP candidates has only widened as people have become more familiar with Sanders. I know these are not predictive, but when Cruz beats Clinton by 1 point while Sanders beats Cruz by 17 in the same set of polling, that's more than meaningless noise. I'm sure someone will respond that nobody has attacked him, which I'll grant, but it's still interesting how Sanders outperforms her vs. Cruz by over 15 points in the current snapshot.
posted by dialetheia at 4:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
> But I'm not going to pretend that both Sanders and Clinton still have an equal chance at the nomination? What does that get us.
Hopefully, more people feeling like they matter to the Democratic Party to the point where they will vote for the Party's candidate.
Also, I didn't say "pretend [they] have an equal chance", I said "[don't] write off people's choices". There's a lot of space in between those two positions, plenty of room for discussing who's ahead and how likely each is to win without assuming other people's voices out of the picture.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hopefully, more people feeling like they matter to the Democratic Party to the point where they will vote for the Party's candidate.
Also, I didn't say "pretend [they] have an equal chance", I said "[don't] write off people's choices". There's a lot of space in between those two positions, plenty of room for discussing who's ahead and how likely each is to win without assuming other people's voices out of the picture.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Without the increase in young people voting, Obama wouldn't have done as well in 2008 and would have lost in 2012: "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." Young voters are a crucial part of the Obama coalition, too.
Aren't you conflating turnout with vote proportion? I don't think there's any worry that Trump could ever split the youth vote 50/50. Would decreased youth turnout flip the election? I might be reading the 538 link you posted differently, but it doesn't really seem like it.
posted by one_bean at 4:38 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Aren't you conflating turnout with vote proportion? I don't think there's any worry that Trump could ever split the youth vote 50/50. Would decreased youth turnout flip the election? I might be reading the 538 link you posted differently, but it doesn't really seem like it.
posted by one_bean at 4:38 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
you guys, I can't wait for the general to start so some mefi wag can finally post one of these threads with the title, "two candidates, one cup"
posted by indubitable at 4:41 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by indubitable at 4:41 PM on March 6, 2016
*DEBATE THREAD DECLARED* ?
Dem debate tonight, I assume everyone knows.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dem debate tonight, I assume everyone knows.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
it's still interesting how Sanders outperforms her vs. Cruz by over 15 points in the current snapshot.
Yeah, I don't know how to respond to the stuff that says Clinton has a better shot at the nom but Bernie does better in an actual election. Clearly her unfavorables are at play there. Past that, though, it's hard to really give much credence to polls for the general at this point. I'm more comfortable relying on some basic "sane people detest the GOP options" than those polls right now. I mean when we're at a point where major newspapers are giving "None of the Above" as their Republican primary endorsements, I think things are gonna be okay.
But getting through this sure sucks.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:45 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't know how to respond to the stuff that says Clinton has a better shot at the nom but Bernie does better in an actual election. Clearly her unfavorables are at play there. Past that, though, it's hard to really give much credence to polls for the general at this point. I'm more comfortable relying on some basic "sane people detest the GOP options" than those polls right now. I mean when we're at a point where major newspapers are giving "None of the Above" as their Republican primary endorsements, I think things are gonna be okay.
But getting through this sure sucks.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:45 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's tough with the general head-to-head polling, yeah. On the one hand, as far as what will actually happen by the time we get to November, it's basically meaningless. But as a snapshot of current opinion, it's just as meaningful as any other national poll. When the difference in performance vs. the GOP between Clinton and Sanders was within the margin of error, it wasn't really very convincing, but those margins have only widened as the race has gone on. I'm not pointing to any of it as any kind of argument for Sanders' longterm electability or anything, I just think it's really odd that the margin of victory is only widening for Sanders, to the point that he outperforms her vs. Cruz by double digits in two of the most recent polls even as he slips a bit in the national dem nomination polls due to Clinton's success on Super Tuesday. I haven't seen anyone with any analysis that explains the difference in their margins (maybe I'll look at the crosstabs later). The same pattern generally holds for Rubio and Trump, with Sanders running a little stronger against Trump and a lot stronger against Rubio. The good news is that Clinton and Sanders would both beat Trump if it were held today, and that this polling isn't at all predictive for November!
posted by dialetheia at 5:00 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 5:00 PM on March 6, 2016
Yeah, I don't know how to respond to the stuff that says Clinton has a better shot at the nom but Bernie does better in an actual election.
People want a new face and Bernie has received nothing but positive press as an idealistic outsider, right now. He won't be a new face to anybody by September, though, if he wins. He also hasn't been vetted yet, while Hillary has. Don't forget that Michael Dukakis led George HW Bush (who wasn't even that well know, as vice president) in the polls as late as July 1988. Then the negative ads started.
Hillary will get negative ads too of course but has been getting them for 25 years. There is nothing new people can bring up.
posted by msalt at 5:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
People want a new face and Bernie has received nothing but positive press as an idealistic outsider, right now. He won't be a new face to anybody by September, though, if he wins. He also hasn't been vetted yet, while Hillary has. Don't forget that Michael Dukakis led George HW Bush (who wasn't even that well know, as vice president) in the polls as late as July 1988. Then the negative ads started.
Hillary will get negative ads too of course but has been getting them for 25 years. There is nothing new people can bring up.
posted by msalt at 5:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that to some extent, it reflects that the Republican attack machine hasn't zoned in on Bernie the way that it has on Hillary for twenty-odd years. And actually, my sense is that Bernie is pretty unvetted, because the voters and press in Vermont were far too high-minded and respectful to really dig into his past. For instance, it has never been an issue that Bernie was never married to his son's mother. For many years, the press in Vermont didn't realize that his son's mother and his ex-wife were two different people, and then when they found out, they decided that it was his own business. I don't know if that will be a problem for him once the Republicans decide to play dirty. It may be that it's the kind of thing that disqualifies a woman and bounces right off a man. (And make no mistake, a woman who had a child out-of-wedlock in 1969 would be completely defined by it. It would be in the first paragraph of every article ever written about her.) But I wouldn't be surprised if there were other things that could be dug up from Bernie's radical past: disparaging statements about members of the military, for instance, or friendships with radicals who advocated or used violence. And you'd better believe that the Republicans will run with every little tidbit they find.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
People who aren't even paying attention to the debates yet don't know much about Sanders, and he has yet to be attacked by the GOP directly. Clinton has been a fixture of American political life for decades, and has been in the news more with the e-mail crap. Head-to-head polls are useless at this point, for that and myriad other reasons, the most notable of which is that we're not in the general election. Even then, the national election is a state-by-state affair.
posted by raysmj at 5:07 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by raysmj at 5:07 PM on March 6, 2016
Hillary will get negative ads too of course but has been getting them for 25 years. There is nothing new people can bring up.
Holy whistling past the graveyard.
posted by Trochanter at 5:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Holy whistling past the graveyard.
posted by Trochanter at 5:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
People want a new face and Bernie has received nothing but positive press as an idealistic outsider, right now.
Bernie's gotten plenty of negative press. All the tropes about Tea-Party like ideologues haunting college campuses, Bernie Bros, weak [insert policy here], the fact that Paul Krugman had a whole thing about how his tax plan could never work, and so on - I think that's substantially less than entirely positive and uncritical.
posted by teponaztli at 5:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie's gotten plenty of negative press. All the tropes about Tea-Party like ideologues haunting college campuses, Bernie Bros, weak [insert policy here], the fact that Paul Krugman had a whole thing about how his tax plan could never work, and so on - I think that's substantially less than entirely positive and uncritical.
posted by teponaztli at 5:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Quite a contrast with the last GOP debate: At Fox News Debate In Michigan, Republican Candidates Spend Less Than 2 Minutes On Flint
posted by homunculus at 5:10 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by homunculus at 5:10 PM on March 6, 2016
He also hasn't been vetted yet, while Hillary has.
Is. How many federal investigations of Sanders do you anticipate?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is. How many federal investigations of Sanders do you anticipate?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Flint Just Replaced Its First Lead Pipe (Only About 8,000 More to Go)
Post-Flint, Half Of Americans Are Worried About Their Tap Water Too
posted by homunculus at 5:13 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Post-Flint, Half Of Americans Are Worried About Their Tap Water Too
posted by homunculus at 5:13 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Flint Just Replaced Its First Lead Pipe (Only About 8,000 More to Go)
Was there a ceremony? Did they cut a ribbon with a giant pair of scissors?
posted by Trochanter at 5:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Was there a ceremony? Did they cut a ribbon with a giant pair of scissors?
posted by Trochanter at 5:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
There is nothing new people can bring up.
I don't know about that at all - the Benghazi and email server ads have barely started, much less digging into her 30k emails and entire record as Secretary of State. Nothing illegal happened in the Benghazi situation, certainly, but that doesn't mean we won't hear about it all the same. We don't even know how the email thing will shake out - they granted immunity to the person who set up the server just last week to get him to testify after pleading the 5th. Many liberals I talk to barely even know the first thing about what's happened in Libya, much less are ready to defend her role in it - the foreign policy record of the Secretary of State is pretty important and she has not been substantially attacked on much beyond just Benghazi. And yeah, I totally granted that he hasn't been attacked at full volume yet - I'm still not sure if that explains his widening lead over Republicans, though. Maybe it's just that all of the Republicans are getting less popular at the same time as Clinton but Sanders is floating above it because he doesn't seem worth attacking. Not a big deal though, don't mean to derail the debate thread.
They called Maine for Sanders, 64%-36% with 76% reporting. Not sure how turnout compared to 2008 yet but it sounds like it was quite high, possibly a record.
posted by dialetheia at 5:18 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't know about that at all - the Benghazi and email server ads have barely started, much less digging into her 30k emails and entire record as Secretary of State. Nothing illegal happened in the Benghazi situation, certainly, but that doesn't mean we won't hear about it all the same. We don't even know how the email thing will shake out - they granted immunity to the person who set up the server just last week to get him to testify after pleading the 5th. Many liberals I talk to barely even know the first thing about what's happened in Libya, much less are ready to defend her role in it - the foreign policy record of the Secretary of State is pretty important and she has not been substantially attacked on much beyond just Benghazi. And yeah, I totally granted that he hasn't been attacked at full volume yet - I'm still not sure if that explains his widening lead over Republicans, though. Maybe it's just that all of the Republicans are getting less popular at the same time as Clinton but Sanders is floating above it because he doesn't seem worth attacking. Not a big deal though, don't mean to derail the debate thread.
They called Maine for Sanders, 64%-36% with 76% reporting. Not sure how turnout compared to 2008 yet but it sounds like it was quite high, possibly a record.
posted by dialetheia at 5:18 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
FFS, yes there should be criminal charges. There won't be, obviously, but there sure as hell should be.
posted by homunculus at 5:18 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by homunculus at 5:18 PM on March 6, 2016
The figure I heard for the Flint replacement work was $55 million. Let that sink in for a bit.
posted by indubitable at 5:20 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by indubitable at 5:20 PM on March 6, 2016
Is it just me, or do both Clinton and Sanders sound hoarse? All that politickin takes a toll.
posted by homunculus at 5:20 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:20 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was looking for the Maine results, but couldn't find them on NYT front page. Thanks for the link-
posted by localhuman at 5:21 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by localhuman at 5:21 PM on March 6, 2016
"Was there a ceremony? Did they cut a ribbon with a giant pair of scissors?"
Pretty much. The day before, the city did a test dig. There was almost a fist fight.
posted by clavdivs at 5:21 PM on March 6, 2016
Pretty much. The day before, the city did a test dig. There was almost a fist fight.
posted by clavdivs at 5:21 PM on March 6, 2016
I am so glad both are stressing that this is not just about Flint. We don't even know how widespread this is yet.
(Not sure how Hillary is going to get rid of all lead paint in 5 years?!)
posted by sallybrown at 5:24 PM on March 6, 2016
(Not sure how Hillary is going to get rid of all lead paint in 5 years?!)
posted by sallybrown at 5:24 PM on March 6, 2016
Clinton mentioned carrots, Sanders mentioned religion, and now I've got this playing in my head.
posted by homunculus at 5:27 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 5:27 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
If this Flint debate was Hillary's idea as she claimed at the start, it was a serious miscalculation. Bernie is able to hit all of the high notes of his campaign and highlight Hillary's free-trade-friendly policies.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:28 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:28 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
indubitable: "The figure I heard for the Flint replacement work was $55 million. Let that sink in for a bit."
That seems really cheap to me. I was expecting much more.
posted by octothorpe at 5:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
That seems really cheap to me. I was expecting much more.
posted by octothorpe at 5:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure what she's even talking about with Sanders voting against the auto bailout - I believe he voted for the specific auto bailout, he just voted against the much larger TARP Wall Street bailout: Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different: (Sanders) "The problem is if you don't act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls."
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
I had not realized that Bernie voted against the bailout. I don't know how that escaped my notice before, but...yikes.
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton: I'll release my speeches, as long as everyone else does first.
That's leadership.
posted by skewed at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's leadership.
posted by skewed at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just told my girlfriend I'd clean the kitty litter boxes only when everyone else does first. She wasn't amused.
posted by localhuman at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 5:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
That seems really cheap to me. I was expecting much more.
That's Flint. The rest of us may take $300B.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:34 PM on March 6, 2016
That's Flint. The rest of us may take $300B.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:34 PM on March 6, 2016
Getting rid of lead in avgas would have a great positive impact on communities all over the US, but would any politician commit to the costs?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:34 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 5:34 PM on March 6, 2016
dialetheia: "I'm not sure what she's even talking about with Sanders voting against the auto bailout - I believe he voted for the specific auto bailout, he just voted against the much larger TARP Wall Street bailout"
I just Googled that same article myself. It does say he and Leahy supported it "reluctantly," but they did vote for it. And how could she have voted for it if she was Secretary of State?
posted by Rhaomi at 5:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I just Googled that same article myself. It does say he and Leahy supported it "reluctantly," but they did vote for it. And how could she have voted for it if she was Secretary of State?
posted by Rhaomi at 5:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right Hiliary, then 8 months later Flint had a strike, putting a sword through the UAW.
posted by clavdivs at 5:39 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 5:39 PM on March 6, 2016
And how could she have voted for it if she was Secretary of State?
She was Senator from New York until mid January of 2009. The auto bailout was 2008.
posted by Justinian at 5:39 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
She was Senator from New York until mid January of 2009. The auto bailout was 2008.
posted by Justinian at 5:39 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
On Bernie's point about the banks vs. a kid busted for marijuana: Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke
posted by homunculus at 5:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
My feeling on general election polls is that while Sanders definitely outperforms Clinton at present it is because those polls reflect Clinton's floor but Sanders' ceiling.
Barring a criminal indictment or whatever of course.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Barring a criminal indictment or whatever of course.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm hoping in this debate we can finally get around to talking about reproductive rights, equal pay, family leave, minimum wage...
posted by sallybrown at 5:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, they really need to ask about abortion. I'm assuming fox will ask about it tomorrow and fox being the first to ask about abortion would just be a gut punch.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:44 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 5:44 PM on March 6, 2016
I don't get it, when do the candidates start talking about their genitalia? Isn't that what happens at presidential debates now?
I hope Republicans who watched their debate feel an abiding sense of shame but I fear many don't.
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hope Republicans who watched their debate feel an abiding sense of shame but I fear many don't.
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
@MMFlint: Hillary has no clue that the "auto bailout" didn't save ONE single job in Flint. We used to have 80,000 GM jobs here. Today? 5,000 jobs left
@BernieSanders: FACT: Bernie Sanders supported the bailout of the auto industry in 2008.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
@BernieSanders: FACT: Bernie Sanders supported the bailout of the auto industry in 2008.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wish Clinton wouldn't smirk so much. I've never liked it when people smirk at each other as a tactic.
posted by Windigo at 5:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Windigo at 5:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Isn't that what happens at presidential debates"
Yes, that and high jacking a crisis for political gain.
posted by clavdivs at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2016
Yes, that and high jacking a crisis for political gain.
posted by clavdivs at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2016
TARP was the last minute bailout of the banks just before the 08 election, so she would have been the Senator from New York then, so of course she was in favor.
The GM/Chrysler bailout/bankruptcy was an Obama thing in 09.
So there's some confusion in Clinton's answer there, possibly.
posted by notyou at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2016
The GM/Chrysler bailout/bankruptcy was an Obama thing in 09.
So there's some confusion in Clinton's answer there, possibly.
posted by notyou at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2016
I would really like to hear more from both of them about how they would adapt to the role of President, in terms of decision making, as compared to the choices they made in prior parts of the government. For example, Bernie voted against the bank bailout - but would he have vetoed that bill? How will his strategy change? Would Hillary have implemented the strategy in Libya if she was the President, as opposed to advocating for it as Sec. of State? Being President means the calculation is just different, and I want to know how they both see that.
posted by sallybrown at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders has been dominating this debate; pretty much the whole discussion has been on his home turf of economic justice. Though what he's said about factories hiring Mexican workers for 25 cents an hour and how that's an injustice for American workers who have to compete with them is proof that he really isn't a socialist.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
he just voted against the much larger TARP Wall Street bailout
The auto bailout funds came through TARP. That law said money could go to "financial institutions" but Bush ignored that section of the law and allowed TARP funds to go to Chrysler and GM. Then Obama did the same with round 2 of the auto bailout.
posted by peeedro at 5:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
The auto bailout funds came through TARP. That law said money could go to "financial institutions" but Bush ignored that section of the law and allowed TARP funds to go to Chrysler and GM. Then Obama did the same with round 2 of the auto bailout.
posted by peeedro at 5:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
The PLCAA in action: We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer
posted by homunculus at 6:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what she's even talking about with Sanders voting against the auto bailout - I believe he voted for the specific auto bailout, he just voted against the much larger TARP Wall Street bailout
As peeedro said, the bill that Sanders voted for did not pass. The bill that actually bailed out GM was TARP, which Sanders voted against.
posted by JackFlash at 6:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
As peeedro said, the bill that Sanders voted for did not pass. The bill that actually bailed out GM was TARP, which Sanders voted against.
posted by JackFlash at 6:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Though what he's said about factories hiring Mexican workers for 25 cents an hour and how that's an injustice for American workers who have to compete with them is proof that he really isn't a socialist.
Yeah, I think the biggest strike against true socialism for the American public is the idea that we should care about workers in other countries as well as our own. I think, as Trump has shown, there is some support in this country for some aspects of socialism, but only when focused entirely for the benefit of the (white) American nation. So socialism, but without the international aspects. More of a uh... national socialism.
posted by skewed at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, I think the biggest strike against true socialism for the American public is the idea that we should care about workers in other countries as well as our own. I think, as Trump has shown, there is some support in this country for some aspects of socialism, but only when focused entirely for the benefit of the (white) American nation. So socialism, but without the international aspects. More of a uh... national socialism.
posted by skewed at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I still don't understand why gun shop owners, or even manufacturers, should be held liable for legally selling a gun to somebody who does something terrible with it. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. If the gun shop or manufacturer breaks the law or doesn't follow regulations, sure, but if they do everything right, I don't understand why they should be legally liable for what the end user does with their product.
posted by dialetheia at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
More on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: The Second Amendment Is Not What Protects Gun Dealers After Massacres
posted by homunculus at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2016
This is a really good debate.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton: No fair giving me tough questions, you gotta ask him too!
posted by skewed at 6:04 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:04 PM on March 6, 2016
Ohhhh Bernie had a great response on this question about incarceration and about if he had voted against the bill, how he would have been bashed.
posted by Windigo at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by Windigo at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2016
Yeah, more actual policy discussed in the 30 minutes I've been watching than in the last 3-4 republican debates in total.
posted by skewed at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2016
I don't think that people who sell guns should have more immunity from being sued for negligence than people who sell any other kind of good have. I think it's really weird that they do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ohhhh Bernie had a great response on this question about incarceration and about if he had voted against the bill, how he would have been bashed.
I actually thought that was weak. It didn't explain why he did it at the time. Oh, you traveled 20 years into the future and realized Hillary would have attacked you?
posted by sallybrown at 6:08 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually thought that was weak. It didn't explain why he did it at the time. Oh, you traveled 20 years into the future and realized Hillary would have attacked you?
posted by sallybrown at 6:08 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I think I may have to bail on this debate. I've sunk way too much attention into politics in the last few days.
But I've gotta say this: I genuinely like both Hillary and Bernie. Honestly, when I fill out my "absentee affidavit" form for the WA caucus, I could straight up flip a coin and be happy with the result. Except that in my last glance at Facebook, I saw three substance-free anti-Hillary memes in a row from three friends who don't know each other. They're all pulling for Bernie. And that shit is seriously starting to make me more likely to support Hillary.
I like Bernie a lot, but his supporters are seriously, deeply grating on me. And I take for granted that there's just as much pro-Hillary/anti-Bernie trash out there, but it's funny how I honestly never see it. All I see is BernieBros, everywhere, and it's tainting a genuinely good candidate.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
But I've gotta say this: I genuinely like both Hillary and Bernie. Honestly, when I fill out my "absentee affidavit" form for the WA caucus, I could straight up flip a coin and be happy with the result. Except that in my last glance at Facebook, I saw three substance-free anti-Hillary memes in a row from three friends who don't know each other. They're all pulling for Bernie. And that shit is seriously starting to make me more likely to support Hillary.
I like Bernie a lot, but his supporters are seriously, deeply grating on me. And I take for granted that there's just as much pro-Hillary/anti-Bernie trash out there, but it's funny how I honestly never see it. All I see is BernieBros, everywhere, and it's tainting a genuinely good candidate.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
I teared up at the question from the father of the girl shot by the Michigan gunman weeks ago. Honestly it's hard to recognize that the Democratic debate and the Republican debates are for the same office.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
It didn't explain why he did it at the time.
Sure it does - he supported the assault weapons ban and the violence against women provisions.
posted by dialetheia at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure it does - he supported the assault weapons ban and the violence against women provisions.
posted by dialetheia at 6:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Bros are not a thing. Continuing to insult Bernie Sanders supporters by insisting on it is gross and wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:10 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
He voted for the whole bill. You can't separate them out. The people in jail as a result of that bill don't care that they are in jail only as a side effect of what Sanders actually wanted.
posted by Justinian at 6:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Listening to both of them talk about their truly impressive pasts dealing with civil rights issues just makes me so frustrated, like - both of you have had power and a national stage for years now, why has it taken so long to bring this conversation to the mainstream? Why did Ferguson and Black Lives Matter have to happen to get you guys talking about this?
posted by sallybrown at 6:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
It didn't explain why he did it at the time.
Sure it does - he supported the assault weapons ban and the violence against women provisions.
I'm talking about him specifically invoking that Hillary would be up there attacking him for it if he had voted against it.
posted by sallybrown at 6:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure it does - he supported the assault weapons ban and the violence against women provisions.
I'm talking about him specifically invoking that Hillary would be up there attacking him for it if he had voted against it.
posted by sallybrown at 6:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think what we see internet-wise is really skewed by the generational support difference. Maybe also Hillary's perceived frontrunner status. Her supporters are less likely to spend time on Facebook and Twitter and less likely to feel the need to spread the word about her, perhaps?
posted by sallybrown at 6:14 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 6:14 PM on March 6, 2016
I know Bernie meant all those things together. I also know that idiots are going to separate out where he talked about being white and ghettos, and try to make it a headline. I absolutely positively loathe things like that, but I know it's about to happen.
posted by cashman at 6:15 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by cashman at 6:15 PM on March 6, 2016
Justinian: "He voted for the whole bill. You can't separate them out. The people in jail as a result of that bill don't care that they are in jail only as a side effect of what Sanders actually wanted."
It's a lose-lose, though. Vote the other way and you'd have countless people suffering from the increase in assault weapons on the streets and the lack of domestic violence protections in the home. It's hard to predict how disparate provisions like that would play out in decades hence versus the alternative, but at least he recognized that the criminal justice aspects would cause some measure of unjust harm.
The real takeaway, IMHO, is the need for single-purpose bills, no more shoving odious garbage into unrelated must-pass legislative vehicles.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:16 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
It's a lose-lose, though. Vote the other way and you'd have countless people suffering from the increase in assault weapons on the streets and the lack of domestic violence protections in the home. It's hard to predict how disparate provisions like that would play out in decades hence versus the alternative, but at least he recognized that the criminal justice aspects would cause some measure of unjust harm.
The real takeaway, IMHO, is the need for single-purpose bills, no more shoving odious garbage into unrelated must-pass legislative vehicles.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:16 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
But without omnibus spending bills that absolutely must pass pretty much nothing other than renaming post offices would actually get through congress these days.
posted by vuron at 6:19 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by vuron at 6:19 PM on March 6, 2016
I think one thing is certain, no matter who wins on the Democratic side of the fence they are both vastly superior than their counterparts on their right in terms of being conversant in basic public policy, issues, etc.
Hell they are both actually compassionate human beings which does not seem to be a requirement for the Republican nomination.
posted by vuron at 6:22 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Hell they are both actually compassionate human beings which does not seem to be a requirement for the Republican nomination.
posted by vuron at 6:22 PM on March 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
I agree Rhaomi; omnibus bills are terrible and cause far more problems than they solve. If they solve any.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of curious about what these memes are that are apparently so deeply upsetting to people to make them want to vote HC out of spite of Sanders supports. I've seen some memes that seem to read as "Bernie keeps it real/Hillary is part of the establishment" but that's about the extent of it?
posted by windbox at 6:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by windbox at 6:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's good that Sanders is openly proclaiming that Black Lives Matter activists have helped him learn about racial injustice in this country, but his view of institutional racism seems to be too focused on issues of policing. That's unfortunate, given that it would be much more impressive and synergize much more effectively with the rest of his campaign if he criticized the way that businesses maintain and reinforce institutional racism.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:25 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:25 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Omnibus bills probably had a purpose in the backscratching/log-rolling/earmarking days, but less so now.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:26 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 6:26 PM on March 6, 2016
That's unfortunate, given that it would be much more impressive and synergize much more effectively with the rest of his campaign if he criticized the way that businesses maintain and reinforce institutional racism.
I agree. I think he might have overinterpreted earlier criticisms that he "always pivots from race to economics" such that now he's afraid to mention economics in questions of race at all. There's probably a better middle ground he could strike.
posted by dialetheia at 6:28 PM on March 6, 2016
I agree. I think he might have overinterpreted earlier criticisms that he "always pivots from race to economics" such that now he's afraid to mention economics in questions of race at all. There's probably a better middle ground he could strike.
posted by dialetheia at 6:28 PM on March 6, 2016
"So, just to follow up, you don't believe unions protect bad teachers?" Anderson Cooper with the mothafuckin zingers.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:34 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:34 PM on March 6, 2016
As superior as this debate is to the GOP train wreck, I wish the moderators would do a better job holding candidates to the questions being asked. Sanders completely skipped over that "unions protecting bad teachers" question, for example, to talk about his free college plan.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 6:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not to imply that Sanders hasn't been dodging his fair share of questions in this debate.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:35 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:35 PM on March 6, 2016
windbox-
There is a very vocal block of Sanders supporters on places like r/politics that act like an echo chamber where anything even remotely negative about Sanders is downvoted to hell and there are always a large number of articles that are critical of Clinton that have breitbart level journalistic integrity which get upvoted into the stratosphere. Combined with rhetoric along the lines of "Black voters don't vote their self-interest" and "Clinton is just winning southern states that will vote for Republicans anyway" has created a very real feeling of disgust with some of the Sanders supporters.
I think it's important to note that a decent number of these "berniebros" could very well be Trump supporters trolling Democratic communities as a way of increasing our infighting and to his considerable credit Senator Sanders has not been condoning the behavior of this block of supporters.
I think it's representative of some of the deep divisions within liberal communities across racial and more importantly generational lines as the messaging used among some groups is clearly offensive when seen from the lens of people outside of that group. I'm not sure if it will be entirely possible to fix some of those divisions with one candidate endorsing the other one but I do suspect that active campaigning by one candidate to help the other will mend some fences.
posted by vuron at 6:36 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
There is a very vocal block of Sanders supporters on places like r/politics that act like an echo chamber where anything even remotely negative about Sanders is downvoted to hell and there are always a large number of articles that are critical of Clinton that have breitbart level journalistic integrity which get upvoted into the stratosphere. Combined with rhetoric along the lines of "Black voters don't vote their self-interest" and "Clinton is just winning southern states that will vote for Republicans anyway" has created a very real feeling of disgust with some of the Sanders supporters.
I think it's important to note that a decent number of these "berniebros" could very well be Trump supporters trolling Democratic communities as a way of increasing our infighting and to his considerable credit Senator Sanders has not been condoning the behavior of this block of supporters.
I think it's representative of some of the deep divisions within liberal communities across racial and more importantly generational lines as the messaging used among some groups is clearly offensive when seen from the lens of people outside of that group. I'm not sure if it will be entirely possible to fix some of those divisions with one candidate endorsing the other one but I do suspect that active campaigning by one candidate to help the other will mend some fences.
posted by vuron at 6:36 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
YUGE!
posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's important to note that a decent number of these "berniebros" could very well be Trump supporters trolling Democratic communities as a way of increasing our infighting and to his considerable credit Senator Sanders has not been condoning the behavior of this block of supporters
A data point: I've definitely seen content-less pro-Bernie/anti-Clinton stuff from Trump supporters on my Facebook. The stuff from the Bernie supporters has been all legitimate criticism. Granted, my friends are old and mostly not "bros."
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:43 PM on March 6, 2016
A data point: I've definitely seen content-less pro-Bernie/anti-Clinton stuff from Trump supporters on my Facebook. The stuff from the Bernie supporters has been all legitimate criticism. Granted, my friends are old and mostly not "bros."
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:43 PM on March 6, 2016
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."
Jesse Unruh
posted by CincyBlues at 6:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jesse Unruh
posted by CincyBlues at 6:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know it has no real bearing on policy, but has anyone noticed how small Hillary's hands are?
posted by snofoam at 6:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So glad that they're finally talking about climate change, but I have yet to hear how all these solar panels will help Miami.
It's worth noting that Sanders' climate change plan mentions the need to plan for adaptation to sea level rise, and Clinton's does not.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's worth noting that Sanders' climate change plan mentions the need to plan for adaptation to sea level rise, and Clinton's does not.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
And I take for granted that there's just as much pro-Hillary/anti-Bernie trash out there, but it's funny how I honestly never see it. All I see is BernieBros, everywhere, and it's tainting a genuinely good candidate.
I don't doubt that's what you're seeing, but a distressing portion of my FB feed appears to be rich, usually white, pro-Clinton gay men being condescending and snide about Sanders and his supporters. I think some of this is likely to be down to biases in what tends to catch one's attention.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't doubt that's what you're seeing, but a distressing portion of my FB feed appears to be rich, usually white, pro-Clinton gay men being condescending and snide about Sanders and his supporters. I think some of this is likely to be down to biases in what tends to catch one's attention.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
On the issue of fracking brought up in the debate.
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World(Mother Jones 2014)
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World(Mother Jones 2014)
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:48 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Being a bro is a state of mind mostly unrelated to age in my experience but I get what you are saying LD.
posted by futz at 6:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 6:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, I think there are definitely some "false-flagging" operations going on via social media and other sites where anonymity is very high.
It seems like very techno-savvy supporters can use these forms of media as a way to transmit their content virally in a cheap and effective manner. So a news story that is almost content free can suddenly become relatively big as it blows up on reddit due to coordinated upvoting and then it spreads across facebook with the veneer of truth backing it up.
I do think that a decent number of the trolls on shitty places like the red pill and various other parts of the internet are tapping into the anti-establishment sentiment present in both Trump and Sanders campaigns and coopting that with racial and gender divisive language because it represents a way of attacking "SJWs" and "Political Correctness".
This doesn't seem to represent the vast majority of Sanders supporters who seem to be pretty reasonable when I meet them in person so I think there are some trolls that are using the rage against corporatists like Clinton as a way to inject their MRA memes as well.
posted by vuron at 6:53 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
It seems like very techno-savvy supporters can use these forms of media as a way to transmit their content virally in a cheap and effective manner. So a news story that is almost content free can suddenly become relatively big as it blows up on reddit due to coordinated upvoting and then it spreads across facebook with the veneer of truth backing it up.
I do think that a decent number of the trolls on shitty places like the red pill and various other parts of the internet are tapping into the anti-establishment sentiment present in both Trump and Sanders campaigns and coopting that with racial and gender divisive language because it represents a way of attacking "SJWs" and "Political Correctness".
This doesn't seem to represent the vast majority of Sanders supporters who seem to be pretty reasonable when I meet them in person so I think there are some trolls that are using the rage against corporatists like Clinton as a way to inject their MRA memes as well.
posted by vuron at 6:53 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Question: Sen. Sanders, do you believe that God is relevant?
Ugh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Ugh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
mostly vowels: "So glad that they're finally talking about climate change, but I have yet to hear how all these solar panels will help Miami. "
That's fair, but if we stopped CO2 emissions entirely, right this second, Miami would still be underwater in a few years.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's fair, but if we stopped CO2 emissions entirely, right this second, Miami would still be underwater in a few years.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, God isn't particularly relevant in Buddhism, actually.
posted by homunculus at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow, this question about "are you hiding your Jewish faith on purpose" is gross and arguably anti-semitic.
posted by dialetheia at 6:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:55 PM on March 6, 2016 [28 favorites]
WTF is up with these religious-test questions??
posted by skewed at 6:56 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by skewed at 6:56 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Well, God isn't particularly relevant in Buddhism, actually.
Yeah, he was pivoting to interconnectedness so it made sense but it was a little jarring given the specificity of the question. I just wish he'd include Hinduism when he lists off the "major" religions!
posted by dialetheia at 6:56 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, he was pivoting to interconnectedness so it made sense but it was a little jarring given the specificity of the question. I just wish he'd include Hinduism when he lists off the "major" religions!
posted by dialetheia at 6:56 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
These God questions have really sucked the air out of the debate.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Yeah, WTF.
I hate this whole line of questioning. Isn't there a better way to frame questions about personal ethics and/or faith rather than "ARE YOU A SECRET ATHEIST OR JUST A JEW"?
posted by sallybrown at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
I hate this whole line of questioning. Isn't there a better way to frame questions about personal ethics and/or faith rather than "ARE YOU A SECRET ATHEIST OR JUST A JEW"?
posted by sallybrown at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
That's fair, but if we stopped CO2 emissions entirely, right this second, Miami would still be underwater in a few years.
Exactly the point I was trying to make -- Clinton's plan (at this point) is solely about the clean energy transition, and only Sanders addresses giving money to areas to deal with issues of adaptation (which in some cases will presumably include total relocation).
posted by mostly vowels at 6:58 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Exactly the point I was trying to make -- Clinton's plan (at this point) is solely about the clean energy transition, and only Sanders addresses giving money to areas to deal with issues of adaptation (which in some cases will presumably include total relocation).
posted by mostly vowels at 6:58 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Speaking of C02 levels has anyone really come up with a good way of doing deep water CO2 sequestration yet? It seems like taking a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it in the oceans is a fairly effective way of doing what the Earth already does but I haven't really heard of large scale projects along those lines yet.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on March 6, 2016
Glad they talked about prayer instead of reproductive rights.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
Good debate. I may not love everything about my team but I'm proud to be on the right team, dammit.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
You wanna seltzer the ocean?
posted by um at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by um at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Helocopters cut out my cable, did Cooper try and trip Bern on his religion?
posted by clavdivs at 7:03 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 7:03 PM on March 6, 2016
Cooper framed the question in such a way that it came out like "WILL YOU FINALLY ADMIT YOU'RE A JEW?" It was very gross.
posted by sallybrown at 7:06 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:06 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
You knew the jewish thing was coming though. Fox just wanted to be sure it was in the conversation. They so blatantly abuse whatever it is the first amendment is about.
I don't know what you do about it.
posted by Trochanter at 7:06 PM on March 6, 2016
I don't know what you do about it.
posted by Trochanter at 7:06 PM on March 6, 2016
Did Bernie look taken aback?
On preview, fox? What does fox have to do with it?
posted by futz at 7:08 PM on March 6, 2016
On preview, fox? What does fox have to do with it?
posted by futz at 7:08 PM on March 6, 2016
Apparently CNN seems to think that being and Atheist Jew is somehow something that a substantial percentage of Americans might have issues with. I suspect they aren't wrong but seriously we need to get past the idea that someone needs to be a WASP in order to be a full fledged member of our society.
Besides it's such an easy question to just pop out a "You know Anderson, I'm really like the message of a young Jew from Galilee and I think that he might be more than a little upset with how easy it seems for Americans to turn their back on the less fortunate" and then do "Am I my Brother's Keeper? Yes I am" etc,etc which would totally endear Sanders to a huge number of people who balance their faith with a liberal world view.
posted by vuron at 7:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Besides it's such an easy question to just pop out a "You know Anderson, I'm really like the message of a young Jew from Galilee and I think that he might be more than a little upset with how easy it seems for Americans to turn their back on the less fortunate" and then do "Am I my Brother's Keeper? Yes I am" etc,etc which would totally endear Sanders to a huge number of people who balance their faith with a liberal world view.
posted by vuron at 7:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fox is the next debate
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:10 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:10 PM on March 6, 2016
okay. sorry, I'm not watching. I'm the guy who doesn't have a tv.
CNN is racing to the bottom as well.
posted by Trochanter at 7:10 PM on March 6, 2016
CNN is racing to the bottom as well.
posted by Trochanter at 7:10 PM on March 6, 2016
CNN segued right from that question into a documentary on JFK's election, discussing anti-Catholic sentiment. Nice.
posted by sallybrown at 7:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 7:15 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fox debate moderation has been far, far better than CNN's, though I can't remember if Fox has done a dem debate.
posted by skewed at 7:17 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 7:17 PM on March 6, 2016
Well once again I'm happy with either of the candidates presented to me as prospective Presidents. While there are obvious differences between the two and let's be honest neither is going to be able to make much progress on a legislative level I do think that the Democratic party is doing a very good job of being on message and frankly looking Presidential.
I'm not even going to pretend that a Republican would get my vote but the differences between these Democratic debates and the Republican free-for-all couldn't be clearer.
I think what's important is that the Democratic party is showing that it is definitely becoming more and more responsive to the wants and needs of activist communities so even if this election cycle doesn't get you everything you desire continue to speak up in favor of policies important to you because movements like Occupy and BLM and Sanders candidacy are showing that sustained effort on the part of activists do force people in positions of power to listen. People power is still very very important to achieving liberal positions.
posted by vuron at 7:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
I'm not even going to pretend that a Republican would get my vote but the differences between these Democratic debates and the Republican free-for-all couldn't be clearer.
I think what's important is that the Democratic party is showing that it is definitely becoming more and more responsive to the wants and needs of activist communities so even if this election cycle doesn't get you everything you desire continue to speak up in favor of policies important to you because movements like Occupy and BLM and Sanders candidacy are showing that sustained effort on the part of activists do force people in positions of power to listen. People power is still very very important to achieving liberal positions.
posted by vuron at 7:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
You know, if someone makes their religion into an issue, I think it's great to ask about it. By all means, ask Mike Huckabee about his religion and his scary plans to impose it on the rest of us. But it would be really cool if there was some kind of unwritten rule that they only asked about it if the candidate had made it an issue, because seriously, I do. not. give. a flying fuck. if and how a presidential candidate prays.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
"CNN segued right from that question into a documentary on JFK's election, discussing anti-Catholic sentiment."
Funny that. My very republican great grandfather, who was a "reformed" Quaker, decided to vote for JFK when he was 82 years old and the family is all "DONT YOU KNOW HE IS CATHOLIC!" He replied:
"I'm not going to hold that against him"
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Funny that. My very republican great grandfather, who was a "reformed" Quaker, decided to vote for JFK when he was 82 years old and the family is all "DONT YOU KNOW HE IS CATHOLIC!" He replied:
"I'm not going to hold that against him"
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just a little tangent: this 60 Minutes profile of Justin Trudeau just went up in advance of his state visit to the US. My dislike of dynastic democracy aside, I wish our American friends had someone like him to vote for this time (Bernie's close, perhaps, but 30 years older, so).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 PM on March 6, 2016
Helocopters cut out my cable, did Cooper try and trip Bern on his religion?
Here's a video of the exchange.
posted by homunculus at 7:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's a video of the exchange.
posted by homunculus at 7:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
the messaging used among some groups is clearly offensive
Again, just curious to see what some of these offensive memes are that people keep talking about (feel free to just inbox me if you feel gross posting in the thread). I've seen a ton of memes but not anything that has personally conjured feelings of "disgust", again more just goofy analogies to "Hillary = the system/Bernie = not the system" but I am actually interested in seeing what these disgusting or offensive memes are that people keep bringing up.
posted by windbox at 8:02 PM on March 6, 2016
Again, just curious to see what some of these offensive memes are that people keep talking about (feel free to just inbox me if you feel gross posting in the thread). I've seen a ton of memes but not anything that has personally conjured feelings of "disgust", again more just goofy analogies to "Hillary = the system/Bernie = not the system" but I am actually interested in seeing what these disgusting or offensive memes are that people keep bringing up.
posted by windbox at 8:02 PM on March 6, 2016
I do think that the Democratic party is doing a very good job of being on message and frankly looking Presidential.
For real. I know there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you held a gun to their head, but I'm hoping that there are some out there who looked at that and thought, "You know, at least there some actual adults in the room. And hell, it's miles better than anything in the other camp."
Everything just seems so polarized, though. It's depressing.
posted by Salieri at 8:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
For real. I know there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you held a gun to their head, but I'm hoping that there are some out there who looked at that and thought, "You know, at least there some actual adults in the room. And hell, it's miles better than anything in the other camp."
Everything just seems so polarized, though. It's depressing.
posted by Salieri at 8:07 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
How many federal investigations of Sanders do you anticipate?
His wife Jane Sanders, with whom he shared finances, was fired as college president for making (alleged) fraudulent statements in order to get a loan for the school. She's currently under investigation and Republicans are calling for more. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church lost $1.5 - $2 million on the deal, and the land she got the loan for ended up in the hands of a big real estate developer instead of the college, and a project is going up.
So that's one.
posted by msalt at 8:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
His wife Jane Sanders, with whom he shared finances, was fired as college president for making (alleged) fraudulent statements in order to get a loan for the school. She's currently under investigation and Republicans are calling for more. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church lost $1.5 - $2 million on the deal, and the land she got the loan for ended up in the hands of a big real estate developer instead of the college, and a project is going up.
So that's one.
posted by msalt at 8:09 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
At first I thought the lady asking the God question was just adoring Bernie so hard, but then she asked Hillary who she prays to and for and kept beaming, and I realized that it was just pure hardcore Jesus intoxication. I hope she has a designated driver.
posted by msalt at 8:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by msalt at 8:31 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Again, just curious to see what some of these offensive memes are that people keep talking about
Well, I'm seeing a whole bunch of anti-semitic garbage about Sanders playing the "Holocaust" and "Jew" "cards" on my TL right now, and a bunch of Clinton supporters lecturing Black people about how they should just shut up about the super-predator thing. I really wish we could just drop the whole "whose supporters are worse" thing - those anti-semitic comments don't reflect on Clinton's campaign or her other supporters any more than any comments from jerk Sanders supporters reflect on his campaign or other supporters. It's a ridiculous race to the bottom - let's just take it as given that there are a lot of assholes all over the internet in all corners.
posted by dialetheia at 8:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [26 favorites]
Well, I'm seeing a whole bunch of anti-semitic garbage about Sanders playing the "Holocaust" and "Jew" "cards" on my TL right now, and a bunch of Clinton supporters lecturing Black people about how they should just shut up about the super-predator thing. I really wish we could just drop the whole "whose supporters are worse" thing - those anti-semitic comments don't reflect on Clinton's campaign or her other supporters any more than any comments from jerk Sanders supporters reflect on his campaign or other supporters. It's a ridiculous race to the bottom - let's just take it as given that there are a lot of assholes all over the internet in all corners.
posted by dialetheia at 8:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [26 favorites]
Bernie Sanders: "When you're White, you don't know what it's like to be poor."
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Didn't the mods at one point ask us to lay off the Bernie bro thing anyway? Am I misremembering?)
posted by futz at 8:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 8:35 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Was this a misstep by him?
It was really crappy phrasing at best, I'd say. He was trying to explain the difference between the experiences of white people and Black people living in poverty as part of an answer about white privilege, and the rest of his answer was better, but I totally cringed at his phrasing there too.
posted by dialetheia at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
It was really crappy phrasing at best, I'd say. He was trying to explain the difference between the experiences of white people and Black people living in poverty as part of an answer about white privilege, and the rest of his answer was better, but I totally cringed at his phrasing there too.
posted by dialetheia at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?
I mentioned this earlier, here. Bernie goes through a list of things when, taken all together, equal a racial blind spot for white people. Being poor, living in the ghetto, getting harassed daily (by agents of the state). He led into that by saying that he's talked to activist groups like Black Lives Matter, and learned about how black people get treated by police on an every day basis, aside from the horrible shootings that go on.
So it's a completely valid point, but of course in our internet culture, unable to pay attention or for many, act like you have some sense and could graduate middle school, it's gotten turned into something ridiculous that of course Sanders didn't mean.
posted by cashman at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
I mentioned this earlier, here. Bernie goes through a list of things when, taken all together, equal a racial blind spot for white people. Being poor, living in the ghetto, getting harassed daily (by agents of the state). He led into that by saying that he's talked to activist groups like Black Lives Matter, and learned about how black people get treated by police on an every day basis, aside from the horrible shootings that go on.
So it's a completely valid point, but of course in our internet culture, unable to pay attention or for many, act like you have some sense and could graduate middle school, it's gotten turned into something ridiculous that of course Sanders didn't mean.
posted by cashman at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Matt Oswalt @MattOswaltVA 2h2 hours ago
Bernie won that debate but remember, according to MSNBC who paid Chelsea Clinton $600K for a do-nothing job, he's unelectable #GOPDebate
posted by Trochanter at 8:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie won that debate but remember, according to MSNBC who paid Chelsea Clinton $600K for a do-nothing job, he's unelectable #GOPDebate
posted by Trochanter at 8:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?
It was during the question about empathizing with people who aren't white. He was saying, "Yes, white people don't understand what it's like X, Y, Z..." and one of those things he said was "being poor." So he wasn't making a weird, random statement, but it made me cringe. It something that could definitely be taken completely out of context; I'm not sure what people are saying.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:47 PM on March 6, 2016
It was during the question about empathizing with people who aren't white. He was saying, "Yes, white people don't understand what it's like X, Y, Z..." and one of those things he said was "being poor." So he wasn't making a weird, random statement, but it made me cringe. It something that could definitely be taken completely out of context; I'm not sure what people are saying.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:47 PM on March 6, 2016
"He hates these cans. Stay away from the cans."
-Navin R. Johnson
posted by clavdivs at 8:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
-Navin R. Johnson
posted by clavdivs at 8:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
"He hates these cans. Stay away from the cans."
I bet both Bernie and Hillary could make a mean Cup O' Pizza. Way better than the old Cup O' Pizza guy.
posted by dialetheia at 8:51 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I bet both Bernie and Hillary could make a mean Cup O' Pizza. Way better than the old Cup O' Pizza guy.
posted by dialetheia at 8:51 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
futz: "Bernie Sanders: "When you're White, you don't know what it's like to be poor."
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?"
Reminds me of Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe. Perfectly reasonable point, expressed in a way that's easily taken out of context and rendered inflammatory.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is receiving a lot of backlash on the webs. I didn't watch the debate. Was this a misstep by him?"
Reminds me of Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe. Perfectly reasonable point, expressed in a way that's easily taken out of context and rendered inflammatory.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:00 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary Clinton just posted on Reddit for the first time. Based on this pic, she might have also stumbled onto r/all.
posted by FJT at 9:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by FJT at 9:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
More than once, Sanders chafed at Clinton's interruptions, saying, "Excuse me, I'm talking" or "Let me finish, please."
If Sanders does get the nomination, I think he's going to have a tough time keeping his composure in a debate with Trump. Trump isn't going to debate issues, he's just going to needle Sanders over and over and over again.
posted by homunculus at 9:20 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
If Sanders does get the nomination, I think he's going to have a tough time keeping his composure in a debate with Trump. Trump isn't going to debate issues, he's just going to needle Sanders over and over and over again.
posted by homunculus at 9:20 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I'm afraid a Trump vs Sanders debate would turn into a back-and-forth anger match kind of like every Republican debate. And if the Democrat loses composure Trump wins.
On the other hand, I'm afraid if they scheduled a Trump vs Clinton debate Trump simply wouldn't show up.
posted by mmoncur at 9:22 PM on March 6, 2016
On the other hand, I'm afraid if they scheduled a Trump vs Clinton debate Trump simply wouldn't show up.
posted by mmoncur at 9:22 PM on March 6, 2016
And she never made another comment since it was posted 6 hours ago? How regal and provincial at the same time.
posted by futz at 9:22 PM on March 6, 2016
posted by futz at 9:22 PM on March 6, 2016
Wow, that Hillary Clinton reddit thread was NOT what I was expecting when I clicked the link. It's nice to see so much earnest support (even fandom) for her.
posted by mmoncur at 9:23 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 9:23 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
On the other hand, I'm afraid if they scheduled a Trump vs Clinton debate Trump simply wouldn't show up.
Maybe I'm missing your meaning, but wouldn't that be a win for everybody?
posted by msalt at 9:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe I'm missing your meaning, but wouldn't that be a win for everybody?
posted by msalt at 9:33 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
mmoncur: "Wow, that Hillary Clinton reddit thread was NOT what I was expecting when I clicked the link. It's nice to see so much earnest support (even fandom) for her."
FWIW, she posted it to the /r/hillaryclinton subreddit, which literally is her fandom on the site. I imagine the mods there are in overdrive right now.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
FWIW, she posted it to the /r/hillaryclinton subreddit, which literally is her fandom on the site. I imagine the mods there are in overdrive right now.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:47 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wow, that Hillary Clinton reddit thread was NOT what I was expecting when I clicked the link. It's nice to see so much earnest support (even fandom) for her.
Have you been to reddit? Not to open a six dimensional can of worms but some posts and subreddits are okay.they really are.
posted by futz at 9:53 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Have you been to reddit? Not to open a six dimensional can of worms but some posts and subreddits are okay.they really are.
posted by futz at 9:53 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
She has Reddit gold and 0 comment karma.
DIGITAL PRIVILEGE!
posted by clavdivs at 10:05 PM on March 6, 2016
DIGITAL PRIVILEGE!
posted by clavdivs at 10:05 PM on March 6, 2016
DIGITAL PRIVILEGE!
Oh the jokes, they write themselves...
posted by futz at 10:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh the jokes, they write themselves...
posted by futz at 10:12 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whew, Bern is getting some kick back. I'm going with no gaffe. "Ghetto" is reminesence viva Elvis. But we can let that slide, like when folks used "colored". But he steped into the declaritive minefield however well intentioned.
I recently joined a sub and the mods are absolutely brutal...and rightly so, citing Wikipedia and notions of Menschengedenken will not do.
Some trivia on tonight's venue. I worked there as an usher while at university. The land used to belong to C.S. Mott, who was breifly mayor of Flint after a Socialist won the mayors office. His beautiful home is literally 100 yards away from the Whiting. So it effectively makes it about the only cultural center In america built with only private money. The Mott foundation is a legacy a lot of people have benefited from. The Children's hospital in Ann Arbor is top notch and my republican grandmother was it's longing serving volunteer. She even wheeled mr. Mott around the groundbreaking and thats were I met him.
The man who gave Mott his big chance has only one memorial, outside the Whiting. It is two flag poles in granite, a few words, that's it for the dude who invented General Motors.
Believe me, tonight, the old man would have freaked, most likely with a party...I mean, one of the largest bank scandals in U.S. history took place here in 29' and Mott paid the bank over 2 million to cover the thefts from bank employees who were speculating. Sorta had too, he was chair but that is how it was done...and people went to prison.
Menschengedenken!
And it has been that way since anyone can remember.
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I recently joined a sub and the mods are absolutely brutal...and rightly so, citing Wikipedia and notions of Menschengedenken will not do.
Some trivia on tonight's venue. I worked there as an usher while at university. The land used to belong to C.S. Mott, who was breifly mayor of Flint after a Socialist won the mayors office. His beautiful home is literally 100 yards away from the Whiting. So it effectively makes it about the only cultural center In america built with only private money. The Mott foundation is a legacy a lot of people have benefited from. The Children's hospital in Ann Arbor is top notch and my republican grandmother was it's longing serving volunteer. She even wheeled mr. Mott around the groundbreaking and thats were I met him.
The man who gave Mott his big chance has only one memorial, outside the Whiting. It is two flag poles in granite, a few words, that's it for the dude who invented General Motors.
Believe me, tonight, the old man would have freaked, most likely with a party...I mean, one of the largest bank scandals in U.S. history took place here in 29' and Mott paid the bank over 2 million to cover the thefts from bank employees who were speculating. Sorta had too, he was chair but that is how it was done...and people went to prison.
Menschengedenken!
And it has been that way since anyone can remember.
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
From Twitter: I'm proBernie but would vote Hillary as I am a one issue voter and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse
posted by bardophile at 12:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 12:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the Trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
-- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
No wonder it's his favorite book!
posted by Rhaomi at 12:36 AM on March 7, 2016
-- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
No wonder it's his favorite book!
posted by Rhaomi at 12:36 AM on March 7, 2016
Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession: "The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Likewise, the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010."
This is the connection I wish Bernie would make between his economic critique and systemic racism. The housing/credit crash and resulting recession were disproportionately hard on people on people of color, not to mention trade-related job losses and stagnant wages. Those figures also demonstrate that economic justice is vitally important to fighting systemic racism - it is absolutely shameful that white households have 13 times more wealth than Black households. Economic power translates into political power and it is crucial for achieving full racial justice. When Sanders pivots to poverty and class sometimes when asked about systemic racism, this is why. The economic aspect is not the entire story of racism, not by a long shot, but it's a huge part of it, and I think Sanders has been better at trying to speak to other aspects as well, like harassment from police, mass incarceration, or even catching cabs (I liked that anecdote in his white privilege answer).
The flap about Sanders' use of "ghetto" tonight (which Ben Jealous points out might have been a word applied to neighborhoods near Sanders' when he was growing up poor in Brooklyn) reminded me of this piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates about concentrated poverty, written in response to Cedric Johnson's piece in the Jacobin during that great reparations conversation. Coates made a great argument that it's not just the Black people are economically disadvantaged, it's also that they are much more likely to live in poor neighborhoods. This results in a completely different experience of poverty than that of a poor family living in a more affluent community. I'm a white kid who grew up poor, but I also grew up in an upper middle class community, and I know that did more to affect my social class (which in many ways circumscribes economic class) than anything else. The community I grew up in did as much to shape me as a person as anything my family did: my friends' parents all had professional careers, there was a university in my town, I had access to a good school system, my community was safe, there were opportunities available to me beyond what my parents could afford.
Coates demonstrates that it isn't even just that poor Black families live in concentrated poverty more often than poor white families, but that even nonpoor Black families are more likely to have to live in concentrated poverty than poor white families: "….racial differences in neighborhood exposure to poverty are so strong that even high-income blacks are exposed to greater neighborhood poverty than low-income whites. For example, nonpoor blacks in Chicago live in neighborhoods that are nearly 30 percent in poverty—traditionally the definition of “concentrated poverty” areas—whereas poor whites lives in neighborhoods with 15 percent poverty, about the national average. ... The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not."
So while I really wish Sanders had chosen to use the term "concentrated poverty" instead of "ghetto," he was in many ways speaking to a phenomenon (a legacy of redlining and residential segregation) that is central to the maintenance of white supremacy and systemic racism. He wasn't even necessarily implying that all Black people are poor - even nonpoor Black people are more likely to have to live in poor neighborhoods, which of course translate to underfunded schools given the way our property tax-based school funding system works. That phenomenon is central to systemic racism and the perpetuation of white supremacy, and I'm glad he tried to speak to it even if it was inartfully phrased.
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 AM on March 7, 2016 [25 favorites]
This is the connection I wish Bernie would make between his economic critique and systemic racism. The housing/credit crash and resulting recession were disproportionately hard on people on people of color, not to mention trade-related job losses and stagnant wages. Those figures also demonstrate that economic justice is vitally important to fighting systemic racism - it is absolutely shameful that white households have 13 times more wealth than Black households. Economic power translates into political power and it is crucial for achieving full racial justice. When Sanders pivots to poverty and class sometimes when asked about systemic racism, this is why. The economic aspect is not the entire story of racism, not by a long shot, but it's a huge part of it, and I think Sanders has been better at trying to speak to other aspects as well, like harassment from police, mass incarceration, or even catching cabs (I liked that anecdote in his white privilege answer).
The flap about Sanders' use of "ghetto" tonight (which Ben Jealous points out might have been a word applied to neighborhoods near Sanders' when he was growing up poor in Brooklyn) reminded me of this piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates about concentrated poverty, written in response to Cedric Johnson's piece in the Jacobin during that great reparations conversation. Coates made a great argument that it's not just the Black people are economically disadvantaged, it's also that they are much more likely to live in poor neighborhoods. This results in a completely different experience of poverty than that of a poor family living in a more affluent community. I'm a white kid who grew up poor, but I also grew up in an upper middle class community, and I know that did more to affect my social class (which in many ways circumscribes economic class) than anything else. The community I grew up in did as much to shape me as a person as anything my family did: my friends' parents all had professional careers, there was a university in my town, I had access to a good school system, my community was safe, there were opportunities available to me beyond what my parents could afford.
Coates demonstrates that it isn't even just that poor Black families live in concentrated poverty more often than poor white families, but that even nonpoor Black families are more likely to have to live in concentrated poverty than poor white families: "….racial differences in neighborhood exposure to poverty are so strong that even high-income blacks are exposed to greater neighborhood poverty than low-income whites. For example, nonpoor blacks in Chicago live in neighborhoods that are nearly 30 percent in poverty—traditionally the definition of “concentrated poverty” areas—whereas poor whites lives in neighborhoods with 15 percent poverty, about the national average. ... The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not."
So while I really wish Sanders had chosen to use the term "concentrated poverty" instead of "ghetto," he was in many ways speaking to a phenomenon (a legacy of redlining and residential segregation) that is central to the maintenance of white supremacy and systemic racism. He wasn't even necessarily implying that all Black people are poor - even nonpoor Black people are more likely to have to live in poor neighborhoods, which of course translate to underfunded schools given the way our property tax-based school funding system works. That phenomenon is central to systemic racism and the perpetuation of white supremacy, and I'm glad he tried to speak to it even if it was inartfully phrased.
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 AM on March 7, 2016 [25 favorites]
Not only that, but Coates also points out the effect that this has on incarceration - Black neighborhoods are subject to so much greater incarceration rates that they actually had to plot it on a log scale to get it to fit with white neighborhood incarceration rates, which is shocking. In Chicago, the highest incarceration rate in Black neighborhoods was 40 times worse than the highest incarceration rate in white neighborhoods. Their incarceration rates are clustered very far apart on the scale with no overlap. Spatial concentration of poverty makes it logistically simple to treat these neighborhoods like open-air prisons, like we see in Ferguson. It also concentrates the effects of environmental racism, as we're seeing in Flint.
posted by dialetheia at 1:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
A few more links I found, some of which note the compounding influence of white flight on concentrated poverty and residential segregation:
The resurrection of America's slums: "The number of people living in high-poverty areas—defined as census tracts where 40 percent or more of families have income levels below the federal poverty threshold—nearly doubled between 2000 and 2013, to 13.8 million from 7.2 million. ... As newly middle-class minorities moved to inner suburbs, though, the mostly white residents of those suburbs moved further away, buying up the McMansions that were being built at a rapid pace. This acceleration of white flight was especially problematic in Rust Belt towns that didn’t experience the economic boom of the mid-2000s. They were watching manufacturing and jobs move overseas."
Concentrated poverty, Ypsilanti's biggest problem: "The South of Michigan Avenue (SOMA) Report reveals the devastating growth of geographically concentrated poverty and its connection to race across Ward 1 in Ypsilanti proper. ... Concentrated poverty also overlaps with race in deeply distressing ways. One in four African Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts. ... Residents expressed a significant amount of concern and feedback, regarding public safety. From a safety perspective, residents at one meeting expressed frustration that in the summer months, it is difficult to let young children outside to play due to loitering and other activity that compromise the safety of residents. ... The SOMA area currently has no full-service grocery store within a reasonable walking distance for residents."
Concentration of poverty in the new millenium [PDF]: "The sharp reduction in high-poverty neighborhoods observed in the 2000 census—after the economy had run at nearly full employment during the last half of the 1990s—has since been completely reversed. Overall, the number of high-poverty tracts has increased by 50 percent since 2000. ... The North Central region (the Midwest) had by far the most rapid growth of high-poverty census tracts (513 new higher poverty tracts, a 90 percent increase) and population (1.5 million, 132 percent)."
Concentrated poverty spikes in Metro Detroit: "Concentrated poverty has exploded in metro Detroit over the past 15 years, especially among minority groups, according to a new report. In Wayne County, half of all its residents who are poor now live in areas of high concentration of poverty, the second-highest rate in the U.S. In Detroit, the number of census tracts where more than 40% of people are in poverty more than tripled, from 51 to 184. And the high concentrations of poverty are now pushing out to Detroit suburbs such as Warren, Dearborn, Oak Park and Southfield."
posted by dialetheia at 2:07 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
The resurrection of America's slums: "The number of people living in high-poverty areas—defined as census tracts where 40 percent or more of families have income levels below the federal poverty threshold—nearly doubled between 2000 and 2013, to 13.8 million from 7.2 million. ... As newly middle-class minorities moved to inner suburbs, though, the mostly white residents of those suburbs moved further away, buying up the McMansions that were being built at a rapid pace. This acceleration of white flight was especially problematic in Rust Belt towns that didn’t experience the economic boom of the mid-2000s. They were watching manufacturing and jobs move overseas."
Concentrated poverty, Ypsilanti's biggest problem: "The South of Michigan Avenue (SOMA) Report reveals the devastating growth of geographically concentrated poverty and its connection to race across Ward 1 in Ypsilanti proper. ... Concentrated poverty also overlaps with race in deeply distressing ways. One in four African Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts. ... Residents expressed a significant amount of concern and feedback, regarding public safety. From a safety perspective, residents at one meeting expressed frustration that in the summer months, it is difficult to let young children outside to play due to loitering and other activity that compromise the safety of residents. ... The SOMA area currently has no full-service grocery store within a reasonable walking distance for residents."
Concentration of poverty in the new millenium [PDF]: "The sharp reduction in high-poverty neighborhoods observed in the 2000 census—after the economy had run at nearly full employment during the last half of the 1990s—has since been completely reversed. Overall, the number of high-poverty tracts has increased by 50 percent since 2000. ... The North Central region (the Midwest) had by far the most rapid growth of high-poverty census tracts (513 new higher poverty tracts, a 90 percent increase) and population (1.5 million, 132 percent)."
Concentrated poverty spikes in Metro Detroit: "Concentrated poverty has exploded in metro Detroit over the past 15 years, especially among minority groups, according to a new report. In Wayne County, half of all its residents who are poor now live in areas of high concentration of poverty, the second-highest rate in the U.S. In Detroit, the number of census tracts where more than 40% of people are in poverty more than tripled, from 51 to 184. And the high concentrations of poverty are now pushing out to Detroit suburbs such as Warren, Dearborn, Oak Park and Southfield."
posted by dialetheia at 2:07 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sorry, just one more covering the increase in concentrated poverty since the Great Recession: The growth of concentrated poverty, 2000 to 2008-2012: "The economically turbulent 2000s have redrawn America’s geography of poverty in more ways than one. After two downturns and subsequent recoveries that failed to reach down the economic ladder, the number of people living below the federal poverty line ($23,492 for a family of four in 2012) remains stubbornly stuck at record levels. Today, more of those residents live in suburbs than in big cities or rural communities, a significant shift compared to 2000, when the urban poor still outnumbered suburban residents living in poverty. But as poverty has spread, it has not done so evenly. Instead, it has also become more clustered and concentrated in distressed and high-poverty neighborhoods, eroding the brief progress made against concentrated poverty during the late 1990s."
posted by dialetheia at 2:26 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:26 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
OK I lied, just two more about who profits from poor neighborhoods: How Wall Street and the 1% profit from poor neighborhoods: "Annie’s neighborhood places her in a captive market besieged by lenders. Her credit score (tainted by a long-ago repo) consigns her to usury. Like the mortgage crisis, the explosive growth in car loans for low-income people stems from Wall Street banks and private equity firms which invest in lenders and bundle loans into complex securities sold all over the world. ... Like many young people, her cellphone is essential at the same time as it tethers her to high-interest debt. It goes on and off, alerting her constantly about the amount she owes. ... Opportunities to profit from poverty blossom in poor neighborhoods, which are riddled with shops offering debt at high interest. These tawdry shops mask deep connections to Wall Street where, for example, the national chain Famous Pawn is traded as PWN."
Fat times for the poverty industry: "There's a saying popular among those in the business of making small-denomination, short-term loans against a person's next paycheck. A banker may want 100 customers worth $1 million, the payday lender likes to say, but we prefer 1 million customers each worth $100. The pawnbroker, the subprime auto lender, and the rent-to-own operator might say the same. These and other merchants, part of what might be called the poverty business, thrive on an upside-down universe in which customers without money are good for the bottom line. ... "There will always be cash- and credit-strained customers out there," Aaron CEO Robin Loudermilk told The Wall Street Journal at the end of 2008. "That's why our business is so strong."
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fat times for the poverty industry: "There's a saying popular among those in the business of making small-denomination, short-term loans against a person's next paycheck. A banker may want 100 customers worth $1 million, the payday lender likes to say, but we prefer 1 million customers each worth $100. The pawnbroker, the subprime auto lender, and the rent-to-own operator might say the same. These and other merchants, part of what might be called the poverty business, thrive on an upside-down universe in which customers without money are good for the bottom line. ... "There will always be cash- and credit-strained customers out there," Aaron CEO Robin Loudermilk told The Wall Street Journal at the end of 2008. "That's why our business is so strong."
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
"The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not."
Wow. Of all the things I've heard as the topic gets talked around and around, this statistic really puts it in the starkest relief for me. Just something I've never considered before I guess. No wonder it can be hard to get out from under if even when you're doing better you're probably still right there in the midst of it.
posted by adamt at 2:50 AM on March 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Wow. Of all the things I've heard as the topic gets talked around and around, this statistic really puts it in the starkest relief for me. Just something I've never considered before I guess. No wonder it can be hard to get out from under if even when you're doing better you're probably still right there in the midst of it.
posted by adamt at 2:50 AM on March 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mod note: dialetheia, I understand you are passionate about the topic, but it's getting a little overwhelming with the hypercommenting, and it would be good to dial that back just a bit. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:01 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:01 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
Too much evidence, then?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 AM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 AM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Thanks for posting all that, dialethia! I found it very interesting, and very relevant to the current political climate. Clearly, black poverty matters, but it is obviously challenging to frame that in a way that won't alienate (some of) the white working class.
posted by snofoam at 4:21 AM on March 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:21 AM on March 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
Vox's headline this morning: Watch: Hillary Clinton's open, heartfelt response on God and prayer
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:33 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:33 AM on March 7, 2016
To be fair, Vox also had a companion piece: Bernie Sanders’s incredibly moving answer on his Judaism
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
yeah, excellent info dialethia. thanks. it would be good to have absolute numbers for some of those stats, but while that would reduce the impact of the 66/94 numbers i don't think it would change the overall idea (my main motivation for asking was my initial surprise at how damning those numbers were and then, when i tried to shift to votes, realising that relative populations come into play).
posted by andrewcooke at 4:54 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 4:54 AM on March 7, 2016
zombieflanders, thanks. For some reason they didn't have that posted in my particular feed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:55 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:55 AM on March 7, 2016
I guess I have contradictory feelings about the white people don't know what it's like to be poor thing.
On the one hand, I really hate the politics of the gotcha moment. Is there anyone in the world who really believes that Bernie doesn't know or care that there are poor white people? Is there anything in his entire history on this planet that would suggest that? When people talk about complicated things, sometimes they don't word things elegantly. We need to be grown-up enough to understand that and not leap the least charitable interpretation, particularly when it's as blatantly preposterous as this one is. The alternative is to have no substantive discussion at all, because politicians will be so carefully guarding their words that they will speak in vapid soundbites. I am sure that the Republicans would run attack ads using Bernie's inelegant phrasing, and we would need to come up with a strategy to combat that, which we could do. But I am not willing to let them bully us into being as stupid and substance-free as they are, and that means acknowledging that people will sometimes say things that sound bad taken out of context (or even sometimes in context.) I would rather have politicians misspeak authentically than sound perfect and be totally scripted all of the time.
On the other hand, Bernie is capable of talking perfectly eloquently about the subjects that he cares about and is comfortable with, and I think this was evidence that this is kind of a new topic for him and one that he's still feeling his way around. And that's a problem, because where exactly has he been since he marched with MLK in the '60s?
Incidentally, that is not the thing that people on my Twitter timeline are complaining about. They're complaining about the "mental health" comment. I'm not going to go after him too hard on that, because it's totally the kind of thing I could see myself saying to friends, but I totally see the argument that it reinforces stigma.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
On the one hand, I really hate the politics of the gotcha moment. Is there anyone in the world who really believes that Bernie doesn't know or care that there are poor white people? Is there anything in his entire history on this planet that would suggest that? When people talk about complicated things, sometimes they don't word things elegantly. We need to be grown-up enough to understand that and not leap the least charitable interpretation, particularly when it's as blatantly preposterous as this one is. The alternative is to have no substantive discussion at all, because politicians will be so carefully guarding their words that they will speak in vapid soundbites. I am sure that the Republicans would run attack ads using Bernie's inelegant phrasing, and we would need to come up with a strategy to combat that, which we could do. But I am not willing to let them bully us into being as stupid and substance-free as they are, and that means acknowledging that people will sometimes say things that sound bad taken out of context (or even sometimes in context.) I would rather have politicians misspeak authentically than sound perfect and be totally scripted all of the time.
On the other hand, Bernie is capable of talking perfectly eloquently about the subjects that he cares about and is comfortable with, and I think this was evidence that this is kind of a new topic for him and one that he's still feeling his way around. And that's a problem, because where exactly has he been since he marched with MLK in the '60s?
Incidentally, that is not the thing that people on my Twitter timeline are complaining about. They're complaining about the "mental health" comment. I'm not going to go after him too hard on that, because it's totally the kind of thing I could see myself saying to friends, but I totally see the argument that it reinforces stigma.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump not showing up to a debate with HRC would be amazing. It would give her 90 minutes of uninterruted free access to the national airwaves in order to argue her case and utterly eviscerate her opponent. Not to put too fine a point on it, but: bring it on.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 6:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 6:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
My guess is he would hold an event somewhere else, and make the networks decide what to cover.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, I'm afraid if they scheduled a Trump vs Clinton debate Trump simply wouldn't show up.
Trump has had only two losses so far (counting multiple-primary days as wins, as he's taken the majority of delegates in each one so far). One was Puerto Rico (which no one really bothered campaigning for); the other was Iowa -- right after he skipped a debate. I wouldn't count on him not showing up anymore.
posted by Etrigan at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump has had only two losses so far (counting multiple-primary days as wins, as he's taken the majority of delegates in each one so far). One was Puerto Rico (which no one really bothered campaigning for); the other was Iowa -- right after he skipped a debate. I wouldn't count on him not showing up anymore.
posted by Etrigan at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
First Read: After five Republican contests over the weekend, Donald Trump has just an 87-delegate lead over Ted Cruz, 392-305. And as one plugged-in GOP rules expert tells us, that lead is probably narrower than that. Why? Well, 112 delegates (representing 9% out of 1,237 needed for the nomination) are unbound because there is NO statewide presidential vote — like in Colorado. This all underscores, once again, how important the winner-take-all states of Florida and Ohio on March 15 are to Trump’s path to 1,237. They aren’t luxuries, they’re necessities.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:32 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 7:32 AM on March 7, 2016
Trump scheduling a veterans benefit opposite of a debate with Clinton where over half of the proceeds suddenly disappear wouldn't be unexpected.
posted by vuron at 7:37 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 7:37 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
This has been going around, not sure the original origin.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
And that's a problem, because where exactly has he been since he marched with MLK in the '60s?
Vermont, the second whitest state in the nation.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 7:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vermont, the second whitest state in the nation.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 7:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Enough with the white people derail. It's boring.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Eric Cortellessa: Ex-ADL chief: Trump’s ‘raise your hand’ gambit was deliberate, Nazi-style ‘fascist gesture’
For Foxman, who was born in Poland in 1940 and was saved from the Nazis by his Catholic nanny, watching Trump whip up his supporters in this fashion was extremely disturbing.posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
“As a Jew who survived the Holocaust, to see an audience of thousands of people raising their hands in what looks like the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute is about as offensive, obnoxious and disgusting as anything I thought I would ever witness in the United States of America,” he told The Times of Israel.
“We’ve seen this sort of thing at rallies of neo-Nazis. We’ve seen it at rallies of white supremacists. But to see it at a rally for a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States is outrageous.”
Beyond his horror at seeing a hand-raising tactic similar to that adopted by the Nazi Party to signal obedience to their leader, Foxman said what made the Trump episode more egregious is his conviction that the Republican frontrunner was well aware of the resonance.
“It is a fascist gesture,” Foxman said. “He is smart enough — he always tells us how smart he is — to know the images that this evokes. Instead of asking his audience to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, which in itself would be a little bizarre, he’s asking them to swear allegiance to him.”
Furthermore, Foxman added, “He even threatens that if they don’t, they will suffer and be punished. This is so over the top for a man who really doesn’t come out of the underground. He is a man of the world. Even though he proclaims he doesn’t know who David Duke was, or the other white supremacists, we know very well that he knows. So he’s playing to an image.”
Foxman's objection is strange. Asking people to promise to do something at a political rally with hands raised is necessarily suggestive of Nazism? Does he also think French Revolutionaries were suspiciously Nazi-like? Or Fred Hampton (who is shown doing this in the recently released Black Panther documentary -- he has them repeat "I am a revolutionary" with a hand in the air)?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2016
Well no he probably doesn't think that people in 1789 were deliberately imitating the Nazi party that was over a century away from even existing. How disingenuous a question is that?
posted by dersins at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's well known that Danton had a time machine, and possibly Robespierre as well.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can we attempt to read each others' posts in a way that doesn't presume the poster is an idiot? I'm not asking Foxman to condemn the French Revolutionaries. Obviously the French Revolution preceded the Nazis. The point is the tactic of having a mass of people promise to do something with hands raised can be used for either progressive or reactionary purposes. Therefore, to make the argument, as Foxman does, that this tactic necessarily invokes echoes of Nazism is quite a stretch. Fred Hampton did not live in 1789, by the way.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:22 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:22 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Madame Defarge was knitting the fourth Doctor's scarf.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:23 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:23 AM on March 7, 2016
I'm not comfortable with pledges of allegiance to political groups, be they left or right.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2016
I'm not comfortable with Danton having Robespierre. Everybody knows Robespierre was a top.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have to admit, the fascism connection would be a lot stronger if Trump were some sort of racist, nationalist authoritarian.
posted by snofoam at 8:29 AM on March 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:29 AM on March 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
The point is the tactic of having a mass of people promise to do something with hands raised can be used for either progressive or reactionary purposes. Therefore, to make the argument, as Foxman does, that this tactic necessarily invokes echoes of Nazism is quite a stretch.
"Hands raised" is not the same thing as a stiff-armed salute, which is what the picture of the Trump rally looked like, though obviously that could just be the angle chosen. And stiff-armed salutes are one of the things that the NSDAP ruined for everyone, like the swastika. If you see white people using either after 1945 your first inference should probably be "racist fuckheads," though of course you'll make the occasional error.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:39 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Hands raised" is not the same thing as a stiff-armed salute, which is what the picture of the Trump rally looked like, though obviously that could just be the angle chosen. And stiff-armed salutes are one of the things that the NSDAP ruined for everyone, like the swastika. If you see white people using either after 1945 your first inference should probably be "racist fuckheads," though of course you'll make the occasional error.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:39 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've heard that Trump is next planning to adopt an internationally recognized symbol of good fortune and peace to show that he's for diversity and tolerance.
posted by FJT at 8:41 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by FJT at 8:41 AM on March 7, 2016
"Hands raised" is not the same thing as a stiff-armed salute
Exactly. The Pledge of Allegiance is not properly described as Nazi, though adding the words "under God" was certainly a craven bit of churchy nationalism.
posted by msalt at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2016
Exactly. The Pledge of Allegiance is not properly described as Nazi, though adding the words "under God" was certainly a craven bit of churchy nationalism.
posted by msalt at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2016
The Pledge of Allegiance is not properly described as Nazi
Not always true. And I've heard from some German friends that the pledge does give them pause sometimes.
posted by FJT at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2016
Not always true. And I've heard from some German friends that the pledge does give them pause sometimes.
posted by FJT at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2016
I included plenty of context from Foxman apart from the raised hand in the excerpt I used. I'm not sure why it's such a stretch to combine all of that and see the disturbing parallels.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, point taken. I was just zeroing in on one aspect of it.
(At the risk of beating a dead horse, another pre-Nazi example from the Russian Revolution below)
(At the risk of beating a dead horse, another pre-Nazi example from the Russian Revolution below)
The people around me appeared to be in ecstasy. They seemed about to burst forth spontaneously in a religious hymn. Trotsky read a resolution to the general effect that they were ready to fight for the workers and peasants to the last drop of their blood ... Who was in favour of the resolution? The innumerable crowd raised their hands as a single man. I saw the burning eyes of men, women, adolescents, workers, soldiers, muzhiks. Trotsky went on. The hands remained raised. Trotsky said, ‘Let this vote be your oath. You swear to give all your strength, not to hesitate before any sacrifice, to support the Soviet, which undertakes to win the revolution and give you land, bread and peace.’ The hands remained raised. The crowd approved; they took the oath ... And the same scene was repeated all over Petrograd. The last preparations were made everywhere; everywhere they swore the last oath; thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men. It was the insurrection.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:55 AM on March 7, 2016
"Ghetto" is nothing worse than a bit of a throwback. Pretty lousy gaffe gotcha.
I say it describes things pretty well. A neighborhood without hope. These are awesome conversations that we wouldn't be close to having without Bernie.
Imagine eight, or even four years of having these conversations. Taking the conversation back from the lying rich.
posted by Trochanter at 8:58 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I say it describes things pretty well. A neighborhood without hope. These are awesome conversations that we wouldn't be close to having without Bernie.
Imagine eight, or even four years of having these conversations. Taking the conversation back from the lying rich.
posted by Trochanter at 8:58 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Therefore, to make the argument, as Foxman does, that this tactic necessarily invokes echoes of Nazism is quite a stretch.
Loyalty oaths alone reek of fascism. Or perhaps McCarthyism. Combine them with a raised hand and a stiff-arm and yeah, in modern times I do think that evokes Nazis. The guy's a racist, fearmongering authoritarian.
(At the risk of beating a dead horse, another pre-Nazi example from the Russian Revolution below)
Do you have any positive examples of Hitler salutes being used since WWII? The context of the gesture changed with the Nazi Third Reich.
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Loyalty oaths alone reek of fascism. Or perhaps McCarthyism. Combine them with a raised hand and a stiff-arm and yeah, in modern times I do think that evokes Nazis. The guy's a racist, fearmongering authoritarian.
(At the risk of beating a dead horse, another pre-Nazi example from the Russian Revolution below)
Do you have any positive examples of Hitler salutes being used since WWII? The context of the gesture changed with the Nazi Third Reich.
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obviously we need more cheap zingers like mine instead of factual, information-heavy comments like dialetheia's.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
Do you have any positive examples of Hitler salutes being used since WWII?
Of course not.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:03 AM on March 7, 2016
Of course not.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:03 AM on March 7, 2016
Not sure if this has been linked in this thread yet or not, but it seems pertinent to the current discussion. In case anyone thinks that Trump is not really being serious about all his hate and whatnot, well, nobody thought Hitler was being serious either. From NYT first mention of Hitler in 1922:
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
posted by localhuman at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2016 [21 favorites]
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
posted by localhuman at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2016 [21 favorites]
"Let’s do a pledge. Who likes me in this room?” the Republican presidential candidate asked a large crowd Saturday in Orlando, Florida. “Raise your right hand: ‘I do solemnly swear that I — no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there’s hurricanes or whatever — will vote, on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president.'”
As the audience enthusiastically complied with his request, the candidate told them: “Don’t forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”
More than anything else, it's cringe-worthy that a room full of adults would happily comply with such a condescending and demeaning imperative. Apparently, Trump supporters aren't looking for an effective leader, but rather a Big Strong Daddy figure to lecture them and scold them like the bad, naughty children they imagine themselves to be. Embarrassing.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2016 [13 favorites]
As the audience enthusiastically complied with his request, the candidate told them: “Don’t forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”
More than anything else, it's cringe-worthy that a room full of adults would happily comply with such a condescending and demeaning imperative. Apparently, Trump supporters aren't looking for an effective leader, but rather a Big Strong Daddy figure to lecture them and scold them like the bad, naughty children they imagine themselves to be. Embarrassing.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on March 7, 2016 [13 favorites]
In Florida, 122,093 early votes have been cast and 475,938 absentee ballots have been returned
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2016
Ted Cruz, Please Help Us, We Have No Idea How to Stop Donald Trump
posted by sallybrown at 9:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I could publish a recording of Donald Trump screaming “ISIS IS GOOD! ISIS IS GREAT!” during sex and he would brush it off in one tweet—Gawker, a loser website. They want me to be politically correct. Sad!*worried sigh*
What bombshell could anyone be holding onto at this point? What, conceivably, could be left out there? More shady business dealings? Even more racism? This is a man who boasted that he could kill innocent people in the middle of New York and not lose voters. He’s right! He would probably gain voters. What the media loathes about Trump is what endears him to voters. Oh, we’re going to reveal to the world that he’s a boor, a horror, a bully? When you see us making fun of Donald Trump’s orange face or misspelled tweets, what you’re really seeing is our deep, rapidly rising levels of dread. We mock Trump’s complexion and dumbassery because we’ve never felt more impotent in our lives, so powerless to stop such a manifestly bad, bulletproof man. We are sublimating our own sense of terror and irrelevance via blogs. We will be spinning our wheels like this until Trump either self-destructs or wins the election.
posted by sallybrown at 9:17 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Washington Post is already running their necropsy of the not-quite-dead-yet Rubio campaign, mostly GOP insiders lamenting that money and endorsements aren't doing him any good. CNN has some advertising numbers for Super Saturday, Rubio spent almost twice as much as all other candidates combined, spending $1.46 per vote for his third and fourth place finishes in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine, while Cruz spent $.26 per vote and Trump and Kasich spent no money on advertising in those states.
posted by peeedro at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by peeedro at 9:28 AM on March 7, 2016
All right, whoever got the monkey's paw and said "I wish people couldn't just buy elections anymore", just un-wish it, and all is forgiven.
posted by Etrigan at 9:31 AM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:31 AM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
What bombshell could anyone be holding onto at this point? What, conceivably, could be left out there? More shady business dealings?
If they're the type to hurt his "brand," then that might work. For example a story about selling visas to China in exchange for workers through his son-in-law doesn't look good for someone who's made anger at China stealing American jobs a part of his campaign rhetoric.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:38 AM on March 7, 2016
If they're the type to hurt his "brand," then that might work. For example a story about selling visas to China in exchange for workers through his son-in-law doesn't look good for someone who's made anger at China stealing American jobs a part of his campaign rhetoric.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:38 AM on March 7, 2016
At this point he's basically built a cult of personality. Most of the people who are supporting Trump right now are indoctrinated; any external criticism is just going to reinforce the persecution complex that he and they share.
I continue to believe that the 10-15% of the (total voting) population who are in this cult are not going to be particularly augmented in the general elections. The other 30-35% of people who are going to be potential Trump / GOP voters in the general are persuadable, or at least may stay home. They're bandwagon-ers rather than true believers.
Best case scenario, which happily looks to be quite probable: just under 50% Trump delegates, 35-ish% Cruz delegates, 20%-ish Rubio/Kasich/etc. delegates. Nasty fight at Cleveland. Trump walks off with 40% of the Republican Party, Cruz is the GOP nominee.
Possible side effect, a Trump Party splinter in the House Freedom Caucus and Paul Ryan gets some room to work with the Democrats.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I continue to believe that the 10-15% of the (total voting) population who are in this cult are not going to be particularly augmented in the general elections. The other 30-35% of people who are going to be potential Trump / GOP voters in the general are persuadable, or at least may stay home. They're bandwagon-ers rather than true believers.
Best case scenario, which happily looks to be quite probable: just under 50% Trump delegates, 35-ish% Cruz delegates, 20%-ish Rubio/Kasich/etc. delegates. Nasty fight at Cleveland. Trump walks off with 40% of the Republican Party, Cruz is the GOP nominee.
Possible side effect, a Trump Party splinter in the House Freedom Caucus and Paul Ryan gets some room to work with the Democrats.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
...and he would brush it off in one tweet—Gawker, a loser website.
Well. Trump didn't actually say this, so I don't feel bad for agreeing with it.
Seriously, if there's one site whose content I'll gladly brush off as alarmist and sensationalist, it's fucking Gawker.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:52 AM on March 7, 2016
Well. Trump didn't actually say this, so I don't feel bad for agreeing with it.
Seriously, if there's one site whose content I'll gladly brush off as alarmist and sensationalist, it's fucking Gawker.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:52 AM on March 7, 2016
The Donald just Streisanded a music video. (His letterhead is amazing.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:14 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:14 AM on March 7, 2016
More Latinos Seek Citizenship to Vote Against Trump
A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas — along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents — has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.
[...]
Over all, naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach 1 million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years.
While naturalizations generally rise during presidential election years, Mr. Trump provided an extra boost this year.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:23 AM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas — along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents — has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.
[...]
Over all, naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach 1 million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years.
While naturalizations generally rise during presidential election years, Mr. Trump provided an extra boost this year.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:23 AM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hrm. If they're in States that have yet to primary, he could be prompting them to join the Republicans.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:30 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:30 AM on March 7, 2016
To vote for him, you mean? If so, why? And if not, why do you think they'd vote Republican (for Cruz or Rubio) in the general?
It's not like getting citizenship is like signing up for a state ID -- even for the folks who are qualified to become a citizen right away (primarily people who have been legal permanent residents for more than 5 years, but just haven't cared to apply or haven't wanted or been able to spend the money to do so), they're probably not going to be able to get their documents in order in time to vote in the primaries.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:37 AM on March 7, 2016
It's not like getting citizenship is like signing up for a state ID -- even for the folks who are qualified to become a citizen right away (primarily people who have been legal permanent residents for more than 5 years, but just haven't cared to apply or haven't wanted or been able to spend the money to do so), they're probably not going to be able to get their documents in order in time to vote in the primaries.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:37 AM on March 7, 2016
To vote for him, you mean? If so, why? And if not, why do you think they'd vote Republican (for Cruz or Rubio) in the general?
I've never known anyone while they were going through the process, so I have no idea how long it takes. My concern was that the would be motivated to join the GOP to vote against him, succeed, and then think of the GOP as their party.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've never known anyone while they were going through the process, so I have no idea how long it takes. My concern was that the would be motivated to join the GOP to vote against him, succeed, and then think of the GOP as their party.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders adviser: Clinton 'constantly interrupted him' in debate
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
This whole "omg Trump is making people pledge so it looks like a nazi rally ON PURPOSE" stuff is really overwrought. Watch the whole video. He asks people to raise their right hands, and does so himself, in the characteristic elbow at 90 degrees position you'd hold when you make a pledge for political office. The crowd raises their hands, some of them in that position and some of them with one or both arms fully extended. He clearly meant for it to resemble the pledge to defend the constitution, not a nazi rally. People who are claiming otherwise are being disingenuous.
posted by zug at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zug at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
It can't happen here!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
and ugh i can't believe i'm being forced to defend Trump. But there's SO MANY awful things he's done, we hardly need to exaggerate or make things up to point out how terrible he is.
posted by zug at 10:53 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zug at 10:53 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
He clearly meant for it to resemble the pledge to defend the constitution, not a nazi rally. People who are claiming otherwise are being disingenuous.
Speaking as someone who has taken a pledge to defend the Constution on a couple of different occasions and administered it more times than I can remember, what he meant is of less import to the fact that he is administering a personal loyalty oath. It is all kinds of fucked up that someone who is in the front of half of the race to the White House thinks that's a good idea.
posted by Etrigan at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
Speaking as someone who has taken a pledge to defend the Constution on a couple of different occasions and administered it more times than I can remember, what he meant is of less import to the fact that he is administering a personal loyalty oath. It is all kinds of fucked up that someone who is in the front of half of the race to the White House thinks that's a good idea.
posted by Etrigan at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]
All right, whoever got the monkey's paw and said "I wish people couldn't just buy elections anymore", just un-wish it, and all is forgiven.
The New Yorker: "In other words, the most effective barrier to a Trump Presidency might be liberals’ least favorite Supreme Court opinion of the past decade: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
posted by Apocryphon at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2016
The New Yorker: "In other words, the most effective barrier to a Trump Presidency might be liberals’ least favorite Supreme Court opinion of the past decade: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
posted by Apocryphon at 10:55 AM on March 7, 2016
via Ezra Klein: Here is my take: I think Donald Trump is bad, but I think we're a long way away from the point when we need to reach for Hitler comparisons. Trump is a fairly typical strongman-demagogue, of a type we see often in Europe and have seen before in America. Hitler was a unique, generational evil.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
All kidding aside, that shot was from the back of the crowd where people were just trying to make their hands visible.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2016
>It is all kinds of fucked up that someone who is in the front of half of the race to the White House thinks that's a good idea.
Agreed. It's tacky even under the most generous interpretation, and disturbing under any other. But it isn't an intentional attempt to invoke nazi imagery, which is what many people are claiming.
posted by zug at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2016
Agreed. It's tacky even under the most generous interpretation, and disturbing under any other. But it isn't an intentional attempt to invoke nazi imagery, which is what many people are claiming.
posted by zug at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2016
via Megan McArdle: Actual fascists, let us remember, were born out of a brutal world war that resulted in territorial losses, and left a lot of demobilized soldiers running around with dim economic prospects. Whatever your opinions on the war on terror, it is not the same scale as World War I, and it has certainly not left the U.S. in the kind of parlous condition in which Hitler and Mussolini were able to grow smaller radical groups into national mass movements. Trump himself doesn’t have that kind of dedication to his cause; just try to imagine him leading a coup, landing in jail, angrily penning "The Art of the Struggle."
Implausible. Trump has far too much to lose, and too little to gain, to embrace truly revolutionary fervor.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Implausible. Trump has far too much to lose, and too little to gain, to embrace truly revolutionary fervor.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The New Yorker: "In other words, the most effective barrier to a Trump Presidency might be liberals’ least favorite Supreme Court opinion of the past decade: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
When one put the words "a modest proposal" into the title of their piece, consider that it might not include an entirely serious argument. Or, at least, that its thesis may be Pyrrhic in nature, and therefore not something entirely worthy of serious consideration.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:01 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
When one put the words "a modest proposal" into the title of their piece, consider that it might not include an entirely serious argument. Or, at least, that its thesis may be Pyrrhic in nature, and therefore not something entirely worthy of serious consideration.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:01 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I agree. I just find it supremely ironic that this is the election where Citizens United turns out to be the least of our worries. That the fates have contrived to spring forth a nightmare who has no need for that benefit.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:03 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:03 AM on March 7, 2016
> What bombshell could anyone be holding onto at this point? What, conceivably, could be left out there? More shady business dealings? Even more racism? This is a man who boasted that he could kill innocent people in the middle of New York and not lose voters.
It's not the bombshell, it's how to get people to notice the bombshell. Remember how Bill Cosby being a rapist was sort of public info for a decade, but then suddenly one day it became a story and everyone stopped pretending not to notice that Bill Cosby is a rapist?
The same sort of thing needs to happen with Trump.
Hannibal Burress, the nation needs you.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:05 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not the bombshell, it's how to get people to notice the bombshell. Remember how Bill Cosby being a rapist was sort of public info for a decade, but then suddenly one day it became a story and everyone stopped pretending not to notice that Bill Cosby is a rapist?
The same sort of thing needs to happen with Trump.
Hannibal Burress, the nation needs you.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:05 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Putin is probably a better, less baggage-freighted comparison for Trump than Hitler. The problem is, Republicans have spent the past eight years fawning all over Putin for his supposed strength as a way to attack Obama for his supposed weakness. So equating Trump with Putin might actually make him more favorable in the eyes of the right wing dupes who are already leaning his way.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:06 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:06 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
via Ezra Klein: Here is my take: I think Donald Trump is bad, but I think we're a long way away from the point when we need to reach for Hitler comparisons. Trump is a fairly typical strongman-demagogue, of a type we see often in Europe and have seen before in America. Hitler was a unique, generational evil.
What "strongman-demogogue" have we elected to public office here in America on the grounds that he'd force 11 million people to emigrate?
The forced emigration parallel isn't a stretch. It's not a reach. It's part of Trump's platform.
posted by zarq at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
What "strongman-demogogue" have we elected to public office here in America on the grounds that he'd force 11 million people to emigrate?
The forced emigration parallel isn't a stretch. It's not a reach. It's part of Trump's platform.
posted by zarq at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
He clearly meant for it to resemble the pledge to defend the constitution, not a nazi rally
You don't see a difference between swearing on ideas (like the Constitution, the Bible, or not to kill anyone), and instead swearing loyalty to a specific human being? The act of making the promise in a public venue is the concerning part. It's right out of methods to create group loyalty. The arm raise is just the surface. It would have been just as concerning if it was a fist over the heart or if he asked everyone to join hands.
posted by FJT at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
You don't see a difference between swearing on ideas (like the Constitution, the Bible, or not to kill anyone), and instead swearing loyalty to a specific human being? The act of making the promise in a public venue is the concerning part. It's right out of methods to create group loyalty. The arm raise is just the surface. It would have been just as concerning if it was a fist over the heart or if he asked everyone to join hands.
posted by FJT at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Actual fascists, let us remember, were born out of a brutal world war that resulted in territorial losses
America hasn't won a war since WWII. The wars it has fought since have been devastatingly expensive in people and materiel. At best, its wars have ended in stalemates. At worst, we have been left with crushing debt, a subset of disaffected and broken military personnel, and an entitled, racist populace that looks for minorities to blame as it enjoys fewer and fewer of the luxuries and entertainments that once kept it docile. America is ripe for a classically Fascist strongman in the vein of a Hitler or Mussolini to take charge and Make Things Great Again like they once were in some idealized past, like maybe back in the 1980s when Ronnie Reagan was in charge and threatening Soviet Russia with nuclear weapons. Those were good times, remember?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:10 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
America hasn't won a war since WWII. The wars it has fought since have been devastatingly expensive in people and materiel. At best, its wars have ended in stalemates. At worst, we have been left with crushing debt, a subset of disaffected and broken military personnel, and an entitled, racist populace that looks for minorities to blame as it enjoys fewer and fewer of the luxuries and entertainments that once kept it docile. America is ripe for a classically Fascist strongman in the vein of a Hitler or Mussolini to take charge and Make Things Great Again like they once were in some idealized past, like maybe back in the 1980s when Ronnie Reagan was in charge and threatening Soviet Russia with nuclear weapons. Those were good times, remember?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:10 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
What equivalent to the Freikorps do we have? Sovereign Citizens and other groups like the Bundy clan are mostly extension of '90s militia movements, wingnutty cosplayers with a lot of tacticool equipment but without the actual training or discipline to be an influential force in politics.
Not to mention, the whole point of the second amendment is that should the unthinkable happen, the oppositional resistance can arm in turn as well. I don't see Trump pushing for gun control.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on March 7, 2016
Not to mention, the whole point of the second amendment is that should the unthinkable happen, the oppositional resistance can arm in turn as well. I don't see Trump pushing for gun control.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on March 7, 2016
I don't see Trump pushing for gun control.
He's against gun control. And he's in favor of legalizing concealed carry in all 50 states. So teachers can be armed.
posted by zarq at 11:17 AM on March 7, 2016
He's against gun control. And he's in favor of legalizing concealed carry in all 50 states. So teachers can be armed.
posted by zarq at 11:17 AM on March 7, 2016
>Whether the Nazi parallels were intentional or not, getting a bunch of people at a political rally to pledge an oath of loyalty to you personally is the sort of imagery that a presidential candidate should be smart enough to avoid.
It was absolutely not a pledge to him as a person without restriction. What he was asking them to pledge was more nuanced than that. He asked them to pledge to actually show up at the primaries to cast their vote for him, emphasis on the "actually show up" part (hence the comment of "even if there's a hurricane or whatever") and not the "vote for him" (this is a Trump rally, presumably the vast majority of the people there intend to vote for him anyway). The "no matter how I feel" part is slightly more ambiguous, but my read in context was on how they physically felt and not how they felt about him.
Here's the full quote: "Let's do a pledge. Who likes me in this room? Ok, I have never done this before. Can I have a pledge, a swearing? Raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that I - no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever - will vote, on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president. Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did."
He's just telling them he really needs them to actually show up at the polls, which he does. Is it clumsy and ham-fisted just like half the shit Trump says? But it's not the third reich arisen, that's pretty ridiculous.
posted by zug at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
It was absolutely not a pledge to him as a person without restriction. What he was asking them to pledge was more nuanced than that. He asked them to pledge to actually show up at the primaries to cast their vote for him, emphasis on the "actually show up" part (hence the comment of "even if there's a hurricane or whatever") and not the "vote for him" (this is a Trump rally, presumably the vast majority of the people there intend to vote for him anyway). The "no matter how I feel" part is slightly more ambiguous, but my read in context was on how they physically felt and not how they felt about him.
Here's the full quote: "Let's do a pledge. Who likes me in this room? Ok, I have never done this before. Can I have a pledge, a swearing? Raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that I - no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there's hurricanes or whatever - will vote, on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for president. Now I know. Don't forget you all raised your hands. You swore. Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did."
He's just telling them he really needs them to actually show up at the polls, which he does. Is it clumsy and ham-fisted just like half the shit Trump says? But it's not the third reich arisen, that's pretty ridiculous.
posted by zug at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
In either case, my main point with quoting that excerpt isn't to dispute that we're living in the political climate that might lead to the rise of a fascist-like movement. I just wanted to point out that Trump himself is a pampered aristo who is too privileged to personally lead a violent revolution.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2016
Let's all just take a moment to appreciate the unmitigated chutzpah it takes members of the GOP Entertainment Industrial Complex like Megan McArdle to on one hand warn everyone that socialism is always lurking around the corner and under the bed, but on the other hand hand-wave away the rise of a power-hungry egomaniac who's literally asking people to pledge allegiance to them.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:23 AM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:23 AM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah, it's pretty ironic that this is the election when Douthat and Brooks and Frum and co. start to sound sensible and grounded.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:25 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:25 AM on March 7, 2016
the whole point of the second amendment is that should the unthinkable happen, the oppositional resistance can arm in turn as well
No, it really isn't? This is a pernicious and stupid myth. The point of the Second Amendment is that standing armies were seen as a danger to liberty in the context of the times (and this had been a Thing in British politics for much of the 18th century), and that the last time the royal veto was exercised it was to veto the Scottish Militia Act (thus effectively disarming Scotland, from whence many American colonists came). The Second Amendment is the Federal government assuring the states it won't do to them what Anne did to Scotland. (And the US now has a standing army and the National Guard, rendering the whole concept of a "citizen militia" as quaint and outmoded as tricorne hats and pipe-clayed wigs.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, it really isn't? This is a pernicious and stupid myth. The point of the Second Amendment is that standing armies were seen as a danger to liberty in the context of the times (and this had been a Thing in British politics for much of the 18th century), and that the last time the royal veto was exercised it was to veto the Scottish Militia Act (thus effectively disarming Scotland, from whence many American colonists came). The Second Amendment is the Federal government assuring the states it won't do to them what Anne did to Scotland. (And the US now has a standing army and the National Guard, rendering the whole concept of a "citizen militia" as quaint and outmoded as tricorne hats and pipe-clayed wigs.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
It certainly isn't true from an originalist standpoint, but if the Constitution is a living document, and if the right-wing can claim that watering the tree of liberty is what the second amendment is for, well turnabout is fair play, isn't it?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:30 AM on March 7, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:30 AM on March 7, 2016
All right, whoever got the monkey's paw and said "I wish people couldn't just buy elections anymore", just un-wish it, and all is forgiven.
That strategy doesn't tend to fix things long term, as Ms Anders will tell you.
posted by phearlez at 11:34 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
That strategy doesn't tend to fix things long term, as Ms Anders will tell you.
posted by phearlez at 11:34 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
that a presidential candidate should be smart enough to avoid.
You're thinking of a different election season than this one, then
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on March 7, 2016
You're thinking of a different election season than this one, then
posted by phearlez at 11:43 AM on March 7, 2016
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told a protester to "go home to mommy" on Monday at a campaign rally in Concord, North Carolina.
The protester was one of several escorted out of the campaign event.
"Go home to mommy," Trump said, calling the protester a "nasty guy." "Tell her to tuck you in bed."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on March 7, 2016
The protester was one of several escorted out of the campaign event.
"Go home to mommy," Trump said, calling the protester a "nasty guy." "Tell her to tuck you in bed."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on March 7, 2016
>It may or may not have been intentional, but that Trump might be accidentally invoking Nazi parallels is also not good?
My entire point is precisely that it was not intentional (or I guess more technically, that there is zero evidence it was intentional and a lot of reason to believe that it wasn't) and that claiming it obviously was meant to invoke third reich imagery is being disingenuous. It was in response to the Foxman bit. That isn't the only place I've seen similar sentiments, either.
I'm not saying it was good or smart or I agree. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to exaggerate the actual evils of Trump, especially when there are plenty of other legit evils to hammer on.
posted by zug at 11:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
My entire point is precisely that it was not intentional (or I guess more technically, that there is zero evidence it was intentional and a lot of reason to believe that it wasn't) and that claiming it obviously was meant to invoke third reich imagery is being disingenuous. It was in response to the Foxman bit. That isn't the only place I've seen similar sentiments, either.
I'm not saying it was good or smart or I agree. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to exaggerate the actual evils of Trump, especially when there are plenty of other legit evils to hammer on.
posted by zug at 11:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
FLA coastal Mayors demand climate change question at next debate
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
WaPo: Hillary Clinton’s pledge to remove all lead from the U.S. in five years is just not possible
posted by Room 641-A at 12:15 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 12:15 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Especially if her term ends up being one-and-done.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:22 PM on March 7, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:22 PM on March 7, 2016
The Guardian: Transmetropolitan: the 90s comic that's bang up-to-date on Donald Trump
Almost 20 years later, amid the primaries of the most absurd, brutal and pivotal US presidential election in recent history, Transmetropolitian has only grown more prescient, and a story set two centuries in the future seems in many ways to be coming true already.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
I like the way that the mods here deal with people who seem to be trolling. The message is "I don't know that your intention is to troll people, but you are sounding just like someone who is. It's on you to change that."
That's how I feel about Trump and Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist stuff.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:13 PM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
That's how I feel about Trump and Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist stuff.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:13 PM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
He asked them to pledge to actually show up at the primaries to cast their vote for him, emphasis on the "actually show up" part (hence the comment of "even if there's a hurricane or whatever") and not the "vote for him" (this is a Trump rally, presumably the vast majority of the people there intend to vote for him anyway).
That's still bizarre, even without invoking fascism. Why would you need to pledge to vote for someone? Voting is a civic duty, it's a part of modern life. It isn't a life-saving promise or some kind of religious crusade. It would be just as bizarre if we all made an oath to Coca-Cola to recycle soda cans or an oath to the mayor that we would not turn down jury duty. And I've volunteered in a lot of places, and I'm sure that no volunteer organization would make someone promise to put themselves in harms way to complete task ("a hurricane or whatever"). And then he says "bad things will happen" if you don't vote for him, which I'm not sure if it's trying to make people feel guilt/shame or some call for divine punishment.
Also, politicians are supposed to earn OUR vote! Y'know, one of the stated reasons that people don't want to vote for Clinton, because she hasn't earned it. All of sudden, Trump gets a whole crowd to pledge to vote for him, as if they are here to serve him. Even based on the limited promise in the primary, that's still just weird and creepy.
posted by FJT at 1:51 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's still bizarre, even without invoking fascism. Why would you need to pledge to vote for someone? Voting is a civic duty, it's a part of modern life. It isn't a life-saving promise or some kind of religious crusade. It would be just as bizarre if we all made an oath to Coca-Cola to recycle soda cans or an oath to the mayor that we would not turn down jury duty. And I've volunteered in a lot of places, and I'm sure that no volunteer organization would make someone promise to put themselves in harms way to complete task ("a hurricane or whatever"). And then he says "bad things will happen" if you don't vote for him, which I'm not sure if it's trying to make people feel guilt/shame or some call for divine punishment.
Also, politicians are supposed to earn OUR vote! Y'know, one of the stated reasons that people don't want to vote for Clinton, because she hasn't earned it. All of sudden, Trump gets a whole crowd to pledge to vote for him, as if they are here to serve him. Even based on the limited promise in the primary, that's still just weird and creepy.
posted by FJT at 1:51 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think there was any great scheme of his re: the pledge. I think he just wings it and it happens that his nonsense resonates and everyone talks about. Rinse, repeat. If he is hitler he will stumblefuck his way to it and pretend it was by his design the entire time.
posted by ian1977 at 2:09 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:09 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bloomberg just posted that he won't run
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.posted by Perplexity at 2:10 PM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
And speaking of attendees at Trump rallies voluntarily being treated like children...
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:13 PM on March 7, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:13 PM on March 7, 2016
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Bloomberg would potentially be considered for VP simply because he gives Reagan Democrats room to come back into the party.
It probably won't happen because other people help shore up the base rather than look for crossover appeal plus 2 NY types is very unusual for a ticket.
Still Bloomberg will almost certainly endorse Hillary Clinton for the general election.
posted by vuron at 2:27 PM on March 7, 2016
It probably won't happen because other people help shore up the base rather than look for crossover appeal plus 2 NY types is very unusual for a ticket.
Still Bloomberg will almost certainly endorse Hillary Clinton for the general election.
posted by vuron at 2:27 PM on March 7, 2016
I don't think Bloomberg is a good VP fit for either Sanders or Clinton. Which makes me respect his decision even more than I would otherwise. He made a dispassionate, pragmatic evaluation that he could not win, explicitly said why taking the risk would be harmful (potential Trump or Cruz presidency), and walked away with his ego and finances intact. Good on ya.
posted by sallybrown at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:38 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:38 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
Or, it's a stance based on the fact that the electoral college means that most people's votes don't matter.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:42 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or, it's a stance based on the fact that the electoral college means that most people's votes don't matter.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:42 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Bloomberg would potentially be considered for VP simply because he gives Reagan Democrats room to come back into the party.
I'm not sure Reagan Democrats are in search of a pro-choice, pro-soda tax, pro-gun control politician who made his money on Wall Street.
posted by one_bean at 2:43 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure Reagan Democrats are in search of a pro-choice, pro-soda tax, pro-gun control politician who made his money on Wall Street.
posted by one_bean at 2:43 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
Or, it's a stance based on the fact that the electoral college means that most people's votes don't matter.
My SD democrat vote had better at least mean something to me, cause it sure won't in any other way.
posted by neonrev at 2:46 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or, it's a stance based on the fact that the electoral college means that most people's votes don't matter.
My SD democrat vote had better at least mean something to me, cause it sure won't in any other way.
posted by neonrev at 2:46 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
His views on gun control, climate change and public health are rational and reality-based, and he would make an excellent leader for those reasons alone. That said, I greatly respect that he understands the danger these two Fascists pose and decided put the country above his political career. I hope he decides to run again in four years.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:46 PM on March 7, 2016
His views on gun control, climate change and public health are rational and reality-based, and he would make an excellent leader for those reasons alone. That said, I greatly respect that he understands the danger these two Fascists pose and decided put the country above his political career. I hope he decides to run again in four years.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:46 PM on March 7, 2016
Yep, I will be honest my life probably wouldn't get any worse under a Republican administration because I am swaddled in privilege. Hell I might actually be insulated enough by privilege to actually do better under a Republican because of wealth and other factors.
But a huge number of my friends and family will do demonstrably worse with a Republican party in charge of everything so I can't under any stretch of the imagination choose to check out because even though I live in a Republican state there is a faint chance that my vote might make a difference in down ballot races.
posted by vuron at 2:48 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
But a huge number of my friends and family will do demonstrably worse with a Republican party in charge of everything so I can't under any stretch of the imagination choose to check out because even though I live in a Republican state there is a faint chance that my vote might make a difference in down ballot races.
posted by vuron at 2:48 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bloomberg would be a seriously bad VP choice, yeah.
These maps of the states he thought he could win are just hilarious though - really, he was going to tie Trump in Texas and nearly sweep the south, huh? With those gun control views?
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
Nobody knows how privileged anyone else is on all axes, that's a really presumptuous thing to say. So is this a situation in which it suddenly is appropriate to presume we know other peoples' lives better than they do and lecture them about how to vote? How about Black people who refuse to vote for Clinton, as at least one person has said in these threads and as many Black people say on Twitter - are they just being privileged jerks and we now have the right to lecture them and tell them we know their own self-interest better than they do?
posted by dialetheia at 2:51 PM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
These maps of the states he thought he could win are just hilarious though - really, he was going to tie Trump in Texas and nearly sweep the south, huh? With those gun control views?
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
Nobody knows how privileged anyone else is on all axes, that's a really presumptuous thing to say. So is this a situation in which it suddenly is appropriate to presume we know other peoples' lives better than they do and lecture them about how to vote? How about Black people who refuse to vote for Clinton, as at least one person has said in these threads and as many Black people say on Twitter - are they just being privileged jerks and we now have the right to lecture them and tell them we know their own self-interest better than they do?
posted by dialetheia at 2:51 PM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
I can't under any stretch of the imagination choose to check out because even though I live in a Republican state there is a faint chance that my vote might make a difference in down ballot races
But who said check out? Most people I know who won't vote Clinton in the general (myself included, unless somehow my state becomes competitive, and then you'd better believe I'm going to make her work for that vote as much as I would any other politician) will vote for Jill Stein or will write in Sanders or will abstain from the presidential vote and still vote in downballot races. If my vote for Clinton doesn't make a material difference, and I have significant reservations about supporting her candidacy, at least I can help the Green party by voting for Stein.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:54 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
But who said check out? Most people I know who won't vote Clinton in the general (myself included, unless somehow my state becomes competitive, and then you'd better believe I'm going to make her work for that vote as much as I would any other politician) will vote for Jill Stein or will write in Sanders or will abstain from the presidential vote and still vote in downballot races. If my vote for Clinton doesn't make a material difference, and I have significant reservations about supporting her candidacy, at least I can help the Green party by voting for Stein.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:54 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders or bust? That's a stance based on privilege
We live in a country that maintains economic dominance over the world via military might. Every vote for the two parties running that empire is a vote based on privilege. That's how Democracy works, people vote for their interests and ignore the interests of say, the people Hillary Clinton voted to bomb and invade in Iraq.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
We live in a country that maintains economic dominance over the world via military might. Every vote for the two parties running that empire is a vote based on privilege. That's how Democracy works, people vote for their interests and ignore the interests of say, the people Hillary Clinton voted to bomb and invade in Iraq.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
The tendency to conflate fascism as an ideology with it's German permutation can confuse matters. I offered my definition in a previous thread which emphasizes its economic basis. Relevant part:
There are lots of definitions/descriptions of fascist ideology--many have been discussed here in the blue. I'd like to offer mine: Fascism is the process of auto-cannibalizing an economy and its constituents in a society/culture in which there have previously been a number of institutions and policies which were/are designed to protect not only the working classes, but also those policies which are conceived to further the objective material conditions under which a society reproduces itself. When a society has a powerful component of "leaders" who deliberately create an intellectual framework for looting an economy, for smashing labor, for squeezing every last human element out of the productive process, then you have the basis for fascism. And when these leaders begin to consistently find ways to actually implement the components of their intellectual framework into everyday life, whether it be by asserting that shareholder value is superior to the value created by honest labor, or by suppressing the native creativity that each human being possesses via obsessive super-imposition of irrational forms of lean philosophy, then you have actual fascism in practice in (at least) significant sectors of the economy.
If we do not put a stop to this ever-broadening spectrum of policies which devolve our economy then what happens next is even uglier. We have to stop this in a non-violent, rational way. Are we a nation of laws or are we a nation of whimsical parasites and the victims of such parasites?
I do not think there is any doubt that Trump represents a quasi-fascist tendency. He is capturing (and thus far, cynically abusing) those voters who are not well-informed, but who do clearly understand that their way of life is "threatened." Of course, the great irony here is that the disaffection that many of these people feel stem, at least in part, from having been subjected to the already present tendrils of fascism that throttle this nation. It's kind of like they are doubling down, but don't know it.
The lesson I draw from this is applicable in many ways as one tries to understand and critique complex issues. If the axioms and premises which underlie and determine the systematic features of any given (social) structure are dysfunctional, then many of the proposals to "correct" any perceived malfunctions of that system will tend to make things worse. That's because quite often any further extension of the logic of a dysfunctional system only serves to increase the degree of dysfunction.
This is at the essence of why I support Sanders this election cycle. Even though I voted for Clinton in 2008, I knew then, and know now, that the policies she proposes are not addressing the axioms by which we operate. Sanders does in important ways, and even if he is unsuccessful as a candidate, he has shed light on many of the shitty axioms which now dominate our economy. As A&C has suggested, it's going to take a long, concerted effort in the aftermath of this election to build the kind of axiom-buster consensus which might have a chance to supplant many of the current dysfunctional ideas which have brought us to this moment.
Lastly, what is a key difference between populist supporters of Sanders and populist supporters of Trump? Sanders urges a revolution which emphasizes social prosperity; Trump seeks to take advantage of those who think that prosperity is an individual (and hence ultimately a greedy) "gospel." The dynamics are not only different, they are not compatible in important ways.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are lots of definitions/descriptions of fascist ideology--many have been discussed here in the blue. I'd like to offer mine: Fascism is the process of auto-cannibalizing an economy and its constituents in a society/culture in which there have previously been a number of institutions and policies which were/are designed to protect not only the working classes, but also those policies which are conceived to further the objective material conditions under which a society reproduces itself. When a society has a powerful component of "leaders" who deliberately create an intellectual framework for looting an economy, for smashing labor, for squeezing every last human element out of the productive process, then you have the basis for fascism. And when these leaders begin to consistently find ways to actually implement the components of their intellectual framework into everyday life, whether it be by asserting that shareholder value is superior to the value created by honest labor, or by suppressing the native creativity that each human being possesses via obsessive super-imposition of irrational forms of lean philosophy, then you have actual fascism in practice in (at least) significant sectors of the economy.
If we do not put a stop to this ever-broadening spectrum of policies which devolve our economy then what happens next is even uglier. We have to stop this in a non-violent, rational way. Are we a nation of laws or are we a nation of whimsical parasites and the victims of such parasites?
I do not think there is any doubt that Trump represents a quasi-fascist tendency. He is capturing (and thus far, cynically abusing) those voters who are not well-informed, but who do clearly understand that their way of life is "threatened." Of course, the great irony here is that the disaffection that many of these people feel stem, at least in part, from having been subjected to the already present tendrils of fascism that throttle this nation. It's kind of like they are doubling down, but don't know it.
The lesson I draw from this is applicable in many ways as one tries to understand and critique complex issues. If the axioms and premises which underlie and determine the systematic features of any given (social) structure are dysfunctional, then many of the proposals to "correct" any perceived malfunctions of that system will tend to make things worse. That's because quite often any further extension of the logic of a dysfunctional system only serves to increase the degree of dysfunction.
This is at the essence of why I support Sanders this election cycle. Even though I voted for Clinton in 2008, I knew then, and know now, that the policies she proposes are not addressing the axioms by which we operate. Sanders does in important ways, and even if he is unsuccessful as a candidate, he has shed light on many of the shitty axioms which now dominate our economy. As A&C has suggested, it's going to take a long, concerted effort in the aftermath of this election to build the kind of axiom-buster consensus which might have a chance to supplant many of the current dysfunctional ideas which have brought us to this moment.
Lastly, what is a key difference between populist supporters of Sanders and populist supporters of Trump? Sanders urges a revolution which emphasizes social prosperity; Trump seeks to take advantage of those who think that prosperity is an individual (and hence ultimately a greedy) "gospel." The dynamics are not only different, they are not compatible in important ways.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
The FoxNews town hall is going on right now, Bernie's up first: here's the link.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some of Rubio's people are already leaking hints about dropping out before Florida. So he's definitely thisclose to wrapping up the nomination.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:07 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 3:07 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I want to add this: If Sanders is unsuccessful, then I'll be very sad because this is the first time in a couple of decades (since Vietnam? since the Reagan "revolution"?) that we are able to meaningfully address the current set of dysfunctions. However, should Clinton win, while we will not fundamentally change our present set of axioms--she's pretty clear about this--it will still be important to support her if one's conscious allows it. She represents the establishment, but she represents much of what passes for decency within the establishment. Should she become president, I'll hate her foreign policy and I'll be critical of her economic policy, but I'll be ever so thankful that her opposition to those in the establishment (and their uniformed mass of supporters) who seem to revel in and embrace the worst which our socioeconomic system now produces.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:10 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by CincyBlues at 3:10 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Can Cruz actually challenge Trump in Florida if Ruboto drops out for the good of the party?
It seems like an uphill climb at best and blocking Trump from getting any WTA primaries is the number one thing I think.
posted by vuron at 3:13 PM on March 7, 2016
It seems like an uphill climb at best and blocking Trump from getting any WTA primaries is the number one thing I think.
posted by vuron at 3:13 PM on March 7, 2016
There are lots of definitions/descriptions of fascist ideology
Trump's fascist ideology is the classiest, most successful fascist ideology. A lot of really great people agree!
posted by snofoam at 3:18 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump's fascist ideology is the classiest, most successful fascist ideology. A lot of really great people agree!
posted by snofoam at 3:18 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
"A Democracy Problem": As Debate Brings Attention to Flint, a Look at the Roots of the Water Crisis
posted by homunculus at 3:32 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 3:32 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders: I believe health care is a right of all people.
Baier: Excuse me, but where did that right come from?
Sanders: Being a human being.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:33 PM on March 7, 2016 [27 favorites]
Baier: Excuse me, but where did that right come from?
Sanders: Being a human being.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:33 PM on March 7, 2016 [27 favorites]
Right. The entire premise of the American Experiment is that rights are inalienable. They don't come from anywhere... or they come from our Creator if you believe that sort of thing. But the key fact is that they are present whether or not the government recognizes them and they cannot be granted, traded, or sold.
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Bloomberg would potentially be considered for VP simply because he gives Reagan Democrats room to come back into the party.
I'm not sure Reagan Democrats are in search of a pro-choice, pro-soda tax, pro-gun control politician who made his money on Wall Street.
Donald Trump and the Rise of the New Dixiecrats: It’s not just the Republican fringe that loves Trump—his appeal to white working-class Democrats could shake up the general election.
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure Reagan Democrats are in search of a pro-choice, pro-soda tax, pro-gun control politician who made his money on Wall Street.
Donald Trump and the Rise of the New Dixiecrats: It’s not just the Republican fringe that loves Trump—his appeal to white working-class Democrats could shake up the general election.
posted by homunculus at 3:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Until Trump settles on a Reichs Arkitekt it's unclear if his building program will match the grandeur of the Speer creations or if he'll just continue with the rather crass gold plated monstrosities that he's known for.
posted by vuron at 3:39 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 3:39 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, of course, FoxNews is the first to ask about abortion.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:40 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:40 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or, it's a stance based on the fact that the electoral college means that most people's votes don't matter.
On the Economic Defense of the Voter-As-Consumer Model
On the Economic Defense of the Voter-As-Consumer Model
[...] when you mount a public defense of your voting preferences, presumably with the intent of persuading others, you can’t then retreat to Econ 101 arguments about how your vote doesn’t actually matter anyway. Either you’re engaging in political discourse or you aren’t.posted by tonycpsu at 3:42 PM on March 7, 2016
[...]this is why I don’t find the “I will only vote for the best major party candidate in a swing state” argument very attractive (although it’s obviously much less harmful and objectionable than third-party voting with either indifference to or active support for throwing the election to the worst candidate.) It’s nice that this standard recognizes the material consequences of elections. On the other hand, I still don’t find any appeal to voting-as-consumerism or proudly announcing that you’re personally too good to be part of a political coalition even if you accept them as necessary.
Right. The entire premise of the American Experiment is that rights are inalienable. They don't come from anywhere... or they come from our Creator if you believe that sort of thing.Isn't there some kind of stupid right-wing talking point about how you can only have rights if they come from somewhere, and that somewhere is God, so if you're an atheist you can't believe in rights? I think maybe they were trying to catch him in some kind of stupid right-wing gotcha that only makes sense to them.
I can't watch this thing because I have to go drink beer and lose at trivia.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:52 PM on March 7, 2016
Sanders was stronger on the abortion question than Clinton, in my opinion (though, bc it was Fox, the question was of the "why do you hate babies?" variety). While her statement on TRAP laws was on point, she also stated that she would be ok with restrictions on late-term abortion as long as there are exceptions for the health of the mother, etc. This is Bernie's response. I can't find a video clip of Clinton's response yet.
I really hope the debate on Wednesday talks more about reproductive rights in general as well as more specifics about abortion like TRAP laws and Hyde/Helms.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I really hope the debate on Wednesday talks more about reproductive rights in general as well as more specifics about abortion like TRAP laws and Hyde/Helms.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
> Eric Cortellessa: Ex-ADL chief: Trump’s ‘raise your hand’ gambit was deliberate, Nazi-style ‘fascist gesture’
Sieg Trump: When Does 'Never Again’ Start? Since the Holocaust, American Jews' collective cry has been: Don't let history be repeated. That starts with zero tolerance for inflammatory speech. Trump’s campaign is made of little else.
posted by homunculus at 4:31 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sieg Trump: When Does 'Never Again’ Start? Since the Holocaust, American Jews' collective cry has been: Don't let history be repeated. That starts with zero tolerance for inflammatory speech. Trump’s campaign is made of little else.
posted by homunculus at 4:31 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
More from Haaretz: How Donald Trump Won the U.S. Elections, Scared the Jews and Saved Israel. A nightmarish fantasy: After the 2016 'War of the Races,' thousands of liberal Jews fled to the one place that would accept them, and changed it forever.
posted by homunculus at 4:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
While her statement on TRAP laws was on point, she also stated that she would be ok with restrictions on late-term abortion as long as there are exceptions for the health of the mother, etc.
Whaaaat? Hillary Clinton has Planned Parenthood's endorsement, there's no way she could have once again reiterated her openness to "constitutional action" to restrict abortion rights.
posted by indubitable at 4:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Whaaaat? Hillary Clinton has Planned Parenthood's endorsement, there's no way she could have once again reiterated her openness to "constitutional action" to restrict abortion rights.
posted by indubitable at 4:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
A comparison of two sets of power hungry characters
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would liberal Jews actually emigrate en masse to Israel if a neo-fascist actually came to power in the US? It seems like a fantasy that Israel might actually be shifted from it's currently hard-line politics by importing a massive number of liberal Jews when it seems that the most likely emigrees would be the ultra-orthodox with strong ties to Israel.
posted by vuron at 4:43 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 4:43 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would liberal Jews actually emigrate en masse to Israel if a neo-fascist actually came to power in the US?
Doubtful. Canada seems more likely.
Maybe Boca, once Florida secedes.
posted by zarq at 4:46 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Doubtful. Canada seems more likely.
Maybe Boca, once Florida secedes.
posted by zarq at 4:46 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders clarifies statements about race and poverty in Fox News town hall.
posted by dialetheia at 4:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:55 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Florida would be a bad location to build a new Jewish paradise though because it seems like the Anti-Semites could just attack it by enabling more climate change.
With a 10 meter sea rise Boca and Miami are pretty much fucked and much more than that and you'd have to retreat to Orlando.
posted by vuron at 4:57 PM on March 7, 2016
With a 10 meter sea rise Boca and Miami are pretty much fucked and much more than that and you'd have to retreat to Orlando.
posted by vuron at 4:57 PM on March 7, 2016
"Think we’re in for a disastrous four years if Donald Trump is elected president? You’re being optimistic. Given what some of our children are learning from him, it may take an entire generation to recover from the hateful rhetoric he has aimed at immigrants, Muslims and Blacks Lives Matter protesters."
Snopes has confirmed that the story behind the Facebook post, originally by Evelyn Momplaisir and screenshotted by journalist Shaun King, is genuine.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
Snopes has confirmed that the story behind the Facebook post, originally by Evelyn Momplaisir and screenshotted by journalist Shaun King, is genuine.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:35 PM on March 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
Oops, missed the edit window, but there should be a [sic] after "Blacks Lives Matter".
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:50 PM on March 7, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 5:50 PM on March 7, 2016
Doubtful. Canada seems more likely.
If it comes to that -- and no, I don't think it will -- Lake Ontario won't be wide enough. (And it wouldn't be the Jews, not at first.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:51 PM on March 7, 2016
If it comes to that -- and no, I don't think it will -- Lake Ontario won't be wide enough. (And it wouldn't be the Jews, not at first.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:51 PM on March 7, 2016
If it's any consolation, Trump is obviously as worried about turnout as all the others are if he's demanding people swear an oath to support him on polling day. There's insecurity, and then there's Trump levels of insecurity.
posted by um at 6:19 PM on March 7, 2016
posted by um at 6:19 PM on March 7, 2016
vuron: "Until Trump settles on a Reichs Arkitekt it's unclear if his building program will match the grandeur of the Speer creations or if he'll just continue with the rather crass gold plated monstrosities that he's known for."
Eh, Speer wasn't even very good as an architect.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:28 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, Speer wasn't even very good as an architect.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:28 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a common misconception about Davids', The Tennis Court Oath.
It looks like a heart and arm devotional gesticulation but really; they were waiting for the Kings love.
God, do you have any other sources for the Flint water crisis homunc, those democracynow pieces are misleading.
Here's one. I got lots, I have notebooks full.
But here's a qoute that I want seered into the vernacular:
"it’s a quality, safe product. … I think people are wasting their precious money buying bottled water."
-Dayne Walling, ex-mayor of Flint two months after switching to river water.
posted by clavdivs at 6:34 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
It looks like a heart and arm devotional gesticulation but really; they were waiting for the Kings love.
God, do you have any other sources for the Flint water crisis homunc, those democracynow pieces are misleading.
Here's one. I got lots, I have notebooks full.
But here's a qoute that I want seered into the vernacular:
"it’s a quality, safe product. … I think people are wasting their precious money buying bottled water."
-Dayne Walling, ex-mayor of Flint two months after switching to river water.
posted by clavdivs at 6:34 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I swear to Gott und Himmel that Speer has a pack of Zig-Zags next to his Pumpernickel in that New Criterion link.
posted by clavdivs at 6:41 PM on March 7, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 6:41 PM on March 7, 2016
"it’s a quality, safe product. … I think people are wasting their precious money buying bottled water." -Dayne Walling, ex-mayor of Flint two months after switching to river water.
Even as they brought bottled water into city hall for their own use. Bastards.
posted by msalt at 8:40 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Even as they brought bottled water into city hall for their own use. Bastards.
posted by msalt at 8:40 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Echoing melissaurus upthread:
Clinton supports restrictions for late term abortions. Bernie says "That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."
posted by futz at 9:12 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton supports restrictions for late term abortions. Bernie says "That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."
posted by futz at 9:12 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
zug: This whole "omg Trump is making people pledge so it looks like a nazi rally ON PURPOSE" stuff is really overwrought.
roomthreeseventeen: I think Donald Trump is bad, but I think we're a long way away from the point when we need to reach for Hitler comparisons.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were simply overwrought? But we're actually past the point where we need to reach for Hitler comparisons, and that's why so many people are urgently making them. The whole concept of "Never Again" is predicated on not waiting until it's too late, as many did during the Holocaust. Holocaust survivors and their families know this all to well - hence the strong reactions.
American Demagogue: Behind the Trump Phenomenon
"No American demagogue––not Huey Long, not Joseph McCarthy, not George Wallace––has ever achieved such proximity to national power."
‘The View’ Brings Donald Trump-as Adolf Hitler-Analogies Into the Mainstream
"Whether Trump’s casual bigotry is real or merely 'bait to catch masses of followers' is yet to be seen. But history tells us that to dismiss it as readily as the world dismissed Hitler would be a mistake."
What we now call the Nazi arm salute was named the Bellamy salute in the U.S. to pledge allegiance to the flag until 1942, when it was changed to the hand over heart pledge we use now. "Americans had no problem with the Bellamy Salute and rendered it proudly until the days before World War II, when Italians and Germans began showing loyalty to dictators Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler with the disturbingly similar 'Heil Hitler!' salute. Americans giving the Bellamy Salute began to fear that they might be mistaken as showing allegiance to the growingly powerful European fascist and Nazi regimes." It still has that same connotation because of neo-Nazis. The Nazi salute gesture is now a crime in some European countries due to its ties to Nazism and fascism. It's not a crime in America, but most people understand its significance.
Whether or not you believe Trump and his supporters meant to evoke the image of the Nazi salute, Trump is not ignorant of Hitler's methods:
[begin quote]
John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.
Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump.
Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?”
“I don’t remember,” I said.
“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”)
Later, Trump returned to this subject. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”
Is Ivana trying to convince her friends and lawyer that Trump is a crypto-Nazi? Trump is no reader or history buff. Perhaps his possession of Hitler’s speeches merely indicates an interest in Hitler’s genius at propaganda.
[end quote]
posted by mountainpeak at 1:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: I think Donald Trump is bad, but I think we're a long way away from the point when we need to reach for Hitler comparisons.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were simply overwrought? But we're actually past the point where we need to reach for Hitler comparisons, and that's why so many people are urgently making them. The whole concept of "Never Again" is predicated on not waiting until it's too late, as many did during the Holocaust. Holocaust survivors and their families know this all to well - hence the strong reactions.
American Demagogue: Behind the Trump Phenomenon
"No American demagogue––not Huey Long, not Joseph McCarthy, not George Wallace––has ever achieved such proximity to national power."
‘The View’ Brings Donald Trump-as Adolf Hitler-Analogies Into the Mainstream
"Whether Trump’s casual bigotry is real or merely 'bait to catch masses of followers' is yet to be seen. But history tells us that to dismiss it as readily as the world dismissed Hitler would be a mistake."
What we now call the Nazi arm salute was named the Bellamy salute in the U.S. to pledge allegiance to the flag until 1942, when it was changed to the hand over heart pledge we use now. "Americans had no problem with the Bellamy Salute and rendered it proudly until the days before World War II, when Italians and Germans began showing loyalty to dictators Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler with the disturbingly similar 'Heil Hitler!' salute. Americans giving the Bellamy Salute began to fear that they might be mistaken as showing allegiance to the growingly powerful European fascist and Nazi regimes." It still has that same connotation because of neo-Nazis. The Nazi salute gesture is now a crime in some European countries due to its ties to Nazism and fascism. It's not a crime in America, but most people understand its significance.
Whether or not you believe Trump and his supporters meant to evoke the image of the Nazi salute, Trump is not ignorant of Hitler's methods:
[begin quote]
John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.
Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump.
Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?”
“I don’t remember,” I said.
“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”)
Later, Trump returned to this subject. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”
Is Ivana trying to convince her friends and lawyer that Trump is a crypto-Nazi? Trump is no reader or history buff. Perhaps his possession of Hitler’s speeches merely indicates an interest in Hitler’s genius at propaganda.
[end quote]
posted by mountainpeak at 1:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Right now we're a laughingstock.
You see what's going on in Afghanistan with Kharzai. I mean he has no respect for us. You know in all fairness we're leaving. He probably said, wow, I'm going to be stuck here alone. But still, this guy, when I watch his moves, I just say how can leadership allow that to happen."
-Trump, CPAC speech, 2013.
And noone saw Donald coming.
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 AM on March 8, 2016
You see what's going on in Afghanistan with Kharzai. I mean he has no respect for us. You know in all fairness we're leaving. He probably said, wow, I'm going to be stuck here alone. But still, this guy, when I watch his moves, I just say how can leadership allow that to happen."
-Trump, CPAC speech, 2013.
And noone saw Donald coming.
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 AM on March 8, 2016
Four states decide today on the Republican side, and two on the Democratic side.
Politico: Is Trump peaking? We’ll find out today.
posted by Wordshore at 4:03 AM on March 8, 2016
Politico: Is Trump peaking? We’ll find out today.
posted by Wordshore at 4:03 AM on March 8, 2016
Washington Post coverage of Bernie Sanders over a 24 hour period
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:15 AM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:15 AM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Increasingly it seems Trump's biggest legacy will not be a Presidential victory but rather the legitimization of White Nationalism at a level previously unheard of. That is increasingly scary because if Cliven Bundy could inspire a bunch of sovereign citizens to follow him then what sort of awful white nationalist actions are going to follow Trump?
posted by vuron at 4:39 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vuron at 4:39 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Mitt Romney's speech condemning Donald Trump did little to bring down the controversial Republican presidential front-runner, according to a poll released Tuesday.
Thirty-one percent of Republican voters surveyed by Morning Consult said they are more now likely to vote for Trump, while 20 percent said they are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul. Forty-three percent said Romney's comments had no impact."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thirty-one percent of Republican voters surveyed by Morning Consult said they are more now likely to vote for Trump, while 20 percent said they are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul. Forty-three percent said Romney's comments had no impact."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is why Hillary's speeches matter:
HRC's Final Paid Speech - $260K from the ACA?
Why would a 501c3 non-profit organized to promote summer camps spend 10 per cent of its annual budget on a Hillary Clinton speech?
That was the simple question I wanted to answer when I began researching this piece. I’d flippantly doubted that the American Camp Association would pay $225K for a speech and was corrected by kossack northleft that the actual amount was $260K. Intrigued by the notion that Hillary Clinton knew anything about camping, I soon found myself exploring a much deeper set of issues.
More on J-1 visas from Southern Poverty Law Center.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:57 AM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
HRC's Final Paid Speech - $260K from the ACA?
Why would a 501c3 non-profit organized to promote summer camps spend 10 per cent of its annual budget on a Hillary Clinton speech?
That was the simple question I wanted to answer when I began researching this piece. I’d flippantly doubted that the American Camp Association would pay $225K for a speech and was corrected by kossack northleft that the actual amount was $260K. Intrigued by the notion that Hillary Clinton knew anything about camping, I soon found myself exploring a much deeper set of issues.
More on J-1 visas from Southern Poverty Law Center.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:57 AM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
"Well, I’ll certainly look into it. I mean, I’d like to find out that that’s true," Trump said. "I don’t want to offend anybody. But I can tell you, that it’s been amazingly-received, well-received."
See? He doesn't want to offend anybody.
I guess we can consider this settled, then.
posted by sour cream at 6:32 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
See? He doesn't want to offend anybody.
I guess we can consider this settled, then.
posted by sour cream at 6:32 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Flint water crisis and the US elections
Clinton and Sanders both sought to demagogically exploit the outrage of Flint residents...“Left” demagogy and nationalism dominate Democratic debate in Flint
Each of the Democratic presidential aspirants sought to lay blame solely on Governor Snyder and the Republicans. This is absurd, since the mayor, the emergency manager and the City Council members were all Democrats, as was Snyder’s treasurer, Andy Dillon. Moreover, the decimation of the nation’s infrastructure is the result of a bipartisan policy pursued over many decades and accelerated under the Obama administration. Capital expenditures on transportation and water infrastructure fell 23 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars between 2003 and 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
After the 2008 financial crash, the administration deliberately starved states and municipalities of federal funds, reducing non-military discretionary spending as a percentage of national gross domestic product to its lowest level since 1961. The federal Centers for Disease Control has cut state grants for lead poisoning prevention by more than half since 2009, and the share of children younger than six who are tested has fallen by more than 40 percent.
Asked by a Flint resident for specific proposals to solve the crisis, Clinton said she supported the efforts of the city’s Democratic mayor and Democratic representatives in Congress. They, however, are proposing token measures that will hardly begin to address the scale of the crisis.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:35 AM on March 8, 2016
Congressional Democrats have proposed allocating $600 million for Flint, while the cost to remove and replace the lead pipes has been estimated at more than $1 billion. Fitch, the credit rating agency, recently estimated that it would cost $300 billion to replace lead water pipes nationally.
...
Most revealing of the fraud of Sanders’ “socialism” was his omission of any call for the nationalization of basic utilities such as water and sewerage. If ever there has been a demonstration of the incompatibility of social needs with corporate control over the provision of basic necessities—whether through direct ownership or via the subordination of nominally public entities to the banks—it is in the Flint crisis.
HuffPo: At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump
A highlight of the gathering was a presentation by Rove about focus group findings on Trump. The business mogul's greatest weakness, according to Rove, was that voters have a very hard time envisioning him as "presidential" and as somebody their children should look up to. They also see him as somebody who can be erratic and shouldn't have his (small) fingers anywhere near a nuclear trigger.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:01 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh hey! That means we'll be getting a reboot of the Daisy ad soon.
posted by notyou at 7:12 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 7:12 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not really surprising that the Technolibertarians would suddenly get really alarmed about Trump's call to end H-1B programs. Costs for Silicon Valley could jump up dramatically without that program.
posted by vuron at 7:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 7:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
somebody their children should look up to
Either this or an unforced error is what will do him in. Married white women with children are a large clump of Republican votes. Most of the women I know who would otherwise vote Republican currently have small children and specifically cite this reason for why they would turn out to vote against Trump (the right to equal pay and to make medical decisions for their own bodies doesn't somehow motivate them, to my chagrin, but whatevs...). A very small sample, but it's been striking to me.
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 AM on March 8, 2016
Either this or an unforced error is what will do him in. Married white women with children are a large clump of Republican votes. Most of the women I know who would otherwise vote Republican currently have small children and specifically cite this reason for why they would turn out to vote against Trump (the right to equal pay and to make medical decisions for their own bodies doesn't somehow motivate them, to my chagrin, but whatevs...). A very small sample, but it's been striking to me.
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 AM on March 8, 2016
Silicon Valley Technoliberarians actually don't really underpay their H1Bs.
Yes they do underpay. From your citation, look at the salaries they pay H1Bs compared to green cards. A green card can easily walk across the street to a competitor and get a higher paying job. Not so easy for an H1B, so there is no real competitive market. Green cards are also more likely to get stock bonuses.
posted by JackFlash at 7:56 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes they do underpay. From your citation, look at the salaries they pay H1Bs compared to green cards. A green card can easily walk across the street to a competitor and get a higher paying job. Not so easy for an H1B, so there is no real competitive market. Green cards are also more likely to get stock bonuses.
posted by JackFlash at 7:56 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Interesting: Fox was trying to schedule a Bernie/Trump debate, and both agreed, but then Trump pulled out so they settled for a Democrat town hall.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:59 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:59 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
So, I guess Hawaii Republicans are voting today (Dems aren't until 3/26). Per this article the turnout was only 20K in 2012; some perspectives on Trump and the other candidates in that article too. On Maui, I haven't seen a single yard sign or bumper sticker for a Republican; a few Bernie stickers, but overall not much political activity. The front page of the local online newspaper has no mention of the caucus or election. MauiTime, the other paper, says in an article unrelated to the caucus:
posted by melissasaurus at 8:39 AM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump dominates the news because he says and does outrageous, horrific things. And climate change gets the shaft because it’s based on scientific hypotheses and analyses that frighten TV news execs worse than any horror movie.So, that's politics on Maui.
Now in 50 years, when climate change has led to vastly more superstorms and rising sea levels that have lay waste to the world’s coastlines and caused devastating food shortages and chaos, then maybe climate change will start playing a bigger role in TV news. But until then, American television media will content themselves to the garbage fire that is the Republican Party’s flirtation with fascism and whatever new developments spring up in the OJ Simpson case.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:39 AM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
HuffPo: At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump
posted by cashman at 8:41 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sources familiar with the meeting -- who requested anonymity because the forum is off the record -- said that much of the conversation around Trump centered on "how this happened, rather than how are we going to stop him," as one person put it.So which is it? I think if anything the part about him being erratic is the biggest problem for them. They just want to know what to expect so they can profit off of whatever happens. But businesses don't like uncertainty. And Trump could do anything at any point, or at least hasn't given them enough assurances and details that they would be comfortable with him being president. Yet.
posted by cashman at 8:41 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I bet Trump makes people pledge things to him all the time.
"Melania, did you drink my last Fiji water? Did you? tell me the truth. I won't be upset if you did. Raise your right hand and swear you didn't."
Fox was trying to schedule a Bernie/Trump debate.
That seems pretty sleazy.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:45 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Melania, did you drink my last Fiji water? Did you? tell me the truth. I won't be upset if you did. Raise your right hand and swear you didn't."
Fox was trying to schedule a Bernie/Trump debate.
That seems pretty sleazy.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:45 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"how this happened, rather than how are we going to stop him,..."
I know what that means: the rat fuckers were so busy pointing fingers, shifting blame and trying to save face that they couldn't even start to talk about what the hell to do next. A couple dozen GOP operatives jet into a private island to figure out how to stop Trump and they end up listening to Cook and Cotton go at it about iPhone cracking? That was a hell of a lost weekend.
posted by klarck at 9:03 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know what that means: the rat fuckers were so busy pointing fingers, shifting blame and trying to save face that they couldn't even start to talk about what the hell to do next. A couple dozen GOP operatives jet into a private island to figure out how to stop Trump and they end up listening to Cook and Cotton go at it about iPhone cracking? That was a hell of a lost weekend.
posted by klarck at 9:03 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
New numbers suggest Michigan has tightened up.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:33 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:33 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Michigan's poll averages though are awful for Sanders
538 Polling Average
Let's be honest though Sanders really cannot afford to be 5% points down in any of the Rust Belt states if he's going to try to extend his campaign through the west coast states. Combined with Clinton beginning to edge away from Sanders in national polling and it's really unclear if Sanders can generate enough momentum to continue to be a credible threat.
Hopefully at a certain point in time the two candidates join up to fight crime and I've even seen some trial balloons from Sanders strategists suggesting that.
posted by vuron at 10:15 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 Polling Average
Let's be honest though Sanders really cannot afford to be 5% points down in any of the Rust Belt states if he's going to try to extend his campaign through the west coast states. Combined with Clinton beginning to edge away from Sanders in national polling and it's really unclear if Sanders can generate enough momentum to continue to be a credible threat.
Hopefully at a certain point in time the two candidates join up to fight crime and I've even seen some trial balloons from Sanders strategists suggesting that.
posted by vuron at 10:15 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
HuffPo: At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump
You're doing a heckuva job reassuring the American people that the country isn't run by globalist elite oligarchs, globalist elite oligarchs!
posted by Apocryphon at 10:28 AM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
You're doing a heckuva job reassuring the American people that the country isn't run by globalist elite oligarchs, globalist elite oligarchs!
posted by Apocryphon at 10:28 AM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think even getting close in Michigan will earn Sen. Sanders a second look from Democratic voters. Michigan's not Vermont or Iowa; it has a large and diverse electorate, and a large and diverse Democratic base. If he can end up with even a 5% loss, it won't close the delegate gap but it will get him renewed attention, which is what he needs.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:35 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:35 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
On Maui, I haven't seen a single yard sign or bumper sticker for a Republican
Update: My husband has apparently seen a few Trump stickers around here, usually on work vans. Hawaii Public Radio says that Trump is favored to win and interviews some voters. They're expecting only about 10K turnout.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Update: My husband has apparently seen a few Trump stickers around here, usually on work vans. Hawaii Public Radio says that Trump is favored to win and interviews some voters. They're expecting only about 10K turnout.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Sources familiar with the meeting -- who requested anonymity because the forum is off the record -- said that much of the conversation around Trump centered on "how this happened, rather than how are we going to stop him," as one person put it."Yes, however could this have happened? I'm just racking my brain trying to figure that shit out.
It's not like Republicans have spent the last 30 years fostering extreme distrust, cynicism, fear and paranoia in the American public by calling the media, educators, scientists, politicians and their government rapacious liars. Or by Othering and fearmongering against Brown people and minorities and anyone who doesn't pray to the correct diety. Or by spouting nationalist and jingoist rhetoric to a ridiculously stupid degree that bore no resemblance to reality or even sanity.
And now they have the stones to be shocked that in the environment they created and nurtured, a candidate who plays into every one of those so-called triumphs for slack-jawed idiocy is *gasp* winning a fucking election to the country's highest office.
Fuckwits.
posted by zarq at 10:45 AM on March 8, 2016 [25 favorites]
Yes, however could this have happened? I'm just racking my brain trying to figure that shit out.
It's not like Republicans have spent the last 30 years fostering extreme distrust, cynicism, fear and paranoia in the American public by calling the media, educators, scientists, politicians and their government rapacious liars.
If anyone'd like more about this topic and happened to miss the thread, there's currently a post about The Southern Strategy and the devil down south.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:02 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not like Republicans have spent the last 30 years fostering extreme distrust, cynicism, fear and paranoia in the American public by calling the media, educators, scientists, politicians and their government rapacious liars.
If anyone'd like more about this topic and happened to miss the thread, there's currently a post about The Southern Strategy and the devil down south.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:02 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh they know what steered it this way. They are just stunned that the rubes decided to start lapping up someone else's nonsense. We hooked these junkies fair and square, how dare they start buying someone else's product!
posted by phearlez at 11:06 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 11:06 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dem Senate takeover probable, if Cruz or Trump nominee
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Lyme Drop at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given the new voters Trump is drawing, I don't think "probable" is a word that should be used this year.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:10 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:10 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kirsten West Savali : Bernie Sanders’ ‘Ghetto’ Gaffe Gave Clinton Supporters the Ammunition They Needed
posted by bardophile at 11:14 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 11:14 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why do you think that Trump is drawing new voters?
Yes there are likely some first time republicans supporting him but there has been nothing that indicates that Trump is in any way expanding the electorate.
posted by vuron at 11:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes there are likely some first time republicans supporting him but there has been nothing that indicates that Trump is in any way expanding the electorate.
posted by vuron at 11:17 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kirsten West Savali : Bernie Sanders’ ‘Ghetto’ Gaffe Gave Clinton Supporters the Ammunition They Needed
The use of the world ammunition is why many Sanders supporters don't like Clinton. It was a one-off comment out of context. Making an issue of it is going to jeopardize Clinton, not Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:23 AM on March 8, 2016
The use of the world ammunition is why many Sanders supporters don't like Clinton. It was a one-off comment out of context. Making an issue of it is going to jeopardize Clinton, not Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:23 AM on March 8, 2016
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you didn't actually read the link.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:28 AM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:28 AM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
The use of the world ammunition is why many Sanders supporters don't like Clinton. It was a one-off comment out of context. Making an issue of it is going to jeopardize Clinton, not Sanders.
Savali is as much a Clinton supporter as you are. Maybe even less.
posted by bardophile at 11:29 AM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours: "Despite being ideologically opposed to the Democratic Party (at least in principle), Bezos has enjoyed friendly ties with both the Obama administration and the CIA. As Michael Oman-Reagan notes, Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. Amazon also has over $600 million in contracts with the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization Sanders said he wanted to abolish in 1974, and still says he “had a lot of problems with.” FAIR has previously criticized the Washington Post for failing to disclose, when reporting on tech giant Uber, that Bezos also owns more than $1 billion in Uber stock."
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why do you think that Trump is drawing new voters?
He has, although it seems to have been overstated. (Sanders brought in more?!)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:32 AM on March 8, 2016
He has, although it seems to have been overstated. (Sanders brought in more?!)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:32 AM on March 8, 2016
That article doesn't actually indicate that Trump is drawing a significant block of new voters rather it's indicating that the turnout size of the primaries has grown. The only total that can actually be attributed to Trump is 42,000 first time voters voting for him in Iowa and NH and there is no guarantee that those would actually be anything other than reliable Republican voters in any case especially given the nature of the Iowa Caucus.
I don't think there is really been any thing that would suggest that Trump is really propelling a bunch of new voters towards getting registered and why he might get some disaffected Democrats to vote for him it's not really clear that he's actually in any way growing the Republican brand and it's actually quite likely that the reverse will happen where the Senate and possibly even the House are put into jeopardy.
I'm personally looking forward to the idea of House Speaker Pelosi again.
posted by vuron at 11:43 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think there is really been any thing that would suggest that Trump is really propelling a bunch of new voters towards getting registered and why he might get some disaffected Democrats to vote for him it's not really clear that he's actually in any way growing the Republican brand and it's actually quite likely that the reverse will happen where the Senate and possibly even the House are put into jeopardy.
I'm personally looking forward to the idea of House Speaker Pelosi again.
posted by vuron at 11:43 AM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why (by Thomas "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank)
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
Remember how Amazon turned off Wikileaks' servers when asked nicely by the government? (Although, I would note, a CIA connection is not necessary for a large corporation to hate a candidate championing redistribution!)
The use of the world ammunition is why many Sanders supporters don't like Clinton.
Bingo. Bernie also said in the Flint debate "What I believe as the father of seven beautiful grandchildren..." but that's an obvious slip-up in the heat of the moment and it would be totally ridiculous to accuse him of having loops in his family tree because of it. (Although I am waiting for the Clinton press release to that effect.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:44 AM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
Remember how Amazon turned off Wikileaks' servers when asked nicely by the government? (Although, I would note, a CIA connection is not necessary for a large corporation to hate a candidate championing redistribution!)
The use of the world ammunition is why many Sanders supporters don't like Clinton.
Bingo. Bernie also said in the Flint debate "What I believe as the father of seven beautiful grandchildren..." but that's an obvious slip-up in the heat of the moment and it would be totally ridiculous to accuse him of having loops in his family tree because of it. (Although I am waiting for the Clinton press release to that effect.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:44 AM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Another thing I just realized about the Hawaii GOP caucus today: there's a solar eclipse that peaks just as the lines for voting open (~5:45pm local time). If that's not a bad omen, I don't know what is. Traditional/ancient Hawaiian culture associates an eclipse with the death of a chief, war, or overthrow of the government.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:47 AM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:47 AM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mitt Romney Files FEC Paperwork To Run In 2016 Election
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:54 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:54 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Where Sanders and Clinton Disagree on Abortion
posted by melissasaurus at 12:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
If he can end up with even a 5% loss, it won't close the delegate gap but it will get him renewed attention, which is what he needs.
I don't think that's true. He gets plenty of attention. What he needs are delegate victories and straight wins in places like Michigan. If Sanders can't win in a place like Michigan what is his path to victory?
posted by Justinian at 12:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think that's true. He gets plenty of attention. What he needs are delegate victories and straight wins in places like Michigan. If Sanders can't win in a place like Michigan what is his path to victory?
posted by Justinian at 12:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you know the answer to that Justinian. The reality is that the odds are getting exceedingly long for Sanders as even some Sanders supporters suggest that Clinton will likely be +30 on the day at a minimum.
Short of somehow keeping Clinton at a nonviable status in California, Washington and Oregon (which almost certainly won't happen) I'm not seeing where he's going to be erasing the huge lead that she's built up.
I'm kinda hoping that after a point he starts using his donations to start impacting down ballot races as that's much more likely to result in a big progressive windfall than focusing everything on the top of the ticket. That being said I can accept a desire to keep fighting til the convention even though I think at a certain point in time it becomes counter-productive to the goal of advancing progressive politics to fight the inevitable.
posted by vuron at 12:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Short of somehow keeping Clinton at a nonviable status in California, Washington and Oregon (which almost certainly won't happen) I'm not seeing where he's going to be erasing the huge lead that she's built up.
I'm kinda hoping that after a point he starts using his donations to start impacting down ballot races as that's much more likely to result in a big progressive windfall than focusing everything on the top of the ticket. That being said I can accept a desire to keep fighting til the convention even though I think at a certain point in time it becomes counter-productive to the goal of advancing progressive politics to fight the inevitable.
posted by vuron at 12:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
he's going to be erasing the huge lead that she's built up.
I wouldn't call less than 200 delegates ( and getting smaller every day it seems ) 'huge', seeing as it's < 10% of the delegates needed to nominate.
posted by mikelieman at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't call less than 200 delegates ( and getting smaller every day it seems ) 'huge', seeing as it's < 10% of the delegates needed to nominate.
posted by mikelieman at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only total that can actually be attributed to Trump is 42,000 first time voters voting for him in Iowa and NH
Those are the only places where they asked.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:23 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those are the only places where they asked.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:23 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even a 5% chance of a Bernie nomination (which is what current betting markets are predicting, though the chance has been as high as 15% in the recent past) wouldn't be such long odds that it would be irrational for people to spend time and money on his campaign in the hope of getting a candidate they feel really excited about.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
In fact, the current difference in delegates is only 187, with Sanders winning 3/4ths of the States this past weekend.
posted by mikelieman at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2016
less than 200 delegates ( and getting smaller every day it seems )
Both false. It's 201, which is higher than it was going into the weekend, and will almost certainly grow today.
That doesn't mean Sanders can't mount a dramatic comeback, but at least get the facts straight.
posted by dersins at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Both false. It's 201, which is higher than it was going into the weekend, and will almost certainly grow today.
That doesn't mean Sanders can't mount a dramatic comeback, but at least get the facts straight.
posted by dersins at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders winning 3/4ths of the States this past weekend.
Technically true, but utterly meaningless given the delegate distribution.
posted by dersins at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Technically true, but utterly meaningless given the delegate distribution.
posted by dersins at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm kinda hoping that after a point he starts using his donations to start impacting down ballot races as that's much more likely to result in a big progressive windfall than focusing everything on the top of the ticket.
A number of state and local level officials are starting to endorse Bernie and his policy positions. So, I think we're starting to see some potential downballot effects. I think it's important for him to stay in the race until the convention for many reasons, but particularly because as certain precincts and districts vote overwhelmingly for Bernie, the officials representing those districts have more cover to publicly state more progressive positions than the mainstream party endorses. California might go for Clinton overall, but certain local areas might show concentrated Bernie support -- progressives in those areas then can more easily embrace Bernie-eqsue policies knowing the local constituents endorse those ideas.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
A number of state and local level officials are starting to endorse Bernie and his policy positions. So, I think we're starting to see some potential downballot effects. I think it's important for him to stay in the race until the convention for many reasons, but particularly because as certain precincts and districts vote overwhelmingly for Bernie, the officials representing those districts have more cover to publicly state more progressive positions than the mainstream party endorses. California might go for Clinton overall, but certain local areas might show concentrated Bernie support -- progressives in those areas then can more easily embrace Bernie-eqsue policies knowing the local constituents endorse those ideas.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really like this visualization of the delegate allocation. It is absolutely a long shot for Sanders, I don't think anyone supporting him has ever denied that at any point in this race - most of us, probably including Sanders himself, were shocked to see he even had any kind of shot at it at all - but there are still a lot of delegates to assign, and a lot of things can still change before the convention. As a donor, I absolutely do not want him teaming up with Clinton or giving my money to downticket races - I want him to continue to fight for delegates in every state, continue building a left organization that can be mobilized to protest when the Democratic party needs to be reminded of its base, and continue promoting and making the argument for a truly progressive policy agenda. If his campaign becomes solely a demonstration of left-wing power within the Democratic party, I am 100% for that and will continue to donate and volunteer for that cause, and I think most of his supporters will, too.
posted by dialetheia at 12:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
As a not-American, I really don't like Clinton's foreign policy ideas, and Sander's visions of a more economically just society aligns with what I believe in. And I really like that he isn't planning to bomb anyone. But there is something about him that rubs me the wrong way. If I were American, I'd hold my nose and vote for him anyway, it's not that. I am a typical reality-based rational voter, even though it makes no sense in the current world.
Today I found that all the four principal contenders share the trait I'm uncomfortable with: they are all lecturing us on what we should do/vote/feel/think. They all act as if they are superior to us in some way.
Which is really scary when you are not American.
Apart from Cruz, who is a religious crazy person, the candidates are the age of my parents and their siblings, and while I haven't generally hated on the boomers like some do, it has always bugged me that they had this attitude. In the family, at work and in politics. They stand there with their lifted index fingers and lecture, and more often than not, they are inventing stuff as they go, clueless about the real issues. It took me so long to find out and now I am bitter, which is why this election just scares me, regardless of who is finally elected.
The irony of Bernie telling us that he will not be lectured, while he lectures, is sadder than it is amusing..
posted by mumimor at 12:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Today I found that all the four principal contenders share the trait I'm uncomfortable with: they are all lecturing us on what we should do/vote/feel/think. They all act as if they are superior to us in some way.
Which is really scary when you are not American.
Apart from Cruz, who is a religious crazy person, the candidates are the age of my parents and their siblings, and while I haven't generally hated on the boomers like some do, it has always bugged me that they had this attitude. In the family, at work and in politics. They stand there with their lifted index fingers and lecture, and more often than not, they are inventing stuff as they go, clueless about the real issues. It took me so long to find out and now I am bitter, which is why this election just scares me, regardless of who is finally elected.
The irony of Bernie telling us that he will not be lectured, while he lectures, is sadder than it is amusing..
posted by mumimor at 12:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
By next week nearly 50% of the pledged delegates will have been selected and no one is indicating that Sanders is likely to close the gap with Clinton until after 3/15. With proportional splits of the delegates in every state Sanders is going to need consistent double digit wins in remaining primary states and the state level polling just isn't supporting that.
Yes the west coast has huge delegate totals but there is absolutely no reason to think that Sanders can win California by a 20 point margin.
posted by vuron at 12:36 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes the west coast has huge delegate totals but there is absolutely no reason to think that Sanders can win California by a 20 point margin.
posted by vuron at 12:36 PM on March 8, 2016
the candidates are the age of my parents and their siblings,
Rubio and Cruz are like a year apart - but maybe you're not counting Rubio. He is still a candidate though.
posted by zutalors! at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2016
Rubio and Cruz are like a year apart - but maybe you're not counting Rubio. He is still a candidate though.
posted by zutalors! at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2016
Both false. It's 201, which is higher than it was going into the weekend, and will almost certainly grow today.
Technically true, but utterly meaningless given the delegate distribution.
According to 538, Bernie had a net gain of 2 delegates over Clinton in the weekend's competitions.
posted by kyp at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Technically true, but utterly meaningless given the delegate distribution.
According to 538, Bernie had a net gain of 2 delegates over Clinton in the weekend's competitions.
posted by kyp at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I prefer this table from Real Clear. Not sure why CNN has Hillary with an extra 20 delegates, are their Texas numbers weird?
posted by mikelieman at 12:42 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:42 PM on March 8, 2016
Absolutely not counting Rubio at this point
posted by mumimor at 12:44 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 12:44 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
NPB's link makes think that this whole factionalization/realignment thing will soon be just as painful for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans.
posted by klarck at 12:46 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by klarck at 12:46 PM on March 8, 2016
CNN is SERIOUSLY messed up... On the map, CNN shows Texas with 169 delegates for Clinton, and if you click through to the state level....
149...
Which is still higher that the 145 shown on the table at Real Clear...
Remember way back when, I said that the servers can't be trusted to accurately tabulate and report the results.
posted by mikelieman at 12:46 PM on March 8, 2016
149...
Which is still higher that the 145 shown on the table at Real Clear...
Remember way back when, I said that the servers can't be trusted to accurately tabulate and report the results.
posted by mikelieman at 12:46 PM on March 8, 2016
RCP just has weird totals all around. They are underreporting delegates from both candidates, with Clinton being under reported by a larger margin than Sanders.
posted by vuron at 12:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 12:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where are the REAL numbers kept?
posted by mikelieman at 12:48 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:48 PM on March 8, 2016
@mikelieman The Green Papers is pretty comprehensive as far as I can tell, and has a lot of details that the other sites don't have.
posted by kyp at 1:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by kyp at 1:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours
We all know the fix is in for Hillary — and it has been from the start — but as far as the Washington Post goes, specifically, there's no conspiracy here: it's just good business for Bezos to be cozy with the US government, and to align editorial decisions with his business interests.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
We all know the fix is in for Hillary — and it has been from the start — but as far as the Washington Post goes, specifically, there's no conspiracy here: it's just good business for Bezos to be cozy with the US government, and to align editorial decisions with his business interests.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It... kind of sounds like a conspiracy when you put it that way.
posted by teponaztli at 1:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 1:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
Well, google just hired moot so that should balance out the bezos thingy. Or not.
posted by valkane at 1:51 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by valkane at 1:51 PM on March 8, 2016
Some fascinating county maps of the election results thus far.
Election Map by County
Hillary seems like she's weakest in caucus states and in parts of Appalachia but is dominant where Latino and African-American voters are clustered.
Some things that stood out to me: Unlike the conjectures Hillary's strength in Massachusetts was more in the eastern part of the state. Western Mass went heavily Sanders which was kinda opposite of what some Mefites seemed to think would happen.
Caucus states can be won with ridiculously low vote totals.
There are a fuck ton of basically empty Texas counties. I mean I knew that already but this reaffirmed that large parts of Texas are functionally uninhabited.
posted by vuron at 1:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Election Map by County
Hillary seems like she's weakest in caucus states and in parts of Appalachia but is dominant where Latino and African-American voters are clustered.
Some things that stood out to me: Unlike the conjectures Hillary's strength in Massachusetts was more in the eastern part of the state. Western Mass went heavily Sanders which was kinda opposite of what some Mefites seemed to think would happen.
Caucus states can be won with ridiculously low vote totals.
There are a fuck ton of basically empty Texas counties. I mean I knew that already but this reaffirmed that large parts of Texas are functionally uninhabited.
posted by vuron at 1:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, google just hired moot so that should balance out the bezos thingy.
How many news outlets does Google own?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:02 PM on March 8, 2016
How many news outlets does Google own?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:02 PM on March 8, 2016
Bezos is totally an asshole but do you really think that he's calling the Washington Post Editors and saying "Make Sanders look bad"? I'm sure he's focusing most of his time in meetings to make sure that he has a large enough drone army that he can just seize power when the time is right.
posted by vuron at 2:03 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 2:03 PM on March 8, 2016
Hillary seems like she's weakest in caucus states...
IIRC, that's exactly opposite to what people were saying after NH...
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:04 PM on March 8, 2016
IIRC, that's exactly opposite to what people were saying after NH...
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:04 PM on March 8, 2016
New WSJ/NBC news poll of GOP race:
Donald Trump: 30%
Ted Cruz: 27%
John Kasich: 22%
Marco Rubio: 20%
Kasich now leading Rubio nationally...
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2016
Donald Trump: 30%
Ted Cruz: 27%
John Kasich: 22%
Marco Rubio: 20%
Kasich now leading Rubio nationally...
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2016
Hillary seems like she's weakest in caucus states...
IIRC, that's exactly opposite to what people were saying after NH...
Sure, but now we have actual data. Sanders has won 5 out of 7 caucus states (he's won every caucus since Nevada). Clinton has won 9/12 primaries.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2016
IIRC, that's exactly opposite to what people were saying after NH...
Sure, but now we have actual data. Sanders has won 5 out of 7 caucus states (he's won every caucus since Nevada). Clinton has won 9/12 primaries.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2016
Donald Trump Has Made Some Bad TV Ad Buy Deals In Ohio
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:11 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:11 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah I really haven't seen a lot of Sanders supporters attacking caucuses in the last week or two.
Personally I dislike them regardless of who is winning them but that's mainly because they seem undemocratic as hell (but I also realize that selecting a party nominee isn't necessarily supposed to be a democratic process).
posted by vuron at 2:11 PM on March 8, 2016
Personally I dislike them regardless of who is winning them but that's mainly because they seem undemocratic as hell (but I also realize that selecting a party nominee isn't necessarily supposed to be a democratic process).
posted by vuron at 2:11 PM on March 8, 2016
How many news outlets does Google own?
For outfits like Google, it's not how many you own, it's how many and that which you aggregate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
For outfits like Google, it's not how many you own, it's how many and that which you aggregate.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
And Google will bring its scary-ass robots to the battlefront. Great.
We just finished watching season 3 of Continuum*, which features literal corporate warfare. Amazon and Google might take each other out, but not much will be left for the survivors.
*I noticed last night that the crypto-fascist power-hungry police chief bears a striking resemblance to Jeff Bezos. In a program which has an evil agribusiness called "Sonmanto," it's probably not coincidental.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Google will bring its scary-ass robots to the battlefront. Great.
We just finished watching season 3 of Continuum*, which features literal corporate warfare. Amazon and Google might take each other out, but not much will be left for the survivors.
*I noticed last night that the crypto-fascist power-hungry police chief bears a striking resemblance to Jeff Bezos. In a program which has an evil agribusiness called "Sonmanto," it's probably not coincidental.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Trump's media buys somehow involve a kickback to his companies. Everything about the dude just screams shady as fuck.
posted by vuron at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2016
How many news outlets does Google own?
Effectively: all of them.
posted by phearlez at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Effectively: all of them.
posted by phearlez at 2:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Trump's media buys somehow involve a kickback to his companies. Everything about the dude just screams shady as fuck.
Well he's cycling money by doing campaign spending to his own properties, but one of the hallmarks of his campaign has been doing very little media buying at all. Who needs to when you can just call press conferences which will get aired in their original extended rambling format? Free is better than kickbacks.
posted by phearlez at 2:16 PM on March 8, 2016
Well he's cycling money by doing campaign spending to his own properties, but one of the hallmarks of his campaign has been doing very little media buying at all. Who needs to when you can just call press conferences which will get aired in their original extended rambling format? Free is better than kickbacks.
posted by phearlez at 2:16 PM on March 8, 2016
Reading up on the CIA deal with Amazon it seems like many other organizations the CIA is looking at the cost of doing business in the cloud and coming to the realization that AWS might actually be a cheaper way of doing business than on-prem at least for some applications.
Not that I am in any way condoning Bezos but Amazon and Google and Facebook and some other companies are doing an incredible job at scaling up computing infrastructure. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if more and more of the HPC world moves into AWS EC2 clouds which is fascinating.
posted by vuron at 2:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not that I am in any way condoning Bezos but Amazon and Google and Facebook and some other companies are doing an incredible job at scaling up computing infrastructure. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if more and more of the HPC world moves into AWS EC2 clouds which is fascinating.
posted by vuron at 2:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bezos is totally an asshole but do you really think that he's calling the Washington Post Editors and saying "Make Sanders look bad"?
At Amazon, a one-character email from Bezos, a question mark, is enough to get the relevant upper management to drop what they are doing and scramble to fix the Problem, whatever it is. That said, I doubt Bezos has to do much to get WaPo management to fix a Problem, just as it seems that it would be rare for Rupert Murdoch to step in to direct FOX News to fix any Problem that comes up. Everyone in their respective editing rooms knows their business andself-censors edits before the bosses have to step in.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
At Amazon, a one-character email from Bezos, a question mark, is enough to get the relevant upper management to drop what they are doing and scramble to fix the Problem, whatever it is. That said, I doubt Bezos has to do much to get WaPo management to fix a Problem, just as it seems that it would be rare for Rupert Murdoch to step in to direct FOX News to fix any Problem that comes up. Everyone in their respective editing rooms knows their business and
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Reading up on the CIA deal with Amazon it seems like many other organizations the CIA is looking at the cost of doing business in the cloud and coming to the realization that AWS might actually be a cheaper way of doing business than on-prem at least for some applications.
Which makes sense, I guess, if "a cheaper way of doing business" is our only concern with trusting private companies with the most sensitive national security information.
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Which makes sense, I guess, if "a cheaper way of doing business" is our only concern with trusting private companies with the most sensitive national security information.
posted by dialetheia at 2:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Speaking of Google, according to opensecrets they are Sanders's top donor (really this is "Google employees", though). (Amazon employees are #6, tech in general is heavily represented).
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey Johnny Wallflower, apologies in advance for your severe disappointment with Season 4 of Continuum.
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
With proportional splits of the delegates in every state Sanders is going to need consistent double digit wins in remaining primary states and the state level polling just isn't supporting that.
The flip side of proportional splits, though, is that he can also make up some lost ground simply by holding Hillary to narrower win margins than expected. If it gets to be "California by 20 points or nothing" by the time they primary, then yeah it's v. likely to be a Hillary nom, but if he can move the needle at a national level and outperform expectations in the states that Clinton is expected to dominate, then he could start to close the gap even if he doesn't score any outright upsets.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The flip side of proportional splits, though, is that he can also make up some lost ground simply by holding Hillary to narrower win margins than expected. If it gets to be "California by 20 points or nothing" by the time they primary, then yeah it's v. likely to be a Hillary nom, but if he can move the needle at a national level and outperform expectations in the states that Clinton is expected to dominate, then he could start to close the gap even if he doesn't score any outright upsets.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had no idea Amazon had so many contracts with the CIA, that's wild.
Not really – Amazon Web Services, which hosts a large part of the Internet these days, offers a "region" called GovCloud specifically for sensitive government data.
posted by nicwolff at 3:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not really – Amazon Web Services, which hosts a large part of the Internet these days, offers a "region" called GovCloud specifically for sensitive government data.
posted by nicwolff at 3:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Trump's media buys somehow involve a kickback to his companies. Everything about the dude just screams shady as fuck.
Back in 1991, when Trump's casino was struggling, his father bought $3.5 million in chips and never used them in order to prop up the casino. I'm surprised no one's talked about that, as it contradicts his business acumen narrative, adds to the stories of shady business dealings like Trump University, and adds to the absurdity of the "small one million dollar loan from dad" attempt at being a relatable every-man.
posted by bluecore at 3:10 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Back in 1991, when Trump's casino was struggling, his father bought $3.5 million in chips and never used them in order to prop up the casino. I'm surprised no one's talked about that, as it contradicts his business acumen narrative, adds to the stories of shady business dealings like Trump University, and adds to the absurdity of the "small one million dollar loan from dad" attempt at being a relatable every-man.
posted by bluecore at 3:10 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mitt Romney's speech condemning Donald Trump did little to bring down the controversial Republican presidential front-runner, according to a poll released Tuesday. Thirty-one percent of Republican voters surveyed by Morning Consult said they are more now likely to vote for Trump, while 20 percent said they are less likely to vote for the real estate mogul. Forty-three percent said Romney's comments had no impact."
Those numbers are totally compatible with Romney making a huge difference in stopping Trump. The Donald's support has hovered around 35-40%. I have no doubt that those voters -- or enough of them to constitute 31% of the electorate -- would be even more likely to vote for him after Romney gave his speech.
But if the 20% made less likely to vote for him were independent or undecided voters, that would be a devastating blow to his hopes of growing beyond his narrow in-party base.
I don't know if this is what happened, but those numbers certainly don't prove what the headline says.
posted by msalt at 3:11 PM on March 8, 2016
Those numbers are totally compatible with Romney making a huge difference in stopping Trump. The Donald's support has hovered around 35-40%. I have no doubt that those voters -- or enough of them to constitute 31% of the electorate -- would be even more likely to vote for him after Romney gave his speech.
But if the 20% made less likely to vote for him were independent or undecided voters, that would be a devastating blow to his hopes of growing beyond his narrow in-party base.
I don't know if this is what happened, but those numbers certainly don't prove what the headline says.
posted by msalt at 3:11 PM on March 8, 2016
We all know the fix is in for Hillary — and it has been from the start ...
Um, no? If the fix was in from the start, we'd have never heard about Bernie in the first place. Or he'd be on a level with Martin O'Malley, which amounts to the same thing.
posted by msalt at 3:15 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Um, no? If the fix was in from the start, we'd have never heard about Bernie in the first place. Or he'd be on a level with Martin O'Malley, which amounts to the same thing.
posted by msalt at 3:15 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really love hearing "what it's like from my corner of the country" anecdotes as a nice break from the OMG WTF BBQ SANDERS CLINTON TRUMP firehose, so here's mine. I live in southwest Ohio [Cincinnati], so I anticipate that within 12 hours, all the candidates will be on the ground here or in Florida (we vote a week from today).
For some reason I like to punish myself by watching the giant bank of TVs early in the morning at the gym even though the 6:30am combo of local news and national news is perpetually depressing. I haven't seen many political ads yet (and at home, we mostly watch stuff through the Roku and PBS News Hour), but in the space of < 30 minutes, I caught:
3 Sanders ads
2 Clinton ads
1 Kasich ad
Hamilton County, while generally Democratic in general elections, is also quite conservative compared to the other big Ohio counties (Lucas - Toledo, Cuyahoga - Cleveland, Franklin - Columbus). It seems to me that at least as far as early morning ad buys as a (likely shoddy) proxy, Bernie isn't taking anything for granted. I can't speak for the local campaign office, but I think one is officially opening tonight.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:17 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
For some reason I like to punish myself by watching the giant bank of TVs early in the morning at the gym even though the 6:30am combo of local news and national news is perpetually depressing. I haven't seen many political ads yet (and at home, we mostly watch stuff through the Roku and PBS News Hour), but in the space of < 30 minutes, I caught:
3 Sanders ads
2 Clinton ads
1 Kasich ad
Hamilton County, while generally Democratic in general elections, is also quite conservative compared to the other big Ohio counties (Lucas - Toledo, Cuyahoga - Cleveland, Franklin - Columbus). It seems to me that at least as far as early morning ad buys as a (likely shoddy) proxy, Bernie isn't taking anything for granted. I can't speak for the local campaign office, but I think one is officially opening tonight.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:17 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Amid high turnout, Michigan primary precinct runs out of Democratic ballots in mix-up
They were without ballots for about two hours, and people were turned away.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
They were without ballots for about two hours, and people were turned away.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton is winning because more people are voting for her. Not because the fix is in.
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's both.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
The media hasn't done Sanders any favors.
posted by futz at 3:24 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by futz at 3:24 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary’s inevitability lie: Why the media and party elites are rushing to nominate the weakest candidate
posted by Room 641-A at 3:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 3:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Clinton and Trump win their conventions, it’ll be the first time both parties nominated their weakest candidate. Trump is the one Republican almost any Democrat can beat; Hillary the one Democrat Trump can beat.
Objection your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence!
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Objection your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence!
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Objection your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence!
You could say that about the entire GOP platform.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
You could say that about the entire GOP platform.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
This year, I have literally at one point or another been told that every single potential candidate from either party could not possibly beat any of the candidates from the other party.
posted by kyrademon at 3:41 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 3:41 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The media hasn't done Sanders any favors.
Bernie has gotten loads of positive publicity, with hardly a peek at any potential negative stories. What people here don't like are horse race articles stating that his odds of winning are not high, which is at worst conventional wisdom and arguably just reality for any insurgent campaign.
It could be a LOT more negative. There wasn't really much coverage of his "ghetto" gaffe -- Twitter (which has a very strong African American presence) had a much bigger reaction to it than the news media.
Look at all the stories about Howard Dean's "scream" -- the press could be crucifying Bernie for his finger-wagging, dismissive comments towards Hillary, decision to focus on rural white states, etc.
The story of the plucky old outsider challenging the system makes a better story, so I understand why it's getting so much play, but it's inherently a very pro-Bernie story.
posted by msalt at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie has gotten loads of positive publicity, with hardly a peek at any potential negative stories. What people here don't like are horse race articles stating that his odds of winning are not high, which is at worst conventional wisdom and arguably just reality for any insurgent campaign.
It could be a LOT more negative. There wasn't really much coverage of his "ghetto" gaffe -- Twitter (which has a very strong African American presence) had a much bigger reaction to it than the news media.
Look at all the stories about Howard Dean's "scream" -- the press could be crucifying Bernie for his finger-wagging, dismissive comments towards Hillary, decision to focus on rural white states, etc.
The story of the plucky old outsider challenging the system makes a better story, so I understand why it's getting so much play, but it's inherently a very pro-Bernie story.
posted by msalt at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton is winning because more people are voting for her.
Eh. She's winning because she has superdelegates who will decide the end result in her favor, regardless of how many people will actually vote for her. She is winning because her party is run by someone she is professionally and personally close to, who has openly gamed the debate process and other aspects of the process in her favor. She is winning because the media, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to anyone paying attention, publishes negative ad-stories about Sanders with consistency and frequency.
It's pretty much the epitome of what it means to be bought out, for instance, when she interrupts Sanders during a debate, when he is answering a moderator's question, and his request to be allowed to finish his answer is then construed as sexism on his part by a news columnist.
I say all of that even recognizing she is a much better option than the psychotic autocrats the Republicans are fronting. But the fix is in, and I'd posit it is healthier for our sick democracy when people go into the voting booth knowing how corruption at those levels has helped Hillary Clinton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Eh. She's winning because she has superdelegates who will decide the end result in her favor, regardless of how many people will actually vote for her. She is winning because her party is run by someone she is professionally and personally close to, who has openly gamed the debate process and other aspects of the process in her favor. She is winning because the media, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to anyone paying attention, publishes negative ad-stories about Sanders with consistency and frequency.
It's pretty much the epitome of what it means to be bought out, for instance, when she interrupts Sanders during a debate, when he is answering a moderator's question, and his request to be allowed to finish his answer is then construed as sexism on his part by a news columnist.
I say all of that even recognizing she is a much better option than the psychotic autocrats the Republicans are fronting. But the fix is in, and I'd posit it is healthier for our sick democracy when people go into the voting booth knowing how corruption at those levels has helped Hillary Clinton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
She's winning because she has superdelegates who will decide the end result in her favor, regardless of how many people will actually vote for her.
She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and is extremely likely to have the majority of pledged delegates when the convention happens. The superdelegates are irrelevant, unless you think they should all vote for Bernie even if Clinton has the majority of pledged delegates.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates and is extremely likely to have the majority of pledged delegates when the convention happens. The superdelegates are irrelevant, unless you think they should all vote for Bernie even if Clinton has the majority of pledged delegates.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The superdelegates are functionally irrelevant this year just as they have been functionally irrelevant in every primary since their creation and I wish people would stop acting as if this were not the case.
posted by kyrademon at 3:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 3:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
(In fact, the only way I could conceive of the infinitesimally remote possibility of the superdelegates coming into relevant play this year would be on Sander's behalf.)
posted by kyrademon at 3:51 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by kyrademon at 3:51 PM on March 8, 2016
The superdelegates are functionally irrelevant this year just as they have been functionally irrelevant in every primary since their creation and I wish people would stop acting as if this were not the case.
The media has many times used delegate math including superdelegates to show her farther ahead of Sanders than she is with pledged delegates alone, which has the potential to depress turnout from Sanders-leaners in states that might otherwise be more competitive. Everyone knows the superdelegates are there as a failsafe to stop an insurgent movement precisely like the one Sanders has created, so you can't really dismiss them as irrelevant.
We would expect them to follow the will of the voters if Bernie were to be ahead on pledged delegates heading into the convention, but the mere possibility of it playing out otherwise is enough to create uncertainty and a "why bother" attitude from people who might believe that the party is in the tank for Hillary, which there have certainly been other signs of with the DWS shenanigans and such.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
The media has many times used delegate math including superdelegates to show her farther ahead of Sanders than she is with pledged delegates alone, which has the potential to depress turnout from Sanders-leaners in states that might otherwise be more competitive. Everyone knows the superdelegates are there as a failsafe to stop an insurgent movement precisely like the one Sanders has created, so you can't really dismiss them as irrelevant.
We would expect them to follow the will of the voters if Bernie were to be ahead on pledged delegates heading into the convention, but the mere possibility of it playing out otherwise is enough to create uncertainty and a "why bother" attitude from people who might believe that the party is in the tank for Hillary, which there have certainly been other signs of with the DWS shenanigans and such.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
Eh. She's winning because she has superdelegates who will decide the end result in her favor, regardless of how many people will actually vote for her. She is winning because her party is run by someone she is professionally and personally close to, who has openly gamed the debate process and other aspects of the process in her favor. She is winning because the media, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to anyone paying attention, publishes negative ad-stories about Sanders with consistency and frequency.
You can say all that but the fact is that more Democratic voters have decided to vote for her than for Sanders. That's why she's winning.
posted by octothorpe at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
You can say all that but the fact is that more Democratic voters have decided to vote for her than for Sanders. That's why she's winning.
posted by octothorpe at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The reason the superdelegates are relevant is that everyone has been reporting them as part of the delegate total and not even breaking them out separately in most cases, which made Sanders' candidacy look impossible even after only a couple of states had voted and he had a pledged delegate lead. It's about maintaining the impression that her nomination is inevitable and that supporting Sanders would be pointless. Some news outlets have changed the way they report superdelegates since then - for example, as of a couple of days ago, the NYT is finally just reporting pledged delegates, since superdelegates aren't actually committed until they vote at the convention.
posted by dialetheia at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [20 favorites]
To be clear, I think Hillary would be ahead even were it not for the looming possibility of problems with superdelegates, but saying they're irrelevant is silly. They exist solely to guard against direct democracy, and you can't rightly argue that they won't do the thing they exist to do.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
> "The media has many times ..."
I am including the media in the people I wish would stop acting like the superdelegates are not functionally irrelevant.
posted by kyrademon at 3:55 PM on March 8, 2016
I am including the media in the people I wish would stop acting like the superdelegates are not functionally irrelevant.
posted by kyrademon at 3:55 PM on March 8, 2016
Well, they haven't, so they're relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Every tracker I have used showed both separately (pledged- and super- delegates), including NYTimes, RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, etc.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually don't like the superdelegates and would be disappointed if they tilted the race against whoever won the majority of pledged delegates.
But there is no reason to think that will happen this year.
And I really don't buy the argument that somehow their existence caused people to give up on voting for Sanders, but I suppose there's no reasonable way to prove that either way.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually don't like the superdelegates and would be disappointed if they tilted the race against whoever won the majority of pledged delegates.
But there is no reason to think that will happen this year.
And I really don't buy the argument that somehow their existence caused people to give up on voting for Sanders, but I suppose there's no reasonable way to prove that either way.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
> "... you can't rightly argue that they won't do the thing they exist to do."
Yes, I can, because actually doing that thing would be the most monumentally stupid thing they could possibly do and that is well known.
> "Well, they haven't, so they're relevant."
Only and solely because people, such as some of the media and some of the people who read the media, are acting like they are relevant which is THE THING I AM SAYING I WISH WOULD STOP.
posted by kyrademon at 3:58 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, I can, because actually doing that thing would be the most monumentally stupid thing they could possibly do and that is well known.
> "Well, they haven't, so they're relevant."
Only and solely because people, such as some of the media and some of the people who read the media, are acting like they are relevant which is THE THING I AM SAYING I WISH WOULD STOP.
posted by kyrademon at 3:58 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, I can, because actually doing that thing would be the most monumentally stupid thing they could possibly do and that is well known.
You're betting against stupidity from the Democratic party establishment? Hoo, boy.
are acting like they are relevant
The media, unlike you and I, has the power to shape reality. In this case, many outlets have elided the distinction between superdelegates and pledged delegates in a way that makes Hillary's lead seem insurmountable. You can wish they didn't do it, but they did, and though the chances of a superdelegate revolt are small, they are not zero.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
You're betting against stupidity from the Democratic party establishment? Hoo, boy.
are acting like they are relevant
The media, unlike you and I, has the power to shape reality. In this case, many outlets have elided the distinction between superdelegates and pledged delegates in a way that makes Hillary's lead seem insurmountable. You can wish they didn't do it, but they did, and though the chances of a superdelegate revolt are small, they are not zero.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I agree, but I think the chances of a superdelegate revolt for Sanders are significantly higher than a superdelegate revolt for Clinton. Federal indictment, etc.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016
> "You're betting against stupidity from the Democratic party establishment? Hoo, boy."
I am betting on the self-interest of the Democratic party establishment.
But I am dropping this now because I have made a promise to myself to argue less on the Internet because I don't actually enjoy it.
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am betting on the self-interest of the Democratic party establishment.
But I am dropping this now because I have made a promise to myself to argue less on the Internet because I don't actually enjoy it.
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree, but I think the chances of a superdelegate revolt for Sanders are significantly higher than a superdelegate revolt for Clinton. Federal indictment, etc.
Uh, yeah, all bets are off if your candidate has a chance of going to jail before the election.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh, yeah, all bets are off if your candidate has a chance of going to jail before the election.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every tracker I have used showed both separately (pledged- and super- delegates), including NYTimes
I don't have a screenshot to prove it, but at least on last Saturday night, the NYTimes' front page showed them separately, but the static page dedicated to showing detailed results had them mixed together.
posted by nobody at 4:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't have a screenshot to prove it, but at least on last Saturday night, the NYTimes' front page showed them separately, but the static page dedicated to showing detailed results had them mixed together.
posted by nobody at 4:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The delegate system is relevant because that is how a nominee gets picked for the general. Putting fingers in one's ears and shouting LA-LA-LA doesn't change how that part of the game is rigged. Knowing that, I hope we have the chance to do slightly better as a people and as a democracy, the next time around.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:08 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:08 PM on March 8, 2016
"Here's to Flint": Broadcast Premiere of ACLU Documentary on the Fight for Democracy & Clean Water
posted by homunculus at 4:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 4:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Actually, I think we're mostly missing the bigger part of the one-two punch that the media has used to misinform voters. The biggest bit of horse race theater is pretending that primaries are just like the first-past-the-post format general election, where a candidate receiving more of the vote in a given state means they have "won" that state. It depresses turnout for the trailing candidate in states where the vote isn't close (i.e. Sanders in the south). When they do bother to show the thing that actually matters (i.e. delegates), they make it look like it's impossible for Bernie to win in that way too by stacking all of the superdelegates in Clinton's favor and making it look like that is the result of voting to date, when it fundamentally is not.
All of it is meant to make voters go "well he's not going to win anyway, so why bother". Elections coverage should be both fair and accurate. It really bothers me how dishonest and pro-establishment the media is being.
posted by zug at 4:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
All of it is meant to make voters go "well he's not going to win anyway, so why bother". Elections coverage should be both fair and accurate. It really bothers me how dishonest and pro-establishment the media is being.
posted by zug at 4:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
Just now, Mildred Gaddis, Detroit radio talk show host, tells Chris Matthews that what she's hearing from people about Bernie is, "They like him, but they're concerned that he can't win."
posted by Room 641-A at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think superdelegate are a thing, but I think people also know that our own current president was someone that started behind in superdelegates and still eventually won.
But, I think superdelegate votes should be changed to only be reported/counted on in the event of a tie, just like how a deadlocked general election would go to the House.
posted by FJT at 4:29 PM on March 8, 2016
But, I think superdelegate votes should be changed to only be reported/counted on in the event of a tie, just like how a deadlocked general election would go to the House.
posted by FJT at 4:29 PM on March 8, 2016
The majority of analysis thus far has been focused on the pledged delegate totals and where candidates stand in regards to where they should be if they were tracking towards a victory.
Let's be perfectly honest here Clinton has a lead currently that is larger than any Obama enjoyed in 2008. That lead is well nigh insurmountable. Even progressive sites like Daily Kos are basically saying past the 15th dogpiling the presumptive nominee will no longer be tolerated because presumably by the 15th the nomination will be wrapped up and progressives need to focus on the general election rather than tearing down their nominee.
That sort of proclamation will no doubt alienate some Sanders supporters but at a certain point in time making sure that the candidate is supported by the party is more important than holding onto a long shot to end all long shots.
Faced with the Republican alternatives I would hope that focusing on victory in November is the number one priority.
posted by vuron at 4:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's be perfectly honest here Clinton has a lead currently that is larger than any Obama enjoyed in 2008. That lead is well nigh insurmountable. Even progressive sites like Daily Kos are basically saying past the 15th dogpiling the presumptive nominee will no longer be tolerated because presumably by the 15th the nomination will be wrapped up and progressives need to focus on the general election rather than tearing down their nominee.
That sort of proclamation will no doubt alienate some Sanders supporters but at a certain point in time making sure that the candidate is supported by the party is more important than holding onto a long shot to end all long shots.
Faced with the Republican alternatives I would hope that focusing on victory in November is the number one priority.
posted by vuron at 4:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just for example, this CBS News tracker lists superdelegates with the pledged delegates and makes no distinction between them, creating the impression that Sanders is behind 1126 to 487, when Clinton really has something closer to 600-something (can't remember and no one agrees anyway). I didn't go looking for that or cherrypicking, just clicked on a link and noticed it.
As for the resurgence of 'get in line' stuff, again, it's super alienating to Sanders supporters and misses the point of his campaign entirely.
posted by dialetheia at 4:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
As for the resurgence of 'get in line' stuff, again, it's super alienating to Sanders supporters and misses the point of his campaign entirely.
posted by dialetheia at 4:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
I got curious, and looked back to how the media was covering the 2008 primaries, and it was completely different. This is from CNN's coverage of super tuesday:
The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination remained wide open Wednesday after senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split voters and delegates in the Super Tuesday primaries. Although CNN projections showed Obama winning more states, Clinton claimed victory in several key states with higher delegate counts, including New York, which she represents in the Senate, and California. Latest estimates suggest Clinton may have picked up only about 20 more delegates than Obama in the Super Tuesday states -- and that the pair could be separated by less than 100 delegates in all voting so far.
There's NO mention of Hillary's (at that point) formidable 500ish superdelegate lead. They treated it like a fair contest among two equal contenders, not the "inevitable frontrunner" shit we're getting this year. And it's not like Obama had a better Washington pedigree than Bernie - if anything, the opposite is true.
posted by zug at 4:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination remained wide open Wednesday after senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split voters and delegates in the Super Tuesday primaries. Although CNN projections showed Obama winning more states, Clinton claimed victory in several key states with higher delegate counts, including New York, which she represents in the Senate, and California. Latest estimates suggest Clinton may have picked up only about 20 more delegates than Obama in the Super Tuesday states -- and that the pair could be separated by less than 100 delegates in all voting so far.
There's NO mention of Hillary's (at that point) formidable 500ish superdelegate lead. They treated it like a fair contest among two equal contenders, not the "inevitable frontrunner" shit we're getting this year. And it's not like Obama had a better Washington pedigree than Bernie - if anything, the opposite is true.
posted by zug at 4:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Even progressive sites like Daily Kos are basically saying past the 15th dogpiling the presumptive nominee will no longer be tolerated because presumably by the 15th the nomination will be wrapped up and progressives need to focus on the general election rather than tearing down their nominee.
Oh sure, that's why. Nothing to see here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh sure, that's why. Nothing to see here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
but at a certain point in time making sure that the candidate is supported by the party is more important than holding onto a long shot to end all long shots
I agree in principle but disagree that this time is before the convention.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I agree in principle but disagree that this time is before the convention.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders picks up three super delegates in Vermont
posted by Room 641-A at 4:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
If the 2008 primaries had been covered like the 2016 ones are, it would have been a MUCH closer contest. The AA vote didn't break for Obama until after it was clear that he was a serious candidate - what if all the media coverage had emphasized what an unlikely nominee he was and how unrealistic his policy ideas were and how he'd never be able to work with republicans in congress?
posted by zug at 4:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zug at 4:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just for example, this CBS News tracker lists superdelegates with the pledged delegates and makes no distinction between them, creating the impression that Sanders is behind 1126 to 487
It's not entirely consistent. New York Times doesn't put it into the count, neither does 538. Google includes them in a bar graph, but colors superdelegates differently and specifically mentions that things aren't finalized until the convention. CNN includes them, and has a note next to the count mentioning how much of each are delegates and superdelegates.
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on March 8, 2016
It's not entirely consistent. New York Times doesn't put it into the count, neither does 538. Google includes them in a bar graph, but colors superdelegates differently and specifically mentions that things aren't finalized until the convention. CNN includes them, and has a note next to the count mentioning how much of each are delegates and superdelegates.
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on March 8, 2016
That sort of proclamation will no doubt alienate some Sanders supporters but at a certain point in time making sure that the candidate is supported by the party is more important than holding onto a long shot to end all long shots.
I dunno. I doubt Sanders is going to pull this off, but it ain't over till it's over. The bizarre process of this long, drawn out, 6 month primary means that, until one candidate has the necessary number of delegates, anything is possible.
And I don't get this idea that the party should come together and that the Sanders delegates should stop any attempt keep pushing Clinton to the left. The GOP has an opposition research file on Hillary longer than a Hoover file on a Gay Communist. She's going to have to deal with her negatives eventually, and I'd say it's better for her to get practice on them early in the process instead of getting blindsided in October.
But good luck to her, we need her to stave off the Trumpcruz apocalypse, so, you know, no pressure.
posted by dis_integration at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I dunno. I doubt Sanders is going to pull this off, but it ain't over till it's over. The bizarre process of this long, drawn out, 6 month primary means that, until one candidate has the necessary number of delegates, anything is possible.
And I don't get this idea that the party should come together and that the Sanders delegates should stop any attempt keep pushing Clinton to the left. The GOP has an opposition research file on Hillary longer than a Hoover file on a Gay Communist. She's going to have to deal with her negatives eventually, and I'd say it's better for her to get practice on them early in the process instead of getting blindsided in October.
But good luck to her, we need her to stave off the Trumpcruz apocalypse, so, you know, no pressure.
posted by dis_integration at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That sort of proclamation will no doubt alienate some Sanders supporters but at a certain point in time making sure that the candidate is supported by the party is more important than holding onto a long shot to end all long shots.
The candidate (Hillary) is already supported by the party (DWS/DNC).
It is also presumptive and arrogant to dismiss Sanders as a long shot, when polls suggest he would handily defeat Trump or Cruz in a two-way general election.
It's like, democracy is nice and all, sure, but we need to make sure she gets coronated first, and then we can maybe talk about you peons exercising your rights!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
The candidate (Hillary) is already supported by the party (DWS/DNC).
It is also presumptive and arrogant to dismiss Sanders as a long shot, when polls suggest he would handily defeat Trump or Cruz in a two-way general election.
It's like, democracy is nice and all, sure, but we need to make sure she gets coronated first, and then we can maybe talk about you peons exercising your rights!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wouldn't call Sanders a long shot in the general, I'd say he's a wild card. We have very little idea how he would do.
posted by Justinian at 4:54 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:54 PM on March 8, 2016
Re: comparisons to 2008, it may be worth noting that the primary calendar is very different this year than it was then. As of this date in 2008, 82% of delegates had already been awarded, whereas this year we're only at 29% of the delegates. I didn't realize how different the schedule is until I saw that chart. Super Tuesday was much more Super back in 2008, apparently.
We have very little idea how he would do.
If that's true of Sanders, it's equally true of Clinton. Nobody has even attacked her foreign policy record as Secretary of State yet, much less anything people can dig up from the 30k emails that were released over the course of this year.
posted by dialetheia at 4:57 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
We have very little idea how he would do.
If that's true of Sanders, it's equally true of Clinton. Nobody has even attacked her foreign policy record as Secretary of State yet, much less anything people can dig up from the 30k emails that were released over the course of this year.
posted by dialetheia at 4:57 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
If the 2008 primaries had been covered like the 2016 ones are, it would have been a MUCH closer contest.
I mean, maybe? Yeah, they would definitely be different but things change over time. The media seemed to focus on Obama more than any other candidate in 2008, and this time they actually focus on Trump more than any other candidate. It's also possible that if Trump didn't run, Sanders would get more coverage.
posted by FJT at 4:57 PM on March 8, 2016
I mean, maybe? Yeah, they would definitely be different but things change over time. The media seemed to focus on Obama more than any other candidate in 2008, and this time they actually focus on Trump more than any other candidate. It's also possible that if Trump didn't run, Sanders would get more coverage.
posted by FJT at 4:57 PM on March 8, 2016
He is a long shot for the nomination. It doesn't matter how well you do against Trump if you can't win the nomination and frankly until Sanders does better with minorities in primaries that isn't going to happen.
posted by vuron at 4:58 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 4:58 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I should have said nobody has attacked her foreign policy record beyond Benghazi, because god knows we've heard plenty about that - although I'm sure we haven't heard the last of that "what difference does it make?" quote, either)
posted by dialetheia at 4:58 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 4:58 PM on March 8, 2016
Oh sure, that's why. Nothing to see here.
Eh, I don't know 538 has Sanders trailing significantly in polls in states after March 15th.
posted by cashman at 5:00 PM on March 8, 2016
Eh, I don't know 538 has Sanders trailing significantly in polls in states after March 15th.
posted by cashman at 5:00 PM on March 8, 2016
Seven in 10 Democratic primary voters in Michigan would be satisfied with Sanders as the nominee, as would two-thirds with Clinton.
posted by futz at 5:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 5:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
futz: all the data suggests the Democratic Party will rally around either candidate as the nominee. The anybody-but-Clinton people are vocal but small.
posted by Justinian at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The media, unlike you and I, has the power to shape reality.
This election, though, is emblematic of the ongoing decline of their epistemic tyranny, and from a broader view that's promising, despite the specific negative that their efforts against Sanders have so far met with more success than against TRUMP. It's been pretty funny watching things turn from "LOL TRUMP" to "END TRUMP" but OH SHIT IT DIDN'T WORK - and now the journalists are forgetting all subtlety and just barking orders for voters, candidates, and parties, or hinting at assassination. Too bad "BERNIE ALREADY LOST" has found a bit more traction.
It's like, democracy is nice and all, sure, but we need to make sure she gets coronated first, and then we can maybe talk about you peons exercising your rights!
Here's a reminder of what the Democrat party thinks of democracy.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
This election, though, is emblematic of the ongoing decline of their epistemic tyranny, and from a broader view that's promising, despite the specific negative that their efforts against Sanders have so far met with more success than against TRUMP. It's been pretty funny watching things turn from "LOL TRUMP" to "END TRUMP" but OH SHIT IT DIDN'T WORK - and now the journalists are forgetting all subtlety and just barking orders for voters, candidates, and parties, or hinting at assassination. Too bad "BERNIE ALREADY LOST" has found a bit more traction.
It's like, democracy is nice and all, sure, but we need to make sure she gets coronated first, and then we can maybe talk about you peons exercising your rights!
Here's a reminder of what the Democrat party thinks of democracy.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
NBC has called MS for Clinton, and they don't have enough information on the other side.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016
I am going to state here and now that if either Trump or Cruz wins in the general, I will not blame the actions of Clinton supporters, Sanders supporters, Clinton, or Sanders.
Honestly, I will be far too busy crawling under the bed and screaming to give a shit whose fault it was.
posted by kyrademon at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Honestly, I will be far too busy crawling under the bed and screaming to give a shit whose fault it was.
posted by kyrademon at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Trump will do another press conference after the Michigan polls close. No word on whether or not there will be another fake surprise.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why does "calling" states even matter? Delegates are awarded proportionally, not all-or-nothing. Does the media not know how to present elections outside of the electoral college framework?
posted by indubitable at 5:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 5:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here's a reminder of what the Democrat party thinks of democracy.
The fix is in.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:07 PM on March 8, 2016
The fix is in.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:07 PM on March 8, 2016
No word on whether or not there will be another fake surprise.
Surprise: This time instead of doing the Nazi salute they're going to do the Hokey Pokey.
posted by mmoncur at 5:08 PM on March 8, 2016
Surprise: This time instead of doing the Nazi salute they're going to do the Hokey Pokey.
posted by mmoncur at 5:08 PM on March 8, 2016
"Democrat Party" is an epithet and marks the speaker as kind of a jerk. Please don't use it.
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
> "Does the media not know how to present elections outside of the electoral college framework?"
They do not. More specifically, they like a simple narrative where someone is a winner and someone is a loser.
(oh god they are all trump aren't they)
posted by kyrademon at 5:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
They do not. More specifically, they like a simple narrative where someone is a winner and someone is a loser.
(oh god they are all trump aren't they)
posted by kyrademon at 5:09 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Democrat Party" has been useful to me for identifying right-wing jackasses, and I would be sad if it spread and lost that valuable function.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:11 PM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:11 PM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Democrat Party" is an epithet and marks the speaker as kind of a jerk. Please don't use it.
Aware of the first, disagree that lèse majesté renders one jerkish.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:14 PM on March 8, 2016
Aware of the first, disagree that lèse majesté renders one jerkish.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:14 PM on March 8, 2016
I asked for the Democrat ballot when I voted in my primary and nobody's charged me with a hate crime yet.
posted by indubitable at 5:15 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by indubitable at 5:15 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
NBC reporting Sanders holding about a 5% lead in Michigan, while polls don't close for another 40 minutes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Democrat Party" is an epithet and marks the speaker as kind of a jerk. Please don't use it.
It's English regularization. Republicans:Republican Party::Democrats:?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016
It's English regularization. Republicans:Republican Party::Democrats:?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016
Why does "calling" states even matter? Delegates are awarded proportionally, not all-or-nothing
Well, thats not always true on the GOP side (they have quite a few big winner-take-all contests which is possibly a good thing for Trump).
But in general, I agree it would be better to focus on delegate counts coming out of each state (look at the weekend, where you could either say "Sanders won 3 out of 4 states!" or "Sanders won 67 delegates and Clinton won 65 delegates". Both technically true, but...)
I mean, the news sources I follow focus far more on delegates (like 538), but I do see the "won state X" narrative in headlines elsewhere too much.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016
Well, thats not always true on the GOP side (they have quite a few big winner-take-all contests which is possibly a good thing for Trump).
But in general, I agree it would be better to focus on delegate counts coming out of each state (look at the weekend, where you could either say "Sanders won 3 out of 4 states!" or "Sanders won 67 delegates and Clinton won 65 delegates". Both technically true, but...)
I mean, the news sources I follow focus far more on delegates (like 538), but I do see the "won state X" narrative in headlines elsewhere too much.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:18 PM on March 8, 2016
Call people what they want to be called, which is a member of the Democratic Party. The alternative as a long history and it doesn't have a place here. Seriously, this shouldn't even be an issue. It's long established practice.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's become really insidious; I know I sometimes check myself when I use the word Democrat to make sure I'm not falling into the trap. See also "death tax." Fuck Frank Luntz.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:19 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:19 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Republicans:Republican Party::Democrats:?
Democratic Party?
posted by cashman at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Democratic Party?
posted by cashman at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
The superdelegates are functionally irrelevant this year just as they have been functionally irrelevant in every primary since their creation and I wish people would stop acting as if this were not the case.
This is not true. There are over 700 super-delegates. That means unless a candidate has a greater than 350 delegate lead, the actual nomination is decided by super-delegates. In fact, in 2008 Clinton was within about 50 pledged delegates of Obama, so both were short of the necessary majority. The super-delegates provided the margin that handed the nomination to Obama.
posted by JackFlash at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is not true. There are over 700 super-delegates. That means unless a candidate has a greater than 350 delegate lead, the actual nomination is decided by super-delegates. In fact, in 2008 Clinton was within about 50 pledged delegates of Obama, so both were short of the necessary majority. The super-delegates provided the margin that handed the nomination to Obama.
posted by JackFlash at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: Fuck Frank Luntz.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The first precinct totals are trickling in for Michigan, and Sanders has a small lead in the Detroit area. Wayne County is 40% African American, so this will be the first opportunity to see how Sanders does with northern African American voters from an industrial state. I'm getting kind of excited, seeing that lead.
posted by dis_integration at 5:26 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dis_integration at 5:26 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Michigan is on two different time zones, so most polls closed half an hour ago. There are still some open in the UP for another half hour.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton apparently did well with whites in MS.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:32 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 5:32 PM on March 8, 2016
Oh wow.. Bernie might win Michigan - a lot of the counties that have come back in his favor aren't exactly liberal.
posted by zug at 5:36 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by zug at 5:36 PM on March 8, 2016
Clinton apparently did well with whites in MS.
The Mississippi numbers are nuts. She's up at 87% now! To get that you have to do well with every single demographic. That's as well as Sanders did in Vermont. I guess Mississippi is Clinton Country.
posted by dis_integration at 5:43 PM on March 8, 2016
The Mississippi numbers are nuts. She's up at 87% now! To get that you have to do well with every single demographic. That's as well as Sanders did in Vermont. I guess Mississippi is Clinton Country.
posted by dis_integration at 5:43 PM on March 8, 2016
> "She's up at 87% now!"
That's with about 600 votes in, total, for the whole state. We really don't know yet exactly how the numbers there are going to shake out by the end.
posted by kyrademon at 5:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's with about 600 votes in, total, for the whole state. We really don't know yet exactly how the numbers there are going to shake out by the end.
posted by kyrademon at 5:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Should they be reporting results in Michigan when there are stlill polls open in the state?
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on March 8, 2016
Mod note: Folks, please don't derail what will no doubt be a long thread with bickering about linguistics. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Really curious to see if Rubio can stretch his lead over Other to six or seven points as the night goes on.
posted by notyou at 5:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by notyou at 5:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Shouldn't Rubio pull out before Florida? If he loses he's basically slaughtering what's left of his future in his state (not to mention the national party).
posted by sallybrown at 6:03 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 6:03 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't Rubio pull out before Florida? If he loses he's basically slaughtering what's left of his future in his state (not to mention the national party).
Rubio already abandoned his Senate seat. If he doesn't win this nomination, or rather, once he loses this nomination, his political future is... I dunno, lobbying and speechifying? He might have a 2nd act but it's hard to see what it's going to be (it definitely won't be Governor of FL).
posted by dis_integration at 6:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio already abandoned his Senate seat. If he doesn't win this nomination, or rather, once he loses this nomination, his political future is... I dunno, lobbying and speechifying? He might have a 2nd act but it's hard to see what it's going to be (it definitely won't be Governor of FL).
posted by dis_integration at 6:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
County by county results for MI. Per MSNBC, keep an eye on Wayne County where like half the votes for the entire state will be cast. 1% reporting so far from there.
posted by one_bean at 6:08 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by one_bean at 6:08 PM on March 8, 2016
Why is the establishment reluctant to give up power? Because...backscratching.
Release the transcripts.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Release the transcripts.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's like HSN. This guy's like a used car salesman. It's absolutely pathetic. I still don't know what I'm going to do the first time I encounter someone I know that says they're thinking of voting for this joke. But almost always when you have those "I wish somebody would" feelings, it never happens.
posted by cashman at 6:24 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cashman at 6:24 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
his speeches are garbage.
posted by zutalors! at 6:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Waiting for Wayne and Genesee will take forever. Oh well sleep is for the weak.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on March 8, 2016
Clinton better be praying for the rest of Wayne County to come in very strong for her or else it's gonna be a real long primary!
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on March 8, 2016
his speeches are garbage.
They're not even speeches! They're just alternating ejaculations of boasts and insults. They don't say it anymore! I'll tell you! It's gonna be so great! That guy sucks! I'm rich! That guy sucks! I'm smart!
posted by dis_integration at 6:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
They're not even speeches! They're just alternating ejaculations of boasts and insults. They don't say it anymore! I'll tell you! It's gonna be so great! That guy sucks! I'm rich! That guy sucks! I'm smart!
posted by dis_integration at 6:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Nate Silver on twitter: If Sanders wins MI tonight, it will break Gary Hart's record in 1984 NH for greatest upset vs. final polling aveage. http://53eig.ht/1UcLjWD
posted by dialetheia at 6:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 6:31 PM on March 8, 2016
or else it's gonna be a real long primary!
What kind of Rip Van Winkle knockout drugs have you been taking for the past 8 -10 months and where can I get some
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
What kind of Rip Van Winkle knockout drugs have you been taking for the past 8 -10 months and where can I get some
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, the Wayne results are not super helpful since we don't know whether the precincts reporting are Detroit (nearly all black), Downriver (white working class) or the heavily Arab-American areas around Dearborn.
Glad to see that my West Michigan Republicans are resisting the fascist. Not surprised that they're supporting the theocrat instead.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:32 PM on March 8, 2016
Glad to see that my West Michigan Republicans are resisting the fascist. Not surprised that they're supporting the theocrat instead.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:32 PM on March 8, 2016
Trump speaks in world salad. It's absurd. How can anyone vote for this buffoon? I just can't.
posted by Justinian at 6:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Election news from elsewhere in the country, Kentucky Democrats have won three of the four seats up for special election today, keeping control of the KY House of Representatives in Democratic hands.
This is welcome news for those of us who have watched in horror for the past two and a half months as our new governor, Matt Bevin, steamrolls his regressive, punitive agenda through Frankfort. Now there is at least a little tiny spark of hope that all is not lost.
posted by chaoticgood at 6:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [21 favorites]
This is welcome news for those of us who have watched in horror for the past two and a half months as our new governor, Matt Bevin, steamrolls his regressive, punitive agenda through Frankfort. Now there is at least a little tiny spark of hope that all is not lost.
posted by chaoticgood at 6:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [21 favorites]
his speeches are garbage.
They're not even speeches! They're just alternating ejaculations of boasts and insults. They don't say it anymore! I'll tell you! It's gonna be so great! That guy sucks! I'm rich! That guy sucks! I'm smart!
It's basically a cross between a standup routine and the ramblings of someone with a 103 degree fever.
posted by zutalors! at 6:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
They're not even speeches! They're just alternating ejaculations of boasts and insults. They don't say it anymore! I'll tell you! It's gonna be so great! That guy sucks! I'm rich! That guy sucks! I'm smart!
It's basically a cross between a standup routine and the ramblings of someone with a 103 degree fever.
posted by zutalors! at 6:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Jesus, who are the guys asking these questions? They're just feeding him cues for his stump speech. What do you have to say about Marco Rubio? How will you match the other candidate spending? How will you be able to handle Hillary? These guys have to be plants.
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder, if it were somehow possible to visit Actor Ronald Reagan, ghost-of-Xmas-future style, and show him the madness he had wrought, whether he would still run for president
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:38 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:38 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's helpful to imagine Trump as a character in a Lovecraftian horror story. Basically a white upper crust individual is forced by circumstance to confront the horrors of these immigrants who are undermining the very fabric of reality with their bizarre rituals and exhortations to the dark god Oh'Bama who was brought here from darkest Kenya under the cover of night to undermine our way of life so that the stars might align and the outer gods be freed from their bindings.
Same sort of deranged fever dreams inspired by a deep and pathological mistrust of anything that isn't the same as Trump.
posted by vuron at 6:41 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Same sort of deranged fever dreams inspired by a deep and pathological mistrust of anything that isn't the same as Trump.
posted by vuron at 6:41 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
What did the guy ask that set Trump off on political correctness? I can't hear the questions at all.
posted by dhens at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dhens at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2016
"I can be more Presidential than anybody. I can be more Presidential than I wanna be. . . . more Presidential than anyone except the great Abe Lincoln, he was so Presidential"
I just can't
posted by sallybrown at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just can't
posted by sallybrown at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Jesus, who are the guys asking these questions? They're just feeding him cues for his stump speech. What do you have to say about Marco Rubio? How will you match the other candidate spending? How will you be able to handle Hillary? These guys have to be plants.
why do they even have questions? I haven't seen Hillary or Bernie answer questions.
posted by zutalors! at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2016
Because Trump believes that "being presidential" mostly means holding press conferences in front of American flags.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton and Sanders have rallies, not press conferences.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016
Because he's holding a press conference and not making a speech.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2016
He's doing a press conference instead of the big campaign speech because it makes him look like he's already President, not one of those sad losers who's still begging voters to make him President. He's quite the bullshit artist.
posted by dialetheia at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Marco Rubio has scored another 4th place victory guys! Congrats to Marco Rubio.
posted by Justinian at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
yes, the question was a bit rhetorical. But Clinton and Sanders make acceptance speeches, not "rallies" when they win.
posted by zutalors! at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2016
media should cut away from the questions.
posted by zutalors! at 6:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 6:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder, if it were somehow possible to visit Actor Ronald Reagan, ghost-of-Xmas-future style, and show him the madness he had wrought, whether he would still run for president
Yep. He's the nursemaid of this nonsense.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. He's the nursemaid of this nonsense.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, Trump is a horrible person, but the idea of holding press conferences to keep the media watching you is very interesting and is rather unusual.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Trump becomes President and destroys the country I wonder if the media will realize how great was their part in creating him.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
his support in real numbers is pretty tiny but you wouldn't know that from media.
posted by zutalors! at 6:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 6:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Trump speaks in world salad. It's absurd."
"He had hair.
Not pleasant.
He shed. Not right."
-Mayor Augustus Maywho.
posted by clavdivs at 6:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"He had hair.
Not pleasant.
He shed. Not right."
-Mayor Augustus Maywho.
posted by clavdivs at 6:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
No offense, clavdivs, but I never have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 6:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Let me finish--"
"I can't Jeremy, you know why? No one is listening to you. No one ever listens to you."
"I'm not going to finish with her, cause she never asks a decent question."
I hope the reporters embedded with the Trump campaign get a year off when this hellish election is over. As much as you blame the larger media corps for enabling his rise, the young reporters traveling with him get shat on all day long. He seems to treat Katy Tur of NBC especially poorly.
posted by sallybrown at 6:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I can't Jeremy, you know why? No one is listening to you. No one ever listens to you."
"I'm not going to finish with her, cause she never asks a decent question."
I hope the reporters embedded with the Trump campaign get a year off when this hellish election is over. As much as you blame the larger media corps for enabling his rise, the young reporters traveling with him get shat on all day long. He seems to treat Katy Tur of NBC especially poorly.
posted by sallybrown at 6:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah at some point they should probably realize they should cut away. I mean speeches and events by actual presidents haven't gotten nonstop coverage like this. I vividly recall George W. Bush giving a press conference or speech and the network cut away from him as he was still talking. And I'm like the guy is a jackass and I can't stand him, but he's still President. Meanwhile, Trump just got like 45 minutes of uninterrupted coverage.
It's like he has his own debate against nobody. The questions reporters ask are from distant locations in the back of the room and he can just berate whoever asks the question, and they literally have no voice to reply. Meanwhile votes were being counted and other people in the race were delivering speeches that now have to be delivered on tape delay. It's like Reddit came alive and turned into a person running for office. Quell the voices who oppose you while acting like a complete ass.
posted by cashman at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's like he has his own debate against nobody. The questions reporters ask are from distant locations in the back of the room and he can just berate whoever asks the question, and they literally have no voice to reply. Meanwhile votes were being counted and other people in the race were delivering speeches that now have to be delivered on tape delay. It's like Reddit came alive and turned into a person running for office. Quell the voices who oppose you while acting like a complete ass.
posted by cashman at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
the young reporters traveling with him get shat on all day long.
What did the one guy say to be attacked as PC? I couldn't hear the questions on the feed I was watching.
posted by dhens at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2016
What did the one guy say to be attacked as PC? I couldn't hear the questions on the feed I was watching.
posted by dhens at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2016
Eh, I don't know 538 has Sanders trailing significantly in polls in states after March 15th.
On the flip-side, my sense is that's kind of far to be predicting given how sparse polling is in the primaries (in the other contests so far you can see a lot of movement in the ~1wk before the vote, I think because the polls get more densely sampled).
posted by en forme de poire at 6:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the flip-side, my sense is that's kind of far to be predicting given how sparse polling is in the primaries (in the other contests so far you can see a lot of movement in the ~1wk before the vote, I think because the polls get more densely sampled).
posted by en forme de poire at 6:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 had Sanders trailing Michigan by 21 points, so let's see how that turns out. If the polling is off by that much in Michigan I don't know why I would believe it in the rest of the midwest.
posted by Justinian at 6:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:59 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
These Michigan results on the Dem side are absolutely amazing. The closest any of the polls had Sanders was down by 10 points, and the polling average was -22%. It looks like he might actually even pull it out - his margins in Wayne and Genessee counties are much better than most people expected. He's almost tied with her in Genessee county (home of Flint) right now, which apparently had higher turnout than it's had in 20 years.
posted by dialetheia at 7:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 7:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's weird is decision desk HQ has already called Michigan for Clinton which seems very premature but maybe they have greater insight as to what precincts are still outstanding. It seems like their model still has very big counties likely to pull heavily Clinton as the night moves on but it's really unclear based upon county clerk reporting in Wayne who is actually being represented thus far.
posted by vuron at 7:02 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:02 PM on March 8, 2016
Ah. A bit of Wayne just came in and Clinton is now behind by 1.5% instead of 5.5%. I think the outstanding parts must be Clinton's base areas.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on March 8, 2016
Yeah so far it looks like Clinton is sweeping Wayne County ~60-40, and that's the biggest one. Bernie seems to be mostly sweeping the more rural areas, and he's only a couple points behind in Oakland County so far, but I don't know if that's going to be enough to save him here. Early precincts may also tend to be smaller which if there's really a rural/urban split going on will tend to increasingly favor Clinton as the night goes on. Still I'd be surprised if he really lost by 20 points as predicted and I'm excited to see how close he can pull it.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:09 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 7:09 PM on March 8, 2016
Yeah, seems pretty ropey to me, but I think Decision Desk is pretty much considered the gold standard for calling races. We shall see anon, I guess.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:10 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 7:10 PM on March 8, 2016
I don't see how he can lose by 20 points, but I do think Wayne County will put Clinton ahead. We'll see by how much.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on March 8, 2016
Yeah if she holds to the 60-40 split in Wayne County she'll win.
I'm surprised he's not doing better in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor (Washenaw County, home of U-M), only taking 54% right now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:13 PM on March 8, 2016
I'm surprised he's not doing better in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor (Washenaw County, home of U-M), only taking 54% right now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:13 PM on March 8, 2016
So it looks like Sanders is beating Clinton 2-to-1 in a lot of the northern counties where gun ownership is a big thing. Not that it would be enough to win him the state if Clinton gets metro Detroit, but it's interesting.
posted by riruro at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by riruro at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2016
Feel the Bern. Michigan was a bastion for Clinton until the 08' primaries. I'd be suprised if she carries the state.
"faintest idea of what you are talking about."
posted by Chrysostom
None taken, besides I was quoting and not talking.
Ok, I'll drop every semantic mask for a second and say this.
I listened to Bill Mahers' direct translation of the Hitler speech and he hit the clipped and salad like cadence Donald employs perfectly.
For example:
"Treaty of Versailles-no good"
This strangulation of the Saar, terrible, costs people jobs"
And the Mayor of whoville popped in my head and I thought I'd given a cultural referent to my interpretation of "salad speak".
End transmission.
posted by clavdivs at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"faintest idea of what you are talking about."
posted by Chrysostom
None taken, besides I was quoting and not talking.
Ok, I'll drop every semantic mask for a second and say this.
I listened to Bill Mahers' direct translation of the Hitler speech and he hit the clipped and salad like cadence Donald employs perfectly.
For example:
"Treaty of Versailles-no good"
This strangulation of the Saar, terrible, costs people jobs"
And the Mayor of whoville popped in my head and I thought I'd given a cultural referent to my interpretation of "salad speak".
End transmission.
posted by clavdivs at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dearborn went huge for Sanders which is pretty interesting.
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on March 8, 2016
Dearborn has lots of Arab-Americans. Arab-Americans do not like Clinton's foreign policy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Anyone know why the NYTimes map has been showing 7-8 counties Michigan not reporting any results for a while now?
posted by mostly vowels at 7:17 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mostly vowels at 7:17 PM on March 8, 2016
I am kinda surprised Washtenaw isn't a stronger Sanders fortress with UM there. I mean he's still leading but I kinda would expect a much bigger margin there. It's looking like Michigan is basically come down to how Detroit votes (as always).
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on March 8, 2016
That is where the people live.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:22 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:22 PM on March 8, 2016
Anyone know why the NYTimes map has been showing 7-8 counties Michigan not reporting any results for a while now?
They're the ones where Clinton operatives are holding the ballot boxes to deliver the necessary margins. /hamburger
posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
They're the ones where Clinton operatives are holding the ballot boxes to deliver the necessary margins. /hamburger
posted by Justinian at 7:23 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am kinda surprised Washtenaw isn't a stronger Sanders fortress with UM there.
I believe MI colleges are on spring break this week.
MSNBC is saying there are also a bunch of votes outstanding around Grand Rapids in Kent county, which is currently going for Sanders 65-35% with only 33% reporting.
posted by dialetheia at 7:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I believe MI colleges are on spring break this week.
MSNBC is saying there are also a bunch of votes outstanding around Grand Rapids in Kent county, which is currently going for Sanders 65-35% with only 33% reporting.
posted by dialetheia at 7:25 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is where the people live.
Well, kind of... MI total population is ~9m and ~2m live around Detroit. It's a big chunk but it's not actually the majority.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:26 PM on March 8, 2016
Well, kind of... MI total population is ~9m and ~2m live around Detroit. It's a big chunk but it's not actually the majority.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:26 PM on March 8, 2016
Oops I got it wrong, I was looking at just Wayne County. Detroit metro is 4m and Michigan is 10m total.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 7:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK one more general NYTimes map question -- why are the Minnesota and Kansas caucus results broken out by Congressional district and not county? Is this a reflection of how caucuses are done there, or...?
posted by mostly vowels at 7:27 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mostly vowels at 7:27 PM on March 8, 2016
(That "Detroit metro" figure includes Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne. Wayne has 1.7m, Oakland 1.2m, Macomb 0.8m.)
posted by en forme de poire at 7:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 7:31 PM on March 8, 2016
I dunno guys, Grand Rapids is only 1/3 in and should net Sanders a whole buncha votes. I wish a bit more of Wayne would report so we could tell what was going on.
posted by Justinian at 7:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, and Michigan is big. Bigger and emptier then you think. Michigan goes the way Detroit goes for a reason. Check out population density. Old maps, but you get the idea.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:33 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:33 PM on March 8, 2016
Metro Detroit is of course the largest population center, but it's not nearly as outsized as Chicago is in Illinois -- there are plenty of good-sized cities outside of its orbit like Flint, GR (my hometown), Lansing, AA, K'zoo...
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:34 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:34 PM on March 8, 2016
NYT has a bit over half of Wayne reporting with HRC holding a 20000 vote lead there. I would imagine she'll end up with another 20000 by the time Wayne is all done but I could be completely wrong. If that's the case, it cancels out Bernie's current lead of about 20000 and turns this into an overnighter.
posted by localhuman at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by localhuman at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016
Kansas caucuses were calculated by congressional district, with the individual precincts determined by state senate districts. My state senate district 14 spreads out into two congressional districts, so we were split up into 14a and 14b for caucus purposes.. It's an awkward system which led to a lot of people (me included) being 100+ miles away from our caucus locations.
posted by honestcoyote at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by honestcoyote at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Either way though, it looks like a pretty even split of Michigan vs a blowout in Mississippi, so Clinton should be further ahead after tonight. MS isn't finished reporting and its still possible Sanders won't even make the 15% cutoff (he's at 16% with 75% reporting).
posted by thefoxgod at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2016
But yeah, north of GR/Lansing/Flint is pretty sparse. In many cases, actual designated wilderness.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sounds like Macomb, Genesee and Wayne all have a large number of votes outstanding. It will be interesting to see if Kent (Grand Rapids) holds up as the primary fortress for Team Sanders.
posted by vuron at 7:39 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:39 PM on March 8, 2016
In bad news for her, Clinton is running out of conservative Southern states to have blowout wins in.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Regardless of who is voting where, I am super pleased that Bernie is making a good showing. i think it is healthy for the Democratic Party. AND it will be nice to have an alternative if Clinton is brought down by a rogue email server admin.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders and Clinton are basically tied in Macomb and Genessee (actually Sanders just took the lead in Genessee), and there are still a lot of votes outstanding in Kent, too. It'll be a nailbiter either way.
posted by dialetheia at 7:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 7:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has anyone written some hot takes on reading the Democratic primary thus far through a Midwestern lens? Because it seems like the states thus far (IA and so far MI) are either very tightly contested or Sanders has an edge (MN and NE). This comports with my experience thus far in my corner of OH, where I roll with a lot of center-left and super-left people, and I'd say it's pretty evenly divided among my friends.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:41 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by mostly vowels at 7:41 PM on March 8, 2016
I can't tell you how proud I am of GR right now.
I also expect that Ann Arbor will end up more tilted to Sen. Sanders but I bet it will be canceled out by outstanding precincts in Flint.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I also expect that Ann Arbor will end up more tilted to Sen. Sanders but I bet it will be canceled out by outstanding precincts in Flint.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am so proud of my home state right now. According to all the polling, this was supposed to be a 20 point margin for Hillary.
posted by zug at 7:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by zug at 7:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
In bad news for her, Clinton is running out of conservative Southern states to have blowout wins in.
You do realize that Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the US, right?
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:50 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
You do realize that Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the US, right?
posted by Atom Eyes at 7:50 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently about 7% of GOP primary voters were registered Democrats so I wonder if the big polling edge for Clinton actually convinced some Clinton supporters to monkey around in the GOP primary in an attempt to Stump the Trump or if they were Blue Collar "Democrats" that are convinced by Trump's nationalism.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, she's running out of states with a relatively high percentage of African-American voters as well. Also bad news for her, since that's the one demographic she seems to have a lock on, it seems.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:54 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:54 PM on March 8, 2016
Interesting that polling for the primaries seems to be pretty terrible at predicting this year. 538 is still showing their prediction of a 99% chance of Clinton winning.
posted by octothorpe at 7:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wonder if the big polling edge for Clinton actually convinced some Clinton supporters to monkey around in the GOP primary in an attempt to Stump the Trump or if they were Blue Collar "Democrats" that are convinced by Trump's nationalism.
There have been plenty of crossover votes in the other primaries too - disaffected white Democrats are basically Trump's bread and butter.
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 PM on March 8, 2016
There have been plenty of crossover votes in the other primaries too - disaffected white Democrats are basically Trump's bread and butter.
posted by dialetheia at 7:56 PM on March 8, 2016
MSNBC says 1/3 of Wayne County is still out, as well as 200 Sanders-heavy rural and college precincts.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:58 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:58 PM on March 8, 2016
Idaho is "too early to call" between Trump and Cruz as of 11pm Eastern.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 PM on March 8, 2016
Lol apparently absentee ballots will be counted last in Detroit. This primary is bonkers.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC says 1/3 of Wayne County is still out, as well as 200 Sanders-heavy rural and college precincts.
Clinton will win Wayne County, but will it be by enough? Also, come on Menominee! I was hoping the whole UP would go Sanders. Bernie and Pasties, together forever. (It would certainly cement Bernie's whiteness reputation).
posted by dis_integration at 8:02 PM on March 8, 2016
Clinton will win Wayne County, but will it be by enough? Also, come on Menominee! I was hoping the whole UP would go Sanders. Bernie and Pasties, together forever. (It would certainly cement Bernie's whiteness reputation).
posted by dis_integration at 8:02 PM on March 8, 2016
Wow, Sanders won independent voters 70-28%.
posted by dialetheia at 8:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Macomb just tipped to Bernie!
posted by BinGregory at 8:06 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by BinGregory at 8:06 PM on March 8, 2016
Oh my gosh, this is really exciting. I knew that people were working really hard in Michigan for Bernie but it's deeply exciting to see the results and turnout!
posted by yueliang at 8:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by yueliang at 8:07 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Man, the Michigan Dem primary polls over the past week have had Hillary up by an average of 21.4. I've seen a lot of speculation recently about how the rest of the primary season is expected to go based on the current polling and it was pretty convincing, but now I'm starting to wonder about the accuracy of the polls that's based on
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:08 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:08 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yo I think Sanders might actually pull this out. Clinton's lead in Wayne County is actually shrinking as the night goes on and even if you assume the same spread for the rest of the votes they pull in I don't think it's enough for Clinton even weighting roughly for population...
posted by en forme de poire at 8:10 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:10 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Decision Desk HQ just retracted their call of the race for Hillary.
posted by localhuman at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
So far, 18,000+ votes for "Other". Just who are these people voting for? Vermin Supreme is not on the Michigan ballot.
posted by dis_integration at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016
Ooh, I think I have bad news (for Sen. Sanders) from Kent County (GR). It looks from this chart like the suburbs & townships have mostly reported, and there are no results from Grand Rapids, Wyoming or Kentwood.
I think the margin is going to shrink there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016
I think the margin is going to shrink there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 PM on March 8, 2016
Flint Polling Places Ran Out Of Ballots, Turned Voters Away.
posted by clavdivs at 8:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 8:13 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Flint Polling Places Ran Out Of Ballots, Turned Voters Away.
These stories are nuts to me. Prepare a ballot for every registered voter in your precinct. Period. You can recycle them! It's not that expensive! I don't understand why this is a problem.
posted by dis_integration at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
These stories are nuts to me. Prepare a ballot for every registered voter in your precinct. Period. You can recycle them! It's not that expensive! I don't understand why this is a problem.
posted by dis_integration at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
So far, 18,000+ votes for "Other". Just who are these people voting for?
Rocky de la Fuente has 700 votes...
posted by BinGregory at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rocky de la Fuente has 700 votes...
posted by BinGregory at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Anecdote: I was voter 59 at 7:35 AM EST in a Pittsfield Township, MI polling place. That was an unexpectedly high number for a primary that early... I'm usually like in the teens or 20s.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by JoeXIII007 at 8:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
So just about every ward in Grand Rapids has yet to be counted? With about 35% of Grand Rapids being either Latino or African-American that could mean that Kent is less reliably a Sanders fortress than the county totals led us to believe.
posted by vuron at 8:17 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 8:17 PM on March 8, 2016
It clearly matters for the media narrative, but at this point I don't think it makes much difference from a delegate standpoint who wins. They essentially split the delegates equally no matter who comes out a point or two ahead.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:22 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, it looks like. If you keep an eye on that chart, the majority African-American neighborhoods are in GR Ward 3 (but there are white neighborhoods there as well). Ward 1 is mostly white with some Latinos (probably more now than there were when I lived in GR 10 years ago). Ward 2 is mostly white.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:22 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:22 PM on March 8, 2016
It will be interesting to see how the media spins this as not too big of a deal. Michigan is pretty much neighbor of Vermont anyway. Also Mississippi.
posted by localhuman at 8:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 8:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
What did the one guy say to be attacked as PC? I couldn't hear the questions on the feed I was watching.
NBC's Peter Alexander asked Trump how parents should explain his bad language to their children.
Trump's response: "Oh, you're so politically correct, you're so beautiful. Oh, you've never heard a little bad language. You're so perfect. Aren't you perfect? You're such a perfect young man. Give me a break. You know what? It's stuff like that that people are tired of."
Source
posted by sallybrown at 8:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
NBC's Peter Alexander asked Trump how parents should explain his bad language to their children.
Trump's response: "Oh, you're so politically correct, you're so beautiful. Oh, you've never heard a little bad language. You're so perfect. Aren't you perfect? You're such a perfect young man. Give me a break. You know what? It's stuff like that that people are tired of."
Source
posted by sallybrown at 8:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
It will be interesting to see how the media spins this as not too big of a deal. Michigan is pretty much neighbor of Vermont anyway.
They can't seriously argue that everyone expected him to win or even tie here, that's for sure. Although apparently the Clinton people are already spinning that Michigan was "demographically favorable" for him, so I'm sure they'll still try.
posted by dialetheia at 8:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
They can't seriously argue that everyone expected him to win or even tie here, that's for sure. Although apparently the Clinton people are already spinning that Michigan was "demographically favorable" for him, so I'm sure they'll still try.
posted by dialetheia at 8:28 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh wow, a bunch of the GR city precincts just came in. And Sanders is holding strong at 63% countywide.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hmm, the percentage of the population id'ing as African-American in Kalamazoo seems like it's similar to Grand Rapids (though the percent id'ing as Latinx is substantially lower) and Sanders did very well there... WRT Michigan I only know what I'm reading on Wikipedia so maybe I'm missing something obvious.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Or on non-preview !!!!
posted by en forme de poire at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Sanders is doing better than expected, sure. But unless he starts winning by larger margins in some future states, he won't be able to beat her lead (which she is widening tonight, as his edge in Michigan will be less than her lead in Mississippi). So the question is how does he catch up to her 200+ delegate lead (after tonight). March 15 looks favorable for her to increase that more, but we'll see.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016
Screw you Steve Kornacki, I scooped you by a good minute and a half.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
ArbitraryAndCapricious: "It clearly matters for the media narrative, but at this point I don't think it makes much difference from a delegate standpoint who wins. They essentially split the delegates equally no matter who comes out a point or two ahead."
Not actually - MI doesn't just do statewide delegates (which are obviously super close to tied) but also district determined delegates. It could get complicated.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
Not actually - MI doesn't just do statewide delegates (which are obviously super close to tied) but also district determined delegates. It could get complicated.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
New York Times/AP just called Michigan for Sanders.
posted by FJT at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by FJT at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
AP just called it for Sanders, according to NYT
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
FJT!!!!!!!!! [khaaaan voice]
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
Kalamazoo also has a big public university (Western MI) while Grand Rapids does not (well, the metro area does, Grand Valley State University, but its main campus is in Ottawa County).
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016
HOLY CRAP
posted by en forme de poire at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Democratic Primary
Sanders has won Michigan, according to A.P.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders has won Michigan, according to A.P.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cruz in early lead in ID, up 5 points on Trump, 10% reporting.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016
WOOOOOO
posted by zug at 8:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zug at 8:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
INSANE. Only by 2 points, but BONKERS.
posted by dis_integration at 8:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
screaming SCREAMING THE BERNERS DID IIIIIIT
posted by yueliang at 8:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by yueliang at 8:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Proud to be an American right now.
posted by saul wright at 8:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by saul wright at 8:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow!! What an incredible upset. This is the biggest upset since Gary Hart in 1984, according to Nate Silver earlier. This keeps the campaign alive and gives him great momentum going into the most favorable part of the calendar for him. It'll still be tough, no doubt, but this is a huge win. Fantastic news for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 8:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:37 PM on March 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
The Reagan Democrats are coming home.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:38 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:38 PM on March 8, 2016
The wildest thing to me is that I feel like the Sanders campaign didn't even expect to win tonight - that hastily organized press conference in the backyard of the hotel he was in really made it seem like their internal polling wasn't nearly as optimistic.
posted by dialetheia at 8:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm happy that the state of my birth has given us Bob Seger, Vernor's ginger ale, and now a Sanders primary. Thanks, Michigan!
posted by teponaztli at 8:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 8:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Interesting night and a very strong result by Sanders. Ohio is suddenly going to be carpet bombed by political ads over the next week (be sure to Tivo everything Ohio mefites). Could strength in Michigan translate into a win in Ohio with enough help?
posted by vuron at 8:41 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by vuron at 8:41 PM on March 8, 2016
Are there per-precinct numbers from Genessee county anywhere? I'm curious how he did in Flint given the record turnout in Flint and the fact that he kept it tied in that county.
posted by dialetheia at 8:41 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 8:41 PM on March 8, 2016
(Although on the other hand, Michigan has also burdened us with Ted Nugent and another Trump victory.)
posted by teponaztli at 8:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 8:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's really surprising, and I'll be curious to see where exit polling differs from the pre-election polling, though I expect the answer will be the usual-but-unhelpful "likely voter models are hard."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 PM on March 8, 2016
Oh. I wonder if the weather had anything to do with this. It's super, super warm out -- looks like it was 70F in Detroit. High turnout = Sanders win?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:45 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:45 PM on March 8, 2016
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 2m2 minutes ago
It's weird, because polling has actually been pretty good in the primaries to date. Polls very accurate in MI GOP race tonight, for example.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's weird, because polling has actually been pretty good in the primaries to date. Polls very accurate in MI GOP race tonight, for example.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even before it was called it was clear this was a big upset compared to polling data.
I still think (and hope) Clinton will win in the end (and while the final delegate breakdown for tonight is not clear, it seems like tonight should be a net win for her), but Sanders is certainly keeping it close, and its a little more likely now than yesterday that he could catch up.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still think (and hope) Clinton will win in the end (and while the final delegate breakdown for tonight is not clear, it seems like tonight should be a net win for her), but Sanders is certainly keeping it close, and its a little more likely now than yesterday that he could catch up.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Could strength in Michigan translate into a win in Ohio with enough help?
I think so. Per Wiki, Ohio has slightly fewer African-American voters to Michigan (14.2 vs. 12.2). And the Appalachian highlands appear to be strong for Sen. Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think so. Per Wiki, Ohio has slightly fewer African-American voters to Michigan (14.2 vs. 12.2). And the Appalachian highlands appear to be strong for Sen. Sanders.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clogging the precincts is not exclusive to republicans. This happened in Flint during the 08' Presidential election by some wards consolidating voting spots. It was effective for halting larger votes for McCain and Dem write-ins.
Plus, there is some internal grumbling with the new mayor.
This would never have happened without the democrats illegal tactics.
To fair, the voter snafu happened in a Clinton bastion. It was the youth who turned out for Bernie in Flint.
posted by clavdivs at 8:50 PM on March 8, 2016
Plus, there is some internal grumbling with the new mayor.
This would never have happened without the democrats illegal tactics.
To fair, the voter snafu happened in a Clinton bastion. It was the youth who turned out for Bernie in Flint.
posted by clavdivs at 8:50 PM on March 8, 2016
wow.
supper happy wow.
I hope there is a reckoning/moratorium for all the pundits, media, and pollsters.
I am in no way saying that Bernie will win but the above mentioned have really fucked up this election. They have gotten SO much wrong. So much.
Probably nothing will change, just like the republicans after Obama won.
posted by futz at 8:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
supper happy wow.
I hope there is a reckoning/moratorium for all the pundits, media, and pollsters.
I am in no way saying that Bernie will win but the above mentioned have really fucked up this election. They have gotten SO much wrong. So much.
Probably nothing will change, just like the republicans after Obama won.
posted by futz at 8:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Looks like high voter turnout plus some really shaky likely voter models are the primary culprit. MSU was the only pollster to even come close to the final result and that was off by a significant margin.
It seems like over confidence in the polling got a ton of Democrats to vote for Republican candidates. If those were Clinton voters it certainly cost her dearly and if they were Sanders supporters they probably cost Sanders a handful of delegates.
It's going to be hard for Clinton's camp to spin tonight as anything other than a setback yes Mississippi was a massive win for Clinton but everyone expected that so she won't get much if any momentum other than the "oh well 20 more delegates to her margins". On the other hand Sanders will come away with a delegate shortfall but a more compelling narrative leading into 3/15.
It will be interesting to see if we see pollsters making a late push to poll some of the 3/15 states. Missouri hasn't been polled hardly at all and it seems like it's probably the most likely to be a Sanders victory.
posted by vuron at 8:52 PM on March 8, 2016
It seems like over confidence in the polling got a ton of Democrats to vote for Republican candidates. If those were Clinton voters it certainly cost her dearly and if they were Sanders supporters they probably cost Sanders a handful of delegates.
It's going to be hard for Clinton's camp to spin tonight as anything other than a setback yes Mississippi was a massive win for Clinton but everyone expected that so she won't get much if any momentum other than the "oh well 20 more delegates to her margins". On the other hand Sanders will come away with a delegate shortfall but a more compelling narrative leading into 3/15.
It will be interesting to see if we see pollsters making a late push to poll some of the 3/15 states. Missouri hasn't been polled hardly at all and it seems like it's probably the most likely to be a Sanders victory.
posted by vuron at 8:52 PM on March 8, 2016
Here's what's coming up on the Democratic side:
Democrats Abroad [?]: supposed to end today, not sure when it reports
3/12 (Saturday) - Northern Marianas Islands
3/15 (Tuesday) - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio
3/22 (Tuesday) - Arizona, Idaho, Utah
3/26 (Saturday) - Alaska, Hawaii, Washington state
4/5 (Tuesday) - Wisconsin
4/9 (Saturday) - Wyoming
4/19 (Tuesday) - New York
4/26 (Tuesday) - Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
5/3 (Tuesday) - Indiana
5/7 (Saturday) - Guam
5/10 (Tuesday) - West Virginia
5/17 (Tuesday) - Kentucky, Oregon
6/4 (Saturday) - Virgin Islands
6/5 (Sunday) - Puerto Rico
6/7 (Tuesday) - California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota
6/14 (Tuesday) - last but not least, DC
posted by sallybrown at 8:52 PM on March 8, 2016
Democrats Abroad [?]: supposed to end today, not sure when it reports
3/12 (Saturday) - Northern Marianas Islands
3/15 (Tuesday) - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio
3/22 (Tuesday) - Arizona, Idaho, Utah
3/26 (Saturday) - Alaska, Hawaii, Washington state
4/5 (Tuesday) - Wisconsin
4/9 (Saturday) - Wyoming
4/19 (Tuesday) - New York
4/26 (Tuesday) - Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
5/3 (Tuesday) - Indiana
5/7 (Saturday) - Guam
5/10 (Tuesday) - West Virginia
5/17 (Tuesday) - Kentucky, Oregon
6/4 (Saturday) - Virgin Islands
6/5 (Sunday) - Puerto Rico
6/7 (Tuesday) - California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota
6/14 (Tuesday) - last but not least, DC
posted by sallybrown at 8:52 PM on March 8, 2016
Plenty of Appalachian highlanders in Michigan, lol.
posted by BinGregory at 8:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BinGregory at 8:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It seems like over confidence in the polling got a ton of Democrats to vote for Republican candidates.
I think this is BS until someone shows that more Dems crossed over than in the other primaries. Dems have been crossing over to vote for Trump all primary season.
posted by dialetheia at 8:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think this is BS until someone shows that more Dems crossed over than in the other primaries. Dems have been crossing over to vote for Trump all primary season.
posted by dialetheia at 8:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, disaffected working-class white Democrats are Trump's wheelhouse, and Michigan likely has plenty of those folks.
posted by dialetheia at 8:54 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 8:54 PM on March 8, 2016
If anything, the more the Bernie threat looms, the more the media will try to bury him. I wouldn't predict a sudden outbreak of honesty, rigor and evenhandedness from those outlets which have shown very little of it thus far.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was a gorgeous day so my neighbor and I walked to the polls. Bernie's people were the only ones who came to my door last week for GOTV. Washtenaw Cty is not just Ann Arbor, but Ypsilanti, which may explain the somewhat tight margin. With 76% of the vote counted, Washtenaw is listing 35% voter turnout?!?! My precinct is showing 46%!?!?!
posted by klarck at 8:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by klarck at 8:55 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks like 3/15 is the big day now. Sanders will get a big narrative boost out of Michigan but he now needs to be able to translate that to delegates in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. Assuming Florida is in the bag for Clinton... but Michigan was also supposed to be in the bag.
posted by Justinian at 8:55 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:55 PM on March 8, 2016
And Michigan hasn't voted for a Republican for President since 1988.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
but Michigan was also supposed to be in the bag
If were Hillary's campaign staff, I'd be checking all the bags to make sure I know what's in them.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
If were Hillary's campaign staff, I'd be checking all the bags to make sure I know what's in them.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think Sen. Sanders can take Illinois. Particularly as Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party are very unpopular here in Chicago at the moment.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
3/15 is the big day now
It's a big day and a day Clinton will probably win. However, after that, according to Nate Silver,
We then have a stretch of states that look quite strong for Sanders. These include Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Wyoming, all of which vote from March 22 to April 9.
posted by saul wright at 9:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a big day and a day Clinton will probably win. However, after that, according to Nate Silver,
We then have a stretch of states that look quite strong for Sanders. These include Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Wyoming, all of which vote from March 22 to April 9.
posted by saul wright at 9:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It will be interesting to see why the polls were so far off. Were they overestimating Clinton's lead among African Americans? (She won them like 2-1 but that's down from, what, 8-1 in the South). Or was the turnout model way, way off? I'm sure 538 will eventually have something to say.
posted by Justinian at 9:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cruz 2nd in MI and takes ID, have to think that keeps him alive.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:02 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 9:02 PM on March 8, 2016
Re: the GOP side, I was sure that Trump would clean up in Idaho based on what I've seen nearby but in retrospect electoral wizard Carl Diggler nailed it: "Gold standard-loving mountain folk of Idaho want a candidate they can shoot down an ATF helicopter with. That's Cruz."
Particularly as Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party are very unpopular here in Chicago at the moment.
Yes! I've been waiting for Sanders to call Clinton out over her continued support of Emanuel all year.
posted by dialetheia at 9:03 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Particularly as Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party are very unpopular here in Chicago at the moment.
Yes! I've been waiting for Sanders to call Clinton out over her continued support of Emanuel all year.
posted by dialetheia at 9:03 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Woooo, Idaho. Woooo.
Rubio with a glorious third place finish! That's even better than his fourth place victory earlier today!
posted by Justinian at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio with a glorious third place finish! That's even better than his fourth place victory earlier today!
posted by Justinian at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reports of record turnout in Hawaii, even though it's pouring in many areas. The caucus line is still open for another hour but it might take much longer to get results.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016
If anything, the more the Bernie threat looms, the more the media will try to bury him.
The news media is a for-profit entity. As it's profit is driven by ad revenue, which requires eyeballs, the news media wants exciting stories to get more eyeballs.
This is as exciting as it gets. In fact, nothing would be more exciting than the underdog coming around the final bend to eek out a win, and then face Troliath. That's like, years of revenue in a single season. So many eyeballs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the news media starts to turn on Hillary. Sanders can still win this, his supporters consume media like crazy, and the "news" will follow the eyeballs.
That is to say, I don't think these organizations have nefarious conspiracies to destroy Sanders. They're just trying to make money.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The news media is a for-profit entity. As it's profit is driven by ad revenue, which requires eyeballs, the news media wants exciting stories to get more eyeballs.
This is as exciting as it gets. In fact, nothing would be more exciting than the underdog coming around the final bend to eek out a win, and then face Troliath. That's like, years of revenue in a single season. So many eyeballs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the news media starts to turn on Hillary. Sanders can still win this, his supporters consume media like crazy, and the "news" will follow the eyeballs.
That is to say, I don't think these organizations have nefarious conspiracies to destroy Sanders. They're just trying to make money.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I found this interesting, also via 538:
...one reason Sanders pulled out his victory in Michigan: He’s losing to Clinton among black voters in the state by much less than he lost to her among black voters in previous states. That may be a sign that he gets more support from black voters outside the South, which if it persists past Michigan could help him stay competitive in the Democratic race.
posted by saul wright at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
...one reason Sanders pulled out his victory in Michigan: He’s losing to Clinton among black voters in the state by much less than he lost to her among black voters in previous states. That may be a sign that he gets more support from black voters outside the South, which if it persists past Michigan could help him stay competitive in the Democratic race.
posted by saul wright at 9:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't get where the "media trying to bury Sanders" thing is coming from. I'll buy the DNC is trying to defeat him 'cause, well, yeah. But the media has been very very kind to him from what I've seen. They were a bit patronizing at the beginning since he wasn't taken all that seriously but for the last couple months he's been treated very well. Better than Clinton in some respects.
posted by Justinian at 9:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:06 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's odd how much this is starting to resemble 2008 except with Clinton winning Obama's states and Sanders winning Clinton's states.
posted by Justinian at 9:10 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by Justinian at 9:10 PM on March 8, 2016
I'm pretty sure Jeff Bozo wants him gone because Jeffy is a fucking asshole, but who reads WaPo anyways? That paywall is a one way ticket to the back button.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:12 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:12 PM on March 8, 2016
Or maybe it's site design. I dunno. All I know is I've learned, Pavlovian style, that the WaPo is is a waste of electricity.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:14 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:14 PM on March 8, 2016
I don't get where the "media trying to bury Sanders" thing is coming from.
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
posted by yueliang at 9:14 PM on March 8, 2016 [25 favorites]
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
posted by yueliang at 9:14 PM on March 8, 2016 [25 favorites]
his supporters consume media like crazy
Sanders supporters are actually the least likely to watch cable news. Internet news, on the other hand...
I'm surprised people would think the media has treated Sanders fairly. He's gotten almost no airtime compared to other candidates and even tonight, they've hardly talked about him at all on MSNBC beyond the details of the horse race - hell, on MSNBC they pivoted straight from declaring his win in MI to discussing who Clinton will pick as her VP. Most of the cable news channels have commentators with financial ties to the Clinton campaign pretending to be "objective analysts" without disclosing those ties. The media isn't really nice to Clinton, either, but they've definitely marginalized Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 9:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
Sanders supporters are actually the least likely to watch cable news. Internet news, on the other hand...
I'm surprised people would think the media has treated Sanders fairly. He's gotten almost no airtime compared to other candidates and even tonight, they've hardly talked about him at all on MSNBC beyond the details of the horse race - hell, on MSNBC they pivoted straight from declaring his win in MI to discussing who Clinton will pick as her VP. Most of the cable news channels have commentators with financial ties to the Clinton campaign pretending to be "objective analysts" without disclosing those ties. The media isn't really nice to Clinton, either, but they've definitely marginalized Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 9:16 PM on March 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
Yeah I know, what I'm saying is they have the credibility of a Jack Chick tract. Most people I know avoid eye contact with their hyperlinks.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:17 PM on March 8, 2016
Yeah I know, what I'm saying is they have the credibility of a Jack Chick tract. Most people I know avoid eye contact with their hyperlinks.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 9:17 PM on March 8, 2016
I put in a hectic 8 hrs. as a precinct worker in my suburban Detroit, R-leaning town. It can be interesting - grassroots democracy in action, R and D workers pulling together to get it done, people who can hardly walk dragging themselves in to vote, one grown man (30ish?) sweetly excited to vote the first time.
But I also once again had to hear a few Rs yapping about the photo ID law we've had for two years - cos nothing like a whiny sore winner. [It's so good we have it, "they" (Detroiters, POC) dont have trouble getting ID, Dems just want no law so "illegals can vote.) And I think about all these people voting for Trump. Ugh.
Then I see Hillary, my Dem, losing, and I despair I'll ever have a woman Prez before I kick.
Although I don't envision Sanders as an effective president, #1priority is keep the vulgar talking yam from ever getting near the Oval Office.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:17 PM on March 8, 2016 [25 favorites]
But I also once again had to hear a few Rs yapping about the photo ID law we've had for two years - cos nothing like a whiny sore winner. [It's so good we have it, "they" (Detroiters, POC) dont have trouble getting ID, Dems just want no law so "illegals can vote.) And I think about all these people voting for Trump. Ugh.
Then I see Hillary, my Dem, losing, and I despair I'll ever have a woman Prez before I kick.
Although I don't envision Sanders as an effective president, #1priority is keep the vulgar talking yam from ever getting near the Oval Office.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:17 PM on March 8, 2016 [25 favorites]
Looking at the exit polls, I think the biggest thing for Sanders in Michigan (other than not getting beat quite as badly with Black voters) is that 18-29 year olds made up 21% of the electorate tonight - that's even more than the 65+ year olds, at 20%. I seriously doubt anyone had that in their likely voter models. I hope he can keep it up in future states!
posted by dialetheia at 9:29 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:29 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
sallybrown: Democrats Abroad announces results on the 21st.
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:31 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah I know, what I'm saying is they have the credibility of a Jack Chick tract. Most people I know avoid eye contact with their hyperlinks.
I might be out of touch or bad at detecting sarcasm. Actually, both are true. But I thought the Washington Post was a pretty decent paper. Are you positive you don't mean the New York Post?
posted by knuckle tattoos at 9:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I might be out of touch or bad at detecting sarcasm. Actually, both are true. But I thought the Washington Post was a pretty decent paper. Are you positive you don't mean the New York Post?
posted by knuckle tattoos at 9:33 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I really hope Clinton's dodgy attack mischaracterizing Sanders' auto bailout vote played a role in this loss. It was so cynical and revived a lot of bad memories from the '08 campaign. Apparently one of the statewide union honchos (UAW I think?) tore into that line on Facebook the other day, which may have had some sway.
NorthernLite: "Then I see Hillary, my Dem, losing, and I despair I'll ever have a woman Prez before I kick. "
Sanders-Warren 2016 --> Warren-[somebody awesome] 2020?
posted by Rhaomi at 9:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
NorthernLite: "Then I see Hillary, my Dem, losing, and I despair I'll ever have a woman Prez before I kick. "
Sanders-Warren 2016 --> Warren-[somebody awesome] 2020?
posted by Rhaomi at 9:35 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
As for what The Media© like: Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS"
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:39 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders-Warren 2016 --> Warren-[somebody awesome] 2020?
I think it would be likely that Sanders would pick a female VP candidate, but another Senator from New England? I don't know.
posted by dhens at 9:43 PM on March 8, 2016
I think it would be likely that Sanders would pick a female VP candidate, but another Senator from New England? I don't know.
posted by dhens at 9:43 PM on March 8, 2016
I think it would be likely that Sanders would pick a female VP candidate, but another Senator from New England? I don't know.
And one who has been very clear and vocal about having no desire to run for president or presumably vice-president at that.
posted by neonrev at 9:47 PM on March 8, 2016
And one who has been very clear and vocal about having no desire to run for president or presumably vice-president at that.
posted by neonrev at 9:47 PM on March 8, 2016
Tammy Duckworth is from Illinois...
posted by mikelieman at 9:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 9:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Warren is amazing and I love her but I think she would rather stay in the Senate, and she wouldn't expand his reach as much as he'd need. Just off the top of my head - I don't know much about her record and she might not have enough experience to be plausible, but just based on watching her speeches, I would love to see him choose Nina Turner from Ohio. She's awesome.
posted by dialetheia at 9:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
And Elizabeth Warren does nothing else until she spends a few years as Secretary of the Treasury.
posted by mikelieman at 9:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 9:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Tammy Duckworth is running for Senate, and is one of the best hopes for a R -> D pickup.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, there's like 150 million women in the country, so I'm sure he'll find someone cool.
posted by mikelieman at 9:52 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 9:52 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Seriously though, get a load of Sanders' expression immediately after Clinton claimed he'd opposed the auto bailout. It's like he's so baffled at the charge that he doesn't know how to react.
edit: full video
posted by Rhaomi at 9:52 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
edit: full video
posted by Rhaomi at 9:52 PM on March 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
18-29 year olds made up 21% of the electorate tonight
God bless the snake people!
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
God bless the snake people!
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:53 PM on March 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
The interesting thing about Nina Turner is she was on track for mayor of Cleveland -> Governor (after losing Secretary of State) but now that she's switched sides she might be a contender. I'm not sure if she has the experience but she's fantastic.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 9:56 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders files suit against Ohio secretary of state in push to allow 17-year-olds to vote
posted by futz at 10:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 10:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
17-year-olds who will be 18 by the date of the general election, it should be noted, not just any 17-year-old. It's probably never really been an issue before, since when did high school kids go out in droves to vote in primaries?
posted by neonrev at 10:10 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by neonrev at 10:10 PM on March 8, 2016
17-year-olds who will be 18 by the date of the general election, it should be noted, not just any 17-year-old.
Yes, just like the article says. Ohio just took that right away. Every vote counts.
posted by futz at 10:21 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, just like the article says. Ohio just took that right away. Every vote counts.
posted by futz at 10:21 PM on March 8, 2016
I'm pretty sure Jeff Bozo wants him gone because Jeffy is a fucking asshole, but who reads WaPo anyways? That paywall is a one way ticket to the back button.
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
I didn't realize the Washington Post had been sold to Jeff Bezos. How disappointing. I don't read it regularly, and had been checking it out online this year to read election coverage (I used to live in DC and have a nostalgic connection to it). Admittedly I didn't pay close enough attention to see how things had changed. Until now. So much for journalism ethics. However, I don't think Sanders will be too harmed by those negative stories.
posted by mountainpeak at 10:25 PM on March 8, 2016
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
I didn't realize the Washington Post had been sold to Jeff Bezos. How disappointing. I don't read it regularly, and had been checking it out online this year to read election coverage (I used to live in DC and have a nostalgic connection to it). Admittedly I didn't pay close enough attention to see how things had changed. Until now. So much for journalism ethics. However, I don't think Sanders will be too harmed by those negative stories.
posted by mountainpeak at 10:25 PM on March 8, 2016
Are you positive you don't mean the New York Post?
No, I most certainly mean wapo. If you think it's got credibility, I'd love to point you to yueliang's comment above.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 10:25 PM on March 8, 2016
No, I most certainly mean wapo. If you think it's got credibility, I'd love to point you to yueliang's comment above.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 10:25 PM on March 8, 2016
Yes, just like the article says. Ohio just took that right away. Every vote counts.
But not the click-baity headline that annoyed me when I read it earlier. It sounds like he wants an expansion of the franchise, and it plays into the "Bernie's supporters are all children" stereotype a little too much. Not everyone reads every article posted in a thread.
Also, I agree, seems a ridiculous rule. On other primary business but not this? In an election where youth turn-out is extremely high after years of hand-wringing about how the youth doesn't vote, now they can't help decide who they will be voting for in the fall? Just silly.
posted by neonrev at 10:35 PM on March 8, 2016
But not the click-baity headline that annoyed me when I read it earlier. It sounds like he wants an expansion of the franchise, and it plays into the "Bernie's supporters are all children" stereotype a little too much. Not everyone reads every article posted in a thread.
Also, I agree, seems a ridiculous rule. On other primary business but not this? In an election where youth turn-out is extremely high after years of hand-wringing about how the youth doesn't vote, now they can't help decide who they will be voting for in the fall? Just silly.
posted by neonrev at 10:35 PM on March 8, 2016
Hawaii results starting to come in now.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
What The Stunning Bernie Sanders Win In Michigan Means
By Harry Enten ( A senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight. )
posted by mikelieman at 10:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
By Harry Enten ( A senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight. )
posted by mikelieman at 10:47 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tonight is a wild night! Wow. I know why Trump keeps winning, but I keep asking everyday, Why is he winning these primaries/caucuses, as if my questions will make it not happen
posted by yueliang at 10:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yueliang at 10:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hawaii has been called for trump.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 PM on March 8, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 PM on March 8, 2016
This might be the moment the media horse race, and the actual race part ways for a while. Tonight's results remind me of when Clinton "won" Texas in 08. The big story was how maybe she wasn't out of the running, and the momentum shift, and is White working class America ready to elect a Black president?
But if you were purely watching the delegate math, Obama actually hit his mark solidly that night, and pretty much continued to do so through to the nomination. Exceeding polling expectations may win you a few media cycles, but it doesn't win the nomination. Delegates do. And Bernie fell short tonight in that regard.
The story I'm watching is if the Clinton campaign has the discipline that Obama's team had in 08. They stuck to a solid delegate based strategy down the home stretch that year, even when it cost them a few wins in the nightly media horse race.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
But if you were purely watching the delegate math, Obama actually hit his mark solidly that night, and pretty much continued to do so through to the nomination. Exceeding polling expectations may win you a few media cycles, but it doesn't win the nomination. Delegates do. And Bernie fell short tonight in that regard.
The story I'm watching is if the Clinton campaign has the discipline that Obama's team had in 08. They stuck to a solid delegate based strategy down the home stretch that year, even when it cost them a few wins in the nightly media horse race.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's what I meant earlier when I said this win gives Sanders the momentum he hoped for but that has to be translated to delegates in the next two weeks.
posted by Justinian at 11:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:51 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was very surprised to find out that Michigan is much more White than the US average-- 80% vs. 63.7%. The state's Black population is not much more there than the US average -- 14.2% vs. 12.2%.
posted by msalt at 2:41 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by msalt at 2:41 AM on March 9, 2016
This is what passes for election drama in Australia.
posted by um at 3:36 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by um at 3:36 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
@ckilpatrick: US city w/ largest ArabAmerican pop is Dearborn: 64/36 for Bernie. Arab-Americans for the socialist Jewish dude!
@ZaidJilani: Bernie did a rally in Dearborn and did Arabic-langauge advertising. Team Intersectional Hillary did neither
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 AM on March 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
@ZaidJilani: Bernie did a rally in Dearborn and did Arabic-langauge advertising. Team Intersectional Hillary did neither
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 AM on March 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
while bernie's win makes the democratic race more "exciting" it still doesn't do anything to solve the bigger problem of finding a candidate or politics that is popular across all racial groups. so it seems to me that whatever the outcome from these elections, the usa is still facing the fundamental issues that produced trump.
posted by andrewcooke at 4:22 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 4:22 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyone else a little concerned at how useless the polling was? I don't care so much about Clinton vs. Sanders but just that it means that we're kind of flying blind for the rest of the election. When what were thought to be reliable polls turned out to be totally wrong, it calls into doubt pretty much any other predictions.
posted by octothorpe at 4:30 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:30 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I imagine the pollsters are trying to figure this out right now. If I had to make an educated guess, the polls are vastly underestimating the youth vote, both because young people typically don't vote (especially in primaries) and because it's harder to poll young people generally. Maybe we'll see some adjusted polls before the 15th. There's probably a lot of prestige to be had for calling the rest of the primaries better, so they'll at least try.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:35 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:35 AM on March 9, 2016
Cokie Roberts really just tried to nail Trump to the wall live on Morning Joe over the issue of kids using his lines to harass other kids of color and what he means when he says "make America great AGAIN" and he's just like Jello-O.
That was right after he called the other candidates "stupidheads."
posted by sallybrown at 4:39 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
That was right after he called the other candidates "stupidheads."
posted by sallybrown at 4:39 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly as a non-white female permanent resident, I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. The thought of Trump or Cruz as President is giving me nightmares. I'm going to be a walking ball of stress until (at least) November.
posted by peacheater at 4:40 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 4:40 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
This Michigan primary clearly shows that it's all over for Sanders. There's no way he can recover from a come-from-behind victory like this one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:47 AM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:47 AM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
That was right after he called the other candidates "stupidheads."
The fact that this seems like a ridiculous and totally plausible event is what makes this election so strange.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fact that this seems like a ridiculous and totally plausible event is what makes this election so strange.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders gave an excellent speech directed at Arab-Americans in Dearborn on Monday, in which he pledged (among other things) to fight Islamophobia and be even-handed about the Middle East. It hit all the right notes, and was heavily covered by the local press. Dearborn has the largest concentration of Arab-Americans in the United States.
posted by zarq at 4:53 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 4:53 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kirth Gerson: "This Michigan primary clearly shows that it's all over for Sanders. There's no way he can recover from a come-from-behind victory like this one."
The math for him is still pretty tough. He fell farther behind in the delegate count yesterday and needs to do better than Michigan in a lot of big primaries coming up if he wants to every catch up. Splitting votes 50 - 48 isn't going to do it.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The math for him is still pretty tough. He fell farther behind in the delegate count yesterday and needs to do better than Michigan in a lot of big primaries coming up if he wants to every catch up. Splitting votes 50 - 48 isn't going to do it.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Splitting votes 50 - 48 isn't going to do it.
The assumption being that as Bernie Sanders gets more coverage, more people won't vote for Sanders.
How many people are reconsidering their Hillary Clinton votes next week after hearing Bernie Sanders' platform?
posted by mikelieman at 5:00 AM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
The assumption being that as Bernie Sanders gets more coverage, more people won't vote for Sanders.
How many people are reconsidering their Hillary Clinton votes next week after hearing Bernie Sanders' platform?
posted by mikelieman at 5:00 AM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Splitting votes 50 - 48 isn't going to do it.
The assumption being that as Bernie Sanders gets more coverage, more people won't vote for Sanders.
No, no such assumption. Just a statement that this needs to happen for him to win. Whether Michigan reflects a trend or an exception remains to be seen. Nothing more, nothing less.
posted by bardophile at 5:40 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The assumption being that as Bernie Sanders gets more coverage, more people won't vote for Sanders.
No, no such assumption. Just a statement that this needs to happen for him to win. Whether Michigan reflects a trend or an exception remains to be seen. Nothing more, nothing less.
posted by bardophile at 5:40 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm going to try some back-of-the-envelope math. Take it for what it's worth.
Received wisdom and polling (for whatever either are worth) seem to indicate that Clinton is likely to do better on March 15th, and then Sanders has a string of states where he's likely to do well after that. I was wondering how far Sanders could be in the hole, delegate-wise, after the 15th and still have a realistic chance to win.
If I've added it up correctly, there are 932 pledged delegates available between now and the 15th, and after the 15th there will still be a total of 2030 pledged delegates up for grabs. Right now she's somewhere around 220 pledged delegates ahead of him.
So ... if they basically tie on the 15th, Sanders needs to win the remaining states by at least 55.5% to 44.5% overall.
For every 1% the number goes to one or the other on the 15th, the number for after the 15th changes by by about half a percent.
So if, say, Clinton wins 53% of the delegates on the 15th, Sanders would need to win the remaining states 57% to 43%. If she wins 60% of them, Sanders would need to win the remaining states 60.5% to 39.5%. If Sanders, on the other hand, wins 55% of the delegates on the 15th, he would only need to win the rest 53% to 47% to catch up.
My uneducated conclusion: If Clinton has a blowout win on the 15th, Sanders can't realistically catch up. If they come close to tying, Sanders is still a longshot but has a chance. If Sanders has anything like a convincing overall win on the 15th, he stands a decent chance of winning the nomination.
posted by kyrademon at 5:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Received wisdom and polling (for whatever either are worth) seem to indicate that Clinton is likely to do better on March 15th, and then Sanders has a string of states where he's likely to do well after that. I was wondering how far Sanders could be in the hole, delegate-wise, after the 15th and still have a realistic chance to win.
If I've added it up correctly, there are 932 pledged delegates available between now and the 15th, and after the 15th there will still be a total of 2030 pledged delegates up for grabs. Right now she's somewhere around 220 pledged delegates ahead of him.
So ... if they basically tie on the 15th, Sanders needs to win the remaining states by at least 55.5% to 44.5% overall.
For every 1% the number goes to one or the other on the 15th, the number for after the 15th changes by by about half a percent.
So if, say, Clinton wins 53% of the delegates on the 15th, Sanders would need to win the remaining states 57% to 43%. If she wins 60% of them, Sanders would need to win the remaining states 60.5% to 39.5%. If Sanders, on the other hand, wins 55% of the delegates on the 15th, he would only need to win the rest 53% to 47% to catch up.
My uneducated conclusion: If Clinton has a blowout win on the 15th, Sanders can't realistically catch up. If they come close to tying, Sanders is still a longshot but has a chance. If Sanders has anything like a convincing overall win on the 15th, he stands a decent chance of winning the nomination.
posted by kyrademon at 5:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Alice Ollstein: Primaries Shines A Light On Voting Rights Problems In Michigan, Hawaii, Idaho, And Mississippi
This is an under-the-radar problem that, as far as I can tell, neither Clinton nor Sanders is paying much attention to. The nasty voter suppression laws that the conservative movement has been pushing and expanding since Shelby v. Holder effectively gutted the Voting Rights Acts are already having a horrible effect on the elections. Rick Hasen, who's been following these kinds of laws for years now, has a blog that documents just how bad it's been, and how much worse it could get once the general election season starts.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is an under-the-radar problem that, as far as I can tell, neither Clinton nor Sanders is paying much attention to. The nasty voter suppression laws that the conservative movement has been pushing and expanding since Shelby v. Holder effectively gutted the Voting Rights Acts are already having a horrible effect on the elections. Rick Hasen, who's been following these kinds of laws for years now, has a blog that documents just how bad it's been, and how much worse it could get once the general election season starts.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, I've seen some people asking for down-ballot issues that could make a difference, and here's one: Democrats retain control of Kentucky House
This could be a BFD, because ever since Matt Bevin came into office, he's been trying to turn KY into the fuck-you-got-mine hellhole that he promised, and any roadblocks the state Dems can throw in his path are a net good for the people.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:58 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
This could be a BFD, because ever since Matt Bevin came into office, he's been trying to turn KY into the fuck-you-got-mine hellhole that he promised, and any roadblocks the state Dems can throw in his path are a net good for the people.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:58 AM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
One of the few things I'm actively excited about Sanders is that as a Jewish-American president, he can change the whole discussion about the Middle East. His Dearborn performance is a strong pointer.
(Standard disclaimer: if I were an American I would vote for Sanders, but there is stuff that worries me)
posted by mumimor at 5:59 AM on March 9, 2016
(Standard disclaimer: if I were an American I would vote for Sanders, but there is stuff that worries me)
posted by mumimor at 5:59 AM on March 9, 2016
Honestly as a non-white female permanent resident, I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.
It's interesting to compare this election cycle with 2008. I'm hearing a similar amount of fear and talk of moving to Canada from Democrats that was expressed by Republicans then (and to a lesser extent by Democrats in 2004 as well). The past eight years saw significant changes to the country, changes Republicans would say severely damaged it, but the worst imagined abuses never happened.
A President Trump or President Cruz would be ridiculous. It would be damaging. It would bring something like the Iraq War or Citizens United which will hurt for years or even generations. But it won't bring down the country.
If you guys could survive eight years of Bush jr., you can handle whatever clown the Republicans choose.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:09 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's interesting to compare this election cycle with 2008. I'm hearing a similar amount of fear and talk of moving to Canada from Democrats that was expressed by Republicans then (and to a lesser extent by Democrats in 2004 as well). The past eight years saw significant changes to the country, changes Republicans would say severely damaged it, but the worst imagined abuses never happened.
A President Trump or President Cruz would be ridiculous. It would be damaging. It would bring something like the Iraq War or Citizens United which will hurt for years or even generations. But it won't bring down the country.
If you guys could survive eight years of Bush jr., you can handle whatever clown the Republicans choose.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:09 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm hearing a similar amount of fear and talk of moving to Canada from Democrats that was expressed by Republicans then (and to a lesser extent by Democrats in 2004 as well).
In 2008, it was braggadocio, laced with some small worry over a potential loss of privilege. In 2016, it's fear.
posted by Etrigan at 6:12 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
In 2008, it was braggadocio, laced with some small worry over a potential loss of privilege. In 2016, it's fear.
posted by Etrigan at 6:12 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
while bernie's win makes the democratic race more "exciting" it still doesn't do anything to solve the bigger problem of finding a candidate or politics that is popular across all racial groups.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds like logic perverted by horserace-thinking. As of a couple weeks ago, Sanders had unfavorability ratings of 13% among white democrats, 16% among black democrats, and 7% among hispanic democrats. It seems there's a tendency to interpret losing certain demographics to Clinton as though Sanders has, in general, a "problem" attracting those demographics (i.e., a liability that would extend to the general election).
posted by nobody at 6:30 AM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds like logic perverted by horserace-thinking. As of a couple weeks ago, Sanders had unfavorability ratings of 13% among white democrats, 16% among black democrats, and 7% among hispanic democrats. It seems there's a tendency to interpret losing certain demographics to Clinton as though Sanders has, in general, a "problem" attracting those demographics (i.e., a liability that would extend to the general election).
posted by nobody at 6:30 AM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
A different look at the purported problem Bernie has with minorities. Might surprise some folks.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:35 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CincyBlues at 6:35 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the few things I'm actively excited about Sanders is that as a Jewish-American president, he can change the whole discussion about the Middle East. His Dearborn performance is a strong pointer.
His position on Israel is the pretty much the same as both President Obama and Hillary Clinton: critical but supportive. Sanders supports a two-state solution. He believes Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and has a right to defend itself against attacks from both other countries and terrorists. He supported the invasion of Gaza in 2014 but also wants the Gaza blockade to cease and decries disproportionate Israeli military responses against the Palestinians. He wants to see the Palestinian standard of living rise. And he's said that he wants the US to send less military support to Israel and more economic support to the region.
That last sentence might be the only difference he has with Clinton about Israel. She hasn't said anything about cutting military aid.
posted by zarq at 6:38 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
His position on Israel is the pretty much the same as both President Obama and Hillary Clinton: critical but supportive. Sanders supports a two-state solution. He believes Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and has a right to defend itself against attacks from both other countries and terrorists. He supported the invasion of Gaza in 2014 but also wants the Gaza blockade to cease and decries disproportionate Israeli military responses against the Palestinians. He wants to see the Palestinian standard of living rise. And he's said that he wants the US to send less military support to Israel and more economic support to the region.
That last sentence might be the only difference he has with Clinton about Israel. She hasn't said anything about cutting military aid.
posted by zarq at 6:38 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
WATCH: Trump Gets Asked If He's Proud White Students Are Telling Classmates They'll Get Deported When He Wins
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:48 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:48 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm confused. I thought this would be a bigger deal, and no one seems to be addressing it, here in the thread or out in the media at large. Romney throwing his hat in concerns me (if he does, so far it appears he's just filed the paperwork to make himself eligible to run) I think against the current lineup of Republican candidates, either Dem candidate has very good odds. If Romney is able to get the Republican nomination, I'm not so sure. Is my thinking off in this?
posted by newpotato at 7:00 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by newpotato at 7:00 AM on March 9, 2016
I thought this would be a bigger deal
I thought that got 'debunked' as normal paperwork that has been filed every year the last 9 years.
posted by cashman at 7:01 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought that got 'debunked' as normal paperwork that has been filed every year the last 9 years.
posted by cashman at 7:01 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2008, it was braggadocio, laced with some small worry over a potential loss of privilege.
You and I remember a very different 2008.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:13 AM on March 9, 2016
You and I remember a very different 2008.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:13 AM on March 9, 2016
newpotato, I read that link earlier. Then I followed the dailykos link at the bottom, which informed me he filed that paperwork more than a month ago. If Romney was going to make a move this election, I'd have expected to hear more from the man himself than just a one-off, GOP establishment speech to a university political club within the last six weeks.
posted by zyxwvut at 7:14 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by zyxwvut at 7:14 AM on March 9, 2016
Today in Republican Assholery
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The NRSC acknowledged the tweet and threw shade at reporters who asked questions.The headlines should be "National Republican Senatorial Committee attacks decorated, disabled war hero."
“It would be great if reporters would pay as much attention to a deleted tweet as they should to Tammy Duckworth being sued by VA whistleblowers for ignoring claims of mistreatment and corruption,” spokeswoman Andrea Bozek wrote in an email.
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, Carly Fiornia is on stage with Ted Cruz right now....
posted by Room 641-A at 7:35 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:35 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm hearing a similar amount of fear and talk of moving to Canada from Democrats that was expressed by Republicans then (and to a lesser extent by Democrats in 2004 as well).
Republicans threatening to move to Socialist Canadia in '08 was a particularly stupid bit of Republican "me-too"-ism. The right wing has been copying and co-opting the rhetoric and tactics of the left for longer than I've been alive - when it looked like Obama had a real shot at the Presidency, a small but vocal number of Republicans/conservatives remembered "Move to Canada to escape the Shrub" as a lefty meme and tried to use it themselves. It was idiotic and not to be taken seriously at all.
The past eight years saw significant changes to the country, changes Republicans would say severely damaged it, but the worst imagined abuses never happened.
Reality, well-known liberal bias, you know the drill. The "worst abuses" the Republicans were worried about were paranoid fever dreams, about on par with worrying about Bug Eyed Monsters coming down from space to make people stew of us all. Of course they never happened.
A President Trump or President Cruz would be ridiculous. It would be damaging. It would bring something like the Iraq War or Citizens United which will hurt for years or even generations. But it won't bring down the country.
Were you asleep during the Shrub years? Because at the very least the American and world economy basically went down in flames, and that's as close as I want to get to "bring down the country." Shrub very nearly did, and just because we managed to pull out of that dive (due, primarily, to Obama's election, which meant we had a President at least willing to do some of the hard unpopular work to get us out of the hole the Republicans dug) is no guarantee that things will all work out for the best in the future. If the economy had crashed in '05 we, (including, yes, you Canadians) would be even more deeply fucked right now.
The other thing you are missing here is how the racist, Christian-apocalyptic, LBGQT-phobic, violent, jingoistic, militaristic, economically-disastrous, ignoring-reality, no-compromise elements of the Republican party have become more overt and powerful every election cycle. In the Reagan/Bush I years it was dog-whistles and a veneer of sunny optimism, then it was the Gingrich/Norquist "drown the government in the bathtub" Congress under Clinton, then Shrub got the Presidency handed to him by a conservative Supreme Court and used 9/11 as a fig leaf for military adventures and the collapse of the American and world economy, then the rise of the Tea Party under Obama, and fucking Sarah Palin as the VP candidate, and now finally we've reached a point where the leading Republican candidate is literally talking about throwing brown people out of the country, and encouraging his supporters to beat up PoC protesters, and has his supporters pledge loyalty to him while raising their hands in a gesture all-too-reminiscent of the Nazi salute. All while openly, blatantly, lying about all sorts of skeletons in his closet. The second-place candidate is just more Christian-apocalyptic, less "I'm a BusinessMan, fuck you." IOW, no better.
It is entirely reasonable to be concerned that a Trump or Cruz presidency would be orders of magnitude worse than even GWB.
If you guys could survive eight years of Bush jr., you can handle whatever clown the Republicans choose.
Wacky idea, but maybe lots of us would like to have a better life than "survival."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Republicans threatening to move to Socialist Canadia in '08 was a particularly stupid bit of Republican "me-too"-ism. The right wing has been copying and co-opting the rhetoric and tactics of the left for longer than I've been alive - when it looked like Obama had a real shot at the Presidency, a small but vocal number of Republicans/conservatives remembered "Move to Canada to escape the Shrub" as a lefty meme and tried to use it themselves. It was idiotic and not to be taken seriously at all.
The past eight years saw significant changes to the country, changes Republicans would say severely damaged it, but the worst imagined abuses never happened.
Reality, well-known liberal bias, you know the drill. The "worst abuses" the Republicans were worried about were paranoid fever dreams, about on par with worrying about Bug Eyed Monsters coming down from space to make people stew of us all. Of course they never happened.
A President Trump or President Cruz would be ridiculous. It would be damaging. It would bring something like the Iraq War or Citizens United which will hurt for years or even generations. But it won't bring down the country.
Were you asleep during the Shrub years? Because at the very least the American and world economy basically went down in flames, and that's as close as I want to get to "bring down the country." Shrub very nearly did, and just because we managed to pull out of that dive (due, primarily, to Obama's election, which meant we had a President at least willing to do some of the hard unpopular work to get us out of the hole the Republicans dug) is no guarantee that things will all work out for the best in the future. If the economy had crashed in '05 we, (including, yes, you Canadians) would be even more deeply fucked right now.
The other thing you are missing here is how the racist, Christian-apocalyptic, LBGQT-phobic, violent, jingoistic, militaristic, economically-disastrous, ignoring-reality, no-compromise elements of the Republican party have become more overt and powerful every election cycle. In the Reagan/Bush I years it was dog-whistles and a veneer of sunny optimism, then it was the Gingrich/Norquist "drown the government in the bathtub" Congress under Clinton, then Shrub got the Presidency handed to him by a conservative Supreme Court and used 9/11 as a fig leaf for military adventures and the collapse of the American and world economy, then the rise of the Tea Party under Obama, and fucking Sarah Palin as the VP candidate, and now finally we've reached a point where the leading Republican candidate is literally talking about throwing brown people out of the country, and encouraging his supporters to beat up PoC protesters, and has his supporters pledge loyalty to him while raising their hands in a gesture all-too-reminiscent of the Nazi salute. All while openly, blatantly, lying about all sorts of skeletons in his closet. The second-place candidate is just more Christian-apocalyptic, less "I'm a BusinessMan, fuck you." IOW, no better.
It is entirely reasonable to be concerned that a Trump or Cruz presidency would be orders of magnitude worse than even GWB.
If you guys could survive eight years of Bush jr., you can handle whatever clown the Republicans choose.
Wacky idea, but maybe lots of us would like to have a better life than "survival."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Tammy Duckworth's next commercial should be:
(closeup on Tammy Duckworth, sitting in a chair)
Tammy: I don't always agree with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but they have a point with their latest tweet. They said that I don't stand up for veterans.
(camera zooms out)
Tammy: And they're right. (She pulls BLANKET off her lap to reveal TWO PROSTHETIC LIMBS.)
Tammy: Because my legs got blown off in Iraq. A war they started.
(She stares coldly into camera for remainder of commercial.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
(closeup on Tammy Duckworth, sitting in a chair)
Tammy: I don't always agree with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but they have a point with their latest tweet. They said that I don't stand up for veterans.
(camera zooms out)
Tammy: And they're right. (She pulls BLANKET off her lap to reveal TWO PROSTHETIC LIMBS.)
Tammy: Because my legs got blown off in Iraq. A war they started.
(She stares coldly into camera for remainder of commercial.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
Because at the very least the American and world economy basically went down in flames, and that's as close as I want to get to "bring down the country." Shrub very nearly did, and just because we managed to pull out of that dive
I agree with you about Trump. But the '08 economic collapse had many architects and helpers. Not just Bush and the Republicans.
Glass–Steagall was enacted by Congress as part of the 1933 Banking Act. In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to repeal it. The Act was written in part by Phil Gramm, who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Gramm was a champion for deregulation of the banking industry. But the act passed with a big, bipartisan majority and President Clinton, not Bush, signed it into law. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is directly responsible for the 2008 economic crash. Alan Greenspan's assumption that the banks were capable of regulating themselves, as well as the extremely low interest rates he established in the early 2000's also contributed to the crash.
The crash was a long time coming, and its origins can be traced to acts that began during a Democratic Presidential administration. And while we can point to Republican philosophies that brought it to the table, Democrats, including their President, strongly supported it too. Bush did nothing to stop the crash from happening. One can even argue that his appointment of Henry Paulson to Treasury Secretary in '06 hurried things along. But it was a problem he inherited and then many, many people on both sides of the aisle didn't have the foresight to predict.
posted by zarq at 8:15 AM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I agree with you about Trump. But the '08 economic collapse had many architects and helpers. Not just Bush and the Republicans.
Glass–Steagall was enacted by Congress as part of the 1933 Banking Act. In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to repeal it. The Act was written in part by Phil Gramm, who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Gramm was a champion for deregulation of the banking industry. But the act passed with a big, bipartisan majority and President Clinton, not Bush, signed it into law. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is directly responsible for the 2008 economic crash. Alan Greenspan's assumption that the banks were capable of regulating themselves, as well as the extremely low interest rates he established in the early 2000's also contributed to the crash.
The crash was a long time coming, and its origins can be traced to acts that began during a Democratic Presidential administration. And while we can point to Republican philosophies that brought it to the table, Democrats, including their President, strongly supported it too. Bush did nothing to stop the crash from happening. One can even argue that his appointment of Henry Paulson to Treasury Secretary in '06 hurried things along. But it was a problem he inherited and then many, many people on both sides of the aisle didn't have the foresight to predict.
posted by zarq at 8:15 AM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
MSNBC's Tamron Hall just referred to Trump's event last night: "back to this moment of this - like I said they're calling it this Home Shopping Network thing where Donald Trump rolled out all of these products...." and her and the reporter went on to talk about many of the products Trump was holding up aren't even available for sale.
posted by cashman at 8:15 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by cashman at 8:15 AM on March 9, 2016
Those who find Trump's speeches unintelligible should watch this video about how he answers a question for some insight.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:18 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:18 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you guys could survive eight years of Bush jr., you can handle whatever clown the Republicans choose.
It should also be pointed out that millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans did not survive the Bush years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:21 AM on March 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
It should also be pointed out that millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans did not survive the Bush years.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:21 AM on March 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
71% of independents voting in the Democratic primary in Michigan voted for Sen. Sanders, sez MSNBC.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:23 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:23 AM on March 9, 2016
Good election postmortem by (Michigan resident) Marcy Wheeler
Bias against Bernie at the Washington Post denied by... the Washington Post
Speaking of which, WaPo/Univision poll finds Clinton beating Sanders in Florida (where tonight's debate is scheduled) 64 to 26, due to strong support for Clinton among elderly and Hispanics.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:26 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bias against Bernie at the Washington Post denied by... the Washington Post
Speaking of which, WaPo/Univision poll finds Clinton beating Sanders in Florida (where tonight's debate is scheduled) 64 to 26, due to strong support for Clinton among elderly and Hispanics.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:26 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So ... if they basically tie on the 15th, Sanders needs to win the remaining states by at least 55.5% to 44.5% overall.
This math doesn't really account for non-linear delegate splits.
posted by phearlez at 8:42 AM on March 9, 2016
This math doesn't really account for non-linear delegate splits.
posted by phearlez at 8:42 AM on March 9, 2016
If there's anywhere that black voters are paying close attention to politics right now, it's Flint, MI. And up there in Genesee County, with nearly all (203/219) precincts reporting, Sec. Clinton is only narrowly leading Sen. Sanders, 51.8% to 46.4%.
When folks (black, white and brown alike) learn about Sen. Sanders, they like what they hear.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:43 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
When folks (black, white and brown alike) learn about Sen. Sanders, they like what they hear.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:43 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bias against Bernie at the Washington Post denied by... the Washington Post
I was wound up to say that if Erik Wemple said something it deserves a read and a chance... then clicked and saw it was more garbage out of The Fix. So yeah that's surely garbage.
posted by phearlez at 8:45 AM on March 9, 2016
I was wound up to say that if Erik Wemple said something it deserves a read and a chance... then clicked and saw it was more garbage out of The Fix. So yeah that's surely garbage.
posted by phearlez at 8:45 AM on March 9, 2016
This math doesn't really account for non-linear delegate splits.
Isn't the Democratic side basically proportional as long as both candidates get >15% of the vote? That is my understanding of the delegate math, please correct me if I'm being overly simplistic.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:52 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Isn't the Democratic side basically proportional as long as both candidates get >15% of the vote? That is my understanding of the delegate math, please correct me if I'm being overly simplistic.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:52 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"When folks (black, white and brown alike) learn about Sen. Sanders"
What are talking about, do you know what your talking about?
Check your data
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What are talking about, do you know what your talking about?
Check your data
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seattle Times endorses Bernie
Interesting. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at their editorial board meeting. The Seattle Times has a well-established reputation as a center-right paper, to the extent that if Jim Webb were still in the race, I'd have expected him to get their endorsement. (Illustrative example: the Times took its 2012 gubernatorial race endorsement for Republican Rob McKenna beyond the editorials page, running their own full-page color ads for McKenna in the paper as a "donation.")
Obviously this is a primary endorsement (they endorsed candidates from both parties, supporting Kasich for the Republican nomination) and I doubt they would support Bernie Sanders in the general election. But I'd love to know more about their decision.
It's all well and good to me. I'm pulling for Sanders but will happily vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.
posted by duffell at 9:07 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at their editorial board meeting. The Seattle Times has a well-established reputation as a center-right paper, to the extent that if Jim Webb were still in the race, I'd have expected him to get their endorsement. (Illustrative example: the Times took its 2012 gubernatorial race endorsement for Republican Rob McKenna beyond the editorials page, running their own full-page color ads for McKenna in the paper as a "donation.")
Obviously this is a primary endorsement (they endorsed candidates from both parties, supporting Kasich for the Republican nomination) and I doubt they would support Bernie Sanders in the general election. But I'd love to know more about their decision.
It's all well and good to me. I'm pulling for Sanders but will happily vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.
posted by duffell at 9:07 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Isn't the Democratic side basically proportional as long as both candidates get >15% of the vote? That is my understanding of the delegate math, please correct me if I'm being overly simplistic.
Yeah but it happens at the district level. So it's MAYBE not going to be too very far off but you can go back and look at earlier states and see that you end up with state-level percentage takes that don't work quite right. Because the delegates are apportioned before you know how many people will really turn out for that district.
So say a state had two districts, each with 100 delegates. You turn out 600,000 people for you and 400,000 for me in district X. Now you have 60 delegates and i have 40.
In district Y nobody cares which of us wins so 60 people turn out for me and 40 for you. You get 40 delegates and I get 60.
We are tied 100 delegates to 100 delegates. At the state level you got 600,060 votes. I got 400,040. So a 60%/40% take was a draw in delegates.
posted by phearlez at 9:10 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah but it happens at the district level. So it's MAYBE not going to be too very far off but you can go back and look at earlier states and see that you end up with state-level percentage takes that don't work quite right. Because the delegates are apportioned before you know how many people will really turn out for that district.
So say a state had two districts, each with 100 delegates. You turn out 600,000 people for you and 400,000 for me in district X. Now you have 60 delegates and i have 40.
In district Y nobody cares which of us wins so 60 people turn out for me and 40 for you. You get 40 delegates and I get 60.
We are tied 100 delegates to 100 delegates. At the state level you got 600,060 votes. I got 400,040. So a 60%/40% take was a draw in delegates.
posted by phearlez at 9:10 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Republican National Committee Sues for Clinton Aides' E-Mail
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 9:11 AM on March 9, 2016
more garbage out of The Fix. So yeah that's surely garbage.
The Washington Post had an independent ombudsman position for 43 years that actually provided a substantial critique of the paper's reporting, but eliminated that position in 2013 (somewhat telling that story is filed in their Style section, wtf?).
Also, I've mentioned before, the Post uses A/B testing to choose its headlines, so it could be a case of click-bait rising to the top. Bernie has a lot of traction online and on social media, headlines that neg him probably get more clicks regardless of the actual content of the article.
So, ignoring the headlines, I'm going to make myself read all 16 of those articles tonight and see if I come to the same conclusion they do.
posted by peeedro at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Washington Post had an independent ombudsman position for 43 years that actually provided a substantial critique of the paper's reporting, but eliminated that position in 2013 (somewhat telling that story is filed in their Style section, wtf?).
Also, I've mentioned before, the Post uses A/B testing to choose its headlines, so it could be a case of click-bait rising to the top. Bernie has a lot of traction online and on social media, headlines that neg him probably get more clicks regardless of the actual content of the article.
So, ignoring the headlines, I'm going to make myself read all 16 of those articles tonight and see if I come to the same conclusion they do.
posted by peeedro at 9:12 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
then clicked and saw it was more garbage out of The Fix
One might say... The Fix is in?
Also, Bernie Sanders' Arabic language radio ad
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:14 AM on March 9, 2016
One might say... The Fix is in?
Also, Bernie Sanders' Arabic language radio ad
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:14 AM on March 9, 2016
What are talking about, do you know what your talking about?
Check your data
I didn't make blanket assertions. In that very comment, actually, I cited data from Genesee County (Flint), MI, where the Democratic primary vote is going to have been strongly African-American and where the relatively unknown Senator from Vermont closely lost to a hugely recognizable candidate who has been on the national stage for 20 years and who is very popular in the black community.
Let me know where I've made leaps in logic here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Check your data
I didn't make blanket assertions. In that very comment, actually, I cited data from Genesee County (Flint), MI, where the Democratic primary vote is going to have been strongly African-American and where the relatively unknown Senator from Vermont closely lost to a hugely recognizable candidate who has been on the national stage for 20 years and who is very popular in the black community.
Let me know where I've made leaps in logic here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:14 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
somewhat telling that story is filed in their Style section, wtf?
Back when I was reading it regularly (a couple decades ago) the WaPo Style section was this weird rogue section that would run odd stories that didn't seem to belong there. I imagined some crusty old editor yelling "Don't tell me what to run!"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:18 AM on March 9, 2016
Back when I was reading it regularly (a couple decades ago) the WaPo Style section was this weird rogue section that would run odd stories that didn't seem to belong there. I imagined some crusty old editor yelling "Don't tell me what to run!"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:18 AM on March 9, 2016
The Washington Post had an independent ombudsman position for 43 years that actually provided a substantial critique of the paper's reporting, but eliminated that position in 2013 (somewhat telling that story is filed in their Style section, wtf?).
Well they had been pretty much ignoring the two people who occupied the post before they eliminated it so it was probably for the best. I think it was a combination of frustration that they tried to put an empty suit in the gig by appointing Pexton and then he insisted on actually showing some spine. After the umpteenth time he said that not only was rampant use of unnamed sources sleazy but actually in violation of the Post's stated rules they must have decided there were plenty of readers calling them out who they could ignore without paying a salary for it.
posted by phearlez at 9:20 AM on March 9, 2016
Well they had been pretty much ignoring the two people who occupied the post before they eliminated it so it was probably for the best. I think it was a combination of frustration that they tried to put an empty suit in the gig by appointing Pexton and then he insisted on actually showing some spine. After the umpteenth time he said that not only was rampant use of unnamed sources sleazy but actually in violation of the Post's stated rules they must have decided there were plenty of readers calling them out who they could ignore without paying a salary for it.
posted by phearlez at 9:20 AM on March 9, 2016
Correction of the Day
I saw that in the RSS feed and didn't think twice about it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:22 AM on March 9, 2016
I saw that in the RSS feed and didn't think twice about it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:22 AM on March 9, 2016
Phearlez, that makes sense.
Per The Green Papers, it appears that Sen. Sanders' win translated to 69 delegates to Sec. Clinton's 61, with 10 of 17 unpledged (I assume this is superdelegates) additionally going to her.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:27 AM on March 9, 2016
Per The Green Papers, it appears that Sen. Sanders' win translated to 69 delegates to Sec. Clinton's 61, with 10 of 17 unpledged (I assume this is superdelegates) additionally going to her.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:27 AM on March 9, 2016
His position on Israel is the pretty much the same as both President Obama and Hillary Clinton: critical but supportive. Sanders supports a two-state solution. He believes Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and has a right to defend itself against attacks from both other countries and terrorists. He supported the invasion of Gaza in 2014 but also wants the Gaza blockade to cease and decries disproportionate Israeli military responses against the Palestinians. He wants to see the Palestinian standard of living rise. And he's said that he wants the US to send less military support to Israel and more economic support to the region.
Yes, yes, but as a Jew, he can parse between the real and the paranoid, which is huge. Once, Israel was a socialist society, even if it was based on an colonial understanding of the world. Today, there is an un-checked crazy conservative majority.
Only the people of Israel can change their politics, but the crazies have been consistently enabled by the US because even a liberal president like Obama can't really challenge their craziness.
Obviously, the founders of Israel were wrong in describing the land as an empty desert, and the Palestinian people as ignorant migrants. That was how Europeans understood the world back then, and it was wrong.
However, the facts on the ground is that there is a beautiful and prosperous society of Israelis today, and it would be a crime for the US to abandon it. We all need to support Israel, even against it's own actions.
But like the US itself or South Africa, history carries burdens. Israel is a constant excuse for Muslim extremism (although there is no real help for Palestinian refugees from muslim radicals) exerbating the conflict between muslim nations and the west.
The task of our generation is to find a way to compensate the Palestinians and create a two-state solution, creating a true global legitimacy for Israel and a democratic home for the Palestinians.
Not wanting to derail here, but I worry a lot about the future of Israel and the US role in that future, and I think one of Sanders' international strengths is that he will be in a different position in negotiations with Israel.
posted by mumimor at 9:28 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, yes, but as a Jew, he can parse between the real and the paranoid, which is huge. Once, Israel was a socialist society, even if it was based on an colonial understanding of the world. Today, there is an un-checked crazy conservative majority.
Only the people of Israel can change their politics, but the crazies have been consistently enabled by the US because even a liberal president like Obama can't really challenge their craziness.
Obviously, the founders of Israel were wrong in describing the land as an empty desert, and the Palestinian people as ignorant migrants. That was how Europeans understood the world back then, and it was wrong.
However, the facts on the ground is that there is a beautiful and prosperous society of Israelis today, and it would be a crime for the US to abandon it. We all need to support Israel, even against it's own actions.
But like the US itself or South Africa, history carries burdens. Israel is a constant excuse for Muslim extremism (although there is no real help for Palestinian refugees from muslim radicals) exerbating the conflict between muslim nations and the west.
The task of our generation is to find a way to compensate the Palestinians and create a two-state solution, creating a true global legitimacy for Israel and a democratic home for the Palestinians.
Not wanting to derail here, but I worry a lot about the future of Israel and the US role in that future, and I think one of Sanders' international strengths is that he will be in a different position in negotiations with Israel.
posted by mumimor at 9:28 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Tvlas. County election results are much different then the city of Flint. Check the votes in the cities various wards.
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 AM on March 9, 2016
mumior, it's rather an "Only Sanders could go to Israel" situation, eh?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
My argument doesn't rest on Sen. Sanders having won a majority of predominately black precincts last night. It's about the relative awareness about Sen. Sanders in black communities vs. Sec. Clinton, and how support for him may change as Sen. Sanders' current and past positions become better known in black communities.
I think that there's a higher proportion of social democrats in the black community than there is in the Democratic-leaning portion of the white community, and so I think that black voters will increasingly support Sen. Sanders as they get to know him.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think that there's a higher proportion of social democrats in the black community than there is in the Democratic-leaning portion of the white community, and so I think that black voters will increasingly support Sen. Sanders as they get to know him.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:50 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
>Yeah but it happens at the district level. So it's MAYBE not going to be too very far off but you can go back and look at earlier states and see that you end up with state-level percentage takes that don't work quite right. Because the delegates are apportioned before you know how many people will really turn out for that district.
Unless there is a systematic bias in the number of delegates awarded to various districts, the pro-Bernie differences in one district will match up with the pro-Hillary differences in another, and wash out overall when you account for all the states.
posted by zug at 9:54 AM on March 9, 2016
Unless there is a systematic bias in the number of delegates awarded to various districts, the pro-Bernie differences in one district will match up with the pro-Hillary differences in another, and wash out overall when you account for all the states.
posted by zug at 9:54 AM on March 9, 2016
MauiTime on Trump's Hawaii win:
So it turns out Hawaii Republican voters are a lot like their Mainland counterparts–perfectly unafraid to vote for someone sounds more like the ramblings of a tin-plated dictator than a defender of the U.S. Constitution. Trump is without question a fascist–bent on demonizing Latinos and Muslims while playing up the fears of white supremacists–and for not quite half of Hawaii Republican voters, that’s perfectly fine by them. Of course, more Hawaii Republicans voted for someone other than Trump this year, but given the makeup of the election, that hardly matters now.posted by melissasaurus at 10:18 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Man makes dog give Trump loyalty pledge
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:26 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:26 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Man makes dog give Trump loyalty pledge
We jest, but there's a fair chance that dog would end up in a Trump cabinet.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:57 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
We jest, but there's a fair chance that dog would end up in a Trump cabinet.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:57 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
That dog is a democrat
posted by mumimor at 11:04 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 11:04 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is the dog named "Incitatus," by chance?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:21 AM on March 9, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 11:21 AM on March 9, 2016
That dog is america.
posted by cashman at 11:22 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cashman at 11:22 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
That dog is Chris Christie.
posted by duffell at 11:24 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by duffell at 11:24 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
"My argument doesn't rest on Sen. Sanders having won a majority of predominately black precincts last night."
Did Bernie win a majority of "predominantly black precincts" last night in Flint, or even the county?
I understand your premise on awareness and the voters do too. Hillary carried a small victory margin for the city, but the county election also contains areas of "Predominantly
Black voters" that carried the vote for Hiliary.
posted by clavdivs at 11:26 AM on March 9, 2016
Did Bernie win a majority of "predominantly black precincts" last night in Flint, or even the county?
I understand your premise on awareness and the voters do too. Hillary carried a small victory margin for the city, but the county election also contains areas of "Predominantly
Black voters" that carried the vote for Hiliary.
posted by clavdivs at 11:26 AM on March 9, 2016
That dog is Chris Christie.
I thought this dog was Chris Christie.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:32 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought this dog was Chris Christie.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:32 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Guys can we take this which dog is Chris Christie really discussion back to the This Dog is totally Chris Christie thread? Thanks.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:47 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:47 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Former RNC lawyer Ben Ginsburg said that a Republican presidential candidate “doesn’t have to accrue a majority of delegates in eight states to be considered for the nomination during a contested convention in July,” Politico reports.
Said Ginsburg: “In fact, that’s not a rule. That’s part of what’s called the temporary rules. Each convention has to pass for itself the number of states that put a candidate’s name in nomination.”
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on March 9, 2016
Said Ginsburg: “In fact, that’s not a rule. That’s part of what’s called the temporary rules. Each convention has to pass for itself the number of states that put a candidate’s name in nomination.”
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on March 9, 2016
Betting odds update.
On the Republican side, Donald is a very short favorite (2/5); Ted is the next favorite (4/1), followed by John (10/1) and Marco (heck how a few weeks makes a difference - 22/1).
On the Democratic side, Hillary continues to be an extremely short favorite (1/14), with Bernie closing slightly at 7/1.
For the overall winner in November, Hillary is around 1/2 and Donald around 5/2.
The odds on the size of "Trumps Manhood" ("Applies to the size of Donald Trumps manhood when 'standing to attention'. Bets will be void if it is not revealed.") have 7.01 to 8 inches as the current favorite. 9+ inches is 3/1, and less than 4 inches is 50/1.
posted by Wordshore at 12:03 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the Republican side, Donald is a very short favorite (2/5); Ted is the next favorite (4/1), followed by John (10/1) and Marco (heck how a few weeks makes a difference - 22/1).
On the Democratic side, Hillary continues to be an extremely short favorite (1/14), with Bernie closing slightly at 7/1.
For the overall winner in November, Hillary is around 1/2 and Donald around 5/2.
The odds on the size of "Trumps Manhood" ("Applies to the size of Donald Trumps manhood when 'standing to attention'. Bets will be void if it is not revealed.") have 7.01 to 8 inches as the current favorite. 9+ inches is 3/1, and less than 4 inches is 50/1.
posted by Wordshore at 12:03 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, how quaint this now seems: "I can't believe she did that," the President said, shaking his head and blushing after 17-year-old Laetitia Thompson of Potomac, Md., popped the question: boxers or briefs?
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The odds on the size of "Trumps Manhood"
On the one hand, body shaming is horrible.
On the other, Trump fat shames (and worse) women. He's racist, sexist, etc.
A dilemma.
posted by zarq at 12:32 PM on March 9, 2016
On the one hand, body shaming is horrible.
On the other, Trump fat shames (and worse) women. He's racist, sexist, etc.
A dilemma.
posted by zarq at 12:32 PM on March 9, 2016
The visitors book in a Manchester, England public library.
posted by Wordshore at 12:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 12:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Saw this in my RSS feed and felt a need to share. Watching them start to talk about obstructing *themselves* is... I don't even know what that is.
posted by mordax at 12:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mordax at 12:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The odds on the size of "Trumps Manhood" ("Applies to the size of Donald Trumps manhood when 'standing to attention'. Bets will be void if it is not revealed.") have 7.01 to 8 inches as the current favorite. 9+ inches is 3/1, and less than 4 inches is 50/1.
Seriously? The average penis is five inches long, and apparently over 80% of them are between 5 and 7. It is simply incredibly unlikely that Donald Trump has an eight inch dick. I am so tempted to bet on this.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:50 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seriously? The average penis is five inches long, and apparently over 80% of them are between 5 and 7. It is simply incredibly unlikely that Donald Trump has an eight inch dick. I am so tempted to bet on this.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:50 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The quoted part of that link, mordax: I've fixed it for you.
It’s very simple. Whenmasses of oblivious, clueless, noncontributing people [women, black and brown people] are allowed and actively encouraged to vote, the results are and have been disastrous[ly progressive]. There is virtually no chance of anything positive happening when the people steering the ship are blind, drunk, and distracted [women, black people and brown people].
Just look at the sort of ignoramuses we usually elect — and the ones we are threatening to elect — to major political offices. Compare that with the sort of men they elected back in the early decades of America, when few people had a say, and I think it becomes clear that we need fewer [female, black and brown] people to vote. High voter turnout does not equal better voting results.
[...]
The centerpiece of my plan is to requirethat all voters take and pass a 5th grade civics exam [a return to segregationist voter restriction laws]. Again, there is NOTHING good that can come, or has come, of allowing adults who can’t name the branches of government to make decisions about who will populate those branches [just ANY citizen to vote without taking some test].
Another part of my plan is to grant the vote only totaxpaying citizens [people who are already doing okay]. If you are not paying into the system, you should not be allowed to determine how the system works are subhuman. You should not be empowered to vote yourself money from a treasury you are not contributing to [should not get a say in how you're governed]. The fact that we enable this sort of behavior is a travesty and an injustice. In fact it’s a form of taxation without representation, and it’s precisely the sort of thing the colonists revolted against.
What I’m saying here may seem outrageous to you, but remember that our Republic was never meant to be run bythe lazy and the ignorant [women, black people and brown people].
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:58 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It’s very simple. When
Just look at the sort of ignoramuses we usually elect — and the ones we are threatening to elect — to major political offices. Compare that with the sort of men they elected back in the early decades of America, when few people had a say, and I think it becomes clear that we need fewer [female, black and brown] people to vote. High voter turnout does not equal better voting results.
[...]
The centerpiece of my plan is to require
Another part of my plan is to grant the vote only to
What I’m saying here may seem outrageous to you, but remember that our Republic was never meant to be run by
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:58 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton's camp ramps up attack on Sanders' auto bailout vote
posted by futz at 1:02 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by futz at 1:02 PM on March 9, 2016
I was really disappointed by that, because I thought it was by Matt Welch (libertarian, but sometimes has something interesting to say). Then I saw it was Matt WALSH (professional idiot).
posted by Chrysostom at 1:03 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 1:03 PM on March 9, 2016
The quoted part of that link, mordax: I've fixed it for you.
Hehe. I'm not sure it's *just* that - assholes like Walsh have always been against women and POC. It seems that at this point, he's looking for a way to disenfranchise white guys too - the most naked expression of 'the only people we will allow to vote are the people who vote for our guys.'
Either way, I'm more appreciating it on an aesthetic level. It feels like the political equivalent of Infinite Hasselhoff: obstruction of democracy all the way down, in an endless self-feeding loop. (Link NSFanyone.)
posted by mordax at 1:06 PM on March 9, 2016
Hehe. I'm not sure it's *just* that - assholes like Walsh have always been against women and POC. It seems that at this point, he's looking for a way to disenfranchise white guys too - the most naked expression of 'the only people we will allow to vote are the people who vote for our guys.'
Either way, I'm more appreciating it on an aesthetic level. It feels like the political equivalent of Infinite Hasselhoff: obstruction of democracy all the way down, in an endless self-feeding loop. (Link NSFanyone.)
posted by mordax at 1:06 PM on March 9, 2016
Once people start deciding who should vote, they tend to just keep whittling away at it.
posted by Etrigan at 1:09 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Etrigan at 1:09 PM on March 9, 2016
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House.
posted by futz at 1:13 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by futz at 1:13 PM on March 9, 2016
"Free white male landowners over 21" was good enough for the Founding Fathers and it's good enough for Matt Walsh.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House.
Races much nastier than this one (including the 2008 primaries) in both parties still usually end up with 85%-95% support for the candidate when November rolls around, and that's without vulgar talking yams in the race.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:21 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Races much nastier than this one (including the 2008 primaries) in both parties still usually end up with 85%-95% support for the candidate when November rolls around, and that's without vulgar talking yams in the race.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:21 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
There is another DEM debate tonight. Univision is hosting and CNN is airing it also.
posted by futz at 1:21 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by futz at 1:21 PM on March 9, 2016
Wired: Sanders’ Michigan Win Shows Pollsters Have a Bernie Blindspot
One key reason for that—though not the only reason—is that Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly young, and lots of pollsters still haven’t found a way to reach young voters where they are: their smartphones.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:26 PM on March 9, 2016
futz:
posted by charred husk at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House."I somehow ended up in the Reddit thread about this. I... I still will vote for him this coming Tuesday but dear God. I know Reddit isn't necessarily representative of anything but if that's what you're looking at I can see where the "Bernie supporters are [negative thing]" comes from.
posted by charred husk at 1:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
> "In fact it’s a form of taxation without representation ..."
Wow. It is so rare that I read a phrase and think, "It is LITERALLY the EXACT INVERSE of what you just said it was."
posted by kyrademon at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wow. It is so rare that I read a phrase and think, "It is LITERALLY the EXACT INVERSE of what you just said it was."
posted by kyrademon at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Man fuck Matt Walsh.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:37 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:37 PM on March 9, 2016
A message to Sanders voters: focus on the delegate count, yes, but remember what it is we're really doing here.(Corey Robin)
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Veteran liberal blogger Atrios had some comments about the "people who won't vote for Clinton" narrative today:
"One of the narratives being pushed for months is that Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton in the general election. ... But the broader point of this narrative is that Sanders voters are somehow illegitimate. They are not loyal Democrats. They don't matter.
The important thing is that the responsibility to win elections is on the candidate, not the voters. It's the candidate's job - with the help of hundreds of millions of campaign funds - to get them to the polls and to pull the lever for them. Making excuses for a loss many many months out is really weird. Blaming the voters - which Democrats love to do - is gross. Stop it."
To the extent that there are Sanders voters that won't vote for Clinton, it reflects his broader electability, not a moral failure in his supporters. Especially given how many of his voters are independents, not registered Democrats, party loyalty is not going to be as convincing of an argument as many Democrats would wish. Stop-Trump might, but voting against someone still isn't as motivating as voting for someone. Yes, independents lean toward one party or the other, but given Sanders' disproportionate strength with indie voters (e.g. independents supported Sanders in MI by 70-28%), this whole argument likely just boils down to which of the candidates is better at reaching independents. If independent voters dislike Clinton, that's an electability issue.
I was really disappointed by that, because I thought it was by Matt Welch (libertarian, but sometimes has something interesting to say). Then I saw it was Matt WALSH (professional idiot).
Every time I hear Matt Walsh, I think people are talking about the guy from Veep and UCB and feel tremendously disappointed until I realize it's a different person! I bet he hates that awful blogger guy.
posted by dialetheia at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
"One of the narratives being pushed for months is that Sanders voters won't vote for Clinton in the general election. ... But the broader point of this narrative is that Sanders voters are somehow illegitimate. They are not loyal Democrats. They don't matter.
The important thing is that the responsibility to win elections is on the candidate, not the voters. It's the candidate's job - with the help of hundreds of millions of campaign funds - to get them to the polls and to pull the lever for them. Making excuses for a loss many many months out is really weird. Blaming the voters - which Democrats love to do - is gross. Stop it."
To the extent that there are Sanders voters that won't vote for Clinton, it reflects his broader electability, not a moral failure in his supporters. Especially given how many of his voters are independents, not registered Democrats, party loyalty is not going to be as convincing of an argument as many Democrats would wish. Stop-Trump might, but voting against someone still isn't as motivating as voting for someone. Yes, independents lean toward one party or the other, but given Sanders' disproportionate strength with indie voters (e.g. independents supported Sanders in MI by 70-28%), this whole argument likely just boils down to which of the candidates is better at reaching independents. If independent voters dislike Clinton, that's an electability issue.
I was really disappointed by that, because I thought it was by Matt Welch (libertarian, but sometimes has something interesting to say). Then I saw it was Matt WALSH (professional idiot).
Every time I hear Matt Walsh, I think people are talking about the guy from Veep and UCB and feel tremendously disappointed until I realize it's a different person! I bet he hates that awful blogger guy.
posted by dialetheia at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
I'd love to see a "likely voter" map that showed what the outcome of, say, the 2012 election would be if the vote were regressed (in both senses) to white* landowning males.
*the 1789 definition, please. Irish, Italian, Polish, Latino need not apply.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
*the 1789 definition, please. Irish, Italian, Polish, Latino need not apply.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stop-Trump might, but voting against someone still isn't as motivating as voting for someone.
I disagree. I think it's apparent the anti-Clinton vote is pretty motivating for some people right now. And I also think the anti-Trump vote is going to be very motivating too.
I'm fairly excited about voting against him.
posted by FJT at 1:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I disagree. I think it's apparent the anti-Clinton vote is pretty motivating for some people right now. And I also think the anti-Trump vote is going to be very motivating too.
I'm fairly excited about voting against him.
posted by FJT at 1:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What "strongman-demogogue" have we elected to public office here in America on the grounds that he'd force 11 million people to emigrate?
That's basically Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears was a forced migration of 0.1% of the total 1830 US population. Deporting 11 million people would be 0.3% of the total 2010 US population.
posted by absalom at 1:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
That's basically Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears was a forced migration of 0.1% of the total 1830 US population. Deporting 11 million people would be 0.3% of the total 2010 US population.
posted by absalom at 1:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
I think it's apparent the anti-Clinton vote is pretty motivating for some people right now.
If you mean in the Dem primary, I don't think it would be nearly as motivating in the absence of a candidate like Sanders that people actually believed in. Most of those folks just wouldn't be voting. I don't see all those people lining up behind O'Malley, for example. There will definitely be many party-loyal anti-Clinton voters on the right, but the anti-Obama voters in 2012 weren't enough to overcome the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney (kind of a mirror of Kerry in 2004, in a way - "anybody but Obama" was a losing message, just like "anybody but Bush").
If it's Clinton vs. Trump, it will be a super ugly and negative election because 56% of the country says they won't vote for Clinton, but 66% of the country says they won't vote for Trump. Those kind of numbers point to an election fought on negatives and attacks, which tends to shrink turnout by turning voters against both parties and reducing faith in the electoral process. It's exactly the sort of thing that turns off independent voters, as they found in that study. The Clinton campaign even confirms that they would be going with a very negative strategy in the general against Trump: “Hope and change, not so much,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, referring to the slogan that defined that race. “More like hate and castrate.”
The article those poll numbers are from is paywalled, but the infographic is here. Of the remaining candidates, only Kasich and Sanders still have positive favorability ratings. Only 25% of voters say Clinton will bring positive changes, and 27% say that for Trump. Clinton is betting that the much larger share who say Trump would bring the wrong kind of changes (52% for Trump, to Clinton's 29%) will be enough to sway moderates and drive sufficient turnout. She may yet be right, and I do still expect her to beat Trump unless he can make serious inroads with college-educated white people in the Rust Belt, but it looks like it will be a very depressing low-turnout election even if she does win.
posted by dialetheia at 2:12 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
If you mean in the Dem primary, I don't think it would be nearly as motivating in the absence of a candidate like Sanders that people actually believed in. Most of those folks just wouldn't be voting. I don't see all those people lining up behind O'Malley, for example. There will definitely be many party-loyal anti-Clinton voters on the right, but the anti-Obama voters in 2012 weren't enough to overcome the lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney (kind of a mirror of Kerry in 2004, in a way - "anybody but Obama" was a losing message, just like "anybody but Bush").
If it's Clinton vs. Trump, it will be a super ugly and negative election because 56% of the country says they won't vote for Clinton, but 66% of the country says they won't vote for Trump. Those kind of numbers point to an election fought on negatives and attacks, which tends to shrink turnout by turning voters against both parties and reducing faith in the electoral process. It's exactly the sort of thing that turns off independent voters, as they found in that study. The Clinton campaign even confirms that they would be going with a very negative strategy in the general against Trump: “Hope and change, not so much,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, referring to the slogan that defined that race. “More like hate and castrate.”
The article those poll numbers are from is paywalled, but the infographic is here. Of the remaining candidates, only Kasich and Sanders still have positive favorability ratings. Only 25% of voters say Clinton will bring positive changes, and 27% say that for Trump. Clinton is betting that the much larger share who say Trump would bring the wrong kind of changes (52% for Trump, to Clinton's 29%) will be enough to sway moderates and drive sufficient turnout. She may yet be right, and I do still expect her to beat Trump unless he can make serious inroads with college-educated white people in the Rust Belt, but it looks like it will be a very depressing low-turnout election even if she does win.
posted by dialetheia at 2:12 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
NPR: Bernie Sanders: 'Stay Tuned ... We Can Win This Thing'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Think that's the first time I've heard Bernie on NPR this primary season. It's kind of strange to think that my confederate flag flying, gospel and recently oddly frequent NPR listening neighbor may have finally been exposed to him now.
posted by joeyh at 2:32 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by joeyh at 2:32 PM on March 9, 2016
"Seriously? The average penis is five inches long, and apparently over 80% of them are between 5 and 7. It is simply incredibly unlikely that Donald Trump has an eight inch dick. I am so tempted to bet on this."
What if it's a penis that's just licensing the Trump brand? One that's not technically his own or even attached to him, but has enormous golden letters spelling out "TRUMP PENIS" along the shaft?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
What if it's a penis that's just licensing the Trump brand? One that's not technically his own or even attached to him, but has enormous golden letters spelling out "TRUMP PENIS" along the shaft?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
What if it's a penis that's just licensing the Trump brand? One that's not technically his own or even attached to him, but has enormous golden letters spelling out "TRUMP PENIS" along the shaft?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:43 PM on March 9 [1 favorite +] [!]
-Eponyst....nevermind
posted by newpotato at 2:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:43 PM on March 9 [1 favorite +] [!]
-Eponyst....nevermind
posted by newpotato at 2:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Tyrant-Proof the White House — Before It’s Too Late
I've been trying to figure out why I'm paying so much more attention to this election than any other. I was more solidly for Obama in 08 than for Bernie now, but the primary season washed by mostly unremarked. Beyond the sheer spectacle of this horse race on both sides, I think this article gets at why it seems so much more important this time round.
“More and more, we're counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils.”
posted by joeyh at 2:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been trying to figure out why I'm paying so much more attention to this election than any other. I was more solidly for Obama in 08 than for Bernie now, but the primary season washed by mostly unremarked. Beyond the sheer spectacle of this horse race on both sides, I think this article gets at why it seems so much more important this time round.
“More and more, we're counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils.”
posted by joeyh at 2:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Three hours until the next debate.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:00 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 3:00 PM on March 9, 2016
Most of those folks just wouldn't be voting. I don't see all those people lining up behind O'Malley, for example.
Well, O'Malley wasn't very good to begin with. A stronger case that there's a significant "anyone other than Clinton" motivation was the long period where Joe Biden was considering a run. I think it was pointed out that his entrance into the primary would hurt Clinton more than any other candidate in the race and back then most people would have considered him to be Clinton's main rival if he entered the race.
Of the remaining candidates, only Kasich and Sanders still have positive favorability ratings.
Well, nobody's really cared about Kasich and I think that not being the frontrunner does keep your favorabilities up a little bit.
But mostly, I really don't think the general election this year is going to be positive at all. And, I'm very sure it will go negative especially if the Republican nominee is Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on March 9, 2016
Well, O'Malley wasn't very good to begin with. A stronger case that there's a significant "anyone other than Clinton" motivation was the long period where Joe Biden was considering a run. I think it was pointed out that his entrance into the primary would hurt Clinton more than any other candidate in the race and back then most people would have considered him to be Clinton's main rival if he entered the race.
Of the remaining candidates, only Kasich and Sanders still have positive favorability ratings.
Well, nobody's really cared about Kasich and I think that not being the frontrunner does keep your favorabilities up a little bit.
But mostly, I really don't think the general election this year is going to be positive at all. And, I'm very sure it will go negative especially if the Republican nominee is Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on March 9, 2016
Sanders won't go negative.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:14 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 3:14 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders won't go negative.
He's made the promise about not going negative on Clinton, but I don't see any promise he's made regarding the Republicans or Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 3:49 PM on March 9, 2016
He's made the promise about not going negative on Clinton, but I don't see any promise he's made regarding the Republicans or Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 3:49 PM on March 9, 2016
I certainly hope he would go negative to some degree on Trump. I don't mean exclusively, but I think its necessary to not JUST present a positive vision or whatever but to explicitly point out how bad what Trump is saying is. Its important to call out Trumps explicitly, overtly racist rhetoric/vision for the country as what it is, and there's no way to do that without being "negative" against him.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 3:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Tyrant-Proof the White House — Before It’s Too Late
It would be amazing if Trump's rise is a long con to force the powers that be to rein in the "imperial presidency" and scale back executive powers before he enters office.
Certainly earlier I was thinking that the idea that Trump would waltz in right after he's elected, and be able to start throwing nukes at will and so forth is overblown; Obama would use the lame duck period to revamp as many crucial systems as possible, building in multiple internal checks and balances overnight as a desperate gambit to keep the responsible apparatchiks who've been working in the machine all of their lives from having to follow a President Trump's more dangerous ideas.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:03 PM on March 9, 2016
It would be amazing if Trump's rise is a long con to force the powers that be to rein in the "imperial presidency" and scale back executive powers before he enters office.
Certainly earlier I was thinking that the idea that Trump would waltz in right after he's elected, and be able to start throwing nukes at will and so forth is overblown; Obama would use the lame duck period to revamp as many crucial systems as possible, building in multiple internal checks and balances overnight as a desperate gambit to keep the responsible apparatchiks who've been working in the machine all of their lives from having to follow a President Trump's more dangerous ideas.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:03 PM on March 9, 2016
There's saying negative-but-factual things about your opponent, and then there's "going negative," which usually connotes below-the-belt or personal attacks. I'm saying Sanders won't do the latter, in debates or in ads. Sanders and Kasich are the only two left who won't.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack, I'm just genuinely curious...
It's been reported Trump's father had Alzheimer's, and as far as I know there could be a genetic component to Alzheimer's, so I got to wondering the other day in a purely hypothetical way:
Are there any mechanisms in place if a sitting President (any President) is diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office? Would the President's doctor legally be required to disclose this to anyone in government so the 25th Amendment could be invoked? Could he even disclose it with patient confidentiality/ HIPAA?
If I'm not mistaken, Reagan didn't announce his illness until after his term was over, although there seem to be signs it was a factor before then but Nancy kept everything running.
And now I find myself wondering the terrifying thought: in this hypothetical scenario, could Melania hold the nation together?
posted by bluecore at 4:16 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's been reported Trump's father had Alzheimer's, and as far as I know there could be a genetic component to Alzheimer's, so I got to wondering the other day in a purely hypothetical way:
Are there any mechanisms in place if a sitting President (any President) is diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office? Would the President's doctor legally be required to disclose this to anyone in government so the 25th Amendment could be invoked? Could he even disclose it with patient confidentiality/ HIPAA?
If I'm not mistaken, Reagan didn't announce his illness until after his term was over, although there seem to be signs it was a factor before then but Nancy kept everything running.
And now I find myself wondering the terrifying thought: in this hypothetical scenario, could Melania hold the nation together?
posted by bluecore at 4:16 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess it comes down to definition. Wiki for example defines negative campaigning as "attacking an opponent's personality, record, or opinion" which Sanders absolutely should do. You are referring to a small subset of negative campaigning, although I think attacking Trump's personality is actually a valid and necessary thing to do. His personality IS his campaign, far more than his positions or record (this is less true of Cruz, for example).
posted by thefoxgod at 4:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 4:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wired: So, About That ‘Tiny Hands’ Trump Chrome Extension…
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know very little about Melania Trump but I'm pretty sure I'd rather she was the one calling the shots.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Deporting 11 million people would be 0.3% of the total 2010 US population.
Or maybe 3%?
posted by snofoam at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or maybe 3%?
posted by snofoam at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
debate/election threads must be formally declared in accordance with our ancient laws, but yeah probably
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
*blesses the post with salt*
It is done.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:04 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is done.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:04 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders deserves a metric ton of credit for keeping his campaign clean, despite repeated goading from Clinton, her family members, and her campaign staff. But he has also pushed back at the media, to get its people to stick to a substantive discussion of issues they try to make the campaign about puerile, dumb, unhelpful bullshit like appearance or conflict or celebrity status.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:13 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
From the article that futz linked: Clinton's camp ramps up attack on Sanders' auto bailout vote
The disappointing results in Michigan, Mook said, taught the campaign that it must “work even harder to amplify Secretary Clinton’s economic arguments,”...
Right. Twisty twist, little hardball of fact. Context removed, lack of tact.
Release the transcripts if you want folks to know more about your economic inclinations. Maybe explain this while you're at it:
Hillary Clinton Showed Support, Associates Profited from Ex-Im Bank Financing World’s Largest Coal Plants in South Africa
posted by CincyBlues at 5:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The disappointing results in Michigan, Mook said, taught the campaign that it must “work even harder to amplify Secretary Clinton’s economic arguments,”...
Right. Twisty twist, little hardball of fact. Context removed, lack of tact.
Release the transcripts if you want folks to know more about your economic inclinations. Maybe explain this while you're at it:
Hillary Clinton Showed Support, Associates Profited from Ex-Im Bank Financing World’s Largest Coal Plants in South Africa
posted by CincyBlues at 5:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the article that futz linked: Clinton's camp ramps up attack on Sanders' auto bailout vote
Two things.
This ploy didn't work out well for them in Michigan &
It is a lie.
But by all means...
posted by futz at 5:45 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two things.
This ploy didn't work out well for them in Michigan &
It is a lie.
But by all means...
posted by futz at 5:45 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie has the pulpit. He doesn't have to go negative, just assert himself and use the truth. Like the bank vs. auto bruhaha.
posted by clavdivs at 5:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 5:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
mumior, it's rather an "Only Sanders could go to Israel" situation, eh?
I'm concerned that Sanders might face a SwiftBoat Veterans type attack ad campaign from right-wing Jewish groups. (Sheldon Adelson would be only too happy to fund it to any level of money.) It could be brutally, evilly effective in a couple of ways:
1) rally various Christian factions with weird apocalyptic beliefs about Israel against him
2) remind the many quietly anti-Semitic voters about his background, even as he refutes it.
3) split Jewish voters and contributors on political lines
4) divert him from his message to spending his time fighting on a battlefront that doesn't help him no matter what the outcome of the battle is.
posted by msalt at 5:56 PM on March 9, 2016
I'm concerned that Sanders might face a SwiftBoat Veterans type attack ad campaign from right-wing Jewish groups. (Sheldon Adelson would be only too happy to fund it to any level of money.) It could be brutally, evilly effective in a couple of ways:
1) rally various Christian factions with weird apocalyptic beliefs about Israel against him
2) remind the many quietly anti-Semitic voters about his background, even as he refutes it.
3) split Jewish voters and contributors on political lines
4) divert him from his message to spending his time fighting on a battlefront that doesn't help him no matter what the outcome of the battle is.
posted by msalt at 5:56 PM on March 9, 2016
That is a lot of unhelpful speculation.
posted by futz at 5:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're right, we should just skip into the general election that determines the Supreme Court for the rest of our lives without giving a thought to the dangers involved.
Because who would think Republican strategists would do something mean and unfair just to win a presidential race? That was silly of me. I'm sorry.
posted by msalt at 6:10 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because who would think Republican strategists would do something mean and unfair just to win a presidential race? That was silly of me. I'm sorry.
posted by msalt at 6:10 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is this the debate thread?!
I don't see a declaration anywhere else, so:
##### DEBATE THREAD DECLARED ######
posted by homunculus at 6:12 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see a declaration anywhere else, so:
##### DEBATE THREAD DECLARED ######
posted by homunculus at 6:12 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, if that's okay...
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on March 9, 2016
Not in love with the first set of questions.
"Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, can you comment on the horse race, please?"
posted by duffell at 6:14 PM on March 9, 2016
"Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders, can you comment on the horse race, please?"
posted by duffell at 6:14 PM on March 9, 2016
Please fix the candidates' microphones, way too much reverb.
posted by peeedro at 6:15 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:15 PM on March 9, 2016
That sounded like a 'yes' to me.
posted by homunculus at 6:18 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:18 PM on March 9, 2016
She won't give the "Yes, Trump is a racist" soundbite but she's being pretty critical. Her first 3 questions have all been kinda tough.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:19 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:19 PM on March 9, 2016
Glad we're spending the whole democratic debate talking about the republicans.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:19 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:19 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Hispandering" Glad I tuned in to this one.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the record, Bernie got the same question, was also critical and used his "no one's asked me for my birth certificate like they did with Obama" line, but also wouldn't say flatly he's a racist.
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016
Amy Sullivan on Twitter after Sanders' comments on Trump: Spent a moment there trying to remember what the Bertha Movement was.
posted by duffell at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by duffell at 6:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Glad we're spending the whole democratic debate talking about the republicans.
It may not be good for America, but it's damn good forCBS CNN.
posted by homunculus at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2016
It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for
posted by homunculus at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2016
Hillary being asked if she is pandering to Hispanics. And if she has flip flopped on immigration.
Now question to Sanders on not supporting the immigration bill.
posted by futz at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2016
Now question to Sanders on not supporting the immigration bill.
posted by futz at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2016
Amy Sullivan on Twitter after Sanders' comments on Trump: Spent a moment there trying to remember what the Bertha Movement was.
I wish to register for a change of username please
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wish to register for a change of username please
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wish to register for a change of username please
Five bucks, same as in town.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Five bucks, same as in town.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
As the US has developed a Latin American-style income distribution, its politics have grown infested with Latin American-style populists, of both the left and the right.
posted by andrewcooke at 6:26 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 6:26 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"And you, Senator, are no Ted Kennedy!"
No? Nothing? Meh.
posted by homunculus at 6:28 PM on March 9, 2016
No? Nothing? Meh.
posted by homunculus at 6:28 PM on March 9, 2016
If Bernie was aware of the world outside of US borders, and willing to be a bit more critical of Hillary, he could point out why there are children fleeing Honduras (there was a Hillary-supported coup there during her time in the state department).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marco Rubio held a rally at an all-but-empty stadium in Hialeah today.
posted by peeedro at 6:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 6:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Republican news, Marco Rubio just held a rally in an almost entirely empty stadium… in Hialeah. That dude is toast.
posted by donatella at 6:30 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by donatella at 6:30 PM on March 9, 2016
If Bernie was aware of the world outside of US borders
Of course he is aware. And yes, he should have gone there in regards to Honduras.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Of course he is aware. And yes, he should have gone there in regards to Honduras.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
What Trump Does and Does Not Have in Common with Hitler, analysis from Australia:
Trump or Cruz, doesn't matter; each is a manifestation of the malaise afflicting and destroying America. There will be more like them, and worse. The establishment, which Cruz correctly says is feeling utter terror, must look inwards and face the ugly truth. This is all its own doing. A more apt historical precedent might be France, circa 1789.
posted by bardophile at 6:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 6:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course he is aware. And yes, he should have gone there in regards to Honduras.
Nah, it's too easy and effective for Hillary to do the routine where she is shocked and appalled Sanders would criticize anything that happened under Obama.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nah, it's too easy and effective for Hillary to do the routine where she is shocked and appalled Sanders would criticize anything that happened under Obama.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nope. Served up on a silver platter for him, and he doesn't take the opportunity. Typical Bernie debating. So frustrating to watch.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:39 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:39 PM on March 9, 2016
Some background on the Honduras situation: The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders: The names of Berta Cáceres’s murderers are yet unknown. But we know who killed her.
Via.
posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Via.
posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary is spinning the SHIT out of the auto bailout. Smarmy.
posted by futz at 6:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 6:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Madame secretary, I will match my [workers rights] record against yours any day of the week."
posted by melissasaurus at 6:44 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:44 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
"The difference between Trump's wall and the one I supported is that mine is real."
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any time they talk about the wall, they should be required to play this mashup in the background.
posted by homunculus at 6:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary is trying to defend her support of a Mexico wall. She calls her wall "some fencing".
posted by futz at 6:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the most ridiculous claim of the night was Hillary's assertion that Bernie was in league with the Minutemen, but let's see if she can top that by the time the debate is through.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:54 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:54 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
HRC's body language is interesting while she is responding to the "are you trustworthy" question.
posted by futz at 6:56 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by futz at 6:56 PM on March 9, 2016
Yeah, her repeated use of the phrase "he stood with the Minutemen" seemed designed to... evoke a visual.
posted by duffell at 6:59 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by duffell at 6:59 PM on March 9, 2016
Boo! No next question!
posted by homunculus at 6:59 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:59 PM on March 9, 2016
Walked into that one, Bernie.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:01 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:01 PM on March 9, 2016
Now Clinton is trying to make it look like Bernie Sanders is supported by the Koch brothers.
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can't fathom who in the Clinton campaign thought it was a smart move to try to attack Bernie on his labor bona fides.
posted by one_bean at 7:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by one_bean at 7:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really do want to support Hillary but MY GOD she is avoiding giving a straight answer. So very disingenuous. Please Hillary prove people wrong and do something transparent for once in your life.
Hyperbole aside, she really needs to help us like her at this point. Some of us anyway.
posted by futz at 7:03 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hyperbole aside, she really needs to help us like her at this point. Some of us anyway.
posted by futz at 7:03 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't need like her, but I would like to trust her.
posted by homunculus at 7:04 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:04 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Not a Hillary fan, but the Bengazi stuff is just a stretch at best.
Bernie's counterpunch on Kissenger is interesting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:06 PM on March 9, 2016
Bernie's counterpunch on Kissenger is interesting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:06 PM on March 9, 2016
If they don't ask about abortion I'm going to freaking lose it.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah. Abortion/climate change/paid family leave etc
Ask them!
posted by futz at 7:11 PM on March 9, 2016
Ask them!
posted by futz at 7:11 PM on March 9, 2016
YUUUGE!
posted by homunculus at 7:16 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by homunculus at 7:16 PM on March 9, 2016
You can absolutely refinance student loans right now. You can pay back federal student loans as a percentage of your income and it ends at a certain date. How is her plan any different than what exists now?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:22 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is someone whispering into their mic?
posted by homunculus at 7:23 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 7:23 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
On health care and education, Clinton is the candidate of "No, we can't!" I really liked the old slogan of "Yes, we can." But, whatever, guess pragmatism is the order of the day.
posted by barnacles at 7:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by barnacles at 7:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is someone whispering into their mic?
My wife just now: "That's so creepy. I had my eyes closed, it sounded like there was a demon in here."
posted by duffell at 7:26 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
My wife just now: "That's so creepy. I had my eyes closed, it sounded like there was a demon in here."
posted by duffell at 7:26 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
B is killing it on healthcare.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the whispering is the translators.
As for the refinancing, there's a difference between that and the repayment assistance programs that cap your payment based on your income (10-12%). Refinancing would be a big, big deal because a lot of people are paying 7% interest on their loans, and over 10-20 years, they're getting killed just on the interest. We wouldn't even need so much assistance with repayment if students were given decent interest rates. Considering the risk for these loans is so low because about the only way you get out of the debt is through death or disability, 1-2% or so seems like it should be able to cover the cost of the program.
posted by skewed at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
As for the refinancing, there's a difference between that and the repayment assistance programs that cap your payment based on your income (10-12%). Refinancing would be a big, big deal because a lot of people are paying 7% interest on their loans, and over 10-20 years, they're getting killed just on the interest. We wouldn't even need so much assistance with repayment if students were given decent interest rates. Considering the risk for these loans is so low because about the only way you get out of the debt is through death or disability, 1-2% or so seems like it should be able to cover the cost of the program.
posted by skewed at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh, here we go with Climate Change!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:27 PM on March 9, 2016
Preach Bernie. So true. We have 90% insurance coverage but is not in most cases ACTUAL coverage. The high deductibles for example are insane.
posted by futz at 7:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
ABOUT TIME. Also I want to hear about ADAPTATION AND RELOCATION STRATEGIES not just "clean energy transition" talking points
posted by mostly vowels at 7:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 7:29 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can currently refinance student loans - your fed loans would no longer be fed loans but you can roll them into a consolidation loan with a private company. I happen to think all outstanding student loans should be immediately forgiven. But if that doesn't happen, yes the rate for all federal student loans should be zero.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:30 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 7:30 PM on March 9, 2016
Bernie is about to bernsplode.
posted by futz at 7:31 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:31 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, love the Beetles-level support both of them are getting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:32 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:32 PM on March 9, 2016
Beatles. Whatevs...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:32 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:32 PM on March 9, 2016
Bernie mentioned fracking and then the topic is switched. We need a long format debate.
posted by futz at 7:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:33 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
That fracking call-out was a love letter to Ohio's lefties voting next week.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:33 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by mostly vowels at 7:33 PM on March 9, 2016
The dream of the 90s is alive in Hillary.
posted by snofoam at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Refinancing through a private banks is available, but it's not a good deal unless you already have a pretty good job and not that much debt. You lose out on the possibility of public service loan forgiveness, 20-year forgiveness under the new plans, and income based repayment, which is huge. Also, you lose out on a lot of the protections you get from having a government backed loan: deferment for economic hardship or further school (so if you refinance your undergrad debt, you're kind of screwed if you want to go to grad school).
posted by skewed at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Strawman Hillary on Bernie daring to be critical of Obama and Bill.
posted by futz at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:35 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
George W. Bush, The Koch Brothers, the Minutemen... all of these tawdry Bernie connections coming to light
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:36 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:36 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Shit flinging is what Hillary's campaigns are best at.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't think either of them are great on student loans. There needs to be radical action on current student loans; 10-20 years down the road, the generation that should be buying durable goods will not have enough savings to do so; the tax liability at the end of PAYE/IBR (unless you do public intersst) is a ticking time bomb.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I had no idea Bernie was such a supporter of Dubya. *eyeroll*
posted by zug at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 7:37 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, I wish someone would ask Clinton what she thinks about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's payday loan sellout, especially considering Hillary's own previous praise of the CFPB.
posted by homunculus at 7:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Also, the fed IBR programs don't take into account your private student loan burden when calculating payments. And, private student loans aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy even though they don't provide the same reduced payment options. I think people really don't get how big of a deal student loans are. it is the single most important issue for my cohort (late 20s and 30s).
posted by melissasaurus at 7:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wooo, having to go back to 1985 for a gotcha.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
THIS is foriegn policy experience.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:44 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
1985 and apparently taken out of context to boot?
posted by futz at 7:45 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:45 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Impressive answer from Bernie in response to that attempted hitjob. Progressive anti-imperialist position about the US's role in Latin America.
Oh and of course now Hillary is going full red-baiting.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:47 PM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Oh and of course now Hillary is going full red-baiting.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:47 PM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Is Sanders getting less time than Hillary for his answers? Seems like he is always getting cut off...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Okay why does every segment end with Bernie being cut off mid sentence?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Ugh the abortion question is really a SCOTUS question
posted by melissasaurus at 7:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Bernie doesn't even get to answer? Wtf?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:50 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:50 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary is really making me not like her. I wonder who some of this stuff is supposed to appeal to.
posted by snofoam at 7:51 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by snofoam at 7:51 PM on March 9, 2016
Maybe she's trying to appeal to Trump supporters. If she calls him "Little Bernie" and punches a protester in the face we'll know for sure.
posted by mmoncur at 7:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 7:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wooo, having to go back to 1985 for a gotcha.
Folks dig all the way back to Hillary being a Goldwater Girl and Sanders' civil rights experience. 1985 seems kinda new in comparison.
posted by FJT at 7:56 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Folks dig all the way back to Hillary being a Goldwater Girl and Sanders' civil rights experience. 1985 seems kinda new in comparison.
posted by FJT at 7:56 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
That ad for whatever HEADS OF SPACE is convinced me to look up HEADS OF SPACE to find out what it is. Good job, advertiser.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks like Bernie has veeerry large hands. Yuk yuk yuk.
posted by futz at 7:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that was people trying to get out of there as fast as possible
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
but also wouldn't say flatly he's a racist.
Probably just as well. People get bogged down in the definition of racist/racism and immediately throw their shields up when it's aimed at them or people they like. Calling them out on that in day to day life is totally legit, but if you want to communicate with folks such that you get their vote or even just drop a few shingles from their eyes - talking about facts about behavior and the consequences to people is maybe better?
Then again we learned that when people hear certain criminal justice stuff is racist they like it better so what the fuck do I know about understanding human behavior.
posted by phearlez at 8:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Probably just as well. People get bogged down in the definition of racist/racism and immediately throw their shields up when it's aimed at them or people they like. Calling them out on that in day to day life is totally legit, but if you want to communicate with folks such that you get their vote or even just drop a few shingles from their eyes - talking about facts about behavior and the consequences to people is maybe better?
Then again we learned that when people hear certain criminal justice stuff is racist they like it better so what the fuck do I know about understanding human behavior.
posted by phearlez at 8:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
H.Amdt.971 to H.R.5441
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Apparently this is the minutemen amendment Hillary was referring to.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:04 PM on March 9, 2016
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Apparently this is the minutemen amendment Hillary was referring to.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:04 PM on March 9, 2016
I love that Bernie said he would raise the minimum raise to "15 bucks an hour."
posted by Room 641-A at 8:04 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:04 PM on March 9, 2016
Detroit Free Press: The more than 2.5 million voters who cast a ballot in Michigan's presidential primary Tuesday set a new state record — shattering the old mark of 1.9 million people who voted in 1972.
posted by bardophile at 8:05 PM on March 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 8:05 PM on March 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Great debate. Some tough, pointed questions. Especially cool that both candidates discussed climate change. The difference in content and tone between the two parties is astounding.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:06 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:06 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Did I miss the debate already?
posted by teponaztli at 8:15 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 8:15 PM on March 9, 2016
Definitely a stark difference between the two. I'm with Sanders on basically everything. On most things, Hillary is the same or almost as good. I don't really understand some of the odd attacks, like the minutemen or Kochs. Who would find that convincing? I feel like Hillary's space is "I also want to help people, I'm a little more realistic and that will make me better at achieving the stuff we all basically want." Why not just make that point? I feel like a lot of people would go for that.
posted by snofoam at 8:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Charles Pierce: These Are the People Who Voted in Michigan, and This Is Why They Did. On the ground in Flint, where the stakes have never been higher.
Why Bernie Won Michigan: This is becoming an election for people who see past the politics all the way into their own lives.
posted by homunculus at 8:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why Bernie Won Michigan: This is becoming an election for people who see past the politics all the way into their own lives.
posted by homunculus at 8:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I think Clinton attempting to attack or mischaracterize his record is a bad move. Especially now that most people are on the Internet and can get clarification almost immediately (vs previous elections).
posted by melissasaurus at 8:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 8:25 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Talking Points Memo, re the Cuba thing:
That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats. You can talk about red-baiting and swift-boating type politics. And I'm sure there'd be no end of that. But Sanders comes out of what is a very counter-cultural strand of late 20th century American politics. I know because I sort of come out of it too, at least I grew up in it. There's a lot that is very standard in that world that sounds very alien to a lot of American voters. This is a fact. Agree with it or not, it is a fact. I think many Democrats quite legitimately worry that by going through this history of statements Republicans would be able to disqualify Sanders with a significant number of voters.
This is my concern. I'm not saying Sanders is a communist or backs the Castro regime or whatever. But he very easily could be portrayed that way. I know the Sanders fans in this thread blew it off as "cheap shot", "that was 30 years ago" etc. But I think this is a potentially productive area for GOP attacks.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats. You can talk about red-baiting and swift-boating type politics. And I'm sure there'd be no end of that. But Sanders comes out of what is a very counter-cultural strand of late 20th century American politics. I know because I sort of come out of it too, at least I grew up in it. There's a lot that is very standard in that world that sounds very alien to a lot of American voters. This is a fact. Agree with it or not, it is a fact. I think many Democrats quite legitimately worry that by going through this history of statements Republicans would be able to disqualify Sanders with a significant number of voters.
This is my concern. I'm not saying Sanders is a communist or backs the Castro regime or whatever. But he very easily could be portrayed that way. I know the Sanders fans in this thread blew it off as "cheap shot", "that was 30 years ago" etc. But I think this is a potentially productive area for GOP attacks.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Especially since his "weakness" is steadfast commitment to ideals that are too progressive for the mainstream. And hers may be that many don't trust her. It seems like exactly the wrong tactic.
posted by snofoam at 8:41 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by snofoam at 8:41 PM on March 9, 2016
The Cuba thing seems like a much more rational attack to make, and it fits with the narrative that already exists. It's also hard to defend because it is complicated to explain that some things were positive, like access to education, training lots of doctors, etc.
posted by snofoam at 8:47 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by snofoam at 8:47 PM on March 9, 2016
That will absolutely be a line of attack if Sen. Sanders with the nomination.
However the same kind of thing happened with Obama in 2008 -- Bill Ayers, "pallin' around with terrorists", etc., and it didn't work there. I think the red-baiting line is not nearly as salient to voters as members of the political establishment (on both sides) think.
The Cold War ended a generation ago.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
However the same kind of thing happened with Obama in 2008 -- Bill Ayers, "pallin' around with terrorists", etc., and it didn't work there. I think the red-baiting line is not nearly as salient to voters as members of the political establishment (on both sides) think.
The Cold War ended a generation ago.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:49 PM on March 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Clinton personifies, in many ways, the Democratic Party's overall inability to identify and capitalize on their real points of connection with the US electorate.
posted by bardophile at 8:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 8:55 PM on March 9, 2016 [22 favorites]
Rubio gave a speech to a nearly-empty stadium in Florida today. I guess that means Trump is going to win Florida.
posted by mmoncur at 8:59 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by mmoncur at 8:59 PM on March 9, 2016
Oh yeah, Bill Ayers! Looking back I realize I didn't give the media enough credit in making that whole "scandal" happen.
posted by teponaztli at 8:59 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by teponaztli at 8:59 PM on March 9, 2016
There's some truth to that, bardophile, but she's still getting half or more of the votes so it's not like nobody wants her to be the nominee. I wish there was a nominee that was about 75% Sanders, 25% Clinton, and 15 years younger.
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think there's a real difference between the Obama allegations (Bill Ayers, etc.) and Sanders on Castro and Ortega.
Obama knew Ayers many years later, when he had changed. The stuff about his preacher was just weak, and couldn't avoid the fact that no matter what, you were talking about Obama's Christian minister. It was fruitful ground to fight on.
With Bernie though, "30 years ago" was still 30 years after the Cuban revolution. He had no excuse for not knowing the nature of Castro's regime at that time. It was striking that Sanders totally avoided the question, even after the interviewer pointed out that evaded the question and gave him another chance.
posted by msalt at 9:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obama knew Ayers many years later, when he had changed. The stuff about his preacher was just weak, and couldn't avoid the fact that no matter what, you were talking about Obama's Christian minister. It was fruitful ground to fight on.
With Bernie though, "30 years ago" was still 30 years after the Cuban revolution. He had no excuse for not knowing the nature of Castro's regime at that time. It was striking that Sanders totally avoided the question, even after the interviewer pointed out that evaded the question and gave him another chance.
posted by msalt at 9:02 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was striking that Sanders totally avoided the question, even after the interviewer pointed out that evaded the question and gave him another chance.
To be honest, I can't even watch the debates anymore because I'm so anxious Bernie will slip up by a millimeter and it'll be enough for the media to latch onto as totally rock solid proof that Bernie is unelectable, and we should be serious and vote for the real candidate, gosh. Like, it's not even the Republicans I'm worried about, it's the Democrats, CNN, and my own Facebook feed that worries me the most. It's not that the analysis is necessarily wrong or coming from a bad place. It's jut that the horse race is the main thing that everyone is talking about, so it doesn't even matter what Bernie actually means anymore, just what other people might think when they hear it, and to be honest it's driving me crazy.
posted by teponaztli at 9:09 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
To be honest, I can't even watch the debates anymore because I'm so anxious Bernie will slip up by a millimeter and it'll be enough for the media to latch onto as totally rock solid proof that Bernie is unelectable, and we should be serious and vote for the real candidate, gosh. Like, it's not even the Republicans I'm worried about, it's the Democrats, CNN, and my own Facebook feed that worries me the most. It's not that the analysis is necessarily wrong or coming from a bad place. It's jut that the horse race is the main thing that everyone is talking about, so it doesn't even matter what Bernie actually means anymore, just what other people might think when they hear it, and to be honest it's driving me crazy.
posted by teponaztli at 9:09 PM on March 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I think Clinton attempting to attack or mischaracterize his record is a bad move.
I agree, though I think there is a point she could have made there. Something like,
"You know, Senator Sanders keeps making these insinuations like, "The money interests are not dumb, they wouldn't give you money if they didn't think it would help them."
"That's a crock of shit. If you've got an allegation, make it. But the Koch Brothers are spending money to get you elected, not me, and they're not dumb either. I'm not going to insinuate that that means you're in their pocket, because that would be the weakest kind of cheap insinuation. But , Senator Seanders, you shouldn't play that game either. You should not be making those insinuations yourself. It's beneath you."
posted by msalt at 9:10 PM on March 9, 2016
I agree, though I think there is a point she could have made there. Something like,
"You know, Senator Sanders keeps making these insinuations like, "The money interests are not dumb, they wouldn't give you money if they didn't think it would help them."
"That's a crock of shit. If you've got an allegation, make it. But the Koch Brothers are spending money to get you elected, not me, and they're not dumb either. I'm not going to insinuate that that means you're in their pocket, because that would be the weakest kind of cheap insinuation. But , Senator Seanders, you shouldn't play that game either. You should not be making those insinuations yourself. It's beneath you."
posted by msalt at 9:10 PM on March 9, 2016
True. But he stayed on (derail-ing) message, which was to pivot to the shitty, shitty things the US has done in Latin America. That's the kind of truth-telling that is actually authentic and healing, and I think my (snake-people) generation responds to it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:11 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:11 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Haha yeah, I wish she had doubled down on the Koch bros thing too - it really underscores her disingenuousness and makes her look desperate.
posted by dialetheia at 9:14 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:14 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
True. But he stayed on (derail-ing) message, which was to pivot to the shitty, shitty things the US has done in Latin America.
Which I don't think is an effective answer. "America does really bad shit, so I didn't want to call out a dictator who is anti-American" doesn't seem like a really good stance to go into the general election with.
posted by msalt at 9:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which I don't think is an effective answer. "America does really bad shit, so I didn't want to call out a dictator who is anti-American" doesn't seem like a really good stance to go into the general election with.
posted by msalt at 9:20 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sec. Clinton already tried the "artful smear" tack and it didn't go well.
She's not going to beat Sen. Sanders on corporatism / Wall Street / Citizens United / big money in politics.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's not going to beat Sen. Sanders on corporatism / Wall Street / Citizens United / big money in politics.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is like the "Suppression of the Chromatic Sedition"
flatland
posted by clavdivs at 9:21 PM on March 9, 2016
flatland
posted by clavdivs at 9:21 PM on March 9, 2016
I think there is a point she could have made there.
I don't see it. She would offer to drop a totally dishonest attack in exchange for Sanders not raising legitimate concerns about the impact of receiving vast sums of money from certain industries?
posted by snofoam at 9:23 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see it. She would offer to drop a totally dishonest attack in exchange for Sanders not raising legitimate concerns about the impact of receiving vast sums of money from certain industries?
posted by snofoam at 9:23 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm curious, does anybody believe Hillary's implication that Bernie Sanders supports the Cuban government disappearing dissidents?
I'm going to proceed assuming we all agree the answer is no, but that maybe some less informed voters might fall for it.
So okay, is this the candidate you are selling me here? Vote for her because she is the most effective liar at making up vicious attacks against her opponents?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm going to proceed assuming we all agree the answer is no, but that maybe some less informed voters might fall for it.
So okay, is this the candidate you are selling me here? Vote for her because she is the most effective liar at making up vicious attacks against her opponents?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:24 PM on March 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's not ideal or super-effective. But the presumptive Republican nominee has said things that are just as or more incendiary as recently as last week, so I don't think a gotcha-clips war is going to go in his favor.
Fortunately, in this case the media's general inability to effectively follow up on dodging will work on the side of the angels. Particularly as it's about damn time we had a national conversation about American empire, ramifications thereof.
Also, on non-preview, what Drinky Die said. Sen. Sanders is obviously not any sort of authoritarian and that kind of insinuation is a nasty drive-by mud-flinging kind of thing for a professed progressive to do.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fortunately, in this case the media's general inability to effectively follow up on dodging will work on the side of the angels. Particularly as it's about damn time we had a national conversation about American empire, ramifications thereof.
Also, on non-preview, what Drinky Die said. Sen. Sanders is obviously not any sort of authoritarian and that kind of insinuation is a nasty drive-by mud-flinging kind of thing for a professed progressive to do.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Her negatives are already sky high. She's trying to raise his (or should be). She can open up the Koch thing and the Castro thing because she's already been singed by the Wall Street thing and the Libya thing. How much more singed can she get? A lot less than Sanders can.
posted by notyou at 9:30 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by notyou at 9:30 PM on March 9, 2016
She's trying to raise his [negatives] (or should be).
Why? What good does it do for her in the general election?
And if she's so unpopular that she can't win the nomination without dredging up this kind of crap, she doesn't deserve it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why? What good does it do for her in the general election?
And if she's so unpopular that she can't win the nomination without dredging up this kind of crap, she doesn't deserve it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:34 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
> So okay, is this the candidate you are selling me here? Vote for her because she is the most effective liar at making up vicious attacks against her opponents?
If she ends up being the one running against Trump, then yes. Until then, no.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:36 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she ends up being the one running against Trump, then yes. Until then, no.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:36 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And if she's so unpopular that she can't win the nomination without dredging up this kind of crap, she doesn't deserve it.
And if Sanders can't shrug off some pretty restrained attacks from a relative ally during the primary, he's going to be a nothing but a bug-smear on the windshield of the republican hatemobile in the general. Not only haven't they bothered to train the big guns on him yet, they're actively supporting him.
posted by dersins at 9:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
And if Sanders can't shrug off some pretty restrained attacks from a relative ally during the primary, he's going to be a nothing but a bug-smear on the windshield of the republican hatemobile in the general. Not only haven't they bothered to train the big guns on him yet, they're actively supporting him.
posted by dersins at 9:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
She'd like to end this on 3/15 and turn her attention to the general. This is the last debate before then, iirc. No reason save it for later.
posted by notyou at 9:43 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by notyou at 9:43 PM on March 9, 2016
You don't have to make up vicious attacks against Trump, you just quote him.
posted by teponaztli at 9:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 9:43 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm curious, does anybody believe Hillary's implication that Bernie Sanders supports the Cuban government disappearing dissidents?
No, but at the same time there seemed to have been no doubt that when Hillary said Kissinger liked the way she ran the State Department (which I originally interpreted as being good at organizing it and not really having to do necessarily with agreement on policy), that meant she supported illegally bombing Cambodia.
posted by FJT at 9:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, but at the same time there seemed to have been no doubt that when Hillary said Kissinger liked the way she ran the State Department (which I originally interpreted as being good at organizing it and not really having to do necessarily with agreement on policy), that meant she supported illegally bombing Cambodia.
posted by FJT at 9:48 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The hatemobile is running out of gas regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. And it wouldn't be any more nice to Sec. Clinton, anyhow. The only difference being that the nasty smears would be about stupid 1990s pseudo-scandals and OMG FEMINAZI as opposed to at least bringing up a conversation about US support for thugs and dictators.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 PM on March 9, 2016
she's still getting half or more of the votes
So does the Democratic party, usually. :)
More seriously, I didn't mean to imply that no one wants her. It's just this striking similarity in missed opportunities to speak with compassion and reason and explain sincerely why a particular position makes sense. She strikes that note really well sometimes, but not nearly often enough.
I wish there was a nominee that was about 75% Sanders, 25% Clinton, and 15 years younger.
Hear hear.
posted by bardophile at 9:51 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So does the Democratic party, usually. :)
More seriously, I didn't mean to imply that no one wants her. It's just this striking similarity in missed opportunities to speak with compassion and reason and explain sincerely why a particular position makes sense. She strikes that note really well sometimes, but not nearly often enough.
I wish there was a nominee that was about 75% Sanders, 25% Clinton, and 15 years younger.
Hear hear.
posted by bardophile at 9:51 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who accepts $20 million in speaking fees in the run-up to an election? I guess it works if everyone is doing it. How many average folks are ready to believe that $20 million buys nothing? Is it weird to think that a candidate might make even the tiniest sacrifice in the interest of appearing earnest?
posted by snofoam at 9:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The hatemobile is running out of gas regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. And it wouldn't be any more nice to Sec. Clinton, anyhow.
There is literally nothing the republicans can say or do to Clinton that they haven't been doing to her CONSTANTLY for like 25 years.
Sanders, on the other hand, has never been tested that way on the national stage. He has very low negatives right now in large part because people know almost nothing about him except what he says.
It would be pretty to think that's all that matters, but have you met American politics?
posted by dersins at 9:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
There is literally nothing the republicans can say or do to Clinton that they haven't been doing to her CONSTANTLY for like 25 years.
Sanders, on the other hand, has never been tested that way on the national stage. He has very low negatives right now in large part because people know almost nothing about him except what he says.
It would be pretty to think that's all that matters, but have you met American politics?
posted by dersins at 9:52 PM on March 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yup, the argument in favor of Clinton is that everyone already dislikes her and we're all familiar with how bad she is at campaigning.
posted by snofoam at 9:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
And as a result her negatives are sky-high. I'm sure they would come back down as the Democratic Party rallies around her for the general, but Sen. Sanders would see the same effect.
Is it better to have a candidate that's known and rather disliked (to be clear: somewhat unfairly so), or a candidate that's less well known but fairly well liked to the extent that they are known? I'll take my chances with the latter if I can.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is it better to have a candidate that's known and rather disliked (to be clear: somewhat unfairly so), or a candidate that's less well known but fairly well liked to the extent that they are known? I'll take my chances with the latter if I can.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:59 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm curious, does anybody believe Hillary's implication that Bernie Sanders supports the Cuban government disappearing dissidents?
The issue isn't calling for dissidents to be disappeared. It's the apparent unwillingness of Sanders to criticize ideological allies, even when they do terrible things. (He worked very hard to avoid criticizing Castro even tonight, and refused to answer the question of whether he regretted anything he said about about Ortega or Castro.)
For an outsider staking his reputation on ideological purity, being willing to admit the mistakes of people on your side is a very valid question, and Sanders did not acquit himself well tonight. Just as Republicans who supported the Contras or D'Aubbison (sp?) should fairly be asked if they are willing to distance themselves from their abuses.
posted by msalt at 10:00 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The issue isn't calling for dissidents to be disappeared. It's the apparent unwillingness of Sanders to criticize ideological allies, even when they do terrible things. (He worked very hard to avoid criticizing Castro even tonight, and refused to answer the question of whether he regretted anything he said about about Ortega or Castro.)
For an outsider staking his reputation on ideological purity, being willing to admit the mistakes of people on your side is a very valid question, and Sanders did not acquit himself well tonight. Just as Republicans who supported the Contras or D'Aubbison (sp?) should fairly be asked if they are willing to distance themselves from their abuses.
posted by msalt at 10:00 PM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I saw an article somewhere recently that noted Sec. Clinton's favorable ratings have tended to be great when she's in a position (First Lady, Senator, SoS) but not good when she's running for the position. Which isn't particularly helpful for the electability argument.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:02 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:02 PM on March 9, 2016
So the answer is "No, we don't think Sanders supports disappearing dissidents but we want him to say so just in case."
OK then.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK then.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is literally nothing the republicans can say or do to Clinton that they haven't been doing to her CONSTANTLY for like 25 years.
Not true at all - they've barely touched her record as Secretary of State beyond Benghazi, much less the Clinton Foundation. Expect to hear a lot about what a disaster Libya was, how it created a safe harbor for terrorists, and how we can't trust her judgment. Not to even mention whatever's buried in those 30k emails that just came out, or the Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest. She's done a lot since she was last "vetted" in 2008 and Sanders has been really hands-off about most of it.
Re: the Castro/Sandinista stuff, anyone who wants to attack too hard on the Sandinistas just ends up defending the Contras, which is, uh, a pretty bad look (terrorist murder squads covertly supported by the Reagan administration and trained at the School of the Americas). I thought we mostly settled that during Iran-Contra. For Castro, eh, it will probably be a dealbreaker for a number of older Cuban exiles in Florida, but I can't imagine they were supporting the democratic socialist candidate in the first place. Beyond that, we've mostly normalized relations with Cuba and it's nothing like the smear that it would have been twenty years ago. Boy, it would be interesting to have a serious debate about whether it's right for the US to support coups and depose leaders in South and Central America, though - would make for a great segue into the Honduran coup that Clinton covertly supported in her first few months as Secretary of State.
Re: campaign finance, I don't understand anyone who's arguing that the idea that political donations are made to ensure political access is something Bernie came up with on his own. That has been a perennial attack from Democrats on Republicans as far back as I can remember. Obama campaigned against taking corporate money in the 2008 primary, before he went back on most of his campaign finance promises (much to my chagrin). The idea that Bernie is the one who brought this idea to the fore is totally ridiculous, though - it's been one of our best sources of moral high ground on Republicans for years, and if nothing else, we should be worried about losing that rhetorical ammo against them if we run Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 10:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not true at all - they've barely touched her record as Secretary of State beyond Benghazi, much less the Clinton Foundation. Expect to hear a lot about what a disaster Libya was, how it created a safe harbor for terrorists, and how we can't trust her judgment. Not to even mention whatever's buried in those 30k emails that just came out, or the Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest. She's done a lot since she was last "vetted" in 2008 and Sanders has been really hands-off about most of it.
Re: the Castro/Sandinista stuff, anyone who wants to attack too hard on the Sandinistas just ends up defending the Contras, which is, uh, a pretty bad look (terrorist murder squads covertly supported by the Reagan administration and trained at the School of the Americas). I thought we mostly settled that during Iran-Contra. For Castro, eh, it will probably be a dealbreaker for a number of older Cuban exiles in Florida, but I can't imagine they were supporting the democratic socialist candidate in the first place. Beyond that, we've mostly normalized relations with Cuba and it's nothing like the smear that it would have been twenty years ago. Boy, it would be interesting to have a serious debate about whether it's right for the US to support coups and depose leaders in South and Central America, though - would make for a great segue into the Honduran coup that Clinton covertly supported in her first few months as Secretary of State.
Re: campaign finance, I don't understand anyone who's arguing that the idea that political donations are made to ensure political access is something Bernie came up with on his own. That has been a perennial attack from Democrats on Republicans as far back as I can remember. Obama campaigned against taking corporate money in the 2008 primary, before he went back on most of his campaign finance promises (much to my chagrin). The idea that Bernie is the one who brought this idea to the fore is totally ridiculous, though - it's been one of our best sources of moral high ground on Republicans for years, and if nothing else, we should be worried about losing that rhetorical ammo against them if we run Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 10:07 PM on March 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Quite. Please Republicans don't throw us into the Sandinista/Contras briar patch!
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:09 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:09 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Politifact on her claim that "her predecessors did the same thing" when asked about her private email servers: "This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did. We rate this claim Mostly False."
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Ugh, when the stupid email thing comes up all Sec. Clinton needs to say is, "Look, even the guy running against me said he's sick of hearing about my damn emails -- can you give me an actual policy question, please?" She doesn't have to go out of her way to make misleading statements.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:32 PM on March 9, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:32 PM on March 9, 2016
Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.
Yeah, I think Powell secured his email at AOL.
posted by JackFlash at 10:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, I think Powell secured his email at AOL.
posted by JackFlash at 10:38 PM on March 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am also starting wonder about taking the "she's tested" argument at face value. I agree that much dirt has been thrown her way, but how well has she actually weathered it? She beat a couple relatively lightweight Republicans for her two Senate wins, but has shown herself to be a pretty ineffective campaigner. Even with the ultimate in name recognition and the overwhelming support of the party machinery she lost to, and is now working very hard to beat, candidates that were extreme underdogs. Arguably, the fact that she is a terrible candidate is the main factor enabling the unlikely successes of Obama and Sanders.
She is tested in that she isn't in jail or ruined by scandal, but I don't think she's really shown that she's a winner in a tough race.
posted by snofoam at 10:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
She is tested in that she isn't in jail or ruined by scandal, but I don't think she's really shown that she's a winner in a tough race.
posted by snofoam at 10:39 PM on March 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
the Castro/Sandinista stuff, anyone who wants to attack too hard on the Sandinistas just ends up defending the Contras, which is, uh, a pretty bad look (terrorist murder squads covertly supported by the Reagan administration and trained at the School of the Americas).
Eh, we shouldn't forget that Donald Trump has said that Iraq was Bush's fault, Planned Parenthood does good things for women's health, and there actually should be more spending on infrastructure. I have a feeling he will attack Sanders for his meeting with Ortega and his followers won't give a fig about Reagan's dirty involvement with the Contras since back then Trump was more busy railing against Japan than with what was going on in Nicaragua.
posted by FJT at 11:51 PM on March 9, 2016
Eh, we shouldn't forget that Donald Trump has said that Iraq was Bush's fault, Planned Parenthood does good things for women's health, and there actually should be more spending on infrastructure. I have a feeling he will attack Sanders for his meeting with Ortega and his followers won't give a fig about Reagan's dirty involvement with the Contras since back then Trump was more busy railing against Japan than with what was going on in Nicaragua.
posted by FJT at 11:51 PM on March 9, 2016
The Cold War ended a generation ago.
It's amazing how outdated things like The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising are today. Yeah. Cuba's our friend now, right?
posted by mikelieman at 12:44 AM on March 10, 2016
It's amazing how outdated things like The Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising are today. Yeah. Cuba's our friend now, right?
posted by mikelieman at 12:44 AM on March 10, 2016
"she's tested"
And failed. See all those dead Iraqi and Libyan children?
posted by mikelieman at 12:45 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
And failed. See all those dead Iraqi and Libyan children?
posted by mikelieman at 12:45 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders would mop the floor with Drumpf's headpiece. It would be amusing, and a massive mandate: I'd be willing to bet a Sanders vs Drumpf would be at least a 60/40 split, if not greater. It would just be unreal the amount of air Sanders will suck out of Drumpf's campaign, because Sanders is A) an outsider B) independently funded and C) sane. I bet even the evangelicals would break to Sanders.
Hillary, who I will gladly support if (as is likely) she gets the nomination... That will be a tough fight. She has a lot of history for Drumpf to bring up, and unlike him, she's not made of media teflon. That will be a nasty, nasty fight. I expect she'd still win, but not with a mandate, and likely with something like only 45% voter turnout.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 1:53 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary, who I will gladly support if (as is likely) she gets the nomination... That will be a tough fight. She has a lot of history for Drumpf to bring up, and unlike him, she's not made of media teflon. That will be a nasty, nasty fight. I expect she'd still win, but not with a mandate, and likely with something like only 45% voter turnout.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 1:53 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I disagree. Sanders lost his shit tonight, constantly interrupting Hillary in a relatively mild debate. (I'm SHOCKED that none of you who were upset about Hillary's interruptions are complaining! Shocked, I say!)
Trump would play him like a Nintendo, and that finger jabbing, lecturing tone is not going to wear well in the first place. When it's two crabby old mean yelling at each other, the fight is on Trump's turf.
Hillary is even keel - that's the flip side of why she seems evasive, and its the direct result of all of her experience taking attacks and debating.
The constant results of the Republican primaries is, everyone who fights Trump head to head dies. Rubio is just the latest. Cruz is #2 because he has avoided engaging the Donald. Hillary's style is going to be a much more effective in debates, and that's 2/3rds of what non-political junkies see.
posted by msalt at 2:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Trump would play him like a Nintendo, and that finger jabbing, lecturing tone is not going to wear well in the first place. When it's two crabby old mean yelling at each other, the fight is on Trump's turf.
Hillary is even keel - that's the flip side of why she seems evasive, and its the direct result of all of her experience taking attacks and debating.
The constant results of the Republican primaries is, everyone who fights Trump head to head dies. Rubio is just the latest. Cruz is #2 because he has avoided engaging the Donald. Hillary's style is going to be a much more effective in debates, and that's 2/3rds of what non-political junkies see.
posted by msalt at 2:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I disagree. Sanders lost his shit tonight, constantly interrupting Hillary in a relatively mild debate.
Many commentators said he had the better performance tonight - NYT gave him the edge, as did perennial debate-grader Mark Halperin. I was glad to see Sanders show a little spine, personally. The crowd yelling "Bernie! Bernie!" at the end sure seemed to think he'd won.
posted by dialetheia at 2:34 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Many commentators said he had the better performance tonight - NYT gave him the edge, as did perennial debate-grader Mark Halperin. I was glad to see Sanders show a little spine, personally. The crowd yelling "Bernie! Bernie!" at the end sure seemed to think he'd won.
posted by dialetheia at 2:34 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
She is tested in that she isn't in jail
Yet. But with this email thing...
Hillary is even keel - that's the flip side of why she seems evasive, and its the direct result of all of her experience taking attacks and debating.
Serious question: has Hillary ever been in a tough debate? As far as I know, she has only been in relatively cordial sparrings with Democrats. She has come, in my eyes, relatively close to losing it when some of these interruptions of her happen. I think when someone (Trump) really goes after her and antagonizes her onstage, she will wither.
That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats.
I thought Sanders did relatively well with the Cuba/Nicaragua question, all things considered, but is it really so politically toxic to give a qualified defense of the Cuban revolutionaries and the Sandanistas?
Perhaps Sanders could start by reminding everyone who the Cuban revolutionaries overthrew -- the corrupt US-backed puppet Baptista, and they certainly couldn't have done it without significant support of the population. It's incontestible that social programs in Cuba are amazing given the relative poverty of the island, and amazing that the regime has survived given the US's continual regimes to subvert it, and the collapse of Cuba's former main economic sponsor, the USSR. Furthermore, there is a generational shift (notice a theme here?) in Cuban-American opinion: younger Cuban-Americans are much more in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba, ending the embargo, and in support of Obama's position towards the island. Also, there are some seriously sketchy characters involved with the hardline anti-Communist line, including honest to god terrorists that the US is (or was) harboring. Granted, according to that poll, the Castro brothers still remain bizarrely unpopular, but Sanders doesn't have to don a red-starred beret and bellow "¡Patria o Muerte!" to make the point.
As far as the Sandanistas are concerned, as pointed out above, this also involved overthrowing a dictatorship and fending off US-backed terrorist elements, as well as raising the social level of the population (with the assistance of Cuba).
For a progressive, these seem like Good Things worth defending. And if one wants to talk about political repression, denial of human rights, etc., no doubt there are issues there, but that attack can easily be parried by reference to the governance of regimes that the US is and has actively supported, many of which are far, far worse.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yet. But with this email thing...
Hillary is even keel - that's the flip side of why she seems evasive, and its the direct result of all of her experience taking attacks and debating.
Serious question: has Hillary ever been in a tough debate? As far as I know, she has only been in relatively cordial sparrings with Democrats. She has come, in my eyes, relatively close to losing it when some of these interruptions of her happen. I think when someone (Trump) really goes after her and antagonizes her onstage, she will wither.
That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats.
I thought Sanders did relatively well with the Cuba/Nicaragua question, all things considered, but is it really so politically toxic to give a qualified defense of the Cuban revolutionaries and the Sandanistas?
Perhaps Sanders could start by reminding everyone who the Cuban revolutionaries overthrew -- the corrupt US-backed puppet Baptista, and they certainly couldn't have done it without significant support of the population. It's incontestible that social programs in Cuba are amazing given the relative poverty of the island, and amazing that the regime has survived given the US's continual regimes to subvert it, and the collapse of Cuba's former main economic sponsor, the USSR. Furthermore, there is a generational shift (notice a theme here?) in Cuban-American opinion: younger Cuban-Americans are much more in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba, ending the embargo, and in support of Obama's position towards the island. Also, there are some seriously sketchy characters involved with the hardline anti-Communist line, including honest to god terrorists that the US is (or was) harboring. Granted, according to that poll, the Castro brothers still remain bizarrely unpopular, but Sanders doesn't have to don a red-starred beret and bellow "¡Patria o Muerte!" to make the point.
As far as the Sandanistas are concerned, as pointed out above, this also involved overthrowing a dictatorship and fending off US-backed terrorist elements, as well as raising the social level of the population (with the assistance of Cuba).
For a progressive, these seem like Good Things worth defending. And if one wants to talk about political repression, denial of human rights, etc., no doubt there are issues there, but that attack can easily be parried by reference to the governance of regimes that the US is and has actively supported, many of which are far, far worse.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some good zingers from the Twitter Sanderista-sphere:
@MattBinder: let us not forget how effective the "Sandinista" attack line is. it is why Bill de Blasio is not the Mayor of New York City right now.
@EdgeofSports: To be pro-Contras, given what we know now, is not only to be pro-atrocities. It's to blindly disregard the ravages of crack on Southern Cal[ifornia].
@juliacarriew: what would happen if the US ever admitted it was wrong to arm death squads and help massacre peasants in Latin America
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
@MattBinder: let us not forget how effective the "Sandinista" attack line is. it is why Bill de Blasio is not the Mayor of New York City right now.
@EdgeofSports: To be pro-Contras, given what we know now, is not only to be pro-atrocities. It's to blindly disregard the ravages of crack on Southern Cal[ifornia].
@juliacarriew: what would happen if the US ever admitted it was wrong to arm death squads and help massacre peasants in Latin America
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"he stood with the Minutemen"
I grew up in a town that has a parade and battle reenactment every Patriots Day, and that preserves the actual tavern where the Minutemen got sloshed before going out to be shot up by the Redcoats. I can say with no fear of contradiction that Bernie isn't old enough to have stood with the Minutemen.
Clinton is rewriting history again.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:30 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I grew up in a town that has a parade and battle reenactment every Patriots Day, and that preserves the actual tavern where the Minutemen got sloshed before going out to be shot up by the Redcoats. I can say with no fear of contradiction that Bernie isn't old enough to have stood with the Minutemen.
Clinton is rewriting history again.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:30 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
'"her predecessors did the same thing' when asked about her private email servers..."
If one wants to expand the scope of "predecessors" then Palin's Yahoo account and GWB's use of the RNC server after moving into the whitehouse can be included. Wouldn't be hard to find a couple dozen state governors who pull those shenanigans too. I'm not a Hillary apologist on this issue, but the potential for "everyone else does it" is available as a counter.
posted by klarck at 4:40 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If one wants to expand the scope of "predecessors" then Palin's Yahoo account and GWB's use of the RNC server after moving into the whitehouse can be included. Wouldn't be hard to find a couple dozen state governors who pull those shenanigans too. I'm not a Hillary apologist on this issue, but the potential for "everyone else does it" is available as a counter.
posted by klarck at 4:40 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio gave a speech to a nearly-empty stadium in Florida today. I guess that means Trump is going to win Florida.
I'm in SW Florida (think midwestern snowbirds) and I've been shocked by how pro-Trump it's getting. Things have been relatively calm here, politically speaking. The only yard signs I'd seen before this week were for Bernie (on a couple gazillion dollar houses on Lido Key, oddly enough). On my commute home, yesterday, I passed two groups of old men holding signs for Trump at pretty major intersections in Sarasota. There were a few honks and cheers as we passed. A couple miles later, I passed a single yard sign for Rubio in the grassy median - half bent over and looking rather pathetic. It was strikingly sad after the mini Trump rallies I'd passed just a few minutes before.
I chalked it up to the location and hoped these weren't actual Florida voters, but if Rubio's not even getting people to turn up for him in Hialeah, he's done.
posted by imbri at 4:41 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm in SW Florida (think midwestern snowbirds) and I've been shocked by how pro-Trump it's getting. Things have been relatively calm here, politically speaking. The only yard signs I'd seen before this week were for Bernie (on a couple gazillion dollar houses on Lido Key, oddly enough). On my commute home, yesterday, I passed two groups of old men holding signs for Trump at pretty major intersections in Sarasota. There were a few honks and cheers as we passed. A couple miles later, I passed a single yard sign for Rubio in the grassy median - half bent over and looking rather pathetic. It was strikingly sad after the mini Trump rallies I'd passed just a few minutes before.
I chalked it up to the location and hoped these weren't actual Florida voters, but if Rubio's not even getting people to turn up for him in Hialeah, he's done.
posted by imbri at 4:41 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm in SW Florida (think midwestern snowbirds) and I've been shocked by how pro-Trump it's getting.
I grew up in Florida, and my family still lives there. Going back home this winter and floating some political test balloons with various people, my gut sense was confirmed: forget it Jake, it's Trumptown. You only have to read the Tampa Bay Times' expose of the resegregation of pinellas counties public schools to get a feel for how well the sandy soil there has been made ready for a Trump victory.
posted by dis_integration at 4:57 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I grew up in Florida, and my family still lives there. Going back home this winter and floating some political test balloons with various people, my gut sense was confirmed: forget it Jake, it's Trumptown. You only have to read the Tampa Bay Times' expose of the resegregation of pinellas counties public schools to get a feel for how well the sandy soil there has been made ready for a Trump victory.
posted by dis_integration at 4:57 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Noisy Pink Bubbles: "For a progressive, these seem like Good Things worth defending. "
I don't think there is any concern about picking up the progressive vote. It's the other people you have to sell.
And if one wants to talk about political repression, denial of human rights, etc., no doubt there are issues there, but that attack can easily be parried by reference to the governance of regimes that the US is and has actively supported, many of which are far, far worse.
I'm having difficulty seeing, "Actually, America is really reprehensible" as a good general election selling point.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:15 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think there is any concern about picking up the progressive vote. It's the other people you have to sell.
And if one wants to talk about political repression, denial of human rights, etc., no doubt there are issues there, but that attack can easily be parried by reference to the governance of regimes that the US is and has actively supported, many of which are far, far worse.
I'm having difficulty seeing, "Actually, America is really reprehensible" as a good general election selling point.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:15 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump protester sucker-punched at North Carolina rally, videos show:
posted by zombieflanders at 6:43 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The videos, which appeared on social media early Thursday and are shot from different perspectives, show an African American with long hair wearing a white T-shirt leaving the Trump rally as the audience boos. He is being led out of the rally by men in uniforms that read “Sheriff’s Office.” The man extends a middle finger to the audience on his way out.And it gets creepier:
Then, out of nowhere, the man is punched in the face by a pony-tailed man, who appears to be white, in a cowboy hat, black vest and pink shirt as the crowd begins to cheer. The protester stumbles away, and then is detained by a number of the men in uniforms, who handcuff him while he is on the ground.
[...]
Rouse, a 32-year-old musician, said he didn’t see the punch but saw the aftermath — his friend “slammed” by officers to the ground and handcuffed. Noting that someone in the crowd shouted, “Go home n—–s,” he said he was taken aback.
Fayetteville is in Cumberland County, but an official from the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, reached by The Post early Wednesday, said officers from that jurisdiction were not the ones who detained the man. The Fayetteville Police Department also told The Post they did not detain anyone at the rally, held at the city’s Crown Coliseum. Jones said he and his friends were not arrested.So either the Sheriff's office is lying about their officers, or Trump security is impersonating them and their response is a big ol' shruggo? Or am I missing something here?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:43 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ugh, imbri, were you around when Trump flew in by helicopter for his rally back in November or December? Local news said Robarts Arena was totally packed. I worried that my brother was there. I didn't ask him, though; I didn't want to know the answer.
posted by indubitable at 6:55 AM on March 10, 2016
posted by indubitable at 6:55 AM on March 10, 2016
Serious question: has Hillary ever been in a tough debate? As far as I know, she has only been in relatively cordial sparrings with Democrats.
Yes, in her Senate run against Rick Lazio in 2000. His behaviour at the end of one debate helped cost him the election. Lazio ran an unusually nasty campaign, backed by Al D'Amato.
posted by zarq at 7:15 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, in her Senate run against Rick Lazio in 2000. His behaviour at the end of one debate helped cost him the election. Lazio ran an unusually nasty campaign, backed by Al D'Amato.
posted by zarq at 7:15 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The crowd yelling "Bernie! Bernie!" at the end sure seemed to think he'd won.
Now this is just a silly thing to say. Those were his supporters. They were cheering him. That is what supporters do. It had nothing to do with whether he'd "won."
posted by dersins at 7:19 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Now this is just a silly thing to say. Those were his supporters. They were cheering him. That is what supporters do. It had nothing to do with whether he'd "won."
posted by dersins at 7:19 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
So either the Sheriff's office is lying about their officers, or Trump security is impersonating them and their response is a big ol' shruggo? Or am I missing something here?
Police lying about when something constitutes a detention is usually an indicator that it's a day whose name ends with the letter Y. I don't know whether NC is a state where police have to provide someone with paperwork, like Florida, but cuffing someone and jerking them around, then not doing proper documenting follow-through is basically Cop 101.
So you're not missing something in that once they cuffed the dude yeah, they'd detained him. The fact that they probably did so unlawfully... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just another day in America.
posted by phearlez at 7:20 AM on March 10, 2016
Police lying about when something constitutes a detention is usually an indicator that it's a day whose name ends with the letter Y. I don't know whether NC is a state where police have to provide someone with paperwork, like Florida, but cuffing someone and jerking them around, then not doing proper documenting follow-through is basically Cop 101.
So you're not missing something in that once they cuffed the dude yeah, they'd detained him. The fact that they probably did so unlawfully... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just another day in America.
posted by phearlez at 7:20 AM on March 10, 2016
Stop laughing, Democrats! As the GOP goes down in flames, your post-Bernie civil war is almost here
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:47 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:47 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
North Carolina's Congressional Primaries Are A Mess Because Of These Maps
posted by Room 641-A at 7:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That O'Hehir piece is a good one, Noisy Pink Bubbles. I was going to post it. Couple paragraphs:
For Hillary Clinton and the political faction she embodies or represents, America is pretty much OK, both in itself and in its relationship to the world, and American politics are mostly OK too. Yeah, the Republicans have gotten really weird and increasingly crazy and some significant tweaks are needed to correct for that: We need to consolidate gains in LGBT rights and push back on women’s reproductive freedom and confront the lingering legacy of racism. We can make guns a little tougher to buy, make college a little more affordable and make sure that working people have slightly more resources and better healthcare. Those are not bad things! Moreover, it’s understandable that to many Democratic voters those sound like realistic and potentially achievable goals, whereas the Sanders agenda of “political revolution” and free stuff for everyone sounds unhinged and impossible.posted by Trochanter at 7:57 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
The problem with all that is not the agenda itself but the reassuring frame of “regular-order democracy” around it, in which such things might actually happen. No such democracy exists, which was and is the fundamental point of the Sanders campaign. You won’t hear Hillary Clinton use the term “oligarchy” to describe the way the United States is governed, as Sanders does in every stump speech. Why should she? She’s one of the oligarchs, or more properly one of their trusted employees. You won’t hear her say that free-market capitalism has utterly failed to improve the lives of ordinary people, or that the neoliberal economic regime of low taxes and government austerity is a disastrous scam that has robbed from the poor and given to the rich. Or that much of this resulted from the deregulation of financial markets carried out by her husband’s administration and a Democratic Congress, as directed by their oligarch overlords.
Those are not bad things! Moreover, it’s understandable that to many Democratic voters those sound like realistic and potentially achievable goals, whereas the Sanders agenda of “political revolution” and free stuff for everyone sounds unhinged and impossible.
Well, I mean, yes, oligarchy notwithstanding.
"Secretary Clinton, as President how will you achieve [Goal X]?"
"I will consolidate the gains made by President Obama when he did A, and build on them by doing B and C."
"Senator Sanders, as President how will you achieve [Goal X]?"
"Revolution! Down with the oligarchy! Free stuff!"
Look, I agree with Sanders that our nation looks increasingly like an oligarchy. I agree with him that we need a revolution to fix that. (And I want free stuff too!)
But, I mean, come on. Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals, and which sounds like noble-but-doomed idealism?
posted by dersins at 8:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, I mean, yes, oligarchy notwithstanding.
"Secretary Clinton, as President how will you achieve [Goal X]?"
"I will consolidate the gains made by President Obama when he did A, and build on them by doing B and C."
"Senator Sanders, as President how will you achieve [Goal X]?"
"Revolution! Down with the oligarchy! Free stuff!"
Look, I agree with Sanders that our nation looks increasingly like an oligarchy. I agree with him that we need a revolution to fix that. (And I want free stuff too!)
But, I mean, come on. Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals, and which sounds like noble-but-doomed idealism?
posted by dersins at 8:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I apologize if others have already mentioned this, but there's one talking point Hillary brings up in every debate that I really, really don't understand. It's the one where she talks about how she went to Wall Street before the collapse and stood up to them and said, hey this stuff you're doing is really dangerous, you're going to wreck the country, so cut it out! Even assuming she really did do those things (which is pretty much unverifiable, but whatever), fat lot of good it did! I guess this is supposed to be evidence that she's not afraid to stand up to Wall Street, but I'd say at best, it just looks like evidence that they don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary or anyone else in Washington wants, and at worst, it looks like she knew the collapse was coming and utterly failed to stop it.
posted by gueneverey at 8:13 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by gueneverey at 8:13 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe she's trying to imply that if Wall Street wouldn't listen to her, they're not going to listen to Bernie? IDK.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:16 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:16 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals, and which sounds like noble-but-doomed idealism
Which one sounds like an uncharitable characterization of the candidate?
posted by Fleebnork at 8:17 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Which one sounds like an uncharitable characterization of the candidate?
posted by Fleebnork at 8:17 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
That is an interesting article. In 2000 we learned the hard way that there was, in fact, a difference between the the Dem & Rep candidates. This year we're seeing pretty clearly that there is a big difference between the two Dem candidates. (The Republicans have graciously moved over to make sure there is an even bigger difference between Hillary and the Republicans.)
I find it interesting that Obama was a bit of a fake-out. Amazing to have an African-American president and someone a generation younger, but basically he continued old school policies.
I find it even more amazing that Sanders has been able to get so much support. It does not bode well for business as usual for the party elite.
posted by snofoam at 8:18 AM on March 10, 2016
I find it interesting that Obama was a bit of a fake-out. Amazing to have an African-American president and someone a generation younger, but basically he continued old school policies.
I find it even more amazing that Sanders has been able to get so much support. It does not bode well for business as usual for the party elite.
posted by snofoam at 8:18 AM on March 10, 2016
I have been brewing a (probably totally obvious) theory lately that to be candidates women and minorities actually have to be more conservative and willing to cave to power than white men. Related somewhat to the "twice as good to get half as far" and glass cliff. If you are "inherently" dangerous, you really have to overcompensate.
posted by dame at 8:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by dame at 8:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Stop laughing, Democrats! As the GOP goes down in flames, your post-Bernie civil war is almost here:
You can feel both of those things in the combination of smugness and high anxiety found among Hillary Clinton supporters
Really is this what Bernie supporters think? That somehow people who support Hillary are laughing at them and are just smug and satisfied at how things are going? And that somehow we just care about keeping the Democratic Party in power, because I don't know, we don't think anything else is wrong?
I'm more worried that in 10 years I'll have to start carrying a passport on me to show that I have a legal right to be in the United States. That's something I'm worried about, not whether or not the Democratic Party will change.
posted by FJT at 8:23 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
You can feel both of those things in the combination of smugness and high anxiety found among Hillary Clinton supporters
Really is this what Bernie supporters think? That somehow people who support Hillary are laughing at them and are just smug and satisfied at how things are going? And that somehow we just care about keeping the Democratic Party in power, because I don't know, we don't think anything else is wrong?
I'm more worried that in 10 years I'll have to start carrying a passport on me to show that I have a legal right to be in the United States. That's something I'm worried about, not whether or not the Democratic Party will change.
posted by FJT at 8:23 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
But, I mean, come on. Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals, and which sounds like noble-but-doomed idealism?
Clinton sounds like the doomed idealist because she is telling you she can achieve her goals without political revolution. You aren't getting the things she claims she can do from a Republican congress.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:25 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Clinton sounds like the doomed idealist because she is telling you she can achieve her goals without political revolution. You aren't getting the things she claims she can do from a Republican congress.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:25 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
And Sanders is?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:26 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:26 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really is this what Bernie supporters think?
I think there are exactly as many of these Hillary supporters as there are Bernie bros, and they are a very small but vocal minority.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think there are exactly as many of these Hillary supporters as there are Bernie bros, and they are a very small but vocal minority.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Hillary would get more things done. The problem is that those are not the things that I support. I think this Venn diagram puts it nicely.
Progressives don't need compromise with Republicans. We need audacity, more audacity, forever audacity.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:29 AM on March 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Hillary would get more things done. The problem is that those are not the things that I support. I think this Venn diagram puts it nicely.
Progressives don't need compromise with Republicans. We need audacity, more audacity, forever audacity.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:29 AM on March 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
I have been brewing a (probably totally obvious) theory lately that to be candidates women and minorities actually have to be more conservative and willing to cave to power than white men.
While I agree that there are gender/patriarchy dynamics at play, I think in this race it's also just a fundamental difference in the people. Bernie was an activist, who ran for mayor in a small progressive town, then House in a small progressive state, and eventually Senate in that state. He could stay to the left because he chose races that allowed him to do that (I think his political views are more important to him than winning any particular office, so I don't think he would have compromised them just to be elected). Whereas Clinton has set her sights higher from the beginning; I don't think there's any doubt that she's wanted to be president for a really long time (or, as close as she could be to president in a given era) -- for her, I think the office itself is more important that the policies necessary to get into that office. That is, I think Bernie wouldn't run for president if he couldn't do it on his platform. I think Clinton is much more willing to run on whatever is likely to get her elected (which is not necessarily a bad thing, she's trying to appeal to the electorate).
posted by melissasaurus at 8:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
While I agree that there are gender/patriarchy dynamics at play, I think in this race it's also just a fundamental difference in the people. Bernie was an activist, who ran for mayor in a small progressive town, then House in a small progressive state, and eventually Senate in that state. He could stay to the left because he chose races that allowed him to do that (I think his political views are more important to him than winning any particular office, so I don't think he would have compromised them just to be elected). Whereas Clinton has set her sights higher from the beginning; I don't think there's any doubt that she's wanted to be president for a really long time (or, as close as she could be to president in a given era) -- for her, I think the office itself is more important that the policies necessary to get into that office. That is, I think Bernie wouldn't run for president if he couldn't do it on his platform. I think Clinton is much more willing to run on whatever is likely to get her elected (which is not necessarily a bad thing, she's trying to appeal to the electorate).
posted by melissasaurus at 8:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Sanders is?
No, Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution because he is honest and pragmatic rather than "say absolutely any lie you need to in order to gain power."
posted by Drinky Die at 8:32 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
No, Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution because he is honest and pragmatic rather than "say absolutely any lie you need to in order to gain power."
posted by Drinky Die at 8:32 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Which of those sounds like someone with specific, pragmatic, achievable goals, and which sounds like noble-but-doomed idealism?
I personally find this argument entirely unconvincing. Faced with an obstructionist legislature, neither candidate will have more ability than the other to enact policy. They can both take executive action and nominate progressive justices, etc. They can both veto stupid crap. The legislature is certainly not going to be more willing to work with Clinton on anything that would benefit most Americans. (She might be more willing to work with them to deregulate investment banks or whatever.)
Of course, every argument for backing Clinton is some form of unsubstantiated hypothetical, she's tested, she'll get things done, etc. They have to be, because her record and her platform are not as focused on helping the average American.
posted by snofoam at 8:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I personally find this argument entirely unconvincing. Faced with an obstructionist legislature, neither candidate will have more ability than the other to enact policy. They can both take executive action and nominate progressive justices, etc. They can both veto stupid crap. The legislature is certainly not going to be more willing to work with Clinton on anything that would benefit most Americans. (She might be more willing to work with them to deregulate investment banks or whatever.)
Of course, every argument for backing Clinton is some form of unsubstantiated hypothetical, she's tested, she'll get things done, etc. They have to be, because her record and her platform are not as focused on helping the average American.
posted by snofoam at 8:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
No, Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution because he is honest and pragmatic
Well, if he wants the truth he should also say it's possible that a revolution would end with things in a worse place: with President Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 8:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, if he wants the truth he should also say it's possible that a revolution would end with things in a worse place: with President Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 8:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Many of us think it's more likely that Clinton would hand us President Trump. His anti-elite rhetoric will be dynamite against her - I only hope that enough people in this country are anti-racist enough to balance it out. Given what I've seen, I'm not super hopeful.
posted by dialetheia at 8:50 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:50 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you are honest and pragmatic about the urgency of defeating Trump you should go with the candidate with a better lead on him in the polls.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Many of us think it's more likely that Clinton would hand us President Trump.
And I understand that, but I also worry that Trump will politely pat Sanders on the head for getting everything started and the old man will quietly disappear back to Vermont.
posted by FJT at 8:55 AM on March 10, 2016
And I understand that, but I also worry that Trump will politely pat Sanders on the head for getting everything started and the old man will quietly disappear back to Vermont.
posted by FJT at 8:55 AM on March 10, 2016
Drinky Die: "No, Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution because he is honest and pragmatic rather than "say absolutely any lie you need to in order to gain power.""
Well, fine, but your statement was that Clinton couldn't achieve her stated goals with a GOP-controlled Congress. Do you then believe that a Sanders candidacy will translate into Democratic control of both houses?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:57 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, fine, but your statement was that Clinton couldn't achieve her stated goals with a GOP-controlled Congress. Do you then believe that a Sanders candidacy will translate into Democratic control of both houses?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:57 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
These unsubstantiated electability arguments have become quite tiresome
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:58 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:58 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not clear on how "control of Congress" and "electability" are the same thing.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:00 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:00 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do you then believe that a Sanders candidacy will translate into Democratic control of both houses?
This year? No. At the midterms? Hopefully we'd gain some seats. But I think he will be better than Clinton at mobilizing the people to make their congressional reps actually scared enough to consider going with the will of the people rather than the will of the donors. Sort of the Tea Party model -- there has to be a credible threat that the "political revolution" will primary anyone who doesn't support X, even Democrats.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:01 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
This year? No. At the midterms? Hopefully we'd gain some seats. But I think he will be better than Clinton at mobilizing the people to make their congressional reps actually scared enough to consider going with the will of the people rather than the will of the donors. Sort of the Tea Party model -- there has to be a credible threat that the "political revolution" will primary anyone who doesn't support X, even Democrats.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:01 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I want to suggest something that goes beyond our personal preferences for one candidate or the other. This is a perfect time for each of us to dig in deeper with respect to not only the issues we care about, but also to spend a little time doing some research into matters that we might otherwise pay less attention towards.
If you are well read in economics, then read about racial or gender issues. And vice versa. Pick something that you don't know enough about and dig a little. If we can't turn our "weaknesses" into strengths, at least we can become more literate in areas where we lack some knowledge.
We'll all be better citizens for the effort we put in. I know I'm preaching to a choir here, but I thought it worth mentioning. Our society is at a crossroads and the next decade or so will bring some fundamental changes. The better informed we are, the better chance we have of helping to keep this country, and the world at-large, from going completely off the rails.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:02 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
If you are well read in economics, then read about racial or gender issues. And vice versa. Pick something that you don't know enough about and dig a little. If we can't turn our "weaknesses" into strengths, at least we can become more literate in areas where we lack some knowledge.
We'll all be better citizens for the effort we put in. I know I'm preaching to a choir here, but I thought it worth mentioning. Our society is at a crossroads and the next decade or so will bring some fundamental changes. The better informed we are, the better chance we have of helping to keep this country, and the world at-large, from going completely off the rails.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:02 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Do you then believe that a Sanders candidacy will translate into Democratic control of both houses?
It's much more likely in a high-turnout election - we can at least retake the Senate. I went over my reasons for saying that we'd have a low-turnout negative election between Clinton and Trump earlier, but mostly it's just because both of their unfavorables & negatives are sky-high. Sanders has been driving record turnout in nearly all of the states he's won.
On a totally different note, Jeffrey Goldberg has a really interesting interview with Obama out today that really underscores Clinton's hawkish foreign policy judgment:
"Obama’s reticence frustrated Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)"
posted by dialetheia at 9:02 AM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's much more likely in a high-turnout election - we can at least retake the Senate. I went over my reasons for saying that we'd have a low-turnout negative election between Clinton and Trump earlier, but mostly it's just because both of their unfavorables & negatives are sky-high. Sanders has been driving record turnout in nearly all of the states he's won.
On a totally different note, Jeffrey Goldberg has a really interesting interview with Obama out today that really underscores Clinton's hawkish foreign policy judgment:
"Obama’s reticence frustrated Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)"
posted by dialetheia at 9:02 AM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Somebody on Reddit (sorry, didn't save the comment) pointed out the other day that by promising less as a candidate and couching her goals in less ambitious, more pragmatic terms, Clinton has given the GOP more room to compromise with her as president because they won't have to go back to their constituents having helped the perfidious Democrat president achieve her campaign promises. That made some sense to me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:03 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:03 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Really? That sounds as unrealistic as the right-wing "la la la FREE STUFF" arguments to me. They despise her.
posted by dialetheia at 9:04 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:04 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
On a totally different note, Jeffrey Goldberg has a really interesting interview with Obama out today that really underscores Clinton's hawkish foreign policy judgment:
I thought that was a really interesting article, but pulling out that bit as "underscoring Clinton's hawkish foreign policy judgment" is disingenuous - there is a lot more to that piece.
posted by zutalors! at 9:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought that was a really interesting article, but pulling out that bit as "underscoring Clinton's hawkish foreign policy judgment" is disingenuous - there is a lot more to that piece.
posted by zutalors! at 9:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anyway, to be clear - I don't have any major issue with either Clinton or Sanders. I'll (obviously) vote for either in the general. I live in PA, so we'll see if my vote even matters in the primary.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:07 AM on March 10, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 9:07 AM on March 10, 2016
I'm reading through the Obama Doctrine article dialetheia posted and it's really good so far. It's only tangentially related to this thread, but there are quite a few statements from Obama administration members painting Hillary as one of the hawkish foils to Obama.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:09 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:09 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They despise her.
Eh, my recollection is that she got along with Republicans in the Senate pretty well when she served there and that a lot of the Clinton hate is pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff. It's speculation, but so is counting on progressives to remember that midterm elections are a thing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:12 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Eh, my recollection is that she got along with Republicans in the Senate pretty well when she served there and that a lot of the Clinton hate is pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff. It's speculation, but so is counting on progressives to remember that midterm elections are a thing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:12 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
a lot of the Clinton hate is pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff.
I meant that the base hates Clinton - that's why it fires them up.
Re: the 2014 midterm bitterness that is clearly still an issue (and with good reason), what I remember most clearly about those elections was the entire Democratic caucus running away from Obama, barely defending Obamacare, and Obama not activating his OFA organization to help turn voters out. I will say that I've started getting emails from OFA again about the Supreme Court, which is a pleasant surprise - but every time I get them, I get a little angry that this is one of the first emails I've received since Obama's election. If you build a movement, you have to keep it organized and keep leading it, or it will wither away. I don't think Sanders would make the same mistake.
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on March 10, 2016
I meant that the base hates Clinton - that's why it fires them up.
Re: the 2014 midterm bitterness that is clearly still an issue (and with good reason), what I remember most clearly about those elections was the entire Democratic caucus running away from Obama, barely defending Obamacare, and Obama not activating his OFA organization to help turn voters out. I will say that I've started getting emails from OFA again about the Supreme Court, which is a pleasant surprise - but every time I get them, I get a little angry that this is one of the first emails I've received since Obama's election. If you build a movement, you have to keep it organized and keep leading it, or it will wither away. I don't think Sanders would make the same mistake.
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on March 10, 2016
Eh, my recollection is that she got along with Republicans in the Senate pretty well when she served there
That's how Congress worked back then -- pre-2010, Republicans and Democrats could be friends "off-camera".
and that a lot of the Clinton hate is pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff.
The "pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff" will continue to carry over -- if you can be primaried from the right because a picture exists of you smiling next to President Clinton, Republicans won't be any more willing to work with her than they were with former-Senator Obama.
posted by Etrigan at 9:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's how Congress worked back then -- pre-2010, Republicans and Democrats could be friends "off-camera".
and that a lot of the Clinton hate is pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff.
The "pro forma fire-up-the-base stuff" will continue to carry over -- if you can be primaried from the right because a picture exists of you smiling next to President Clinton, Republicans won't be any more willing to work with her than they were with former-Senator Obama.
posted by Etrigan at 9:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
If it's Clinton vs. Trump, it will be a super ugly and negative election because 56% of the country says they won't vote for Clinton, but 66% of the country says they won't vote for Trump.
The election will be between two of the most divisive and despised people to ever be American presidential candidates. It will be a terrible and awesome thing to behold. Even if you swapped in Sanders and Cruz it would still be pretty bad, and in some ways worse.
Maybe this is what makes a true realignment: polarizing candidates and campaigns, with sharply diverging personalities and policies, at a time when the entire system is threatened.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:37 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The election will be between two of the most divisive and despised people to ever be American presidential candidates. It will be a terrible and awesome thing to behold. Even if you swapped in Sanders and Cruz it would still be pretty bad, and in some ways worse.
Maybe this is what makes a true realignment: polarizing candidates and campaigns, with sharply diverging personalities and policies, at a time when the entire system is threatened.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:37 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree, it's going to be an ugly general election no matter what. Obama and Romney were gentlemen from a Jane Austen novel by comparison.
posted by zutalors! at 9:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama not activating his OFA organization to help turn voters out.
This is objectively untrue on at least two levels.
First, by 2014, OFA was no longer Obama's organization. It had become "Organizing for Action" (also sometimes referred to as OFA 3.0 by some insiders).
Second, OFA was very much active during the midterms. The problem was that the highly progressive, highly engaged volunteers--the ones who fueled both the 2008 ground game and the one in 2012--didn't show up to help.
This is very much a pattern with progressives, many of whom frequently don't show up for midterms, either as volunteers OR as voters.
posted by dersins at 9:58 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is objectively untrue on at least two levels.
First, by 2014, OFA was no longer Obama's organization. It had become "Organizing for Action" (also sometimes referred to as OFA 3.0 by some insiders).
Second, OFA was very much active during the midterms. The problem was that the highly progressive, highly engaged volunteers--the ones who fueled both the 2008 ground game and the one in 2012--didn't show up to help.
This is very much a pattern with progressives, many of whom frequently don't show up for midterms, either as volunteers OR as voters.
posted by dersins at 9:58 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fair enough, but semantics aside (and I've gotten more emails from OFA about the Supreme Court this month than I got in all of 2014, which is encouraging), Obama was not present as a force in the 2014 elections because Democrats were so busy running away from him. This may or may not be related to progressives not feeling enthused about these campaigns. It is the responsibility of the candidate to get people to vote for them, and apparently running hard against Obama and progressivism didn't motivate progressive voters.
Vulnerable Democrats run away from Obama
9 Democrats running away from Obama
Can Democrats hold the Senate by running away from Obama and their own records?
From the day after: Some Dems question "avoid Obama" strategy
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Vulnerable Democrats run away from Obama
9 Democrats running away from Obama
Can Democrats hold the Senate by running away from Obama and their own records?
From the day after: Some Dems question "avoid Obama" strategy
posted by dialetheia at 10:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I will say that I've started getting emails from OFA again about the Supreme Court, which is a pleasant surprise - but every time I get them, I get a little angry that this is one of the first emails I've received since Obama's election.
Jesus, how do I get on that version of the mailing list?
posted by Etrigan at 10:09 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jesus, how do I get on that version of the mailing list?
posted by Etrigan at 10:09 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is very much a pattern with progressives, many of whom frequently don't show up for midterms, either as volunteers OR as voters.
And it's very much a pattern for presidential candidates to campaign on progressive platforms and then abandon those ideas as soon as they're elected. It's no wonder people become disaffected with a system that only seems to be interested in their ideas every four years. If, instead of saying "no, the public option isn't on the table," Obama said "The public option is not possible with this current Congress, if you want a public option you have to go out and vote in the midterms - that means you in [State] district [#] near [City]; your Congressman Joe Shmoe is one of the deciding votes on this issue, Jane Shmane is running against him and supports a public option, campaign and vote for Jane Shmane if you want a public option."
Most people don't know who their Congressional reps are, let alone the policies they support, when they're up for reelection, and whether there's a competitor. Yes, people should take it upon themselves to get informed about these things, but, you know what, people are freaking busy and exhausted and broke. The president - or a good DNC leader - could do a lot to help people understand how the political process works and how they can take specific actions to achieve specific results. But many people in the DNC benefit from the fact that people don't know what's going on, so they don't make the effort to get more people involved.
In some ways, Bernie could be the Upton Sinclair of politics -- exposing how the sausage [legislation] is made in order to get people interested in food and labor regulations [the political process].
posted by melissasaurus at 10:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
And it's very much a pattern for presidential candidates to campaign on progressive platforms and then abandon those ideas as soon as they're elected. It's no wonder people become disaffected with a system that only seems to be interested in their ideas every four years. If, instead of saying "no, the public option isn't on the table," Obama said "The public option is not possible with this current Congress, if you want a public option you have to go out and vote in the midterms - that means you in [State] district [#] near [City]; your Congressman Joe Shmoe is one of the deciding votes on this issue, Jane Shmane is running against him and supports a public option, campaign and vote for Jane Shmane if you want a public option."
Most people don't know who their Congressional reps are, let alone the policies they support, when they're up for reelection, and whether there's a competitor. Yes, people should take it upon themselves to get informed about these things, but, you know what, people are freaking busy and exhausted and broke. The president - or a good DNC leader - could do a lot to help people understand how the political process works and how they can take specific actions to achieve specific results. But many people in the DNC benefit from the fact that people don't know what's going on, so they don't make the effort to get more people involved.
In some ways, Bernie could be the Upton Sinclair of politics -- exposing how the sausage [legislation] is made in order to get people interested in food and labor regulations [the political process].
posted by melissasaurus at 10:11 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I apologize if others have already mentioned this, but there's one talking point Hillary brings up in every debate that I really, really don't understand. It's the one where she talks about how she went to Wall Street before the collapse and stood up to them and said, hey this stuff you're doing is really dangerous, you're going to wreck the country, so cut it out! Even assuming she really did do those things (which is pretty much unverifiable) ...
Regardless of your opinion of Clinton's connections to Wall Street, it is just absurd to make ridiculous statements like "which is pretty much unverifiable". There is this new-fangled invention called google that all the kool kids use. You should try it sometime.
Speech on Subprime Lending, March 15, 2007: "The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street ... It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families ... So what are some of the things we need to do? ..."
Speech on Housing and the Mortgage Crisis, August 7, 2007: "I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine ...You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here ...Over the past few years, risky loans have been packaged and resold around the world, mortgage companies have collapsed, and the entire stock market is feeling the effects. Those effects are spreading from Wall Street to Main Street ... I don't think unscrupulous mortgage brokers should be part of how our markets work. I don't think families should be lured into buying homes they can't afford so brokers and mortgage companies can make a bigger profit ... So that's why today I'm announcing a four-part plan for how I, as president, would address abuses across the mortgage industry -- a plan to curb unfair lending practices and hold brokers and lenders accountable "
American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 sponsored by Clinton.
Speech about the dangers of derivatives, November 2007: "But derivatives also create new risks. They can swing wildly in value. It isn't always clear who owns them or how much they are really worth. Owners don't always understand the risks, which is why even the investment banks that created them are losing billions of dollars on these derivatives. And the ripples are being felt from Wall Street to Main Street."
Senator Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to Strengthen Financial Market Regulation: "Establish a federal minimum standard for mortgage originators ... Immediate action to enable more effective near-term management of systemic risk ... More transparency and oversight of new, exotic financial products like complex derivatives ... Strengthen the independence of, and reduce conflicts-of-interest for, rating agencies ... Strengthen consumer protections for credit cards and student loans ... Immediate action to keep families in their homes by restructuring mortgages."
Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering about Clinton vs Sanders. But at least make a minimal effort to keep the facts straight.
posted by JackFlash at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Regardless of your opinion of Clinton's connections to Wall Street, it is just absurd to make ridiculous statements like "which is pretty much unverifiable". There is this new-fangled invention called google that all the kool kids use. You should try it sometime.
Speech on Subprime Lending, March 15, 2007: "The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street ... It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families ... So what are some of the things we need to do? ..."
Speech on Housing and the Mortgage Crisis, August 7, 2007: "I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine ...You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here ...Over the past few years, risky loans have been packaged and resold around the world, mortgage companies have collapsed, and the entire stock market is feeling the effects. Those effects are spreading from Wall Street to Main Street ... I don't think unscrupulous mortgage brokers should be part of how our markets work. I don't think families should be lured into buying homes they can't afford so brokers and mortgage companies can make a bigger profit ... So that's why today I'm announcing a four-part plan for how I, as president, would address abuses across the mortgage industry -- a plan to curb unfair lending practices and hold brokers and lenders accountable "
American Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2007 sponsored by Clinton.
Speech about the dangers of derivatives, November 2007: "But derivatives also create new risks. They can swing wildly in value. It isn't always clear who owns them or how much they are really worth. Owners don't always understand the risks, which is why even the investment banks that created them are losing billions of dollars on these derivatives. And the ripples are being felt from Wall Street to Main Street."
Senator Clinton Calls for Immediate Action to Strengthen Financial Market Regulation: "Establish a federal minimum standard for mortgage originators ... Immediate action to enable more effective near-term management of systemic risk ... More transparency and oversight of new, exotic financial products like complex derivatives ... Strengthen the independence of, and reduce conflicts-of-interest for, rating agencies ... Strengthen consumer protections for credit cards and student loans ... Immediate action to keep families in their homes by restructuring mortgages."
Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering about Clinton vs Sanders. But at least make a minimal effort to keep the facts straight.
posted by JackFlash at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s Mixed Record on Wall Street Belies Her Tough ‘Cut it Out’ Talk
Clinton gave a shout-out to her “wonderful donors” in the audience, and asked the bankers to voluntarily suspend foreclosures and freeze interest rates on adjustable subprime mortgages. She praised Wall Street for its role in creating the nation’s wealth, then added that “too many American families are not sharing” in that prosperity.posted by melissasaurus at 10:18 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
She said the brewing economic troubles weren’t mainly the fault of banks, “not by a long shot,” but added they needed to shoulder responsibility for their role. While there was plenty of blame to go around for the spate of reckless lending, and while Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, it “certainly had a hand in making it worse” and “needs to help us solve it.”
Drinky Die: No, Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution because he is honest and pragmatic rather than "say absolutely any lie you need to in order to gain power."
Some of his more important domestic policy positions:
* Free higher education.
* A "Medicare-for-all" universal health care system
* Extensive Wall Street reform, including (presumably) re-enacting some form of the Glass–Steagall Act.
* A "New Deal"-style program to put the unemployed and underemployed to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure (roads, etc.)
These would be paid for in part by:
* Higher taxes, to help relieve wealth inequality. Also, taxing the hell out of offshore tax shelters.
* Reforming existing programs, to shift and repurpose their funding.
In addition, he stands for:
* Increasing employee/worker ownership of corporations
* Campaign finance reform and greater transparency, including a ban on corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political investments.
And
* Rebuilding America's business infrastructure and abolishing several trade agreements, to allow the US to compete more effectively in a global economy.
Personally, I think they're great policy ideas.
But all but the last bullet are anathema to Republicans. Especially those that involve increasing government spending. They're not going to be supported by fiscal Conservatives or those in the Tea Party. Not just elected officials, but also constituents. Do we really think that modern-day Republicans will support a new New Deal? Or support raising taxes on Wall Street and the wealthy?
We've had several decades now of Republicans screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will listen that the US government is too large and our taxes are too high and government-funded social programs are complete wastes of money, given to society's lazy, indigent parasites and "welfare queens." And government should "be small enough to drown in the bathtub," etc. Do we expect those attitudes to simply vanish on election day? Does anyone think that dozens of Republican representatives are going to suddenly lose their jobs to social democrats? No.
You speak of pragmatism. I haven't seen Sanders establish reasonable expectations for voters on many of the issues listed above, because we all know that the Republicans aren't just going to vanish.
Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution
Can you please link to stump speeches where he metaphorically refers to his election as getting a foot in the door, and then outlines his plans to try to have mass numbers of social dems win midterm elections? Because if I have missed hearing him say those things I would like to know when and where he's done so.
What I do see him saying that he'll work with Congress immediately to pass reforms that even an idiot can see Republicans will fight against, tooth and nail. And unless he has enough of a unified Democratic majority in Congress to shut out Republican countermeasures, how do we expect it to go? He can't rule by fiat.
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Some of his more important domestic policy positions:
* Free higher education.
* A "Medicare-for-all" universal health care system
* Extensive Wall Street reform, including (presumably) re-enacting some form of the Glass–Steagall Act.
* A "New Deal"-style program to put the unemployed and underemployed to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure (roads, etc.)
These would be paid for in part by:
* Higher taxes, to help relieve wealth inequality. Also, taxing the hell out of offshore tax shelters.
* Reforming existing programs, to shift and repurpose their funding.
In addition, he stands for:
* Increasing employee/worker ownership of corporations
* Campaign finance reform and greater transparency, including a ban on corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political investments.
And
* Rebuilding America's business infrastructure and abolishing several trade agreements, to allow the US to compete more effectively in a global economy.
Personally, I think they're great policy ideas.
But all but the last bullet are anathema to Republicans. Especially those that involve increasing government spending. They're not going to be supported by fiscal Conservatives or those in the Tea Party. Not just elected officials, but also constituents. Do we really think that modern-day Republicans will support a new New Deal? Or support raising taxes on Wall Street and the wealthy?
We've had several decades now of Republicans screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will listen that the US government is too large and our taxes are too high and government-funded social programs are complete wastes of money, given to society's lazy, indigent parasites and "welfare queens." And government should "be small enough to drown in the bathtub," etc. Do we expect those attitudes to simply vanish on election day? Does anyone think that dozens of Republican representatives are going to suddenly lose their jobs to social democrats? No.
You speak of pragmatism. I haven't seen Sanders establish reasonable expectations for voters on many of the issues listed above, because we all know that the Republicans aren't just going to vanish.
Sanders is telling you he can't and he needs a political revolution
Can you please link to stump speeches where he metaphorically refers to his election as getting a foot in the door, and then outlines his plans to try to have mass numbers of social dems win midterm elections? Because if I have missed hearing him say those things I would like to know when and where he's done so.
What I do see him saying that he'll work with Congress immediately to pass reforms that even an idiot can see Republicans will fight against, tooth and nail. And unless he has enough of a unified Democratic majority in Congress to shut out Republican countermeasures, how do we expect it to go? He can't rule by fiat.
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
What I do see him saying that he'll work with Congress immediately to pass reforms that even an idiot can see Republicans will fight against, tooth and nail. And unless he has enough of a unified Democratic majority in Congress to shut out Republican countermeasures, how do we expect it to go? He can't rule by fiat.
But neither can Clinton. That's the whole point. Neither Dem candidate can do anything other than what is achievable through the executive. And I am more worried about the things that Clinton thinks republicans will agree on (pro-fracking, increasing military spending/intervention, more restrictions on late-term abortions). "Getting things done" is good only insofar as the "things" are good. I'm not sure that they will be.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
But neither can Clinton. That's the whole point. Neither Dem candidate can do anything other than what is achievable through the executive. And I am more worried about the things that Clinton thinks republicans will agree on (pro-fracking, increasing military spending/intervention, more restrictions on late-term abortions). "Getting things done" is good only insofar as the "things" are good. I'm not sure that they will be.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:36 AM on March 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
But at least make a minimal effort to keep the facts straight.
Sigh. Why doesn't she highlight the facts then? Why do we get this stupid narrative that Hillary went to Wall Street to speak truth to power, which doesn't seem to be supported by any of your links. Maybe I'm taking it too literally? I dunno. I just think it's a really bizarre and ineffective talking point to haul out at every debate.
posted by gueneverey at 10:43 AM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sigh. Why doesn't she highlight the facts then? Why do we get this stupid narrative that Hillary went to Wall Street to speak truth to power, which doesn't seem to be supported by any of your links. Maybe I'm taking it too literally? I dunno. I just think it's a really bizarre and ineffective talking point to haul out at every debate.
posted by gueneverey at 10:43 AM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I know this is an oversimplification, so please forgive me.
Bernie bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and ask for 2 loaves of bread and maybe walk away with three-fourths of a loaf.
Hillary bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and sabotage your bargaining position before getting there, ask for 1/2 a loaf and end up getting 1/8 a loaf, and then ultimately end up paying the guy who is hoarding all of the bread.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:44 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Bernie bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and ask for 2 loaves of bread and maybe walk away with three-fourths of a loaf.
Hillary bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and sabotage your bargaining position before getting there, ask for 1/2 a loaf and end up getting 1/8 a loaf, and then ultimately end up paying the guy who is hoarding all of the bread.
posted by yertledaturtle at 10:44 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
And to be fair, it's not just Hillary. It's mainstream conventional modern Democrats, in general. Sanders offers a new path forward.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:47 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
>We've had several decades now of Republicans screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will listen that the US government is too large and our taxes are too high and government-funded social programs are complete wastes of money, given to society's lazy, indigent parasites and "welfare queens." And government should "be small enough to drown in the bathtub," etc. Do we expect those attitudes to simply vanish on election day? Does anyone think that dozens of Republican representatives are going to suddenly lose their jobs to social democrats? No.
I think this is a key part of why Bernie is advocating that his social programs not be means tested. He emphasized in the debate last night that Trump's kids and grandkids should be able to go to college for free as much as poor kids, in the same way that rich kids and poor kids alike get free public schooling. He's very smart to say this. When it's some nebulous undeserving 'them' getting the benefit, republicans hate it. When it's you and your loved ones getting the benefit, suddenly that's a different story. Americans of all political ideologies overwhelmingly support social security. Only 17% of republicans think it should be cut and 35% think it should be increased. I think that people who saw benefit to tax increases would ABSOLUTELY wish to continue them. That's part of why Donald Trump is doing so well - he's broken with establishment orthodoxy on medicare and social security and people LOVE it.
That's how you gain support for social programs - you don't help "the poor", you help everybody.
posted by zug at 10:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think this is a key part of why Bernie is advocating that his social programs not be means tested. He emphasized in the debate last night that Trump's kids and grandkids should be able to go to college for free as much as poor kids, in the same way that rich kids and poor kids alike get free public schooling. He's very smart to say this. When it's some nebulous undeserving 'them' getting the benefit, republicans hate it. When it's you and your loved ones getting the benefit, suddenly that's a different story. Americans of all political ideologies overwhelmingly support social security. Only 17% of republicans think it should be cut and 35% think it should be increased. I think that people who saw benefit to tax increases would ABSOLUTELY wish to continue them. That's part of why Donald Trump is doing so well - he's broken with establishment orthodoxy on medicare and social security and people LOVE it.
That's how you gain support for social programs - you don't help "the poor", you help everybody.
posted by zug at 10:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
I know this is an oversimplification, so please forgive me.
It isn't even that, it's just a little parable where one candidate is clever and effective and the other is comically incompetent.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:52 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
It isn't even that, it's just a little parable where one candidate is clever and effective and the other is comically incompetent.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:52 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Obama and Romney were gentlemen from a Jane Austen novel by comparison.
2008 Obama = Mr. Bingley
2016 Obama = Captain Wentworth
Romney = Edmund Bertram
posted by sallybrown at 10:53 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
2008 Obama = Mr. Bingley
2016 Obama = Captain Wentworth
Romney = Edmund Bertram
posted by sallybrown at 10:53 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I do see him saying that he'll work with Congress immediately to pass reforms that even an idiot can see Republicans will fight against, tooth and nail.
I am curious where you see him saying he'll get any of this done "immediately" - I haven't heard that in any of his speeches. He is always very clear that he can't do this alone, we need to get everyone involved in the political process, none of it will happen until we have reliable high turnout elections. I think the idea that he's going to sweep into office and get all this done is a straw man - even his redditor supporters are more realistic than that. High turnout is the answer to the question, and the record-breaking turnout in the states he's won speaks to that strategy. I do agree that I would love to see him lay out his arguments for political change in slightly more detail - what would he do differently to recruit better, more progressive candidates, for example? Because the Democratic party isn't even fielding candidates in many races this year. But as far as his immediate strategy, I think yertledaturtle nails it - the idea is to go in with loftier goals so that when we inevitably do have to compromise, we end up with more of what we want and push the debate to the left. If you go in pre-compromising, you end up with much less of what you wanted (Krugman made this argument repeatedly during the Obama years). We won't get any of those programs if we don't make a full-throated argument for them. That's what political persuasion and moving the Overton window are all about.
The other part of his argument is that most of it won't get done without serious campaign finance changes, either in the law or in what people consider unacceptable and punish at the ballot box. Pushing Clinton on her compromising donations from corporations is part of moving the needle on that issue. She's already gotten more political blowback for receiving donations than most candidates have in recent years, and I expect Sanders to push that on Republicans too. Campaign finance is something both party bases largely agree on, and Democrats could do more to press that advantage if they weren't on the take too. Sanders is leading by example on campaign finance, which implicitly puts pressure on other candidates about their own compromising donations.
Also - on preview, ditto everything zug said about means-testing and complexity.
Further, I'm surprised that so many liberals are so resigned this year - the Republican party is completely falling apart right now! What kind of coattails do you think Trump is going to have? While I'm still concerned about him being able to make one last stand on angry white people in the Rust Belt before that becomes demographically impossible in the next few years, I think he's going to have terrible effects on national downticket races. We should be pushing our advantage here, not retreating to a solely defensive position.
posted by dialetheia at 10:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I am curious where you see him saying he'll get any of this done "immediately" - I haven't heard that in any of his speeches. He is always very clear that he can't do this alone, we need to get everyone involved in the political process, none of it will happen until we have reliable high turnout elections. I think the idea that he's going to sweep into office and get all this done is a straw man - even his redditor supporters are more realistic than that. High turnout is the answer to the question, and the record-breaking turnout in the states he's won speaks to that strategy. I do agree that I would love to see him lay out his arguments for political change in slightly more detail - what would he do differently to recruit better, more progressive candidates, for example? Because the Democratic party isn't even fielding candidates in many races this year. But as far as his immediate strategy, I think yertledaturtle nails it - the idea is to go in with loftier goals so that when we inevitably do have to compromise, we end up with more of what we want and push the debate to the left. If you go in pre-compromising, you end up with much less of what you wanted (Krugman made this argument repeatedly during the Obama years). We won't get any of those programs if we don't make a full-throated argument for them. That's what political persuasion and moving the Overton window are all about.
The other part of his argument is that most of it won't get done without serious campaign finance changes, either in the law or in what people consider unacceptable and punish at the ballot box. Pushing Clinton on her compromising donations from corporations is part of moving the needle on that issue. She's already gotten more political blowback for receiving donations than most candidates have in recent years, and I expect Sanders to push that on Republicans too. Campaign finance is something both party bases largely agree on, and Democrats could do more to press that advantage if they weren't on the take too. Sanders is leading by example on campaign finance, which implicitly puts pressure on other candidates about their own compromising donations.
Also - on preview, ditto everything zug said about means-testing and complexity.
Further, I'm surprised that so many liberals are so resigned this year - the Republican party is completely falling apart right now! What kind of coattails do you think Trump is going to have? While I'm still concerned about him being able to make one last stand on angry white people in the Rust Belt before that becomes demographically impossible in the next few years, I think he's going to have terrible effects on national downticket races. We should be pushing our advantage here, not retreating to a solely defensive position.
posted by dialetheia at 10:56 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think it is unrealistic to think either candidate would be able to negotiate anything significant with the current legislature. The Republicans can't even control their own party. That said, if there are enough people to seriously consider Sanders—which is really surprising to me in general—then I think he would be much more effective in the bully pulpit, calling out obstructionism and how it hurts Americans and creating a national platform for progressivism.
posted by snofoam at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It isn't even that, it's just a little parable where one candidate is clever and effective and the other is comically incompetent.
On the plus side, it's good to see that Aaron Sorkin is still doing West Wing episodes, if only here on MetaFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the plus side, it's good to see that Aaron Sorkin is still doing West Wing episodes, if only here on MetaFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
But neither can Clinton
Sanders supporters seem to routinely make this argument: Hillary is less of a desirable candidate than Sanders, because she is either more right wing, or will swing to the right during the general election, or will do so once elected.
Which, it's worth pointing out, is exactly what President Obama did once he was elected.
"Getting things done" is good only insofar as the "things" are good. I'm not sure that they will be.
'All or nothing' is usually a destructive political stance in democracies, especially when it comes to day-to-day governing. 'Getting things done' in politics normally involves a certain amount of compromise. And the only reason Republicans have been able to refuse to do so for this long is they truly do not seem to give a damn how many Americans are being hurt by their unwillingness to govern. Democrats can't and shouldn't attempt to mimic that.
posted by zarq at 11:00 AM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sanders supporters seem to routinely make this argument: Hillary is less of a desirable candidate than Sanders, because she is either more right wing, or will swing to the right during the general election, or will do so once elected.
Which, it's worth pointing out, is exactly what President Obama did once he was elected.
"Getting things done" is good only insofar as the "things" are good. I'm not sure that they will be.
'All or nothing' is usually a destructive political stance in democracies, especially when it comes to day-to-day governing. 'Getting things done' in politics normally involves a certain amount of compromise. And the only reason Republicans have been able to refuse to do so for this long is they truly do not seem to give a damn how many Americans are being hurt by their unwillingness to govern. Democrats can't and shouldn't attempt to mimic that.
posted by zarq at 11:00 AM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
The economic message of Trump is also an opportunity, too. Regardless if his populism is fake, his popularity reaffirms that the average Republican voter doesn't care about economic conservatism. They want their entitlements and social programs to be protected. They're angry at free trade pacts that hurt the American worker. Parts of his message is pushing the GOP towards the center away from Tea Party extremist Ayn Randism-Goldwaterism, and Democrats should use this chance to keep going left as well, saying, "we can deliver on those promises, and better, without bigotry."
posted by Apocryphon at 11:01 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:01 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
melissasaurus: "your Congressman Joe Shmoe is one of the deciding votes on this issue, Jane Shmane is running against him and supports a public option, campaign and vote for Jane Shmane if you want a public option."
I like the way Snrub thinks!
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I like the way Snrub thinks!
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
'All or nothing' is usually a destructive political stance in democracies, especially when it comes to day-to-day governing.
Well, last time we had a Clinton administration, 'getting things done' meant gutting welfare, deregulating Wall Street, and vastly increasing funding for mass incarceration. There were good things too, no doubt - the economy fared better under Clinton, but the share of income to the top 1% skyrocketed, and many of those gains disappeared in the crash of 2001. We are still paying for the consequences of those compromises, though - mass incarceration is a worse problem than ever, extreme poverty doubled due to welfare reform, and the crash of 2008 is directly traceable to those deregulations.
posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, last time we had a Clinton administration, 'getting things done' meant gutting welfare, deregulating Wall Street, and vastly increasing funding for mass incarceration. There were good things too, no doubt - the economy fared better under Clinton, but the share of income to the top 1% skyrocketed, and many of those gains disappeared in the crash of 2001. We are still paying for the consequences of those compromises, though - mass incarceration is a worse problem than ever, extreme poverty doubled due to welfare reform, and the crash of 2008 is directly traceable to those deregulations.
posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
The other thing about Bernie does with his rhetoric on tax increases that is different from what I think I've seen any politician do in my lifetime is explicitly connect a specific tax increase to a specific program. I think it seems to many republicans (and admittedly me at times) that the money we pay in taxes just disappears into the void and we see no real benefit from it. If you're paying money to some nebulous organization and you get no value back out of it, why would you want to pay that money? Of course republicans hate paying taxes - they don't perceive any benefit from them. I'm not arguing there is no benefit, just that no politician that I can recall has even been willing to make the case for taxes and what they support. Taxes have become taboo even among democrats.
But Bernie is going out of his way to connect a specific tax increase to a specific program that helps everybody. People aren't against taxes inherently, they're against throwing money away. If you can prove that that money isn't disappearing into a void, like is done for social security taxes, people will support that.
posted by zug at 11:06 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
But Bernie is going out of his way to connect a specific tax increase to a specific program that helps everybody. People aren't against taxes inherently, they're against throwing money away. If you can prove that that money isn't disappearing into a void, like is done for social security taxes, people will support that.
posted by zug at 11:06 AM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I mean, a million people are losing food stamps just this year because of Clinton's welfare reform. I hadn't realized that the welfare reform bill was introduced by Kasich of all people until I read that article - wild. Clinton certainly lobbied for it (hence the "deadbeat/dignity" quotes from Hillary that made me so furious). That's the kind of 'getting things done' that people are afraid of.
posted by dialetheia at 11:12 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:12 AM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'd like to reiterate how much I liked it when Bernie said the minimum wage should be "15 bucks an hour." It sounded like a human talking, not a politician; he should keep doing it. "The minimum wage should be 15 clams an hour! 15 Smackaroos!"
posted by Room 641-A at 11:16 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 11:16 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
'All or nothing' is usually a destructive political stance in democracies, especially when it comes to day-to-day governing. 'Getting things done' in politics normally involves a certain amount of compromise. And the only reason Republicans have been able to refuse to do so for this long is they truly do not seem to give a damn how many Americans are being hurt by their unwillingness to govern. Democrats can't and shouldn't attempt to mimic that.
Is there even one positive thing that we might realistically expect to come out of the current legislature? Would it help, for example, to nominate a more centrist judge for the Supreme Court when they've already said they won't even consider confirming?
Also, Sanders does have a better record, but has also compromised for the sake of getting things done. My concern is that Hillary seems more likely to collude with a Rep. legislature to promote policies that are pro-business, but hurt the working class.
posted by snofoam at 11:17 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is there even one positive thing that we might realistically expect to come out of the current legislature? Would it help, for example, to nominate a more centrist judge for the Supreme Court when they've already said they won't even consider confirming?
Also, Sanders does have a better record, but has also compromised for the sake of getting things done. My concern is that Hillary seems more likely to collude with a Rep. legislature to promote policies that are pro-business, but hurt the working class.
posted by snofoam at 11:17 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
‘Shake It Up!’ Why Hawaii Republicans Voted For Donald Trump
posted by melissasaurus at 11:18 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
To Combs, the victory was validation that Trump is the candidate of the moment, the one who “speaks a language that normal people can understand. It’s not political-esse, it’s not elitism. It’s plain language that people understand.”Several other accounts from Trump supporters in that article as well.
“People are tired of what’s been going on, like the high cost of living, no real change in the economy for the middle class. They are cussing under their breath about paying taxes, about a gallon of milk costing $6 when it’s mostly $3 on the mainland.”
What Trump brings to voters is a candidate not beholden to donors, said Sutton, and one who is not afraid to hit back when attacked. [...]
“I don’t always like the way he says certain things, but I appreciate that he speaks honestly,” she said.
Like her husband, she also said Trump embodies aloha.
“For example, at the last debate, he said that he would support any Republican candidate of those men on stage with him, and I think that was a fair thing to say — even after some of the attacks they’ve launched. Fairness is part of aloha.”
posted by melissasaurus at 11:18 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The minimum wage should be 15 clams an hour! 15 Smackaroos!"
If he said "15 quatloos", he'd have the nerd vote locked up.
posted by Etrigan at 11:19 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he said "15 quatloos", he'd have the nerd vote locked up.
posted by Etrigan at 11:19 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you please link to stump speeches where he metaphorically refers to his election as getting a foot in the door, and then outlines his plans to try to have mass numbers of social dems win midterm elections? Because if I have missed hearing him say those things I would like to know when and where he's done so.
I think you're missing what he's arguing for. He isn't arguing that we can just come together and somehow elect social democrats en masse in the midterm elections due to his brilliant politicking to implement his programs. He has argued over and over again that electing responsible politicians is nigh upon impossible given the way campaigns are currently funded. People of principal who refuse to take money from corporations are never able to spend enough money to compete with those who do, so only the people that are more interested in power and getting elected than on standing up for their principals are the ones who are able to get elected. Bernie has gotten very very lucky in terms of being able to be elected without having to compromise his political stances, and it puts him in a unique position of being able to fight against these things.
That's why he's hitting campaign finance reform over and over and over again. The biggest political problems in America remain problems because politicians are funded by the causes of those problems - wall street, the fossil fuel industry, insurance companies - and are unwilling to risk pissing off their main sources of funding. Change the game so that people are no longer funded by the people causing the problems and then politicians will be able to vote their conscience and start to fix these issues or be primary challenged by those who will. You can't have political revolution in America without first fixing how campaigns are funded.
posted by zug at 11:21 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think you're missing what he's arguing for. He isn't arguing that we can just come together and somehow elect social democrats en masse in the midterm elections due to his brilliant politicking to implement his programs. He has argued over and over again that electing responsible politicians is nigh upon impossible given the way campaigns are currently funded. People of principal who refuse to take money from corporations are never able to spend enough money to compete with those who do, so only the people that are more interested in power and getting elected than on standing up for their principals are the ones who are able to get elected. Bernie has gotten very very lucky in terms of being able to be elected without having to compromise his political stances, and it puts him in a unique position of being able to fight against these things.
That's why he's hitting campaign finance reform over and over and over again. The biggest political problems in America remain problems because politicians are funded by the causes of those problems - wall street, the fossil fuel industry, insurance companies - and are unwilling to risk pissing off their main sources of funding. Change the game so that people are no longer funded by the people causing the problems and then politicians will be able to vote their conscience and start to fix these issues or be primary challenged by those who will. You can't have political revolution in America without first fixing how campaigns are funded.
posted by zug at 11:21 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Would it help, for example, to nominate a more centrist judge for the Supreme Court when they've already said they won't even consider confirming?
If Trump and/or Sanders gets the nomination, the Senate will fast track whoever Obama has nominated.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:21 AM on March 10, 2016
If Trump and/or Sanders gets the nomination, the Senate will fast track whoever Obama has nominated.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:21 AM on March 10, 2016
Faced with an obstructionist legislature, neither candidate will have more ability than the other to enact policy.
Obama, a Hillary-like centrist, got a national health insurance plan passed, With mostly the same Republicans in Congress. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennery and Harry Truman all failed at the same task, even though most had big Democratic majorities to work with at one time or another.
Yes, there are lots of valid criticisms of the plan. But he got it passed.
posted by msalt at 11:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Obama, a Hillary-like centrist, got a national health insurance plan passed, With mostly the same Republicans in Congress. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennery and Harry Truman all failed at the same task, even though most had big Democratic majorities to work with at one time or another.
Yes, there are lots of valid criticisms of the plan. But he got it passed.
posted by msalt at 11:22 AM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Related to means testing and complexity, this piece from Matt Yglesias is interesting. It really gets at a vastly overlooked aspect of selling public policy: how comprehensible it is to everyday people. How Sanders convinced me about free college: "The most decisive reason to like Sanders's goal of free college, however, didn't become clear until the campaign itself began. The great thing about free college is that people know what it means and some people are excited about it. Clinton's college affordability plan, a much more complicated compact aimed at the goal of allowing students to graduate debt-free, utterly fails on this score. It is true that her plan is more fiscally progressive — delivering more help to poor students and less to non-poor ones. It is also true that I have never met a person who is excited about this plan, even among people who are excited about Clinton in general. ...
The greatest legislative success of the Obama years — the Affordable Care Act — suffers greatly in its political sustainability from the fact that people have such a poor grasp of what it encompasses, how it works, and whom it is supposed to be helping."
posted by dialetheia at 11:24 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
The greatest legislative success of the Obama years — the Affordable Care Act — suffers greatly in its political sustainability from the fact that people have such a poor grasp of what it encompasses, how it works, and whom it is supposed to be helping."
posted by dialetheia at 11:24 AM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm glad it passed. But protecting it isn't enough.
"Health Law Insurance Plans to be Rated by Network Size" (NYT) - the maximum out-of-pocket costs for consumers under the Affordable Care Act will increase next year to $7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family, the administration said. Consumer advocates said those costs could be a significant burden for middle-income people who need a substantial amount of care.
...
“For many people, $7,000 of costs can be a huge impediment to actually receiving care,” especially if patients incur those costs in a month or two at the start of a year, said Marc M. Boutin, the chief executive of the National Health Council, a coalition of advocacy groups for people with chronic diseases.
Out-of-pocket costs, as defined by the government, include deductibles and co-payments, but not the premiums that people pay for insurance. Each insurer sets limits on out-of-pocket costs for its health plans, and the limit cannot be higher than the maximum specified by the government. The maximum for an individual will exceed $7,000 next year for the first time. It will go up by $300 in 2017, after an increase of $250 this year.
Consumer groups say this rate of increase is unsustainable. Moreover, they say, high out-of-pocket costs have deterred some people with insurance from using expensive prescription drugs.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Health Law Insurance Plans to be Rated by Network Size" (NYT) - the maximum out-of-pocket costs for consumers under the Affordable Care Act will increase next year to $7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family, the administration said. Consumer advocates said those costs could be a significant burden for middle-income people who need a substantial amount of care.
...
“For many people, $7,000 of costs can be a huge impediment to actually receiving care,” especially if patients incur those costs in a month or two at the start of a year, said Marc M. Boutin, the chief executive of the National Health Council, a coalition of advocacy groups for people with chronic diseases.
Out-of-pocket costs, as defined by the government, include deductibles and co-payments, but not the premiums that people pay for insurance. Each insurer sets limits on out-of-pocket costs for its health plans, and the limit cannot be higher than the maximum specified by the government. The maximum for an individual will exceed $7,000 next year for the first time. It will go up by $300 in 2017, after an increase of $250 this year.
Consumer groups say this rate of increase is unsustainable. Moreover, they say, high out-of-pocket costs have deterred some people with insurance from using expensive prescription drugs.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
zombieflanders: Trump protester sucker-punched at North Carolina rally, videos show
Followup:
Man Charged With Assault For Sucker-Punching Black Protester At Trump Rally
Glad there might be some justice here, but there's still the overall issue of Trump rallies encouraging this behavior, including his own campaign manager allegedly grabbing/manhandling a female reporter from Breitbart.
posted by bluecore at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Followup:
Man Charged With Assault For Sucker-Punching Black Protester At Trump Rally
Glad there might be some justice here, but there's still the overall issue of Trump rallies encouraging this behavior, including his own campaign manager allegedly grabbing/manhandling a female reporter from Breitbart.
posted by bluecore at 11:27 AM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know this is an oversimplification, so please forgive me.
This is fun! Here's my version:
Hillary bargaining - Go to the bargaining table, start by getting agreement that the goal is more loaves of bread, ask for 10 loaves of bread, settle for 4.
Bernie bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and and yell at Republicans and moderate Democrats for being tools of Big Bread. Make a stirring speech with lots of finger jabbing. Go home amid cheers with no changes in bread distribution.
posted by msalt at 11:28 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is fun! Here's my version:
Hillary bargaining - Go to the bargaining table, start by getting agreement that the goal is more loaves of bread, ask for 10 loaves of bread, settle for 4.
Bernie bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and and yell at Republicans and moderate Democrats for being tools of Big Bread. Make a stirring speech with lots of finger jabbing. Go home amid cheers with no changes in bread distribution.
posted by msalt at 11:28 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, there are lots of valid criticisms of the plan. But he got it passed.
Yes, and part of the reason it remains under such fierce attack is that while it helped increase the number of people paying for health insurance, it didn't necessarily increase access to health care - many people still have such high deductibles that not only are they required to pay for insurance, they can't even afford to use it (much less pay for prescriptions). Any candidate defending ACA should have a comprehensive plan to fix the problems with it. ACA continues to highlight the problems with selling a program written by wonks, for wonks, to the American public, who just want health care to be simpler and more affordable.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yes, and part of the reason it remains under such fierce attack is that while it helped increase the number of people paying for health insurance, it didn't necessarily increase access to health care - many people still have such high deductibles that not only are they required to pay for insurance, they can't even afford to use it (much less pay for prescriptions). Any candidate defending ACA should have a comprehensive plan to fix the problems with it. ACA continues to highlight the problems with selling a program written by wonks, for wonks, to the American public, who just want health care to be simpler and more affordable.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Obama, a Hillary-like centrist, got a national health insurance plan passed, With mostly the same Republicans in Congress.
Many of the same Republicans were in Congress, but it is hard to believe that anyone could realistically compare the Democratic (albeit not filibuster-proof) majority in House and Senate that passed ACA with the Republican majority in both houses now, which has also been driven far to the right by the Tea Party extremists that were elected in the intervening years.
posted by snofoam at 11:33 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Many of the same Republicans were in Congress, but it is hard to believe that anyone could realistically compare the Democratic (albeit not filibuster-proof) majority in House and Senate that passed ACA with the Republican majority in both houses now, which has also been driven far to the right by the Tea Party extremists that were elected in the intervening years.
posted by snofoam at 11:33 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie bargaining - Go to the bargaining table and and yell at Republicans and moderate Democrats for being tools of Big Bread. Make a stirring speech with lots of finger jabbing. Go home amid cheers with no changes in bread distribution.
This doesn't square with his legislative record at all, much less his role in the passage of the landmark VA bill.
posted by dialetheia at 11:34 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
This doesn't square with his legislative record at all, much less his role in the passage of the landmark VA bill.
posted by dialetheia at 11:34 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sanders supporters seem to routinely make this argument: Hillary is less of a desirable candidate than Sanders, because she is either more right wing, or will swing to the right during the general election, or will do so once elected.
Which, it's worth pointing out, is exactly what President Obama did once he was elected.
We are way past the point where we can say something is okay just because Obama did it.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:38 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Which, it's worth pointing out, is exactly what President Obama did once he was elected.
We are way past the point where we can say something is okay just because Obama did it.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:38 AM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
What Bernie Sanders Got Done in Washington: A Legislative Inventory
“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 11:38 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
“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 11:38 AM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
bluecore: "Man Charged With Assault For Sucker-Punching Black Protester At Trump Rally"
Thanks for that link. The WSJ article referenced in it is even better. Two takeaways:
1) the police involved seem to be confirmed as Cumberland County Sheriff's office, which was in doubt before
2) check out the defensive attitude of those officers. The spokesman claims they didn't see the punch because "their heads were down" and went on a little rant:
“We didn’t hurt anybody. We did what the Secret Service asked us to do and separate everybody… If you don’t separate and extinguish the problem right there as it occurs, it gets worse. It can escalate so fast it’s hard to control.’’
It's creepy how neatly that justifies/encourages the violence of Trump supporters. They're basically saying
"My friend here gets a little crazy, I have to arrest and eject you for your own safety. No offense."
posted by msalt at 11:40 AM on March 10, 2016
Thanks for that link. The WSJ article referenced in it is even better. Two takeaways:
1) the police involved seem to be confirmed as Cumberland County Sheriff's office, which was in doubt before
2) check out the defensive attitude of those officers. The spokesman claims they didn't see the punch because "their heads were down" and went on a little rant:
“We didn’t hurt anybody. We did what the Secret Service asked us to do and separate everybody… If you don’t separate and extinguish the problem right there as it occurs, it gets worse. It can escalate so fast it’s hard to control.’’
It's creepy how neatly that justifies/encourages the violence of Trump supporters. They're basically saying
"My friend here gets a little crazy, I have to arrest and eject you for your own safety. No offense."
posted by msalt at 11:40 AM on March 10, 2016
I am curious where you see him saying he'll get any of this done "immediately" - I haven't heard that in any of his speeches.
It would depend on what is meant by "immediately", but I think this is probably the biggest example:
Bernie Sanders vows to break up banks during first year in office
And the law to do that does exist, but the power seems like it rests with the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to be an independent from both Congress and the Executive Branch. Of course, he could pass a law to change that, but that would be another fight.
posted by FJT at 11:41 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would depend on what is meant by "immediately", but I think this is probably the biggest example:
Bernie Sanders vows to break up banks during first year in office
And the law to do that does exist, but the power seems like it rests with the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to be an independent from both Congress and the Executive Branch. Of course, he could pass a law to change that, but that would be another fight.
posted by FJT at 11:41 AM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Access to health insurance is meaningless if you (a) can't afford the premiums and/or (b) can't access or afford health care. Part of the reason a UK-style plan is attractive is because it removes a lot of the emotional labor involved in accessing health care -- making sure a doctor is in network, finding out the cost of a procedure, finding out how much your insurance will charge, waiting for the dozen bills to arrive from one simple procedure, arguing with the company over whether it should be covered, etc. I had an insurance-covered procedure done by an in-network doc in an in-network hospital, but the anesthesiologist happened to be out of network and charged several thousand dollars that was not covered by insurance -- I was not given a choice of anesthesiologist nor was I informed he was out of network. Luckily, I could pay that bill. Many are not so lucky. And, there is no way to find out how much accessing health care will cost you until you've already accessed it -- no one, not the insurance companies, not the doctors, not the office staff, will tell you how much something will end up costing you because they also have no idea.
Similarly, targeting college grants to only those you deem "low income" means that (a) there's still a complex FAFSA process to go through (b) you have to be able to convince your parents to participate in that process (e.g., provide the information and signatures for the FAFSA form), and (c) ignores the needs of kids whose parents earn above that threshold but who either can't or won't pay for college or who are abusive and use tuition payments as a means to control their kids or continue perpetuating abuse.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Similarly, targeting college grants to only those you deem "low income" means that (a) there's still a complex FAFSA process to go through (b) you have to be able to convince your parents to participate in that process (e.g., provide the information and signatures for the FAFSA form), and (c) ignores the needs of kids whose parents earn above that threshold but who either can't or won't pay for college or who are abusive and use tuition payments as a means to control their kids or continue perpetuating abuse.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:48 AM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, last time we had a Clinton administration
The last Clinton administration was 20 years ago and not headed by Hillary.
I am interested in understanding how President Sanders would work with what I think will likely be a Republican-majority congress for the next two years to fulfill his campaign promises.
posted by zarq at 12:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
The last Clinton administration was 20 years ago and not headed by Hillary.
I am interested in understanding how President Sanders would work with what I think will likely be a Republican-majority congress for the next two years to fulfill his campaign promises.
posted by zarq at 12:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump" (CBS Local)
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year.
According to Penn Live, some experts attribute the mass exodus to Donald Trump.
There’s even a title for the movement. It’s called “Ditch and Switch” and calls for lifelong Democrats to abandon the party, register Republican, and help ensure Trump’s place in the general election.
Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College, Dr. G. Terry Madonna, tells the paper he has a theory behind the switch.
“With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre,” said Madonna.
The numbers are similar in other states as well.
The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.
Numbers show that some Republicans are also switching to the Democratic party, but nowhere near the numbers that are switching to Republican.
Records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of 2016 are twice those seen in all of 2013.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year.
According to Penn Live, some experts attribute the mass exodus to Donald Trump.
There’s even a title for the movement. It’s called “Ditch and Switch” and calls for lifelong Democrats to abandon the party, register Republican, and help ensure Trump’s place in the general election.
Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College, Dr. G. Terry Madonna, tells the paper he has a theory behind the switch.
“With the increase in support in exit polls for Trump among working class, blue-collar Democrats, it is my belief that these are people who fall into that genre,” said Madonna.
The numbers are similar in other states as well.
The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.
Numbers show that some Republicans are also switching to the Democratic party, but nowhere near the numbers that are switching to Republican.
Records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of 2016 are twice those seen in all of 2013.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, and part of the reason it remains under such fierce attack is that while it helped increase the number of people paying for health insurance, it didn't necessarily increase access to health care - many people still have such high deductibles that not only are they required to pay for insurance, they can't even afford to use it (much less pay for prescriptions).
This is primarily a problem in Republican states that failed to implement Medicaid expansion fully funded by the federal government.
Under the ACA, households under 400% of the poverty level get premium subsidies (that's about $100,000 income for a family of four). Households under 200% of the poverty level get deductible and co-pay subsidies (that's about $50,000 income for a family of four). Households under 138% of the poverty level get free or nearly free medical care through Medicaid (that's about $34,000 for a family of four).
In states that refused Medicaid expansion, if you are under 100% of the poverty level, you likely get nothing unless you are a single parent with children -- no insurance at all (that's about $25,000 income for a family of four).
posted by JackFlash at 12:18 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is primarily a problem in Republican states that failed to implement Medicaid expansion fully funded by the federal government.
Under the ACA, households under 400% of the poverty level get premium subsidies (that's about $100,000 income for a family of four). Households under 200% of the poverty level get deductible and co-pay subsidies (that's about $50,000 income for a family of four). Households under 138% of the poverty level get free or nearly free medical care through Medicaid (that's about $34,000 for a family of four).
In states that refused Medicaid expansion, if you are under 100% of the poverty level, you likely get nothing unless you are a single parent with children -- no insurance at all (that's about $25,000 income for a family of four).
posted by JackFlash at 12:18 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is primarily a problem in Republican states that failed to implement Medicaid expansion fully funded by the federal government.
The problem is worse in those states, for sure, but it is not limited to those states. Most people I know live in deeply blue states and still cannot actually use their health insurance. Also, the cost sharing reductions only help if you go through the exchange (and aren't even available for Bronze plans) - if you have employer-provided healthcare, my understanding is that you're SOL.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:29 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The problem is worse in those states, for sure, but it is not limited to those states. Most people I know live in deeply blue states and still cannot actually use their health insurance. Also, the cost sharing reductions only help if you go through the exchange (and aren't even available for Bronze plans) - if you have employer-provided healthcare, my understanding is that you're SOL.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:29 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's why he's hitting campaign finance reform over and over and over again. The biggest political problems in America remain problems because politicians are funded by the causes of those problems - wall street, the fossil fuel industry, insurance companies - and are unwilling to risk pissing off their main sources of funding. Change the game so that people are no longer funded by the people causing the problems and then politicians will be able to vote their conscience and start to fix these issues or be primary challenged by those who will.
Sure, campaign finance reform is the cornerstone of everything he's trying to accomplish.
But it took years of arguments and debate between the parties to get them to pass McCain-Feingold and the BCRA in 2002, and then SCOTUS made that moot by striking down the provisions affecting corporation investment into political campaigns. In the years prior to 2002, Democrats supported McCain-Feingold on principle even though they knew it would hamstring their fundraising. Republicans opposed it on principle, even though they knew it would expand their coffers.
So now Sanders has two proposals which would fix campaign finance reform. Or at least he had just two the last time I checked.
1) A constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United (the aforementioned SCOTUS decision) which gave Super PACs free reign on political spending.
2) Passing a bill that would provide public funding for candidates who need it.
The second item is a countermeasure, but it probably wouldn't break the effects of unlimited corporate funding of political campaign ads through Super PACs.
Passing a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. It's incredibly hard. We once again run into a wall, because not only is the GOP wholly obstructionist, but they're also philosophically opposed to campaign finance reform.
You can't have political revolution in America without first fixing how campaigns are funded.
Okay, but you'd need a revolution to achieve real campaign finance reform. A revolution to spark another, bigger revolution. Yes?
posted by zarq at 12:29 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure, campaign finance reform is the cornerstone of everything he's trying to accomplish.
But it took years of arguments and debate between the parties to get them to pass McCain-Feingold and the BCRA in 2002, and then SCOTUS made that moot by striking down the provisions affecting corporation investment into political campaigns. In the years prior to 2002, Democrats supported McCain-Feingold on principle even though they knew it would hamstring their fundraising. Republicans opposed it on principle, even though they knew it would expand their coffers.
So now Sanders has two proposals which would fix campaign finance reform. Or at least he had just two the last time I checked.
1) A constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United (the aforementioned SCOTUS decision) which gave Super PACs free reign on political spending.
2) Passing a bill that would provide public funding for candidates who need it.
The second item is a countermeasure, but it probably wouldn't break the effects of unlimited corporate funding of political campaign ads through Super PACs.
Passing a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. It's incredibly hard. We once again run into a wall, because not only is the GOP wholly obstructionist, but they're also philosophically opposed to campaign finance reform.
"Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, for instance, can seem similar to Clinton on the issue of campaign financing. He has openly stated that Citizens United needs to be fixed through a constitutional amendment, and he said he supported Mc-Cain-Feingold, which helped curb soft money in politics for a time, but has now been rendered less effective. The issue is that when Graham was confronted with a constitutional amendment to Citizens United in 2014, S.J. Res. 19, he voted against it.And here we run into the same difficulties as everything else trying to get reforms passed."
In fact, Senate Republicans unanimously voted against the amendment in a 54-42 decision. The amendment, part of a larger effort known as the Democracy For All amendment, is written in very plain language and appears to be very reasonable. Barely over 100 words, the article in summary states: Through laws, money can be regulated in elections to limit its influence, the government can say companies are not people, and laws cannot change or hurt the freedom of the press. Really. That’s it. So Graham may in fact want an amendment overturning Citizens United, but it is bizarre that he would vote against this amendment that seems to do just that. The issue then, is that advocating an idea may just serve as a political talking point.
You can't have political revolution in America without first fixing how campaigns are funded.
Okay, but you'd need a revolution to achieve real campaign finance reform. A revolution to spark another, bigger revolution. Yes?
posted by zarq at 12:29 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's the "Get Big Money Out of Politics" page on Sen., Sanders' website.
He now lists more than two ways to do so:
* Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
Barring the obvious nomination hurdle any justice would have to face -- especially against Republicans -- that's clearly a good idea.
* Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
Covered above.
* Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
Covered above.
* Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
Also clearly a good idea. Whether it would make a difference or not is worth considering.
* Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
To do this he'd probably have to find a way around Buckley v Valeo. Again, I love the idea, but am not sure how it would work?
* Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.
He'd have to strengthen the FEC and find a way to stop Congressional interference of their efforts to increase transparency.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
He now lists more than two ways to do so:
* Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
Barring the obvious nomination hurdle any justice would have to face -- especially against Republicans -- that's clearly a good idea.
* Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
Covered above.
* Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
Covered above.
* Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
Also clearly a good idea. Whether it would make a difference or not is worth considering.
* Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
To do this he'd probably have to find a way around Buckley v Valeo. Again, I love the idea, but am not sure how it would work?
* Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.
He'd have to strengthen the FEC and find a way to stop Congressional interference of their efforts to increase transparency.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, I think running for and winning the presidency would be pretty effective in shutting down the argument (at least on the the Dem side) that corporate contributions are a necessary evil. It sets the standard by which other Dem candidates will be measured (see, e.g., Clinton repeatedly stating that "Obama did it too!"). The way this election is progressing, Trump may succeed in doing that for the GOP, leaving the Dems looking like the party of big business.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:46 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:46 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
WIRED Opinion: The Way Trump Talks in Debates Is Contagious
As other candidates witness Trump’s success, do they emulate his speaking style? The first debate and the most recent debate do show some differences, and while the grade level of Trump’s debate language remains significantly lower than the other candidates, it seems the gap is shrinking.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:16 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Accessing medical care (while being forced to hand private companies my money!) is a problem in every state, especially since, guess what! deep blue states are high cost of living and the subsidies tap out before you get to what is actually a middle class income. (Also basing things on a family of four is deeply disingenuous. Being single is expensive and the threshold for help as a single human is desperately low.)
My husband and I work in tech (well, I am currently in grad school) and if we needed something, we could probably move cash around for it, but the idea that it is a favor that I have to spend over $10,000 of my own money (just for me, not counting him) before I get anything for it is freaking bullshit. And even being married, fewer employers are covering spousal costs. You can get access but you are play ~$500/mo.
The tone-deafness on this from Clinton (& Obama) boosters is really unfortunate.
posted by dame at 1:22 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
My husband and I work in tech (well, I am currently in grad school) and if we needed something, we could probably move cash around for it, but the idea that it is a favor that I have to spend over $10,000 of my own money (just for me, not counting him) before I get anything for it is freaking bullshit. And even being married, fewer employers are covering spousal costs. You can get access but you are play ~$500/mo.
The tone-deafness on this from Clinton (& Obama) boosters is really unfortunate.
posted by dame at 1:22 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump Supporter Who Punched Protester: 'Next Time, We Might Have To Kill Him'
When asked if he liked the rally, he said: “You bet I liked it. Knocking the hell out of that big mouth.”posted by zombieflanders at 1:26 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
And when asked why he punched the protester, he said: "Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS. We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American, cussing me... If he wants it laid out, I laid it out."
He added: “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.”
Now I'm really torn.
Former Secretary Clinton is clearly part and parcel of the whole unholy alliance between finance and politics. But as mentioned above I've had some worries about Senator Sanders, and in this video, I finally see what I have been sensing intuitively: he doesn't listen. He seriously does not hear what the woman is talking about, and doesn't reply to her question. She will not vote for him. She will vote for Clinton, who heard her. Sanders-people - get your candidate on the learning curve, please, because he is right on the big picture.
To unfold this a bit: there is a woman who is in a truly desperate situation. She asks a question about the candidates' opinion on deportation of illegal immigrants. Bernie Sanders talks about himself first (I am the best at this and that). And then it becomes clear that he has not understood her question properly. Hilary Clinton goes directly to the reality of the woman asking and replies to the actual question.
As it is, I think Clinton believes that the conditions of globalization are inevitable and that deals cannot be made without big money and lobbyists. It's not that she is an evil lying person, it's more that she is so ingrained with Washington that she can't think differently. And we really need someone to think differently.
But Sanders needs to get out of his head and begin to meet people, otherwise there will never be any enthusiasm from those who are struggling with racism and hate.
posted by mumimor at 1:31 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Former Secretary Clinton is clearly part and parcel of the whole unholy alliance between finance and politics. But as mentioned above I've had some worries about Senator Sanders, and in this video, I finally see what I have been sensing intuitively: he doesn't listen. He seriously does not hear what the woman is talking about, and doesn't reply to her question. She will not vote for him. She will vote for Clinton, who heard her. Sanders-people - get your candidate on the learning curve, please, because he is right on the big picture.
To unfold this a bit: there is a woman who is in a truly desperate situation. She asks a question about the candidates' opinion on deportation of illegal immigrants. Bernie Sanders talks about himself first (I am the best at this and that). And then it becomes clear that he has not understood her question properly. Hilary Clinton goes directly to the reality of the woman asking and replies to the actual question.
As it is, I think Clinton believes that the conditions of globalization are inevitable and that deals cannot be made without big money and lobbyists. It's not that she is an evil lying person, it's more that she is so ingrained with Washington that she can't think differently. And we really need someone to think differently.
But Sanders needs to get out of his head and begin to meet people, otherwise there will never be any enthusiasm from those who are struggling with racism and hate.
posted by mumimor at 1:31 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
For those interested, someone over at Jacobin ran the numbers for one scenario of how Bernie could win.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:34 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:34 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hilary Clinton goes directly to the reality of the woman asking and replies to the actual question.
This was Bill Clinton's strength. Remember (or maybe you don't? This was 25 years ago!) the debate between GHWB and Clinton where a woman, clearly in distress, asked a question in which she confused the national debt and the budget deficit? GHWB answered all wonkily about it and so on, but Bill Clinton ignored her mistake and just "felt her pain".
Hillary Clinton isn't as good at it as Bill Clinton (who is?) but she does understand the principle. Voters usually want to know you understand their plight.
posted by Justinian at 1:36 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This was Bill Clinton's strength. Remember (or maybe you don't? This was 25 years ago!) the debate between GHWB and Clinton where a woman, clearly in distress, asked a question in which she confused the national debt and the budget deficit? GHWB answered all wonkily about it and so on, but Bill Clinton ignored her mistake and just "felt her pain".
Hillary Clinton isn't as good at it as Bill Clinton (who is?) but she does understand the principle. Voters usually want to know you understand their plight.
posted by Justinian at 1:36 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
He seriously does not hear what the woman is talking about, and doesn't reply to her question.
To be fair, the audio during the debate last night was really bad and I think he literally couldn't hear/understand what the translator was saying. I had a hard time hearing some of the questions at home myself.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:38 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
To be fair, the audio during the debate last night was really bad and I think he literally couldn't hear/understand what the translator was saying. I had a hard time hearing some of the questions at home myself.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:38 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
So now people, including reporters, are being beaten at Trump rallies. Is this not the right type of violence and beatings or can we talk about proto-fascism yet?
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on March 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on March 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump just now on Twitter: Wow, you are all correct about @FoxNews - totally biased and disgusting reporting.
Fingers crossed that 2016 sees the end of both the GOP and Fox News. Maybe something good can happen this year, after all.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:43 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fingers crossed that 2016 sees the end of both the GOP and Fox News. Maybe something good can happen this year, after all.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:43 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
the cost sharing reductions only help if you go through the exchange
Well, duh. If you don't use Obamacare, you don't get Obamacare subsidies. That's a problem?
and aren't even available for Bronze plans
Silver plans have lower deductibles than bronze plans so are better plans. If you are eligible for cost sharing reductions, you are also eligible for premium subsidies, so the silver plans are the best value.
if you have employer-provided healthcare, my understanding is that you're SOL.
Well, remember, the whole selling point of Obamacare was that if you have an employer plan, you get to keep your employer plan. The majority of people were happy with their employer plans and were reluctant to lose them. Recall that there was a major freakout from Republicans warning that Obamacare would destroy employer health plans. That didn't pan out but good luck selling people on losing their employer health plans.
There are a lot of ways Obamacare could be improved but don't minimize the life saving improvements it has brought. A public option might be a good start, but it is politically impossible as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress.
posted by JackFlash at 1:45 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, duh. If you don't use Obamacare, you don't get Obamacare subsidies. That's a problem?
and aren't even available for Bronze plans
Silver plans have lower deductibles than bronze plans so are better plans. If you are eligible for cost sharing reductions, you are also eligible for premium subsidies, so the silver plans are the best value.
if you have employer-provided healthcare, my understanding is that you're SOL.
Well, remember, the whole selling point of Obamacare was that if you have an employer plan, you get to keep your employer plan. The majority of people were happy with their employer plans and were reluctant to lose them. Recall that there was a major freakout from Republicans warning that Obamacare would destroy employer health plans. That didn't pan out but good luck selling people on losing their employer health plans.
There are a lot of ways Obamacare could be improved but don't minimize the life saving improvements it has brought. A public option might be a good start, but it is politically impossible as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress.
posted by JackFlash at 1:45 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, duh. If you don't use Obamacare, you don't get Obamacare subsidies. That's a problem?
Obamacare is not actually a health care program in the way Medicare is. One doesn't "use" Obamacare. Part of the ACA set up exchanges to buy private insurance, but it also had other provisions that apply to all health insurance plans. So, it is not unreasonable to expect, as a person who pays for a health insurance plan, to receive some benefits from the ACA. If I say "I can't afford my copay" and the response is "well, Obamacare solves for that through the cost sharing reductions" it's completely legitimate to point out that those benefits are available only to those who use the exchange (again, a part of, but not the entirety of the ACA).
I think getting that last 10% of people covered is important, but I think focusing on coverage without addressing how most people can't actually use their coverage is really tone deaf.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:02 PM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Obamacare is not actually a health care program in the way Medicare is. One doesn't "use" Obamacare. Part of the ACA set up exchanges to buy private insurance, but it also had other provisions that apply to all health insurance plans. So, it is not unreasonable to expect, as a person who pays for a health insurance plan, to receive some benefits from the ACA. If I say "I can't afford my copay" and the response is "well, Obamacare solves for that through the cost sharing reductions" it's completely legitimate to point out that those benefits are available only to those who use the exchange (again, a part of, but not the entirety of the ACA).
I think getting that last 10% of people covered is important, but I think focusing on coverage without addressing how most people can't actually use their coverage is really tone deaf.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:02 PM on March 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Obamacare does not provide subsidies for those who get their insurance through their employer. But that was the selling point for Obamacare. People could keep their employer insurance . But anyone else is eligible for Obamacare subsidies based on income limits.
posted by JackFlash at 2:40 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by JackFlash at 2:40 PM on March 10, 2016
I agree with Bernie Sanders. Cut out the health-insurance company middle-men, and spend the money they're using to buy new yachts on patient care instead. Seriously, fuck them.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on March 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
One of the central facts of my adult life is that I lost my health insurance with a pre-existing condition in the bad old days before the ACA. I had to uproot myself, moving to a totally alien place to take a job I didn't want, in order to avoid falling into the pre-existing condition hole. The way it worked was that it wasn't possible to get individual health insurance with a pre-existing condition, so you fell out of continuous coverage, which meant that your pre-existing condition wasn't covered for a long time even if you did manage to get insurance later on. My state's high-risk pool was a joke: it was prohibitively expensive, and there was a cap on the number of people who could enroll, which meant that most people couldn't get in even if they could afford thousands of dollars a month for shitty coverage. I'm not complaining: I ended up liking the place to which I relocated, although that was complete luck of the draw, and my job turned out to be fine. But I sometimes wonder where I would be now if I had had the choices that the ACA would have given me. And I never want to go through that anxiety and disruption again, which is why I will fight like hell the preserve the ACA until we're able to get something better.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:54 PM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:54 PM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
> That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats. You can talk about red-baiting and swift-boating type politics. And I'm sure there'd be no end of that. But Sanders comes out of what is a very counter-cultural strand of late 20th century American politics. I know because I sort of come out of it too, at least I grew up in it. There's a lot that is very standard in that world that sounds very alien to a lot of American voters. This is a fact. Agree with it or not, it is a fact. I think many Democrats quite legitimately worry that by going through this history of statements Republicans would be able to disqualify Sanders with a significant number of voters.
Bernie Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night. It's also something that could easily be ratfcked by the Republicans.
posted by homunculus at 3:02 PM on March 10, 2016
Bernie Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night. It's also something that could easily be ratfcked by the Republicans.
posted by homunculus at 3:02 PM on March 10, 2016
Why Is Nobody Talking About One of the Best Possible Candidates for Democratic VP? Elijah Cummings is a man with a story and a message.
posted by homunculus at 3:03 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 3:03 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Cut out the health-insurance company middle-men, and spend the money they're using to buy new yachts on patient care instead.
The ACA already does this, by requiring that a specific fraction of premiums paid in must go to payments for medical care. The rest of it can go to administrative overhead and profits (and yachts, if there's enough left over, of course).
> Seriously, fuck them.
Yeah, point. But the ACA wasn't set up to do that.
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:05 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ACA already does this, by requiring that a specific fraction of premiums paid in must go to payments for medical care. The rest of it can go to administrative overhead and profits (and yachts, if there's enough left over, of course).
> Seriously, fuck them.
Yeah, point. But the ACA wasn't set up to do that.
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:05 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like this Kevin Drum piece: Hillary Clinton's Honesty Problem Is Not What You Think It Is.
Basically, she's too cognizant of political realities to make the high-flying promises that are the currency of the primary season.
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Basically, she's too cognizant of political realities to make the high-flying promises that are the currency of the primary season.
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obamacare does not provide subsidies for those who get their insurance through their employer.
Right, which is a huge gap in need. I don't see how providing subsidies would mean people would have to lose their employer coverage. I could keep my coverage and still receive a separate subsidy for copayments/coinsurance/deductibles based on my income.
There are good things in Obamacare and some really huge gaps. It's not perfect and, while you could argue it's the best that could have been done at the time (which I don't agree with), failing to recognize the problems with it prevents us from moving forward.
Like, other than people who married into very wealthy families, I don't know a single person who can actually afford to see a doctor right now without making huge sacrifices elsewhere financially.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:10 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right, which is a huge gap in need. I don't see how providing subsidies would mean people would have to lose their employer coverage. I could keep my coverage and still receive a separate subsidy for copayments/coinsurance/deductibles based on my income.
There are good things in Obamacare and some really huge gaps. It's not perfect and, while you could argue it's the best that could have been done at the time (which I don't agree with), failing to recognize the problems with it prevents us from moving forward.
Like, other than people who married into very wealthy families, I don't know a single person who can actually afford to see a doctor right now without making huge sacrifices elsewhere financially.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:10 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I like this Kevin Drum piece: Hillary Clinton's Honesty Problem Is Not What You Think It Is.
Basically, she's too cognizant of political realities to make the high-flying promises that are the currency of the primary season.
Or her honesty problem has more to do with things like this:
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."(PolitiFact pants on fire)
Even after being caught in her lie about it, she doubled down on her memory of being caught in sniper fire and repeated the lie.
Keith Olbermann shoots down Hillary Clinton's Bosnia sniper(youtube)
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Basically, she's too cognizant of political realities to make the high-flying promises that are the currency of the primary season.
Or her honesty problem has more to do with things like this:
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."(PolitiFact pants on fire)
Even after being caught in her lie about it, she doubled down on her memory of being caught in sniper fire and repeated the lie.
Keith Olbermann shoots down Hillary Clinton's Bosnia sniper(youtube)
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Basically, she's too cognizant of political realities to make the high-flying promises that are the currency of the primary season.
She's too much a creature of the system to realize that "political reality" is a social agreement that can be changed, not an immutable fact of the universe that must always be capitulated to, that those social agreements being the way they are is in fact the root cause of many of our crises today—and that we are at the point where must change those social agreements if we are to have any hope of surviving as a civilization.
posted by Backslash at 3:32 PM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
She's too much a creature of the system to realize that "political reality" is a social agreement that can be changed, not an immutable fact of the universe that must always be capitulated to, that those social agreements being the way they are is in fact the root cause of many of our crises today—and that we are at the point where must change those social agreements if we are to have any hope of surviving as a civilization.
posted by Backslash at 3:32 PM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
zarq: "We've had several decades now of Republicans screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will listen that the US government is too large ..."
In fact, Clinton used the same rhetoric during the last debate when she was saying why one of Sanders' proposals (I think it was free education?) was unachievable. She said something like it would make the government even larger and more inefficient. I was thinking "So what? Free education!"
posted by barnacles at 3:33 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
In fact, Clinton used the same rhetoric during the last debate when she was saying why one of Sanders' proposals (I think it was free education?) was unachievable. She said something like it would make the government even larger and more inefficient. I was thinking "So what? Free education!"
posted by barnacles at 3:33 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like, other than people who married into very wealthy families, I don't know a single person who can actually afford to see a doctor right now without making huge sacrifices elsewhere financially.
Seriously? A primary care office visit is a national average of about $100. You know not a single person that has $100 to go to a doctor? I mean, the U.S. is spending something like $3 trillion a year on healthcare. All of those doctors offices aren't full of rich patients.
Obamacare provides for free preventative care and these rules apply to employer insurance as well as private insurance. Included are free immunizations (flu, HepA and B, measles, mumps, TDAP), breast cancer mammography and genetic screening, colorectal cancer screening, skin cancer screening, breastfeeding counseling, STD testing, contraceptives (with some religious exemptions under litigation).
posted by JackFlash at 3:45 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seriously? A primary care office visit is a national average of about $100. You know not a single person that has $100 to go to a doctor? I mean, the U.S. is spending something like $3 trillion a year on healthcare. All of those doctors offices aren't full of rich patients.
Obamacare provides for free preventative care and these rules apply to employer insurance as well as private insurance. Included are free immunizations (flu, HepA and B, measles, mumps, TDAP), breast cancer mammography and genetic screening, colorectal cancer screening, skin cancer screening, breastfeeding counseling, STD testing, contraceptives (with some religious exemptions under litigation).
posted by JackFlash at 3:45 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's nothing inherent in her policies that prevents Clinton from making clear arguments and promises. The only reason she can't is that many of those policies are unpopular in her party, at least relative to the alternative. She could certainly say the following (and does, when it's popular enough):
• "I support the death penalty because I believe in killing the worst criminals and terrorists."
• "I believe in taking Wall Street money, because they and I agree on many economic policies."
• "I think $12 is the perfect amount. $15 is too much, $10 is too little."
• "I think Kissinger was a great secretary of state, and I want our policies to be like his."
• "I think TPP and NAFTA will make America better off because free trade increases wealth."
• "The war in Iraq was the right thing to do."
• "I supported welfare reform because too many people were becoming dependent."
• "It is better to let the free market organize health care than to socialize it with single payer."
• "Sometimes you need to deport children for the sake of overall immigration policy."
• "Free college encourages freeloading."
• "If taxes are too high on the rich and corporations, that hurts the American economy."
That said, there are many other things she says clearly and strongly -- most of them things that she and Sanders agree upon. What was nice about the Flint debate was watching them agree on so much, at least to start. It would be nice (for Democrats, not necessarily for the networks) if they opened and closed with a few more minutes of that -- hammering home the liberal agenda and its contrast with the insanity on the right -- even if the attack-and-contrast is necessary during the primaries.
posted by chortly at 3:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
• "I support the death penalty because I believe in killing the worst criminals and terrorists."
• "I believe in taking Wall Street money, because they and I agree on many economic policies."
• "I think $12 is the perfect amount. $15 is too much, $10 is too little."
• "I think Kissinger was a great secretary of state, and I want our policies to be like his."
• "I think TPP and NAFTA will make America better off because free trade increases wealth."
• "The war in Iraq was the right thing to do."
• "I supported welfare reform because too many people were becoming dependent."
• "It is better to let the free market organize health care than to socialize it with single payer."
• "Sometimes you need to deport children for the sake of overall immigration policy."
• "Free college encourages freeloading."
• "If taxes are too high on the rich and corporations, that hurts the American economy."
That said, there are many other things she says clearly and strongly -- most of them things that she and Sanders agree upon. What was nice about the Flint debate was watching them agree on so much, at least to start. It would be nice (for Democrats, not necessarily for the networks) if they opened and closed with a few more minutes of that -- hammering home the liberal agenda and its contrast with the insanity on the right -- even if the attack-and-contrast is necessary during the primaries.
posted by chortly at 3:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
You know not a single person that has $100 to go to a doctor?
I am one of those people. Small data point but it is much more common than you appear to be aware of?
posted by futz at 3:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am one of those people. Small data point but it is much more common than you appear to be aware of?
posted by futz at 3:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The ACA already does this, by requiring that a specific fraction of premiums paid in must go to payments for medical care.
Just FYI, almost every other field of insurance makes their money purely on the float — the interest they earn from investing premiums before having to pay them out. The ACA's restriction on health insurers is 80% premium payout. It's laughable.
posted by indubitable at 3:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just FYI, almost every other field of insurance makes their money purely on the float — the interest they earn from investing premiums before having to pay them out. The ACA's restriction on health insurers is 80% premium payout. It's laughable.
posted by indubitable at 3:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ntm, once you go, did you know blood tests can run $1000? The price tags on small procedures? X-rays? It's rare you are just popping in at the doc unless you are already on some maintenance regime. All that is expensive and the companies — again, the ones we are compelled to pay a minimum of $300/mo as unsubsidized, non-employer–sponsored humans — pay nothing. It's great that some people have benefited but I like to believe we are rich and decent enough that everyone can benefit. Even the laid off medical billers will have great care.
posted by dame at 3:57 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dame at 3:57 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am one of those people. Small data point but it is much more common than you appear to be aware of?
Oh, I am quite aware and it is much too common. But can you claim that "Other than people who married into very wealthy families, I don't know a single person who can actually afford to see a doctor?" That seems to be a bit of hyperbole.
posted by JackFlash at 3:59 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I am quite aware and it is much too common. But can you claim that "Other than people who married into very wealthy families, I don't know a single person who can actually afford to see a doctor?" That seems to be a bit of hyperbole.
posted by JackFlash at 3:59 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I suspect melissasaurus knows more about melissasaurus's social circle than you do, JackFlash.
posted by Etrigan at 4:03 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 4:03 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I suspect melissasaurus knows more about melissasaurus's social circle than you do.
According to her statement, she knows people who married into very wealthy families and people who are very poor, but knows not one single person in between. And she knows the financial status of all of these people. Okay.
posted by JackFlash at 4:08 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
According to her statement, she knows people who married into very wealthy families and people who are very poor, but knows not one single person in between. And she knows the financial status of all of these people. Okay.
posted by JackFlash at 4:08 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ntm, once you go, did you know blood tests can run $1000?
If we're throwing out personal anecdotes, my current ACA-subsidized insurance (Silver-tier) pays 100% of diagnostics (blood tests, x-rays, etc) when in network. It's nice. I like it a lot better than what I would have without the ACA.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:09 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If we're throwing out personal anecdotes, my current ACA-subsidized insurance (Silver-tier) pays 100% of diagnostics (blood tests, x-rays, etc) when in network. It's nice. I like it a lot better than what I would have without the ACA.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:09 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
That was not to you not a box! But unsubsidized silver is too much when you're rich for a poor state but poor for a rich one. Which is rather my point again. Affordability is still a huge problem and acting like it's not doesn't actually help the Dems.
posted by dame at 4:12 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dame at 4:12 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
According to her statement, she knows people who married into very wealthy families and people who are very poor, but knows not one single person in between.
Yeah, that is actually how it shakes out. But "people who are very poor" covers people making well above the poverty line. These are people who are between five and ten years out of college, who have significant student loan burdens. So, could they scrape together $100? Sure. But it might mean not paying their student loan bills or credit cards (from the last time they got really sick) or it might mean being late on rent or missing other bills. I really don't know anyone who is doing well financially but isn't from or married to significant wealth. Maybe it's just a function of living in NYC for so long, but I do not know anyone (other than the wealthy) who feels financially secure. Very few people I know are able to save for retirement. The middle class disappearing is a real thing.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:14 PM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeah, that is actually how it shakes out. But "people who are very poor" covers people making well above the poverty line. These are people who are between five and ten years out of college, who have significant student loan burdens. So, could they scrape together $100? Sure. But it might mean not paying their student loan bills or credit cards (from the last time they got really sick) or it might mean being late on rent or missing other bills. I really don't know anyone who is doing well financially but isn't from or married to significant wealth. Maybe it's just a function of living in NYC for so long, but I do not know anyone (other than the wealthy) who feels financially secure. Very few people I know are able to save for retirement. The middle class disappearing is a real thing.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:14 PM on March 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Andrew Bacevich: The Six Questions Missing From the 2016 Election Debates: There’s a reason you won’t hear these questions being asked any time soon.
Andrew Bacevich: Why Is No Candidate Offering an Alternative to Militarized U.S. Foreign Policy?
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Andrew Bacevich: Why Is No Candidate Offering an Alternative to Militarized U.S. Foreign Policy?
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
republican debate tonight on CNN. I am going to try and watch for a bit. Anyone else?
posted by futz at 4:44 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by futz at 4:44 PM on March 10, 2016
Somebody called a debate thread in the "Eats hair" doey.
posted by Trochanter at 4:46 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 4:46 PM on March 10, 2016
> republican debate tonight on CNN. I am going to try and watch for a bit. Anyone else?
not in a million years.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:46 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
not in a million years.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:46 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Washington Post is saying that Carson will endorse Trump tomorrow.
posted by peeedro at 4:54 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by peeedro at 4:54 PM on March 10, 2016
I guess Big Pyramid figures they can buy off Trump.
posted by indubitable at 5:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 5:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Washington Post is saying that Carson will endorse Trump tomorrow.
Carson's fruit salad comment now makes some sense.
posted by futz at 5:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carson's fruit salad comment now makes some sense.
posted by futz at 5:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am one of those people. Small data point but it is much more common than you appear to be aware of?
This. 63% of Americans couldn't afford an unexpected $500 expense out of pocket. $100 might cover a doctor visit (still sounds low to me), but it doesn't cover any of the lab tests, prescriptions, or treatments that you will probably need. And most insurance doesn't kick in until you've reached a $1000+ deductible. Hell, even the deductible-subsidy plans usually don't kick in until $500 - and the majority of people don't even have that. Stuff like this is why so many of us are up in arms about income inequality, and why ACA, as much as it helps some people, is not nearly sufficient for many working-class people. Because it's means-tested and implementation varies by state, many people are falling through the cracks. Many working-class people either make too much to qualify for subsidies but not quite enough to afford it, or they get high-deductible basically-useless insurance through their employers at high premiums. Some poor people are too poor to afford even the subsidized monthly premiums and the best ACA can offer them is that they at least don't owe a penalty. Stuff like that is a huge part of why people still aren't warming to ACA.
That's not even to mention the additional complexity of the system, which already required a ton of time and effort and paperwork and management for people. This older piece by Corey Robin gets at it: "Aside from the numbers, what I’m always struck by in these discussions is just how complicated Obamacare is. Even if we accept all the premises of its defenders, the number of steps, details, caveats, and qualifications that are required to defend it, is in itself a massive political problem. As we’re now seeing….
In the neoliberal utopia, all of us are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time keeping track of each and every facet of our economic lives. That, in fact, is the openly declared goal: once we are made more cognizant of our money, where it comes from and where it goes, neoliberals believe we’ll be more responsible in spending and investing it. Of course, rich people have accountants, lawyers, personal assistants, and others to do this for them, so the argument doesn’t apply to them, but that’s another story for another day.
The dream is that we’d all have our gazillion individual accounts—one for retirement, one for sickness, one for unemployment, one for the kids, and so on, each connected to our employment, so that we understand that everything good in life depends upon our boss (and not the government)—and every day we’d check in to see how they’re doing, what needs attending to, what can be better invested elsewhere. It’s as if, in the neoliberal dream, we’re all retirees in Boca, with nothing better to do than to check in with our broker, except of course that we’re not. Indeed, if Republicans (and some Democrats) had their way, we’d never retire at all.
In real (or at least our preferred) life, we do have other, better things to do."
posted by dialetheia at 5:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
This. 63% of Americans couldn't afford an unexpected $500 expense out of pocket. $100 might cover a doctor visit (still sounds low to me), but it doesn't cover any of the lab tests, prescriptions, or treatments that you will probably need. And most insurance doesn't kick in until you've reached a $1000+ deductible. Hell, even the deductible-subsidy plans usually don't kick in until $500 - and the majority of people don't even have that. Stuff like this is why so many of us are up in arms about income inequality, and why ACA, as much as it helps some people, is not nearly sufficient for many working-class people. Because it's means-tested and implementation varies by state, many people are falling through the cracks. Many working-class people either make too much to qualify for subsidies but not quite enough to afford it, or they get high-deductible basically-useless insurance through their employers at high premiums. Some poor people are too poor to afford even the subsidized monthly premiums and the best ACA can offer them is that they at least don't owe a penalty. Stuff like that is a huge part of why people still aren't warming to ACA.
That's not even to mention the additional complexity of the system, which already required a ton of time and effort and paperwork and management for people. This older piece by Corey Robin gets at it: "Aside from the numbers, what I’m always struck by in these discussions is just how complicated Obamacare is. Even if we accept all the premises of its defenders, the number of steps, details, caveats, and qualifications that are required to defend it, is in itself a massive political problem. As we’re now seeing….
In the neoliberal utopia, all of us are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time keeping track of each and every facet of our economic lives. That, in fact, is the openly declared goal: once we are made more cognizant of our money, where it comes from and where it goes, neoliberals believe we’ll be more responsible in spending and investing it. Of course, rich people have accountants, lawyers, personal assistants, and others to do this for them, so the argument doesn’t apply to them, but that’s another story for another day.
The dream is that we’d all have our gazillion individual accounts—one for retirement, one for sickness, one for unemployment, one for the kids, and so on, each connected to our employment, so that we understand that everything good in life depends upon our boss (and not the government)—and every day we’d check in to see how they’re doing, what needs attending to, what can be better invested elsewhere. It’s as if, in the neoliberal dream, we’re all retirees in Boca, with nothing better to do than to check in with our broker, except of course that we’re not. Indeed, if Republicans (and some Democrats) had their way, we’d never retire at all.
In real (or at least our preferred) life, we do have other, better things to do."
posted by dialetheia at 5:07 PM on March 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
This discussion over the ACA is right on point, I think.
It was a compromise that involved a lot of sausage-making. It leaves significant gaps and in some cases is taking the current private health-insurance-based system to its logical conclusion, which I think will expose some some fundamental flaws that will need to be addressed. (Sometimes I even think that was the long-term plan, calling the current system's bluff as it were in a step toward a better system. But who knows?)
Granting all that, would you rather it never happened? Would you have preferred not having made this messy and deeply flawed step forward in the hopes of getting a better, single-payer system?
That seems like a good proxy for the preferences of Hillary vs. Bernie supporters.
Here's what I know: here in Oregon, the ACA resulted in so many people getting medical care for the first time in years that there are severe doctor shortages outside of urban Portland because so many people are finally getting treatment. I call that a net good.
posted by msalt at 5:12 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It was a compromise that involved a lot of sausage-making. It leaves significant gaps and in some cases is taking the current private health-insurance-based system to its logical conclusion, which I think will expose some some fundamental flaws that will need to be addressed. (Sometimes I even think that was the long-term plan, calling the current system's bluff as it were in a step toward a better system. But who knows?)
Granting all that, would you rather it never happened? Would you have preferred not having made this messy and deeply flawed step forward in the hopes of getting a better, single-payer system?
That seems like a good proxy for the preferences of Hillary vs. Bernie supporters.
Here's what I know: here in Oregon, the ACA resulted in so many people getting medical care for the first time in years that there are severe doctor shortages outside of urban Portland because so many people are finally getting treatment. I call that a net good.
posted by msalt at 5:12 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Would you have preferred not having made this messy and deeply flawed step forward in the hopes of getting a better, single-payer system?
That seems like a good proxy for the preferences of Hillary vs. Bernie supporters.
Oh come on. Arguing that Bernie supporters want to repeal the ACA/wish the ACA never happened is ludicrous on its face. Wanting to improve the system is not at all the same as wanting to destroy it.
posted by indubitable at 5:16 PM on March 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
That seems like a good proxy for the preferences of Hillary vs. Bernie supporters.
Oh come on. Arguing that Bernie supporters want to repeal the ACA/wish the ACA never happened is ludicrous on its face. Wanting to improve the system is not at all the same as wanting to destroy it.
posted by indubitable at 5:16 PM on March 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
For Sanders: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency
For Clinton: A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders: Who Can Trump Trump?
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
For Clinton: A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders: Who Can Trump Trump?
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
republican debate tonight on CNN. I am going to try and watch for a bit. Anyone else?
I'll start it at least. Debate thread (again.)
posted by homunculus at 5:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll start it at least. Debate thread (again.)
posted by homunculus at 5:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It may be a net good but the 90% of people are covered lip service that keeps getting thrown in our faces is just not true. On paper it may be true but the reality of what is actually happening needs to be discussed and fixed.
posted by futz at 5:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'll start it at least. Debate thread (again.)
Since that thread has about a third of the comments of this one, that seems like a good idea.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on March 10, 2016
Since that thread has about a third of the comments of this one, that seems like a good idea.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on March 10, 2016
The National Media Has Been Instructed by Wasserman Schultz to Stop Counting Superdelegates
posted by futz at 5:35 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:35 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Stop showing our thumb on the scale!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well I'm sure there's some way this is just another of her evil underhanded mustache-twirling moves to steaaaaaal the electionnnnnnn
on preview: yep
posted by sallybrown at 5:39 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
on preview: yep
posted by sallybrown at 5:39 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Stop showing our thumb on the scale!
Oh, ffs.
Superdelegates are not a "thumb on the scale." To claim one believes so is to admit that one's knowledge of politics does not extend ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2008.
Clinton went into the race for the 2008 nomination with a substantial superdelegate lead. Once it became clear that Obama was the choice of the party's voters, the bulk of the superdelegates switched their support to him.
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
In other words, the Republicans are probably wishing they had superdelegates right now.
posted by dersins at 5:49 PM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh, ffs.
Superdelegates are not a "thumb on the scale." To claim one believes so is to admit that one's knowledge of politics does not extend ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2008.
Clinton went into the race for the 2008 nomination with a substantial superdelegate lead. Once it became clear that Obama was the choice of the party's voters, the bulk of the superdelegates switched their support to him.
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
In other words, the Republicans are probably wishing they had superdelegates right now.
posted by dersins at 5:49 PM on March 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
re: superdelegates.
Including the SD's in every news report is misleading. My parents for example are well educated news watching liberals and they thought Hillary was waaay ahead. Low information voters don't even know that they should question this stuff...and my parents apparently didn't either.
Reporting the stats as the media has been is shady as hell and untrue. If the SDs aren't potentially relavent until the convention then WHY are they being counted now ffs.
posted by futz at 5:58 PM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Including the SD's in every news report is misleading. My parents for example are well educated news watching liberals and they thought Hillary was waaay ahead. Low information voters don't even know that they should question this stuff...and my parents apparently didn't either.
Reporting the stats as the media has been is shady as hell and untrue. If the SDs aren't potentially relavent until the convention then WHY are they being counted now ffs.
posted by futz at 5:58 PM on March 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I was joking, since it helps Sanders to take SDs out of the count, but...
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
"Dangerous Lunatic" depends on the beholder, e.g. (from the paywalled WSJ, so relevant bit quoted)
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
"Dangerous Lunatic" depends on the beholder, e.g. (from the paywalled WSJ, so relevant bit quoted)
In his poem “Esthétique du Mal,” Wallace Stevens refers, in a memorable and useful phrase, to a “lunatic of one idea.” The phrase refuses to leave my mind whenever I hear Bernie Sanders—and I have heard quite a lot of him in past weeks—campaigning or debating or making, most recently, victory speeches.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Superdelegates came about in 1982 because party leaders wanted to exercise more control over the nomination process. Having superdelegates would ensure that members of the Democratic Party had some weight in case the Democratic voters picked a dud, as they did in 1972 when anti-Vietnam War liberal Sen. George McGovern won the nomination and not much else. They would also prevent another Jimmy Carter, whom party leaders viewed as an ineffective president because Carter wasn't friendly with the major figures in the party, according to Mayer. They hoped to force candidates like Carter to get to know the party during the nomination fight and therefore build up loyalty before taking office.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
And iirc, superdelegates weren't part of the tally in 2008. Pretty sure that has been mentioned here in fact. So why is the media including them now?
please correct me if I am wrong.
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
please correct me if I am wrong.
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Superdelegates (Assemble!) may not be committed yet, but have they declared?
posted by Trochanter at 6:12 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 6:12 PM on March 10, 2016
Not reporting superdelegates at all seems crazy, since they are a large number of the potential delegates.
Not making the distinction between pledged and super delegates is also not good.
But the trackers I've been following have been showing both pledged- and super- counts separately, which seems like the right thing to do.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:14 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not making the distinction between pledged and super delegates is also not good.
But the trackers I've been following have been showing both pledged- and super- counts separately, which seems like the right thing to do.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:14 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
And iirc, superdelegates weren't part of the tally in 2008. Pretty sure that has been mentioned here in fact. So why is the media including them now?
There was lots of talk and reporting on superdelegates during the 2008 election.
Here's an article talking about when some started switching and specifically referring to a lead in superdelegates. There absolutely were tallies including them in 2008.
(And I'm not convinced its 100% positive for Sanders to drop them, if Clinton voters think she's got the race sown up they might stay home or vote in Republican primary. There's some evidence (see 'Some Clinton supporters chose to vote in the Republican primary') that happened in Michigan).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:18 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There was lots of talk and reporting on superdelegates during the 2008 election.
Here's an article talking about when some started switching and specifically referring to a lead in superdelegates. There absolutely were tallies including them in 2008.
(And I'm not convinced its 100% positive for Sanders to drop them, if Clinton voters think she's got the race sown up they might stay home or vote in Republican primary. There's some evidence (see 'Some Clinton supporters chose to vote in the Republican primary') that happened in Michigan).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:18 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They hoped to force candidates like Carter to get to know the party during the nomination fight and therefore build up loyalty before taking office.
Getting to know and working with party members across the country actually sounds like a good idea. The presidential nominee is going to represent the party, they should have good knowledge of how the party works and the people in it.
posted by FJT at 6:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Getting to know and working with party members across the country actually sounds like a good idea. The presidential nominee is going to represent the party, they should have good knowledge of how the party works and the people in it.
posted by FJT at 6:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They would also prevent another Jimmy Carter, whom party leaders viewed as an ineffective president because Carter wasn't friendly with the major figures in the party
Yes, because it's the candidate's job to make friends with the 'major figures.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, because it's the candidate's job to make friends with the 'major figures.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, because it's the candidate's job to make friends with the 'major figures.'
The ability to work well with your coworkers does actually sound like a responsibility for someone that is applying for a high position within an organization.
posted by FJT at 6:33 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The ability to work well with your coworkers does actually sound like a responsibility for someone that is applying for a high position within an organization.
posted by FJT at 6:33 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The ability to work well with your coworkers does actually sound like a responsibility for someone that is applying for a high position within an organization.
Most places expect you to get along with the CEO the board of directors hired.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:34 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most places expect you to get along with the CEO the board of directors hired.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:34 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
GAH a good friend of mine just posted Washington Monthly's "Message to Millennials" on Facebook, ostensibly the text of an email in which the author shares some fatherly advice with a young, idealistic college freshman who (naturally) supports Bernie. Pragmatism and reality is something you learn when you're older, see.
I'm so fucking angry and hurt and sick of this election. My friend knew about my connection to the campaign, knew that a whole bunch of Bernie supporters would read this, but still thought it would be appropriate to post some condescending "fatherly advice" to bring us down to reality. I hope everyone reads that smarmy article and remembers exactly what a huge subset of the messaging on this race has been. I get that it goes both ways sometimes (in that Clinton supporters have felt personally attacked), but it's all just so exhausting.
At least we're done with debates for now.
posted by teponaztli at 6:35 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm so fucking angry and hurt and sick of this election. My friend knew about my connection to the campaign, knew that a whole bunch of Bernie supporters would read this, but still thought it would be appropriate to post some condescending "fatherly advice" to bring us down to reality. I hope everyone reads that smarmy article and remembers exactly what a huge subset of the messaging on this race has been. I get that it goes both ways sometimes (in that Clinton supporters have felt personally attacked), but it's all just so exhausting.
At least we're done with debates for now.
posted by teponaztli at 6:35 PM on March 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Most places expect you to get along with the CEO the board of directors hired.
But I think history shows that Congress does not in fact work that way, whether its your own party or the opposition.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:36 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I think history shows that Congress does not in fact work that way, whether its your own party or the opposition.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:36 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have I missed anything in the Republican debate? I didn't see the first half hour.
Or was there a DEBATE THREAD DECLARED elsewhere that I didn't see?
posted by Justinian at 6:46 PM on March 10, 2016
Or was there a DEBATE THREAD DECLARED elsewhere that I didn't see?
posted by Justinian at 6:46 PM on March 10, 2016
Poor Rubio. That's a lot of debates. No wonder it seems like your elections never end.
posted by dng at 6:46 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by dng at 6:46 PM on March 10, 2016
Or maybe 3%?
*blink*
Oh, yeah. Wow. Rerunning the numbers and even including *all* native americans relocated by Jackson, rather than just the Cherokee, the percentage is still only closer to 0.35% of the population. Trump's signature issue is actually an order of magnitude above the indian removal policy of Andrew Jackson.
They also have in common a background in land speculation and the fact they can apparently gun down people in the streets and only see their popularity improve as a result.
posted by absalom at 6:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
*blink*
Oh, yeah. Wow. Rerunning the numbers and even including *all* native americans relocated by Jackson, rather than just the Cherokee, the percentage is still only closer to 0.35% of the population. Trump's signature issue is actually an order of magnitude above the indian removal policy of Andrew Jackson.
They also have in common a background in land speculation and the fact they can apparently gun down people in the streets and only see their popularity improve as a result.
posted by absalom at 6:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Psst. *points*
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:58 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:58 PM on March 10, 2016
Yeah, I understand the objection to superdelegates, but I hear where the party was coming from. The McGovern loss was just gut-churning, and the Carter presidency was an opportunity squandered (I don't think the CEO analogy holds - Congress is an *independent* power structure, not one subordinate to the presidency).
In fact, I think a lot of the generational gap between Clinton and Sanders support is due to older folks remembering the Carter loss, the Mondale loss, the Dukakis loss. Whether those losses were due to the country really moving rightward, who can say. But that's how things were seen by the Clintons and their cohort. And a lot of those folks who remember the 80s are scared of someone too lefty.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:13 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
In fact, I think a lot of the generational gap between Clinton and Sanders support is due to older folks remembering the Carter loss, the Mondale loss, the Dukakis loss. Whether those losses were due to the country really moving rightward, who can say. But that's how things were seen by the Clintons and their cohort. And a lot of those folks who remember the 80s are scared of someone too lefty.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:13 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think the CEO analogy holds - Congress is an *independent* power structure, not one subordinate to the presidency
The board of directors in this analogy is the electorate, which appoints the CEO and other 'major figures.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:40 PM on March 10, 2016
The board of directors in this analogy is the electorate, which appoints the CEO and other 'major figures.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:40 PM on March 10, 2016
Okay, but that still doesn't wash. The CEO is the leader of the company. The various other C-level folks report to him, he can direct them or fire them at will. Congress does not report to the president, they are a co-equal branch. They do not have to listen to the president.
I get where you were going as an analogy, I just don't see how it works. And I think that Carter's issues with Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil and other Congressional bigwigs shows how it doesn't work. It would have been in Carter's best interests to shmooze those guys. But he didn't, and 40 years later, we're still paying the price.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get where you were going as an analogy, I just don't see how it works. And I think that Carter's issues with Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil and other Congressional bigwigs shows how it doesn't work. It would have been in Carter's best interests to shmooze those guys. But he didn't, and 40 years later, we're still paying the price.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:51 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
All of these corporate metaphors are kind of goofy, given that elected officials are in a whole different situation. If we're going to have primaries, they should be democratic. One person, one vote, period.
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would have been in Carter's best interests to shmooze those guys. But he didn't, and 40 years later, we're still paying the price.
I think that proves my point. Leave your egos at the door, 'major figures,' you just got a new boss.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think that proves my point. Leave your egos at the door, 'major figures,' you just got a new boss.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:56 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Okay, I'm sorry if I'm belaboring this - but it totally invalidates your point. If you are a C-level exec at a company, and there's a new CEO, your choices are pretty much either do what he says, or quit. Congress had the option of saying, "Yeah, whatever peanut boy" and ignoring Carter, and took it.
It was the fact that Congress *didn't* have a new boss that is the whole problem! If it were Parliament, things would have worked differently.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:05 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was the fact that Congress *didn't* have a new boss that is the whole problem! If it were Parliament, things would have worked differently.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:05 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I understand your frustration, teponaztli. The "Message to Millenials" does read like a bit of a scold by an older, condescending person. It would have helped the context to know that the author once wrote speeches for Bill Clinton. And if you dig a bit more, you'll discover that his associations run along a pretty standard establishment course.
That said, I'm going to encourage everyone to read it, especially Sanders supporters. Here's why. It's a pretty powerful and cogent essay elaborating on just why many older Democrats think that incrementalism is the appropriate policy approach. And it's good to know just why establishmentarians think the way they do. Their arguments are not unreasonable in my opinion--it's pretty coherent. However, one very important matter gets overlooked which I'll get to in a minute.
First, I'll offer this disclaimer: I'm about 5 years older than the author. And while I do understand that while younger folks might think he is being condescending, it may be because of my age that I do not see the article in that light. I remember the McGovern campaign, it was part of the process of my own youthful transition towards becoming a more politically aware person. But there were more important "priors" for me, including the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam of the mid and late 60s. I also remember the 68 convention in Chicago which, I think, persuaded many youngsters to feel the same kind of condescension then, that many of you may feel now. The idealism that went into the McCarthy campaign was crushed in some important ways--and not only by the goonish head-bashing tactics of Mayor Daley's machine.
I mean, and I know I risk sounding condescending right now, but please try to imagine the variety of ways that young idealists responded to the murders of MLK and RFK--imagine how soul-crushing that might have been to idealists. Some became more radicalized, the Weathermen being an extreme example of this tendency. Some became more engaged with the system which led to much of the support for the McGovern campaign.
Now, the 68 convention troubled not only the youthful idealists of the time, but also the establishment party, too, particularly those who thought that Daley, et al had gone one billy-stick too far. The McGovern campaign was in some respects a kind of compromise wherein the establishment allowed itself to be influenced by youthful idealism. (Look, I know I'm glossing over a lot here but I'm trying not to write a book tonight!)
In any case, that campaign got crushed in the general election. This despite the fact that it was well known at the time that Nixon was a less-than-honorable politician. How the Democratic party responded to that loss then, helps explain just why it is the way it is now. And I submit, it is important to understand this process--which essentially broke the New Deal/New Society premises of the party platform, but also forced the party to try to realign/reconfigure itself with a newer coalition which had some hope of winning a national election. Furthermore, and this is where some folks might disagree with me, I think it is important to try to have some empathy (though not necessarily some sympathy for the struggle that the party went through at that time.) The intentions were good among many layers of the party at the time, yet, as the years went by, it would not be unfair to say that the underlying principle for many former radicals of the 60s became, "If you can't beat them, join them."
It's worth repeating: "If you can't beat them, join them." And for many, that's exactly what happened. The general ineffectiveness of the Carter admin, which in itself was a combo of popular appeals to former radicals while under the behind-the-scenes control of the establishment, as well as the acceleration of a deteriorating economy at the time, shattered an important part of the ethos which made the New Deal-->Great Society compact viable. I'm referring to the shift away from the idea that society is, in important ways, a unity that stands above individualism, and towards the idea that society is simply the accretion of numerous individual impulses which may, or may not, excrete some good for the society as a whole. This is an important idea, I think. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Moving along. This is how we got the DLC, the centrist movement within the party which actually, over time, became old-timey republican-lite because the Republican party had embarked on it's own peculiar path at the time: un-marginalizing Goldwaterism and making it seem more "normal." Again, individualism over the notion that society/culture could be conceived of as a unity unique, in and of itself. Overall, a general shift rightward for the nation as a whole, and while rightward is not the best way to describe the rise of neoliberalism, supply-side voodoo economics, the financialization of our economy at the detriment of the physical production of tangible goods and important socially useful services, etc..., it'll do for my purposes here.
Those very folks who were the idealists of their time--and rightfully so given the state of the world then--are now pale shadows moving around in a world of hurt. That's not the world they hoped for. Let's give folks credit where credit it due. But let's also note, and learn, from the process as a whole. The trick is to embrace this idea even if it means more hard work: "the most practical kind of person to be is to be an idealist."
But by idealist I do not mean uncompromising. By idealist I do not mean holding out for pie-in-the-sky utopias. By idealist I do not mean in embracing wishful thinking of a simplistic nature: "if we elect this guy then the fairy tale ends as it should, with love and happiness forever and ever, amen."
By idealist I do mean this: the kind of world you want can be created. Throw that life ring out into the ocean as far as you can--then find a way to swim to it. It's the swimming that's the hard part. The kind of world you want has a lot more justice in it, it has a lot more equity in it, and it doesn't sublimate our unique individualism, it celebrates it--so long as it is in service to something outside of your skin, something more noble than "me, myself and I." We is the operative pronoun and we means including the weakest among us as part of our world and not shunting folks off to the wayside for the sake of convenience.
It's hard work. It'll take your lifetime. And then some. That's the message that this "id(r)ealist" old man has for you all. In some ways you are naive, less informed than you might be, less potent than you will be in the future. The author wants you to sell out to the process now, while the price seems right. He makes a good argument. He's also wrong.
And here is where I return to the very important matter which often gets overlooked, as I mentioned at the beginning of this diatribe. It's this: the world is not merely extrapolation, it's transformation. Nature is good to us. It has endowed human beings with the ability not only to understand some of it's beautiful inner workings, it has given us the power to participate in creation with it. Now, nature transforms in interesting ways: the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, H2O can be be water...or ice...or steam. Etc, etc... . These transformations are not merely quantitative, they are qualitative, too. Making the change from one phase to another is not always apparent, but it is always scientific and thus, knowable.
Whenever someone tells you that any value of "this can't happen, then it has to be based on more than just "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's just the way things are." The way we have always done it is a choice we have made; the way things are is a choice we have made.
Now, for those Sanders supporters who know that the work is only beginning, much that I have said might seem obvious. It's part of our job to demonstrate to the extrapolators--the embracers of the establishment because that's the only way that things'll get done--that what is needed is a new establishment and that that transformation is not merely possible, it's necessary at this moment in our history. It's incumbent upon us to do the work, to prove the pudding, to say, yes, our political discourse requires many of the elements that you incrementalists say is necessary--compromise, debate, et al. This "means" are part of the way things get done, but the "ends" matter and our "ends" require a transformation away from the kind of economic premises and policies we currently think of as part of the common dialogue, away from the kind of foreign policy which alienates much of the rest of the world, away from superficial and artificial distinctions among human beings whether is be race or gender or class. If we can accomplish a portion of the ideals which so-called naive youth embrace today then it'll be good for humanity as a whole. What did my youthful generation say? "You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem." Sounds nice and pithy but perhaps that is among the crucial mistakes that our generation made. Maybe the idea needs to be expressed differently: "Here's the problem, please join us and help us create a solution."
Final disclosure: If this seems condescending that is not my intent. But, try to remember this: older folks do have experiences which matter. Lots of the stuff mentioned here were not fully formed ideas that I had back then. I was a youthful idealist, true. But I was an irrepressible and sometimes irresponsible kid as well. Naive in important ways, too.
Grow, learn, transform.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:30 PM on March 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
That said, I'm going to encourage everyone to read it, especially Sanders supporters. Here's why. It's a pretty powerful and cogent essay elaborating on just why many older Democrats think that incrementalism is the appropriate policy approach. And it's good to know just why establishmentarians think the way they do. Their arguments are not unreasonable in my opinion--it's pretty coherent. However, one very important matter gets overlooked which I'll get to in a minute.
First, I'll offer this disclaimer: I'm about 5 years older than the author. And while I do understand that while younger folks might think he is being condescending, it may be because of my age that I do not see the article in that light. I remember the McGovern campaign, it was part of the process of my own youthful transition towards becoming a more politically aware person. But there were more important "priors" for me, including the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam of the mid and late 60s. I also remember the 68 convention in Chicago which, I think, persuaded many youngsters to feel the same kind of condescension then, that many of you may feel now. The idealism that went into the McCarthy campaign was crushed in some important ways--and not only by the goonish head-bashing tactics of Mayor Daley's machine.
I mean, and I know I risk sounding condescending right now, but please try to imagine the variety of ways that young idealists responded to the murders of MLK and RFK--imagine how soul-crushing that might have been to idealists. Some became more radicalized, the Weathermen being an extreme example of this tendency. Some became more engaged with the system which led to much of the support for the McGovern campaign.
Now, the 68 convention troubled not only the youthful idealists of the time, but also the establishment party, too, particularly those who thought that Daley, et al had gone one billy-stick too far. The McGovern campaign was in some respects a kind of compromise wherein the establishment allowed itself to be influenced by youthful idealism. (Look, I know I'm glossing over a lot here but I'm trying not to write a book tonight!)
In any case, that campaign got crushed in the general election. This despite the fact that it was well known at the time that Nixon was a less-than-honorable politician. How the Democratic party responded to that loss then, helps explain just why it is the way it is now. And I submit, it is important to understand this process--which essentially broke the New Deal/New Society premises of the party platform, but also forced the party to try to realign/reconfigure itself with a newer coalition which had some hope of winning a national election. Furthermore, and this is where some folks might disagree with me, I think it is important to try to have some empathy (though not necessarily some sympathy for the struggle that the party went through at that time.) The intentions were good among many layers of the party at the time, yet, as the years went by, it would not be unfair to say that the underlying principle for many former radicals of the 60s became, "If you can't beat them, join them."
It's worth repeating: "If you can't beat them, join them." And for many, that's exactly what happened. The general ineffectiveness of the Carter admin, which in itself was a combo of popular appeals to former radicals while under the behind-the-scenes control of the establishment, as well as the acceleration of a deteriorating economy at the time, shattered an important part of the ethos which made the New Deal-->Great Society compact viable. I'm referring to the shift away from the idea that society is, in important ways, a unity that stands above individualism, and towards the idea that society is simply the accretion of numerous individual impulses which may, or may not, excrete some good for the society as a whole. This is an important idea, I think. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Moving along. This is how we got the DLC, the centrist movement within the party which actually, over time, became old-timey republican-lite because the Republican party had embarked on it's own peculiar path at the time: un-marginalizing Goldwaterism and making it seem more "normal." Again, individualism over the notion that society/culture could be conceived of as a unity unique, in and of itself. Overall, a general shift rightward for the nation as a whole, and while rightward is not the best way to describe the rise of neoliberalism, supply-side voodoo economics, the financialization of our economy at the detriment of the physical production of tangible goods and important socially useful services, etc..., it'll do for my purposes here.
Those very folks who were the idealists of their time--and rightfully so given the state of the world then--are now pale shadows moving around in a world of hurt. That's not the world they hoped for. Let's give folks credit where credit it due. But let's also note, and learn, from the process as a whole. The trick is to embrace this idea even if it means more hard work: "the most practical kind of person to be is to be an idealist."
But by idealist I do not mean uncompromising. By idealist I do not mean holding out for pie-in-the-sky utopias. By idealist I do not mean in embracing wishful thinking of a simplistic nature: "if we elect this guy then the fairy tale ends as it should, with love and happiness forever and ever, amen."
By idealist I do mean this: the kind of world you want can be created. Throw that life ring out into the ocean as far as you can--then find a way to swim to it. It's the swimming that's the hard part. The kind of world you want has a lot more justice in it, it has a lot more equity in it, and it doesn't sublimate our unique individualism, it celebrates it--so long as it is in service to something outside of your skin, something more noble than "me, myself and I." We is the operative pronoun and we means including the weakest among us as part of our world and not shunting folks off to the wayside for the sake of convenience.
It's hard work. It'll take your lifetime. And then some. That's the message that this "id(r)ealist" old man has for you all. In some ways you are naive, less informed than you might be, less potent than you will be in the future. The author wants you to sell out to the process now, while the price seems right. He makes a good argument. He's also wrong.
And here is where I return to the very important matter which often gets overlooked, as I mentioned at the beginning of this diatribe. It's this: the world is not merely extrapolation, it's transformation. Nature is good to us. It has endowed human beings with the ability not only to understand some of it's beautiful inner workings, it has given us the power to participate in creation with it. Now, nature transforms in interesting ways: the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, H2O can be be water...or ice...or steam. Etc, etc... . These transformations are not merely quantitative, they are qualitative, too. Making the change from one phase to another is not always apparent, but it is always scientific and thus, knowable.
Whenever someone tells you that any value of "this can't happen, then it has to be based on more than just "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's just the way things are." The way we have always done it is a choice we have made; the way things are is a choice we have made.
Now, for those Sanders supporters who know that the work is only beginning, much that I have said might seem obvious. It's part of our job to demonstrate to the extrapolators--the embracers of the establishment because that's the only way that things'll get done--that what is needed is a new establishment and that that transformation is not merely possible, it's necessary at this moment in our history. It's incumbent upon us to do the work, to prove the pudding, to say, yes, our political discourse requires many of the elements that you incrementalists say is necessary--compromise, debate, et al. This "means" are part of the way things get done, but the "ends" matter and our "ends" require a transformation away from the kind of economic premises and policies we currently think of as part of the common dialogue, away from the kind of foreign policy which alienates much of the rest of the world, away from superficial and artificial distinctions among human beings whether is be race or gender or class. If we can accomplish a portion of the ideals which so-called naive youth embrace today then it'll be good for humanity as a whole. What did my youthful generation say? "You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem." Sounds nice and pithy but perhaps that is among the crucial mistakes that our generation made. Maybe the idea needs to be expressed differently: "Here's the problem, please join us and help us create a solution."
Final disclosure: If this seems condescending that is not my intent. But, try to remember this: older folks do have experiences which matter. Lots of the stuff mentioned here were not fully formed ideas that I had back then. I was a youthful idealist, true. But I was an irrepressible and sometimes irresponsible kid as well. Naive in important ways, too.
Grow, learn, transform.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:30 PM on March 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
Noticed some typos after I banged that out. Sorry, but I think you'll get the gist.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:44 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by CincyBlues at 9:44 PM on March 10, 2016
As someone one generation younger, I witnessed first hand the lessons the Democrats drew from 68 and 72. The strategies they employed in reaction to what they "learned" in those years -- ie, the electoral strategies they pursued from, say, 1976 to 2006 -- were by most accounts an abject failure. Yes, perhaps it could have been worse -- but boy, could it have been better. Unlearning many of those "lessons" and trying something new seems well justified given all the crap the Democratic party has buried itself under in its conservative over-reaction to 68 and 72.
posted by chortly at 9:49 PM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by chortly at 9:49 PM on March 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Oh come on. Arguing that Bernie supporters want to repeal the ACA/wish the ACA never happened is ludicrous on its face. Wanting to improve the system is not at all the same as wanting to destroy it.
How is that ludicrous? ACA is archetypal incremental advancement, and Bernie and nearly all of his supporters in this topic have not said one positive word about it, but go on about how it's worthless and we need single payer.
ACA is the kind of program Hillary will achieve, if elected. It's like Dodd Frank reforms, the Family Leave Act, etc. Incremental.
But single payer did not pass in literally 70 years of efforts from popular Democratic administrations often with big congressional majorities and certainly less obstructionist Republicans.
Bernie would not have proposed or pushed through ACA, I think we can all agree on that right? That was Obama the incrementalist supported by corrupt corporate interests, and Bernie attacked him for it all along the process.S ure, he voted for the ACA in the end but if Bernie were president it would never have come up for a vote.
posted by msalt at 10:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How is that ludicrous? ACA is archetypal incremental advancement, and Bernie and nearly all of his supporters in this topic have not said one positive word about it, but go on about how it's worthless and we need single payer.
ACA is the kind of program Hillary will achieve, if elected. It's like Dodd Frank reforms, the Family Leave Act, etc. Incremental.
But single payer did not pass in literally 70 years of efforts from popular Democratic administrations often with big congressional majorities and certainly less obstructionist Republicans.
Bernie would not have proposed or pushed through ACA, I think we can all agree on that right? That was Obama the incrementalist supported by corrupt corporate interests, and Bernie attacked him for it all along the process.S ure, he voted for the ACA in the end but if Bernie were president it would never have come up for a vote.
posted by msalt at 10:01 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
ACA is the kind of program Hillary will achieve
How? Obama needed a (at least near) supermajority of Democrats for it.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:04 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How? Obama needed a (at least near) supermajority of Democrats for it.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:04 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie would not have proposed or pushed through ACA
He was on the committee that wrote and passed ACA and was responsible for adding a vital amendment that added $13 billion in funding for community health centers. I don't know what kind of straw man you've built up about Sanders or his supporters, but it might be worth knowing more about his record.
Pardon me for not being enthusiastic enough about ACA for you - I'm still too poor to afford insurance so I am among the supposed 10% that is not covered (a community health study of my state found 23% of the state lacking coverage, so I have some questions about that statistic - does that include yearlong coverage or just people who enroll at the beginning but fall behind on their bills and lose coverage?). Everyone I know who does have insurance has such high deductibles that they can't really use the insurance they pay for. I'm glad that the pre-existing conditions coverage was added, and I'm sure that the exchanges help a lot of people but it is a seriously flawed piece of legislation from the perspective of most working-class people that I know.
posted by dialetheia at 10:11 PM on March 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
He was on the committee that wrote and passed ACA and was responsible for adding a vital amendment that added $13 billion in funding for community health centers. I don't know what kind of straw man you've built up about Sanders or his supporters, but it might be worth knowing more about his record.
Pardon me for not being enthusiastic enough about ACA for you - I'm still too poor to afford insurance so I am among the supposed 10% that is not covered (a community health study of my state found 23% of the state lacking coverage, so I have some questions about that statistic - does that include yearlong coverage or just people who enroll at the beginning but fall behind on their bills and lose coverage?). Everyone I know who does have insurance has such high deductibles that they can't really use the insurance they pay for. I'm glad that the pre-existing conditions coverage was added, and I'm sure that the exchanges help a lot of people but it is a seriously flawed piece of legislation from the perspective of most working-class people that I know.
posted by dialetheia at 10:11 PM on March 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
Oops, sorry, it was actually $11 billion
posted by dialetheia at 10:26 PM on March 10, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:26 PM on March 10, 2016
Hillary spoke 32% longer, moderators interrupted Bernie 150% more
posted by futz at 10:50 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by futz at 10:50 PM on March 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not surprised, I didn't want to comment too much about it because as a supporter unfairness is something I could easily perceive if it wasn't there, but yeah. It was noticeable and weird.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 PM on March 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
a community health study of my state found 23% of the state lacking coverage
You have been citing coverage statistics from before Obamacare was rolled out. At the end of 2014, the first year of Obamacare the uninsured rate in Montana was 13%, which is a big improvement over pre-Obamacare. It would be even lower than that but Montana Republicans delayed the expansion of Medicaid until the beginning of this January, two years late, so you would expect the rate to drop even more over the next year.
posted by JackFlash at 11:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
You have been citing coverage statistics from before Obamacare was rolled out. At the end of 2014, the first year of Obamacare the uninsured rate in Montana was 13%, which is a big improvement over pre-Obamacare. It would be even lower than that but Montana Republicans delayed the expansion of Medicaid until the beginning of this January, two years late, so you would expect the rate to drop even more over the next year.
posted by JackFlash at 11:00 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Sanders would mop the floor with Drumpf's headpiece. It would be amusing, and a massive"
No offense but no, he wouldn't.
For example.
Sanders: "blah-blah"
Trvmp: "shut up and go back to Moscow"
Election over. No, Bernie got gamed and he should triple down on negitive aspects of Clintons blunders.
posted by clavdivs at 11:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
No offense but no, he wouldn't.
For example.
Sanders: "blah-blah"
Trvmp: "shut up and go back to Moscow"
Election over. No, Bernie got gamed and he should triple down on negitive aspects of Clintons blunders.
posted by clavdivs at 11:20 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
At the end of 2014, the first year of Obamacare the uninsured rate in Montana was 13%, which is a big improvement over pre-Obamacare.
Ah, that's helpful, thanks. I actually just got rejected for that Medicaid expansion because I make $200 too much (one of my issues with means testing), so it doesn't help me, but I'm sure it is helpful for many. The point remains that many remain uncovered and many more can't afford to use the barely-adequate catastrophic coverage that they have.
posted by dialetheia at 11:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah, that's helpful, thanks. I actually just got rejected for that Medicaid expansion because I make $200 too much (one of my issues with means testing), so it doesn't help me, but I'm sure it is helpful for many. The point remains that many remain uncovered and many more can't afford to use the barely-adequate catastrophic coverage that they have.
posted by dialetheia at 11:23 PM on March 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trvmp: "shut up and go back to Moscow"
Trump is the one who is all buddy, buddy with Putin.
The cold war has been over for 2 decades now. I do not think redbaiting works as well as it used to.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:38 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is the one who is all buddy, buddy with Putin.
The cold war has been over for 2 decades now. I do not think redbaiting works as well as it used to.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:38 PM on March 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually just got rejected for that Medicaid expansion because I make $200 too much.
If you are just above the Medicaid cutoff, then you should be eligible for an Obamacare silver plan from the exchange worth approximately $300 per month for a cost of about $50 per month.
You should also be eligible for cost sharing that helps pay for deductibles, co-pays and prescriptions. This means that your deductible would be zero and office visits would be no more than $10. The maximum you would ever pay out of pocket in a year, even if you were to get something like a $600,000 heart transplant, would be $1000.
posted by JackFlash at 11:54 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you are just above the Medicaid cutoff, then you should be eligible for an Obamacare silver plan from the exchange worth approximately $300 per month for a cost of about $50 per month.
You should also be eligible for cost sharing that helps pay for deductibles, co-pays and prescriptions. This means that your deductible would be zero and office visits would be no more than $10. The maximum you would ever pay out of pocket in a year, even if you were to get something like a $600,000 heart transplant, would be $1000.
posted by JackFlash at 11:54 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Like I tried to make clear, I don't have an extra $50 a month right now, unfortunately, but thanks anyway. At least I'm poor enough that I didn't get charged the penalty this year. I had that silver plan for a couple of months last year before my stipend was decreased and still couldn't afford to go to the doctor - not sure whether the care I needed wasn't covered by the cost sharing or what, but the first time I went to see a doctor, I got a bill for $250 that I still can't afford to pay. Anyway, my personal finances aside, the point is that many people who are supporting Sanders are coming from a place of desperately needing a better system, not some ridiculous ideological purity.
posted by dialetheia at 12:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Attention Health Insurance Company Employees.
Update your resume. There will soon be good paying, union, government jobs pushing pretty much the same paperwork you're processing now, but less of it because of the future EHR integration.
posted by mikelieman at 4:06 AM on March 11, 2016
Update your resume. There will soon be good paying, union, government jobs pushing pretty much the same paperwork you're processing now, but less of it because of the future EHR integration.
posted by mikelieman at 4:06 AM on March 11, 2016
Hillary spoke 32% longer, moderators interrupted Bernie 150% more
Well, both Univision and WaPo*, the sponsors of the debate, are owned by Hillary supporters, so whatchagonnado. Also apparently Hillary broke the rules of the debate by meeting with her aides during the break, if anyone cares.
* I'm inferring this from how WaPo has been covering Bernie. If he/they are not a Hillary supporter, he/they are at least clearly a Bernie antagonist.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, both Univision and WaPo*, the sponsors of the debate, are owned by Hillary supporters, so whatchagonnado. Also apparently Hillary broke the rules of the debate by meeting with her aides during the break, if anyone cares.
* I'm inferring this from how WaPo has been covering Bernie. If he/they are not a Hillary supporter, he/they are at least clearly a Bernie antagonist.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trvmp: "shut up and go back to Moscow"
Did you see Xanax "presidential" Trump last night? He's got himself in between a rock and a hard place. If he comes out swinging, he keeps his base happy but loses almost all the decent, level-headed people in the country who aren't gripped with fear and hatred, but if he plays low-energy flaccid Trump, he's going to look weak and stupid against the articulate, issue-focused righteous indignation of a fired-up Bernie Sanders, or the snappy comebacks and genuine compassion of Hillary Clinton in her best moments.
posted by dis_integration at 4:19 AM on March 11, 2016
Did you see Xanax "presidential" Trump last night? He's got himself in between a rock and a hard place. If he comes out swinging, he keeps his base happy but loses almost all the decent, level-headed people in the country who aren't gripped with fear and hatred, but if he plays low-energy flaccid Trump, he's going to look weak and stupid against the articulate, issue-focused righteous indignation of a fired-up Bernie Sanders, or the snappy comebacks and genuine compassion of Hillary Clinton in her best moments.
posted by dis_integration at 4:19 AM on March 11, 2016
OK
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:29 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:29 AM on March 11, 2016
Ben Carson - "There's two Trumps". Yeah, that's not a selling point for me dude.
posted by cashman at 6:15 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by cashman at 6:15 AM on March 11, 2016
The Goal of the Neo-Liberal Consensus Is to Manage the Decline
"The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal. Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing. When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done."
[...]
"As a woman and person of funny-color, I know who is being callous and insensitive toward me, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders."
posted by Trochanter at 7:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
"The American ruling class has been trying to figure out for years, if not decades, how to manage decline, how to get Americans to get used to diminished expectations, how to adapt to the notion that life for the next generation will be worse than for the previous generation, and now, how to accept (as Alex Gourevitch reminded me tonight) low to zero growth rates as the new economic normal. Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing. When the leading candidate of the more left of the two parties is saying that – and getting the majority of its voters to embrace that message – the work of the American ruling class is done."
[...]
"As a woman and person of funny-color, I know who is being callous and insensitive toward me, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders."
posted by Trochanter at 7:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Clinton’s campaign message isn’t just for Bernie voters; it’s for everyone. Expect little, deserve less, ask for nothing.
I don't agree with this at all. As a woman of color ( personally I don't think it's "funny" and I get the point, but I don't like coopting those words) I am just purely uninterested in the argument that Voting Bernie Sanders Will Solve All My Problems If I Only Just Listened And Here Is A Link.
I just think Hillary Clinton would be a better President.
posted by zutalors! at 7:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
I don't agree with this at all. As a woman of color ( personally I don't think it's "funny" and I get the point, but I don't like coopting those words) I am just purely uninterested in the argument that Voting Bernie Sanders Will Solve All My Problems If I Only Just Listened And Here Is A Link.
I just think Hillary Clinton would be a better President.
posted by zutalors! at 7:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
I plan to vote for Sanders in the primary, but it's almost more as a show of support for his platform than for him personally. I think he'd be a good president, but I also think Clinton would be better able to implement her agenda - so while I agree more with Sanders than Clinton I think it's very possible that I'd wind up getting more of the things I want from the next administration if Clinton won. That's why I'll ultimately be happy to pull the lever for either of them in November, and that's also why I'm sick of people insisting that backing Clinton is only possible for the ignorant.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think he'd be a good president, but I also think Clinton would be better able to implement her agenda -
with what Congress?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on March 11, 2016
with what Congress?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on March 11, 2016
I will also say: I was completely unconvinced of Sanders' electability when this primary began and it was Sanders supporters online who convinced me he was a serious candidate who could beat the field of Republicans. I started off this race pretty solidly in Clinton's camp and now I'm more like 45/55 Clinton/Sanders. So it's not as if I don't appreciate the passionate arguments in his favor. But Clinton supporters also have their reasons.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
with what Congress?
This is exactly my point.
As an example from someone more eloquent than me, I'll just repost something I found on SA:
"McAlister posted:
I'm falling to far behind to keep this conversation going .. so this will probably be my last post for awhile. And I do see this as a conversation, not an argument.
I think Hillary's is both better and more achievable. Although the latter strongly influences the former for me.
She is taking a two pronged approach. At the state level she is putting the screws on folks who refused the Medicaid expansion. Her campaign is very focused on local messaging in each state and if you just look at the national coverage you miss the regional messaging but her local adds and speeches in states that refused Medicaid expansion call out the governor's who did so. When Medicaid was passed originally it took 17 years before all the states accepted it. People grand stood and pitched fits but denying health care to your citizens that everyone else was getting was a losing strategy electorally. Expansion is thus feasible and would bring tangible benefits to millions of Americans. Pushing it also might help a lot in down ticket races in GOP held states.
Side note: Bel Edwards accepted Medicaid expansion in Louisiana this January =). 19 states to go. ~3.5 million expansion eligible people between them.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/john_bel_edwards_medicaid.html
At the federal level she is pushing improvements to the ACA and a public option.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
A lot of that is unlikely to pass but I really like the plan to do public service announcements and outreach to get an estimated 16 million signed up who don't appear to realize that they are now Medicaid eligible due to the ACA. To bad GOP controlled congress, these laws are already passed! Muahahaha! It's just helping people to claim their benefits. That said, if you know someone for whom ACA subsidies are not enough, ask them if they've checked to see if they are Medicaid eligible under the ACA.
It's not full NHS now. But coming up with a realistic path to getting almost 20 million people Medicaid benefits isn't nothing. There are only about 33 million uninsured left so that would be tremendous progress."
The point is: Congress can be worked around, rather than with. And it takes an extremely skilled politician to do that. Both of them are skilled politicians, but Clinton is the more skilled of the two.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is exactly my point.
As an example from someone more eloquent than me, I'll just repost something I found on SA:
"McAlister posted:
I'm falling to far behind to keep this conversation going .. so this will probably be my last post for awhile. And I do see this as a conversation, not an argument.
I think Hillary's is both better and more achievable. Although the latter strongly influences the former for me.
She is taking a two pronged approach. At the state level she is putting the screws on folks who refused the Medicaid expansion. Her campaign is very focused on local messaging in each state and if you just look at the national coverage you miss the regional messaging but her local adds and speeches in states that refused Medicaid expansion call out the governor's who did so. When Medicaid was passed originally it took 17 years before all the states accepted it. People grand stood and pitched fits but denying health care to your citizens that everyone else was getting was a losing strategy electorally. Expansion is thus feasible and would bring tangible benefits to millions of Americans. Pushing it also might help a lot in down ticket races in GOP held states.
Side note: Bel Edwards accepted Medicaid expansion in Louisiana this January =). 19 states to go. ~3.5 million expansion eligible people between them.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/john_bel_edwards_medicaid.html
At the federal level she is pushing improvements to the ACA and a public option.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
A lot of that is unlikely to pass but I really like the plan to do public service announcements and outreach to get an estimated 16 million signed up who don't appear to realize that they are now Medicaid eligible due to the ACA. To bad GOP controlled congress, these laws are already passed! Muahahaha! It's just helping people to claim their benefits. That said, if you know someone for whom ACA subsidies are not enough, ask them if they've checked to see if they are Medicaid eligible under the ACA.
It's not full NHS now. But coming up with a realistic path to getting almost 20 million people Medicaid benefits isn't nothing. There are only about 33 million uninsured left so that would be tremendous progress."
The point is: Congress can be worked around, rather than with. And it takes an extremely skilled politician to do that. Both of them are skilled politicians, but Clinton is the more skilled of the two.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
but I don't like coopting those words
The quote's from Avedon Carol.
posted by Trochanter at 7:49 AM on March 11, 2016
The quote's from Avedon Carol.
posted by Trochanter at 7:49 AM on March 11, 2016
I honestly don't think Clinton could get anything done as President, which is why I wouldn't vote for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What do you think Sanders could get done that Clinton couldn't? I don't mean this as some kind of gotcha. But I can't imagine Congress is going to be any more willing to work with him than with Clinton.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
What do you think Sanders could get done that Clinton couldn't? I don't mean this as some kind of gotcha. But I can't imagine Congress is going to be any more willing to work with him than with Clinton.
Maybe not much, that's true. But his policies and ideas are more progressive, so anything he got done would be more interesting to me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe not much, that's true. But his policies and ideas are more progressive, so anything he got done would be more interesting to me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't necessarily think Congress would be any more or less obstructionist with either of them, but I see Sanders as changing the discussion. He has consistently been saying that WE need to change things, and the presidency is a big microphone for that.
posted by Fleebnork at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Fleebnork at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Caitlyn Jenner: Hillary Clinton Is a 'Fucking Liar,' Trump Would Be 'Very Good for Women's Issues'
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on March 11, 2016
He has consistently been saying that WE need to change things, and the presidency is a big microphone for that.
I think that's a valid point, but I'm also a little wary of the idea that the presidency is the best place for 'radical' ideas (obviously I only mean 'radical' in comparison with the rest of America). I think his messaging may wind up being almost more effective if he loses the primary but continues to stay in his newly prominent place in the public eye, as a face of the newly invigorated Dem Left. But, again, I'm not super bullish on that position. I just think it's worth thinking about.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:14 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think that's a valid point, but I'm also a little wary of the idea that the presidency is the best place for 'radical' ideas (obviously I only mean 'radical' in comparison with the rest of America). I think his messaging may wind up being almost more effective if he loses the primary but continues to stay in his newly prominent place in the public eye, as a face of the newly invigorated Dem Left. But, again, I'm not super bullish on that position. I just think it's worth thinking about.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:14 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
but I don't like coopting those words
The quote's from Avedon Carol.
I don't know what this means, but I was talking about the "funny color" comment.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The quote's from Avedon Carol.
I don't know what this means, but I was talking about the "funny color" comment.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Caitlyn Jenner: Hillary Clinton Is a 'Fucking Liar,' Trump Would Be 'Very Good for Women's Issues'
Republican calls Clinton a "Fucking Liar." Claims Republican frontrunner who recently made and defended multiple sexist comments against women would be "very good for women's issues."
Uh huh.
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Republican calls Clinton a "Fucking Liar." Claims Republican frontrunner who recently made and defended multiple sexist comments against women would be "very good for women's issues."
Uh huh.
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think his messaging may wind up being almost more effective if he loses the primary but continues to stay in his newly prominent place in the public eye, as a face of the newly invigorated Dem Left.
My worry is that the message would be lost, since people seem to forget about the government in non-election years.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:27 AM on March 11, 2016
My worry is that the message would be lost, since people seem to forget about the government in non-election years.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:27 AM on March 11, 2016
Cailtyn Jenner is gross for reasons related to what's in her mind, not in her underwear. I'm unsurprised she would have something shitty to say.
posted by zutalors! at 8:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Caitlyn Jenner: Hillary Clinton Is a 'Fucking Liar,' Trump Would Be 'Very Good for Women's Issues'
I kind of feel like if someone believes the latter of those statements, you can safely discount their opinion on pretty much anything else, including the former.
posted by dersins at 8:29 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I kind of feel like if someone believes the latter of those statements, you can safely discount their opinion on pretty much anything else, including the former.
posted by dersins at 8:29 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Apropos of nothing, it's nice to see that Caitlyn Jenner has changed her mind about gay marriage. (I was going to call her an anti-gay marriage Republican above, before checking.)
posted by zarq at 8:30 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by zarq at 8:30 AM on March 11, 2016
WaPo: Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Haiti and Honduras
Before her murder, Honduran environmental and civil rights activist Berta Cáceres singled out Hillary Clinton for criticism
posted by dialetheia at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Before her murder, Honduran environmental and civil rights activist Berta Cáceres singled out Hillary Clinton for criticism
posted by dialetheia at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump On Violence Against Protestors: 'We Need A Little Bit More' Of That
posted by zombieflanders at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Asked if he's "playing a character" when he says things like "I want to punch a protester in the face," Trump responded there have been "some violent people" protesting his rallies.The media is 100% silent on pushing back against Trump lying about something caught on video right now. And he's gaslighting a Breitbart(!) reporter who was assaulted by his campaign manager--again, on video--as well.
"These are people that punch. People that are violent people," Trump said. "The particular one where I said 'I'd like to bang him,' that was a very vicious – a guy who was swinging, very loud, and then started swinging at the audience."
He continued: "You know what? The audience swung back. And I thought it was very, very appropriate. He was swinging. He was hitting people. And the audience hit back. And that's what we need a little bit more of."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
From the WaPo (!):
Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti
5 times Hillary Clinton has played fast and loose with the facts on Bernie Sanders’s record
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti
5 times Hillary Clinton has played fast and loose with the facts on Bernie Sanders’s record
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
zombieflanders, to be fair to Trump (because why not) it sounds like he's saying we need more people fighting back.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:43 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:43 AM on March 11, 2016
it sounds like he's saying we need more people fighting back
Against non-violent protesters? That's going a bit further than "being fair."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:47 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Against non-violent protesters? That's going a bit further than "being fair."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:47 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
@JohnBerman: BREAKING: @marcorubio communications director @AlexConant tells us Rubio supporters in Ohio should vote for @JohnKasich.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, the idea that a pro-life candidate in favor of:
* defunding Planned Parenthood
* killing the ACA (which drastically expanded coverage and benefits for women -- and especially low-income and minority women,)
* the forced emigration of 11 million people, (which would likely break up families by separating mothers and fathers from their children)
...would be "very good on women's issues" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
posted by zarq at 8:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
* defunding Planned Parenthood
* killing the ACA (which drastically expanded coverage and benefits for women -- and especially low-income and minority women,)
* the forced emigration of 11 million people, (which would likely break up families by separating mothers and fathers from their children)
...would be "very good on women's issues" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
posted by zarq at 8:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Cruz wasn't the world's biggest wanker, that's what he would have told his supporters in FL and OH.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:49 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:49 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
[minor key]
just say the word, oh
ru-ru-ru...bi...o.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:50 AM on March 11, 2016
just say the word, oh
ru-ru-ru...bi...o.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:50 AM on March 11, 2016
From the man who was attacked at the rally the other night "I was there just to watch and experience the surreal moment of someone like Trump running for president and speaking to thousands of people," he told the Daily News.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Author, Feminist, Teacher and Scholar, bell hooks, says: "I can not longer be a Hillary Clinton supporter!"
Youtube.
posted by Trochanter at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Youtube.
posted by Trochanter at 8:57 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
There was actually more than one man attacked at that rally. Adedayo Adeniyi (the guy from roomthreeseventeen's link) was slapped in the face and cussed out, as opposed to Rakeem Jones, who was sucker punched and whose assailant recently threatened to kill him.
More than enough violence to go around.
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
More than enough violence to go around.
posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wonder how the dynamic would change at Trump rallies if the Black Panthers started regularly attending.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on March 11, 2016
I wonder how the dynamic would change at Trump rallies if the Black Panthers started regularly attending.
People would die.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:05 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
People would die.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:05 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
(Not that the organization still exists.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:06 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:06 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Against non-violent protesters? That's going a bit further than "being fair."
Black and brown bodies daring to be in political spaces is inherently violent, because black and brown people are not permitted to transgress into the political realm.
White supremacy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Black and brown bodies daring to be in political spaces is inherently violent, because black and brown people are not permitted to transgress into the political realm.
White supremacy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would protest at a Trump rally but I am really worried about being killed since I could easily be taken for Muslim or Hispanic. I have so much awe for Muslims who are protesting - I think masses of white people should be doing it though.
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Saliently, what happens to USAID and the programmes for sub Saharan Africa, including humanitarian Africom?
posted by infini at 9:20 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by infini at 9:20 AM on March 11, 2016
tivalasvegas: Black and brown bodies daring to be in political spaces is inherently violent, because black and brown people are not permitted to transgress into the political realm.
It seems like it's even dangerous to be a woman asking questions - a female reporter from Breitbart was allegedly assaulted/manhandled by Trump's own campaign manager, who is now gaslighting her on twitter and claiming it never happened, despite it being witnessed by a Washington Post reporter. Between the Megyn Kelly thing and this, the message from the Trump camp to women is clear: stand there and be pretty like Melania, but don't you dare open your mouth.
posted by bluecore at 9:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It seems like it's even dangerous to be a woman asking questions - a female reporter from Breitbart was allegedly assaulted/manhandled by Trump's own campaign manager, who is now gaslighting her on twitter and claiming it never happened, despite it being witnessed by a Washington Post reporter. Between the Megyn Kelly thing and this, the message from the Trump camp to women is clear: stand there and be pretty like Melania, but don't you dare open your mouth.
posted by bluecore at 9:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
New IL Sanders ad hits Clinton on ties to Rahm Emanuel. This is a great start but I wish he'd explicitly used her name - her support of Rahm in light of stuff like this has been pretty gross.
posted by dialetheia at 9:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Atom Eyes:When my resident Trump supporter objected to "liberal" ABC News mentioning the violence at his rallies, I said, "You don't see how people are legitimately frightened by the fascistic optics of this?"(Not that the [Black Panthers] still [exist].)
To which he said — and I am not making this up — "Yeah, well, I'm legitimately frightened of the Black Panthers at Hillary Clinton rallies."
posted by ob1quixote at 9:49 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's just all one big left-of-Trump blob to him, I guess...
How did you keep a straight face?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
How did you keep a straight face?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I had a conversation on the violence on my Facebook page, and someone posted 'well, someone stole Trump signs out of my neighbor's yard, so it goes both ways."
.....
posted by zutalors! at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2016
.....
posted by zutalors! at 9:54 AM on March 11, 2016
bluecore: It seems like it's even dangerous to be a woman asking questions - a female reporter from Breitbart was allegedly assaulted/manhandled by Trump's own campaign manager, who is now gaslighting her on twitter and claiming it never happened, despite it being witnessed by a Washington Post reporter.
A correction: Breitbart is now saying it was "likely not" the campaign manager, but instead a security guard with a similar look/build.
posted by bluecore at 9:58 AM on March 11, 2016
A correction: Breitbart is now saying it was "likely not" the campaign manager, but instead a security guard with a similar look/build.
posted by bluecore at 9:58 AM on March 11, 2016
Unlearning many of those "lessons" and trying something new seems well justified given all the crap the Democratic party has buried itself under in its conservative over-reaction to 68 and 72.
I think what has hurt the party more than anything else since the New Deal is the numerous losses to anti-union business interests. The decline in union membership started in the mid-1950s and really gained momentum in the Reagan era. This used to be a very reliable and large portion of the Democratic base, but after the union jobs disappeared a lot of these same people were won over by the culture war arguments of the Republicans, and their anti-union rhetoric dressed up as anti-elitist populism (sound familiar?).
posted by krinklyfig at 10:14 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think what has hurt the party more than anything else since the New Deal is the numerous losses to anti-union business interests. The decline in union membership started in the mid-1950s and really gained momentum in the Reagan era. This used to be a very reliable and large portion of the Democratic base, but after the union jobs disappeared a lot of these same people were won over by the culture war arguments of the Republicans, and their anti-union rhetoric dressed up as anti-elitist populism (sound familiar?).
posted by krinklyfig at 10:14 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The worm, she is turning, no?
More likely they are just trying to prove that they aren't anti-Bernie after all the sixteen anti-Bernie articles.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016
More likely they are just trying to prove that they aren't anti-Bernie after all the sixteen anti-Bernie articles.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016
I honestly don't think Clinton could get anything done as President, which is why I wouldn't vote for her.
I honestly think Hillary Clinton can screw up again and this time kill over 250,000 innocent men, women, and children. Her track record is why I wouldn't vote for her.
posted by mikelieman at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I honestly think Hillary Clinton can screw up again and this time kill over 250,000 innocent men, women, and children. Her track record is why I wouldn't vote for her.
posted by mikelieman at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Glad we're not being hyperbolic or anything.
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think what has hurt the party more than anything else since the New Deal is the numerous losses to anti-union business interests.
Agreed - and much of that was aided and abetted by the Clinton White House (e.g. NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China). It has had the effect of weakening the legislative wing of the party while nominally strengthening the presidential wing (as in this critique from Billmon1, economic journalist turned veteran liberal blogger). Labor and grassroots organizations are the Democratic party machine, and they have become much weaker in the past two decades due at least in part to a lack of support verging on hostility from the arguably accommodationist presidential wing of the party.
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Agreed - and much of that was aided and abetted by the Clinton White House (e.g. NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China). It has had the effect of weakening the legislative wing of the party while nominally strengthening the presidential wing (as in this critique from Billmon1, economic journalist turned veteran liberal blogger). Labor and grassroots organizations are the Democratic party machine, and they have become much weaker in the past two decades due at least in part to a lack of support verging on hostility from the arguably accommodationist presidential wing of the party.
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
A correction: Breitbart is now saying it was "likely not" the campaign manager, but instead a security guard with a similar look/build.
Also, it's not surprising that Breitbart is throwing its own reporter under the Trump bus, but it's astounding that they would feel comfortable to be so brazen about it:
A new report from Breitbart News asserted Friday that Washington Post reporter Ben Terris misidentified Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, as the man who strong-armed a Breitbart reporter.That's not a proper correction, as Breitbart can't make a correction on behalf of the Washington Post.
Also, it's not surprising that Breitbart is throwing its own reporter under the Trump bus, but it's astounding that they would feel comfortable to be so brazen about it:
"Given the similarity in appearance between Lewandowski and the security official, and given the fact that Lewandowski was walking on the other side of Trump from where Fields was at the time, the possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out," Breitbart's Joel B. Pollak wrote. "Indeed, given Lewandowski’s adamant denials (coupled with statements inappropriately impugning Fields’s character), it is the likeliest explanation."posted by Atom Eyes at 10:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly think Hillary Clinton can screw up again and this time kill over 250,000 innocent men, women, and children. Her track record is why I wouldn't vote for her.
That's fair. I can see that too for Clinton. But, I can also see it for Sanders. For me Sanders has a greater potential upside, but is also a riskier candidate that also has a greater potential for downside as well.
posted by FJT at 10:27 AM on March 11, 2016
That's fair. I can see that too for Clinton. But, I can also see it for Sanders. For me Sanders has a greater potential upside, but is also a riskier candidate that also has a greater potential for downside as well.
posted by FJT at 10:27 AM on March 11, 2016
Glad we're not being hyperbolic or anything.
AUMF-Iraq.
Clinton: "Yea"
That was 100k dead. Can we take the risk again?
posted by mikelieman at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
AUMF-Iraq.
Clinton: "Yea"
That was 100k dead. Can we take the risk again?
posted by mikelieman at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, I can also see it for Sanders.
This is just baffling.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is just baffling.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
AUMF-Iraq.
Sanders: "Nay"
Proven Experience.
posted by mikelieman at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders: "Nay"
Proven Experience.
posted by mikelieman at 10:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
That was 100k dead. Can we take the risk again?
And do we want to discuss how her vote to destabilize the region set the stage for the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh?
So, perhaps the body count from her AUMF-Iraq vote continues today?
posted by mikelieman at 10:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
And do we want to discuss how her vote to destabilize the region set the stage for the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh?
So, perhaps the body count from her AUMF-Iraq vote continues today?
posted by mikelieman at 10:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
krinklyfig: "I think what has hurt the party more than anything else since the New Deal is the numerous losses to anti-union business interests. The decline in union membership started in the mid-1950s and really gained momentum in the Reagan era."
Crooked Timber: Repeal Taft-Hartley
posted by Chrysostom at 10:39 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Crooked Timber: Repeal Taft-Hartley
posted by Chrysostom at 10:39 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not just Iraq.
Haiti. Honduras. Libya. Palestine. Iran. The Arab Spring.
Her foreign policy record is abysmal. She's left a trail of destruction in her wake. Belief that her experience has been "progressive" requires not examining it.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
Haiti. Honduras. Libya. Palestine. Iran. The Arab Spring.
Her foreign policy record is abysmal. She's left a trail of destruction in her wake. Belief that her experience has been "progressive" requires not examining it.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
AUMF-Iraq.
Clinton: "Yea"
That was 100k dead.
That resolution passed the senate 77-23.
Implying it is somehow down to Clinton that it passed is not only hyperbolic, it is foolish.
posted by dersins at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton: "Yea"
That was 100k dead.
That resolution passed the senate 77-23.
Implying it is somehow down to Clinton that it passed is not only hyperbolic, it is foolish.
posted by dersins at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
As angry as I still am about Democrats voting for the Iraq war, I think focusing on her advocacy for regime change in Libya and the disaster that turned out to be is more timely. That Obama interview with Jeffrey Goldberg was so interesting - one of the things that impressed me the most was how he resisted all the foreign policy establishment pressure to bomb Syria and intervene more there. I have serious doubts that Clinton would do the same.
posted by dialetheia at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Implying it is somehow down to Clinton that it passed is not only hyperbolic, it is foolish.
Are those other 76 people running for POTUS?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Are those other 76 people running for POTUS?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sanders foreign policy on ISIS isn't really an about face on what's going on now, nor has he said he'd stop using drones to assassinate terrorists. And if Sanders plan to enact a coalition of Middle Eastern countries to fight ISIS comes to fruition, it would still result in thousands of deaths, we would just be replacing American lives with non-Americans.
posted by FJT at 10:47 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 10:47 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are those other 76 people running for POTUS?
And the most likely opponent has already signaled his eagerness to rake Sec. Clinton over the coals for her vote.
I know the Dems are famously skilled at plucking defeat out of the jaws of victory, but Jesus wept if the Republicans end up painting the Democrats as the party of ill-conceived foreign adventurism. (Although they wouldn't be totally wrong.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the most likely opponent has already signaled his eagerness to rake Sec. Clinton over the coals for her vote.
I know the Dems are famously skilled at plucking defeat out of the jaws of victory, but Jesus wept if the Republicans end up painting the Democrats as the party of ill-conceived foreign adventurism. (Although they wouldn't be totally wrong.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:48 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, I don't think we've even begun to see what Trump is going to haul out against Hillary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:50 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:50 AM on March 11, 2016
My ideal foreign policy is rather to the left of Sen. Sanders', and I don't think I'm alone among MeFites on that. He's still way closer to my preferred positions than any of the other candidates.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Are those other 76 people running for POTUS?
No, but one of them is the current Vice President. Did you vote for Obama/Biden in 2008 or 2012?
Another is the current Secretary of State. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?
I kind of understood this obsession with laying everything bad ever at Clinton's feet when it was coming from the far right hate machine. The sudden adoption of the same anti-Clinton-vitriol coming from self-styled progressives, on the other hand, is just puzzling.
Do you also think she murdered Vince Foster?
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on March 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
No, but one of them is the current Vice President. Did you vote for Obama/Biden in 2008 or 2012?
Another is the current Secretary of State. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?
I kind of understood this obsession with laying everything bad ever at Clinton's feet when it was coming from the far right hate machine. The sudden adoption of the same anti-Clinton-vitriol coming from self-styled progressives, on the other hand, is just puzzling.
Do you also think she murdered Vince Foster?
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on March 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
dialetheia, I remember Obama going around on US talk shows trying to convince everyone that bombing Syria was a good idea and then really only backing off when the issue got shot down in the UK Parliament. I don't think I would classify his attitude as reluctant.
(Also, I just distrust anything that the raging neocon Goldberg writes, by default.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:55 AM on March 11, 2016
(Also, I just distrust anything that the raging neocon Goldberg writes, by default.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:55 AM on March 11, 2016
Do you also think she murdered Vince Foster?
Um, what?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Um, what?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Personally, I'm still angry at the Bush administration for planning, advocating for, lying about, and then enacting the war.
As someone who spent a good deal of 2003 protesting that war, I do reserve a special sense of betrayal for the Democrats who enabled it and lent credence to the argument for it, yes. But it's old news, which is why the rest of my comment focused on her strong advocacy for regime change in Libya, which no Clinton supporters ever seem to want to address.
dialetheia, I remember Obama going around on US talk shows trying to convince everyone that bombing Syria was a good idea and then really only backing off when the issue got shot down in the UK Parliament.
Fair. His account of it is still very interesting, though, and it could be argued that his respect for international opinion over foreign policy establishment conventional wisdom is still greater than I would expect from e.g. Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 10:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
As someone who spent a good deal of 2003 protesting that war, I do reserve a special sense of betrayal for the Democrats who enabled it and lent credence to the argument for it, yes. But it's old news, which is why the rest of my comment focused on her strong advocacy for regime change in Libya, which no Clinton supporters ever seem to want to address.
dialetheia, I remember Obama going around on US talk shows trying to convince everyone that bombing Syria was a good idea and then really only backing off when the issue got shot down in the UK Parliament.
Fair. His account of it is still very interesting, though, and it could be argued that his respect for international opinion over foreign policy establishment conventional wisdom is still greater than I would expect from e.g. Clinton.
posted by dialetheia at 10:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Medea Benjamin: Pink-Slipping Hillary(Nation Of Change)
...Disgusted, CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans tore off her pink slip and handed it to Clinton, saying that her support for Bush’s invasion would lead to the death of many innocent people. Making the bogus connection between the September 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein, Clinton stormed out, saying, “I am the Senator from New York. I will never put my people’s security at risk.”
But that’s just what she did, by supporting the Iraq war, draining our nation of over a trillion dollars that could have been used for supporting women and children here at home, which could have instead been rerouted to the social programs that have been systematically defunded over the last few decades of Clinton’s own political career, and ultimately snuffing out the lives of thousands of US soldiers — for absolutely no just cause.
If Clinton supported the Iraq war because she thought it politically expedient, she came to regret her stance when the war turned sour and Senator Barack Obama surged forward as the candidate opposed to that war.
But Clinton didn’t learn the main lesson from Iraq — to seek non- violent ways to solve conflicts. Indeed, when the Arab Spring came to Libya in 2010, Clinton was the Obama administration’s most forceful advocate for toppling Muammar Gaddafi. She even out-hawked Robert Gates, the defense secretary first appointed by George W. Bush, who was less than enthusiastic about going to war. Gates was reluctant to get bogged down in another Arab country, insisting that vital US interests were not at stake, but Clinton nevertheless favored intervention.
When Libyan rebels carried out an extrajudicial execution of their country’s former dictator, Clinton’s response was sociopathic: “We came, we saw, he died,” she laughed. at sent a message that the US would look the other way at crimes committed by allies against its official enemies. ...
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
...Disgusted, CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans tore off her pink slip and handed it to Clinton, saying that her support for Bush’s invasion would lead to the death of many innocent people. Making the bogus connection between the September 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein, Clinton stormed out, saying, “I am the Senator from New York. I will never put my people’s security at risk.”
But that’s just what she did, by supporting the Iraq war, draining our nation of over a trillion dollars that could have been used for supporting women and children here at home, which could have instead been rerouted to the social programs that have been systematically defunded over the last few decades of Clinton’s own political career, and ultimately snuffing out the lives of thousands of US soldiers — for absolutely no just cause.
If Clinton supported the Iraq war because she thought it politically expedient, she came to regret her stance when the war turned sour and Senator Barack Obama surged forward as the candidate opposed to that war.
But Clinton didn’t learn the main lesson from Iraq — to seek non- violent ways to solve conflicts. Indeed, when the Arab Spring came to Libya in 2010, Clinton was the Obama administration’s most forceful advocate for toppling Muammar Gaddafi. She even out-hawked Robert Gates, the defense secretary first appointed by George W. Bush, who was less than enthusiastic about going to war. Gates was reluctant to get bogged down in another Arab country, insisting that vital US interests were not at stake, but Clinton nevertheless favored intervention.
When Libyan rebels carried out an extrajudicial execution of their country’s former dictator, Clinton’s response was sociopathic: “We came, we saw, he died,” she laughed. at sent a message that the US would look the other way at crimes committed by allies against its official enemies. ...
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would protest at a Trump rally but I am really worried about being killed since I could easily be taken for Muslim or Hispanic. I have so much awe for Muslims who are protesting - I think masses of white people should be doing it though.
Should they? I wonder what it accomplishes. Speaking out against Trump and his racist/etc insanity, yeah, that's important. Going in the lion's den, such that the only people who will see what you have to say are people absolutely not receptive to it? I'm not sure that gets us anything when compared to the very real possibility of getting assaulted by the loons. It's hard to cast the not-Trump vote in the general if you're dead or in traction and that's where we need folks more than anywhere, I think.
That said, I do wonder about where the most effective place is to do the work against all these asshole eruptions being motivated by Trump's crap. I don't think most of them are reachable so protesting inside the scrum seems pointless, but where do we do it and with what ends? To show there's another side in the world and people who despise hate? To try to get repercussions to fall on these people spreading hate?
posted by phearlez at 11:05 AM on March 11, 2016
Should they? I wonder what it accomplishes. Speaking out against Trump and his racist/etc insanity, yeah, that's important. Going in the lion's den, such that the only people who will see what you have to say are people absolutely not receptive to it? I'm not sure that gets us anything when compared to the very real possibility of getting assaulted by the loons. It's hard to cast the not-Trump vote in the general if you're dead or in traction and that's where we need folks more than anywhere, I think.
That said, I do wonder about where the most effective place is to do the work against all these asshole eruptions being motivated by Trump's crap. I don't think most of them are reachable so protesting inside the scrum seems pointless, but where do we do it and with what ends? To show there's another side in the world and people who despise hate? To try to get repercussions to fall on these people spreading hate?
posted by phearlez at 11:05 AM on March 11, 2016
I think the critique is not that Clinton caused the Iraq war, but that she wanted to cause the Iraq war. Millions of us voted for Obama in 2008 not because he stopped Iraq war, but because he wanted to stop it.
I see this same debate popping up in all of Clinton's past actions. No, she didn't cause welfare reform, or the crime bill, or NAFTA. But she wanted those things, and advocated to help make them so. And that's what matters in predicting future behavior. Libya just confirms that when she does have more power to affect things, her actions are indeed consistent with her previously expressed beliefs.
posted by chortly at 11:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
I see this same debate popping up in all of Clinton's past actions. No, she didn't cause welfare reform, or the crime bill, or NAFTA. But she wanted those things, and advocated to help make them so. And that's what matters in predicting future behavior. Libya just confirms that when she does have more power to affect things, her actions are indeed consistent with her previously expressed beliefs.
posted by chortly at 11:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
She even out-hawked Robert Gates, the defense secretary first appointed by George W. Bush
This is closer to the heart of why I don't trust Sec. Clinton on foreign policy -- not merely the bare vote on Iraq, but the decade since. The Secretary of State is supposed to be the chief diplomat, finding peaceful solutions to complicated international issues and crises. But this Democratic Secretary of State, in a Democratic administration, repeatedly took a more hawkish stance than even the Republican Secretary of Defense.
It's like if you were charged of a crime and your own lawyer was pushing for you to be prosecuted even when the state's attorney wasn't convinced of the merits of the case. Would you want that lawyer to become a judge?
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:12 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is closer to the heart of why I don't trust Sec. Clinton on foreign policy -- not merely the bare vote on Iraq, but the decade since. The Secretary of State is supposed to be the chief diplomat, finding peaceful solutions to complicated international issues and crises. But this Democratic Secretary of State, in a Democratic administration, repeatedly took a more hawkish stance than even the Republican Secretary of Defense.
It's like if you were charged of a crime and your own lawyer was pushing for you to be prosecuted even when the state's attorney wasn't convinced of the merits of the case. Would you want that lawyer to become a judge?
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:12 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Re: Hillary's positions on war and peace -- one position of hers that has not gotten nearly enough attention as it should is her call for a no-fly zone in Syria. As the linked article rightly points out, this is insane. It will quickly put us into a war with Russia, a historic rival which also happens to have nuclear missiles. Do you want a nuclear war? I don't. Don't vote Hillary.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
omfg. lol. Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start "a national conversation" about HIV and AIDS.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner Endorse Hillary Clinton in a Heart-Wrenching New Ad. "Finally, someone here is really willing to listen."
posted by homunculus at 11:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 11:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
omfg. lol. Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start "a national conversation" about HIV and AIDS
That position is so dumb even Teen Vogue laughed at it.
The sudden adoption of the same anti-Clinton-vitriol coming from self-styled progressives, on the other hand, is just puzzling.
See above.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That position is so dumb even Teen Vogue laughed at it.
The sudden adoption of the same anti-Clinton-vitriol coming from self-styled progressives, on the other hand, is just puzzling.
See above.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The sudden adoption of the same anti-Clinton-vitriol coming from self-styled progressives, on the other hand, is just puzzling.
Not puzzling at all to me. Disappointing but not surprising.
posted by sallybrown at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not puzzling at all to me. Disappointing but not surprising.
posted by sallybrown at 11:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
omfg. lol. Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start "a national conversation" about HIV and AIDS.
Sure, and her friend Henry Kissinger helped start a dialogue about democracy in Chile.
posted by homunculus at 11:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Sure, and her friend Henry Kissinger helped start a dialogue about democracy in Chile.
posted by homunculus at 11:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is just baffling.
It's my worry about him too. Not that he's going to start shit in the middle east, no. But that through dovishness or isolationism he'll do, through action or inaction, something that removes NATO as a credible alliance, after which the probably-inevitable string of reactions-to-reactions make large-scale European war a real possibility inside 20 years. Low probability, but of nightmare-level scenarios.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's my worry about him too. Not that he's going to start shit in the middle east, no. But that through dovishness or isolationism he'll do, through action or inaction, something that removes NATO as a credible alliance, after which the probably-inevitable string of reactions-to-reactions make large-scale European war a real possibility inside 20 years. Low probability, but of nightmare-level scenarios.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lee Harvey Oswald helped start a conversation about convertibles
posted by beerperson at 11:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 11:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
surely the bloodhungry warhawk Clinton desires nuclear war
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary has repeatedly called for a no-fly zone over Syria both before and after Russia started bombing inside Syrian territory. The "oh yeah, with Russia too" comment is totally an afterthought. Syria is a Russian ally that they are determined to keep in their orbit. Regardless if Russia was not bombing actively, the idea that they would allow the US to come in to a close ally's territory and start doing whatever they want is terribly naive. The US and Russia have mutually opposed interests in Syria: one wants Bashar to go and the other for him to stay. (And if one has been paying attention, all of the forces that claim to be "fighting ISIS" are usually pursuing their own particular objectives with that excuse as an ideological cover, and often bombing someone totally different who they perceive to be their real enemy.) So looking at the substance of the issue, yes, it remains an extremely dangerous proposal.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:42 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Seriously, I am seething right now. I mean, I hate Donald Trump, but I hope he goes after Hillary on this AIDS comment. Oh lord.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Seriously, I am seething right now. I mean, I hate Donald Trump, but I hope he goes after Hillary on this AIDS comment. Oh lord.
I don't get this. This is fucking shameful, so why not Bernie or literally anyone else that's not a complete shitbag? Why does the main person have to be Trump?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't get this. This is fucking shameful, so why not Bernie or literally anyone else that's not a complete shitbag? Why does the main person have to be Trump?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's a weird comment from a Bernie supporter. Why not hope your guy goes after her instead of the fascist?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't get this. This is fucking shameful, so why not Bernie or literally anyone else that's not a complete shitbag? Why does the main person have to be Trump?
Fine, anyone, everyone. Ugh, sorry I said Trump, but even the Twitter backlash isn't enough for me right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on March 11, 2016
Fine, anyone, everyone. Ugh, sorry I said Trump, but even the Twitter backlash isn't enough for me right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on March 11, 2016
The Reagan administration's callous disregard and apathy of AIDs and the gay community is increasing my Murder levels.
posted by kyp at 11:53 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kyp at 11:53 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start "a national conversation" about HIV and AIDS.
You know, if I believe a candidate stands for things I agree with, then I'm willing to overlook a lot of minor screwups. I truly believe Clinton is a better candidate for the Presidency than Sanders for a number of reasons. I think she would make a better President. I don't think he's capable of meeting his campaign promises, I'm convinced that many of his policies are pie-in-the-sky and to be honest, the fact that he's Jewish truly worries the hell out of me.
But shit like this makes me want to set fire to everything. She keeps fucking up in ways that make me want to pound my forehead against a damned brick wall. What the hell was she thinking, saying something like that?
Nancy Reagan should not have her legacy whitewashed on this issue. Not ever. It should be front and center in every single one of her obituaries so people will know and remember that Conservative homophobia and Reagan-era "values" allowed tens of thousands of deaths on the Reagans' watch. And that when they did finally, belatedly open their damned mouths, it was in a speech at an amfAR dinner that they had to be guilted into going to, where the President advocated mandatory testing, to the crowd's horror.
By not speaking out, they delayed serious, desperately-needed focus on the crisis. They delayed government funding and attention and sexual safety/precautionary guidelines, and in doing so they not only contributed to people dying all over this country for many years after her husband left office, but the long delay in starting research on the disease. They perpetuated the destructive idea that AIDS was only a gay disease. Something that only those people got because of their 'chosen lifestyle.' Leading to gay people being treated like dirt and pariahs and even worse by medical personnel. The idea that heterosexuals couldn't possibly contract -- which meant that they did, in record damned numbers. Their lack of official response helped continue the "common knowledge" that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. Of misinformation regarding viral transmission.
This needs to be walked back. And I bet she won't do it because she was speaking about a former first lady at her funeral. Ugh.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on March 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
You know, if I believe a candidate stands for things I agree with, then I'm willing to overlook a lot of minor screwups. I truly believe Clinton is a better candidate for the Presidency than Sanders for a number of reasons. I think she would make a better President. I don't think he's capable of meeting his campaign promises, I'm convinced that many of his policies are pie-in-the-sky and to be honest, the fact that he's Jewish truly worries the hell out of me.
But shit like this makes me want to set fire to everything. She keeps fucking up in ways that make me want to pound my forehead against a damned brick wall. What the hell was she thinking, saying something like that?
Nancy Reagan should not have her legacy whitewashed on this issue. Not ever. It should be front and center in every single one of her obituaries so people will know and remember that Conservative homophobia and Reagan-era "values" allowed tens of thousands of deaths on the Reagans' watch. And that when they did finally, belatedly open their damned mouths, it was in a speech at an amfAR dinner that they had to be guilted into going to, where the President advocated mandatory testing, to the crowd's horror.
By not speaking out, they delayed serious, desperately-needed focus on the crisis. They delayed government funding and attention and sexual safety/precautionary guidelines, and in doing so they not only contributed to people dying all over this country for many years after her husband left office, but the long delay in starting research on the disease. They perpetuated the destructive idea that AIDS was only a gay disease. Something that only those people got because of their 'chosen lifestyle.' Leading to gay people being treated like dirt and pariahs and even worse by medical personnel. The idea that heterosexuals couldn't possibly contract -- which meant that they did, in record damned numbers. Their lack of official response helped continue the "common knowledge" that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. Of misinformation regarding viral transmission.
This needs to be walked back. And I bet she won't do it because she was speaking about a former first lady at her funeral. Ugh.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on March 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
And people don't get how she's a shaky shaky candidate.
Tell me where the hell that AIDS comment 'triangulates' to?
posted by Trochanter at 11:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Tell me where the hell that AIDS comment 'triangulates' to?
posted by Trochanter at 11:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I kind of understood this obsession with laying everything bad ever at Clinton's feet when it was coming from the far right hate machine.
Hillary's strength is her experience. Just don't judge her by her record in the Senate or as Secretary of State. Also, for the sake of civility, only compare her support of the war in Iraq with that of others who also voted for it. This contest is heated enough already, we don't need people dragging it down any further by those who insist on spewing this sort of vile hatred. I really thought we were better than this.
posted by snofoam at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary's strength is her experience. Just don't judge her by her record in the Senate or as Secretary of State. Also, for the sake of civility, only compare her support of the war in Iraq with that of others who also voted for it. This contest is heated enough already, we don't need people dragging it down any further by those who insist on spewing this sort of vile hatred. I really thought we were better than this.
posted by snofoam at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
This needs to be walked back. And I bet she won't do it because she was speaking about a former first lady at her funeral. Ugh.
That's impossible for Hillary to do. She can't afford to break with her Reagan-conservative base.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's impossible for Hillary to do. She can't afford to break with her Reagan-conservative base.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
New videos of violence and arrest appearing out of the Trump rally in St. Louis this afternoon.
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's fairly broad agreement across the political spectrum that a no-fly zone in Syria would be a terrible policy (1, 2, 3), regardless of tacked-on clarifications about how Russia would agree to it (which would never happen).
Re: the Nancy Reagan comments, well, this is why a lot of us are concerned that she grants far too much right-wing framing and is far too willing to make nice with Republicans while throwing her own base under the bus. This is a perfect example.
posted by dialetheia at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Re: the Nancy Reagan comments, well, this is why a lot of us are concerned that she grants far too much right-wing framing and is far too willing to make nice with Republicans while throwing her own base under the bus. This is a perfect example.
posted by dialetheia at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
She can't afford to break with her Reagan-conservative base.
Yeah, that's a bit much. I doubt her Southern black base would describe themselves that way.
posted by zutalors! at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that's a bit much. I doubt her Southern black base would describe themselves that way.
posted by zutalors! at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
She can't afford to break with her Reagan-conservative base.
The idea that she has one is laughable.
posted by zarq at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The idea that she has one is laughable.
posted by zarq at 12:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Re: the Nancy Reagan comments, well, this is why a lot of us are concerned that she grants far too much right-wing framing and is far too willing to make nice with Republicans while throwing her own base under the bus. This is a perfect example.
I think this is more accurate framing than "Reagan conservative base," though I still don't agree 100%
posted by zutalors! at 12:02 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is more accurate framing than "Reagan conservative base," though I still don't agree 100%
posted by zutalors! at 12:02 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
meanwhile over at @hrc the Human Rights Campaign is bravely covering a Cory Booker speech. Thanks guys!
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:08 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:08 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
#ReagansHelpedWithAIDSLike the Ferguson PD helped start a national conversation about militarizing police departments?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I loved RENT, the musical by Nancy Reagan
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But there's not broad agreement that Hillary Clinton would start a nuclear war with Russia, which was the claim to which I was responding.
It would almost certainly provoke an even worse confrontation with Russia, though, which is a very reasonable concern. As Charles Pierce put it in that piece I linked second, "Please Do Not No-Fly-Zone Us Into World War III":
"I will take this opportunity to point out that every American politician who is advising the president to enact a no-fly zone in Syria is asking for this event to be repeated, with even more perilous consequences. Right now, we've got a military confrontation between Russia and a member of NATO for the first time since Christ alone knows when. (Berlin? Cuba? 1962?) Bad as that is, and it's pretty damn bad, the same kind of military confrontation between Russia and the United States would be even worse, especially in the middle of a presidential campaign already full to the brim with useless dick-swinging and bellicose bullshit."
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would almost certainly provoke an even worse confrontation with Russia, though, which is a very reasonable concern. As Charles Pierce put it in that piece I linked second, "Please Do Not No-Fly-Zone Us Into World War III":
"I will take this opportunity to point out that every American politician who is advising the president to enact a no-fly zone in Syria is asking for this event to be repeated, with even more perilous consequences. Right now, we've got a military confrontation between Russia and a member of NATO for the first time since Christ alone knows when. (Berlin? Cuba? 1962?) Bad as that is, and it's pretty damn bad, the same kind of military confrontation between Russia and the United States would be even worse, especially in the middle of a presidential campaign already full to the brim with useless dick-swinging and bellicose bullshit."
posted by dialetheia at 12:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
But there's not broad agreement that Hillary Clinton would start a nuclear war with Russia, which was the claim to which I was responding.
Er, but that's where a no-fly zone in Syria leads. From one of the links that dialethia posted (from The American Conservative in 2016):
Er, but that's where a no-fly zone in Syria leads. From one of the links that dialethia posted (from The American Conservative in 2016):
Ignatieff and Wieseltier are at least honest enough to acknowledge that they want to risk war with Russia. Some advocates for a “no-fly zone” in Syria try to deny that the risk exists. Fanatical interventionists that they are, the authors are not concerned about the risk of war with a nuclear-armed major power, and so they dismiss the dangers of their preferred course of action by saying, “risk is no excuse for doing nothing.” That’s insane. If the choice is between “doing nothing” and potentially starting a war with Russia, the risk that such a war would necessarily entail is an outstanding excuse. Avoiding an even larger, more destructive conflict with one of the world’s major powers is as good a reason for rejecting military intervention as one is likely to find.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:12 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary Clinton applauds Nancy Reagan for her HIV advocacy, which is insane and wrong and disgusting
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
If she sincerely thinks that Russia would agree to a no-fly zone, that is as much of a demerit on her foreign policy judgment as it would be if she wanted to agree to it without their assent. There is basically zero chance of Russia agreeing to that as far as anything I have ever read about the situation.
posted by dialetheia at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Russia has as much chance of agreeing to that as letting senior Pentagon staff have an unguided tour of the Kremlin. Just ain't gonna happen. So why even pretend like it's a possibility? Russia does not trust the US, does not trust NATO, and with good reason. Let me put it this way: they trust NATO as much as I trust Hillary.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ronald and Nancy Reagan Ignored the AIDS Crisis and You Know It, Hillary Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:30 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:30 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Human Rights Campaign: While I respect her advocacy on issues like stem cell & Parkinson's research, Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I recommend the old HBO film "And the Band Played On" for anyone who wants to get righteously angry about how the Reagan administration handled the AIDS crisis.
posted by zutalors! at 12:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or read Randy Shilts' book by the same name. 41,000 people had died by the time Ronald Reagan said the word AIDS in public.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're going by the "a candidate's campaign should reflect their future administration" approach, Clinton's lack of sensitivity on social media makes her competence for the office deeply suspect.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 12:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I was very doubtful of Sanders' chances before that Nancy Reagan comment, but that flub just might lose her the election. People are really angry about this.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am actually not just angry, I am furious that she would attempt to re-write history on this. I lived in San Francisco in the late 80's and lost a few of my friends to the virus. The Reagans were atrocious in their handling of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:56 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:56 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, people take the easy way in bashing Clinton all too often, but this fiasco has all of the hallmarks of her stereotypical problems: tone-deafness towards regular people, playing fast and loose with historical facts, pandering to the right, and alienating her own constituency. I mean, how do you make such a specific statement that's so reverse of reality for absolutely no reason at all? No one was asking her to do this. It's so self-sabotaging that The Onion could have written this. There is nothing that is not tragicomically inept about this mistake.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:02 PM on March 11, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:02 PM on March 11, 2016 [27 favorites]
Peter Staley, who has been a longtime Clinton supporter: #FeelingBerned
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good on Chad Griffin. I respect that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:06 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:06 PM on March 11, 2016
that flub just might lose her the election. People are really angry about this.
I could be wrong, but that seems extreme considering HRC president Chad Griffin wouldn't criticize Clinton and only stated While I respect her advocacy on issues like stem cell & Parkinson's research, Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:09 PM on March 11, 2016
I could be wrong, but that seems extreme considering HRC president Chad Griffin wouldn't criticize Clinton and only stated While I respect her advocacy on issues like stem cell & Parkinson's research, Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:09 PM on March 11, 2016
Good on Chad Griffin. I respect that.
Nah, that was about the least effective thing he could have said. Never trust the HRC, especially on HRC.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nah, that was about the least effective thing he could have said. Never trust the HRC, especially on HRC.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
uhhh so regardless of whether we think that Clinton will doom us all, or that Sanders will doom us all, or if we're convinced that we're all doomed regardless, there are a few things we can all agree on:
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
- Metafilter is neat,
- The mods are great,
- The mods are especially great for putting up with a fast-moving never-ending increasingly frantic argument about American politics that wanders from thread to thread, leaving total devastation and thousands of comments in its wake, and,
- Stopvolution.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:11 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Jeez, Martha Coakley was better at campaigning than Hillary Clinton.
posted by dirigibleman at 1:13 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 1:13 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Retweeted by Chase Strangio of the ACLU: Straight people who are trying to figure out a way to explain away or spin what Hillary just said about the Reagans and AIDS: stop it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Jeez, Martha Coakley was better at campaigning than Hillary Clinton.
Ow, that's below the belt!
(Seriously, losing Ted kennedy's seat to someone as inept as Scott Brown, losing a Dem senate supermajority, and thus sabotaging the dream of proper universal healthcare - Martha Coakley couldn't have done better if she was an actual Republican sleeper agent.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ow, that's below the belt!
(Seriously, losing Ted kennedy's seat to someone as inept as Scott Brown, losing a Dem senate supermajority, and thus sabotaging the dream of proper universal healthcare - Martha Coakley couldn't have done better if she was an actual Republican sleeper agent.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:15 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton supporter Dan Savage: This is a fucking lie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's impossible for Hillary to do. She can't afford to break with her Reagan-conservative base.
As a Bernie supporter who has issues with Hillary Clinton, I say: This statement is of a calibre that it makes me question everything you have ever written anywhere about anything.
posted by phearlez at 1:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
As a Bernie supporter who has issues with Hillary Clinton, I say: This statement is of a calibre that it makes me question everything you have ever written anywhere about anything.
posted by phearlez at 1:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Martha Coakley couldn't have done better if she was an actual Republican sleeper agent.
Is Trump secretly running to support Hillary, or is Hillary secretly running to support Trump?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Trump secretly running to support Hillary, or is Hillary secretly running to support Trump?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nah, that was about the least effective thing he could have said. Never trust the HRC, especially on HRC.
It's better than going radio-silent for a couple days, or not addressing the issue at all (as @HRC itself has done so far).
I don't expect them to, like, do anything substantive such as walking back their endorsement of Sec. Clinton or anything.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:22 PM on March 11, 2016
It's better than going radio-silent for a couple days, or not addressing the issue at all (as @HRC itself has done so far).
I don't expect them to, like, do anything substantive such as walking back their endorsement of Sec. Clinton or anything.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:22 PM on March 11, 2016
The apology.
(I agree that her statement was a horrific whitewashing of history.)
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 1:26 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I agree that her statement was a horrific whitewashing of history.)
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 1:26 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stretching the meaning of "misspoke" pretty far there.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
("I agree with others in this thread, I meant, sorry!)
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 1:29 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 1:29 PM on March 11, 2016
total reprehensibility of the statement aside, probably it would have been tactically better if Clinton had refrained from pissing off Dan Savage until after the Washington State caucuses.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can't imagine anybody upset by her statement feeling better after reading that. Might actually be worse.
posted by zjacreman at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zjacreman at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
If this is how she panders to the right in public, I'm actually scared to read what she said in her private speeches to Goldman.
posted by localhuman at 1:32 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 1:32 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
That apology is almost as disrespectful in its inadequacy and "eh, whoops" dismissive tone as the comment itself. Unreal.
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:33 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking of...
@fakedansavage: Not. Good. Enough.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
@fakedansavage: Not. Good. Enough.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
It is worse. Clinton did not just misspeak. Clinton is spreading misinformation that is being widely disseminated and is now on the public record. She needs to own up to this mistake completely and without reservation on national tv.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Seattle is already, per capita, the biggest contributor to Bernie Sanders' campaign. Pissing off Dan Savage would definitely help shovel more coal, but the Bernie steam engine is already at full throttle.
posted by kyp at 1:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kyp at 1:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd give her a little time to do better, campaign is still in panic mode I bet. But yeah, she is going to have to speak about this herself and confront the issue much more directly.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think there's a single Republican, conservative, or Reagan lover who would have appreciated that comment in the first place. Even in the overlap of people who care deeply about the plight of AIDS sufferers, and really like Nancy Reagan, I don't think there's any of them claiming that the Reagans were renowned for talking about the epidemic. It's revisionism and pandering for absolutely no audience.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:39 PM on March 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:39 PM on March 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
I'd give her a little time to do better
No way. It's not like she was taken out of context or anything - if anything, her full comments were worse than the headline soundbite. The problem with what she said should be immediately obvious to anyone who gives a damn about gay rights.
posted by dialetheia at 1:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
No way. It's not like she was taken out of context or anything - if anything, her full comments were worse than the headline soundbite. The problem with what she said should be immediately obvious to anyone who gives a damn about gay rights.
posted by dialetheia at 1:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
don't think there's any of them claiming that the Reagans were renowned for talking about the epidemic. It's revisionism and pandering for absolutely no audience.
yea I have no idea who that comment was for.
posted by zutalors! at 1:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
yea I have no idea who that comment was for.
posted by zutalors! at 1:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That apology tweet is not even signed -H, so it's from her campaign and not from her, btw.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting observation on what looks like coordination between HRC and HRC.
posted by kyp at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by kyp at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
yeah, but Savage has made a big deal of being in the tank for both Sanders and Clinton (he describes himself as "bitankual"), and if he climbs out of the Clinton tank a lot of extra Seattleites are going to actually bother to go to the caucuses instead of being like "eh, I'm fine with either of them."
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:42 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:42 PM on March 11, 2016
I'd give her a little time to do better
No way. It's not like she was taken out of context or anything - if anything, her full comments were worse than the headline soundbite.
I don't disagree, I just think if she is going to talk about this on camera (she has to) she is going to need to take some time to prepare. You can't afford to dig the hole any deeper. But yeah, simple stuff like a less weaselly apology should go up right now on Twitter no problem.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:44 PM on March 11, 2016
No way. It's not like she was taken out of context or anything - if anything, her full comments were worse than the headline soundbite.
I don't disagree, I just think if she is going to talk about this on camera (she has to) she is going to need to take some time to prepare. You can't afford to dig the hole any deeper. But yeah, simple stuff like a less weaselly apology should go up right now on Twitter no problem.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:44 PM on March 11, 2016
Agreed. I think the impact of that would be even more strongly felt nationwide, given his national reach.
posted by kyp at 1:45 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kyp at 1:45 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular, Mrs. Reagan, we started national conversation when before no one would talk about it, no one wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something that really appreciated, with her very effective, low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say ‘Hey, we have to do something about this too.’”
Misspoke.
posted by Trochanter at 1:46 PM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Misspoke.
posted by Trochanter at 1:46 PM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I think we should all just take a moment to appreciate Bill Clinton's effective low-key support for Sister Souljah back in 1992.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Of course she just misspoke, she was talking about how difficult it was to talk about Alzheimer's in the 1980s, not HIV, it's clear from the context! /s
posted by zug at 1:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 1:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah. Obama saying he visited 57 states is misspoke. This is the other sort of mistake politicians make, the type where they reveal what they actually believe.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think it was Sam Smith that started the conversation on AIDS.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think Clinton believes that the Reagans were in any way helpful towards sparking a national discourse over AIDS. It's such a blatant untruth that it's cartoonish. I think the statement reveals that she's in the process of turning herself into a cartoon for the general.
(On debating Trump) It's kinda like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. We won't know how a real person can fight a cartoon, until we see it.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
(On debating Trump) It's kinda like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. We won't know how a real person can fight a cartoon, until we see it.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
COLUMBUS, Ohio (@AP) — Ohio judge issues order to allow 17-year-olds to vote in swing state's presidential primary
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Maybe the comment wasn't for anybody. It seems plausible that she just, you know, believes that.
posted by invitapriore at 2:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by invitapriore at 2:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
She better not believe that. Anyone who was alive and involved in politics at that time in history can't actually believe that without being a damn fool.
Unless Nancy Reagan has some sort of secret identity no one knows about through which she actually did a single thing about AIDS other than stand in the way of the people trying to help.
(Seconding the recommendation for Randy Shilts's book. One of the best pieces of nonfiction writing I've ever read. It would be considered an all-time must-read classic were homophobia not still rampant in this culture.)
posted by sallybrown at 2:47 PM on March 11, 2016
Unless Nancy Reagan has some sort of secret identity no one knows about through which she actually did a single thing about AIDS other than stand in the way of the people trying to help.
(Seconding the recommendation for Randy Shilts's book. One of the best pieces of nonfiction writing I've ever read. It would be considered an all-time must-read classic were homophobia not still rampant in this culture.)
posted by sallybrown at 2:47 PM on March 11, 2016
So, which is it? If she does believe it, she's a fool with a weirdly malformed sense of history. If she doesn't, she's pandering (to whom??) at the expense of a core supporter demographic. Neither option is good, here, and I'm not seeing a third.
posted by zjacreman at 2:47 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zjacreman at 2:47 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's mystifying. Complete unforced error!
posted by sallybrown at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't think she believes that.
If she doesn't believe that, then she was throwing gay people under the bus to pander to people who loved Reagan but think of themselves as social moderates now. Which is just as bad.
posted by dialetheia at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
If she doesn't believe that, then she was throwing gay people under the bus to pander to people who loved Reagan but think of themselves as social moderates now. Which is just as bad.
posted by dialetheia at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would protest at a Trump rally but I am really worried about being killed since I could easily be taken for Muslim or Hispanic. I have so much awe for Muslims who are protesting - I think masses of white people should be doing it though.
I'm tempted to think a new version of the Freedom Riders is the right move here -- nonviolent protestors or even just observers who go to Trump rallies, respond with carefully planned (and videotaped) silent protest like t-shirts or even just blank stares, arms folded to document what happens. Ideally not "big scary guys" like Trump has claimed. An older woman of color with a walker more like.
it would be at huge personal risk, like the Freedom Riders took, and obviously not aimed at convincing Trump supporters so much as revealing the nature of his movement to independents who might be tempted to join in.
At the same time I can't be sure this wouldn't just feed the beast.
posted by msalt at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm tempted to think a new version of the Freedom Riders is the right move here -- nonviolent protestors or even just observers who go to Trump rallies, respond with carefully planned (and videotaped) silent protest like t-shirts or even just blank stares, arms folded to document what happens. Ideally not "big scary guys" like Trump has claimed. An older woman of color with a walker more like.
it would be at huge personal risk, like the Freedom Riders took, and obviously not aimed at convincing Trump supporters so much as revealing the nature of his movement to independents who might be tempted to join in.
At the same time I can't be sure this wouldn't just feed the beast.
posted by msalt at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
COLUMBUS, Ohio (@AP) — Ohio judge issues order to allow 17-year-olds to vote in swing state's presidential primary
This can't be right -- the link is just to a tweet with that exact wording, but you mean that the judge allowed 17-year-olds to register if they turn 18 by election day, right?
posted by msalt at 2:53 PM on March 11, 2016
This can't be right -- the link is just to a tweet with that exact wording, but you mean that the judge allowed 17-year-olds to register if they turn 18 by election day, right?
People who are 17 but would be 18 by election day were told they couldn't vote in Ohio's primary b/c of a distinction about voting for a candidate vs voting for delegates. Bernie filed a lawsuit about it a few days ago.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:56 PM on March 11, 2016
People who are 17 but would be 18 by election day were told they couldn't vote in Ohio's primary b/c of a distinction about voting for a candidate vs voting for delegates. Bernie filed a lawsuit about it a few days ago.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:56 PM on March 11, 2016
If you were Hillary, accepting that at this point there's no way to wipe the slate clean on this, what do you say?
"I let my personal fondness for a former First Lady color my memory of her actions on this issue. I apologize for minimizing the pain so many people went through in the AIDS crisis, pain that could have been averted or lessened had those in power at the time addressed the issue directly and openly. I will take this as a lesson in why it's important for those with power to act, to do the right thing rather than just feel or say the right thing." ?
posted by sallybrown at 2:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
"I let my personal fondness for a former First Lady color my memory of her actions on this issue. I apologize for minimizing the pain so many people went through in the AIDS crisis, pain that could have been averted or lessened had those in power at the time addressed the issue directly and openly. I will take this as a lesson in why it's important for those with power to act, to do the right thing rather than just feel or say the right thing." ?
posted by sallybrown at 2:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holy cats that 17 year old story is amazing. I wonder how many potential primary voters that would be. How cool for those kids.
posted by ian1977 at 3:00 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 3:00 PM on March 11, 2016
Neither option is good, here, and I'm not seeing a third.
She was sleep-deprived from the rigors of the campaign and accidentally confused Nancy Reagan's Alzheimer's advocacy with AIDS. Except in the video and she sounds pretty crisp and not tired at all.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
She was sleep-deprived from the rigors of the campaign and accidentally confused Nancy Reagan's Alzheimer's advocacy with AIDS. Except in the video and she sounds pretty crisp and not tired at all.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless Nancy Reagan has some sort of secret identity no one knows about through which she actually did a single thing about AIDS other than stand in the way of the people trying to help.
"Mrs. Reagan, you said that once I decided to follow you, you would walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why in times when I needed you the most, you should leave me."posted by Atom Eyes at 3:05 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
And the First Lady replied, "My precious, precious child. I love you, and I would never, never leave you during your times of trial and suffering. When you saw only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."
So you're saying in times of trouble your feet grow to EXACTLY my foot size and you wear my shoes with my distinctive tread?
posted by ian1977 at 3:08 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 3:08 PM on March 11, 2016
"Well, you see, there's a simple explanation for that, which is..."
*throws down pellet, disappears in a cloud of smoke*
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
*throws down pellet, disappears in a cloud of smoke*
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yglesias does his best to try to understand Clinton's thinking -- though I think he finishes with what may be a more profound criticism than he quite realizes.
... What does seem to be true is that when the Reagan administration eventually did decide to respond to the AIDS crisis, Nancy Reagan was among the influential administration figures pushing for that decision.posted by chortly at 3:21 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
"I think that she deserves credit for opening up the AIDS money," historian Allida Black told PBS in 2011, saying that along with Koop the first lady pressed the president and the secretary of health and human services to allocate research funding to HIV/AIDS issues....
Identifying Nancy Reagan as a progressive force inside the Reagan administration on AIDS may be accurate, but it's also setting the bar profoundly low....
Nancy Reagan was, it seems, relatively more open to those activists' arguments than many other key players in the Reagan administration. But the fact that Clinton would point to Ronald and Nancy Reagan as leaders on a national conversation around AIDS, rather than to the activists themselves, is revealing of her insider perspective on social change.
I heard she was really instrumental on drug reform and medical marijuana too.
posted by ian1977 at 3:23 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 3:23 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yglesias does his best to try to understand Clinton's thinking --
Perhaps, but I think what he is really trying to do here is a post lie whitewash to defend his chosen candidate.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Perhaps, but I think what he is really trying to do here is a post lie whitewash to defend his chosen candidate.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean, if nothing else, AIDS is the number 3 word trending on Twitter in the US, and we're having a real national conversation about whitewashing the Reagan era. So, uh, thanks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:34 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
She was also really big on critical thinking and promoting a science based outlook on life and eschewing magical thinking.
posted by ian1977 at 3:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 3:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I believe Hillary would make a decent president, certainly much better than any of the right wing alternatives, but the Regan AIDS thing shows that she is not a good CANDIDATE for president.
posted by vibrotronica at 4:06 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vibrotronica at 4:06 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The apology.
In a way it is fascinating that it is such a horrible misstep on Hillary Clinton's part, such a tone-deaf and effectively hateful statement to a community she claims to be friendly towards, that it is difficult to even ascribe an apology to her. It is "the" apology, and not "her" apology. Breathtaking.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
In a way it is fascinating that it is such a horrible misstep on Hillary Clinton's part, such a tone-deaf and effectively hateful statement to a community she claims to be friendly towards, that it is difficult to even ascribe an apology to her. It is "the" apology, and not "her" apology. Breathtaking.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is there a clever bro-related nickname for Clinton supporters lecturing LGBT people on twitter about how they shouldn't be mad about these comments because she 'apologized' for 'misspeaking', couldn't possibly have meant it, or has an otherwise 'good' record on gay rights? Asking for a friend.
posted by dialetheia at 4:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yes, because we need another Hillary Clinton-related nickname to add to all the "clever" ones that clog the comments on nearly every article written about Clinton.
posted by FJT at 4:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by FJT at 4:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Interesting observation on what looks like coordination between HRC and HRC.
The HRC do not represent gay people, although they think they do. Clinton fucked up royally, here.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The HRC do not represent gay people, although they think they do. Clinton fucked up royally, here.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump cancels rally in Chicago due to security concerns.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:42 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:42 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The footage they're showing of confrontations in the crowd (that you think would have been dispersed) is crazy. It's on live right now, on MSNBC at least.
posted by cashman at 4:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 4:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, completely agree this was a major fuck up by Hillary Clinton and people should be mad.
posted by FJT at 4:46 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by FJT at 4:46 PM on March 11, 2016
There's a livestream of the Trump event breaking up if you enjoy people watching
posted by peeedro at 4:53 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by peeedro at 4:53 PM on March 11, 2016
Security concerns or 'eh, I'm just gonna Netflix and chill tonight. Cancel that damn rube rally for tonight.'
posted by ian1977 at 4:58 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 4:58 PM on March 11, 2016
Yeah. Don't mess with my city. We'll shut you down.
posted by Windigo at 5:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Windigo at 5:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just shows the need for the next Trump franchise: Trump Troopers! The cutting edge in campaign security. Only the most luxurious, hugest goons. You won't believe how brutal they'll be.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:01 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hairatroopers
posted by ian1977 at 5:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 5:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
From yesterday evening: CNN: Thousands of students are planning to protest Donald Trump when he comes to the University of Illinois' Chicago campus Friday. And many professors don't want him there either. They worry the scene could turn violent.
posted by cashman at 5:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cashman at 5:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio campaign "releasing" Ohio supporters so they can vote for Kasich and stop Trump.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:08 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 5:08 PM on March 11, 2016
1000s of protesters at all his rallies then.
posted by ian1977 at 5:08 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 5:08 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Video of protesters apparently chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" as the Trump rally breaks up
posted by dialetheia at 5:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 5:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
And of course, Bill O'Reilly quick to make hay of it: BREAKING: Bernie supporters shut down free speech, a sign of what's to come under a socialist government. #TrumpRally
posted by dialetheia at 5:11 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 5:11 PM on March 11, 2016
Video of huge crowd earlier chanting from inside the Chicago auditorium: "We Stopped Trump!"
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:12 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:12 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stumped, surely.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:14 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:14 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
More video of Bernie supporters confronting Trump supporters.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:19 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:19 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ooh I like this one the best - crowd chanting "we gonna be alright" (from Kendrick Lamar's song Alright)
posted by dialetheia at 5:20 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:20 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
And of course, Bill O'Reilly quick to make hay of it: BREAKING: Bernie supporters shut down free speech, a sign of what's to come under a socialist government. #TrumpRally
And Trump (via phone on MSNBC) just said this started because 25K people showed up for 10K seats in the arena and made it sound completely like a crowd control problem and a decision reached after talking to law enforcement. This is weird.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Trump (via phone on MSNBC) just said this started because 25K people showed up for 10K seats in the arena and made it sound completely like a crowd control problem and a decision reached after talking to law enforcement. This is weird.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill O' Reilly: BREAKING: Bernie supporters shut down free speech, a sign of what's to come under a socialist government.
posted by Windigo at 5:22 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by Windigo at 5:22 PM on March 11, 2016
our great national nightmare of healthcare free at the point of access is nearly upon us
posted by indubitable at 5:24 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 5:24 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bye Felicia.
posted by duffell at 5:26 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by duffell at 5:26 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
And speaking of Trump being interviewed by phone:
Networks Have Conducted 69 Phone Interviews With Trump In The Past 69 Days
CBS News’s decision to not let Donald Trump phone into its morning show has put new pressure on the other major television news operations already under fire for giving massive promotion to the candidate’s demagogic and often false claims — and which have allowed Trump to phone it in an unprecedented 69 times in the last 69 days.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Networks Have Conducted 69 Phone Interviews With Trump In The Past 69 Days
CBS News’s decision to not let Donald Trump phone into its morning show has put new pressure on the other major television news operations already under fire for giving massive promotion to the candidate’s demagogic and often false claims — and which have allowed Trump to phone it in an unprecedented 69 times in the last 69 days.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Chicago: "AND STAY OUT."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:33 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:33 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently the Trump St. Louis event was pretty wild as well (albeit not canceled).
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:42 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:42 PM on March 11, 2016
Trump's rally in Cincinnati on Sunday has been canceled.
“As of right now, the Duke Energy Center event is not going to happen. The reason why is because too much time has passed for the Secret Service to do what they need to do, and it’s not going to happen.”posted by cashman at 5:55 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Initially, sources said Wednesday that the Republican Presidential candidate would host a noon rally at the Duke Energy Convention Center.
“I can confirm the Duke Energy event on Sunday is not happening,” Deters said. He said he believes the campaign is looking for additional sites to possibly confirm for another event before Tuesday.
Trump is still scheduled to visit Dayton and Columbus this weekend.
Meanwhile, we're seeing the return of no fucks to give Obama.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [25 favorites]
Small thought about a bit from the Florida debate.
The Kennedy McCain immigration bill aka the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. I watched the mark up hearing for it back in the day and it was a stellar piece of CSPAN. Tiny room, tables pushed into a tight U shape, a single camera, no audience, morning and afternoon scheduled so at least 6 hours of intimate coverage. Makes my eyes salivate just thinking about it.
Bit of background; the Republicans held the majority in the Senate at the time and therefore led (chaired) committees but McCain had agreed to let Kennedy write whatever he wanted and in standing aside (he didn't even show up for the mark up (mark up is where they discuss and quibble over language and how it would square with legal definition / usage. Amendments are introduced, discussed, negotiated and voted on. It is the inside of the sausage.)) he gave the Democrats the majority vote on the committee so they got final say on what would go to the floor for vote.
The meeting was initially a fairly jovial affair and there were some fun exchanges like when they were discussing tunneling, the Republicans proposed a provision to seize the land from the owner anytime a found tunnel opened into the US. Sen. Leahy commented that his home in Vermont was on a 250 acre piece of land and that there were areas where he hadn't been for a couple years, so reasonable knowledge would be preferable to a blanket policy. Sen.Cornyn piped up "Where I'm from, Texas, 250 acres is an average sized yard". Sen. Leahy played along with a quick, "Is that the front yard or the back?". Everyone laughed and blanket seizure was set aside for reasonable knowledge.
They spent way too much time on the first part of the bill and had to push because while they had started at 9am they needed to have the bill ready for around 3 or 4pm and the vote. As they pressed on Senator Kyl amplified his assholish behaviour and kept using "illegals" every chance he got. Sen. Kennedy was getting more and more agitated and after about the fifth "illegals", he broke all decorum, pounded the table and roared, "NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL". Sen. Specter, who held the gavel, tried to calm Kennedy with a reassuring hand and some throat clearing to reestablish order, but Kennedy wasn't done. He both berated and plead with Sen. Kyl to recognize the human lives that were in play and to show some fucking humanity. Kennedy held the big end of the what is right and fair and just and compassionate and empathetic end of the bat, Kyl cowered and without comeback (because there was none beyond admitting to being an unfeeling prick) took the bludgeoning and begrudgingly altered his language. It was fucking awesome.
The bill wasn't acceptable to the Republicans and the proposed path to citizenship was something extremely long like 10 years as a guest worker. Leaving every few months before returning. And any infraction (including being fired) would see the path lengthened or canceled. There was no path for people already in the US beyond leaving and being admitted into the program. Kennedy was trying to put together something that would pass (so while he sought a few worker protections and access to healthcare) the larger focus was on punishment and more security apparatus and almost every Republican amendment pushed for more harshness and since they largely failed, the bill didn't have their support even in committee and even less outside. There was a path ... but it sure as fuck didn't wasn't clear or comprehensive and most of the discussion focused on border security and tightened work rules and harsher punishment with a couple Democratic carrots thrown in.
posted by phoque at 6:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Kennedy McCain immigration bill aka the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. I watched the mark up hearing for it back in the day and it was a stellar piece of CSPAN. Tiny room, tables pushed into a tight U shape, a single camera, no audience, morning and afternoon scheduled so at least 6 hours of intimate coverage. Makes my eyes salivate just thinking about it.
Bit of background; the Republicans held the majority in the Senate at the time and therefore led (chaired) committees but McCain had agreed to let Kennedy write whatever he wanted and in standing aside (he didn't even show up for the mark up (mark up is where they discuss and quibble over language and how it would square with legal definition / usage. Amendments are introduced, discussed, negotiated and voted on. It is the inside of the sausage.)) he gave the Democrats the majority vote on the committee so they got final say on what would go to the floor for vote.
The meeting was initially a fairly jovial affair and there were some fun exchanges like when they were discussing tunneling, the Republicans proposed a provision to seize the land from the owner anytime a found tunnel opened into the US. Sen. Leahy commented that his home in Vermont was on a 250 acre piece of land and that there were areas where he hadn't been for a couple years, so reasonable knowledge would be preferable to a blanket policy. Sen.Cornyn piped up "Where I'm from, Texas, 250 acres is an average sized yard". Sen. Leahy played along with a quick, "Is that the front yard or the back?". Everyone laughed and blanket seizure was set aside for reasonable knowledge.
They spent way too much time on the first part of the bill and had to push because while they had started at 9am they needed to have the bill ready for around 3 or 4pm and the vote. As they pressed on Senator Kyl amplified his assholish behaviour and kept using "illegals" every chance he got. Sen. Kennedy was getting more and more agitated and after about the fifth "illegals", he broke all decorum, pounded the table and roared, "NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL". Sen. Specter, who held the gavel, tried to calm Kennedy with a reassuring hand and some throat clearing to reestablish order, but Kennedy wasn't done. He both berated and plead with Sen. Kyl to recognize the human lives that were in play and to show some fucking humanity. Kennedy held the big end of the what is right and fair and just and compassionate and empathetic end of the bat, Kyl cowered and without comeback (because there was none beyond admitting to being an unfeeling prick) took the bludgeoning and begrudgingly altered his language. It was fucking awesome.
The bill wasn't acceptable to the Republicans and the proposed path to citizenship was something extremely long like 10 years as a guest worker. Leaving every few months before returning. And any infraction (including being fired) would see the path lengthened or canceled. There was no path for people already in the US beyond leaving and being admitted into the program. Kennedy was trying to put together something that would pass (so while he sought a few worker protections and access to healthcare) the larger focus was on punishment and more security apparatus and almost every Republican amendment pushed for more harshness and since they largely failed, the bill didn't have their support even in committee and even less outside. There was a path ... but it sure as fuck didn't wasn't clear or comprehensive and most of the discussion focused on border security and tightened work rules and harsher punishment with a couple Democratic carrots thrown in.
posted by phoque at 6:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
> It seems like it's even dangerous to be a woman asking questions - a female reporter from Breitbart was allegedly assaulted/manhandled by Trump's own campaign manager, who is now gaslighting her on twitter and claiming it never happened, despite it being witnessed by a Washington Post reporter.
A correction: Breitbart is now saying it was "likely not" the campaign manager, but instead a security guard with a similar look/build.
Trump Rallies Have Become Violent Mobs—and Republicans Think That’s OK: Not one GOP candidate condemned the violence. Now a pro-Trump “news” site explains away an attack on its own reporter. Will anyone grow a spine?
posted by homunculus at 6:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
A correction: Breitbart is now saying it was "likely not" the campaign manager, but instead a security guard with a similar look/build.
Trump Rallies Have Become Violent Mobs—and Republicans Think That’s OK: Not one GOP candidate condemned the violence. Now a pro-Trump “news” site explains away an attack on its own reporter. Will anyone grow a spine?
posted by homunculus at 6:29 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders Verified account
@BernieSanders
I want to thank Rahm Emanuel for not endorsing me. I don’t want the endorsement of a mayor shutting down schools and firing teachers.
posted by Trochanter at 6:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [25 favorites]
Illinois Bernie rally live stream
A contrast from the Trump rallies, I must say
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:46 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
A contrast from the Trump rallies, I must say
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:46 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
> COLUMBUS, Ohio (@AP) — Ohio judge issues order to allow 17-year-olds to vote in swing state's presidential primary
More: Ohio Judge Delivers Big Win To Bernie Sanders And His Youngest Supporters
posted by homunculus at 6:48 PM on March 11, 2016
More: Ohio Judge Delivers Big Win To Bernie Sanders And His Youngest Supporters
posted by homunculus at 6:48 PM on March 11, 2016
The Nation: “Not one GOP candidate condemned the violence.”Ted Cruz just made me sick to my stomach by trying to take the high ground on this in video they just showed on the Maddow show. (Although he amusingly blamed Obama.) I'm scrounging for a link but no luck so far.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:52 PM on March 11, 2016
boo C-SPAN, how can serve Flash video only in this HTML5 day and age?
posted by indubitable at 6:59 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by indubitable at 6:59 PM on March 11, 2016
Meanwhile, we're seeing the return of no fucks to give Obama.
Holy shit, this is so the best version of Obama.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Holy shit, this is so the best version of Obama.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Whoa, Asher Edelman, the guy Gordon Gekko was based on, endorsed Bernie Sanders on CNBC this week: “If you look at something called velocity of money—that means how much gets spent and turns around—when you have the top 1 percent getting money, they spend 5, 10 percent of what they earn. When you have the lower half of the economy, they spend 100 or 110 percent of what they earn,” Edelman told CNBC. It could’ve been a Bernie stump speech. “Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will make the banks begin to talk about lending again as opposed to speculation,” he said. “From an economic point of view, it’s straightforward.”
Hope everyone is safe in Chicago tonight - I'm more worried about the police getting violent than the protesters (not to mention protesters ending up here).
posted by dialetheia at 7:09 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hope everyone is safe in Chicago tonight - I'm more worried about the police getting violent than the protesters (not to mention protesters ending up here).
posted by dialetheia at 7:09 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bernie closed his speech with "the American people know that love trumps hate."
posted by Room 641-A at 7:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
ahhh it's Mrs. Landingham's evil twin
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fucking Ugh.
The media needs to stop being "objective" about everything that is going on during this election. We don't need talking heads, we need real fucking journalism.
posted by futz at 8:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The media needs to stop being "objective" about everything that is going on during this election. We don't need talking heads, we need real fucking journalism.
posted by futz at 8:04 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It looks like things have calmed down. The local news of course led with the protest. They said three people were injured including one cop. It could have been a lot worse, I think.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:16 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:16 PM on March 11, 2016
If anyone wants to help support the protesters who were arrested, the Chicago Community Bond Fund is taking donations (per @eveewing/Wikipedia Brown)
posted by dialetheia at 8:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:16 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
ob1quixote: “Ted Cruz just made me sick to my stomach by trying to take the high ground on this in video they just showed on the Maddow show. (Although he amusingly blamed Obama.) I'm scrounging for a link but no luck so far.”“Cruz puts responsibility for violence on Trump,”—The Rachel Maddow Show, 11 March 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 8:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders closed his rally in Summit, IL with "This Land Was Made For You and Me" after speaking at length about Trump, although he didn't mention the protests.
posted by dialetheia at 9:13 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:13 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, we're seeing the return of no fucks to give Obama.
The Casablanca references are a great touch. A lot of republicans probably don't even realize the president is literally equating them with Nazi sympathizers/colluders.
posted by dersins at 9:20 PM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
The Casablanca references are a great touch. A lot of republicans probably don't even realize the president is literally equating them with Nazi sympathizers/colluders.
posted by dersins at 9:20 PM on March 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Hillary Clinton Statement on Donald Trump Rally
Hillary Clinton released the following statement this evening:
The divisive rhetoric we are seeing should be of grave concern to us all. We all have our differences, and we know many people across the country feel angry. We need to address that anger together. All of us, no matter what party we belong to or what views we hold, should not only say loudly and clearly that violence has no place in our politics, we should use our words and deeds to to bring Americans together. Last year in Charleston, South Carolina an evil man walked into a church and murdered 9 people. The familes of those victims came together and melted hearts in the statehouse and the confederate flag came down. That should be the model we strive for to overcome painful divisions in our country."
posted by Drinky Die at 11:24 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton released the following statement this evening:
The divisive rhetoric we are seeing should be of grave concern to us all. We all have our differences, and we know many people across the country feel angry. We need to address that anger together. All of us, no matter what party we belong to or what views we hold, should not only say loudly and clearly that violence has no place in our politics, we should use our words and deeds to to bring Americans together. Last year in Charleston, South Carolina an evil man walked into a church and murdered 9 people. The familes of those victims came together and melted hearts in the statehouse and the confederate flag came down. That should be the model we strive for to overcome painful divisions in our country."
posted by Drinky Die at 11:24 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
That statement from Hillary is bizarre.
People in Chicago are REASONABLY angry that Trump would show up there. @HillaryClinton's condemnation of that anger is stunning. --Aura Bogado
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:39 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
People in Chicago are REASONABLY angry that Trump would show up there. @HillaryClinton's condemnation of that anger is stunning. --Aura Bogado
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:39 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I kind of feel like whoever usually advises her on what to say took the day off or something.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
Or she is taking advice from David Brock , Tom Watson and Peter Daou.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:49 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think she's kind of condemning Trump in a very circumspect way. Because the "divisive rhetoric" is from Trump, so he's the one causing everyone to be angry. I think?
Or maybe Ben Carson took over her Twitter account for a day.
posted by FJT at 11:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or maybe Ben Carson took over her Twitter account for a day.
posted by FJT at 11:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
A quick check of her Twitter account showed this tweet from the day before: "@realDonaldTrump: condoning violence against protesters and press at your rallies is the real disgrace. #GOPdebate"
posted by raysmj at 11:54 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by raysmj at 11:54 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's come across to me as third-way triangulation. As a result, it essentially ends up meaning nothing.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:05 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:05 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Just shows the need for the next Trump franchise: Trump Troopers! The cutting edge in campaign security. Only the most luxurious, hugest goons. You won't believe how brutal they'll be.
Gold Shirts™
posted by XMLicious at 12:10 AM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
You know, if I believe a candidate stands for things I agree with, then I'm willing to overlook a lot of minor screwups. I truly believe Clinton is a better candidate for the Presidency than Sanders for a number of reasons. I think she would make a better President...
... But shit like this makes me want to set fire to everything. She keeps fucking up in ways that make me want to pound my forehead against a damned brick wall.
Yeah this.
posted by bardophile at 12:21 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
MoveOn's statement: “Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight’s events. These protests are a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. Our country is better than the shameful, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the Trump campaign. To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough. To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election. Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.”
posted by dialetheia at 1:47 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:47 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
More on the UIC protest organizers (I think MoveOn just spread the word among its members but I can't tell for sure).
posted by dialetheia at 1:52 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 1:52 AM on March 12, 2016
"We don't need talking heads, we need real fucking journalism."
MY old grandmother told me if you cant trust the news, make your own...NO. Really, the country is full of journalists and no one can huff the message out correctly?
What does this indicate?
What does it mean?
posted by clavdivs at 1:54 AM on March 12, 2016
MY old grandmother told me if you cant trust the news, make your own...NO. Really, the country is full of journalists and no one can huff the message out correctly?
What does this indicate?
What does it mean?
posted by clavdivs at 1:54 AM on March 12, 2016
Last year in Charleston, South Carolina an evil man walked into a church and murdered 9 people. The familes of those victims came together and melted hearts in the statehouse and the confederate flag came down. That should be the model we strive for to overcome painful divisions in our country.I mean, melting hearts is all very nice, but what actually happened was that a black woman climbed the flagpole and removed the flag, taking the very real risk of being shot dead while doing so.
Its actually really nice to see Hillary Clinton endorsing Bree Newsome's direct action, albeit without mentioning her or it, but this is a really strange circumlocution, unless I'm missing something.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:58 AM on March 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
I mean, melting hearts is all very nice, but what actually happened was that a black woman climbed the flagpole and removed the flag, taking the very real risk of being shot dead while doing so.
This. At this point, between this and the bizarrely tone-deaf HIV/AIDS statement, I am beginning to believe that she knows perfectly well what the facts are, and is choosing to instead appeal to what she thinks the voters want to believe, feeding a wishful-thinking narrative that is actually a lie. And yeah, that's politics, but in these two cases, she glibly dismissed the real-life horror faced by HIV/AIDS patients at the hands of the Reagans, and whitewashed very recent history of risk-taking activism. Fuck's sake, if "hearts melted" when victims came together, we'd have banned automatic weapons the day after the Newtown shootings.
posted by duffell at 4:57 AM on March 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
This. At this point, between this and the bizarrely tone-deaf HIV/AIDS statement, I am beginning to believe that she knows perfectly well what the facts are, and is choosing to instead appeal to what she thinks the voters want to believe, feeding a wishful-thinking narrative that is actually a lie. And yeah, that's politics, but in these two cases, she glibly dismissed the real-life horror faced by HIV/AIDS patients at the hands of the Reagans, and whitewashed very recent history of risk-taking activism. Fuck's sake, if "hearts melted" when victims came together, we'd have banned automatic weapons the day after the Newtown shootings.
posted by duffell at 4:57 AM on March 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
Charles Pierce: Hillary's Line About the Reagans Today Was the Single Dumbest Thing She's Ever Said
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:34 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:34 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miami Beach mayor rips Rubio: He ‘100 percent’ sounds like a climate change denier
posted by Room 641-A at 5:56 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 5:56 AM on March 12, 2016
Rubio's on a roll this morning. He's a shitty candidate, but he just spoke some truth about Trump.
posted by cashman at 6:05 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cashman at 6:05 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio's on a roll this morning. He's a shitty candidate, but he just spoke some truth about Trump.
Good on Rubio, though I doubt many (if any) Trump voters will believe Rubio or Romney are speaking out against the politics of fear for any reason other than personal political gain.
posted by duffell at 6:10 AM on March 12, 2016
Good on Rubio, though I doubt many (if any) Trump voters will believe Rubio or Romney are speaking out against the politics of fear for any reason other than personal political gain.
posted by duffell at 6:10 AM on March 12, 2016
I'm hoping the video will pop up soon. It was too impassioned and against what would normally get said, to be just sheer opportunism. Rubio talked about how Trump's comments on Islam is just not something you can do. You can't just say anything. Rubio went into detail about members of America's armed forces, interpreters, people in other countries who assist in the capture of terrorists, etc - many of those people are Muslim. How does that make them feel when you make those statements? He specifically referenced a priest that helped the U.S. capture Bin Laden, who is now jailed in Pakistan (if I remember correctly), and said "He's Muslim. What are you going to say - HE hates the US?" Rubio went on to reference how US Armed Forces will be injured or need shelter, and Muslim families will take them in, and just went on and on about it.
Rubio also said the Media needs to examine their roles in the rise of Trump. He separated out the reporters on the ground, saying he knows the people there don't make those decisions, but he just directed the comments at how the Media covers every horrible thing Trump did, and when he was making speeches on policy, nobody cared, but as soon as he said something negative about Trump, they were cutting in live to his comments.
I saw maybe 5 or 6 minutes of his comments, after he disparaged Obama, apparently, but the stuff he said about Trump and the Media was pretty on point.
posted by cashman at 6:19 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Rubio also said the Media needs to examine their roles in the rise of Trump. He separated out the reporters on the ground, saying he knows the people there don't make those decisions, but he just directed the comments at how the Media covers every horrible thing Trump did, and when he was making speeches on policy, nobody cared, but as soon as he said something negative about Trump, they were cutting in live to his comments.
I saw maybe 5 or 6 minutes of his comments, after he disparaged Obama, apparently, but the stuff he said about Trump and the Media was pretty on point.
posted by cashman at 6:19 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's so bizarre that Ted fuckin' Cruz came down more unequivocally on the violence-mongering than Hillary Clinton did.
But then all of that 24-hour period was just wild, starting with Somnolent Trump thru Ben Carson's endorsement, the HIV/AIDS mega-gaffe / triangulation to nowhere and finishing up with an honest to God near-riot in Chicago.
Maybe more information will come out today but it sounds like tickets were not checked at the doors and so a significant minority of the people inside the venue were anti-Trump protesters. I think the cancellation probably saved multiple lives. Wouldn't be surprised if the CPD quietly told the Trump people, "Call this off yourselves or we'll do it for you, your choice."
At this point my theory is that some pivotal shit was narrowly avoided by time travellers from the future, either that or the ghost of Nancy Reagan is getting some solid last-minute trolling in before she peaces out for good.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:19 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
But then all of that 24-hour period was just wild, starting with Somnolent Trump thru Ben Carson's endorsement, the HIV/AIDS mega-gaffe / triangulation to nowhere and finishing up with an honest to God near-riot in Chicago.
Maybe more information will come out today but it sounds like tickets were not checked at the doors and so a significant minority of the people inside the venue were anti-Trump protesters. I think the cancellation probably saved multiple lives. Wouldn't be surprised if the CPD quietly told the Trump people, "Call this off yourselves or we'll do it for you, your choice."
At this point my theory is that some pivotal shit was narrowly avoided by time travellers from the future, either that or the ghost of Nancy Reagan is getting some solid last-minute trolling in before she peaces out for good.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:19 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
cashman, I just saw that, too. Did you catch the last question? It sounded liked he was asked if he could support Hillary instead of Trump and he actually paused, shook his head, and said -- very tentatively -- I'm...still going to support the Republican nominee, but it's getting harder every day. It really sounded like he just realized what he'd been a part of stirring up.
On a related note, I wonder if Trump could be charged with inciting a riot. Aaaaand I just heard that Trump tweeted and called the protesters "thugs."
posted by Room 641-A at 6:27 AM on March 12, 2016
On a related note, I wonder if Trump could be charged with inciting a riot. Aaaaand I just heard that Trump tweeted and called the protesters "thugs."
posted by Room 641-A at 6:27 AM on March 12, 2016
Room 641-A, here's the clip you're referring to. I haven't seen video of Rubio's full comments yet, but I'll post them if I find them.
posted by duffell at 6:46 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by duffell at 6:46 AM on March 12, 2016
Until he announces he will oppose Trump in the general, all his criticisms are empty.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:47 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:47 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kirsten West Savali: "Also, Bree Newsome took down the flag. Get it right."
posted by Trochanter at 6:48 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 6:48 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Update: here's the longer, 3-minute video from Rubio (MSNBC website). The best bit is when he begins talking about the extraordinary amount of TV coverage Trump has gotten for spewing hate; right on cue, a live video feed pops up in the corner announcing "AWAITING TRUMP RALLY IN OH"
posted by duffell at 6:50 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by duffell at 6:50 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
here's the longer, 3-minute video from Rubio
And it goes on longer than that. I hadn't seen any of that. His comments go on for about 5 or 6 more minutes.
posted by cashman at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2016
And it goes on longer than that. I hadn't seen any of that. His comments go on for about 5 or 6 more minutes.
posted by cashman at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2016
I voted for Sanders in the MA primary because he's the candidate who best represents my views. I did so knowing Clinton was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination and that I would of course vote for her in the general as immensely preferable to any Republican nominee. She still is and I still will but JESUS CHRIST she's not making it easy. If this is a strategy, not only is it monstrous and cynical in its own right but it's terrible fucking strategy. The American body politic no longer has any center to pivot to.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 AM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 AM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Rubio's campaign wisely put up what seems to be the full video from MSNBC on YouTube. 13:15 long.
posted by cashman at 7:53 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cashman at 7:53 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anybody else think maybe the cancelled Trump rally in Chicago was part of the plan all along? Trump's response to last night is apparently that his freedom of speech is under attack, because his critics are so angry and hateful. But why on earth would they hold it at UIC--spitting distance from downtown--if they actually wanted to have a normal successful rally? Anybody with half a brain would have just put it out in one of the suburbs, and there would have been a fraction of the protesters they had yesterday. But when the whole city can just take the Blue Line over there, of course everybody's going to go! 4-5:00 on a Friday? You couldn't plan a more convenient protest if you tried!
posted by gueneverey at 7:58 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by gueneverey at 7:58 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump and his plane are having a rally at the Dayton International Airport (livestream), I'm watching so you don't have to. He called the disruption yesterday a professional attack by thousands of people.
posted by peeedro at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by peeedro at 8:01 AM on March 12, 2016
@jsmooth995: The people of Chicago decided it's best to bar Donald Trump from entering. Just temporarily. Until we can figure out what's going on.
posted by bluecore at 8:06 AM on March 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by bluecore at 8:06 AM on March 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
He praises law enforcement and his fans. Said the real troublemakers were supporters of Bernie, "our communist friend." Trump says it's up to Bernie to tell his people to stop. Also blames moveon.org, who doesn't want to see America great again. It's also Obama's fault, he's a great divider.
posted by peeedro at 8:06 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by peeedro at 8:06 AM on March 12, 2016
"When they have organized, professionally staged wise-guys, we have to fight back"
posted by peeedro at 8:08 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by peeedro at 8:08 AM on March 12, 2016
Watch the Rubio talk - he should have talked like this from the outset. Now, it's probably too late.
posted by mumimor at 8:12 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 8:12 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Does Donald Trump not understand how freedom of speech works? And how only the government can violate his right to free speech (which they didn't do)? And how those protesters that he's bitching about are also the ones who have freedom of speech?
posted by Weeping_angel at 8:14 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Weeping_angel at 8:14 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
And that's all Trump had to say about yesterday, he's rambling on his usual stump speech now. He did begin with an attack on Kasich:
Trump: He was the managing director of Lehman Brothers who failed and destroyed the economy...
Crowd: *crickets*
Trump: ... and he signed NAFTA and took away great jobs.
Crowd: *roars*
posted by peeedro at 8:17 AM on March 12, 2016
Trump: He was the managing director of Lehman Brothers who failed and destroyed the economy...
Crowd: *crickets*
Trump: ... and he signed NAFTA and took away great jobs.
Crowd: *roars*
posted by peeedro at 8:17 AM on March 12, 2016
Gay Men Feel Hillary Clinton’s Pain—But Does She Feel Ours?
Clinton’s apology, which doesn’t acknowledge the righteous pain caused by her remarks, reveals a social distance that gay men might want to take a closer look at.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:20 AM on March 12, 2016
Clinton’s apology, which doesn’t acknowledge the righteous pain caused by her remarks, reveals a social distance that gay men might want to take a closer look at.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:20 AM on March 12, 2016
Does Donald Trump not understand
Unless the rest of this question is "how to bring out the worst in people by performing cartoonish buffoonery," the answer is pretty much always "No, he does not understand."
posted by dersins at 8:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless the rest of this question is "how to bring out the worst in people by performing cartoonish buffoonery," the answer is pretty much always "No, he does not understand."
posted by dersins at 8:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump Jr. just retweeted Vox Day's (immediately and easily disproved) lie that the woman photographed giving a Nazi salute last night is a Sanders organizer. I hate this crossover episode of reality.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't get over Hillary's statement on the protesters. Better to not say anything than to put out some weak tea like that. WHY IN GOD'S NAME CAN'T OBAMA JUST RUN AGAIN AHHHHHHH
"Love Trumps Hate" is going to be the rallying cry of this election.
posted by sallybrown at 8:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Love Trumps Hate" is going to be the rallying cry of this election.
posted by sallybrown at 8:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Watch the Rubio talk - he should have talked like this from the outset. Now, it's probably too late.
Not much more than posturing, on reflection. He still effectively blames Obama for Trump's actions, and he won't say, "No, I will not support Trump as the Republican nominee."
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not much more than posturing, on reflection. He still effectively blames Obama for Trump's actions, and he won't say, "No, I will not support Trump as the Republican nominee."
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
really, you're surprised hillary is a gutless, tone-deaf triangulator? are you new to this planet?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Love Trumps Hate" is going to be the rallying cry of this election.
For both sides.
posted by dersins at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
For both sides.
posted by dersins at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
he won't say, "No, I will not support Trump as the Republican nominee."
He did come closer than I think I've ever seen a republican get to saying he wouldn't. You could tell he really didn't want to. (He's still odious, but I'm glad he said what he said today. "Words have consequences" really needed to be said.)
posted by Weeping_angel at 8:46 AM on March 12, 2016
He did come closer than I think I've ever seen a republican get to saying he wouldn't. You could tell he really didn't want to. (He's still odious, but I'm glad he said what he said today. "Words have consequences" really needed to be said.)
posted by Weeping_angel at 8:46 AM on March 12, 2016
Meanwhile, John Boehner enjoys not having to deal with this shit anymore.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:49 AM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:49 AM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not much more than posturing, on reflection. He still effectively blames Obama for Trump's actions, and he won't say, "No, I will not support Trump as the Republican nominee."
He is a rebublican..
posted by mumimor at 8:53 AM on March 12, 2016
He is a rebublican..
posted by mumimor at 8:53 AM on March 12, 2016
There is no chance that John Boehner cuts his own grass. None whatsoever.
posted by absalom at 8:55 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by absalom at 8:55 AM on March 12, 2016
"When they have organized, professionally staged wise-guys, we have to fight back"
Imagine the howls of outrage if President Obama said that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 AM on March 12, 2016
Imagine the howls of outrage if President Obama said that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 AM on March 12, 2016
Question: Trump keeps saying the protest was "organized" as if that was some kind of offense. I genuinely do not understand what he's getting at. Fully aware that I will probably regret knowing, can somebody explain to me what is he trying to say there?
posted by kyrademon at 9:14 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by kyrademon at 9:14 AM on March 12, 2016
Perhaps an implication that it was motivated by support for a different campaign rather than sincere opposition to Trump?
posted by sallybrown at 9:18 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 9:18 AM on March 12, 2016
"Organized" - paid for by the liberals/campaigns/whatever. That's their talking point. Even newly-centrist Rubio says as much in his 13 minute presser earlier today (see above)
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 9:20 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 9:20 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that Rachel Maddow is onto something with the claim that Trump is deliberately provoking violence, on the part both of his supporters and his opponents, so that he can claim that things are out of control and that he's the only person strong enough to deal with the chaos and return the country to order. It is, as she points out, a time-honored strategy of strongmen, dictators, and fascists everywhere.
And yeah, having an event at UIC seems like a deliberate provocation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:21 AM on March 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
And yeah, having an event at UIC seems like a deliberate provocation.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:21 AM on March 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
The entire of Maddow's show last night is worth watching. They should re-air that everywhere.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:25 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:25 AM on March 12, 2016
"Organized" - paid for by the liberals/campaigns/whatever.
Knowing who his audience is, I think the use of "organized" also plays into the fantasies of white nationalists and their sympathizers, who are not only convinced a race war is going to be waged against "Real Americans," but are eagerly awaiting it.
posted by duffell at 9:26 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Knowing who his audience is, I think the use of "organized" also plays into the fantasies of white nationalists and their sympathizers, who are not only convinced a race war is going to be waged against "Real Americans," but are eagerly awaiting it.
posted by duffell at 9:26 AM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
He's still odious, but I'm glad he said what he said today. "Words have consequences" really needed to be said.
Agreed, which is why I wished the press would have called him out on saying the anti-Trump protesters in Chicago were paid off. If any non-Republican had made that kind of accusation, the media would be up in arms. I don't think Rubio deserves a pass on the same language that Trump uses.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:27 AM on March 12, 2016
Agreed, which is why I wished the press would have called him out on saying the anti-Trump protesters in Chicago were paid off. If any non-Republican had made that kind of accusation, the media would be up in arms. I don't think Rubio deserves a pass on the same language that Trump uses.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:27 AM on March 12, 2016
Man, I dunno about that Rachel Maddow bit ... she could have made her point without bringing out all those videos of poor kids who were attacked by police. Maybe it got better, but using that footage to make your point, rehashing visually and in its own way reenacting that violence is not without its problems and I really just wish people wouldn't do it.
posted by dame at 9:30 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dame at 9:30 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry, dame: I should have included a warning, and I totally get what you're saying. I don't know that it does actually get better: the next video shows an extended series of videos of Trump rallies at which he basically challenges his supporters to attack protesters and invokes the "good old days" when people weren't so PC and similar protesters would be subject to violence. It's more on-point but also very upsetting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was organized: How Bernie Sanders supporters shut down a Trump rally in Chicago. Various comments on one of my (ugh) Pro Trump friend's facebook page are all over & about the MoveOn.Org connection. Someone even tried to connect it to Ayers and, thus, to Obama. Which I thought was just crazy talk.
But the shrapnel isn't just hitting Bernie/Dems. Rubio posted his Trump presser video to Facebook and there are a bunch of comments about how he's turning into a tool of Ayers/the Chicago Machine/MoveOn.Org.
So the "organized" attack, which is true, is a good one for Trump's base and really seems to be rallying them. Because, it seems, "organized" means communist and not just planned.
posted by imbri at 9:36 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
But the shrapnel isn't just hitting Bernie/Dems. Rubio posted his Trump presser video to Facebook and there are a bunch of comments about how he's turning into a tool of Ayers/the Chicago Machine/MoveOn.Org.
So the "organized" attack, which is true, is a good one for Trump's base and really seems to be rallying them. Because, it seems, "organized" means communist and not just planned.
posted by imbri at 9:36 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump did mention Bill Ayers in passing at his rally today.
posted by peeedro at 9:38 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by peeedro at 9:38 AM on March 12, 2016
Is that legit or photoshop? Because if it's legit, it's totally amazing, but someone is going to be so fired.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:54 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:54 AM on March 12, 2016
Because if it's legit, it's totally amazing, but someone is going to be so fired.
With that thin skin of his, I'd be surprised if Trump didn't threaten to evict.
posted by duffell at 9:56 AM on March 12, 2016
With that thin skin of his, I'd be surprised if Trump didn't threaten to evict.
posted by duffell at 9:56 AM on March 12, 2016
The more I think about it, I'm really pissed about this Chicago rally. He had to know the protests were going to be huge, but he did it anyway. He was probably hoping for way more violence, arrests, riots, maybe a shooting or two. Good on the protesters, and CPD for keeping things relatively civil. Fuck Trump.
posted by gueneverey at 9:57 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by gueneverey at 9:57 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Snopes on the [No] Trump Tower photo. (Spoilers: it's fake.)
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:59 AM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump earlier told the crowd the protests that forced him to postpone a rally in Chicago on Friday was a "planned attack" that "came out of nowhere."
His language also mimics that of terror attacks, evoking paranoia about ISIS, which we know is a trigger for his followers-- Trump supporter who assaulted the protestor at the NC rally:
“Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS."
posted by bluecore at 10:01 AM on March 12, 2016
His language also mimics that of terror attacks, evoking paranoia about ISIS, which we know is a trigger for his followers-- Trump supporter who assaulted the protestor at the NC rally:
“Number one, we don’t know if he’s ISIS."
posted by bluecore at 10:01 AM on March 12, 2016
Remember Weimar?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on March 12, 2016
Scary video of "a very sweaty Donald Trump" spooked by a protester. It's really not good to have so many super angry people so on edge. It's becoming less and less hyperbolic to say someone may be killed at one of these rallies.
posted by sallybrown at 10:08 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:08 AM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
sallybrown, that's terrifying.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
when the guys with the guns are looking spooked too, it's just...yeah, terrifying.
posted by sallybrown at 10:13 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 10:13 AM on March 12, 2016
I'm curious: are those really secret service or are they just dressing up like them? (If they were extras in a movie, the one in the front-left would have been cut for being too self-conscious, kind of stumbling through what might look like protocol without having the muscle-memory that would come from really being trained for these situations.)
posted by nobody at 10:19 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by nobody at 10:19 AM on March 12, 2016
Trump definitely has a secret service detail now, and I can't imagine they'd be too keen to coordinate coverage with Trump-branded faux-S.S.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:21 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 10:21 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, given the, uh, discipline and morale problems at the USSS that have been widely reported, I'm guessing that Presidential hopefuls are getting the B and C teams while they try to keep things together at the White House and within POTUS' own security detail.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:22 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sequestration, et al. has significantly reduced training budgets, as well.
It's also easy to Monday morning quarterback these sort of things, so we should measure twice, cut once.
posted by The Gaffer at 10:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's also easy to Monday morning quarterback these sort of things, so we should measure twice, cut once.
posted by The Gaffer at 10:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Secret service agent at a trump rally? That has to be the most stressful job out there right now. Talk about pins and needles. One false move and you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm. Blech.
posted by ian1977 at 10:28 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 10:28 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
One false move and you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm.
I think you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm before you've made any false moves, or any moves at all, really.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:31 AM on March 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm before you've made any false moves, or any moves at all, really.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:31 AM on March 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
I mean, I don't want to criticize the protestor, since we don't know all the facts, but please, please don't jump a guardrail at a rally. Your life and your vote are really important.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, secret service agent at a Trump rally may have replaced third shift at a chicken processing plant as the job that I would least like to have.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm before you've made any false moves, or any moves at all, really.
True. I'll amend it to say 'one false move and you're in the middle of an idiot shit tornado. A shitnado Randy-bo-bandy'
posted by ian1977 at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
True. I'll amend it to say 'one false move and you're in the middle of an idiot shit tornado. A shitnado Randy-bo-bandy'
posted by ian1977 at 10:39 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a strange video. Not for the first time, Donald does not look well at all and it's a reminder that he's a 69 year old man with a fair amount of padding.
Bearing in mind that Hillary and Bernie are also in this similar age bracket, what happens if a candidate wins the nomination of their party but withdraws due to ill health or worse before the actual election? Are there rules and procedures for this?
posted by Wordshore at 10:44 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bearing in mind that Hillary and Bernie are also in this similar age bracket, what happens if a candidate wins the nomination of their party but withdraws due to ill health or worse before the actual election? Are there rules and procedures for this?
posted by Wordshore at 10:44 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yep, Wordshire, it goes to the VP.
posted by The Gaffer at 10:46 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by The Gaffer at 10:46 AM on March 12, 2016
President Trump...Ivanka Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 10:56 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 10:56 AM on March 12, 2016
DC Republicans, whose votes count 40 times as much as Texas Republicans', vote today:
You probably didn’t know there is a Republican primary happening in the District on Saturday. Neither do most people. It’s hardly gotten any publicity, because there are very few Republicans in the District of Columbia: Six percent of the population, to be exact. Only 19 delegates are at stake. This year, though, the crazypants year, their votes matter a lot.posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:59 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
“We haven’t mattered this much,” D.C. Republican Party Executive Director Patrick Mara told me, “since Frederick Douglass was a precinct captain.”
President Trump...Ivanka Trump.
tbh that would very much be the preferable President Trump, were it to come down to that.
posted by dersins at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
tbh that would very much be the preferable President Trump, were it to come down to that.
posted by dersins at 11:01 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
> "Not for the first time, Donald does not look well at all ..."
Wait, are you saying he *wouldn't*, in fact, be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency”, as his doctor claims? That he would only equal Jimmy Carter's current (and ongoing) three and a half decades of life after leaving office if he managed to live many years past the age of 100? That possibly Barack Obama, elected at age 47, might at that time have been in better shape than a 70 year old?
Shocked. Shocked, I am.
posted by kyrademon at 11:02 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, are you saying he *wouldn't*, in fact, be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency”, as his doctor claims? That he would only equal Jimmy Carter's current (and ongoing) three and a half decades of life after leaving office if he managed to live many years past the age of 100? That possibly Barack Obama, elected at age 47, might at that time have been in better shape than a 70 year old?
Shocked. Shocked, I am.
posted by kyrademon at 11:02 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep, Wordshire, it goes to the VP.
Huh; how strange. I have a recurring dream that Elizabeth Warren beats Donald Trump in the election in November. So, it's technically possible; maybe I should have a small bet on this.
posted by Wordshore at 11:03 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Huh; how strange. I have a recurring dream that Elizabeth Warren beats Donald Trump in the election in November. So, it's technically possible; maybe I should have a small bet on this.
posted by Wordshore at 11:03 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Chelsea Clnton likes her:
She is a close friend of Chelsea Clinton, who says of her: "There's nothing skin-deep about Ivanka. And I think that's a real tribute to her because certainly anyone as gorgeous as she is could have probably gone quite far being skin-deep."[40]
What a weird fucking world we live in.
posted by ian1977 at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
She is a close friend of Chelsea Clinton, who says of her: "There's nothing skin-deep about Ivanka. And I think that's a real tribute to her because certainly anyone as gorgeous as she is could have probably gone quite far being skin-deep."[40]
What a weird fucking world we live in.
posted by ian1977 at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
“We haven’t mattered this much,” D.C. Republican Party Executive Director Patrick Mara told me, “since Frederick Douglass was a precinct captain.”
Actually, little-known fact about Frederick Douglass: he was a passionate and vocal proponent of District suffrage.
posted by duffell at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Actually, little-known fact about Frederick Douglass: he was a passionate and vocal proponent of District suffrage.
posted by duffell at 11:07 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
DC Republicans, whose votes count 40 times as much as Texas Republicans', vote today:
You probably didn’t know there is a Republican primary happening in the District on Saturday. Neither do most people. It’s hardly gotten any publicity, because there are very few Republicans in the District of Columbia: Six percent of the population, to be exact. Only 19 delegates are at stake. This year, though, the crazypants year, their votes matter a lot.
“We haven’t mattered this much,” D.C. Republican Party Executive Director Patrick Mara told me, “since Frederick Douglass was a precinct captain.”
And the Democrats don't get to vote until June! You had to change your registered party by early January, I believe, or else I bet you'd see a lot more people showing up to protest vote against Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 11:08 AM on March 12, 2016
You probably didn’t know there is a Republican primary happening in the District on Saturday. Neither do most people. It’s hardly gotten any publicity, because there are very few Republicans in the District of Columbia: Six percent of the population, to be exact. Only 19 delegates are at stake. This year, though, the crazypants year, their votes matter a lot.
“We haven’t mattered this much,” D.C. Republican Party Executive Director Patrick Mara told me, “since Frederick Douglass was a precinct captain.”
And the Democrats don't get to vote until June! You had to change your registered party by early January, I believe, or else I bet you'd see a lot more people showing up to protest vote against Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 11:08 AM on March 12, 2016
Wordshore if your Warren dream comes true I will do what I can to make your dream of Lindsay Lohan selling you a hot tub come true.
posted by ian1977 at 11:09 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 11:09 AM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Earlier today I was watching that Marco Rubio video from MSNBC, the one where he lambasts the media coverage of Trump and while he's talking, a live video feed pops up in the corner with the caption "AWAITING TRUMP RALLY IN OH." So I despair-chuckled, and did a video-capture and tweeted it. And somewhere along the way the Weekly Standard picked it up and now a bunch of Rubio supporters are tweeting about it. I have to go and take a shower.
posted by duffell at 11:11 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by duffell at 11:11 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just hold off Dufelll and you can hot tub with wordshore
posted by ian1977 at 11:13 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 11:13 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's pretty wild, Eyebrows.
And now, math: [D.C. Republican Party Executive Director Patrick] Mara estimates there will be somewhere between 2,000 and 8,000 primary voters. Nineteen delegates is the same number Hawaii gets, but Hawaii had 13,377 Republicans vote. That makes a D.C. vote between 1½ and six times as powerful as a Hawaiian’s. A D.C. Republican voter will have between 40 and 160 times as much share of a delegate as a Texan will.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:15 AM on March 12, 2016
> "A D.C. Republican voter will have between 40 and 160 times as much share of a delegate as a Texan will."
Giving them a massive voice in making the choice among Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.
What monkey's paw did they get *that* wish granted by?
posted by kyrademon at 11:20 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Giving them a massive voice in making the choice among Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.
What monkey's paw did they get *that* wish granted by?
posted by kyrademon at 11:20 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It sounds like they are just not being seen in public together but they are still friends? AWKWARD. 'Umm, you're dad is kind of a....nazi???'
Today, Chelsea and Ivanka serve as board members and high-ranking officials at the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Organization, respectively. The two non-Jewish women married Jewish men from prominent families in real estate and politics — both chose Vera Wang gowns for their high-profile nuptials. Both have written advice books for young women, and despite cultivating a large public persona, both have become perhaps equally calculating and guarded about their public images.
Twinsies!
posted by ian1977 at 11:22 AM on March 12, 2016
Today, Chelsea and Ivanka serve as board members and high-ranking officials at the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Organization, respectively. The two non-Jewish women married Jewish men from prominent families in real estate and politics — both chose Vera Wang gowns for their high-profile nuptials. Both have written advice books for young women, and despite cultivating a large public persona, both have become perhaps equally calculating and guarded about their public images.
Twinsies!
posted by ian1977 at 11:22 AM on March 12, 2016
Ricky L. Jones:
I love Trump, but not for the same reasons David Duke pulls him to his bosom. I love Trump because with every win he exposes the GOP and America for what they are. Trump doesn’t vote for himself – Americans do. Republicans and the country both need to deal with that truth.
His ascendency has created a psychotic alternate universe where the GOP has plummeted to unexplored levels of mendacity or is so delusional that it should be dissolved. It is incredible that the party affixes racism or racial insensitivity to Trump when those ills have been at the core of its ideology. The party that has housed everyone from post-1948 Strom Thurmond to Jeff Sessions is on shaky ground when it attempts to pave a high road on race. It is, in fact, the place where racists who haven’t abandoned traditional politics altogether reside.
posted by bardophile at 11:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I love Trump, but not for the same reasons David Duke pulls him to his bosom. I love Trump because with every win he exposes the GOP and America for what they are. Trump doesn’t vote for himself – Americans do. Republicans and the country both need to deal with that truth.
His ascendency has created a psychotic alternate universe where the GOP has plummeted to unexplored levels of mendacity or is so delusional that it should be dissolved. It is incredible that the party affixes racism or racial insensitivity to Trump when those ills have been at the core of its ideology. The party that has housed everyone from post-1948 Strom Thurmond to Jeff Sessions is on shaky ground when it attempts to pave a high road on race. It is, in fact, the place where racists who haven’t abandoned traditional politics altogether reside.
posted by bardophile at 11:23 AM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
It is increasingly apparent that the 2016 Presidential Election is, itself, going to kill a number of people. And I'm starting to think that this is on purpose. Am I being paranoid? Not paranoid enough?
For fuck's sake, it's only March. It's not even late March.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 11:25 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
For fuck's sake, it's only March. It's not even late March.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 11:25 AM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, my Uncle Willy used to say "Beware the Ides of March."
posted by bardophile at 11:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 11:35 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump's behavior, especially in the past couple of days in response to the recent violence, is really lending credence to the dementia hypothesis. Not even a fascistic strongman would be so blatant in his incitement.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:35 AM on March 12, 2016
posted by LooseFilter at 11:35 AM on March 12, 2016
What monkey's paw did they get *that* wish granted by?
Well, it ever-so-slightly makes up for the whole taxation-without-representation thing.
Plus there's the fact that DC republicans' votes in the general presidential election have had zero electoral value since 19-always.
posted by dersins at 11:41 AM on March 12, 2016
Well, it ever-so-slightly makes up for the whole taxation-without-representation thing.
Plus there's the fact that DC republicans' votes in the general presidential election have had zero electoral value since 19-always.
posted by dersins at 11:41 AM on March 12, 2016
I mean, I don't want to criticize the protestor, since we don't know all the facts, but please, please don't jump a guardrail at a rally. Your life and your vote are really important.
Aside from the life and vote, both of which could easily be waved off by a hot-head 19-year old activist, this kind of move helps Trump. And yes, he's doing everything he can to encourage it.
The vast majority of Americans hate protesters passionately, epsecially if there is any kind of violence. They're scared of violent protestors and the disorder they represent, and will condone much greater violence (by police and others) to stop it.
Did you hear the guy on sallybrown's video yelling "kick his ass, Donald!" Can you imagine if the guy got 4 steps further, and Trump kicked him in the face from stage? Trump would be a hero like you can't imagine. There wouldn't be any point running against him at that point.
posted by msalt at 11:55 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Aside from the life and vote, both of which could easily be waved off by a hot-head 19-year old activist, this kind of move helps Trump. And yes, he's doing everything he can to encourage it.
The vast majority of Americans hate protesters passionately, epsecially if there is any kind of violence. They're scared of violent protestors and the disorder they represent, and will condone much greater violence (by police and others) to stop it.
Did you hear the guy on sallybrown's video yelling "kick his ass, Donald!" Can you imagine if the guy got 4 steps further, and Trump kicked him in the face from stage? Trump would be a hero like you can't imagine. There wouldn't be any point running against him at that point.
posted by msalt at 11:55 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The vast majority of Americans hate protesters passionately
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
sallybrown: that video isn't half as scary as the update one at the bottom where you can clearly hear a crowd member yell:"kill him! Kick his ass!"
Trump is gonna get people killed.
For, essentially, his ego.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:07 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is gonna get people killed.
For, essentially, his ego.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:07 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
What a weird fucking world we live in.
Not so weird at all, once you realize they're all in the same class.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not so weird at all, once you realize they're all in the same class.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not even a fascistic strongman would be so blatant in his incitement.
The Big Lie strategy has been out for decades. It is old hat and cliche and we all know it by now. We are witnessing the next stage of mass propaganda, something even more blatant and obvious and insanely unreal. There's something postmodern to all of this.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:15 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Big Lie strategy has been out for decades. It is old hat and cliche and we all know it by now. We are witnessing the next stage of mass propaganda, something even more blatant and obvious and insanely unreal. There's something postmodern to all of this.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:15 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I was ready for him," Trump said, "but it's much easier if the cops do it."
God what a disgusting pile of shit.
posted by ian1977 at 12:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
God what a disgusting pile of shit.
posted by ian1977 at 12:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Beth Reinhard of the Wall Street Journal was being interviewed on MSNBC a second ago and referred to last night's events as "the Chicago riot".
posted by XMLicious at 12:21 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 12:21 PM on March 12, 2016
Trump is gonna get people killed.
Carly Fiorina did it with a lot less.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Carly Fiorina did it with a lot less.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders issues statement on the protest: "As is the case every day, Donald Trump is showing the American people that he is a pathological liar. Obviously, while I appreciate that we had supporters at Trump's rally in Chicago, our campaign did not organize the protests.
What caused the protests at Trump's rally is a candidate who has promoted hatred and division against Latinos, Muslims, women, and people with disabilities, and his birther attacks against the legitimacy of President Obama.
What caused the violence at Trump's rally is a campaign whose words and actions have encouraged it on the part of his supporters. He recently said of a protester, 'I want to punch him in the face.' Another time Trump yearned for the old days when the protester would have been assaulted and 'carried out on a stretcher.' Then just a few days ago a female reporter apparently was assaulted by his campaign manager.
When that is what the Trump campaign is doing, we should not be surprised that there is a response.
What Donald Trump must do now is stop provoking violence and make it clear to his supporters that people who attend his rallies or protest should not be assaulted, should not be punched, should not be kicked. In America people have the right to attend a political rally without fear of physical harm."
posted by dialetheia at 12:29 PM on March 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
What caused the protests at Trump's rally is a candidate who has promoted hatred and division against Latinos, Muslims, women, and people with disabilities, and his birther attacks against the legitimacy of President Obama.
What caused the violence at Trump's rally is a campaign whose words and actions have encouraged it on the part of his supporters. He recently said of a protester, 'I want to punch him in the face.' Another time Trump yearned for the old days when the protester would have been assaulted and 'carried out on a stretcher.' Then just a few days ago a female reporter apparently was assaulted by his campaign manager.
When that is what the Trump campaign is doing, we should not be surprised that there is a response.
What Donald Trump must do now is stop provoking violence and make it clear to his supporters that people who attend his rallies or protest should not be assaulted, should not be punched, should not be kicked. In America people have the right to attend a political rally without fear of physical harm."
posted by dialetheia at 12:29 PM on March 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
? Who did Carly get killed? That's a serious claim.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:29 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:29 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those folks at the abortion clinic.
posted by valkane at 12:37 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by valkane at 12:37 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah. Somehow I had missed Carly Fiorina's involvement in that Planned Parenthood fiasco.
(sigh)
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:53 PM on March 12, 2016
(sigh)
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:53 PM on March 12, 2016
I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94
Maybe she didn't notice?
Nope.
posted by Trochanter at 1:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
Maybe she didn't notice?
Nope.
posted by Trochanter at 1:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
Secret service agent at a trump rally? That has to be the most stressful job out there right now. Talk about pins and needles. One false move and you're in the middle of an idiotic shitstorm.
Can you imagine if part of your job description was literally "take a bullet for Donald Trump?" I'd be rethinking the fuck out of my life choices if it came to that.
posted by dersins at 1:13 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Can you imagine if part of your job description was literally "take a bullet for Donald Trump?" I'd be rethinking the fuck out of my life choices if it came to that.
posted by dersins at 1:13 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94
That seems taken out of context probably. She means it at as a response to questions about her commitment to UHC. Could have been phrased better, but I don't think she intended to imply he isn't committed to it as well with that statement. Still, in a Presidential race every sentence will be analyzed and interpreted based on what points can be scored, not on what the intended meaning is. Don't set yourself up like that.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That seems taken out of context probably. She means it at as a response to questions about her commitment to UHC. Could have been phrased better, but I don't think she intended to imply he isn't committed to it as well with that statement. Still, in a Presidential race every sentence will be analyzed and interpreted based on what points can be scored, not on what the intended meaning is. Don't set yourself up like that.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you imagine if part of your job description was literally "take a bullet for Donald Trump?"
Sadly, based on his rhetoric, I think it's vastly more likely that the person "taking a bullet" at any given Trump rally would be a peaceful protester being shot by one of his supporters, not Trump.
That seems taken out of context probably
I don't know - what else would "I don't know where he was" imply? As Amy Chozick reported it: "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94," a fired up @HillaryClinton says of Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sadly, based on his rhetoric, I think it's vastly more likely that the person "taking a bullet" at any given Trump rally would be a peaceful protester being shot by one of his supporters, not Trump.
That seems taken out of context probably
I don't know - what else would "I don't know where he was" imply? As Amy Chozick reported it: "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94," a fired up @HillaryClinton says of Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 1:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can you imagine if part of your job description was literally "take a bullet for Donald Trump?"
I think I would say 'noooooooo!' and dive in front of trump but in ridiculous slow motion so that I'd mistime my leap by 2 minutes.
posted by ian1977 at 1:25 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The better phrase for what I am assuming she was trying to say in context would be along the lines of, "You would have to be living under a rock in 93 and 94 to claim I'm not committed to fighting for UHC." She is trying to say anybody who knows about that time knows about the efforts she led so her bona fides on the issue should not be questioned.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
>>The vast majority of Americans hate protesters passionately
>Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Besides the complete lack of effectiveness of decades of protests? And Trump's popularity?
Sure. Look at the Chicago convention in 1968. The police response was so out of line that the unflappable Walter Cronkite lost his shit on live TV and kept saying "This is horrible!" The official report on the event called it "a police riot."
And people flooded CBS and newspapers with angry complaints running 8 to 1 in favor of police. Nixon was elected that fall, and Mayor Daley went on to years of power and success as Chicago's Mayor. I've studied and written on this academically, I'm not making shit up.
The activist community feels different, and overlaps a lot with Sanders supporters, but that is a tiny percentage of the population. Imagine your typical American family -- suburban, midwest or southern, churchgoing, struggling to get by, play by the rules. Why would they side with the violent protestor against the police dragging him away?
posted by msalt at 1:34 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
>Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Besides the complete lack of effectiveness of decades of protests? And Trump's popularity?
Sure. Look at the Chicago convention in 1968. The police response was so out of line that the unflappable Walter Cronkite lost his shit on live TV and kept saying "This is horrible!" The official report on the event called it "a police riot."
And people flooded CBS and newspapers with angry complaints running 8 to 1 in favor of police. Nixon was elected that fall, and Mayor Daley went on to years of power and success as Chicago's Mayor. I've studied and written on this academically, I'm not making shit up.
The activist community feels different, and overlaps a lot with Sanders supporters, but that is a tiny percentage of the population. Imagine your typical American family -- suburban, midwest or southern, churchgoing, struggling to get by, play by the rules. Why would they side with the violent protestor against the police dragging him away?
posted by msalt at 1:34 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
She is trying to say anybody who knows about that time knows about the efforts she led so her bona fides on the issue should not be questioned.
Why bring Sanders into it, then? He is the subject of that statement, not her.
Why would they side with the violent protestor against the police dragging him away?
Because the protesters were peaceful and Trump is the one who has been inciting violence against people of color for months on end.
posted by dialetheia at 1:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Why bring Sanders into it, then? He is the subject of that statement, not her.
Why would they side with the violent protestor against the police dragging him away?
Because the protesters were peaceful and Trump is the one who has been inciting violence against people of color for months on end.
posted by dialetheia at 1:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
The better phrase for what I am assuming she was trying to say in context would be along the lines of
Since this has had to be said on behalf of Hillary multiple times in the past 24 hours, I think we can just make an internet shorthand for it now. TBPFWIAASWTTSICWBATLO will save us all time going forward.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Since this has had to be said on behalf of Hillary multiple times in the past 24 hours, I think we can just make an internet shorthand for it now. TBPFWIAASWTTSICWBATLO will save us all time going forward.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
I (sadly) agree with msalt, although the BLM protests have been working a lot better I expected and think a lot of people who generally have a low view of protesters were at least grudgingly respectful of people's reasons for taking direct actions.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:58 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:58 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why bring Sanders into it, then? He is the subject of that statement, not her.
That's why I'm hedging here with words like "Probably" and "Assuming." We're looking at one sentence. I can't imagine why she would make an attack implying he wasn't in support of her in 93 and 94 so I imagine the context will show us she wasn't intending to. (But to be fair of course, if you had asked me if she would say anything as dumb as that AIDS quote I wouldn't have believed it either.)
I think she is trying to respond to things like when Bernie says, "What Secretary Clinton is saying is that the United States should continue to be the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of our people. I think if the rest of the world can do it, we can."
She is trying to say she is fully committed to getting us to 100% coverage and Bernie should know that based on what she has done in the past.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:03 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's why I'm hedging here with words like "Probably" and "Assuming." We're looking at one sentence. I can't imagine why she would make an attack implying he wasn't in support of her in 93 and 94 so I imagine the context will show us she wasn't intending to. (But to be fair of course, if you had asked me if she would say anything as dumb as that AIDS quote I wouldn't have believed it either.)
I think she is trying to respond to things like when Bernie says, "What Secretary Clinton is saying is that the United States should continue to be the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of our people. I think if the rest of the world can do it, we can."
She is trying to say she is fully committed to getting us to 100% coverage and Bernie should know that based on what she has done in the past.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:03 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think 110% peaceful/undisruptive/unconfrontational protests are unlikely because you are preselecting from people who are aware of the possibility of violence/confrontation and choose to go anyway. Everyone is aware of the possibility of trouble and the people on both sides of the rally and the protest are the ones who choose to go regardless. Not saying I disagree with the protesters or anything. But protest is a conceptually violent act by its nature...sorta. I think anyway. I dunno. Just thinking out loud I guess.
Edit: missed a couple words
posted by ian1977 at 2:03 PM on March 12, 2016
Edit: missed a couple words
posted by ian1977 at 2:03 PM on March 12, 2016
IF it wasn't for the brave protesters at Trump rallies preceding Chicago- we would not have seen the spectacle of Trump encouraging violence, which effectively revealed the violent nature of his movement. This has coalesced opposition to Trump like nothing else has.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:08 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:08 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think it may have also coalesced the trump supporters too. Catalyst. Crystallization. Lines drawn. >
posted by ian1977 at 2:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Okay, here's a little more from Chozick:
So there you go. Still not all that clear, but not all that benign, either. Unless Ms. Chozick is spinning things for Bernie.
posted by Trochanter at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
ST. LOUIS — An energized Hillary Clinton took aim at Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders on Saturday. But at least one shot backfired.
Mrs. Clinton accused Mr. Sanders of distorting her record and said the Vermont senator, who has made a single-payer health care system a signature part of his campaign, had not always been such an advocate on the issue.
She said she has “a little chuckle to myself” when she thinks about the current debates over health care. “I don’t know,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Where was he when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ’94?”
The answer: “Literally, standing right behind her,” a Sanders spokesman, Mike Casca, said on Twitter, posting a photo from a 1994 news conference that shows Mr. Sanders next to Mrs. Clinton when the then first lady spoke about the White House’s proposed health care overhaul.
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, Jennifer Palmieri, had a comeback.
“Exactly, he was standing behind her,” Ms. Palmieri said. “She was out in front.”
So there you go. Still not all that clear, but not all that benign, either. Unless Ms. Chozick is spinning things for Bernie.
posted by Trochanter at 2:15 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94
This is an especially dumb line of attack considering that Sanders has republished that signed thank you letter/photo from Hillary already this year, not even two months ago, in response to more conceptual attacks on his health care goals/plans. Those earlier attacks weren't easily falsifiable though - it was like my ideas about health care are better than his, which is subjective and you can't easily disprove it. Totally different from this man was nowhere to be found in the health care discussion in '93 and '94, a fact contradicted by a handwritten letter, with photographic evidence, dated and signed by the person claiming to be unaware of the things in the letter/photo. And this evidence is known to be in the hands of the campaign of the guy you're lying about.
Has there been a shakeup in leadership in the Clinton campaign in the last few days? Between this attack, the Trump rally statement that draws a parallel between Trump protestors and Dylann Roof (not to mention issues with erasing Bree Newsome, etc.), the counterreality Reagan/AIDS statement and sorta-apology, and maybe looping in the Contra-sympathetic attacks at the last debate, it seems like there have been a lot of kind of head smacking moments in just the past couple of days - like they're happening at a much higher rate than previously. I'm guess I'm just curious whether this is the same leadership just panicking and making risky calls, or if this is the beginning of an intentional pivot away from the left wing in an attempt to start appealing to moderate independents, spurned neocons, and other Republicans scared of Trump.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is an especially dumb line of attack considering that Sanders has republished that signed thank you letter/photo from Hillary already this year, not even two months ago, in response to more conceptual attacks on his health care goals/plans. Those earlier attacks weren't easily falsifiable though - it was like my ideas about health care are better than his, which is subjective and you can't easily disprove it. Totally different from this man was nowhere to be found in the health care discussion in '93 and '94, a fact contradicted by a handwritten letter, with photographic evidence, dated and signed by the person claiming to be unaware of the things in the letter/photo. And this evidence is known to be in the hands of the campaign of the guy you're lying about.
Has there been a shakeup in leadership in the Clinton campaign in the last few days? Between this attack, the Trump rally statement that draws a parallel between Trump protestors and Dylann Roof (not to mention issues with erasing Bree Newsome, etc.), the counterreality Reagan/AIDS statement and sorta-apology, and maybe looping in the Contra-sympathetic attacks at the last debate, it seems like there have been a lot of kind of head smacking moments in just the past couple of days - like they're happening at a much higher rate than previously. I'm guess I'm just curious whether this is the same leadership just panicking and making risky calls, or if this is the beginning of an intentional pivot away from the left wing in an attempt to start appealing to moderate independents, spurned neocons, and other Republicans scared of Trump.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Every protest I've been to had a mix of people ranging from "I will hold a sign" thru "I'm willing to risk arrest" (e.g. sit down in the street) and so on. Where one draws a line about "violence" is pretty gray, I think. Is saying provocative words or holding signs violent? Blocking traffic? Chaining oneself to a fence? Occupying a bank lobby? Destruction of property?
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2016
I think it may have also coalesced the trump supporters too. Catalyst. Crystallization. Lines drawn. >
Sure, it makes it clear who is a fascist sympathizer and who isn't.
I think the majority of Americans think Trump is a bully and the majority of Americans live in large cities. Trump will have a really difficult time holding rallies in large cities from here on out. It diminishes his aura of "presidentiality". Thank you, Chicago. Our first fascist no go zone.
Third-way kumbaya bs is not going to cut it against this guy. What will work is to make him look weak and ineffective. Nothing makes a bully look weaker than whining about protests.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, it makes it clear who is a fascist sympathizer and who isn't.
I think the majority of Americans think Trump is a bully and the majority of Americans live in large cities. Trump will have a really difficult time holding rallies in large cities from here on out. It diminishes his aura of "presidentiality". Thank you, Chicago. Our first fascist no go zone.
Third-way kumbaya bs is not going to cut it against this guy. What will work is to make him look weak and ineffective. Nothing makes a bully look weaker than whining about protests.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton was for healthcare reform before she was against it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Hillary winds up as the Dem candidate, I'll vote for her over any of the Republicans, but after the past 48 hours it's strictly a lesser-evil vote. I think there are still issues to be ironed out regarding idealism and pragmatism in the Democratic primary, but her recent statements have hit the tipping point where I had to acknowledge that a vote for HRC would be for a candidate who I fundamentally can't trust in terms of honesty and integrity.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
But protest is a conceptually violent act by its nature...sorta.
Not even sorta, I don't think. Disruptive, yes; violent, no.
Thought experiment: a whole bunch of Trump supporters show up at a Sanders rally and hold up signs, stand there peacefully wearing t-shirts stating their perspectives, and occasionally shout stuff. Do the Sanders protesters threaten them with violence and shout racial epithets? Does his security immediately remove anyone expressing dissent in any way? Do his supporters punch the protesters in the face, as they're being forcibly removed?
I think Trump supporters simply cannot handle people disagreeing with them to any degree, in any way, because they've been hermetically sealed in the epistemic closure of talk radio, Fox News and etc. for so long that they see any disagreement with their worldview as "violent" and respond accordingly, with verbal and physical violence. And Trump is not only giving them permission to do it, he's saying that's the correct response, it's the right thing to do to their fellow citizens, who have the gall to have a different opinion and to express it.
It's beyond the pale, and at this point, anyone who doesn't loudly denounce it, denounce him, and stop any and all support or equivocation for what Trump says or does, is complicit.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Not even sorta, I don't think. Disruptive, yes; violent, no.
Thought experiment: a whole bunch of Trump supporters show up at a Sanders rally and hold up signs, stand there peacefully wearing t-shirts stating their perspectives, and occasionally shout stuff. Do the Sanders protesters threaten them with violence and shout racial epithets? Does his security immediately remove anyone expressing dissent in any way? Do his supporters punch the protesters in the face, as they're being forcibly removed?
I think Trump supporters simply cannot handle people disagreeing with them to any degree, in any way, because they've been hermetically sealed in the epistemic closure of talk radio, Fox News and etc. for so long that they see any disagreement with their worldview as "violent" and respond accordingly, with verbal and physical violence. And Trump is not only giving them permission to do it, he's saying that's the correct response, it's the right thing to do to their fellow citizens, who have the gall to have a different opinion and to express it.
It's beyond the pale, and at this point, anyone who doesn't loudly denounce it, denounce him, and stop any and all support or equivocation for what Trump says or does, is complicit.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I can't imagine why she would make an attack implying he wasn't in support of her in 93 and 94 so I imagine the context will show us she wasn't intending to.
Well, here's the video with context if you want to judge for yourself. Sounds pretty clearly like an attack on Sanders for being 'absent' in that fight to me.
Re: protesters, most of the people in that crowd in Chicago were people whose lives and livelihoods have been directly threatened by Trump's violent, inciteful, and hateful rhetoric. He has repeatedly threatened peaceful protesters with violence. He was threatening to deport 12 million people, engaging in religious profiling against Muslims, and giving rhetorical cover to hate groups like the KKK. His son has done recent appearances on white supremacist radio shows. Are people of color supposed to just wait for rich white thinkpiece authors to stop Trump? Nothing they've done has been particularly effective so far. Telling people of color they shouldn't have the right to peacefully protest such rhetoric is akin to saying they have no right of self-defense.
posted by dialetheia at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
Well, here's the video with context if you want to judge for yourself. Sounds pretty clearly like an attack on Sanders for being 'absent' in that fight to me.
Re: protesters, most of the people in that crowd in Chicago were people whose lives and livelihoods have been directly threatened by Trump's violent, inciteful, and hateful rhetoric. He has repeatedly threatened peaceful protesters with violence. He was threatening to deport 12 million people, engaging in religious profiling against Muslims, and giving rhetorical cover to hate groups like the KKK. His son has done recent appearances on white supremacist radio shows. Are people of color supposed to just wait for rich white thinkpiece authors to stop Trump? Nothing they've done has been particularly effective so far. Telling people of color they shouldn't have the right to peacefully protest such rhetoric is akin to saying they have no right of self-defense.
posted by dialetheia at 2:18 PM on March 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
The fact that Sanders has an old-timey autographed photo from Hillary, and now they are peers, makes me giggly for some reason.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:20 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 2:20 PM on March 12, 2016
Telling people of color they shouldn't have the right to peacefully protest such rhetoric is akin to saying they have no right of self-defense.
It's also profoundly un-American.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:21 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's also profoundly un-American.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:21 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Thanks for the context. Yup, no way around it. This is what I get for assuming good faith from a politician I view as a pathological liar I guess.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Drinky Die at 2:22 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:22 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
laughing....
posted by Trochanter at 2:23 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 2:23 PM on March 12, 2016
Everyone: Someone needs to stop Donald Trump.
Chicago: OK. We did that.
Everyone: How rude!
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:24 PM on March 12, 2016 [31 favorites]
Chicago: OK. We did that.
Everyone: How rude!
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:24 PM on March 12, 2016 [31 favorites]
This is what I get for assuming good faith from a politician I view as a pathological liar I guess.
It's almost shaping up that way isn't it? Going all the way back to the sniper thing?
Kind of Reaganesque...
posted by Trochanter at 2:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's almost shaping up that way isn't it? Going all the way back to the sniper thing?
Kind of Reaganesque...
posted by Trochanter at 2:26 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I still say nonviolent protest is unlikely at this point. It will get more violent. And it more than likely won't all be 110% some wacko trump supporter initiating at every single instance. And you better believe the first mistake made by a protester will be the story we see infinity times. The emphatic denouncing we are all waiting for will be against the protesters and not the trumpers.
posted by ian1977 at 2:28 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:28 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Watch Clinton pin this HARD on Bernie supporters AND Trump supporters and come off looking like the voice of adulthood and put everyone in their corner.
posted by ian1977 at 2:31 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by ian1977 at 2:31 PM on March 12, 2016
Yeah, I have trouble buying the narrative that all the pot-smoking slackers who can't motive themselves to find a job paying more than minimum wage and are just in it for free healthcare and college are going to get so worked up they get violent rather than just smoke another bowl and get a burrito.
posted by mikelieman at 2:34 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:34 PM on March 12, 2016
Drunk Drumpf supporters? That I can accept.
posted by mikelieman at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016
Hah, hot take on the discussion I saw RTed:
Liberals: all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothingposted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Also liberals: do nothing
Watch Clinton pin this HARD on Bernie supporters AND Trump supporters and come off looking like the voice of adulthood and put everyone in their corner.
I don't want to see that! /Valerie Cherish
posted by sallybrown at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't want to see that! /Valerie Cherish
posted by sallybrown at 2:35 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
it's not that hard. Soccer games and music concerts get violent for chrissakes.
posted by ian1977 at 2:36 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 2:36 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Watch Clinton pin this HARD on Bernie supporters AND Trump supporters and come off looking like the voice of adulthood and put everyone in their corner.
Only to people who value the facade of politeness over the actual lives and safety of people of color.
posted by dialetheia at 2:36 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Only to people who value the facade of politeness over the actual lives and safety of people of color.
posted by dialetheia at 2:36 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Remains stunning to me how much time the elite liberal class spends denigrating anti-racist protestors.(SeanMcElwee)
it would be super awkward if there was a long history of whites criticizing every tactic POC use to confront racism(SeanMcElwee)
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:39 PM on March 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
it would be super awkward if there was a long history of whites criticizing every tactic POC use to confront racism(SeanMcElwee)
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:39 PM on March 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
If Richard Nixon used Agent Provocateurs against the demonstrations against the Vietnam War, I wouldn't be surprised if HRC is working from that playbook. Her being a Kissinger fan doesn't help.
posted by mikelieman at 2:39 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:39 PM on March 12, 2016
Only to people who value the facade of politeness over the actual lives and safety of people of color.
I wish I had enough faith in the Democratic party to think this was Democrats' majority view. But then, I come from Seattle, where Black Lives Matter activists marching in this year's MLK Day march were shouted down with "ALL LIVES MATTER" by Good White Seattle Progressives.
posted by duffell at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wish I had enough faith in the Democratic party to think this was Democrats' majority view. But then, I come from Seattle, where Black Lives Matter activists marching in this year's MLK Day march were shouted down with "ALL LIVES MATTER" by Good White Seattle Progressives.
posted by duffell at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
IIRC, weren't there caucus stories of HRC supporters wearing Bernie shirts?
posted by mikelieman at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016
Note to self: after a long day of trump watch Lisa Kudrow in the Comeback.
posted by ian1977 at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
What I worry about is how long Trump's supporters are going to content themselves just attacking protesters at his events. The Trump fans I know were hair-trigger violent, racist and sexist before, but now they are justified. Now they have a major political candidate saying the exact same shit they do, and now, to them, their hate has the force and effect of fucking law. I'm honest to god worried that Trump rallies are going to start being marked by groups of assholes leaving them and literally hunting down anyone who looks like 'the enemy'.
posted by neonrev at 2:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by neonrev at 2:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ayup.
http://usuncut.com/politics/clintons-campaign-just-got-busted-impersonating-union-nurses-in-nevada/
posted by mikelieman at 2:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
http://usuncut.com/politics/clintons-campaign-just-got-busted-impersonating-union-nurses-in-nevada/
posted by mikelieman at 2:41 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is an especially dumb line of attack considering that Sanders has republished that signed thank you letter/photo from Hillary already this year, not even two months ago
The fact that she nailed the year makes me think she saw the photo in a briefing but confused it in her memory with a talking point. "Sanders... Health Care... '93..."
IIRC, weren't there caucus stories of HRC supporters wearing Bernie shirts?
At the Nevada caucuses there were some wearing red (Nurse's Union (which supported Bernie) color) to try to confuse things.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:42 PM on March 12, 2016
The fact that she nailed the year makes me think she saw the photo in a briefing but confused it in her memory with a talking point. "Sanders... Health Care... '93..."
IIRC, weren't there caucus stories of HRC supporters wearing Bernie shirts?
At the Nevada caucuses there were some wearing red (Nurse's Union (which supported Bernie) color) to try to confuse things.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:42 PM on March 12, 2016
I'm honest to god worried that Trump rallies are going to start being marked by groups of assholes leaving them and literally hunting down anyone who looks like 'the enemy'.
It's already happening to some extent - hence the protests. From this piece about how comedians "destroying" Trump is not going to stop fascism: "In August, two men in Boston savagely beat a homeless, Hispanic man, later citing the Republican demagogue’s immigration policies. Trump would only concede that his followers are “very passionate.” Last month, three people were stabbed at a KKK rally in Southern California. The episode would see him feign amnesia about David Duke and white supremacist organizations."
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's already happening to some extent - hence the protests. From this piece about how comedians "destroying" Trump is not going to stop fascism: "In August, two men in Boston savagely beat a homeless, Hispanic man, later citing the Republican demagogue’s immigration policies. Trump would only concede that his followers are “very passionate.” Last month, three people were stabbed at a KKK rally in Southern California. The episode would see him feign amnesia about David Duke and white supremacist organizations."
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
@deray: .@HillaryClinton, for your campaign's sake, please do not release another statement this weekend unless there is an (inter)national crisis.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
It is my belief that this is one of the last places to get off the fence. Organize and resist, Trump's racism -even if the tactic of protest is not popular amongst the "majority".
Also, I am not convinced that there is a " vast majority" of people against protesting for just causes and against Donald Trump.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, I am not convinced that there is a " vast majority" of people against protesting for just causes and against Donald Trump.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nixon indelibly tied protesting to being a worthless lazy slob ( dirty hippie commie pinko ! ) with the whole "Silent Majority" thing while ratfucking up to 74...
posted by mikelieman at 2:49 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:49 PM on March 12, 2016
The people in my circle who are usually all "how RUDE" about protests have been vocally positive about this one.
posted by sallybrown at 2:50 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:50 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
See, the Trump guys weren't "Protesting", they were going to a political rally. That makes them the Good Guys, while the Counter-trump guys *were* protesting Trump, and consequently are framed as VIOLENT worthless lazy dirty hippie commie pinko slobs...
posted by mikelieman at 2:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 2:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Luckily, it's not actually 1974 anymore.
posted by dialetheia at 2:53 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 2:53 PM on March 12, 2016
Also, the top trend on Twitter right now is #HistoryByHillary. I hope whoever took a vacation on her staff this weekend comes back soon.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:53 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:53 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Different century, same Ratfuckers. Seriously, even that rat-fucker Kissinger is still in the cast of players...
posted by mikelieman at 2:54 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:54 PM on March 12, 2016
how long Trump's supporters are going to content themselves just attacking protesters at his events.
Oh for sure. Every Trump hatefest ratchets up the background level of physical danger to those of us who are visibly Other.
In the 18 years I lived in West Michigan, I was never racially-slurred at from a passing vehicle. Went home to visit family a few times last summer and it happened twice. Rhetoric matters.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh for sure. Every Trump hatefest ratchets up the background level of physical danger to those of us who are visibly Other.
In the 18 years I lived in West Michigan, I was never racially-slurred at from a passing vehicle. Went home to visit family a few times last summer and it happened twice. Rhetoric matters.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
But my broader point is that to a lot of people, "Protester" is a word like "Planned Parenthood"...
posted by mikelieman at 2:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 2:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
even that rat-fucker Kissinger is still in the cast of players...
Although that scene is a flashback from the past, tbh. A bad, bad, bad flashback...
posted by mikelieman at 2:56 PM on March 12, 2016
Although that scene is a flashback from the past, tbh. A bad, bad, bad flashback...
posted by mikelieman at 2:56 PM on March 12, 2016
No matter what it will be pretty funny/sad if the best we can do in 2016 is barely stop a fascist pscychpath from taking power instead of actually making real progress. Or maybe that is progress, history of the world-wise
posted by ian1977 at 2:57 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:57 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
No matter what it will be pretty funny/sad if the best we can do in 2016 is barely stop a fascist pscychpath from taking power instead of actually making real progress. Or maybe that is progress, history of the world-wise
People will disagree, but for me progress is when we're not voting for the lesser of two evils...
posted by mikelieman at 2:59 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
People will disagree, but for me progress is when we're not voting for the lesser of two evils...
posted by mikelieman at 2:59 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, NYT got in touch with the Nazi salute woman
Hilariously, this is a real quote from the article: Mr. Peterson said the couple was upset by the accusations. “It’s insulting for anyone to assume that we have anything to do with Nazis,” he said.
PRO-TIP: IF U DO NOT WANT PPL 2 "ASSUME" U HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH NAZIS, DON'T GO AROUND GIVING THE NAZI SALUTE TO PPL IN PUBLIC
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:00 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hilariously, this is a real quote from the article: Mr. Peterson said the couple was upset by the accusations. “It’s insulting for anyone to assume that we have anything to do with Nazis,” he said.
PRO-TIP: IF U DO NOT WANT PPL 2 "ASSUME" U HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH NAZIS, DON'T GO AROUND GIVING THE NAZI SALUTE TO PPL IN PUBLIC
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:00 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wow. I had thought that maybe she didn't quite know what that gesture meant, but she was born in Berlin in 1946. She sure as hell knew exactly what it meant.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:11 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:11 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow. I had thought that maybe she didn't quite know what that gesture meant, but she was born in Berlin in 1946. She sure as hell knew exactly what it meant.
It's cool, she's taking it back.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:19 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's cool, she's taking it back.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:19 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh wow. Honestly I had assumed she probably was either an incognito protester or had just been gotcha'ed midstretch by someone.
That is just an extra-special level of durf. Particularly that she was willing to, uh, explain herself to the NYT.
(Presumably her left-leaning twin just got hired as a Clinton advisor the other day.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is just an extra-special level of durf. Particularly that she was willing to, uh, explain herself to the NYT.
(Presumably her left-leaning twin just got hired as a Clinton advisor the other day.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, and the explanation doesn't make aaaaaany sense.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
“I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,” she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.”So both she and her husband said she did it because... the anti-Trump protestors... don't know enough about Hitler/Nazism? And by giving the salute, she was... demonstrating to the protestors that they needed to learn more? For the life of me I can't fucking piece this one together
That is when she made the Nazi salute
...
“We have never done anything other than demonstrate to a bunch of idiots that when they talk about Nazism, they better learn about it first.”
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie going right at Rahm around minute 4:00 of this presser.
posted by localhuman at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 3:20 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
A CBS journalist was assaulted and arrested for covering the protest and "resisting arrest," with video (which demonstrates that he was not resisting arrest). He describes some of the racism he experienced from Trump supporters at the rally.
posted by dialetheia at 3:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 3:40 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
For the life of me I can't fucking piece this one together
obviously people from the future are still trying to stop a bad thing, we'll just need to sit tight and expect continued wtf-ery until the mission is complete.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:42 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
obviously people from the future are still trying to stop a bad thing, we'll just need to sit tight and expect continued wtf-ery until the mission is complete.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:42 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Letting people from/in the future handle it is the solution to every problem!
posted by nobody at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nobody at 3:45 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been trying to get future tivalasvegas to take care of my household chores... in maybe related news, I'm out of underwear AGAIN.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In case people missed this, we just got our Willie Horton for this year's election:
Mexican man accused of killing 5 in the Midwest with an AK-47 was here illegally.
Setting aside the obvious horror and sadness of people getting hurt or killed in any situation and just focusing on the political ramifications: this or another San Bernardino-esque ISIS attack were the worst case developments to energize his supporters and fuel more racism & xenophobia. It ticks all the boxes for his base:
immigrant
Mexican immigrant
deported once but returned to the US illegally
random murder of innocent civilians
in suburbia
in the Midwest
with an AK-47
three ICE/ law enforcement screw-ups where he was in custody but released prematurely
I can virtually guarantee this will be a rally talking point, probably a campaign ad too. You guys are going back and forth on HRC vs Bernie, but I fear the Democrats just lost the election. It's hard to argue policy and hope for the future when your opponent has a screed about an illegal immigrant on an AK-47 rampage in his back pocket, tripping all the paranoia and fear circuits Fox News has been soldering for the last decade.
posted by bluecore at 3:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mexican man accused of killing 5 in the Midwest with an AK-47 was here illegally.
Setting aside the obvious horror and sadness of people getting hurt or killed in any situation and just focusing on the political ramifications: this or another San Bernardino-esque ISIS attack were the worst case developments to energize his supporters and fuel more racism & xenophobia. It ticks all the boxes for his base:
immigrant
Mexican immigrant
deported once but returned to the US illegally
random murder of innocent civilians
in suburbia
in the Midwest
with an AK-47
three ICE/ law enforcement screw-ups where he was in custody but released prematurely
I can virtually guarantee this will be a rally talking point, probably a campaign ad too. You guys are going back and forth on HRC vs Bernie, but I fear the Democrats just lost the election. It's hard to argue policy and hope for the future when your opponent has a screed about an illegal immigrant on an AK-47 rampage in his back pocket, tripping all the paranoia and fear circuits Fox News has been soldering for the last decade.
posted by bluecore at 3:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's so fucking depressing that we're at a point where my first reaction when seeing articles like that is "was that mass shooting A or mass shooting B from last week?", and then discover that it was actually mass shooting C that I'd not heard of (not to be confused with "mass shooting D, E, or F, which also happened, but weren't newsworthy outside of their county").
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:03 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:03 PM on March 12, 2016
Yeah the best solution is probably to deport 3000000 immigrants DEFINITELY not sensible gun control laws
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:08 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:08 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Letting people from/in the future handle it is the solution to every problem!
It's how we're solving climate change!
posted by indubitable at 4:09 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's how we're solving climate change!
posted by indubitable at 4:09 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think the gun control issue is going to muddy that water, plus there's so many mass shootings that there's one out there to serve as a counterpoint: man murders 3 in Milwaukee because he's angry they don't speak English.
posted by sallybrown at 4:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I Am Absolutely Furious and I Don't Know What to Do With Myself: My Uncle Ward was 37 -- exactly the age I am now -- when he returned to Wisconsin to die of AIDS-related complications in the spare room in my grandparents' house.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:25 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:25 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
‘This Violence Is Nothing’: Trump Supporters React To Atmosphere At Rallies
Trump supporter Carol DiCicco agreed that Trump was not responsible for violence — but her reason was decidedly unexpected. The protests and subsequent violence, she said, have all been orchestrated and funded by liberal billionaire George Soros to bring Trump’s campaign to its knees.posted by homunculus at 5:14 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
“I definitely believe that they are all funded by Soros,” she said. “I believe he’s behind a lot of this, and that the young people are being paid to do it.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson Verified account @neiltyson
People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.
As way cool guy Yul Brynner used to say: "'Tis a puzzlement."
posted by Trochanter at 5:22 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump.
As way cool guy Yul Brynner used to say: "'Tis a puzzlement."
posted by Trochanter at 5:22 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Liam Stack @ Trump rally in Kansas City:
Trump says the man who rushed his stage in Dayton "was probably ISIS or ISIS related...My people found it!"
posted by bluecore at 5:39 PM on March 12, 2016
Trump says the man who rushed his stage in Dayton "was probably ISIS or ISIS related...My people found it!"
posted by bluecore at 5:39 PM on March 12, 2016
So I guess MSNBC is just Trump TV now. CNN isn't showing Trump. Fox News isn't showing Trump. MSNBC is just running Trump, unfiltered, nonstop.
I wouldn't even have a problem with it if say when Trump said "Bernie's people just want a free lunch", MSNBC did pop-up video style bubbles that showed, as an example, Trumps businesses filing for tax breaks and free money from the government, or the anchors broke in and debunked the things he was saying. But they're running Trump on television unlike anything I've ever seen in my life. Oprah built an empire with a daily talk show, and Trump seems to be on television vastly more than she was. When the NFL playoffs and SuperBowl is on, the top players get a lot of airtime, but nothing at all like this, not even close. Same with the NBA and the NBA finals. Players go in and out, and maybe get 10 or 15 minutes tops in interviews. Trump has had solid 40 minute blocks on MSNBC over and over and over.
I don't typically watch CNN, and rarely turn to Fox, but when I do, they don't seem to be allowing Trump to literally have his own network. It's unreal. I cannot think of anyone who has gotten this much time, all to themselves, to just say whatever they felt like (irrespective of topic), with no commercial interruption, again and again and again on a basic cable channel. Not Presidents, not sports stars, not Bob Costas, not Tom Brokaw, not Michael Jackson, not anybody.
If anyone sees any MSNBC personnel trying to explain the madness, please link it.
posted by cashman at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wouldn't even have a problem with it if say when Trump said "Bernie's people just want a free lunch", MSNBC did pop-up video style bubbles that showed, as an example, Trumps businesses filing for tax breaks and free money from the government, or the anchors broke in and debunked the things he was saying. But they're running Trump on television unlike anything I've ever seen in my life. Oprah built an empire with a daily talk show, and Trump seems to be on television vastly more than she was. When the NFL playoffs and SuperBowl is on, the top players get a lot of airtime, but nothing at all like this, not even close. Same with the NBA and the NBA finals. Players go in and out, and maybe get 10 or 15 minutes tops in interviews. Trump has had solid 40 minute blocks on MSNBC over and over and over.
I don't typically watch CNN, and rarely turn to Fox, but when I do, they don't seem to be allowing Trump to literally have his own network. It's unreal. I cannot think of anyone who has gotten this much time, all to themselves, to just say whatever they felt like (irrespective of topic), with no commercial interruption, again and again and again on a basic cable channel. Not Presidents, not sports stars, not Bob Costas, not Tom Brokaw, not Michael Jackson, not anybody.
If anyone sees any MSNBC personnel trying to explain the madness, please link it.
posted by cashman at 5:45 PM on March 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump says the man who rushed his stage in Dayton "was probably ISIS or ISIS related...My people found it!"
Yeah, someone (I'm gonna guess /pol) edited a video of him to include ISIS stuff. It's not even worth figuring out if Trump believes it or not, he just doesn't care.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, someone (I'm gonna guess /pol) edited a video of him to include ISIS stuff. It's not even worth figuring out if Trump believes it or not, he just doesn't care.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
If anyone sees any MSNBC personnel trying to explain the madness, please link it.
Link
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:48 PM on March 12, 2016
Link
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:48 PM on March 12, 2016
At least two major MSNBC stars (Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski) have been caught on a hot mic telling Trump how they're going to go easy on him. I imagine they're not the only ones, and they've probably got some friends in management.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:49 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 5:49 PM on March 12, 2016
Trump says the man who rushed his stage in Dayton "was probably ISIS or ISIS related...My people found it!"
Already debunked, for whatever good it will do, and I hope the media picks up the debunking soon. The guy was filmed at a Black Lives Matter protest earlier this year and someone (on preview, yeah, probably someone like /pol) took that video and put fake ISIS crap all over it: "Reports that Dimassimo is an ISIS sympathizer are apparently false. Another version of the above video was reposted on YouTube with ISIS images and music added, but a translation of the arabic text reveals that is it not authentic, but apparently published by someone who was not a fan of Dimassimo."
For the record, nobody should rush Trump, please! Jeez what a dumb idea. I support all of the peaceful protests and I'm glad this guy didn't get himself or anyone else killed by doing something so reckless. But yeah, he's totally not ISIS.
posted by dialetheia at 5:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Already debunked, for whatever good it will do, and I hope the media picks up the debunking soon. The guy was filmed at a Black Lives Matter protest earlier this year and someone (on preview, yeah, probably someone like /pol) took that video and put fake ISIS crap all over it: "Reports that Dimassimo is an ISIS sympathizer are apparently false. Another version of the above video was reposted on YouTube with ISIS images and music added, but a translation of the arabic text reveals that is it not authentic, but apparently published by someone who was not a fan of Dimassimo."
For the record, nobody should rush Trump, please! Jeez what a dumb idea. I support all of the peaceful protests and I'm glad this guy didn't get himself or anyone else killed by doing something so reckless. But yeah, he's totally not ISIS.
posted by dialetheia at 5:52 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh fuck.for real? If trump really said that then the craziness just got dialed up to 11.
The pony tailed 78 (?) year old supporter who punched a black protester said afterwards that the black guy could have been a member of isis and that he would shoot him next time...remember him? I thought that that was insane and fringe thinking but I guess not.
Trump is beyond dangerous.
posted by futz at 5:53 PM on March 12, 2016
The pony tailed 78 (?) year old supporter who punched a black protester said afterwards that the black guy could have been a member of isis and that he would shoot him next time...remember him? I thought that that was insane and fringe thinking but I guess not.
Trump is beyond dangerous.
posted by futz at 5:53 PM on March 12, 2016
Not sure what the context is for this dude at a Trump rally telling someone to go to Auschwitz, but Trump supporters sure do seem to be Godwinning themselves a lot lately.
Which makes me nervous about the George Soros thing, because friends from Eastern Europe tell me that "George Soros" is code for "the international Jewish banking conspiracy" there. I've seen no indication at all that Trump is antisemitic, but I don't know that he can control his supporters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which makes me nervous about the George Soros thing, because friends from Eastern Europe tell me that "George Soros" is code for "the international Jewish banking conspiracy" there. I've seen no indication at all that Trump is antisemitic, but I don't know that he can control his supporters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've seen no indication at all that Trump is antisemitic
Saving it for the general. If Bernie wins the nom, the dog whistles will... (this space reserved for clever metaphor)
posted by Trochanter at 5:59 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Saving it for the general. If Bernie wins the nom, the dog whistles will... (this space reserved for clever metaphor)
posted by Trochanter at 5:59 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fact that trump said it all is fanning the fire. What good patriot doesn't defend trump/America from isis? And now every protester is a potential isis terrorist.
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:02 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which makes me nervous about the George Soros thing, because friends from Eastern Europe tell me that "George Soros" is code for "the international Jewish banking conspiracy" there.
It pretty much is here, too, just a bit more subtly anti-Semitic.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:07 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
It pretty much is here, too, just a bit more subtly anti-Semitic.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:07 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've seen no indication at all that Trump is antisemitic, but I don't know that he can control his supporters.
I can imagine the Secret Service have conferences planning out what they're going to have to add-on when Sanders gets the nomination with exactly this in mind.
posted by mikelieman at 6:09 PM on March 12, 2016
I can imagine the Secret Service have conferences planning out what they're going to have to add-on when Sanders gets the nomination with exactly this in mind.
posted by mikelieman at 6:09 PM on March 12, 2016
How black, Latino and Muslim college students organized to stop Trump's rally in Chicago. Glad to see some coverage of this - I don't like how the rush to demonize MoveOn and Bernie Sanders has erased these UIC students' organizational efforts.
posted by dialetheia at 6:24 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 6:24 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've seen no indication at all that Trump is antisemitic, but I don't know that he can control his supporters.
I have seen the trump subreddit. It is honestly one of the most vile parts of the internet. They recently banned the word "Jew". I haven't bothered to find out exactly why but from what little I could glean a mod made this decision due to all the anti-Semitic comments. Again, I didn't investigate further because I needed to take a shower and disinfect my brain and browser. The backlash from the Alpha High Energy userbase was intense. A mod was soon de-modded but I don't know if it was the same mod.
One thing that I find interesting about this is that Bernie has been called to task about bernie-bros but the putrid rhetoric that these fucknuggets spew has been ignored.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have seen the trump subreddit. It is honestly one of the most vile parts of the internet. They recently banned the word "Jew". I haven't bothered to find out exactly why but from what little I could glean a mod made this decision due to all the anti-Semitic comments. Again, I didn't investigate further because I needed to take a shower and disinfect my brain and browser. The backlash from the Alpha High Energy userbase was intense. A mod was soon de-modded but I don't know if it was the same mod.
One thing that I find interesting about this is that Bernie has been called to task about bernie-bros but the putrid rhetoric that these fucknuggets spew has been ignored.
posted by futz at 6:33 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
One thing that I find interesting about this is that Bernie has been called to task about bernie-bros but the putrid rhetoric that these fucknuggets spew has been ignored.
Because there's no "gotcha moment", which has become an unfortunate crutch of the media.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:56 PM on March 12, 2016
Because there's no "gotcha moment", which has become an unfortunate crutch of the media.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:56 PM on March 12, 2016
How black, Latino and Muslim college students organized to stop Drumpf's rally in Chicago.
Heroes.
posted by zutalors! at 6:58 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Heroes.
posted by zutalors! at 6:58 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know. I think that "Trump may actually be Hitler" is kind of one of the dominant narratives about Trump, and fear of his supporters is built into the story.
Personally, I'm the grandchild of people who survived the Holocaust and the great-grandchild of people who didn't, and I'm trying to figure out if I need to start plotting escape routes.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Personally, I'm the grandchild of people who survived the Holocaust and the great-grandchild of people who didn't, and I'm trying to figure out if I need to start plotting escape routes.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:10 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm afraid of what might happen in Cleveland.
posted by zutalors! at 7:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 7:12 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't get the Soros thing. Is she suggesting that George Soros -- the man that's given something like 10 million dollars to Hillary this election -- paid young people to go to this rally and chant Bernie's name? That's an economical conspiracy theory, two for one!
posted by Room 641-A at 7:13 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 7:13 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm afraid of what might happen in Cleveland
Ohio is an open carry state.
posted by anastasiav at 7:28 PM on March 12, 2016
Ohio is an open carry state.
posted by anastasiav at 7:28 PM on March 12, 2016
On the fight against HIV and AIDS—and on the people who really started the conversation., by Hillary Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:38 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:38 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I watched the Kansas city rally on CNN -it was all Trump complaining about protesters
posted by zutalors! at 7:39 PM on March 12, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 7:39 PM on March 12, 2016
Oy, I was just coming in to post that.
It's all fine as far as it goes. What's not okay is what Sec. Clinton doesn't say:
--How I came to make this totally untrue and offensive statement
--What I have done to make sure this doesn't happen again
--Why you should trust me not to say something so stupid and offensive as President
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:48 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's all fine as far as it goes. What's not okay is what Sec. Clinton doesn't say:
--How I came to make this totally untrue and offensive statement
--What I have done to make sure this doesn't happen again
--Why you should trust me not to say something so stupid and offensive as President
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:48 PM on March 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
I watched the Kansas city rally on CNN -it was all Trump complaining about protesters
He got to his stump speech (such as it is) about halfway through once most of the protesters had already done their thing. He was interrupted every other sentence for the first half. People are showing they won't stand for his shit and I'm really happy about it.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
He got to his stump speech (such as it is) about halfway through once most of the protesters had already done their thing. He was interrupted every other sentence for the first half. People are showing they won't stand for his shit and I'm really happy about it.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is the one saving grace about having a ridiculously long and awful presidential campaign season, by the way: we get to see how a number of candidates react in high-stress situations, build a team, respond to sudden events, manage negative press. In that sense, if you can't win the race, you don't deserve the office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:53 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:53 PM on March 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
tivalasvegas, I don't disagree, although at least she mentioned HIV criminalization, which nobody ever does.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, Hillary can clearly tell people what they want to hear, which I don't think was really in question. That Medium piece shows me that she'd like to keep her supporters, but doesn't show me why we should trust her, which is the problem at this point.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:54 PM on March 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
but doesn't show me why we should trust her
Never trust a politician who has made it to the national stage. Range further into skepticism about every thing they say to the public they longer they have been there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:59 PM on March 12, 2016
Never trust a politician who has made it to the national stage. Range further into skepticism about every thing they say to the public they longer they have been there.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:59 PM on March 12, 2016
I'm sure everyone at these rallies is basically safe, because the police are there.
Well, you know... that is unless there's a chance American law enforcement officers might react poorly to diverse crowds protesting racism.
I'm sure they're totally cool, right? RIGHT?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 PM on March 12, 2016
Well, you know... that is unless there's a chance American law enforcement officers might react poorly to diverse crowds protesting racism.
I'm sure they're totally cool, right? RIGHT?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:39 PM on March 12, 2016
Buzzfeed picked up the debunking story for Trump's stupid ISIS claim: Trump uses doctored video to connect protester to ISIS.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz's pastor introduced him this week at an anti-gay conference, saying that gay people deserved the death penalty just minutes before introducing him.
posted by dialetheia at 8:42 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz's pastor introduced him this week at an anti-gay conference, saying that gay people deserved the death penalty just minutes before introducing him.
posted by dialetheia at 8:42 PM on March 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
tiva, i too was upset by what hrc said at nancy's funeral. but i *do* think she makes a compelling case that a) actions speak louder than words (and her actions have been extensive and commendable;) and b) she is knowledgeable enough about the issue that she wants to try to help to make things better. both of those things sound legitimately more important - in fact, WAY more important - than a shitty sound bite from a funeral for someone she probably didn't like very much. so i'm curious - why are you not satisfied by that statement? is there something you wanted to hear that you didn't? is there anything she could have said that you would be satisfied by, or are you simply anti-hrc? (no judgements. i'm just asking.)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think I have outrage fatigue.
Going to watch house of cards right now. heh.
posted by futz at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Going to watch house of cards right now. heh.
posted by futz at 8:46 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
YES! One hundred favorites to tivalasvegas.
I just spent my whole Saturday in a critique meeting doing root cause and gap analysis for a bad thing that happened at work. A backtrack like that, essentially, "you got me" plus what should have happened, with no actual explanation why it didn't would have gotten her ripped to shreds on the spot in our meeting.
posted by ctmf at 8:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I just spent my whole Saturday in a critique meeting doing root cause and gap analysis for a bad thing that happened at work. A backtrack like that, essentially, "you got me" plus what should have happened, with no actual explanation why it didn't would have gotten her ripped to shreds on the spot in our meeting.
posted by ctmf at 8:47 PM on March 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
My relatives are carrying on an extended e-mail conversation right now about how they feel about Trump. All but one of them was pretty strongly anti-Trump when we last e-mailed about it a few months ago and now they are making a lot of comments worded like "well, it's not me necessarily but you can understand that some people might like him because ........."
So that's alarming
posted by gerstle at 8:51 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
So that's alarming
posted by gerstle at 8:51 PM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump ralley no joking matter.
This is chilling, and it kind of gets to what's been bugging me the most about the violence and responses to protesters at Trump's rallies: he's a masterful manipulator of crowds, and he really seems like he's enjoying getting them all riled up.
He knows exactly what words are going to elicit what reaction from the mob and he plays them, he plays their hatred and intolerance and fear like a goddamn musical instrument. And they love him. And they hate anyone he tells them to hate. It's sick and it's twisted and it's terrifying.
I was just worried about what he would do as president; now I'm worried about what we're going to do to ourselves, what the worst of us is going to do, long before it ever gets that far.
posted by Weeping_angel at 10:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is chilling, and it kind of gets to what's been bugging me the most about the violence and responses to protesters at Trump's rallies: he's a masterful manipulator of crowds, and he really seems like he's enjoying getting them all riled up.
He knows exactly what words are going to elicit what reaction from the mob and he plays them, he plays their hatred and intolerance and fear like a goddamn musical instrument. And they love him. And they hate anyone he tells them to hate. It's sick and it's twisted and it's terrifying.
I was just worried about what he would do as president; now I'm worried about what we're going to do to ourselves, what the worst of us is going to do, long before it ever gets that far.
posted by Weeping_angel at 10:55 PM on March 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump is a key to a door.
All the great villains have been sad little men who opened doors. Millions didn't die at the hands of political leaders, millions died at the hands of their followers, who stampeded through the doors their heroes opened.
We'll see, I guess, if that kind of talk seems over-dramatic or on-point.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
All the great villains have been sad little men who opened doors. Millions didn't die at the hands of political leaders, millions died at the hands of their followers, who stampeded through the doors their heroes opened.
We'll see, I guess, if that kind of talk seems over-dramatic or on-point.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I cannot believe that AIPAC is giving Trump a platform to speak at their conference.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:11 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:11 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, with little fanfare, DC was a near-tie between Rubio and Kasich, with Rubio getting 10 delegates, Kasich 9, and no one else any.
Wyoming went heavily for Cruz, a 66.3% win for him, with Cruz getting 9 delegates, Rubio getting 1, and Trump getting 1.
Guam is a little confusing to me, but it seems to have given one (unbound?) delegate to Cruz and the rest uncommitted.
The North Mariana Islands gave 4 delegates to Clinton and 2 to Sanders.
The numbers are too small to change the state of the race much, but it does rack up another "majority of delegates" win for both Rubio and Cruz, which might matter at a contested convention if the current rules remain unchanged. And Trump, at least, was largely prevented from advancing incrementally further towards an overall majority.
posted by kyrademon at 1:05 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wyoming went heavily for Cruz, a 66.3% win for him, with Cruz getting 9 delegates, Rubio getting 1, and Trump getting 1.
Guam is a little confusing to me, but it seems to have given one (unbound?) delegate to Cruz and the rest uncommitted.
The North Mariana Islands gave 4 delegates to Clinton and 2 to Sanders.
The numbers are too small to change the state of the race much, but it does rack up another "majority of delegates" win for both Rubio and Cruz, which might matter at a contested convention if the current rules remain unchanged. And Trump, at least, was largely prevented from advancing incrementally further towards an overall majority.
posted by kyrademon at 1:05 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The best explanation for Hillary Clinton's bizarre comments about the Reagans and HIV/AIDS
Garance Franke-Ruta, who was an HIV/AIDS activist during the height of the epidemic, explained in a great series of tweets:posted by moody cow at 1:16 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
(...)
Garance Franke-Ruta Verified account @thegarance
4) What Clinton said perfectly encapsulated the viewpoint of mainstream Democrats in the 1980s, before the party became gay friendly
futz: I have seen the trump subreddit. It is honestly one of the most vile parts of the internet. ... One thing that I find interesting about this is that Bernie has been called to task about bernie-bros but the putrid rhetoric that these fucknuggets spew has been ignored.
One thing is that most sub-reddits are self-selecting. I wouldn't go into the Trump subreddit because you expect 100% Trump lovers, why would I? But it has fewer than 2,500 subscribers.
/r/Politics is the general all-comers political subreddit, with 3 million subscribers, and that is where BernieBros have been very much in evidence. There are many fewer Trump fans commenting there, though there is some real evidence that some of the BernieBros are in fact Trump fans pumping him up for strategic reasons.
/r/SandersForPresident, which has 200,000 subscribers, is actually said to be less partisan in his favor.
posted by msalt at 3:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
One thing is that most sub-reddits are self-selecting. I wouldn't go into the Trump subreddit because you expect 100% Trump lovers, why would I? But it has fewer than 2,500 subscribers.
/r/Politics is the general all-comers political subreddit, with 3 million subscribers, and that is where BernieBros have been very much in evidence. There are many fewer Trump fans commenting there, though there is some real evidence that some of the BernieBros are in fact Trump fans pumping him up for strategic reasons.
/r/SandersForPresident, which has 200,000 subscribers, is actually said to be less partisan in his favor.
posted by msalt at 3:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
r/the_donald is actually the main Trump sub. 60,000 subscribers.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I cannot believe that AIPAC is giving Trump a platform to speak at their conference.
Well, Hillary is appearing there too. It's heartwarming that Clinton and Trump can "come together" on this issue, don't you think?
Actually, if you want to know the truth, Hillary is far worse than Trump on Palestine.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, Hillary is appearing there too. It's heartwarming that Clinton and Trump can "come together" on this issue, don't you think?
Actually, if you want to know the truth, Hillary is far worse than Trump on Palestine.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have been mostly scanning this thread, so apologies if this has been postyed:
Clinton Forgets Sanders Was 'Literally Standing Right Behind Her' on Health Care Reform in the '90s
posted by Mezentian at 4:50 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton Forgets Sanders Was 'Literally Standing Right Behind Her' on Health Care Reform in the '90s
posted by Mezentian at 4:50 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
why are you not satisfied by that statement? is there something you wanted to hear that you didn't? is there anything she could have said that you would be satisfied by, or are you simply anti-hrc?
Sure. I'm not really hurt or outraged by these remarks per se -- although I suspect I would feel differently if I were a few years older and had directly experienced the silence and mockery that came from the Reagan Administration toward our community in the 80s.
The problem for me is that these remarks are so odd, so clearly not what Sec. Clinton actually believes and not in the realm, either, of some failed triangulation.
It's as if the Secretary gave a speech to NASA staff where she mentioned, in passing, her belief that the moon landing was a hoax. Even if she later walked that back with a paean to the glories of our space program, the beauty of scientific endeavor, etc. we would still be asking, like, "but what made you SAY that?!?"
So that's the question I'd like an answer to. That, and "How are you handling the aftermath, and ensuring that this kind of thing won't happen when you're President?"
This didn't do any concrete damage beyond causing needless pain to the victims of the Reagans' callousness. But a similarly bizarre comment from the president could have much graver consequences and we need know that won't happen.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:04 AM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sure. I'm not really hurt or outraged by these remarks per se -- although I suspect I would feel differently if I were a few years older and had directly experienced the silence and mockery that came from the Reagan Administration toward our community in the 80s.
The problem for me is that these remarks are so odd, so clearly not what Sec. Clinton actually believes and not in the realm, either, of some failed triangulation.
It's as if the Secretary gave a speech to NASA staff where she mentioned, in passing, her belief that the moon landing was a hoax. Even if she later walked that back with a paean to the glories of our space program, the beauty of scientific endeavor, etc. we would still be asking, like, "but what made you SAY that?!?"
So that's the question I'd like an answer to. That, and "How are you handling the aftermath, and ensuring that this kind of thing won't happen when you're President?"
This didn't do any concrete damage beyond causing needless pain to the victims of the Reagans' callousness. But a similarly bizarre comment from the president could have much graver consequences and we need know that won't happen.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:04 AM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Maybe Clinton made a deal with a genie or something, and part of the deal is she must constantly make own-goals
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly had to check and see if it was a full moon or something. It seems like EVERYONE is saying stupid shit in public. There's like 4 or 5 FPPs on the front page alone.
posted by valkane at 6:27 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by valkane at 6:27 AM on March 13, 2016
Clinton's Huffpo piece reminds me of an ole Michael J. Fox line:
Dean of Admissions: Well, your application letter was certainly sincere, Mr. Keaton.
Alex: Thank you sir, I tried to put a lot of that in there.
posted by Trochanter at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dean of Admissions: Well, your application letter was certainly sincere, Mr. Keaton.
Alex: Thank you sir, I tried to put a lot of that in there.
posted by Trochanter at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton Forgets Sanders Was 'Literally Standing Right Behind Her' on Health Care Reform in the '90s
Every time I think I can't dislike her more, she proves me wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:03 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Every time I think I can't dislike her more, she proves me wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:03 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton Forgets Sanders Was 'Literally Standing Right Behind Her' on Health Care Reform in the '90s
The Clinton campaign's response to this is what Jonathan Turley calls "Olympic quality spin":
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:06 AM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Clinton campaign's response to this is what Jonathan Turley calls "Olympic quality spin":
"Hillary Clinton was out in front. Senator Sanders was in the background. She is the one that took the slings and arrows from the health care industry," Palmieri said, adding later that in the video pushed by the Sanders campaign, "He is literally standing behind her, she is literally the one out front, as she was 20-25 years ago."Just keep digging, Hillary...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:06 AM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
she was boldly following the path blazed by richard nixon
posted by entropicamericana at 7:17 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by entropicamericana at 7:17 AM on March 13, 2016
@realDonaldTrump
Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!
5:48 AM - 13 Mar 2016
This seems really really irresponsible (even for Trump). Is it possible that he is actually trying to get someone seriously hurt or killed?
posted by sporkwort at 7:36 AM on March 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!
5:48 AM - 13 Mar 2016
This seems really really irresponsible (even for Trump). Is it possible that he is actually trying to get someone seriously hurt or killed?
posted by sporkwort at 7:36 AM on March 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
No, he's trying to win an election, and if someone gets seriously hurt or killed, well, it's probably not going to be him, so why should he care?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I'm whoever you want me to be, and I approve this message."
posted by zombieflanders at 7:47 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:47 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
This seems really really irresponsible (even for Trump). Is it possible that he is actually trying to get someone seriously hurt or killed?
Is there some point at which the Secret Service has an obligation or need to step in and say or do something about Trump? I asked earlier if he could be charged with inciting a riot, and I'm still curious, but at what point does the Secret Service step in and say, we can't do our job and protect you if we need to protect people from you? Being the presumptive nominee of a political party is not a license to do or say anything you want, especially when it is clearly in the duty of fomenting unrest.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:59 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there some point at which the Secret Service has an obligation or need to step in and say or do something about Trump? I asked earlier if he could be charged with inciting a riot, and I'm still curious, but at what point does the Secret Service step in and say, we can't do our job and protect you if we need to protect people from you? Being the presumptive nominee of a political party is not a license to do or say anything you want, especially when it is clearly in the duty of fomenting unrest.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:59 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders: I’m Glad Clinton Apologized for Remarks About Nancy Reagan and AIDS
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
via CBS: Sanders has taken the lead in Illinois polling, is now within single digits in Ohio
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
*stimpy-like squeal of happiness*
posted by entropicamericana at 8:46 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:46 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Matthew Yglesias: I can't be contrarian about Donald Trump anymore: He's terrifying
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The implications of this for what President Trump might do in the White House are terrifying and go well beyond any dispute over public policy.I hope he doesn't think he's going to get a cookie from this.
The framers of the Constitution rather sharply circumscribed the president's authority to make and repeal legislation, making it in many respects a weaker office than the prime ministerships of more majoritarian countries. But the president and his appointees have enormous discretion over the enforcement of existing laws. Putting a leader who would condone violence against the supporters of his political opponents in charge of the federal law enforcement apparatus is frightening. Giving him the power to unilaterally issue pardons is terrifying.
There have been clear signs all year that this was the direction the Trump phenomenon was heading, but I assumed that as he got closer to the Republican nomination Trump would tone down his extreme behavior in order to demonstrate his acceptability to mainstream voters. In fact, he has done the opposite. It's a surprising decision that has truly scary implications for how he might behave were he to actually win the presidency.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This seems really really irresponsible (even for Trump). Is it possible that he is actually trying to get someone seriously hurt or killed?
@HallieJackson: "Better be careful!" call-and-response from crowd in IL as intro speaker references this Trump tweet
posted by zombieflanders at 8:49 AM on March 13, 2016
@HallieJackson: "Better be careful!" call-and-response from crowd in IL as intro speaker references this Trump tweet
posted by zombieflanders at 8:49 AM on March 13, 2016
I'm still curious, but at what point does the Secret Service step in and say, we can't do our job and protect you if we need to protect people from you?
That's probably what he is angling towards:
"My secret service detail, great guys. Really great guys. They told me I shouldn't do these things because it's not safe. Some of these guys became my friends, and they took me aside to tell me that they don't understand why Obama isn't sending more security for my events, because it seems obvious that it's Bernie that's causing this, not me."
I think in a lot of scenarios, this is working out to be a win-win-win for Donald Trump. If he continues doing these sorts of rallies, he knows they'll get more attention because of the potential for violence. Then he can use these incidents to point out to his people that there are enemies out to get them, things are unstable, and the government is letting this happen.
And in the medium term, he wins if he becomes president obviously. But I think (and he probably thinks to) that he can't lose if he doesn't become president either. He'll just say that the Establishment cheated and he will be the most credible leader in the Republican Party and also the national movement that's formed around him, and he won't be constained by having to be the president.
posted by FJT at 8:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's probably what he is angling towards:
"My secret service detail, great guys. Really great guys. They told me I shouldn't do these things because it's not safe. Some of these guys became my friends, and they took me aside to tell me that they don't understand why Obama isn't sending more security for my events, because it seems obvious that it's Bernie that's causing this, not me."
I think in a lot of scenarios, this is working out to be a win-win-win for Donald Trump. If he continues doing these sorts of rallies, he knows they'll get more attention because of the potential for violence. Then he can use these incidents to point out to his people that there are enemies out to get them, things are unstable, and the government is letting this happen.
And in the medium term, he wins if he becomes president obviously. But I think (and he probably thinks to) that he can't lose if he doesn't become president either. He'll just say that the Establishment cheated and he will be the most credible leader in the Republican Party and also the national movement that's formed around him, and he won't be constained by having to be the president.
posted by FJT at 8:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ross Douthat, "The Party Still Decides"
The weird rigors of this process have not always protected the parties from politically disastrous nominees, like Barry Goldwater or George McGovern. But Goldwater and McGovern were both men of principle and experience and civic virtue, leading factions that had not yet come to full maturity. This made them political losers; it did not make them demagogues.posted by sallybrown at 8:58 AM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump, though, is cut from a very different cloth. He’s an authoritarian, not an ideologue, and his antecedents aren’t Goldwater or McGovern; they’re figures like George Wallace and Huey Long, with a side of the fictional Buzz Windrip from Sinclair Lewis’s “It Can’t Happen Here.” No modern political party has nominated a candidate like this; no serious political party ever should.
Because such figures speak — as Wallace did, and Long, and Ross Perot, and others — to real grievances, the process of dealing with them is necessarily painful, and often involves a third-party bid and a difficult reckoning thereafter. Trump would be no exception: Denying him the nomination would indeed be an ugly exercise, one that would weaken or crush the party’s general election chances, and leave the G.O.P. with a long hard climb back up to unity and health.
But if that exercise is painful, it’s also the correct path to choose. A man so transparently unfit for office should not be placed before the American people as a candidate for president under any kind of imprimatur save his own. And there is no point in even having a party apparatus, no point in all those chairmen and state conventions and delegate rosters, if they cannot be mobilized to prevent 35 percent of the Republican primary electorate from imposing a Trump nomination on the party.
. . .
So in Cleveland this summer, the men and women of the Republican Party may face a straightforward choice: Betray the large minority of Republicans who cast their votes for Trump, or betray their obligations to their country.
For a party proud of its patriotism, the choice should not be hard.
He'll just say that the Establishment cheated and he will be the most credible leader in the Republican Party and also the national movement that's formed around him
A National Front, if you will.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:01 AM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
A National Front, if you will.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:01 AM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
The problem is, the violence at Trump rallies has become a thing that requires a response. And it has to be big, and mass, and enough of a problem that it throws a guy like Donald Trump off his guard. What was done in Chicago is an example of exactly how mass politics can change the tenor of a discussion overnight – and make it clear that there are a hell of a lot more people in the US who oppose Donald Trump and everything he stands for than anyone guessed.
One of the things I truly hate about election season thinking is how people try and spin objectively right things, like standing up against a racist jackass and his violent fans, purely in terms of puerile media narratives.
posted by graymouser at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
One of the things I truly hate about election season thinking is how people try and spin objectively right things, like standing up against a racist jackass and his violent fans, purely in terms of puerile media narratives.
posted by graymouser at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
So in Cleveland this summer, the men and women of the Republican Party may face a straightforward choice: Betray the large minority of Republicans who cast their votes for Trump, or betray their obligations to their country.
I really hope they just start telling the public not to show up in Cleveland. People are going to end up dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2016
I really hope they just start telling the public not to show up in Cleveland. People are going to end up dead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2016
It's going to be streamed live on TV, and masses of people will be watching to see what happens. If they deny Trump the nomination (barring something else that occurs from now till then to derail him), there will be violence inside and outside the arena and we'll all be watching it happen. It's nightmarish.
posted by sallybrown at 9:12 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 9:12 AM on March 13, 2016
People in Cleveland have the right to assemble. Telling them to stay home would be very wrong.
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:19 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can't be said enough how much the media is in on this. Has there ever been a candidate have more free air time?
Do we need to divide the press into two tiers? One that deserves first amendment protections and one that doesn't? Stupid but still.
posted by Trochanter at 9:23 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do we need to divide the press into two tiers? One that deserves first amendment protections and one that doesn't? Stupid but still.
posted by Trochanter at 9:23 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Cleveland is going to be an absolute nightmare. I'm worried about Trump supporters rioting whether their candidate gets the nomination or not. Sports fans riot when their teams win, and Trump is not a strictly political phenomenon. I'm worried about clashes between anti-Trump protesters and Trump supporters. I'm worried as hell about the police. (Remember: Chicago in 1968 was a police riot: the police were the rioters, attacking protesters with abandon. Anyone think that can't happen in Cleveland in 2016?) And chaos is good for Trump, because he's the strong manly man who is not too PC to fight back against the thugs and make America great again. It's a genuinely terrifying scenario, and I have no idea what anyone can do about it. I 100% support the right of people to protest, and I may well decide to go and protest, but it seems likely to end terribly in several different respects.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:25 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:25 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
People in Cleveland have the right to assemble. Telling them to stay home would be very wrong.
Like all rights in the US, the right to assembly is not unlimited. Time, place, and manner restrictions attempt to balance that right with the rights of others. My personal threshold for limiting the right of Trump's supporters to assemble hasn't been crossed yet, but now that Trump is offering to pay the legal bills of his supporters like some kind of warlord paying out life insurance policies to the families of his dead mercenaries, we're getting really close to my threshold for limiting Trump's own right to assemble.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like all rights in the US, the right to assembly is not unlimited. Time, place, and manner restrictions attempt to balance that right with the rights of others. My personal threshold for limiting the right of Trump's supporters to assemble hasn't been crossed yet, but now that Trump is offering to pay the legal bills of his supporters like some kind of warlord paying out life insurance policies to the families of his dead mercenaries, we're getting really close to my threshold for limiting Trump's own right to assemble.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
No modern political party has nominated a candidate like this; no serious political party ever should.
It's adorable that Ross Douthat still thinks that the GOP is a serious political party.
posted by octothorpe at 9:31 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's adorable that Ross Douthat still thinks that the GOP is a serious political party.
posted by octothorpe at 9:31 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apparently there is another Democratic town hall on CNN tonight at 8pm ET
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:59 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:59 AM on March 13, 2016
Tonycspu I was referring to protesters. If peaceful anti trump protesters show up in Cleveland, they will get pulled into an "altercation" for sure, but the idea that they should not show up for their own protection is wrong to me. I think there will be violence in Cleveland regardless though.
posted by zutalors! at 10:04 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:04 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
A bit stunned my comment about assembly was taken as pro trump support but I guess I didn't feel like I needed to be more explicit
posted by zutalors! at 10:05 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 10:05 AM on March 13, 2016
Some of these guys became my friends, and they took me aside to tell me that they don't understand why Obama isn't sending more security for my events, because it seems obvious that it's Bernie that's causing this, not me."
Will everyone up the Secret Service chain allow this bullshit to be spewed, or do we just start referring to them as the SS?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:08 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Will everyone up the Secret Service chain allow this bullshit to be spewed, or do we just start referring to them as the SS?
posted by Room 641-A at 10:08 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The unlikely journey to the floor at the Trump rally had begun four nights earlier in a lecture hall on campus at UIC. The first meeting drew about 100 students, many of them campus leaders frustrated that their college had decided to host the Trump rally at all. They launched a “Stop Trump” Facebook page, and, over the weekend, the page had drawn about a thousand likes. That’s how I found out about the group. I wanted to tell the story of the growing national unrest about the Trump campaign through the eyes of the protesters, so I reached out to the student leaders at UIC and requested behind-the-scenes access to their protest. They agreed, inviting me to Chicago.
"At that first meeting on Monday, which I did not attend, finding consensus on an actual protest plan sputtered in the lecture hall. “People had too many agendas,” UIC student Brian Geiger said later. “We didn’t get much accomplished.” There were supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and even one guy in a Ted Cruz shirt, but the students were intent on keeping the protest nonpartisan."
posted by Rumple at 10:12 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
"At that first meeting on Monday, which I did not attend, finding consensus on an actual protest plan sputtered in the lecture hall. “People had too many agendas,” UIC student Brian Geiger said later. “We didn’t get much accomplished.” There were supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and even one guy in a Ted Cruz shirt, but the students were intent on keeping the protest nonpartisan."
posted by Rumple at 10:12 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
zombieflanders, your link appears locked. This one seems to still work.
For others, it's a SNL Clinton campaign ad.
posted by Trochanter at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
For others, it's a SNL Clinton campaign ad.
posted by Trochanter at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will everyone up the Secret Service chain allow this bullshit to be spewed, or do we just start referring to them as the SS?
Given that the quote to which you are responding is a made-up hypothetical attributed to known pathological liar Donald Trump, this seems pointlessly hyperbolic.
posted by dersins at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Given that the quote to which you are responding is a made-up hypothetical attributed to known pathological liar Donald Trump, this seems pointlessly hyperbolic.
posted by dersins at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. It's not something anyone has said, just what I think how Trump will probably spin things when it comes to that.
posted by FJT at 10:22 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by FJT at 10:22 AM on March 13, 2016
Given that the quote to which you are responding is a made-up hypothetical attributed to known pathological liar Donald Trump, this seems pointlessly hyperbolic.
That's my point. At what point does the Secret Service disavow outright false, hateful speech in their own name?
posted by Room 641-A at 11:03 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's my point. At what point does the Secret Service disavow outright false, hateful speech in their own name?
posted by Room 641-A at 11:03 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your point is that the Secret Service are part of a Nazi death squad for not disavowing things that nobody ever actually said about them, ever, and have appeared only in this thread as part of an imagined Trump response to an imagined situation?
Are you suggesting that by not getting a metafilter account and commenting RIGHT NOW to debunk this they are literally equivalent to holocaust perpetrators?
So, yeah, seems pointlessly hyperbolic.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are you suggesting that by not getting a metafilter account and commenting RIGHT NOW to debunk this they are literally equivalent to holocaust perpetrators?
So, yeah, seems pointlessly hyperbolic.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was interrupted, but my point isn't that the US Government is acting like it's the SS, Trump is.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:10 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 11:10 AM on March 13, 2016
But to answer your question, dersins:
Your point is that the Secret Service are part of a Nazi death squad for not disavowing things that nobody ever actually said about them, ever, and have appeared only in this thread as part of an imagined Trump response to an imagined situation?
No.
Are you suggesting that by not getting a metafilter account and commenting RIGHT NOW to debunk this they are literally equivalent to holocaust perpetrators?
No.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:17 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Your point is that the Secret Service are part of a Nazi death squad for not disavowing things that nobody ever actually said about them, ever, and have appeared only in this thread as part of an imagined Trump response to an imagined situation?
No.
Are you suggesting that by not getting a metafilter account and commenting RIGHT NOW to debunk this they are literally equivalent to holocaust perpetrators?
No.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:17 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem for me is that these remarks are so odd, so clearly not what Sec. Clinton actually believes and not in the realm, either, of some failed triangulation.
...
"but what made you SAY that?!?"
So that's the question I'd like an answer to. That, and "How are you handling the aftermath, and ensuring that this kind of thing won't happen when you're President?"
When we were playing the "which one word would you use to describe the candidate?" game in another thread, my word for Clinton was "trimmer." All these gaffes make more sense if one realizes that she has a habit of pandering to the moment.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:20 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
...
"but what made you SAY that?!?"
So that's the question I'd like an answer to. That, and "How are you handling the aftermath, and ensuring that this kind of thing won't happen when you're President?"
When we were playing the "which one word would you use to describe the candidate?" game in another thread, my word for Clinton was "trimmer." All these gaffes make more sense if one realizes that she has a habit of pandering to the moment.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:20 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure. But it wasn't even, like, good pandering. Whom was she pandering to? Reagan Democrats who... would vote for Clinton except that... they are concerned that she's too mean about calling out Reagan for doing nothing about the HIV pandemic?
Pandering I understand. This I don't. Why did she say such a weird thing? How did it happen, and how can we be sure she won't accidentally, say, call Netanyahu a Nazi sympathizer in the middle of a Camp David summit or something?
I expect the Hillary Clinton presidency to be marked by quiet, relatively competent centrism, for better or for worse. It's a solid meh in my books. Assholish, easily refutable and politically damaging gaffes? She can go ahead and leave that to the Republicans.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pandering I understand. This I don't. Why did she say such a weird thing? How did it happen, and how can we be sure she won't accidentally, say, call Netanyahu a Nazi sympathizer in the middle of a Camp David summit or something?
I expect the Hillary Clinton presidency to be marked by quiet, relatively competent centrism, for better or for worse. It's a solid meh in my books. Assholish, easily refutable and politically damaging gaffes? She can go ahead and leave that to the Republicans.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump supporters in St Louis: how 'midwestern nice' became a sea of rage(the guardian)
...Several Trump fans vowed that the next time, they would come armed. Some warned that if Trump was not chosen by Republicans, a militia would rise up to take him to power. When an evicted protester appeared at the doors of the Peabody, it was like a scene out of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery: gazing down at a sea of rage, the demonstrator descended the stairs and the crowd tensed to pounce. ...
The threat to take power through militias is very concerning. It leads me to believe that they will not concede peacefully if Trump loses.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:42 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
...Several Trump fans vowed that the next time, they would come armed. Some warned that if Trump was not chosen by Republicans, a militia would rise up to take him to power. When an evicted protester appeared at the doors of the Peabody, it was like a scene out of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery: gazing down at a sea of rage, the demonstrator descended the stairs and the crowd tensed to pounce. ...
The threat to take power through militias is very concerning. It leads me to believe that they will not concede peacefully if Trump loses.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:42 AM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
main Trump sub. 60,000 subscribers.
Yeah, I am familiar with reddit. That was the sub I was talking about. I didn't want to link to it.
posted by futz at 11:49 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I am familiar with reddit. That was the sub I was talking about. I didn't want to link to it.
posted by futz at 11:49 AM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree, it isn't "good" pandering. "Whom" is not the subject of her pandering-- the subject is the moment, itself. That is the consistency of these strange utterings. As I said, she is a trimmer. I mean, who in their right mind, and being in a position of power, would respond the way she did when Qaddafi was murdered? It's the "moment" which dictates many of her otherwise incomprehensible comments.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by CincyBlues at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cruz on Meet the Press reaffirms that he'll support Trump if he loses and says Trump and Obama are "very much the same."
posted by XMLicious at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016
Sure. But it wasn't even, like, good pandering. Whom was she pandering to? Reagan Democrats who... would vote for Clinton except that... they are concerned that she's too mean about calling out Reagan for doing nothing about the HIV pandemic?
Not to take words out of CincyBlues's mouth, but it seems to me like a more momentary pandering even than that. She was pandering to the people at Nancy Reagan's funeral - not to be strategic and pick up votes in the election, but to specifically say something acceptable to those people in that audience at that moment. "A habit of pandering to the moment" is a good way to put it, and a lot of times that's the stuff that gets her in trouble. Maybe she has a touch of Bill's manic drive to be liked by whomever she's in front of at the moment.
posted by sallybrown at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Not to take words out of CincyBlues's mouth, but it seems to me like a more momentary pandering even than that. She was pandering to the people at Nancy Reagan's funeral - not to be strategic and pick up votes in the election, but to specifically say something acceptable to those people in that audience at that moment. "A habit of pandering to the moment" is a good way to put it, and a lot of times that's the stuff that gets her in trouble. Maybe she has a touch of Bill's manic drive to be liked by whomever she's in front of at the moment.
posted by sallybrown at 11:51 AM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
To add, she's certainly not alone in this decidedly political behavior. She is just a bit ham-handed.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:52 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CincyBlues at 11:52 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
sallybrown! You did take the words out of my mouth and said them even better! It's the immediacy of whatever X situation that factors into these comments, imo.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:56 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CincyBlues at 11:56 AM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"A habit of pandering to the moment."
Which makes one really wonder what were in those Wall Street speeches.
posted by ian1977 at 12:16 PM on March 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Which makes one really wonder what were in those Wall Street speeches.
posted by ian1977 at 12:16 PM on March 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Not to take words out of CincyBlues's mouth, but it seems to me like a more momentary pandering even than that. She was pandering to the people at Nancy Reagan's funeral - not to be strategic and pick up votes in the election, but to specifically say something acceptable to those people in that audience at that moment.
I watched the context - it's a side interview at the memorial, it wasn't part of a speech, unless she repeated the comments. When I saw the headlines Friday they showed pictures of her making a speech, which wasn't the context when I watched the video, which was a one on one conversation.
The "national conversation" bit came at the end of a longer comment about Nancy's quiet advocacy generally, and the times when she broke against her husband.
It still wasn't an OK comment in any sense of the word and she did need to apologize and I don't blame anyone for being offended, but it's not the same as her delivering a whole speech on the topic.
posted by zutalors! at 12:25 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
♔ Royal ♔ @royaltheartist 11m11 minutes ago
@CarlBeijer FYI their entire claim of Bernie not being electable hinges on a basic assumption that Dems would betray Bernie if he got nom.
posted by Trochanter at 12:31 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
@CarlBeijer FYI their entire claim of Bernie not being electable hinges on a basic assumption that Dems would betray Bernie if he got nom.
posted by Trochanter at 12:31 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Don't think anyone posted this SNL cold open yet. Best of it starts around 2:00. Their Bernie joke is what mine has been - the very young like him cos he's just like them: A lot of big plans ... and no idea how to carry them out.
And then they FINALLY get a little closer to the real Trump, tho Darrell Hammond's still making him too much like a goofy reality show star instead of the frightening instigator of fascist bullying that he is. (Oh where is Charlie Chaplin or Stanley Kubrick when you need them?)
posted by NorthernLite at 12:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
And then they FINALLY get a little closer to the real Trump, tho Darrell Hammond's still making him too much like a goofy reality show star instead of the frightening instigator of fascist bullying that he is. (Oh where is Charlie Chaplin or Stanley Kubrick when you need them?)
posted by NorthernLite at 12:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not pandering if you really believe it. She probably really believes that the Reagans deserve credit for eventually ending their years-long silence on AIDS. Just like she deserves credit for eventually admitting the Iraq war was a "mistake".
posted by moorooka at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by moorooka at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2016
She probably really believes that the Reagans deserve credit for eventually ending their years-long silence on AIDS.
If she really believes that, we've got huge problems.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she really believes that, we've got huge problems.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
MSNBC is just Trump TV now.
NBC can't use him as host of The Apprentice so the parent company (Comcast) has to get a return on their investment in him somehow. And, since "liberal answer to FoxNews" never paid off for them, having Fox representing the "establishment Republicans" now gives them another way to pursue an "answer to Fox" audience. That's show business.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:45 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
NBC can't use him as host of The Apprentice so the parent company (Comcast) has to get a return on their investment in him somehow. And, since "liberal answer to FoxNews" never paid off for them, having Fox representing the "establishment Republicans" now gives them another way to pursue an "answer to Fox" audience. That's show business.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:45 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, is it too soon to start calling Trump a domestic terrorist? I mean, he's actually using the threat of violence as a tool to help gain political power. And he's actually endorsed by the KKK and other white nationalist groups that are identified as domestic terrorists. He fits the definition.
posted by FJT at 1:46 PM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by FJT at 1:46 PM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
As far as reluctantly voting for Hillary goes, I can think of three additional reasons to the obvious "lesser evil/saner head" vote:
1. It is time for the Democratic party to enforce the same sort of lockstep voting discipline that the GOP has. Yes, it is also the time the the party establishment stopped taking labor and progressive votes for granted, much like the GOP has been treating its evangelicals all the time. But it is also time that the party established firm control to prevent BS "stay at home" votes, especially since this is such a critical presidential election. Plus, in order to create an environment where a progressive president is backed by a progressive legislature, we need stronger Democratic guidance on downballot votes.
2. Clinton may defy all expectations and pivot left, where Obama pivoted right. All of her insider-ness, her politicking, her chicanery- that could be used for something good, and she might have the opportunity to be a new LBJ. Or at least a liberal Nixon. One can dream.
3. On the flip side, voting for Clinton is a "soft" accelerationist vote. In the sense that, if she goes full neoliberal, only the Democratic party that will be rivened, leading to a party civil war in 2020 and the chance for a progressive equivalent to the Tea Party to arise, as opposed to Trump winning and full accelerationism with disastrous consequences for the entire nation.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:47 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. It is time for the Democratic party to enforce the same sort of lockstep voting discipline that the GOP has. Yes, it is also the time the the party establishment stopped taking labor and progressive votes for granted, much like the GOP has been treating its evangelicals all the time. But it is also time that the party established firm control to prevent BS "stay at home" votes, especially since this is such a critical presidential election. Plus, in order to create an environment where a progressive president is backed by a progressive legislature, we need stronger Democratic guidance on downballot votes.
2. Clinton may defy all expectations and pivot left, where Obama pivoted right. All of her insider-ness, her politicking, her chicanery- that could be used for something good, and she might have the opportunity to be a new LBJ. Or at least a liberal Nixon. One can dream.
3. On the flip side, voting for Clinton is a "soft" accelerationist vote. In the sense that, if she goes full neoliberal, only the Democratic party that will be rivened, leading to a party civil war in 2020 and the chance for a progressive equivalent to the Tea Party to arise, as opposed to Trump winning and full accelerationism with disastrous consequences for the entire nation.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:47 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. The problem is, the violence at Trump rallies has become a thing that requires a response. And it has to be big, and mass, and enough of a problem that it throws a guy like Donald Trump off his guard.
2. Do we need to divide the press into two tiers? One that deserves first amendment protections and one that doesn't? Stupid but still.
The solution to Trump's facism isn't Bernie's facism.
If the battlefield is bashing heads, Trump's people win. As Arbitrary and Capricious said:
chaos is good for Trump, because he's the strong manly man who is not too PC to fight back against the thugs and make America great again.
posted by msalt at 2:14 PM on March 13, 2016
2. Do we need to divide the press into two tiers? One that deserves first amendment protections and one that doesn't? Stupid but still.
The solution to Trump's facism isn't Bernie's facism.
If the battlefield is bashing heads, Trump's people win. As Arbitrary and Capricious said:
chaos is good for Trump, because he's the strong manly man who is not too PC to fight back against the thugs and make America great again.
posted by msalt at 2:14 PM on March 13, 2016
Another quick note: it seems in many ways the rise of the Sanders phenomenon is in response to the failings, or at least unsatisfying aspects, of the Obama administration. In 2008, Obama ran on a platform for national change. But also what he was also running against was the Bush administration, of eight years of sharp division and disaster on multiple fronts. This year, Sanders is the focal point for grassroots, progressive-populist anger against the Democrats themselves, for not having brought the change that was promised.
I think it's because we're no longer dealing with a situation of "we cannot have another Bush presidency." I think now there's enough people among liberals and left to say, "we can do better than the Obama presidency." This is not simply a revolutionary change. It's evolutionary.
If cultivated, the Democrats can have their own Tea Party movement. But one less divisive and angry, and not bought by the large corporate donor class. Occupy the Democratic Party.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:17 PM on March 13, 2016
I think it's because we're no longer dealing with a situation of "we cannot have another Bush presidency." I think now there's enough people among liberals and left to say, "we can do better than the Obama presidency." This is not simply a revolutionary change. It's evolutionary.
If cultivated, the Democrats can have their own Tea Party movement. But one less divisive and angry, and not bought by the large corporate donor class. Occupy the Democratic Party.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:17 PM on March 13, 2016
But it is also time that the party established firm control to prevent BS "stay at home" votes, especially since this is such a critical presidential election.
Can you explain what this looks like?
posted by duffell at 2:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you explain what this looks like?
posted by duffell at 2:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Rubio's anti-Trump press conference upthread, he spoke at length about how when Trump offered to pay the legal fees of his supporters, some were going to take that literally and attack people. Even Rubio didn't believe that Trump actually meant it.
Apparently, Trump actually did literally mean it. He's instructed his people to look into paying the legal fees of the guy who sucker punched the protestor in North Carolina (middle of the article).
posted by zug at 2:19 PM on March 13, 2016
Apparently, Trump actually did literally mean it. He's instructed his people to look into paying the legal fees of the guy who sucker punched the protestor in North Carolina (middle of the article).
posted by zug at 2:19 PM on March 13, 2016
The solution to Trump's facism isn't Bernie's facism.
It's fascism, for one, and for another, how in the hell can anyone describe Sanders as "facist [sic]"? This boggles the mind. Just to refresh your memory, the definition of fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
posted by dialetheia at 2:20 PM on March 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's fascism, for one, and for another, how in the hell can anyone describe Sanders as "facist [sic]"? This boggles the mind. Just to refresh your memory, the definition of fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
posted by dialetheia at 2:20 PM on March 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
The solution to Trump's facism isn't Bernie's facism.
Actually, you don't need to be a fascist- heck, you don't even need to be a communist- to participate in political street violence; social democrats can do that too! Back in Weimar.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:21 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Actually, you don't need to be a fascist- heck, you don't even need to be a communist- to participate in political street violence; social democrats can do that too! Back in Weimar.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:21 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can you explain what this looks like?
Whatever sort of voter mobilization and outreach the GOP does to get its voters to win midterms for them. I understand that given the different demographics at play here- working class who can't leave work to go to the polls, voter suppression of minorities in the South and other regions- make it more difficult for Democrats, but surely more resources can be spent by the party to tackle this problem.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:23 PM on March 13, 2016
Whatever sort of voter mobilization and outreach the GOP does to get its voters to win midterms for them. I understand that given the different demographics at play here- working class who can't leave work to go to the polls, voter suppression of minorities in the South and other regions- make it more difficult for Democrats, but surely more resources can be spent by the party to tackle this problem.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:23 PM on March 13, 2016
The solution to Trump's facism isn't Bernie's facism.
It's spelled "fascism", and, seriously, wtf? The idea that there's anything remotely "fascist" about Sanders is thoroughly bizarre and divorced from actual reality.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:24 PM on March 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
It's spelled "fascism", and, seriously, wtf? The idea that there's anything remotely "fascist" about Sanders is thoroughly bizarre and divorced from actual reality.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:24 PM on March 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
It is time for the Democratic party to enforce the same sort of lockstep voting discipline that the GOP has.
Oh, the time for that was 2008-2009. Instead we had pragmatic incrementalist establishment politicians like Lieberman kneecap Obama's efforts and got a healthcare bill that nobody could run in the midterms on. Lockstep voting is easy when you are against Paul Ryan and the tea party caucus, when discipline is needed is when it can actually be used to make progress.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:24 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, the time for that was 2008-2009. Instead we had pragmatic incrementalist establishment politicians like Lieberman kneecap Obama's efforts and got a healthcare bill that nobody could run in the midterms on. Lockstep voting is easy when you are against Paul Ryan and the tea party caucus, when discipline is needed is when it can actually be used to make progress.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:24 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even according to the Chicago PD, the vast majority of protesters were peaceful and there were very few injuries. Trump knew exactly what he was doing planning a rally in the heart of a majority-minority university, in a too-small venue, on a Friday night, after fomenting an environment of violent reaction to protesters. The police have outright said that he lied about being advised to cancel for safety concerns - they were fully prepared to go on with the event, but Trump canceled without even consulting them. He wasn't even at the venue. Anyone wanting to criticize the peaceful protesters in Chicago should read this piece:
“Please go in peace,” the official told the crowd from the stage Friday night.posted by dialetheia at 2:26 PM on March 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
And that was the exact moment when the violence began, pitting Trump supporters against protesters, whites against blacks. An event—teetering on the edge until that moment, but still calm—devolved quickly into an angry scrum, and Lewis and his fellow students found themselves in the middle of it. They were standing near the podium where the candidate would not be appearing—with an increasingly angry crowd around them that knew exactly who had prevented Donald Trump from showing up.
“Stay together!” Lewis urged his fellow protesters.
The Trump supporters surged toward them, shouting and swearing. The confrontation the student protesters had hoped to avoid was coming, and there was nothing any of them could do to stop it.
To add, she's certainly not alone in this decidedly political behavior. She is just a bit ham-handed.
That's the gap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, as I perceive it, though. Clinton came of age in the apotheosis of the chameleon-cynic era of American politics, and she and her husband are very good at it and have been very successful with it. The 'chameleon-cynic' era has been not merely pandering (i.e., saying whatever voters/constituencies want to hear) but sincerely being who the voters (or the crowd in front of you) want you to be, in that moment, and then pivoting, massaging, adjusting for the next audience.
I don't doubt that Clinton has actual convictions, it's just that, because she's spent her whole public life morphing and adjusting and triangulating, she knows no other way to operate publicly--and on top of that, she spent her formative years watching Democrats get absolutely punished for behaving too sincerely (e.g., Jimmy Carter). That, plus the success she's had so far, and her age (old habits die hard), appear to have left her utterly unable to adjust to the emergent political landscape--a landscape which I think is defined by authenticity and consistency.
I think many voters (and this is the thread that connects many Sanders supporters and many Trump supporters, weirdly) simply want candidates who say what they mean, and mean it consistently. Many of us have always wanted that, of course, but what has changed is the internet: now, when Clinton says, for example, 'where was Bernie Sanders in '93 and '94 when I was leading the fight for universal health care?', within an hour a photo of her in 1993 giving a speech advocating for universal health care with Bernie Sanders literally standing right behind her on stage is all over social media, and a day later all over corporate media. You just can't get away with the morphing and massaging and triangulating anymore. It's way too easy to call somebody out, and to let millions of people know about it with the click of a button (or touch of a screen).
So now here comes fringe, independent Bernie Sanders, who has been really remarkably consistent his whole career (indeed, his whole adult life, given those pics from the early '60s), and a whole lot of people--led by the largest generational cohort in the nation, millenials--are saying, yes, that's what we want. Be who you are, and I'll decide if I support you or not, but do not be a moving target. This change explains, to me at least, much of the appeal of both the Sanders and Trump insurgent candidacies, and Clinton's apparent bafflement at what's happening.
(Of course, huge differences in substance and solutions and social messages, but in this specific regard, I see much overlap. Sanders and Trump are also the only two candidates who recognize and speak openly about the rigged system that has made life far more difficult than it should be for far too many people, but I don't want to obfuscate my point in this comment too much.)
So no, I don't think it's that she's ham-handed; it's that the social and political culture have fundamentally, tectonically shifted because internet, and she either just doesn't see it or doesn't know how to react. Especially this week, she really looks like yesterday's candidate struggling in today's world. (Re: the Nancy Reagan/AIDS comment: I think that was a chameleon-cynic moment, she wanted to appeal to the people in that audience, and it just didn't occur to her that the rest of us were listening too, and that's the point: the rest of us are now always listening. Even 10 years ago, she could have made that comment, and if no corporate media outlet really reported on it, it would have slipped by unnoticed, insignificant. Now all it takes is one tweet with one Vine video, and the whole world heard what you said, and saw you say it. She is just way, way out of her element.)
SNL captured her political modus operandi and flailing perfectly last night.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:28 PM on March 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
That's the gap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, as I perceive it, though. Clinton came of age in the apotheosis of the chameleon-cynic era of American politics, and she and her husband are very good at it and have been very successful with it. The 'chameleon-cynic' era has been not merely pandering (i.e., saying whatever voters/constituencies want to hear) but sincerely being who the voters (or the crowd in front of you) want you to be, in that moment, and then pivoting, massaging, adjusting for the next audience.
I don't doubt that Clinton has actual convictions, it's just that, because she's spent her whole public life morphing and adjusting and triangulating, she knows no other way to operate publicly--and on top of that, she spent her formative years watching Democrats get absolutely punished for behaving too sincerely (e.g., Jimmy Carter). That, plus the success she's had so far, and her age (old habits die hard), appear to have left her utterly unable to adjust to the emergent political landscape--a landscape which I think is defined by authenticity and consistency.
I think many voters (and this is the thread that connects many Sanders supporters and many Trump supporters, weirdly) simply want candidates who say what they mean, and mean it consistently. Many of us have always wanted that, of course, but what has changed is the internet: now, when Clinton says, for example, 'where was Bernie Sanders in '93 and '94 when I was leading the fight for universal health care?', within an hour a photo of her in 1993 giving a speech advocating for universal health care with Bernie Sanders literally standing right behind her on stage is all over social media, and a day later all over corporate media. You just can't get away with the morphing and massaging and triangulating anymore. It's way too easy to call somebody out, and to let millions of people know about it with the click of a button (or touch of a screen).
So now here comes fringe, independent Bernie Sanders, who has been really remarkably consistent his whole career (indeed, his whole adult life, given those pics from the early '60s), and a whole lot of people--led by the largest generational cohort in the nation, millenials--are saying, yes, that's what we want. Be who you are, and I'll decide if I support you or not, but do not be a moving target. This change explains, to me at least, much of the appeal of both the Sanders and Trump insurgent candidacies, and Clinton's apparent bafflement at what's happening.
(Of course, huge differences in substance and solutions and social messages, but in this specific regard, I see much overlap. Sanders and Trump are also the only two candidates who recognize and speak openly about the rigged system that has made life far more difficult than it should be for far too many people, but I don't want to obfuscate my point in this comment too much.)
So no, I don't think it's that she's ham-handed; it's that the social and political culture have fundamentally, tectonically shifted because internet, and she either just doesn't see it or doesn't know how to react. Especially this week, she really looks like yesterday's candidate struggling in today's world. (Re: the Nancy Reagan/AIDS comment: I think that was a chameleon-cynic moment, she wanted to appeal to the people in that audience, and it just didn't occur to her that the rest of us were listening too, and that's the point: the rest of us are now always listening. Even 10 years ago, she could have made that comment, and if no corporate media outlet really reported on it, it would have slipped by unnoticed, insignificant. Now all it takes is one tweet with one Vine video, and the whole world heard what you said, and saw you say it. She is just way, way out of her element.)
SNL captured her political modus operandi and flailing perfectly last night.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:28 PM on March 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
I can think of three additional reasons to the obvious "lesser evil/saner head" vote...
???? I don't understand anything in this comment. #1 is a reason why the Democratic Party should shove her straight down our throats/not let us leave the dinner table until we've voted for her. By the logic of #2 we could vote for anyone, because what if they totally became the opposite of what they are. #3 is burn it down, burn it all down... but, slowly. Because Rome wasn't burned in a day?
posted by snofoam at 2:30 PM on March 13, 2016
???? I don't understand anything in this comment. #1 is a reason why the Democratic Party should shove her straight down our throats/not let us leave the dinner table until we've voted for her. By the logic of #2 we could vote for anyone, because what if they totally became the opposite of what they are. #3 is burn it down, burn it all down... but, slowly. Because Rome wasn't burned in a day?
posted by snofoam at 2:30 PM on March 13, 2016
#1 means that if there's a desperate enough situation that requires voting in lockstep, it would be better to have the mechanisms in place for the Democratic party to enforce such discipline, because eventually that discipline could be used to empower progressive candidates and causes once the party has shifted leftwards, and in the short-term it can be used to at least beat Trump and seize as many seats in the Congress as possible. #3 is suggesting that having another centrist in charge could galvanize the Democratic base to establish their own version of the Tea Party- a controlled burn, if you will. If such a movement was in place, and would be able to challenge the DNC leadership much like how the Tea Party has done so to the RNC, then having #1 would be very useful to electing progressives to office on local and state levels.
#2 is pure wishful thinking, but I'm trying to be charitable towards Clinton here.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:36 PM on March 13, 2016
#2 is pure wishful thinking, but I'm trying to be charitable towards Clinton here.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:36 PM on March 13, 2016
I have been seeing a lot of comparisons to 1968 here and around the web. It makes a lot of sense - a lot of things about our situation now rhyme with 1968, most notably Trump as George Wallace - but it's worth keeping a sense of perspective about the unceasing and devastating violence and instability that marked that year. Comparing a mostly peaceful protest where there was some police brutality and a few scuffles to the violence of 1968 is vastly lacking in perspective. After MLK was assassinated, a full week of rioting/uprising broke out in over 100 cities, the largest outbreak of civil unrest since the Civil War. Massive anti-war protests rocked the nation, wide-scale bombing was on the television every night, two major American leaders were assassinated within months of each other, the American people watched the police brutally put down the Chicago Convention protests, Mayor Daley told his policemen to shoot rioters on sight... People were in a very different situation with respect to societal instability than we are today. A rally that gets out of hand and results in some fistfights and police brutality, while disturbing and terrible, should not seriously be compared to that kind of unrest.
This documentary series on Youtube about 1968 relies mostly on primary footage and commentary from professors and historians, and it's very much worth watching before making comparisons to 1968. Things could easily get just as bad again today, no doubt, and I'm very worried about the rapid escalation of violent rhetoric and behavior from Trump supporters, but the protests in Chicago and St. Louis and the kind of thing we've seen so far doesn't even begin to hold a candle to the instability and unrest that occurred in 1968. While people are fed up today and the unrest we see will have a different tone, 1968 was not just any old year, and the stuff that happened then was way beyond a few fistfights at a mostly-peaceful protest.
posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on March 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
This documentary series on Youtube about 1968 relies mostly on primary footage and commentary from professors and historians, and it's very much worth watching before making comparisons to 1968. Things could easily get just as bad again today, no doubt, and I'm very worried about the rapid escalation of violent rhetoric and behavior from Trump supporters, but the protests in Chicago and St. Louis and the kind of thing we've seen so far doesn't even begin to hold a candle to the instability and unrest that occurred in 1968. While people are fed up today and the unrest we see will have a different tone, 1968 was not just any old year, and the stuff that happened then was way beyond a few fistfights at a mostly-peaceful protest.
posted by dialetheia at 2:37 PM on March 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
I have been seeing a lot of comparisons to 1968
Not to mention Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June that just pulled the rug out from under hopes that many minorities/young/antiwar folks had. That was a devastating year that has colored my entire life ... I can't convey the despair of losing two heroes to gun violence in such a short time. The war, the riots - it was indeed a time much more fraught with despair
I do see potential for an explosive republican convention ... if Trump doesn't have enough votes and things are contested, God knows what he might do. Add an organized anti-Trump presence from the left... it could be a difficult time.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not to mention Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June that just pulled the rug out from under hopes that many minorities/young/antiwar folks had. That was a devastating year that has colored my entire life ... I can't convey the despair of losing two heroes to gun violence in such a short time. The war, the riots - it was indeed a time much more fraught with despair
I do see potential for an explosive republican convention ... if Trump doesn't have enough votes and things are contested, God knows what he might do. Add an organized anti-Trump presence from the left... it could be a difficult time.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, if Trump's intention was to call off the event all along, then he must have some sort of plan or logic behind it. And he must have had a reason to go so strongly after Sanders now, to accuse his supporters of organizing against his rally. It's possible that Trump is trying to influence the race on the Democratic side by depicting Sanders as an extremist that may cause some of his voters to stay home or vote for Clinton (who Trump may see as the easier rival to beat). It's also possible that Michigan's results made Trump realize that Sanders might actually win the nomination, so getting some early attacks in could help once again to depict Sanders as an extremist while Trump could start trying to pass himself off as the victim.
posted by FJT at 3:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by FJT at 3:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It could just be that the protestors inside chanted "Bernie" not "Hillary." I don't think he really planned to cancel ahead of time, he just got the information that there were so many protestors inside he could never get through his stump speech and thought it would be better to cancel than to go through that in person.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Excellent points about 1968, dialetheia. Another event to remember is the Tet Offensive at the beginning of 1968, when the Viet Cong launched simultaneous attacks inside South Vietnam, all over the country. Militarily it was a sort of go for broke, desperate move by the Viet Cong that actually resulted in huge casualties for them. But pscyhologically it was brilliant, puncturing the BS reassurances of President Johnson that the Vietnam War was going well, and prompting him to drop his re-election bid entirely.
This led to a lot of ciriticism of the media on both sides of the aisle, as well.
On the other hand, you had Eugene McCarthy who was very much a Bernie Sanders figure.
But 1968 was also the year that cemented the image of protesters as violent, dirty hippies who hated America. And I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence that, in Middle America, that image has changed.
Here is what worries me, a direct quote from the guy who rushed Trump at the stage. He's discussing an earlier protest where he dragged and stomped on an American flag:
'I thought it would ruffle some feathers, but I did not anticipate how intense the backlash would become."
Trump understands backlash. He loves this stuff.
posted by msalt at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2016
This led to a lot of ciriticism of the media on both sides of the aisle, as well.
On the other hand, you had Eugene McCarthy who was very much a Bernie Sanders figure.
But 1968 was also the year that cemented the image of protesters as violent, dirty hippies who hated America. And I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence that, in Middle America, that image has changed.
Here is what worries me, a direct quote from the guy who rushed Trump at the stage. He's discussing an earlier protest where he dragged and stomped on an American flag:
'I thought it would ruffle some feathers, but I did not anticipate how intense the backlash would become."
Trump understands backlash. He loves this stuff.
posted by msalt at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2016
It's spelled "fascism", and, seriously, wtf? The idea that there's anything remotely "fascist" about Sanders is thoroughly bizarre and divorced from actual reality.
I was quoting people in this topic advocating competitive street violence and removing free speech protections from parts of the press they didn't like. What would you call that?
Yes, "authoritarianism" would have been a better word that fascism, though we could rekindle the old debate over whether Peronistas were properly considered fascist. For that matter, Trump doesn't fit classic fascism in many ways either, but I haven't noticed anyone complaining about that word choice.
Putting aside semantic quibbles and spelling errors, it's naive to think that leftists can't be auithoritarian. We just saw Bernie refusing to criticize Castro or Ortega for their anti-democratic actions. He justifies it because the US and others were mean to those leaders. How is that different than responding to Trump's authoritarianism in kind?
posted by msalt at 3:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was quoting people in this topic advocating competitive street violence and removing free speech protections from parts of the press they didn't like. What would you call that?
Yes, "authoritarianism" would have been a better word that fascism, though we could rekindle the old debate over whether Peronistas were properly considered fascist. For that matter, Trump doesn't fit classic fascism in many ways either, but I haven't noticed anyone complaining about that word choice.
Putting aside semantic quibbles and spelling errors, it's naive to think that leftists can't be auithoritarian. We just saw Bernie refusing to criticize Castro or Ortega for their anti-democratic actions. He justifies it because the US and others were mean to those leaders. How is that different than responding to Trump's authoritarianism in kind?
posted by msalt at 3:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was quoting people in this topic
Which is what made it weird you referred to "Bernie's fascism" as if he had some ownership of the suggestion.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:23 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which is what made it weird you referred to "Bernie's fascism" as if he had some ownership of the suggestion.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:23 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh man. My facebook is blowing up because Trump was in Bloomington today, and there's a cemetery next to the airport, and apparently a bunch of Trump fans who wanted to park closer just started DRIVING THROUGH THE GRAVEYARD (OFF-ROAD) AND PARKING ON TOP OF GRAVES. (One such photo) At least one young cancer-widow went to visit her recently-deceased husband and found a car on top of him. Republicans and Democrats alike are super-angry. There's some ugly pictures circulating on local FB of Trump-stickered vehicles on top of veterans' graves and serious tire track damage to recentish grave sites.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:26 PM on March 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
Told video he shared was a hoax, Trump doesn't back down: "All I know is what's on the Internet."
posted by futz at 3:30 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by futz at 3:30 PM on March 13, 2016
My point was more that the idea that there would be a huge "silent majority" backlash to these events seems lacking in perspective, given that the events provoking that backlash in 1968 through the early 1970s were many orders of magnitude more dire than whatever is happening today (so far, anyway). If anything, we see the Black Lives Matter protests happening throughout the last year and provoking very little broad-scale backlash beyond anodyne statements of "All Lives Matter" and vague support for the police. Even the racist opposition to Obama, while loosely organized within the tea party, has not become a widespread thing throughout any "silent majority" to speak of - that backlash has largely been confined to a marginalized group of people who were already virulently racist, most of whom are united behind Trump this year.
The guy rushing the stage is a problem, and I would love for the left to look back to the Civil Rights movement for pointers on how to protest without giving the opposition an opportunity to dismiss us. But the protest itself is not the problem, and I think your 1970s-vintage views about the American populace are outdated. If there had been an outbreak of Hard Hat Riots in response to BLM this year, maybe I'd believe you.
I was quoting people in this topic advocating competitive street violence and removing free speech protections from parts of the press they didn't like. What would you call that?
And that reflects on Sanders how, exactly?
Trump's free speech rights were not abridged - anyone arguing that is a fool with zero understanding of the first amendment. The protesters had every right to peaceable free assembly, had every right to attend that public event, and had every right to speak out in opposition to Trump's hateful rhetoric. People should be protesting the media as well for giving Trump millions upon millions of dollars in free airtime. Most people would not support any abridgment of press freedoms - in fact, Trump is the one arguing for the expansion of libel laws so that he can sue reporters who say negative things into oblivion.
We just saw Bernie refusing to criticize Castro or Ortega for their anti-democratic actions. He justifies it because the US and others were mean to those leaders.
"Mean to" them? He was describing the context of that video, in which it is very clear that he is discussing US right-wing coup attempts within their governments, including the terrorism, murder, and rape by the Contras (and the Sandinista government was democratically elected by the time of his visit and that video). Your dismissal of their terrorism as "mean" is very telling. Sanders' qualified praise was not excusing the Castro government, he was describing why right-wing expectations that the Cuban people would support the coup attempts and rise up against him en masse did not come to pass. The entire video is actually really interesting and worth watching.
posted by dialetheia at 3:33 PM on March 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
The guy rushing the stage is a problem, and I would love for the left to look back to the Civil Rights movement for pointers on how to protest without giving the opposition an opportunity to dismiss us. But the protest itself is not the problem, and I think your 1970s-vintage views about the American populace are outdated. If there had been an outbreak of Hard Hat Riots in response to BLM this year, maybe I'd believe you.
I was quoting people in this topic advocating competitive street violence and removing free speech protections from parts of the press they didn't like. What would you call that?
And that reflects on Sanders how, exactly?
Trump's free speech rights were not abridged - anyone arguing that is a fool with zero understanding of the first amendment. The protesters had every right to peaceable free assembly, had every right to attend that public event, and had every right to speak out in opposition to Trump's hateful rhetoric. People should be protesting the media as well for giving Trump millions upon millions of dollars in free airtime. Most people would not support any abridgment of press freedoms - in fact, Trump is the one arguing for the expansion of libel laws so that he can sue reporters who say negative things into oblivion.
We just saw Bernie refusing to criticize Castro or Ortega for their anti-democratic actions. He justifies it because the US and others were mean to those leaders.
"Mean to" them? He was describing the context of that video, in which it is very clear that he is discussing US right-wing coup attempts within their governments, including the terrorism, murder, and rape by the Contras (and the Sandinista government was democratically elected by the time of his visit and that video). Your dismissal of their terrorism as "mean" is very telling. Sanders' qualified praise was not excusing the Castro government, he was describing why right-wing expectations that the Cuban people would support the coup attempts and rise up against him en masse did not come to pass. The entire video is actually really interesting and worth watching.
posted by dialetheia at 3:33 PM on March 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
you had Eugene McCarthy who was very much a Bernie Sanders figure
That's selling Sanders short. Regardless what one thinks of his policies, one has to give him credit for staying true to them throughout his career (witness the various grainy videos of him giving some version of his contemporary stump speech decades ago). McCarthy, on the other hand... well, here's Chomsky's opinion:
That's selling Sanders short. Regardless what one thinks of his policies, one has to give him credit for staying true to them throughout his career (witness the various grainy videos of him giving some version of his contemporary stump speech decades ago). McCarthy, on the other hand... well, here's Chomsky's opinion:
Riding to national prominence on the wave of mass opposition to the war, McCarthy slipped silently away after failing to gain the Democratic nomination at Chicago in August 1968. He did succeed, briefly, in diverting popular energies to political channels, and came close to gaining political power by exploiting the forces of a movement that he had played no part whatsoever in mobilizing. His utter cynicism was revealed with great clarity by his behavior after he lost the nomination. Had he been even minimally serious, he would have made use of his undeserved prestige as a "spokesman" for the peace movement that he had so shamelessly exploited, to press for an end to the American war. But little more was heard from McCarthy, who demonstrated by his silence that he cared as little for the issue of the American war as he did for his youthful supporters who were bloodied by police riots in the streets of Chicago as he was attempting to win the Democratic candidacy, through their efforts on his behalf.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:36 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sounds a bit closer to Dean really, though not exactly.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:55 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:55 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
We don't actually have to match current events up in a one-to-one manner with historical precedents. Knowing what has gone before is a mechanism to see depth in what currently exists. And if boomers are still so scarred by 68, our fine nation has many therapists. But the first step to not repeating history may be not constantly demanding today be expressed in only historical terms.
posted by dame at 4:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dame at 4:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
[McCarthy's] utter cynicism was revealed with great clarity by his behavior after he lost the nomination. Had he been even minimally serious, he would have made use of his undeserved prestige as a "spokesman" for the peace movement that he had so shamelessly exploited, to press for an end to the American war.
If Sanders loses the nomination, I certainly hope he channels his support into a movement to reform campaign finance, elect better Congresspeople and overturn bad Supreme Court rulings. Ideally along with Elizabeth Warren. Ditto Hillary, for that matter.
Of course, either of them could have done this years ago instead of running for president.
posted by msalt at 4:06 PM on March 13, 2016
If Sanders loses the nomination, I certainly hope he channels his support into a movement to reform campaign finance, elect better Congresspeople and overturn bad Supreme Court rulings. Ideally along with Elizabeth Warren. Ditto Hillary, for that matter.
Of course, either of them could have done this years ago instead of running for president.
posted by msalt at 4:06 PM on March 13, 2016
CNN just reported Ohio is Hillary 63% Sanders 33%. I thought it was a lot closer than that?
posted by futz at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by futz at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2016
The entire video is actually really interesting and worth watching.
Wow, Sanders comes off really well in that interview; he has really nuanced and informed opinions about Latin America, talked to a variety of people in Nicaragua including the opposition, etc. I can't believe I was swallowing the line about Sanders as some overenthusiastic Sandanista dupe.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Wow, Sanders comes off really well in that interview; he has really nuanced and informed opinions about Latin America, talked to a variety of people in Nicaragua including the opposition, etc. I can't believe I was swallowing the line about Sanders as some overenthusiastic Sandanista dupe.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
CNN just reported Ohio is Hillary 63% Sanders 33%. I thought it was a lot closer than that?I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, because the likely voter formulas are kind of a mess this year.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:11 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
The RCP average is Clinton +17.8. Closer but still a huge uphill climb for Sanders.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 4:13 PM on March 13, 2016
"Mean to" them? He was describing the context of that video, in which it is very clear that he is discussing US right-wing coup attempts within their governments, including the terrorism, murder, and rape by the Contras (and the Sandinista government was democratically elected by the time of his visit and that video).
He refused to criticize Castro or Ortega for their authoritarian tactics, in the debate. Are you (or Bernie) saying that the "context" of terrorism etc. by their right wing opponents justified those leaders' anti-democratic measures? Because that is exactly what Trump is claiming in this campaign, using Islamists and now Sanders supporters as his alleged enemies.
And that's exactly the path that I'm arguing we should not go down. The answer to the violence of Trump supporters is not to outfight them in the streets. And the answer to perceived bias in the media is certainly not to divide them into two groups and remove first amendment protections from the part we don't like.
posted by msalt at 4:14 PM on March 13, 2016
He refused to criticize Castro or Ortega for their authoritarian tactics, in the debate. Are you (or Bernie) saying that the "context" of terrorism etc. by their right wing opponents justified those leaders' anti-democratic measures? Because that is exactly what Trump is claiming in this campaign, using Islamists and now Sanders supporters as his alleged enemies.
And that's exactly the path that I'm arguing we should not go down. The answer to the violence of Trump supporters is not to outfight them in the streets. And the answer to perceived bias in the media is certainly not to divide them into two groups and remove first amendment protections from the part we don't like.
posted by msalt at 4:14 PM on March 13, 2016
Oh I know. I just thought that those were old numbers.
posted by futz at 4:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 4:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
(And that 63-33 is CNN's poll from 3/2-3/6)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:15 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:15 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think that I'd put much faith in any of the primary polls at this point. I think that Michigan showed how bad they are at predicting the actual results.
posted by octothorpe at 4:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
CNN just reported Ohio is Hillary 63% Sanders 33%. I thought it was a lot closer than that?
That's a slightly older poll it looks like, covering 3/2 - 3/6. NBC/WSJ/Marist ran a poll from 3/4 - 3/10 and found the race at 58% Clinton - 38% Sanders, and CBS News/YouGov ran from 3/9 - 3/11 that showed 52% Clinton - 44% Sanders. The rolling average still isn't great, but it certainly looks like the Ohio race is tightening up. CBS/YouGov also showed Sanders up by 2% in Illinois, with 48% to Clinton's 46%.
posted by dialetheia at 4:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's a slightly older poll it looks like, covering 3/2 - 3/6. NBC/WSJ/Marist ran a poll from 3/4 - 3/10 and found the race at 58% Clinton - 38% Sanders, and CBS News/YouGov ran from 3/9 - 3/11 that showed 52% Clinton - 44% Sanders. The rolling average still isn't great, but it certainly looks like the Ohio race is tightening up. CBS/YouGov also showed Sanders up by 2% in Illinois, with 48% to Clinton's 46%.
posted by dialetheia at 4:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regardless of what people want to say about young people being politically unengaged, I am really impressed with the activism and organizing work that people are putting in for the Sanders campaign. Over 40,000 phone banking calls were made yesterday and they're on track for more than 50,000 today, and that's just calls being tracked with the chrome extension. The Bernie Phonebankathon page is neat - you can see how many calls are being made in real time, complete with a neat map that shows where those calls are coming from and who they're reaching. Pretty cool.
posted by dialetheia at 4:26 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:26 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are you (or Bernie) saying that the "context" of terrorism etc. by their right wing opponents justified those leaders' anti-democratic measures? Because that is exactly what Trump is claiming
Comparing the situation of Trump's presidential campaign to a small, poor nation besieged by a hostile imperialist superpower which is financing armed coup attempts within its territory is farcical. One is actual terrorism, the other is bluster.
And actually, if you go back and look at the debate transcript, Sanders did criticize Cuba's government as "authoritarian" and "undemocratic."
The issue of if and when suppressing democratic freedoms is justified is an interesting question, but one that hasn't been raised anywhere in this debate with regard to Sanders, so far as I can see.
However, I think this FAIR piece is apropos given your comment: Sanders, Redbaiting and the ‘Denouncing’ Double Standard
Comparing the situation of Trump's presidential campaign to a small, poor nation besieged by a hostile imperialist superpower which is financing armed coup attempts within its territory is farcical. One is actual terrorism, the other is bluster.
And actually, if you go back and look at the debate transcript, Sanders did criticize Cuba's government as "authoritarian" and "undemocratic."
The issue of if and when suppressing democratic freedoms is justified is an interesting question, but one that hasn't been raised anywhere in this debate with regard to Sanders, so far as I can see.
However, I think this FAIR piece is apropos given your comment: Sanders, Redbaiting and the ‘Denouncing’ Double Standard
Condemnations, in the centrist press, only work one way. Crimes carried out by capitalist countries, namely the US, are one-off “mistakes” or “follies” or “blunders,” while the offenses of socialist countries are existential products of an unmitigated evil that must be categorically denounced — lest one be called a dictator or commie apologist. Recalling America’s past, one gets a line-item veto—LBJ’s civil rights record, good; the carnage of Vietnam, bad—but when it’s America’s enemies, it’s all or nothing.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:31 PM on March 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Such a double standard shows not a concern for human rights, but for weaponizing liberal sympathies: namely, the idea of human rights, used to muddy the waters and ultimately promote America’s imperial ends. It is an almost 90-year-long tradition—and one on full, depressing display in the latest round of Sanders red-baiting.
Sanders Alleges Cheating at Polk County Convention
Jess Mazour, a Sanders delegate who arrived at the convention at 6:30 a.m. to help set up a booth for the pro-Bernie CCI Action Fund, stuck around for more than 13 hours as the recounts dragged on and some delegates left in frustration (she became a district delegate). Mazour accused the rules committee responsible for deciding on the recounts of making decisions “behind closed doors” to benefit Clinton, adding that the process was easier to navigate for more seasoned Democrats supporting Clinton than many Sanders supporters who had never attended a convention before.
After 5 recounts Hillary finally came out ahead. It only took 13 hours.
posted by futz at 4:44 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jess Mazour, a Sanders delegate who arrived at the convention at 6:30 a.m. to help set up a booth for the pro-Bernie CCI Action Fund, stuck around for more than 13 hours as the recounts dragged on and some delegates left in frustration (she became a district delegate). Mazour accused the rules committee responsible for deciding on the recounts of making decisions “behind closed doors” to benefit Clinton, adding that the process was easier to navigate for more seasoned Democrats supporting Clinton than many Sanders supporters who had never attended a convention before.
After 5 recounts Hillary finally came out ahead. It only took 13 hours.
posted by futz at 4:44 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Comparing the situation of Trump's presidential campaign to a small, poor nation besieged by a hostile imperialist superpower which is financing armed coup attempts within its territory is farcical. One is actual terrorism, the other is bluster.
I don't believe anti-democratic, authoritarian measures are justified by ones opponents. That's precisely what Trump is claiming, and he's clearly trying to gin up violent confrontations with protesters to justify his thuggery. I really hope people don't play into that.
Bernie made a passing concession to hoping Cuba gets more democratic, but it was clearly a "Sure, we all want democracy, but...." kind of aside. The full transcript is here. I watched that whole 24 minute video of Bernie from 1985, and he didn't say one word against Castro or the Sandinistas' authoritarian measures.
posted by msalt at 4:51 PM on March 13, 2016
I don't believe anti-democratic, authoritarian measures are justified by ones opponents. That's precisely what Trump is claiming, and he's clearly trying to gin up violent confrontations with protesters to justify his thuggery. I really hope people don't play into that.
Bernie made a passing concession to hoping Cuba gets more democratic, but it was clearly a "Sure, we all want democracy, but...." kind of aside. The full transcript is here. I watched that whole 24 minute video of Bernie from 1985, and he didn't say one word against Castro or the Sandinistas' authoritarian measures.
posted by msalt at 4:51 PM on March 13, 2016
Nope, Trump rally thread.
LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Rally in Boca Raton, FL (3-13-16)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:53 PM on March 13, 2016
LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Rally in Boca Raton, FL (3-13-16)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:53 PM on March 13, 2016
After 5 recounts Hillary finally came out ahead. It only took 13 hours.
Recount early, recount often.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:07 PM on March 13, 2016
Recount early, recount often.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:07 PM on March 13, 2016
Nope, Trump rally thread.
Godsdammit, *which* Trump thread?
CORTEEEEEEEX!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:25 PM on March 13, 2016
Godsdammit, *which* Trump thread?
CORTEEEEEEEX!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:25 PM on March 13, 2016
Super PAC moves to ramp up financial firepower for Clinton
Two powerful organizations within the Democratic establishment announced steps Friday that have the potential to provide substantial financial firepower to presidential contender Hillary Clinton by drawing on the support of wealthy donors and corporate interests.
While providing a likely boost to Clinton, both developments also give rival Bernie Sanders fresh fodder to highlight her relationship with Wall Street and other special interests at a time when the two candidates are locked in an intense nomination fight.
Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting Clinton, unleashed a $5 million infusion of spending on her behalf, upending plans to hold its fire until the general election. The move calls attention to growing concern within the party’s leadership that her campaign may be in trouble, and it underscores how crucial several upcoming contests have become in Clinton’s battle with Sanders, a senator from Vermont.
posted by futz at 5:28 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two powerful organizations within the Democratic establishment announced steps Friday that have the potential to provide substantial financial firepower to presidential contender Hillary Clinton by drawing on the support of wealthy donors and corporate interests.
Thank goodness! Lack of funding and support from the Democratic establishment has made it so hard for Hillary to get her message out during this campaign.
posted by snofoam at 5:45 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Thank goodness! Lack of funding and support from the Democratic establishment has made it so hard for Hillary to get her message out during this campaign.
posted by snofoam at 5:45 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is this the Town Hall thread?
I don't see a DECLARED Town Hall thread, but this seems like the logical place. I'm not watching this one due to burn out.
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on March 13, 2016
I don't see a DECLARED Town Hall thread, but this seems like the logical place. I'm not watching this one due to burn out.
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on March 13, 2016
*sets out the ceremonial shallow dish of legumes*
DECLARED TOWN HALL THREAD
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:52 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
DECLARED TOWN HALL THREAD
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:52 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
A woman in the town hall asks how Bernie will get things done if he doesn't get a Democratic majority - his answer is that he will get the majority.
posted by zutalors! at 5:53 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 5:53 PM on March 13, 2016
He may very well get the Senate if he runs and wins.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
ok but that's not an answer.
posted by zutalors! at 5:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 5:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is no other answer to that question. Nobody can do anything in this climate without the majority. If Clinton answers a similar question otherwise she is lying.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:55 PM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:55 PM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
The question wasn't to Clinton. That's the issue I have with Sanders - he'll get the majority, that's always the only answer, and then supporters deflect to how Clinton is a liar. I mean the woman asked him directly how he'd do better than Obama at getting things through a partisan Congress. I think it's kind of insulting to just sidestep the question and say he's getting his revolution.
posted by zutalors! at 5:58 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 5:58 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Senator Sanders, do you have any friends?"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:59 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:59 PM on March 13, 2016
I'm watching the town hall. Sanders just finished, Clinton next. Some highlights:
First questions from Jake Tapper about Trump's baiting of Sanders. Bernie calls him a "pathological liar." Has some good burns (Berns?) of Trump later in the appearance.
Teach For America supporter asks about charter schools, Bernie says he supports public schools and public charter schools (but not private charter schools).
Self-described 1% ethnic/religious minority asks about which Democratic nominee will be more likely to defeat Trump. Sanders gives his pitch.
Questions finish with dumb moderator-asked personal questions about who his friends are, etc.
Everything else has been the usual: trade, taxes, economics, drug war, standard Bernie stump speech fare.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:01 PM on March 13, 2016
First questions from Jake Tapper about Trump's baiting of Sanders. Bernie calls him a "pathological liar." Has some good burns (Berns?) of Trump later in the appearance.
Teach For America supporter asks about charter schools, Bernie says he supports public schools and public charter schools (but not private charter schools).
Self-described 1% ethnic/religious minority asks about which Democratic nominee will be more likely to defeat Trump. Sanders gives his pitch.
Questions finish with dumb moderator-asked personal questions about who his friends are, etc.
Everything else has been the usual: trade, taxes, economics, drug war, standard Bernie stump speech fare.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:01 PM on March 13, 2016
Tell me any possible plausible answer to how anybody is going to get Paul Ryan and the tea party to pass a Democratic President's agenda?
posted by Drinky Die at 6:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nobody sidestepped anything. Sanders margin of victory vs. Trump looks to be much greater than Clinton's, so his coattails are likely to be longer. You want to take the Senate back? Vote tactically.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:02 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not running for President - if I were I'd expect to need to answer the question without saying "I can't."
posted by zutalors! at 6:04 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 6:04 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton is already supporting downticket races - I follow Sanders and Clinton on Facebook and haven't seen Sanders doing the same, though he might be.
posted by zutalors! at 6:05 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 6:05 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
He is, although on a smaller and later scale than Clinton (he also has fewer proxies.) Expect that to ramp way up as/if he goes forward.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:07 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:07 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mr. Sanders, how do you plan to go back in time and prevent the Titanic from sinking?
Sometimes the only answer to a question is, "I can't." Nobody can make the tea party support a Democratic agenda. You are demanding that he lie to you.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:08 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sometimes the only answer to a question is, "I can't." Nobody can make the tea party support a Democratic agenda. You are demanding that he lie to you.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:08 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, to be clear, he didn't say he can't. He said he would get the majority, so her whole scenario would never happen.
I guess that's a great answer for some people but it's really dubious to me.
posted by zutalors! at 6:09 PM on March 13, 2016
I guess that's a great answer for some people but it's really dubious to me.
posted by zutalors! at 6:09 PM on March 13, 2016
Corporate Sovereignty is your trade prosecutor.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:12 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:12 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Death penalty? Terrorism!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:18 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I guess that's a great answer for some people but it's really dubious to me.
I think maybe people get hung up on the "political revolution" framing, which is understandable. The bottom line is that the only way to get more progressive policies through Congress is to elect more progressive congresspeople, which we can really only do in such a polarized political environment by increasing voter turnout. He's saying that if he gets the voter turnout it would take to win the nomination and the general, which is already starting to happen (he's had near-record turnout in most of the states he's won - four times more young voters voted in MI than was projected by pollsters' likely voter models), it would mean thousands and thousands more votes for downticket races. He has also talked about how it is critical to keep those voters engaged so that they can keep those congresspeople accountable throughout the year, so that they're still engaged come midterms. For example, if one of our Senators was the lone holdout on Medicare for All like Lieberman was on the public option, Sanders would not be shy about mobilizing his voters to keep that Senator accountable via phone calls, letters, even demonstrations if necessary.
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think maybe people get hung up on the "political revolution" framing, which is understandable. The bottom line is that the only way to get more progressive policies through Congress is to elect more progressive congresspeople, which we can really only do in such a polarized political environment by increasing voter turnout. He's saying that if he gets the voter turnout it would take to win the nomination and the general, which is already starting to happen (he's had near-record turnout in most of the states he's won - four times more young voters voted in MI than was projected by pollsters' likely voter models), it would mean thousands and thousands more votes for downticket races. He has also talked about how it is critical to keep those voters engaged so that they can keep those congresspeople accountable throughout the year, so that they're still engaged come midterms. For example, if one of our Senators was the lone holdout on Medicare for All like Lieberman was on the public option, Sanders would not be shy about mobilizing his voters to keep that Senator accountable via phone calls, letters, even demonstrations if necessary.
posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
dialetheia, I liked that stuff from him earlier on, but I'm looking for more at this point in the election if he wants the nomination. It does feel like he's fairly one note on the revolution and campaign finance reform.
posted by zutalors! at 6:26 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 6:26 PM on March 13, 2016
Ugh. It was clear to a lot of us that getting costs down was the point of the exercise.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:27 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:27 PM on March 13, 2016
I can't even. That was a man who spent decades in jail for a crime he didn't commit, and she said some liberal platitudes then pivoted: fuckin' pivoted! to well there are some crimes that we need to reserve the ultimate penalty for.
Again, a similar fail to the Reagan AIDS thing. She should have just addressed the situation at hand, saying something to the effect of "What happened to you was wrong. It shouldn't have happened and our justice system is broken. That's why we shouldn't impose an irreversible penalty on anyone, ever."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:29 PM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Again, a similar fail to the Reagan AIDS thing. She should have just addressed the situation at hand, saying something to the effect of "What happened to you was wrong. It shouldn't have happened and our justice system is broken. That's why we shouldn't impose an irreversible penalty on anyone, ever."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:29 PM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm looking for more at this point in the election if he wants the nomination.
And that's fine! Maybe I misunderstood you - I thought you were asking about that specific question about how he intended to get his agenda through. Those are his answers to that question, and I feel like "change Congress" really is the only realistic answer to the question of how we break the GOP congressional stalemate. I'm not sure what other note would even address the problem besides "we need to increase voter turnout and voter engagement to elect Democratic congresspeople," since "convince the Tea Party to be nicer" is not a realistic option.
posted by dialetheia at 6:30 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
And that's fine! Maybe I misunderstood you - I thought you were asking about that specific question about how he intended to get his agenda through. Those are his answers to that question, and I feel like "change Congress" really is the only realistic answer to the question of how we break the GOP congressional stalemate. I'm not sure what other note would even address the problem besides "we need to increase voter turnout and voter engagement to elect Democratic congresspeople," since "convince the Tea Party to be nicer" is not a realistic option.
posted by dialetheia at 6:30 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
no, I think I understand, I just don't like his stubborn refusal to really engage when he's asked questions. I know that's a huge part of his appeal, but I'm saying it's what's not appealing to me.
posted by zutalors! at 6:32 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 6:32 PM on March 13, 2016
Wait. Did she just throw private prisons under the bus?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:33 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:33 PM on March 13, 2016
She stopped taking their money and turned critic in the fall, IIRC.
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:34 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:34 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I approve of her answer on fracking. I appreciate her willingness to acknowledge that there's only a certain amount that a President can do to handle issues that are generally under state jurisdiction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:37 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:37 PM on March 13, 2016
This Indian American doctor who is also the poet laureate of Ohio is one of the people who make Desi kids feel like they're not living up to their parents' dreams.
Also a great question.
posted by zutalors! at 6:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also a great question.
posted by zutalors! at 6:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
no, I think I understand, I just don't like his stubborn refusal to really engage when he's asked questions.
Huh, OK. I thought he engaged with the question and answered it fully, since that is indeed his plan to get his agenda through congress, so I just wanted to understand what else you would have been looking for. No worries either way!
As far as not engaging, that's exactly how I felt about Clinton's ACA answer to that woman just a few minutes ago - the questioner stated up front that her costs have tripled under ACA and Clinton just told her that costs had actually gone down (in direct contradiction to the questioner's lived experience) and told her to "keep shopping" on the exchange. I didn't feel like Clinton engaged with her question or her experience at all.
posted by dialetheia at 6:39 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Huh, OK. I thought he engaged with the question and answered it fully, since that is indeed his plan to get his agenda through congress, so I just wanted to understand what else you would have been looking for. No worries either way!
As far as not engaging, that's exactly how I felt about Clinton's ACA answer to that woman just a few minutes ago - the questioner stated up front that her costs have tripled under ACA and Clinton just told her that costs had actually gone down (in direct contradiction to the questioner's lived experience) and told her to "keep shopping" on the exchange. I didn't feel like Clinton engaged with her question or her experience at all.
posted by dialetheia at 6:39 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, I think Clinton is guilty of not engaging for sure.
No worries either way!
None here either!
posted by zutalors! at 6:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
No worries either way!
None here either!
posted by zutalors! at 6:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, she's answering the Trump question better than Bernie did, I have to admit.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:42 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:42 PM on March 13, 2016
The Clinton campaign did donate $8600 on December 30 to the Women's Prison Association and an unnamed spokesman said, "The campaign does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies, and has donated any such direct contributions to charity".
I'm glad she's distancing herself from one of the sources of corruption in the justice system.
In Feb 2016, the [Clinton] campaign disclosed that Richard Sullivan of Capitol Counsel—until recently, a Raleigh, N.C.-based federally registered lobbyist for the for-profit prison operator GEO Group—bundled $69,363 in donations for Clinton in the fourth quarter, bringing his total for the year to a whopping $274,891.
That makes Sullivan the second-most prolific lobbyist-bundler for the Clinton campaign.
Huh.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:43 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm glad she's distancing herself from one of the sources of corruption in the justice system.
In Feb 2016, the [Clinton] campaign disclosed that Richard Sullivan of Capitol Counsel—until recently, a Raleigh, N.C.-based federally registered lobbyist for the for-profit prison operator GEO Group—bundled $69,363 in donations for Clinton in the fourth quarter, bringing his total for the year to a whopping $274,891.
That makes Sullivan the second-most prolific lobbyist-bundler for the Clinton campaign.
Huh.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:43 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh shit. She just went off the rails with Trump and Terrorists.
Not that I think she was wrong, but it's going to be a talking point.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:43 PM on March 13, 2016
Not that I think she was wrong, but it's going to be a talking point.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:43 PM on March 13, 2016
Joy Reid @JoyAnnReid 2m2 minutes ago
Clinton claim that foreign leaders are contacting her to ask if they can endorse her to stop Trump is tomorrow's #emailgate. Prepare.
posted by Trochanter at 6:44 PM on March 13, 2016
Clinton claim that foreign leaders are contacting her to ask if they can endorse her to stop Trump is tomorrow's #emailgate. Prepare.
posted by Trochanter at 6:44 PM on March 13, 2016
Care to share what she said CHT? If not, no biggie! I could be watching it myself and will tomorrow.
posted by futz at 6:46 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by futz at 6:46 PM on March 13, 2016
The shitty thing is that Sec. Clinton's answer was technically correct -- if I sat down with that questioner for a half hour I could figure out what their situation is and how they can move forward with better health care at lower cost. Still it was an un-savvy answer to an awkward question, and the reason she couldn't give a better answer is that she's come out against single-payer Medicare-For-All as a feasible and fiscally conservative alternative to the ACA.
But no. She went with the meandering, pleasing-to-no-one answer. THANKS CLINTON.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:47 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
But no. She went with the meandering, pleasing-to-no-one answer. THANKS CLINTON.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:47 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Care to share what she said CHT?
I wish I remembered it well enough to do an approximation. Waiting for the transcript.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:52 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish I remembered it well enough to do an approximation. Waiting for the transcript.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:52 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The shitty thing is that Sec. Clinton's answer was technically correct
Well I think there's an important insight here though -- the searching for and finding the right plan for you under Obamacare takes time and effort. Socialized medicine not only eliminates this unnecessary labor for everyone, it prevents people from making a non-optimal choice.
Care to share what she said CHT?
She ended up with the argument that her composure viz. the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was indicative of the good qualities of a president.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well I think there's an important insight here though -- the searching for and finding the right plan for you under Obamacare takes time and effort. Socialized medicine not only eliminates this unnecessary labor for everyone, it prevents people from making a non-optimal choice.
Care to share what she said CHT?
She ended up with the argument that her composure viz. the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was indicative of the good qualities of a president.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:54 PM on March 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
"My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition we faced early on, you know, the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn't do that and I'm proud of that. Very proud. I would say that's a major accomplishment."
Anybody care to tell me what the *#&%(*@ that is?
posted by Trochanter at 6:56 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Anybody care to tell me what the *#&%(*@ that is?
posted by Trochanter at 6:56 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow, that's a Palin-style answer. Not good.
posted by mmoncur at 6:58 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 6:58 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is absolute word salad. I think the take-away is that it was her instead of someone else? Possibly a vaguely defined opposition?
My major accomplishment? Well, I was there and am myself instead of someone else, that seems pretty good.
posted by neonrev at 6:59 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
My major accomplishment? Well, I was there and am myself instead of someone else, that seems pretty good.
posted by neonrev at 6:59 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ha. OF course it just ended.
posted by futz at 7:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:01 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Town Hall over. Clinton highlights:
Question about Hillary being hawkish on war - she says she won't necessarily be going forward
Question from person who was wrongfully convicted and on death row for 39 years about why she supports the death penalty - she answers she supports it for terrorists
Question from Obama voter whose health insurance costs have skyrocketed because of Obama - she defends Obamacare and says her mission is to get costs down, tells her to "keep shopping"
Same guy that questioned Sanders on this issue (apparently Ohio's poet laureate) asks question about which Democratic nominee will be more likely to defeat Trump
Other issues raised: trade, criminal justice, fracking, crime/shootings, poverty
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:01 PM on March 13, 2016
Question about Hillary being hawkish on war - she says she won't necessarily be going forward
Question from person who was wrongfully convicted and on death row for 39 years about why she supports the death penalty - she answers she supports it for terrorists
Question from Obama voter whose health insurance costs have skyrocketed because of Obama - she defends Obamacare and says her mission is to get costs down, tells her to "keep shopping"
Same guy that questioned Sanders on this issue (apparently Ohio's poet laureate) asks question about which Democratic nominee will be more likely to defeat Trump
Other issues raised: trade, criminal justice, fracking, crime/shootings, poverty
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:01 PM on March 13, 2016
I cannot believe that AIPAC is giving Trump a platform to speak at their conference
Yesterday a Trump supporter told me it was unfair to paint them all with the bigot brush. Then he asked what Bernie Sanders has ever accomplished other than being a Jew looking for other people's money.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:03 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yesterday a Trump supporter told me it was unfair to paint them all with the bigot brush. Then he asked what Bernie Sanders has ever accomplished other than being a Jew looking for other people's money.
posted by Lyme Drop at 7:03 PM on March 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm wondering whether the questioner about the supposed 200% increase in health care premiums attributed to the Democratic party might have sounded a bit fishy, or as if there was some kind of disconnect, because she said she was going directly to a broker for an individual health insurance plan. Before the ACA I called a health insurance company's individual plan hotline and after giving my height and weight was told there was no point in applying because I would be denied coverage despite being in my 30s.
posted by Sockpuppet Liberation Front at 7:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sockpuppet Liberation Front at 7:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anybody care to tell me what the *#&%(*@ that is?
Not a Hillary quote
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Not a Hillary quote
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:14 PM on March 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
.@BernieSanders campaign email on @HillaryClinton's private prison funding
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 PM on March 13, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 PM on March 13, 2016
Also via the Sanders Twitter: Hillary Clinton’s campaign will hold a fundraiser in Washington on March 21 that will feature as one of its hosts Jeff Forbes, who until the end of last year worked as a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Interesting article about Trump's appeal to the so-called Alt-Right and /pol/: Understanding Trump's Troll Army
posted by dialetheia at 7:20 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:20 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anybody care to tell me what the *#&%(*@ that is?
Not a Hillary quote
Oops! Damn you twitter!
posted by Trochanter at 7:21 PM on March 13, 2016
Not a Hillary quote
Oops! Damn you twitter!
posted by Trochanter at 7:21 PM on March 13, 2016
btw I can't believe the stamina of the Democratic candidates. It's just two of them and they talk about real things, as opposed to the Republican side where two are much younger and the orange one just stands on a stage and says "byootiful" and "miyyons and biyyons" and incites violence.
posted by zutalors! at 8:32 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:32 PM on March 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Interesting article about Trump's appeal to the so-called Alt-Right and /pol/: Understanding Trump's Troll Army
That fits in pretty well with my SUPER HOT TAKE, that Trump supporters (real and faux-for-the-lulz, of which there are quite a few online) are basically Gamergate 2.0.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
That fits in pretty well with my SUPER HOT TAKE, that Trump supporters (real and faux-for-the-lulz, of which there are quite a few online) are basically Gamergate 2.0.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
On that health insurance question, the excellent Charles Gaba of health insurance wonk blog ACAsignups.net gives a characteristically well-informed and comprehensive analysis. Key takeaway:
"[The] closest policy I could find to her "$1,081/month" figure was a Gold PPO from Anthem BCBS which would run $1,053/month full price, but would still come in at just $402/month (and a $2,500 deductible) after tax credits.... [The] amounts could be much higher or lower depending on their actual ages/income, and I haven't a clue how comprehensive either their old or new policies were/are, but the odds of a "working class family of 4" in which both parents have had "bouts of unemployment" having to pay over $1,000/month for a decent policy on the ACA exchange are virtually zilch.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:15 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
"[The] closest policy I could find to her "$1,081/month" figure was a Gold PPO from Anthem BCBS which would run $1,053/month full price, but would still come in at just $402/month (and a $2,500 deductible) after tax credits.... [The] amounts could be much higher or lower depending on their actual ages/income, and I haven't a clue how comprehensive either their old or new policies were/are, but the odds of a "working class family of 4" in which both parents have had "bouts of unemployment" having to pay over $1,000/month for a decent policy on the ACA exchange are virtually zilch.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:15 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
That analysis really underscores the biggest problem with ACA: it is so complex as to be mystifying to many people. The old system was already so complex and burdensome to understand that most people hated it; ACA adds even more layers of complexity and rules and paperwork into that system.
If the Dem party line on that question is "her problem is that she's too ignorant to understand the exchange," that's an implicit criticism of ACA's needless complexity which verges on hostile for people who don't have as much time and energy to put into doing homework about how to obtain health care. It reminds me of this bit from an older Corey Robin piece: "More important than the politics, that byzantine complexity is a symptom of what the ordinary citizen has to confront when she tries to get health insurance for herself or her family. As anyone who has even good insurance knows, navigating that world of numbers and forms and phone calls can be a daunting proposition. It requires inordinate time, doggedness, savvy, intelligence, and manipulative charm (lest you find yourself on the wrong end of a disgruntled telephone operator). Obamacare fits right in with that world and multiplies it."
posted by dialetheia at 9:30 PM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
If the Dem party line on that question is "her problem is that she's too ignorant to understand the exchange," that's an implicit criticism of ACA's needless complexity which verges on hostile for people who don't have as much time and energy to put into doing homework about how to obtain health care. It reminds me of this bit from an older Corey Robin piece: "More important than the politics, that byzantine complexity is a symptom of what the ordinary citizen has to confront when she tries to get health insurance for herself or her family. As anyone who has even good insurance knows, navigating that world of numbers and forms and phone calls can be a daunting proposition. It requires inordinate time, doggedness, savvy, intelligence, and manipulative charm (lest you find yourself on the wrong end of a disgruntled telephone operator). Obamacare fits right in with that world and multiplies it."
posted by dialetheia at 9:30 PM on March 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well I think there's an important insight here though -- the searching for and finding the right plan for you under Obamacare takes time and effort.
Abso-fuckin-lutely. Yall's taxpayer dollars go to paying me and my small army of health insurance navigator colleagues to help people plow their way through the complexities of insurance in the Obamacare era. It's a waste of money and human resources, just like the billing departments and insurance adjusters that our insurance premiums are going toward.
Mind you, the options before Obamacare were "stay healthy", "pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket" or "die in the street". This is a huge step forward. But as I've said before, I'll be more than happy when I'm gainfully unemployed thanks to a rational, single-payer insurance program. Access to health care is a human right.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:33 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Abso-fuckin-lutely. Yall's taxpayer dollars go to paying me and my small army of health insurance navigator colleagues to help people plow their way through the complexities of insurance in the Obamacare era. It's a waste of money and human resources, just like the billing departments and insurance adjusters that our insurance premiums are going toward.
Mind you, the options before Obamacare were "stay healthy", "pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket" or "die in the street". This is a huge step forward. But as I've said before, I'll be more than happy when I'm gainfully unemployed thanks to a rational, single-payer insurance program. Access to health care is a human right.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:33 PM on March 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's a waste of money and human resources, just like the billing departments and insurance adjusters that our insurance premiums are going toward.
It's paying the cost of all the insurance companies' marketing and advertising budgets that gets to me. Admittedly that's more true of auto, home and property insurance providers, but still...
posted by carmicha at 9:49 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's paying the cost of all the insurance companies' marketing and advertising budgets that gets to me. Admittedly that's more true of auto, home and property insurance providers, but still...
posted by carmicha at 9:49 PM on March 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not a Hillary quote
In the event that it somehow turns out to be, it's meandering for "When I was Secretary, me and my peeps made State keep a better eye on big-picture stuff, even though lots of folks there didn't want to."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:20 PM on March 13, 2016
In the event that it somehow turns out to be, it's meandering for "When I was Secretary, me and my peeps made State keep a better eye on big-picture stuff, even though lots of folks there didn't want to."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:20 PM on March 13, 2016
It's really absurd to criticise somebody for standing against the vicious, civilian-targeting terrorist carnage that the United States inflicted on Nicaragua and Cuba during the Cold War. To demand that an American citizen should be focusing their criticisms on the shortcomings of the Nicaraguan and Cuban regimes in the context of operation mongoose and the contras' atrocities is completely twisted. Why not go the extra step and condemn Sanders for protesting the Vietnam War? it's not like the Viet Cong were perfect democrats either.
posted by moorooka at 10:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 10:38 PM on March 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
What's absolutely insane is that despite whatever Sanders may have said on the subject, he had no influence on what happened there. Whereas Hillary Clinton not only had an influence on Honduras, the effects of the political repression there continue to this day.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:41 PM on March 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Admittedly that's more true of auto, home and property insurance providers, but still...
Auto, home, and property insurance all manage risks. Health Insurance doesn't manage a risk, but rather just collects rents.
The soon they're put out of our misery, the healthier our economy will be.
posted by mikelieman at 2:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Auto, home, and property insurance all manage risks. Health Insurance doesn't manage a risk, but rather just collects rents.
The soon they're put out of our misery, the healthier our economy will be.
posted by mikelieman at 2:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the urge to dismiss Sanders's informed outsider critiques on foreign policy simply because they deviate from the "centrist" consensus is classic smarm. Corey Robin has also written righteously on this.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:10 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:10 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Health Insurance doesn't manage a risk, but rather just collects rents.
I appreciate your righteous indignation but this is not true. The multipayer health insurance system we have absolutely does manage risk, albeit in an unnecessarily complicated way because of its neoliberal design.
What I (and you, if I'm not mistaken) want is not the abolition of health insurance, but its expansion and consolidation into a single risk pool with a single, publicly-run payer funded through progressive taxation.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I appreciate your righteous indignation but this is not true. The multipayer health insurance system we have absolutely does manage risk, albeit in an unnecessarily complicated way because of its neoliberal design.
What I (and you, if I'm not mistaken) want is not the abolition of health insurance, but its expansion and consolidation into a single risk pool with a single, publicly-run payer funded through progressive taxation.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I (and you, if I'm not mistaken) want is not the abolition of health insurance, but its expansion and consolidation into a single risk pool with a single, publicly-run payer funded through progressive taxation.
Yeah, let's call it that. What I want is to stop denying care to babies in NICU so that some CEO can have a shiny new yacht, and that's the ticket.
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, let's call it that. What I want is to stop denying care to babies in NICU so that some CEO can have a shiny new yacht, and that's the ticket.
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Donald Trump Supporter: 'Go to Fucking Auschwitz' (Video)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:18 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:18 AM on March 14, 2016
New polling from Quinnipiac (according to Politico Playbook) -
Florida:
Trump 46%
Rubio 22%
Cruz 14%
Kasich 10%
Clinton 60%
Sanders 34%
Ohio:
Trump 38%
Kasich 38%
Cruz 15%
Rubio 3%
Clinton 51%
Sanders 46%
If Trump takes FL *and* OH after the past weekend...Ugh.
posted by sallybrown at 5:28 AM on March 14, 2016
Florida:
Trump 46%
Rubio 22%
Cruz 14%
Kasich 10%
Clinton 60%
Sanders 34%
Ohio:
Trump 38%
Kasich 38%
Cruz 15%
Rubio 3%
Clinton 51%
Sanders 46%
If Trump takes FL *and* OH after the past weekend...Ugh.
posted by sallybrown at 5:28 AM on March 14, 2016
If Trump takes FL *and* OH after the past weekend...Ugh.
I cheered on with my Chicago brothers and sisters when they SHUT IT DOWN at UIC, but I also think that protests and violence only make Trump loom larger in the imagination of his supporters. The closer to a violent confrontation, the closer reality comes to their feverdreams of a nation under attack from dark (poor word choice?) and nefarious forces, and the closer Trump becomes to the valiant Captain America in Italian Wool and a Spraytan, the Orange Knight in Silken Armor (with the classiest shield ever, 24kt gold) the hero who will save us all and Make America White Again. Hence why Trump speculates that the guy who jumped the barricade in Dayton was an ISIS terrorist, and that the protesters were given marching orders from the Sanders KGB office, etc. America is under attack, and the attackers know that Trump will stop them! So they're attacking him, of course!
posted by dis_integration at 6:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I cheered on with my Chicago brothers and sisters when they SHUT IT DOWN at UIC, but I also think that protests and violence only make Trump loom larger in the imagination of his supporters. The closer to a violent confrontation, the closer reality comes to their feverdreams of a nation under attack from dark (poor word choice?) and nefarious forces, and the closer Trump becomes to the valiant Captain America in Italian Wool and a Spraytan, the Orange Knight in Silken Armor (with the classiest shield ever, 24kt gold) the hero who will save us all and Make America White Again. Hence why Trump speculates that the guy who jumped the barricade in Dayton was an ISIS terrorist, and that the protesters were given marching orders from the Sanders KGB office, etc. America is under attack, and the attackers know that Trump will stop them! So they're attacking him, of course!
posted by dis_integration at 6:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Donald Trump Supporter: 'Go to Fucking Auschwitz'
Meanwhile, early on Friday at Northwestern University (in the Chicago suburb of Evanston), two students broke into a university chapel and spraypainted racial slurs, swastikas, penises, and Trump's name on the walls. They have been arrested on hate-crimes charges.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:27 AM on March 14, 2016
Meanwhile, early on Friday at Northwestern University (in the Chicago suburb of Evanston), two students broke into a university chapel and spraypainted racial slurs, swastikas, penises, and Trump's name on the walls. They have been arrested on hate-crimes charges.
posted by Westringia F. at 6:27 AM on March 14, 2016
Meanwhile, early on Friday at Northwestern University (in the Chicago suburb of Evanston), two students broke into a university chapel and spraypainted racial slurs, swastikas, penises, and Trump's name on the walls. They have been arrested on hate-crimes charges.
So ... is this pro-Trump vandalism? Using "Trump" as a scary tag just like a swastika and a penis?
Or is this meant to be anti-Trump? The message being "Trump is a dickheaded Nazi"?
I honestly can't tell. Those are confusing times that we live in...
posted by sour cream at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2016
So ... is this pro-Trump vandalism? Using "Trump" as a scary tag just like a swastika and a penis?
Or is this meant to be anti-Trump? The message being "Trump is a dickheaded Nazi"?
I honestly can't tell. Those are confusing times that we live in...
posted by sour cream at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2016
So ... is this pro-Trump vandalism? Using "Trump" as a scary tag just like a swastika and a penis?
posted by dis_integration at 6:50 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
According to police, the freshmen blemished one hallway with a slur for African-Americans and a swastika. In another part of the chapel, they wrote a slur for homosexuals and spray-painted lines over photos of Muslim students. They drew penises on an organ and over the word “God” in a hallway.In this context, the use of Trump is pretty clear: they're just giving credit where credit is due, to their inspiration: the figurehead of the white power resurgence.
Workers wiped away most of the graffiti over the weekend — including the “Trump,” Stevens said. That detail was one of the most baffling from the crime, he said.Well. I can speculate. It's not that big of a leap to make...
“I can’t speculate whatever it was inside them that needed to be expressed through that,” he said.
posted by dis_integration at 6:50 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given that they defaced pictures of Muslim students, I'm guessing pro-Trump, but who knows.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:50 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:50 AM on March 14, 2016
I have to say that I haven't been all that frightened of what's been going on, because I live in the very detached world of Manhattan, but seeing the video of the guy saying we should go back to Auschwitz.... I mean, we were shown videos of the concentration camp liberation when we were in elementary school, with the purpose of preventing exactly this kind of hatred. What exactly are we doing wrong?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty deep New Yorker piece from Ryan Lizza on the push and pull within the Democratic party: The Great Divide
Good read.
posted by Trochanter at 6:55 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good read.
posted by Trochanter at 6:55 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I live in the very detached world of Manhattan
It's not that detached if you're a visible minority.
posted by zutalors! at 6:56 AM on March 14, 2016
It's not that detached if you're a visible minority.
posted by zutalors! at 6:56 AM on March 14, 2016
It's not that detached if you're a visible minority.
I'm a queer woman with a disability.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on March 14, 2016
I'm a queer woman with a disability.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on March 14, 2016
sour cream: So ... is this pro-Trump vandalism? Using "Trump" as a scary tag just like a swastika and a penis? Or is this meant to be anti-Trump? The message being "Trump is a dickheaded Nazi"?
Another article I read said "Trump" had been sprayed over/under the engraved word "God"-- as in Trump is God. Can't find the link right now, I haven't seen any photos of the crime, so not sure which report is correct.
posted by bluecore at 7:15 AM on March 14, 2016
Another article I read said "Trump" had been sprayed over/under the engraved word "God"-- as in Trump is God. Can't find the link right now, I haven't seen any photos of the crime, so not sure which report is correct.
posted by bluecore at 7:15 AM on March 14, 2016
In related news, another Trump related hate crime.
I'm kind of frozen in horror by all this. I need some anti-Trump-anxiety pills.
posted by dis_integration at 7:22 AM on March 14, 2016
I'm kind of frozen in horror by all this. I need some anti-Trump-anxiety pills.
posted by dis_integration at 7:22 AM on March 14, 2016
Glenn Greenwald: The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic “Neutrality”
posted by Trochanter at 7:30 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 7:30 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: I have to say that I haven't been all that frightened of what's been going on, because I live in the very detached world of Manhattan, but seeing the video of the guy saying we should go back to Auschwitz.... I mean, we were shown videos of the concentration camp liberation when we were in elementary school, with the purpose of preventing exactly this kind of hatred. What exactly are we doing wrong?
Efforts to help people remember and empathize with victims fall short when faced with decades-long nation-spanning campaigns that encourage and perpetuate hatred.
The GOP specializes in Othering. All political parties do some form of othering, to some extent. The current Democrats' "us" vs. "them" is against the wealthy and corporations. But the GOP and their followers in particular seems to love the tactic. They Other racial and religious minorities, immigrants, poor people and women in order to create an narrative of "you're in danger from THEM, and the bleeding heart suckers who help THEM."
Long term, this leads to desensitization. The target audience no longer thinks of others as human beings. They not only no longer empathize with the Othered group, but also attack anyone whom they perceive as supporting them. And anyone can be a target. Poor people, women, Muslims, Jews, folks who score Type IV or higher on the Fitzpatrick scale, etc.
In Trump we have a candidate who says, "there are good people and bad people, and when I'm elected, I'm going to throw out the bad people." No one to whom that message resonates thinks they're one of the bad people. Not them, no sir. They're one of the good ones.
If they get their way, when the current crop of scapegoats are eventually defeated and those "good people" think there are no more worlds to conquer, they won't even see the newly minted scapegoat sign being pinned to their own backs.
posted by zarq at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Efforts to help people remember and empathize with victims fall short when faced with decades-long nation-spanning campaigns that encourage and perpetuate hatred.
The GOP specializes in Othering. All political parties do some form of othering, to some extent. The current Democrats' "us" vs. "them" is against the wealthy and corporations. But the GOP and their followers in particular seems to love the tactic. They Other racial and religious minorities, immigrants, poor people and women in order to create an narrative of "you're in danger from THEM, and the bleeding heart suckers who help THEM."
Long term, this leads to desensitization. The target audience no longer thinks of others as human beings. They not only no longer empathize with the Othered group, but also attack anyone whom they perceive as supporting them. And anyone can be a target. Poor people, women, Muslims, Jews, folks who score Type IV or higher on the Fitzpatrick scale, etc.
In Trump we have a candidate who says, "there are good people and bad people, and when I'm elected, I'm going to throw out the bad people." No one to whom that message resonates thinks they're one of the bad people. Not them, no sir. They're one of the good ones.
If they get their way, when the current crop of scapegoats are eventually defeated and those "good people" think there are no more worlds to conquer, they won't even see the newly minted scapegoat sign being pinned to their own backs.
posted by zarq at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
This is interesting - potential Clinton VP Tom Perez
(A little rough that the author of the piece feels the need to say he's not handsome!)
posted by sallybrown at 8:08 AM on March 14, 2016
(A little rough that the author of the piece feels the need to say he's not handsome!)
posted by sallybrown at 8:08 AM on March 14, 2016
@RyanLizza: Pastor Mark Burns, warming up Trump crowd, says of Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish: "Bernie got to get saved. He's got to get Jesus."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Town Hall rush transcripts:
Bernie
Hillary
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:22 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie
Hillary
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:22 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
(A little rough that the author of the piece feels the need to say he's not handsome!)
Hey, about time men got that treatment.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:23 AM on March 14, 2016
Hey, about time men got that treatment.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:23 AM on March 14, 2016
@RyanLizza: Pastor Mark Burns, warming up Trump crowd, says of Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish: "Bernie got to get saved. He's got to get Jesus."
No one expects, etc., etc.
posted by zarq at 8:26 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one expects, etc., etc.
posted by zarq at 8:26 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
via Politico, and trending high on the Twitter machine: What’s Wrong With Hillary?: The GOP is fretting about Trump, but the Democrats’ likely standard-bearer could do just as much damage to her own party.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
NPR 'Clarifies' Cokie Roberts' Role After She Pens Anti-Trump Column
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:58 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:58 AM on March 14, 2016
Chris Christie is "interviewing" Trump (even CNN is using the scare quotes) in NC right now.
Apparently there's twenty different campaign events (counting everyone) happening today.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:05 AM on March 14, 2016
Apparently there's twenty different campaign events (counting everyone) happening today.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:05 AM on March 14, 2016
via Politico, and trending high on the Twitter machine: What’s Wrong With Hillary?
There's some shocking insights in this piece, among them:
* People don't find Clinton trustworthy
* Clinton voted for the Iraq war
* Clinton was against gay marriage before she was for it
* Clinton is The Establishment
* People just don't like her
Hot takes! I can see why it's trending.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:07 AM on March 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
There's some shocking insights in this piece, among them:
* People don't find Clinton trustworthy
* Clinton voted for the Iraq war
* Clinton was against gay marriage before she was for it
* Clinton is The Establishment
* People just don't like her
Hot takes! I can see why it's trending.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:07 AM on March 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
More Than 1.5 Million Florida Voters Will Be Missing From Tuesday’s Primary: He is one of more than 1.5 million people in Florida alone permanently barred from voting, running for office, or serving on a jury due to a criminal record. Today, nearly one in four African Americans in the state, like Meade, are disenfranchised by this policy.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
via Zack Silver, on Facebook: I've never been given the finger more in my life, yelled at, called every name in the book, told to get a job, told to get out of their country. Very eye opening. Especially when you're a Marine Corps veteran wishing them a good day
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:17 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: NPR 'Clarifies' Cokie Roberts' Role After She Pens Anti-Trump Column
It's telling that Talking Points Memo felt the need to put 'clarify' in quotes, considering how simple and reasonable the explanation is.
posted by zarq at 9:21 AM on March 14, 2016
It's telling that Talking Points Memo felt the need to put 'clarify' in quotes, considering how simple and reasonable the explanation is.
posted by zarq at 9:21 AM on March 14, 2016
Hot takes!
Voting for the Iraq war and being against defending civil rights for gay people are pretty big mistakes. Not sure how you got the right to just dismiss them with a sneer, but I guess that's how privilege works.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Voting for the Iraq war and being against defending civil rights for gay people are pretty big mistakes. Not sure how you got the right to just dismiss them with a sneer, but I guess that's how privilege works.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
(A little rough that the author of the piece feels the need to say he's not handsome!)Hey, about time men got that treatment.
Really? I thought the whole thrust of the "professional women get unfairly judged on their looks" complaint was, "that's shitty, don't do it," not, "that's shitty, let's do it to everyone!"
posted by indubitable at 9:24 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Voting for the Iraq war and being against defending civil rights for gay people are pretty big mistakes.
The Politico article didn't exactly break that news.
I just think it's funny how much more attention and deference the usual lazy pundit glurge gets when it's anti-Clinton.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:31 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Politico article didn't exactly break that news.
I just think it's funny how much more attention and deference the usual lazy pundit glurge gets when it's anti-Clinton.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:31 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the headline and sub-hed of the Politico artlcle was clickbait. Clinton is not destroying the Democratic Party.
posted by zutalors! at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hot takes!
Voting for the Iraq war and being against defending civil rights for gay people are pretty big mistakes. Not sure how you got the right to just dismiss them with a sneer, but I guess that's how privilege works.
I don't think octorok is dismissing Clinton's actions so much as dismissing the idea that those fairly mainstream-within-the-Democratic-Party-of-the-time actions are going to end up destroying the party, especially held up against the opposing party far more literally destroying itself before our eyes.
posted by Etrigan at 9:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Voting for the Iraq war and being against defending civil rights for gay people are pretty big mistakes. Not sure how you got the right to just dismiss them with a sneer, but I guess that's how privilege works.
I don't think octorok is dismissing Clinton's actions so much as dismissing the idea that those fairly mainstream-within-the-Democratic-Party-of-the-time actions are going to end up destroying the party, especially held up against the opposing party far more literally destroying itself before our eyes.
posted by Etrigan at 9:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also can we not make broad swipes at who has privilege and who doesn't? The personalization seems unnecessary and is a mischaracterization of Clinton's supporters and even her sometime defenders (some of whom are even Bernie voters, everyone doesn't just hate Clinton sorry).
posted by zutalors! at 9:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you read the piece, it's talking about how hard she lands and has landed on these issues.
“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. ... So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”
posted by Trochanter at 9:39 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. ... So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”
posted by Trochanter at 9:39 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's really absurd to criticise somebody for standing against the vicious, civilian-targeting terrorist carnage that the United States inflicted on Nicaragua and Cuba during the Cold War.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings. I think there's a difference between criticizing US involvement (which I agree with) versus siding with someone during a protracted revolution. And I just don't get what purpose it serves for a mayor of a small city in the US to visit these countries. It's just odd and sounds more like an attention seeking political stunt. I do think his heart was in the right place.
posted by FJT at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I have mixed feelings. I think there's a difference between criticizing US involvement (which I agree with) versus siding with someone during a protracted revolution. And I just don't get what purpose it serves for a mayor of a small city in the US to visit these countries. It's just odd and sounds more like an attention seeking political stunt. I do think his heart was in the right place.
posted by FJT at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think Josh Marshall's take on the events of this weekend have been posted in the thread yet. As usual, he's both correct and insightful:
"[Trump] is drawing in, like moths to a flame, those who most want to act out on their animosities, drives and beliefs. It is the kind of climate where someone will eventually get killed."
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
"[Trump] is drawing in, like moths to a flame, those who most want to act out on their animosities, drives and beliefs. It is the kind of climate where someone will eventually get killed."
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The Chinese Government Is Now Using Donald Trump As Proof That Democracy Doesn’t Work"
"It may be propaganda, but it still has a point: How strong can American democracy be if it’s elevating an authoritarian so brutal, he actually praised the Communist Party’s crackdown in Tiananmen Square?"posted by zarq at 9:53 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s Deep Ties to Haiti Show Signs of Strain, Yamiche Alcindor [NYT]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:54 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:54 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Especially when you're a Marine Corps veteran wishing them a good day
Yes. Surprising. Because everyone knows that Marine Corps veterans are by definition better people.
They don't deserve to be treated like the hoi polloi.
posted by sour cream at 9:54 AM on March 14, 2016
Yes. Surprising. Because everyone knows that Marine Corps veterans are by definition better people.
They don't deserve to be treated like the hoi polloi.
posted by sour cream at 9:54 AM on March 14, 2016
Taiwan recently elected a woman president for the first time. She's also pro-independence, pro-Aboriginal rights and pro-same sex marriage. It makes sense that the Mainland Chinese media would want to focus more on the bad parts of democracy. And they do have a lot material this year.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also can we not make broad swipes at who has privilege and who doesn't?
If you want to be critical of click-bait media, that's fine and I'm right there with you. Sneering at legitimate issues that minorities and others have with her record and her actions is not so fine. Please make a choice to be more careful with your words in the future.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you want to be critical of click-bait media, that's fine and I'm right there with you. Sneering at legitimate issues that minorities and others have with her record and her actions is not so fine. Please make a choice to be more careful with your words in the future.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Doesn't the fact that he's endorsed Clinton automatically wipe out Perez's progressive street cred?
posted by bardophile at 10:04 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by bardophile at 10:04 AM on March 14, 2016
Sneering at legitimate issues that minorities and others have with her record and her actions is not so fine. Please make a choice to be more careful with your words in the future.
Which comment of mine are you talking about?
posted by zutalors! at 10:07 AM on March 14, 2016
Which comment of mine are you talking about?
posted by zutalors! at 10:07 AM on March 14, 2016
Greenwald's piece reminded me of this Hunter S Thompson quote:
“Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”posted by Acey at 10:17 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is what I will say about the Trump rally I attended Saturday...alone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:33 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:33 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Great Divide: Clinton, Sanders, and the future of the Democratic Party, Ryan Lizza [New Yorker]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sanders has long embraced the socialist label, and it seems not to hurt him among younger voters. Ben Tulchin, Sanders’s pollster, told me that millennials support Sanders “because their generation is so fucked, for lack of a better word, unless they see dramatic change. What’s their experience been with capitalism? They have had two recessions, one really bad one. They have a mountain of student-loan debt. They’ve got really high health-care costs, and their job prospects are mediocre at best. So that’s capitalism for you.” [...]It's a long article, but worth the read.
There are two reasons for Sanders to soldier on. One is to exact concessions, as Warren was able to do on legislation restricting Wall Street employees. Sanders’s presence has required Clinton to adopt more populist economic policies, and the influence could go further. “She’s basically a conservative person, except on issues of gender and inclusiveness,” Gary Hart, who, with his insurgent primary campaign in 1984, almost beat former Vice-President Walter Mondale, told me. “Her natural instinct is not to play the economic-class card, and that is Sanders’s whole campaign. He has forced her to be tougher on big money than her natural inclination.” [...]
Sanders is far from ready to admit how narrow his path to victory is, but he is prepared to take credit for shaping the Democratic debate. “When people respond by the millions to your message, then that message is now mainstream,” he said. “That changes political reality. Smart politicians like Hillary Clinton and anybody else have got to move where the action is, and the action is on those issues that I’ve been raising.”
posted by melissasaurus at 10:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Daniel José Older @djolder This past week has shoved me from Agnostic into the Leaning Bernie demographic for the first time since the election started. Ugh.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the fact that he's endorsed Clinton automatically wipe out Perez's progressive street cred?
I might not be the best barometer on this question, but he's a pretty damn impressive guy! Helped pay his way through college by working as a trash collector and now he might be on a VP shortlist. Spent much of his career in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ.
His wife also seems similarly badass, working as an attorney representing people who are homeless.
posted by sallybrown at 10:45 AM on March 14, 2016
I might not be the best barometer on this question, but he's a pretty damn impressive guy! Helped pay his way through college by working as a trash collector and now he might be on a VP shortlist. Spent much of his career in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ.
His wife also seems similarly badass, working as an attorney representing people who are homeless.
posted by sallybrown at 10:45 AM on March 14, 2016
This is what I will say about the Trump rally I attended Saturday...alone.
"I hadn't uttered a single word the entire rally, but people still said things like "'Well what about this one? He needs to go too!'"
posted by vverse23 at 10:49 AM on March 14, 2016
"I hadn't uttered a single word the entire rally, but people still said things like "'Well what about this one? He needs to go too!'"
posted by vverse23 at 10:49 AM on March 14, 2016
Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors, NYT:
"But in spite of persistent carping that Mr. Sanders is nothing but a quixotic crusader — during their first debate, Hillary Clinton cracked, “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done” — he has often been an effective, albeit modest, legislator.
Over one 12-year stretch in the House, he passed more amendments by roll call vote than any other member of Congress. In the Senate, he secured money for dairy farmers and community health centers, blocked banks from hiring foreign workers and reined in the Federal Reserve, all through measures attached to larger bills. ...
Yet counter to his reputation in his bid for the White House as a far-left gadfly, Mr. Sanders has done much of his work with Republican partners, generally people with whom he has almost nothing in common, with the notable exception of the discrete issue or two on which they see eye to eye."
posted by dialetheia at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
"But in spite of persistent carping that Mr. Sanders is nothing but a quixotic crusader — during their first debate, Hillary Clinton cracked, “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done” — he has often been an effective, albeit modest, legislator.
Over one 12-year stretch in the House, he passed more amendments by roll call vote than any other member of Congress. In the Senate, he secured money for dairy farmers and community health centers, blocked banks from hiring foreign workers and reined in the Federal Reserve, all through measures attached to larger bills. ...
Yet counter to his reputation in his bid for the White House as a far-left gadfly, Mr. Sanders has done much of his work with Republican partners, generally people with whom he has almost nothing in common, with the notable exception of the discrete issue or two on which they see eye to eye."
posted by dialetheia at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
My predictions for tomorrow:
Trump has a good day and wins Florida forcing Rubio out of the race. But Kasich wins Ohio which leaves Trump, Cruz, and Kasich to fight another day. Trump has a good but not assured path to the nomination pre-convention.
Clinton cleans up and basically locks up the nomination barring Deux Ex Machina stuff like a federal indictment.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2016
Trump has a good day and wins Florida forcing Rubio out of the race. But Kasich wins Ohio which leaves Trump, Cruz, and Kasich to fight another day. Trump has a good but not assured path to the nomination pre-convention.
Clinton cleans up and basically locks up the nomination barring Deux Ex Machina stuff like a federal indictment.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on March 14, 2016
Clinton cleans up and basically locks up the nomination barring Deux Ex Machina stuff like a federal indictment.
Sanders is going to at least draw even in Ohio.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:53 AM on March 14, 2016
Sanders is going to at least draw even in Ohio.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:53 AM on March 14, 2016
Sanders is going to at least draw even in Ohio.
Eh, kind of.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:58 AM on March 14, 2016
Eh, kind of.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:58 AM on March 14, 2016
Because everyone knows that Marine Corps veterans are by definition better people.
They don't deserve to be treated like the hoi polloi.
Not a generous reading. The point I took is that Trump supporters reflexively hate anyone who speaks out against Trump, even someone they'd typically offer hero worship whether warranted or not.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2016
They don't deserve to be treated like the hoi polloi.
Not a generous reading. The point I took is that Trump supporters reflexively hate anyone who speaks out against Trump, even someone they'd typically offer hero worship whether warranted or not.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2016
Sanders needs to do better than just tie if he wants to start catching up to Clinton's delegate lead. He needs to start winning some big ones by a large margin.
posted by octothorpe at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2016
I'm talking legitimate voters and not superdelegates.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:00 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
if she gets the nomination, everyone better hope clinton does better against trump than the polling suggests.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:02 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 11:02 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Eh, kind of.
And as has been said ad infinitum in all the threads, superdelegates are not legally committed and have the right to change their mind at any point before the convention as they did 8 years ago.
On another note, Sen. Sanders is also making it a real race in Illinois. (Link is to the discussion on Capitol Fax, a pretty intelligent & non-partisan state political blog.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
And as has been said ad infinitum in all the threads, superdelegates are not legally committed and have the right to change their mind at any point before the convention as they did 8 years ago.
On another note, Sen. Sanders is also making it a real race in Illinois. (Link is to the discussion on Capitol Fax, a pretty intelligent & non-partisan state political blog.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not talking superdelegates, Clinton's got more than a 200 point lead with normal delegates and Sanders shows no signs that he can catch up with that.
posted by octothorpe at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not talking superdelegates, Clinton's got more than a 200 point lead with normal delegates and Sanders shows no signs that he can catch up with that.
He deson't have to. He just has to prevent her from getting the insurmountable number.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on March 14, 2016
He deson't have to. He just has to prevent her from getting the insurmountable number.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on March 14, 2016
There are 2,033 remaining unpledged delegates by my count after tomorrow, that hardly makes a close race "over" after tomorrow.
posted by indubitable at 11:05 AM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 11:05 AM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, 2,026 would seem to constitute a majority of elected delegates, so not over by any means.
posted by indubitable at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by indubitable at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2016
If Sanders can win a bunch of extra delegates in Ohio and Illinois than sure that may change things but I don't think he's going to come out of there with any kind of significant lead while it looks like Clinton will take a ton of extra delegates in Florida. We'll see.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2016
If she increases her lead to 300 pledged delegates tomorrow, which is not an unrealistic projection, he has to win by, what, +10% on average in every remaining state to overtake her?
He deson't have to. He just has to prevent her from getting the insurmountable number.
What's the plan there? All the superdelegates flip to Sanders and then we realize they were a good thing for democracy after all?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
He deson't have to. He just has to prevent her from getting the insurmountable number.
What's the plan there? All the superdelegates flip to Sanders and then we realize they were a good thing for democracy after all?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
if she gets the nomination, everyone better hope clinton does better against trump than the polling suggests.
I don't think this polling is all that reliable, it still being incredibly early in the race.
posted by zutalors! at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2016
I don't think this polling is all that reliable, it still being incredibly early in the race.
posted by zutalors! at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2016
if she gets the nomination, everyone better hope clinton does better against trump than the polling suggests.
We're in for a rough future if the powers-that-be end up picking the wrong candidate for us. Well, most of us without lead-lined bunkers, anyway.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2016
We're in for a rough future if the powers-that-be end up picking the wrong candidate for us. Well, most of us without lead-lined bunkers, anyway.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2016
I don't think this polling is all that reliable, it still being incredibly early in the race.
If Michigan is any indication, we have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow or next week or in November.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Michigan is any indication, we have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow or next week or in November.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not counting superdelegates, Sanders needs to win approximately 54% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to have the lead by the convention. He is polling within the margin of error in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
posted by dialetheia at 11:11 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 11:11 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What's the plan there?
I think a large part of the plan is to get as many Sanders delegates as possible to the convention to impact the party platform and to prevent Clinton from pivoting to the right (or "center" if looking only at the current US political spectrum). The New Yorker article I linked to above goes into this somewhat. It's not just about this election, it's about the future of the left.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think a large part of the plan is to get as many Sanders delegates as possible to the convention to impact the party platform and to prevent Clinton from pivoting to the right (or "center" if looking only at the current US political spectrum). The New Yorker article I linked to above goes into this somewhat. It's not just about this election, it's about the future of the left.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:12 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, the plan may be to continue to let Clinton self-destruct on her own merits.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:13 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:13 AM on March 14, 2016
If she gets the nomination, everyone better hope clinton does better against trump than the polling suggests.
Better than leading by 5-10% in virtually every poll conducted for months across the political spectrum?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:13 AM on March 14, 2016
Better than leading by 5-10% in virtually every poll conducted for months across the political spectrum?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:13 AM on March 14, 2016
I think Sanders is going to take Ohio. Clinton will take FL but this thing is far from over.
And the issues with polling of general election match-ups have been pointed out a bunch of times across the various threads -- they really aren't reliable for either candidate, and that's not even taking into account what happened in Michigan.
posted by sallybrown at 11:17 AM on March 14, 2016
And the issues with polling of general election match-ups have been pointed out a bunch of times across the various threads -- they really aren't reliable for either candidate, and that's not even taking into account what happened in Michigan.
posted by sallybrown at 11:17 AM on March 14, 2016
A lot of the recent state polls seem to have shifted their weighting in light of what happened with Michigan.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:18 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:18 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm going to repost this from earlier in the thread, because we have arrived.
posted by Trochanter at 11:19 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.Emphasis is mine, because boy are they selling it.
I’m keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton’s largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders’ strongest states will vote.
What this means is simple:
Hillary Clinton will grow her lead until the March 15 states have voted.
Bernie Sanders will erase that lead — partly or completely — after March 15.
How much of Clinton’s lead he will erase depends on your not buying what the media is selling — that the contest is over.
In most scenarios where Sanders wins, he doesn’t retake the lead until June 7, when five states including California cast their ballots.
March 15 is the Ides of March; a good way to remember the date. The message — gear up for a battle after the Ides of March, and don’t let the establishment media tell you what to think. They won’t be right until the last state has voted.
posted by Trochanter at 11:19 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
A convenient circumstance with the "socialist label" is that conservatives have spent the last hundred years or so calling everything socialism and consequently it's very easy to demonstrate that they frequently end up supporting things they've labeled as socialism. So by their own account the U.S. is already and has always been a socialist country; trying to pretend it isn't is just a flimsy marketing tool like pretending that civilization will collapse if there are interracial marriages or same-sex marriages.
In one of these recent U.S. political threads someone pointed out Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine, a vinyl record he put out in the early 1960s in which he declared that if the programs that eventually became Medicare went forward Americans would shortly have no choice in where they lived and worked because the government would decide instead and that "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
Then in the 1980 election Reagan swore that it was plans for a totally different massive government health care program making up the largest part of the federal budget he'd been referring to as socialism, and so supporting the same thing in the form of Medicare totally didn't count as supporting socialism.
Yes, Clinton definitely needs to do better than that, because as pointed out above by the general Trump would have pivoted to the point where he's attacking her on both the left and right simultaneously and the whole moving-rightward-to-maintain-higher ground tactic wouldn't work for her.
posted by XMLicious at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2016
In one of these recent U.S. political threads someone pointed out Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine, a vinyl record he put out in the early 1960s in which he declared that if the programs that eventually became Medicare went forward Americans would shortly have no choice in where they lived and worked because the government would decide instead and that "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."
Then in the 1980 election Reagan swore that it was plans for a totally different massive government health care program making up the largest part of the federal budget he'd been referring to as socialism, and so supporting the same thing in the form of Medicare totally didn't count as supporting socialism.
Better than leading by 5-10% in virtually every poll conducted for months across the political spectrum?
Yes, Clinton definitely needs to do better than that, because as pointed out above by the general Trump would have pivoted to the point where he's attacking her on both the left and right simultaneously and the whole moving-rightward-to-maintain-higher ground tactic wouldn't work for her.
posted by XMLicious at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2016
There is something about Trump that brings out the deepest base aggressive feelings in people you wouldn't expect. It's truly frightening. For instance, Saturday night my husband and I were at a friend's house. He works with my husband and is a generally nice guy, we are politically opposite but generally we can have kidding discussions about our differences and nobody gets angry or unhinged. This guy early voted for Ted Cruz but said he would vote for Trump if he's the nominee. My husband and I asked him about the violent rhetoric Trump is using and he said "he only said to throw a tomato" and his wife said "I don't pay attention to any of that, it's just too upsetting". While my husband was trying to find the video compilation showing how Trump has steadily escalated his aggression, our friend suddenly flipped out. He began shouting at me that I wasn't an American because I would vote for a socialist or a communist. He started telling me that I just wanted everyone to get everything for free and he was sick of it.
Then he told me to get out of his house. And this guy hasn't even voted for Trump yet. He hasn't attended a rally or done much more than watch tv. And he was my FRIEND. And he kicked me out of his house because I disagreed with him about Trump. I am still really shocked that he became that unhinged in an instant because I said Trump was fostering violence and I felt he (Trump) was a bad person. THIS is what we can look forward to in the coming months, because now anyone who has a little bit of privilege that is being threatened has been given permission to behave as badly as he wants to. I'm sad and sickened, but more than that, I'm scared of these people.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
Then he told me to get out of his house. And this guy hasn't even voted for Trump yet. He hasn't attended a rally or done much more than watch tv. And he was my FRIEND. And he kicked me out of his house because I disagreed with him about Trump. I am still really shocked that he became that unhinged in an instant because I said Trump was fostering violence and I felt he (Trump) was a bad person. THIS is what we can look forward to in the coming months, because now anyone who has a little bit of privilege that is being threatened has been given permission to behave as badly as he wants to. I'm sad and sickened, but more than that, I'm scared of these people.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2016 [32 favorites]
Gawker: This Photo of Hillary Clinton Lovingly Hugging George W. Bush at Nancy Reagan's Funeral Seems Unfortunate
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:28 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:28 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is really frightening hollygoheavy. I am really not looking forward to the next 8 months, or really, the next few years. I think what we're seeing is just the beginning.
Via Shaun King's twitter account, apparently a Trump supporter tweeted that he wanted to "put a bullet" in Bernie's head; just hours after Trump tweeted that Bernie should "be careful."
posted by melissasaurus at 11:30 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Via Shaun King's twitter account, apparently a Trump supporter tweeted that he wanted to "put a bullet" in Bernie's head; just hours after Trump tweeted that Bernie should "be careful."
posted by melissasaurus at 11:30 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know how meaningful those match-up polls can be before the general has started in earnest. Would Trump give Sanders a pass on, for example, his 1988 honeymoon in the USSR?
posted by theodolite at 11:30 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by theodolite at 11:30 AM on March 14, 2016
What the heck? That is terrible, hollygoheavy. I have yet to hear or read anyone I know saying they support Trump. I'm sure some of them do, but all of my non-Democratic friends have been either very quiet or outspoken against Trump. A few people saying they would just stay home rather than vote for Trump or the Democratic nom. One person who was very very angry about socialism but seemed to confuse it with communism. Another who was drunkenly ranting about stopping Clinton to save our republic (but also claimed he could never vote for Trump).
posted by sallybrown at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.
This appears to be based on projections from a Daily Kos diary from February that assumes delegate counts that Clinton has already significantly exceeded.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
This appears to be based on projections from a Daily Kos diary from February that assumes delegate counts that Clinton has already significantly exceeded.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gawker: This Photo of Hillary Clinton Lovingly Hugging George W. Bush at Nancy Reagan's Funeral Seems Unfortunate
that's really silly.
posted by zutalors! at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
via Chris Hayes: Seems clearer and clearer that Trump campaign is implementing a "no groups of black people" policy for its events.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:35 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:35 AM on March 14, 2016
Jesus Christ.
posted by sallybrown at 11:37 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 11:37 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a brown Jew, Jesus Christ would presumably be thrown out of a Trump rally.
posted by zutalors! at 11:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 11:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Here's a post-Michigan delegate analysis from Matt Karp: Can Bernie Sanders win the delegate battle? It won’t be easy — but here’s one way it could happen.
posted by dialetheia at 11:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 11:38 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would honestly be shocked if Clinton's advisors hadn't at least entertained the idea of tapping a moderate/pro-choice/"business-friendly" Republican to be her running mate (Bloomberg comes to mind), with the theory that it would throw Trump off of his game and frame the election as "fringe vs. grown-ups." It would also put establishment centrists at a major advantage in the inevitable and imminent reconfiguration of the current party system in the US.
I think this would be shitty and ill-advised, and would seriously backfire, but I'd be surprised if they weren't considering it. Sure would finish the work started by the DLC in the '80s.
posted by duffell at 11:40 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think this would be shitty and ill-advised, and would seriously backfire, but I'd be surprised if they weren't considering it. Sure would finish the work started by the DLC in the '80s.
posted by duffell at 11:40 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Women reading Donald Trump's remarks about women. (from Our Principles PAC)
posted by sallybrown at 11:41 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 11:41 AM on March 14, 2016
Gawker: This Photo of Hillary Clinton Lovingly Hugging George W. Bush at Nancy Reagan's Funeral Seems Unfortunate
And according to the Transitive Property, Bernie hugged Bush!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
And according to the Transitive Property, Bernie hugged Bush!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:41 AM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
But how many degrees are they from Kevin Bacon?
posted by sallybrown at 11:42 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 11:42 AM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd prefer their Erdős–Bacon number .
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:47 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:47 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
But how many degrees are they from Kevin Bacon?
According to the Oracle of Bacon, both Sanders and Clinton have a Bacon number of 2.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:49 AM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
According to the Oracle of Bacon, both Sanders and Clinton have a Bacon number of 2.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:49 AM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
But how many degrees are they from Kevin Bacon?
Hilary is Three. AFAICT, that makes Bernie Four.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:49 AM on March 14, 2016
Hilary is Three. AFAICT, that makes Bernie Four.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:49 AM on March 14, 2016
New poll: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders too close to call in Missouri
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:54 AM on March 14, 2016
Of all the many reasons to prefer Sanders over Clinton the fact that she hugged a former President at a funeral seems the least of them!
posted by Justinian at 11:56 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:56 AM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hmm all the polling since Michigan does seem to have shifted for Sanders. Maybe Clinton won't build as many delegates into her lead as I had thought before.
posted by Justinian at 12:00 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by Justinian at 12:00 PM on March 14, 2016
Other politicians' Bacon numbers:
Dick Nixon: 2
Eisenhower: 3
Hitler: 3
Mussolini: 3
Bill Clinton: 3
Teddy Roosevelt: 3
Franklin Roosevelt: 3
Fidel Castro: 2
Mikhail Gorbachev: 3
People with no Bacon number through feature films:
Gandhi
Pol Pot
David Duke
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2016
Dick Nixon: 2
Eisenhower: 3
Hitler: 3
Mussolini: 3
Bill Clinton: 3
Teddy Roosevelt: 3
Franklin Roosevelt: 3
Fidel Castro: 2
Mikhail Gorbachev: 3
People with no Bacon number through feature films:
Gandhi
Pol Pot
David Duke
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2016
This gif has been making the rounds on Twitter.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
hollygoheavy, I am so sorry that happened to you - that is really frightening. I have a wing of my family that I could see that happening with, I don't look forward to Easter dinner with the family.
Offering this as bit of a palate cleanser:
A lot of the right wing corporate types I intersect with for my work are pleasantly surprising me. Mind you, I never bring up politics, but knowing that I am liberal, several have gone out of their way to let me know they too are frightened by Trump and wanted to go on record as opposing him. I am surprised to learn how troubling they find his racism. They don't like Cruz either and are really distressed about the breakdown in their party. I ask a few who they will vote for: some say they won't vote; a few others say they may vote for Hillary because even though they regard her as an enemy, they are very afraid of Trump. One said, "she's evil and horrible, but she's not insane." Another said "she will drive us into a ditch, but one we could probably drive out of in a subsequent administration - Trump would drive us off a cliff." Bernie is a bridge too far for them.
This is a ray of hope to me because these are pretty far right business people. It's the closest to political comity I have had with these folks! So while Trump might draw out a lot of scary sycophants, I am seeing some surprising movement the other way, too. Arm's length research so of limited value, but hopeful to me nonetheless.
I've been thinking how the tattered shreds of the GOP will react when Trump is soundly routed (because I refuse to think otherwise). Will they be chastened? Will it pull the saner among them to the center? Will it set a stage for a slightly less partisan environment, since where is partisanship getting them? Interesting to think of a post-Trump DC.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:08 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Offering this as bit of a palate cleanser:
A lot of the right wing corporate types I intersect with for my work are pleasantly surprising me. Mind you, I never bring up politics, but knowing that I am liberal, several have gone out of their way to let me know they too are frightened by Trump and wanted to go on record as opposing him. I am surprised to learn how troubling they find his racism. They don't like Cruz either and are really distressed about the breakdown in their party. I ask a few who they will vote for: some say they won't vote; a few others say they may vote for Hillary because even though they regard her as an enemy, they are very afraid of Trump. One said, "she's evil and horrible, but she's not insane." Another said "she will drive us into a ditch, but one we could probably drive out of in a subsequent administration - Trump would drive us off a cliff." Bernie is a bridge too far for them.
This is a ray of hope to me because these are pretty far right business people. It's the closest to political comity I have had with these folks! So while Trump might draw out a lot of scary sycophants, I am seeing some surprising movement the other way, too. Arm's length research so of limited value, but hopeful to me nonetheless.
I've been thinking how the tattered shreds of the GOP will react when Trump is soundly routed (because I refuse to think otherwise). Will they be chastened? Will it pull the saner among them to the center? Will it set a stage for a slightly less partisan environment, since where is partisanship getting them? Interesting to think of a post-Trump DC.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:08 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
This gif has been making the rounds on Twitter.
I thought that physical circle around the candidate by the Secret Service was just a sight gag on Veep until I saw the guy rushing Trump video.
posted by zutalors! at 12:11 PM on March 14, 2016
I thought that physical circle around the candidate by the Secret Service was just a sight gag on Veep until I saw the guy rushing Trump video.
posted by zutalors! at 12:11 PM on March 14, 2016
I would honestly be shocked if Clinton's advisors hadn't at least entertained the idea of tapping a moderate/pro-choice/"business-friendly" Republican to be her running mate (Bloomberg comes to mind),
Oh hell no, not Bloomberg.
He'd attempt to ban chicken fried foods and alienate half the country.
Then he'd try to speak Spanish and alienate Latinos.
posted by zarq at 12:14 PM on March 14, 2016
Oh hell no, not Bloomberg.
He'd attempt to ban chicken fried foods and alienate half the country.
Then he'd try to speak Spanish and alienate Latinos.
posted by zarq at 12:14 PM on March 14, 2016
Gawker: This Photo of Hillary Clinton Lovingly Hugging George W. Bush at Nancy Reagan's Funeral Seems Unfortunate
The Bush family, the Clintons, the Carters, and the Obamas make up a very tiny circle of living people who have experienced what I'm certain must be, at times, an incredibly surreal life. It is of no surprise to me that, whatever their ideological differences, they have a friendly -- perhaps even close -- bond from shared experiences. Don't forget that Bush Sr. has apparently virtually "adopted" Bill Clinton. These people, for good or ill, have lived experiences that most of us can't really imagine, and it seems to me natural that bonds would form based on those experiences.
posted by anastasiav at 12:17 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Bush family, the Clintons, the Carters, and the Obamas make up a very tiny circle of living people who have experienced what I'm certain must be, at times, an incredibly surreal life. It is of no surprise to me that, whatever their ideological differences, they have a friendly -- perhaps even close -- bond from shared experiences. Don't forget that Bush Sr. has apparently virtually "adopted" Bill Clinton. These people, for good or ill, have lived experiences that most of us can't really imagine, and it seems to me natural that bonds would form based on those experiences.
posted by anastasiav at 12:17 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've been thinking how the tattered shreds of the GOP will react when Trump is soundly routed (because I refuse to think otherwise). Will they be chastened? Will it pull the saner among them to the center?
Assuming Trump wins the primary and loses in the general: I think the Republican party is likely to stick around for awhile, even as any semblance of party unity continues to erode. I think we'll see a rise in the number of Republican Congressional/local candidates who run under an explicitly nationalist (and implicitly white nationalist) platform. I also think we'll continue to see moderate/centrist Republicans run, and win, in the areas where they're competitive. I think it'll take at least one more presidential election cycle before the Republicans begin to rally around a workable strategy (which may or may not include keeping the name "Republican").
posted by duffell at 12:19 PM on March 14, 2016
Assuming Trump wins the primary and loses in the general: I think the Republican party is likely to stick around for awhile, even as any semblance of party unity continues to erode. I think we'll see a rise in the number of Republican Congressional/local candidates who run under an explicitly nationalist (and implicitly white nationalist) platform. I also think we'll continue to see moderate/centrist Republicans run, and win, in the areas where they're competitive. I think it'll take at least one more presidential election cycle before the Republicans begin to rally around a workable strategy (which may or may not include keeping the name "Republican").
posted by duffell at 12:19 PM on March 14, 2016
Cumberland [NC] authorities weigh charging Trump following rally violence
posted by melissasaurus at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
madamjujujive: while Trump might draw out a lot of scary sycophants, I am seeing some surprising movement the other way, too. Arm's length research so of limited value, but hopeful to me nonetheless.
I want to believe, I really do. But I'm afraid that after Trump is formally nominated at the Republican convention, most of the party will just fall in line. They'll discover all the reasons why Hillary is a bridge too far - not just Bernie - and it'll still be a down and dirty, close run, general election no matter who the Democrats nominate.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I want to believe, I really do. But I'm afraid that after Trump is formally nominated at the Republican convention, most of the party will just fall in line. They'll discover all the reasons why Hillary is a bridge too far - not just Bernie - and it'll still be a down and dirty, close run, general election no matter who the Democrats nominate.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
ATU, the nation's largest transit union, endorses Sanders: “The sincerity of Bernie Sanders and his long standing fidelity to the issues that are so important to working people are what convinced us that standing with Bernie is standing with the 99% of America that has been left out of the mainstream public debate, cheated out of our jobs and denied the true meaning of the American dream,” said ATU International President Larry Hanley in making the announcement.
posted by dialetheia at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
I never thought I would think this much about Rubio, but I'm hoping for him to have some integrity after all and not endorse Trump.
He did say he would support the nominee at the last debate though...
posted by zutalors! at 12:21 PM on March 14, 2016
He did say he would support the nominee at the last debate though...
posted by zutalors! at 12:21 PM on March 14, 2016
> More Than 1.5 Million Florida Voters Will Be Missing From Tuesday’s Primary: He is one of more than 1.5 million people in Florida alone permanently barred from voting, running for office, or serving on a jury due to a criminal record. Today, nearly one in four African Americans in the state, like Meade, are disenfranchised by this policy.
More on this: Thanks to Jim Crow Era Law, 1 in 4 African-American Adults Can't Vote in Florida's Primary
posted by homunculus at 12:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
More on this: Thanks to Jim Crow Era Law, 1 in 4 African-American Adults Can't Vote in Florida's Primary
posted by homunculus at 12:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cumberland [NC] authorities weigh charging Trump following rally violence
It'd be a good mid-season twist if there was an indictment at the end of the primaries, but not who you were expecting!
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
It'd be a good mid-season twist if there was an indictment at the end of the primaries, but not who you were expecting!
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like he has to have broken some laws somewhere in the last few months.
Then again I thought his comments about Mexicans last year would sink him...
posted by zutalors! at 12:24 PM on March 14, 2016
Then again I thought his comments about Mexicans last year would sink him...
posted by zutalors! at 12:24 PM on March 14, 2016
I never thought I would think this much about Rubio, but I'm hoping for him to have some integrity after all and not endorse Trump.
Not sure if it was already posted here, but this video went viral just because Rubio looks so fundamentally broken inside when he's asked about that: "I still, at this moment, continue to intend to support the Republican nominee, but ... it's getting harder every day." I almost felt sorry for Rubio until I remembered he blamed Obama for the violence at Trump's rallies.
posted by dialetheia at 12:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not sure if it was already posted here, but this video went viral just because Rubio looks so fundamentally broken inside when he's asked about that: "I still, at this moment, continue to intend to support the Republican nominee, but ... it's getting harder every day." I almost felt sorry for Rubio until I remembered he blamed Obama for the violence at Trump's rallies.
posted by dialetheia at 12:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump supporters in FL sporting armbands.
This is getting more terrifying by the minute. At this point, I don't know if we're going to make it to November.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:29 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is getting more terrifying by the minute. At this point, I don't know if we're going to make it to November.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:29 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
They have to be anti-Trump people wearing them to make a point, right? I mean... they have to be.
posted by Justinian at 12:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
These people, for good or ill, have lived experiences that most of us can't really imagine, and it seems to me natural that bonds would form based on those experiences.
``The real difference between the Rich and the Others is not just that “they have more money,” as Hemingway noted, but that money is not a governing factor in their lives, as it is with people who work for a living. The truly rich are born free, like dolphins; they will never feel hungry, and their credit will never be questioned.'' -HST
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:32 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
``The real difference between the Rich and the Others is not just that “they have more money,” as Hemingway noted, but that money is not a governing factor in their lives, as it is with people who work for a living. The truly rich are born free, like dolphins; they will never feel hungry, and their credit will never be questioned.'' -HST
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:32 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
maybe generation-x will get that apocalypse we were promised after all
posted by entropicamericana at 12:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 12:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
They have to be anti-Drumpf people wearing them to make a point, right? I mean... they have to be.
One of those guys is the same guy who interrupted a Rubio rally claiming Rubio stole his girlfriend.
posted by zutalors! at 12:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of those guys is the same guy who interrupted a Rubio rally claiming Rubio stole his girlfriend.
posted by zutalors! at 12:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rubio has felt that this was his turn, 2016 was HIS year to be the nominee. He's a crappy representative for the actual citizens of Florida and that's being proven by the fact that he's polling 3rd in his home state. He's not truly disgusted by Trump, he's feeling sorry for himself.
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, Clinton definitely needs to do better than that, because as pointed out above by the general Trump would have pivoted to the point where he's attacking her on both the left and right simultaneously and the whole moving-rightward-to-maintain-higher ground tactic wouldn't work for her.
I guess Bernie's screwed, too, because he's only showing a 10 point lead over Trump, and Trump's just starting to attack him. If he moves to the right he's a sellout, and if he moves further to the left Trump eviscerates him as a communist.
Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that both Democratic contenders show a significant lead in polling over Trump indicates either one of them will win, so you can just go ahead and vote for your favourite in the primaries (and back whomever wins the nomination in the election).
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess Bernie's screwed, too, because he's only showing a 10 point lead over Trump, and Trump's just starting to attack him. If he moves to the right he's a sellout, and if he moves further to the left Trump eviscerates him as a communist.
Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that both Democratic contenders show a significant lead in polling over Trump indicates either one of them will win, so you can just go ahead and vote for your favourite in the primaries (and back whomever wins the nomination in the election).
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Related: Trump supporters threaten to take up arms, form militias. One group, 'The Lion's Guard,' has already had their twitter account suspended.
posted by dialetheia at 12:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:36 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Self-pitying or not, he's right:
posted by zarq at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2016
"I think we also have to look at the rhetoric coming from the frontrunner in the presidential campaign. This is a man who in rallies has told his supporters to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he'll pay their legal fees, someone who has encouraged people in the audience to rough up anyone who stands up and says something he doesn't like. …Of course.... Poll: Donald Trump crushes Marco Rubio in Florida
This has happened repeatedly now. This is not new. This is a pattern of the idea that: We are angry. And since we are angry we can say or do whatever we want. We are tired of being constrained by civility, tired of being constrained by rules of cultural engagement. We are tired of being told.
And I get it, people are frustrated with the direction of our country.
But leaders cannot say whatever they want, because words have consequences. They lead to actions that others take. And when the person you're supporting for president is going around and saying things like, 'Go ahead and slap them around, I'll pay your legal fees,' what do you think's going to happen next?
...
I hope the US media begins to examine the role they've played in all of this. Because I can tell you that for months I've been giving speeches on public policy, and nobody paid a lot of attention. And the minute that I mentioned anything personal about Donald Trump, every network cut in live to my speeches, hoping I would say more of it. So then they could go on the air and say, "Oh, this is so sad." Subtitle: "We're gonna keep giving it coverage because it's good for our ratings."
...
This is a different level that we're discussing now. This is the intentional injection of the use of people's anger, basically. This is a political candidate in Donald Trump who has identified that there's some really angry people in America. They feel as if they've been mistreated by the culture, by society, by our politics, by our economy. And he knows this. And they have been in many instances. They really have. … And along comes a presidential candidate and says to you, "You know why your life is hard? Because fill in the blank — somebody, someone, some country — they're the reasons for it. Give me power, so I can go after them."
That's what he's feeding into. That is not leadership. That is not productive leadership. That is not good leadership. And it is not keeping with our American tradition. That is a style of leadership that says, "I know you're angry, and I'm going to take advantage of it so that you vote for me." But what it overlooks is the consequences of it.
posted by zarq at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2016
They have to be anti-Trump people wearing them to make a point, right? I mean... they have to be.
One of those guys is the same guy who interrupted a Rubio rally claiming Rubio stole his girlfriend.
Ugh, I'm so sick of trolls "ironically" supporting Trump. At some point, when you're holding a Trump sign at a Trump event, it just becomes actual support.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:43 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of those guys is the same guy who interrupted a Rubio rally claiming Rubio stole his girlfriend.
Ugh, I'm so sick of trolls "ironically" supporting Trump. At some point, when you're holding a Trump sign at a Trump event, it just becomes actual support.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:43 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The trolls' support isn't necessarily ironic - this bit from the Vice article about Trump's alt-right support seems relevant: "Trump’s rise has been abetted in part by a loose configuration of social media users often collectively termed the “alt-right,” for lack of a better term. These individuals, many of whom proudly identify as trolls themselves, have developed a strong affinity for Trump, whom they characterize as one of the most skillful trolls in existence."
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:47 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I hope the US media begins to examine the role they've played in all of this. Because I can tell you that for months I've been giving speeches on public policy, and nobody paid a lot of attention. And the minute that I mentioned anything personal about Donald Drumpf, every network cut in live to my speeches, hoping I would say more of it. So then they could go on the air and say, "Oh, this is so sad." Subtitle: "We're gonna keep giving it coverage because it's good for our ratings."
He's right about this. CNN just puts Trump on and leaves it on - they briefly check in on the other Republican candidates.
posted by zutalors! at 12:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's right about this. CNN just puts Trump on and leaves it on - they briefly check in on the other Republican candidates.
posted by zutalors! at 12:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
New UMass economics study demonstrates that a tax on Wall Street speculation could easily pay for Sanders' college tuition proposal: "Revenue would be ‘more than enough to finance in full’ the Sanders proposal for free public higher education"
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
melissasaurus: It appears the Trump armband thing may be a hoax.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Can Presidential Candidates Have You Arrested at Their Events? NBC's @AriMelber explains if they have the power
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2016
There is another town hall tonight on MSNBC. Sanders is being interviewed by Chuck Todd at 6pm and Clinton by Chris Matthews at 7pm.
posted by futz at 12:56 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 12:56 PM on March 14, 2016
Can Presidential Candidates Have You Arrested at Their Events? NBC's @AriMelber explains if they have the power
Suggesting that protesters be curbstomped by the crowd, on the other hand....
posted by zarq at 12:56 PM on March 14, 2016
Suggesting that protesters be curbstomped by the crowd, on the other hand....
posted by zarq at 12:56 PM on March 14, 2016
what? let them get a night off, geez.
posted by zutalors! at 12:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton by Chris Matthews at 7pm.
Sigh.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sigh.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:58 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Campaign for sale or rent, rubes like to hear me vent.
I'll phone, I'll drool, I'll wretch....at least I got a birth certificate.
Ah but 11 months of combing my broom buys a huge classy Oval Room.
I'm a man of means by meanies...king of the trolls!
With big big apologies to Roger Miller.
posted by ian1977 at 1:03 PM on March 14, 2016
I'll phone, I'll drool, I'll wretch....at least I got a birth certificate.
Ah but 11 months of combing my broom buys a huge classy Oval Room.
I'm a man of means by meanies...king of the trolls!
With big big apologies to Roger Miller.
posted by ian1977 at 1:03 PM on March 14, 2016
"Revenue would be ‘more than enough to finance in full’ the Sanders proposal for free public higher education"
Charging sales tax on the sales of stocks and bonds. Like I pay when I buy things! What a concept!
posted by mikelieman at 1:04 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Charging sales tax on the sales of stocks and bonds. Like I pay when I buy things! What a concept!
posted by mikelieman at 1:04 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
There is another town hall tonight on MSNBC. Sanders is being interviewed by Chuck Todd at 6pm and Clinton by Chris Matthews at 7pm.
Is this too long to be the Town Hall thread again?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:05 PM on March 14, 2016
Is this too long to be the Town Hall thread again?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:05 PM on March 14, 2016
Political pranksters: Guys in “Trump armbands” appear to be same guys in “Settle for Hillary” shirts at her rally.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:06 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:06 PM on March 14, 2016
Ah, good. Figured it had to be something like that.
I am extremely bothered by the fact that they were wearing the armbands on different arms. Extremely bothered.
posted by Justinian at 1:08 PM on March 14, 2016
I am extremely bothered by the fact that they were wearing the armbands on different arms. Extremely bothered.
posted by Justinian at 1:08 PM on March 14, 2016
Political pranksters: Guys in “Trump armbands” appear to be same guys in “Settle for Hillary” shirts at her rally.
Unfortunately for them, that's not actually funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Unfortunately for them, that's not actually funny.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
One of them also went to a Rubio rally and said "Marco stole my girlfriend". I guess they also tried to do an exorcism on Ted Cruz. They have been doing pranks for months.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:13 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:13 PM on March 14, 2016
Yeah I wouldn't be wearing armbands to Trump rallies for chuckles if I was those guys. Seems like the crowd could turn on you in a real ugly way if they find out you're pulling a ruse; or worse, they don't realize it and you end up getting promoted to Oberstleutnant
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Welp I think they failed on this one, and ought to think hard about how and why. Particularly when Trump's warmup act is stating things like "Listen, Bernie gotta get saved. He gotta meet Jesus. "
posted by Existential Dread at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Guardian: The Bernie Sanders voters who would choose Trump over Clinton
Eye-opening, but I think the Guardian's new "unlikely Trump supporters" pieces are sort of sensationalist in tone. Assuming these respondents aren't just trolls, they're very possible a very small segment of the population.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eye-opening, but I think the Guardian's new "unlikely Trump supporters" pieces are sort of sensationalist in tone. Assuming these respondents aren't just trolls, they're very possible a very small segment of the population.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just one point of anecdata, but I was texting with a friend this weekend. He's early 40s, white, gay, Clinton supporter. He was saying that if Bernie got the nom, he might consider voting for someone else, possibly Kasich, because he thought Bernie would be "ineffective."
Plenty of WTF to go around, it seems.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Plenty of WTF to go around, it seems.
posted by Fleebnork at 1:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
They also tried building a wall around Trump Tower Two guys build a wall around Trump Tower(youtube)
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Speculation:
What people say they are going to do in heated arguments about candidates is probably not what they are going to actually do when they go and vote.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:29 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
What people say they are going to do in heated arguments about candidates is probably not what they are going to actually do when they go and vote.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:29 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Re: Sanders / Trump crossover voters, there's plenty to criticize in this analysis, but WaPo ran a piece breaking down each candidates' supporters by their orientations on four axes: authoritarianism, anti-elitism, mistrust of experts, and American identity. Sanders and Trump have big overlap on the anti-elitism axis, but that's it - otherwise their supporters are diametrically opposed on the rest of those axes. I'm not too surprised that there are some people for whom the anti-elite aspect is the most important driver of their voting behavior, but it certainly doesn't characterize all Sanders supporters (just like we wouldn't expect most Trump supporters to suddenly jump to Sanders if it were Sanders vs Cruz, for example). Sanders supporters scored lowest on American identity, mistrust of experts, and authoritarianism, whereas Trump supporters scored high on all of those axes (oddly, Cruz supporters are even more authoritarian than Trump supporters, according to that analysis). Other interesting bits from that analysis: Clinton and Kasich's supporters sort out very similarly on those axes, while Sanders' supporters have a unique orientation among those candidates (basically the inverse orientation of Cruz and Rubio supporters).
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is just Millennials, but for every voter who crosses lines for Trump, it looks like way more would cross in the other direction, for both candidates.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:35 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:35 PM on March 14, 2016
via Shaun King, here is video footage of some young Black Americans being denied entrance into Trump's rally, while a white man is let in.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that Bernie's supporters are strongly anti-elitist, but also very trusting of experts. Also, that Hillary's are the most middle of the road overall.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:39 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:39 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that Bernie's supporters are strongly anti-elitist, but also very trusting of experts.
Yeah, that seemed odd to me, too. I think it goes back to this interfluidity piece on the role of technocrats in a democracy. Those results align with the idea that Sanders supporters do trust the wonks, but think that values, not technocratic analysis, should determine our political goals, and that wonks exist to help us best achieve those goals:
"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. ... Elevating technocracy above democracy is similar to, and as insidious as, letting military power escape civilian control. The problem with life under military rule is not that the army lacks patriotism, or that it doesn’t mean well. But the interests of the military are not the interests of the polity, and we invented democracy because human beings have a tendency to confuse their own interests with the public’s. The interests of the class of humans who might reasonably qualify as technocrats are also not the interests of the polity."
posted by dialetheia at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeah, that seemed odd to me, too. I think it goes back to this interfluidity piece on the role of technocrats in a democracy. Those results align with the idea that Sanders supporters do trust the wonks, but think that values, not technocratic analysis, should determine our political goals, and that wonks exist to help us best achieve those goals:
"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. ... Elevating technocracy above democracy is similar to, and as insidious as, letting military power escape civilian control. The problem with life under military rule is not that the army lacks patriotism, or that it doesn’t mean well. But the interests of the military are not the interests of the polity, and we invented democracy because human beings have a tendency to confuse their own interests with the public’s. The interests of the class of humans who might reasonably qualify as technocrats are also not the interests of the polity."
posted by dialetheia at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think that someone who is an elite is not necessarily an "expert".
Personally, I am more anti-authoritarian than anti-elitist and pro- trusting in the knowledge of experts in their domain of specialization.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Personally, I am more anti-authoritarian than anti-elitist and pro- trusting in the knowledge of experts in their domain of specialization.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
or worse, they don't realize it and you end up getting promoted to Oberstleutnant
Worked for Canaris!
posted by Apocryphon at 1:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Worked for Canaris!
posted by Apocryphon at 1:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC's Chris Matthews faces call to suspend show over wife's election bid
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Expert: Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining the physics of collapsing stars.
Elite: Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying: "People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump."
Expert: Paul Krugman running models and crunching numbers.
Elite: Paul Krugman dismissing Gerald Friedman's work when he hasn't even read the paper.
posted by Trochanter at 2:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Elite: Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying: "People who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters — they oppose free citizens voting for the @realDonaldTrump."
Expert: Paul Krugman running models and crunching numbers.
Elite: Paul Krugman dismissing Gerald Friedman's work when he hasn't even read the paper.
posted by Trochanter at 2:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is a ray of hope to me because these are pretty far right business people.
On a related note, I noticed something interesting a few weeks back, in an earnings call for an oil/natural gas company. The CEO said, practically as an aside, that the positive outlook he was forecasting was based on Trump not being elected, as one anticipated consequence of that would be near immediate chaos and disruption of trade with Mexico, including pipeline operations they're heavily involved in.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
On a related note, I noticed something interesting a few weeks back, in an earnings call for an oil/natural gas company. The CEO said, practically as an aside, that the positive outlook he was forecasting was based on Trump not being elected, as one anticipated consequence of that would be near immediate chaos and disruption of trade with Mexico, including pipeline operations they're heavily involved in.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't get how you can be authoritarian and be anti-elitist. Whichever group has the authority is an elite, right?
posted by FJT at 2:07 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by FJT at 2:07 PM on March 14, 2016
"I want a straight-talking strongman to boss me around and tell me what to do. Just as long as he doesn't think he's better than me."
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Ted Cruz: "We destroy the country" if Trump is the nominee... and I support him anyway!
posted by Justinian at 2:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:16 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Interesting that Bernie's supporters are strongly anti-elitist, but also very trusting of experts.
Those results align with the idea that Sanders supporters do trust the wonks, but think that values, not technocratic analysis, should determine our political goals, and that wonks exist to help us best achieve those goals:
There's another aspect as well, with a very, very long history in American politics - the distinction between competence and honesty. If you look at early political rhetoric during, say, Jefferson's administration (and later Jackson's), the key point they hit repeatedly is not that their political opponents are incompetent but that they are dishonest, that they are serving the interests of a small minority rather than that of the citizenry as a whole. If you look at 20th century mainstream politics, there is a massive emphasis on the other side of the equation - politicians arguing that their opponents are not sufficiently knowledgeable, or not sufficiently experienced, or occasionally lacking in the psychological fiber required to slug it out with the Soviets et al - but the movements decrying a "conspiracy at the center" - that the core issue is the honesty, rather than the competence, of elected officials and their appointees, remained on the margins, tackled only by political figures like Huey Long and Barry Goldwater, and by the more out of the mainstream sort of intellectuals and policy commentators.
I think we're seeing a massive resurgence of honesty politics, a more mainstream acceptance of the idea that the primary question is not how good politicians are the jobs they're running for but who they are actually putting their skills to work for. Clinton is still running, for the most part, a competency campaign. Sanders is running almost completely on honesty,. Trump is sort of doing half-and-half - his "deal-maker" persona involves claims about his competency, but if you actually look at how his followers seem to react at rallies, the main emphasis is on his "I am here for you and your country" - he's drawing more strength from the honesty arguments than the competence ones.
So a lot of voters don't have a problem with trusting the wonks on their, y'know, wonkishness, their expertise. The big flaring question mark is over their perceived allegiance to elite interests, rather than those of the country as a whole.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Those results align with the idea that Sanders supporters do trust the wonks, but think that values, not technocratic analysis, should determine our political goals, and that wonks exist to help us best achieve those goals:
There's another aspect as well, with a very, very long history in American politics - the distinction between competence and honesty. If you look at early political rhetoric during, say, Jefferson's administration (and later Jackson's), the key point they hit repeatedly is not that their political opponents are incompetent but that they are dishonest, that they are serving the interests of a small minority rather than that of the citizenry as a whole. If you look at 20th century mainstream politics, there is a massive emphasis on the other side of the equation - politicians arguing that their opponents are not sufficiently knowledgeable, or not sufficiently experienced, or occasionally lacking in the psychological fiber required to slug it out with the Soviets et al - but the movements decrying a "conspiracy at the center" - that the core issue is the honesty, rather than the competence, of elected officials and their appointees, remained on the margins, tackled only by political figures like Huey Long and Barry Goldwater, and by the more out of the mainstream sort of intellectuals and policy commentators.
I think we're seeing a massive resurgence of honesty politics, a more mainstream acceptance of the idea that the primary question is not how good politicians are the jobs they're running for but who they are actually putting their skills to work for. Clinton is still running, for the most part, a competency campaign. Sanders is running almost completely on honesty,. Trump is sort of doing half-and-half - his "deal-maker" persona involves claims about his competency, but if you actually look at how his followers seem to react at rallies, the main emphasis is on his "I am here for you and your country" - he's drawing more strength from the honesty arguments than the competence ones.
So a lot of voters don't have a problem with trusting the wonks on their, y'know, wonkishness, their expertise. The big flaring question mark is over their perceived allegiance to elite interests, rather than those of the country as a whole.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
I don't get how you can be authoritarian and be anti-elitist. Whichever group has the authority is an elite, right?
A lot of it can come down to urban v. rural cultural divides. See Pol Pot emptying out the cities of their "elites" to turn everyone into good patriotic peasants for an extreme example. Never forget authoritarianism is one of the biggest dangers a nation can face, and it's just as dangerous if it comes from the left or the right.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
A lot of it can come down to urban v. rural cultural divides. See Pol Pot emptying out the cities of their "elites" to turn everyone into good patriotic peasants for an extreme example. Never forget authoritarianism is one of the biggest dangers a nation can face, and it's just as dangerous if it comes from the left or the right.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, that Hillary's are the most middle of the road overall.
Who was it who said something to the effect of, "If you stand in the middle of the road, you get run-over"?
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on March 14, 2016
Who was it who said something to the effect of, "If you stand in the middle of the road, you get run-over"?
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on March 14, 2016
Tonight's Town Hall is airing on MSNBC (you need to subscribe to even stream it.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:57 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:57 PM on March 14, 2016
mikelieman: Who was it who said something to the effect of, "If you stand in the middle of the road, you get run-over"?
Jim Hightower. He wrote a book with that title called "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos: A Work of Political Subversion." It's a good read and should probably be required for those who are supporting Sanders, or even those who are Clinton supporters that are on the fence. The book's premise in part is that the Left must become more populist if it is going to survive as a political entity.
Worth noting: ], Americans identify as approx 38% conservative and 34% moderate and 24% liberal. Six years ago those numbers were 40%, 36% and 22%. A slight shift.
So, the US is majority Conservatives and moderates. Which is why their candidates get elected again and again. With Conservatives shifting further to the right, the Left either needs to move a lot more Moderates to the Left, or move themselves toward the middle.
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jim Hightower. He wrote a book with that title called "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos: A Work of Political Subversion." It's a good read and should probably be required for those who are supporting Sanders, or even those who are Clinton supporters that are on the fence. The book's premise in part is that the Left must become more populist if it is going to survive as a political entity.
Worth noting: ], Americans identify as approx 38% conservative and 34% moderate and 24% liberal. Six years ago those numbers were 40%, 36% and 22%. A slight shift.
So, the US is majority Conservatives and moderates. Which is why their candidates get elected again and again. With Conservatives shifting further to the right, the Left either needs to move a lot more Moderates to the Left, or move themselves toward the middle.
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly I'm surprised there's no debate tonight. It's been, what, 5 days?
posted by DynamiteToast at 3:06 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 3:06 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
mikelieman: Who was it who said something to the effect of, "If you stand in the middle of the road, you get run-over"?
Someone from the long ago time before Trump-man, before the forever war, before the howling winds of the ash storms.
posted by bluecore at 3:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Someone from the long ago time before Trump-man, before the forever war, before the howling winds of the ash storms.
posted by bluecore at 3:07 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Okay, I think I get the authoritarian and anti-Elite thing. So, I'm thinking of Anakin Skywalker, someone who wants a dictator to decide things but is against the Jedi Council would be like that then.
posted by FJT at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes! See, all his dialogue from Attack of the Clones that everybody slagged on is relevant and prescient now.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:15 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:15 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll try spinning!!! That's a good trick!
(Actually fits okay in a politics thread)
posted by Trochanter at 3:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Actually fits okay in a politics thread)
posted by Trochanter at 3:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bernie is doing really well at the Town Hall. Great questions being asked and the not so good ones are being smacked down.
posted by futz at 3:19 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 3:19 PM on March 14, 2016
Worth noting: ], Americans identify as approx 38% conservative and 34% moderate and 24% liberal. Six years ago those numbers were 40%, 36% and 22%. A slight shift.
But also, that's for self-identification on the label conservative, moderate, or liberal. The right has waged a campaign against the word liberal for decades. And many people identify as "conservative" but actually hold mostly moderate or liberal beliefs when you ask them pointed questions. When you look at people's actual policy positions, they largely: are pro choice, prefer environmental protection to economic growth, support same sex marriage, want a more even distribution of wealth, and are cool with a Medicare for all system.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
But also, that's for self-identification on the label conservative, moderate, or liberal. The right has waged a campaign against the word liberal for decades. And many people identify as "conservative" but actually hold mostly moderate or liberal beliefs when you ask them pointed questions. When you look at people's actual policy positions, they largely: are pro choice, prefer environmental protection to economic growth, support same sex marriage, want a more even distribution of wealth, and are cool with a Medicare for all system.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
Honestly I'm surprised there's no debate tonight. It's been, what, 5 days?
notsureifserious.jpg
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2016
notsureifserious.jpg
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2016
Can't wait to see if Mr Hard Ball actually plays hard ball or is a fawning minion with Clinton.
posted by futz at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2016
WSJ: Campaign 2016 Shatters the Reagan and Clinton Coalitions
These are significant changes to the face of both parties. Oh, and the one group that finds itself marginalized by both realignments? The traditional business community.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:25 PM on March 14, 2016
When you look at people's actual policy positions, they largely: are pro choice, prefer environmental protection to economic growth, support same sex marriage, want a more even distribution of wealth, and are cool with a Medicare for all system.
Yes, and most also support pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But, even when some form of these has been proposed they always get bogged down. Maybe people like these in the abstract, but when faced with the messiness of having to get a law passed through Congress they don't like the process.
Notice that both abortion and same sex marriage had their major decision at the Supreme Court, and not Congress.
posted by FJT at 3:31 PM on March 14, 2016
Yes, and most also support pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But, even when some form of these has been proposed they always get bogged down. Maybe people like these in the abstract, but when faced with the messiness of having to get a law passed through Congress they don't like the process.
Notice that both abortion and same sex marriage had their major decision at the Supreme Court, and not Congress.
posted by FJT at 3:31 PM on March 14, 2016
Americans identify as approx 38% conservative and 34% moderate and 24% liberal. Six years ago those numbers were 40%, 36% and 22%. A slight shift.
In addition to the stats melissasaurus cites, I think collapsing everything to a simple liberal/conservative axis really misses what's happening this election. The issues people seem to be responding most strongly to are those that transcend those axes at this point: trade & jobs, the Wall Street bailout, military interventionism & regime change, corruption, campaign finance, and honesty. in almost all of those cases, the distinction isn't between right/left, it's between the establishment and populist wings of each party.
It's tough to fit Trump into that because he's such a cipher - people hear what they want when they listen to him - but to take his rhetoric at face value, he's against establishment trade deals, his voters hated the bailout and he attacks Cruz on Wall Street money constantly, he's against regime change insofar as he's pushing that (false) line about being against the Iraq war and how we shouldn't be the world's police (or that they should at least pay us to do it? he's so bizarre), he's arguing that our politicians are corrupt and dishonest and sell us out for peanuts. Obviously the overt racism is a huge part of his appeal, I don't mean to diminish that, only to say that people are really responsive to those issues on both sides this year and they all fall outside of a traditional liberal/conservative axis, at least insofar as those identifications are associated with the establishment wings of each party. On preview, it looks like that WSJ article is getting a something similar - this has a lot of hallmarks of a realignment election.
posted by dialetheia at 3:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
In addition to the stats melissasaurus cites, I think collapsing everything to a simple liberal/conservative axis really misses what's happening this election. The issues people seem to be responding most strongly to are those that transcend those axes at this point: trade & jobs, the Wall Street bailout, military interventionism & regime change, corruption, campaign finance, and honesty. in almost all of those cases, the distinction isn't between right/left, it's between the establishment and populist wings of each party.
It's tough to fit Trump into that because he's such a cipher - people hear what they want when they listen to him - but to take his rhetoric at face value, he's against establishment trade deals, his voters hated the bailout and he attacks Cruz on Wall Street money constantly, he's against regime change insofar as he's pushing that (false) line about being against the Iraq war and how we shouldn't be the world's police (or that they should at least pay us to do it? he's so bizarre), he's arguing that our politicians are corrupt and dishonest and sell us out for peanuts. Obviously the overt racism is a huge part of his appeal, I don't mean to diminish that, only to say that people are really responsive to those issues on both sides this year and they all fall outside of a traditional liberal/conservative axis, at least insofar as those identifications are associated with the establishment wings of each party. On preview, it looks like that WSJ article is getting a something similar - this has a lot of hallmarks of a realignment election.
posted by dialetheia at 3:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe people like these in the abstract, but when faced with the messiness of having to get a law passed through Congress they don't like the process.
Agreed. And most Americans don't vote (or are disenfranchised) and gerrymandering means it's near impossible to have true turnover in Congress. So, it kind of doesn't matter what most Americans think.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Agreed. And most Americans don't vote (or are disenfranchised) and gerrymandering means it's near impossible to have true turnover in Congress. So, it kind of doesn't matter what most Americans think.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:34 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Loving what Bernie said at the Town Hall on climate change -- treat it like the nat'l security threat that it is. Use the military industrial complex to transition us to clean energy systems quickly (instead of making another fighter jet we don't need).
posted by melissasaurus at 3:37 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 3:37 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
> (oddly, Cruz supporters are even more authoritarian than Trump supporters, according to that analysis)
That doesn't seem odd to me. Cruz has positioned himself as a strong Christian, and the Christian God is the ultimate authority. I wouldn't presume to call all Christians authoritarians, but I see a link.
posted by Quagkapi at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016
That doesn't seem odd to me. Cruz has positioned himself as a strong Christian, and the Christian God is the ultimate authority. I wouldn't presume to call all Christians authoritarians, but I see a link.
posted by Quagkapi at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016
instead of making another fighter jet we don't need
Seriously, fuck the F-35 and everyone involved. The sooner Sec Defense Alan Grayson can kill it, the sooner we have $29,000 a minute to spend on better things.
posted by mikelieman at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, fuck the F-35 and everyone involved. The sooner Sec Defense Alan Grayson can kill it, the sooner we have $29,000 a minute to spend on better things.
posted by mikelieman at 3:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The data in that Washington Post survey are great, and the individual questions are good, but the names they choose for the four categories are terrible and misleading. Authoritarianism is ok, though it should probably be authority, since it measures love of authority figures, not authoritarianism per se. But "anti-elitism" really should be more like "anti-establishment," since the questions are more about power, money, and the "system", and not the many other kinds of elites (such as scientists, movie stars, sports figures, etc). "Mistrust of experts" is also ok, and clearly different from the previous category if you called that one anti-establishment; though if anything, this should be the one called "anti-elite." And the fourth category is a dog's breakfast, particularly calling it "populism," when it actually conflates nationalism with personal exceptionism -- neither of which are populism, and one of is more traditional right while the second of which is more libertarian.
That said, if you keep track of what was actually being asked, the graphs, which show really nice differences between the candidates, are much more interpretable. In particular, Trump is anti-establishment and anti-expert/anti-(liberal)-elite, while Cruz is pro-establishment anti-expert/anti-elite. Rubio is even more pro-establishment, and more nationalist than Cruz. Clinton is mildly pro-establishment, pro-expert, while Sanders is strongly anti-establishment while also strongly pro-expert, and is the only anti-nationalist of the group. It's also important that Cruz is more pro-authoritarian than Trump -- and that's because it's really not quite authoritarianism, but pro authority, which is high for conservative religious families (Cruz), but not so much for the more anti-establishment, less-religious Trump folks. To truly measure the Trump dimension, you want willingness to punch people in the face, but that remains hard to measure for obvious reasons...
posted by chortly at 3:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
That said, if you keep track of what was actually being asked, the graphs, which show really nice differences between the candidates, are much more interpretable. In particular, Trump is anti-establishment and anti-expert/anti-(liberal)-elite, while Cruz is pro-establishment anti-expert/anti-elite. Rubio is even more pro-establishment, and more nationalist than Cruz. Clinton is mildly pro-establishment, pro-expert, while Sanders is strongly anti-establishment while also strongly pro-expert, and is the only anti-nationalist of the group. It's also important that Cruz is more pro-authoritarian than Trump -- and that's because it's really not quite authoritarianism, but pro authority, which is high for conservative religious families (Cruz), but not so much for the more anti-establishment, less-religious Trump folks. To truly measure the Trump dimension, you want willingness to punch people in the face, but that remains hard to measure for obvious reasons...
posted by chortly at 3:53 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
The queue for Bernie's Chicago rally has been filling rapidly for the last 30 minutes or so. I got here at 4:30 and was already over 100 people from the front. Doors open at 8:30, with Bernie taking the stage at 10:30.
posted by HumuloneRanger at 3:56 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by HumuloneRanger at 3:56 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Does Matthews ever disclose that his wife is running for the Senate and her relationship with the Clinton campaign?
posted by futz at 4:11 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 4:11 PM on March 14, 2016
Hillary made a further apology for the Nancy Reagan AIDS comments on Saturday. Don't know if anyone here saw them yet.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:12 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 4:12 PM on March 14, 2016
Matthews is asking soft ball questions so far. Very chatty.
posted by futz at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2016
Use the military industrial complex to transition us to clean energy systems quickly (instead of making another fighter jet we don't need).
Hmm, once again I have mixed feelings on this. The US military has been slowly encroaching in on non-military or not so obvious military areas like humanitarian aid, space exploration, and intelligence gathering. Would it be wise to cede another important issue to them?
posted by FJT at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hmm, once again I have mixed feelings on this. The US military has been slowly encroaching in on non-military or not so obvious military areas like humanitarian aid, space exploration, and intelligence gathering. Would it be wise to cede another important issue to them?
posted by FJT at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, the question was something to the effect of "how can we achieve this transition within a 4 yr term?" So, he was like, during WWII, the country made a concerted effort to produce the military equipment needed; we need to treat this as though the climate is waging war on us and react in a similar manner; bonus points, it would increase domestic manufacturing and our exports to other countries and create jobs.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 4:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Playing Defense Is Not Enough. Hillary Clinton Must Be Bold. On a death penalty question, as with far too many others recently, she was stuck in a defensive crouch.
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Matthews is asking soft ball questions so far. Very chatty.
That's Matthews. I like his show because it works there. I think he also does good analysis for the most part. But his chummy shtick doesn't work well in this format... I'd prefer someone like Steve Kornacki. But he's too unseasoned as of yet. Maybe Andrew Mitchell? I wouldn't mind seeing that.
posted by Justinian at 4:21 PM on March 14, 2016
That's Matthews. I like his show because it works there. I think he also does good analysis for the most part. But his chummy shtick doesn't work well in this format... I'd prefer someone like Steve Kornacki. But he's too unseasoned as of yet. Maybe Andrew Mitchell? I wouldn't mind seeing that.
posted by Justinian at 4:21 PM on March 14, 2016
Gwen Ifill should handle any and all debates or town halls, regardless of network.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 4:23 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
> I don't think Josh Marshall's take on the events of this weekend have been posted in the thread yet. As usual, he's both correct and insightful
posted by homunculus at 4:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
For all the talk about Mussolini, let alone Hitler, George Wallace is the best analog in the last century of American politics - the mix of class politics and racist incitement, the same sort of orchestrated ratcheting up of conflict between supporters and protestors.Charles Pierce: Donald Trump Is Worse Than George Wallace, According to a Guy Who'd Know - After all, he's seen them both.
posted by homunculus at 4:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Hillary going to take any questions from the audience???
CM is hitting hard on why she thought Saddam had nukes.
posted by futz at 4:29 PM on March 14, 2016
CM is hitting hard on why she thought Saddam had nukes.
posted by futz at 4:29 PM on March 14, 2016
Yeah, maybe he was just starting out with the chummy part because he's not going easy on her on this stuff.
posted by Justinian at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:31 PM on March 14, 2016
100,000 dead in Iraq and what was she thinking about Libya question.
posted by futz at 4:32 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 4:32 PM on March 14, 2016
Well, the question was something to the effect of "how can we achieve this transition within a 4 yr term?" So, he was like, during WWII, the country made a concerted effort to produce the military equipment needed; we need to treat this as though the climate is waging war on us and react in a similar manner; bonus points, it would increase domestic manufacturing and our exports to other countries and create jobs.
You would think it would be child's play to get right-wing votes if we rebranded it as the War on the Environment.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:39 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
You would think it would be child's play to get right-wing votes if we rebranded it as the War on the Environment.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:39 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
The US military has been slowly encroaching in on non-military or not so obvious military areas like humanitarian aid, space exploration [...]
oh yes, the military definitely didn't have anything to do with space exploration from the beginning, we just developed these launch vehicles and guidance systems for purely humanitarian reasons, you see...
posted by indubitable at 4:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
oh yes, the military definitely didn't have anything to do with space exploration from the beginning, we just developed these launch vehicles and guidance systems for purely humanitarian reasons, you see...
posted by indubitable at 4:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
But, even when some form of these has been proposed they always get bogged down. Maybe people like these in the abstract, but when faced with the messiness of having to get a law passed through Congress they don't like the process.
There's also the issue of who pays for this. In Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything she mentions the way that people tend to react negatively to the cost of dealing with climate change when they're not convinced the costs will be shared in a just manner. If they think that they'll be footing the whole bill while other parts of the population (the very rich, the very poor, undocumented immigrants) will be free-riding, they tend to react negatively even if they like the initiative that is being paid for. It's not just what's being done its how its being done that counts with people.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:49 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's also the issue of who pays for this. In Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything she mentions the way that people tend to react negatively to the cost of dealing with climate change when they're not convinced the costs will be shared in a just manner. If they think that they'll be footing the whole bill while other parts of the population (the very rich, the very poor, undocumented immigrants) will be free-riding, they tend to react negatively even if they like the initiative that is being paid for. It's not just what's being done its how its being done that counts with people.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:49 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just found a bar with MSNBC. Are there like twenty people at Hillary's Town Hall? Did Bernie have that few?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2016
The audiences looked very different but I thought I was imagining it. Were they different for each candidate?
posted by futz at 5:14 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by futz at 5:14 PM on March 14, 2016
oh yes, the military definitely didn't have anything to do with space exploration from the beginning, we just developed these launch vehicles and guidance systems for purely humanitarian reasons, you see...
Vunce ze rocket goes up, who cares vere it comes down. Zats not my department, said Werner von Braun.
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Vunce ze rocket goes up, who cares vere it comes down. Zats not my department, said Werner von Braun.
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
In case anyone in here needs a break, here is Lin-Manuel Miranda and President Obama doing freestyle.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders wrongly assumes town hall questioner is Muslim
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on March 14, 2016
In case anyone in here needs a break, here is Lin-Manuel Miranda and President Obama doing freestyle.
For a second there, I thought the President was actually going to freestyle. And I knew it would be terrible. Because that stuff is very hard to do well. But thankfully he was just holding up the words for the Hamilton™ guy to freestyle from. The oval office line was great. Man I'm going to miss having Barack in office.
posted by cashman at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
For a second there, I thought the President was actually going to freestyle. And I knew it would be terrible. Because that stuff is very hard to do well. But thankfully he was just holding up the words for the Hamilton™ guy to freestyle from. The oval office line was great. Man I'm going to miss having Barack in office.
posted by cashman at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The 2 town halls seemed very oddly different tonight. I can't quite figure out why. Other than the audiences, I think Bernie's hour had more commercial interruptions, Todd tried to cut off his answers and was Bernie's audience instructed not to clap?
Funny, I went looking to record the reruns of both hours and Hillary's airs again at 11pm and Bernie's at 1am. Am I looking for a conspiracy that isn't there? *twilight zone music*
posted by futz at 6:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Funny, I went looking to record the reruns of both hours and Hillary's airs again at 11pm and Bernie's at 1am. Am I looking for a conspiracy that isn't there? *twilight zone music*
posted by futz at 6:18 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm a Clinton supporter but I feel like they've (TV) been hiding Bernie on television throughout this campaign, so I don't think you're imagining things.
posted by zutalors! at 6:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:22 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails
posted by valetta at 6:32 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by valetta at 6:32 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If there was a conspiracy, Hillary and Chris Matthews didn't reference it when they accidentally left their mics on while chatting during the break (oops) -
posted by sallybrown at 6:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
“So,” said Matthews, “did you watch the end of Downton Abbey?”Dammit!
A moment later, the screen went dark and the audio went silent — the mics were back off. Reporters retreated to their seats. They never heard the answer.
posted by sallybrown at 6:33 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
ha, I wonder how people will spin that seemingly unspinnable banter.
posted by zutalors! at 6:36 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 6:36 PM on March 14, 2016
Clinton's staff doesn't know who Ed Sullivan is?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016
Donald Trump Continues to Humiliate Chris Christie At Every Turn
Christie sure skips a lot of police funerals for a guy who likes to Big Talk about how the police get no respect from "thugs."
posted by sallybrown at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016
Christie sure skips a lot of police funerals for a guy who likes to Big Talk about how the police get no respect from "thugs."
posted by sallybrown at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016
MATTHEWS AND CLINTON SHARE LOVE FOR ARISTOCRACY, OPPRESSING SERVANTS
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on March 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Clinton paused. “It’s so funny,” she said, “when I talk about things like that with my staff, they’re so young —”posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:39 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Try Sid Caesar. Try Sid Caesar. Try Sid Caesar,” Matthews said.
“Ed Sullivan!” Clinton said.
Another pause.
“So,” said Matthews, “did you watch the end of Downton Abbey?”
(The far right wing Hillary conspiracy brigade had me half expecting a hot mic would catch her doing something more like this, so I'm fairly relieved by the discussion about candy and old fashioned comedy.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:44 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 6:44 PM on March 14, 2016
Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazis:
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Carol Foyler, a Nazi from suburban Cincinnati, said that she feared for her life when one of the vegans “ripped a Trump sign” from her hands and “tried to recycle it.”If you don't laugh you cry, I guess.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:46 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Chris Matthews did say towards the end, " sounds like you are ready to be commander in chief ". Which isn't very objective but not a crime. I just wish that both B & H had had the same moderator, audience, etc.
Circumstances may not have allowed that though. I was amazed that they had another damn town hall so soon and on the eve of such a big primary day.
Why aren't these things advertised more? Nobody I talked to on or offline knew it was happening.
posted by futz at 6:47 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Circumstances may not have allowed that though. I was amazed that they had another damn town hall so soon and on the eve of such a big primary day.
Why aren't these things advertised more? Nobody I talked to on or offline knew it was happening.
posted by futz at 6:47 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that New Yorker humor article needs to be tagged with *Satire*, because sadly, that text isn't immediately recognizable as a made-up joke.
posted by cashman at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry. I flagged it, and if the mods delete it I'll repost and make it more clear that it's a joke.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 PM on March 14, 2016
What does Trump have on Christie, I wonder?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:57 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
(ArbitraryAndCapricious: I think it's fine as-is, you've clarified the intent already.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just a quick linkdump before we move on to the next thread tomorrow:
It's not over til it's over: inside the Sanders campaign's do-or-die moment in Michigan: "Over the last few weeks, I worked my way inside the belly of the Bernie campaign. I saw the virtual chatrooms where thousands of super-volunteers are coordinating, and mapped their digital infrastructure, fast growing into something more powerful even than the Obama campaign. I travelled through five battleground states and spoke with hundreds of his supporters, as well as analysts and insiders. What I found was the story of a political start-up growing exponentially in a cauldron of American discontent."
Win or lose, the Sanders campaign is building a movement in Florida: "Back in the fall I’d written about the “volunteer-based reservoir of energy, talent, and enthusiasm that propelled a senator from a tiny state into a national figure.” But what I saw operating in Florida went way beyond that. The campaign calls it “distributed organizing”—a fruit partly of Exley’s experience at MoveOn.org and Wikimedia, partly of his colleague Becky Bond’s work as political director for CREDO, the lefty mobile phone provider, with the rest coming from the way Corbin Trent leveraged the internet to build Tennessee for Sanders in a very red state with very limited resources."
This one is older but has a lot of super interesting details about how Sanders was involved in the 1990s health care reform efforts.
When Bernie met Hillary: "This wasn’t the first time Sanders has reached out to Clinton. He’s been doing that for more than 20 years. As one of Congress’s most liberal members in the 1990s, Sanders went back and forth between clashing with Bill Clinton and warily embracing the leader of the centrist New Democrats. But even before the Clintons were in the White House, Bernie was playing the role of pragmatic progressive, making overtures directly to Hillary and working to pull her to the left."
Florida man goes undercover at a Trump rally: Pretending to be a Trump supporter almost broke my brain: "The first protester-disruption happened about ten minutes in, and Trump handled it like he handled the nine more disruptions over the course of the event — he’d calmly stop talking and walk to the edge of the stage closest to the disruption and stand there, staring right at them as they were grabbed and dragged away and thrown into the street. Sometimes he’d say “get ’em outta here” but he didn’t have to say it, people knew what to do. People wanted to do it. Then he’d pick right back up where he left off without missing a beat. It was a compelling display of power — Trump just standing there and watching as a dissenting voice grew dimmer with distance and got drowned out by jeers. If you were with Trump every single suppressed disruption made you feel like a winner. ... I felt how everyone around me grew emboldened in a primordial way to carry forth their violent agenda both at the polls and not, and after the rally I felt defeated and afraid."
posted by dialetheia at 7:02 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not over til it's over: inside the Sanders campaign's do-or-die moment in Michigan: "Over the last few weeks, I worked my way inside the belly of the Bernie campaign. I saw the virtual chatrooms where thousands of super-volunteers are coordinating, and mapped their digital infrastructure, fast growing into something more powerful even than the Obama campaign. I travelled through five battleground states and spoke with hundreds of his supporters, as well as analysts and insiders. What I found was the story of a political start-up growing exponentially in a cauldron of American discontent."
Win or lose, the Sanders campaign is building a movement in Florida: "Back in the fall I’d written about the “volunteer-based reservoir of energy, talent, and enthusiasm that propelled a senator from a tiny state into a national figure.” But what I saw operating in Florida went way beyond that. The campaign calls it “distributed organizing”—a fruit partly of Exley’s experience at MoveOn.org and Wikimedia, partly of his colleague Becky Bond’s work as political director for CREDO, the lefty mobile phone provider, with the rest coming from the way Corbin Trent leveraged the internet to build Tennessee for Sanders in a very red state with very limited resources."
This one is older but has a lot of super interesting details about how Sanders was involved in the 1990s health care reform efforts.
When Bernie met Hillary: "This wasn’t the first time Sanders has reached out to Clinton. He’s been doing that for more than 20 years. As one of Congress’s most liberal members in the 1990s, Sanders went back and forth between clashing with Bill Clinton and warily embracing the leader of the centrist New Democrats. But even before the Clintons were in the White House, Bernie was playing the role of pragmatic progressive, making overtures directly to Hillary and working to pull her to the left."
Florida man goes undercover at a Trump rally: Pretending to be a Trump supporter almost broke my brain: "The first protester-disruption happened about ten minutes in, and Trump handled it like he handled the nine more disruptions over the course of the event — he’d calmly stop talking and walk to the edge of the stage closest to the disruption and stand there, staring right at them as they were grabbed and dragged away and thrown into the street. Sometimes he’d say “get ’em outta here” but he didn’t have to say it, people knew what to do. People wanted to do it. Then he’d pick right back up where he left off without missing a beat. It was a compelling display of power — Trump just standing there and watching as a dissenting voice grew dimmer with distance and got drowned out by jeers. If you were with Trump every single suppressed disruption made you feel like a winner. ... I felt how everyone around me grew emboldened in a primordial way to carry forth their violent agenda both at the polls and not, and after the rally I felt defeated and afraid."
posted by dialetheia at 7:02 PM on March 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh yeah, I just really was commenting on how sad it is that it isn't immediately recognizable as satire.
posted by cashman at 7:03 PM on March 14, 2016
posted by cashman at 7:03 PM on March 14, 2016
It took two years, four trips to the DMV, two trips to South Carolina, and $86 in government documents for an 85-year-old woman to continue to vote. Quick called it “an absolute nightmare. There are other voters out there that do not have the money, time, access to transportation, and family assistance to obtain a NCDMV photo ID. It should not be this difficult to obtain an ID for voting.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Donald Trump jokes about Todd Palin, who's currently in serious but stable condition in the hospital after a snow machine ("snow machine?") accident:
Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, was scheduled to campaign on Donald J. Trump’s behalf Monday in Florida, but she had canceled to return to Alaska after her husband, Todd, was hospitalized in a snow machine accident.posted by sallybrown at 7:04 PM on March 14, 2016
But Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, still managed to appear with Mr. Trump at his event here, and in response to a question from the audience about the Second Amendment, Mr. Trump invoked both her and her husband.
Referring to the terrorist attacks of San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump said the situation might have unfolded differently had others in the room been armed.
“If Todd Palin were in that room, frankly, if Sarah Palin were in the room — forget about Todd, especially now,” Mr. Trump said, seeming to refer to Mr. Palin’s hospitalization.
Hillary Clinton Lets Scandal-Plagued Corporation Throw Her a Fund-raiser, for Some Stupid Reason
In recent days, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that the company’s lab in Newark, California, was in violation of five federal regulations, thereby posing “immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety." Last week, the release of that investigation’s full report revealed that “quality control issues” may have compromised the blood-test results of 81 patients.
These revelations have cost Theranos many investors, commercial partners, and board members — among them Henry Kissinger, ex-secretary of State George P. Schultz, and former U.S senator Sam Nunn. But for god knows what reason, it hasn’t cost the company the chance to host a fund-raiser for the Democratic front-runner. Next week, Chelsea Clinton will join Holmes at Theranos’s Palo Alto headquarters to help raise money for her mother’s campaign. According to an email obtained by Re/code, the event will be held next Monday night and will cost most attendees $2,700 a head.
posted by futz at 7:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
In recent days, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that the company’s lab in Newark, California, was in violation of five federal regulations, thereby posing “immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety." Last week, the release of that investigation’s full report revealed that “quality control issues” may have compromised the blood-test results of 81 patients.
These revelations have cost Theranos many investors, commercial partners, and board members — among them Henry Kissinger, ex-secretary of State George P. Schultz, and former U.S senator Sam Nunn. But for god knows what reason, it hasn’t cost the company the chance to host a fund-raiser for the Democratic front-runner. Next week, Chelsea Clinton will join Holmes at Theranos’s Palo Alto headquarters to help raise money for her mother’s campaign. According to an email obtained by Re/code, the event will be held next Monday night and will cost most attendees $2,700 a head.
posted by futz at 7:05 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What does Trump have on Christie, I wonder?
I figured it was a promise to make him Attorney General, but I don't know if even Christie would put up with the humiliation he got today just for that.
posted by dialetheia at 7:06 PM on March 14, 2016
I figured it was a promise to make him Attorney General, but I don't know if even Christie would put up with the humiliation he got today just for that.
posted by dialetheia at 7:06 PM on March 14, 2016
It took two years, four trips to the DMV, two trips to South Carolina, and $86 in government documents for an 85-year-old woman to continue to vote.
Meanwhile, the Trump supporter who slapped a protestor the other day...was previously charged with voting fraud for voting in two different states in 2012 and 2014! But don't worry - he's "not a hateful person."
posted by sallybrown at 7:10 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Meanwhile, the Trump supporter who slapped a protestor the other day...was previously charged with voting fraud for voting in two different states in 2012 and 2014! But don't worry - he's "not a hateful person."
posted by sallybrown at 7:10 PM on March 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm actually really un-delighted about the voter fraud story, because even though the dude is a Trump supporter, it validates the idea that voter fraud is a problem. And attempts to stop voter fraud always, always hit socially disenfranchised people the most. That's bad in general, and it's particularly bad for Democrats.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
...we need to take a hard look at the electoral map and consider the implications of the fact that the main electoral strength Hillary Clinton has demonstrated thus far lies in states that, unfortunately, are almost certain to go Republican this fall.
posted by futz at 7:25 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:25 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
sallybrown, snow machine is Alaskan for snowmobile.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC's Chris Matthews is facing renewed scrutiny over his wife's congressional bid.
On Friday, however, The Intercept reported that Kathleen Matthews had received $79,050 in campaign contributions in 2015 "from prominent former and current politicians" featured on her husband's show.
Some of these contributions came just days before the guests appeared on Matthews' show.
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gave $10,000 to Matthews' campaign two days before appearing on "Hardball," while California Senator Barbara Boxer gave $1,000 a day before being interview on the program.
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
On Friday, however, The Intercept reported that Kathleen Matthews had received $79,050 in campaign contributions in 2015 "from prominent former and current politicians" featured on her husband's show.
Some of these contributions came just days before the guests appeared on Matthews' show.
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gave $10,000 to Matthews' campaign two days before appearing on "Hardball," while California Senator Barbara Boxer gave $1,000 a day before being interview on the program.
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
A little more humor:
"I'll have an elm tree on rye."
posted by CincyBlues at 7:53 PM on March 14, 2016
"I'll have an elm tree on rye."
posted by CincyBlues at 7:53 PM on March 14, 2016
The NYT is now reporting that Obama's Supreme Court pick could come as soon as tomorrow. But would he do that with these big primaries going on on the same day?
(Maybe he should wait till St. Patrick's Day for the boost of good luck...)
posted by sallybrown at 8:06 PM on March 14, 2016
(Maybe he should wait till St. Patrick's Day for the boost of good luck...)
posted by sallybrown at 8:06 PM on March 14, 2016
By my logic a snowmachine should make snow.
posted by ian1977 at 8:06 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 8:06 PM on March 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump's interview with Playboy Magazine from March 1990:
When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world--
posted by bluecore at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world--
posted by bluecore at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The NYT is now reporting that Obama's Supreme Court pick could come as soon as tomorrow.
Ah, now it makes sense - I just saw this petition (on someone's twitter) a little bit ago, at BarackObama.com: "Sign the petition—tell the Senate to do its job."
posted by cashman at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2016
Ah, now it makes sense - I just saw this petition (on someone's twitter) a little bit ago, at BarackObama.com: "Sign the petition—tell the Senate to do its job."
posted by cashman at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2016
Donald Trump's interview with Playboy Magazine from March 1990
The signs were all there! IF ONLY WE READ THE ARTICLES!!!
posted by FJT at 8:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [20 favorites]
The signs were all there! IF ONLY WE READ THE ARTICLES!!!
posted by FJT at 8:28 PM on March 14, 2016 [20 favorites]
When it was wildly unpopular politically, Sanders backed a pride parade. In the LGBT community, word got out: Burlington was a place trans Americans could be safe: "Gay-rights organizers had planned Burlington’s first pride parade four years before LeMay had arrived in 1983. Many community members and politicians had opposed it. But Sanders, who was in his first term as mayor, vocally backed the parade, citing the right to march as a civil liberties issue. In a memo written a day before the parade, Sanders wrote, “In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights—especially the freedom of speech and expression. In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others’ lifestyle.” Two years after the parade, Sanders signed a city ordinance that further prohibited housing discrimination."
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Hillary made a further apology for the Nancy Reagan AIDS comments on Saturday. Don't know if anyone here saw them yet.
Thank you, Apocryphon . That was exceptional.
posted by zarq at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2016
Thank you, Apocryphon . That was exceptional.
posted by zarq at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2016
Hillary made a further apology for the Nancy Reagan AIDS comments on Saturday.
Scratch a Clinton, find a Reagan.
posted by telstar at 9:40 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scratch a Clinton, find a Reagan.
posted by telstar at 9:40 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
George Wallace
posted by telstar at 9:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by telstar at 9:44 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Goldwater?
posted by Trochanter at 9:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Trochanter at 9:52 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Point is...keep scratching and it will fester and you'll get a drumpf
posted by ian1977 at 10:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 10:03 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scratch George Wallace you get...Strom Thurmond. And on back to John Calhoun. In case of smuggery, consider Woodrow Wilson part of the chain.
posted by telstar at 10:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by telstar at 10:09 PM on March 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scratch Bernie and you get...a sincere thanks for getting to that one spot on his back he can't reach. You see America? Let's scratch each other's backs instead of constantly scratching the Washington and Wall St. elite.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on March 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Interesting analysis here by Jack Metzgar; Misrepresenting the White Working Class: What the Narrating Class Gets Wrong:
posted by bardophile at 10:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Take the assumed popularity of Trump among the white working class, for example. There appears to be supporting evidence for that. According to Brookings, for example, in a national survey 55% of “Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who support Trump are white working-class Americans.” But this does not mean what Brookings thinks it means. Among all adult whites, nearly 70% do not have bachelor’s degrees (the definition of “working class” used here). This means that at 55%, the white working-class is under-represented among Trump supporters. Conversely, unless Trump is getting much more minority support than reported, his supporters are disproportionally college-educated whites. They make up 30% of the white population, but they are at least 40% of Trump voters in the Brookings survey.
posted by bardophile at 10:31 PM on March 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
...we need to take a hard look at the electoral map and consider the implications of the fact that the main electoral strength Hillary Clinton has demonstrated thus far lies in states that, unfortunately, are almost sure to go to Republicans this fall.
My god, I took a hard look and you're right. The implications are staggering. Why that map looks almost identical to Obama's primary wins in 2008!
posted by one_bean at 11:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
My god, I took a hard look and you're right. The implications are staggering. Why that map looks almost identical to Obama's primary wins in 2008!
posted by one_bean at 11:01 PM on March 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
Interesting analysis here by Jack Metzgar; Misrepresenting the White Working Class: What the Narrating Class Gets Wrong:
Wow, that whole piece is fantastic and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it. This part in particular has been bothering me not just about the Trump narrative, but about many conversations with otherwise progressive people who sometimes imply that poor white people in some way deserve to live in poverty because of their assumed racism/sexism/homophobia:
posted by dialetheia at 1:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
Wow, that whole piece is fantastic and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it. This part in particular has been bothering me not just about the Trump narrative, but about many conversations with otherwise progressive people who sometimes imply that poor white people in some way deserve to live in poverty because of their assumed racism/sexism/homophobia:
It’s becoming a low-level one-sided cultural class war where what Nadine Hubbs calls “the narrating class” blithely assumes that working-class whites are “America’s perpetual bigot class.” ...This is underscored nicely by Kevin Williamson's newest piece in the National Review, in which he makes the Republican elite contempt, disgust, and hatred for their own poor white voters very clear. The article is paywalled but the worst part of it is reproduced here. He says of impoverished white voters: "The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin." This contempt is especially disgusting in the context of the Republican establishment using these voters in the exact same way for so many years - ultimately, he's just frustrated that Mitt Romney doesn't make them feel as good as Donald Trump, not legitimately concerned about their culture or their well-being.
Here’s where Nadine Hubbs’s Rednecks, Queers, & Country Music is so helpful. She shows how an educated white “narrating class” tends to see working-class whites are “ground zero for America’s most virulent social ills: racism, sexism, and homophobia.” Hubbs traces this to a Southern tradition of “white elites placing the blame for racial violence on poor whites as early as the turn of the twentieth century.” Hubbs quotes Patricia Turner, who has dubbed it “the fallacy of To Kill a Mockingbird”, which is the “notion that well-educated Christian whites were somehow victimized by white trash and forced to live within a social system that exploited and denigrated its black citizens.”
This class-based blame-shifting (“It’s not us, it’s them!”) actually supports racist and other systems of oppression. As Hubbs points out, the well-documented institutional racism that involves banks denying mortgages, employers not hiring blacks, and landlords refusing and/or exploiting black renters is not generally carried out by poor and working-class whites, but by white middle-class professionals. By casting intolerance and bigotry as the unfortunate/misguided attitudes of “poorly educated,” “low-information” white voters, we white middle-class professionals deflect attention from those well-entrenched institutions within which we work, institutions that systematically deny opportunities to a wide range of people based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, immigrant status, and class.
posted by dialetheia at 1:00 AM on March 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
...we need to take a hard look at the electoral map and consider the implications of the fact that the main electoral strength Hillary Clinton has demonstrated thus far lies in states that, unfortunately, are almost certain to go Republican this fall.
You know, I've seen this come up a couple times, and I'm still not sure how this matters? Given the repeated and sincere declarations on the part of both Sanders and Clinton to campaign heartily for the ultimate nominee once the Final Round kicks off, who won what in the primary doesn't seem pertinent. It's rather like the earlier insistence that Sanders isn't quite as impressive as Clinton among minority voters - if Clinton's going to be stumping for Sanders (should he win the nomination), it seems unlikely that mounds of black voters will stay home/vote Trump because she lost the primary - Sanders will still be the best option available in an important election. Likewise, unless you're positing that all the Sanders folks will just turn up their noses at their chosen figure when he asks them to stand with Clinton (should she win the nomination) in the general, the fact that Clinton's primary strength is in the south doesn't seem critical. But then I've not slept in 30 hours or so, maybe I'm just sleep-stupid and missing something?
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
You know, I've seen this come up a couple times, and I'm still not sure how this matters? Given the repeated and sincere declarations on the part of both Sanders and Clinton to campaign heartily for the ultimate nominee once the Final Round kicks off, who won what in the primary doesn't seem pertinent. It's rather like the earlier insistence that Sanders isn't quite as impressive as Clinton among minority voters - if Clinton's going to be stumping for Sanders (should he win the nomination), it seems unlikely that mounds of black voters will stay home/vote Trump because she lost the primary - Sanders will still be the best option available in an important election. Likewise, unless you're positing that all the Sanders folks will just turn up their noses at their chosen figure when he asks them to stand with Clinton (should she win the nomination) in the general, the fact that Clinton's primary strength is in the south doesn't seem critical. But then I've not slept in 30 hours or so, maybe I'm just sleep-stupid and missing something?
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:53 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the point regarding the geographic makeup of the support isn't so much that Bernie needs the black southern votes to succeed in the general election - he doesn't. It's the point that Hillary needs the white working class democrats/independents in the rust belt swing states, and so far they are breaking for sanders. If they vote for Hillary in the general it's not going to matter, but there is concern that a lot of people abhor Hillary and would rather vote for the republican. It doesn't take many votes to change the outcome in the swing states by definition, and so even a modest percentage of whites defecting to Trump/Cruz would have outsized consequences in the general.
Frankly, I think most of this type of hatred for her is sexism and I don't think it's okay to hold that against her, but there is also the reality that the democractic candidate will be facing either an amoral huckster who is stirring up racism and hatred or a smarmy christian dominionist who wants to force his theology down everybody's throats. I can understand why people worry about Hillary, given the circumstances.
posted by zug at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Frankly, I think most of this type of hatred for her is sexism and I don't think it's okay to hold that against her, but there is also the reality that the democractic candidate will be facing either an amoral huckster who is stirring up racism and hatred or a smarmy christian dominionist who wants to force his theology down everybody's throats. I can understand why people worry about Hillary, given the circumstances.
posted by zug at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
A response to Sanders's comments in the debate on 3/6 about the lawsuit against Remington: Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown
posted by homunculus at 4:02 PM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:02 PM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ugh, that piece made me cry. I wish them luck with their suit.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:26 PM on March 19, 2016
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:26 PM on March 19, 2016
« Older RIP Pat Conroy | "I am a woman. I am a feminist. And I am angry." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Boston Herald: Billionaire expected to carry today’s GOP contests.
- New York magazine: Sub-Super Saturday and Sorta-Significant Sunday Primaries and Caucuses Will Offer Hints on Candidate Momentum.
- San Diego Union-Tribune: Who will win on Super Saturday (and Sunday), guaranteed* .
- weau.com: Different delegate rule in Saturday GOP contests.
posted by Wordshore at 2:36 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]