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- Ben Carson has fully withdrawn from the race.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)
posted by Wordshore (2551 comments total) 48 users marked this as a favorite
 


*cries*
posted by Mezentian at 3:00 AM on March 5, 2016 [16 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 [87 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]


[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 at 3:16 AM on March 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


Go Bernie Go
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:23 AM on March 5, 2016 [12 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]


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]


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 [28 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 [15 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]


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]


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 [3 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 [3 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]


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]


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 [5 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]


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]


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 [48 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 [11 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:
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 [44 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]


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 [64 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 [12 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


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]




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]


> 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 [9 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]


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 [19 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 [14 favorites]


And they did this at multiple precincts.
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]


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 [39 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


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]


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 [7 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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]




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


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]


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]


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]


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 [21 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 [6 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]


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]


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 [46 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


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]


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]


> 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]


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]


> 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]


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 [32 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]


Whole thing is done in 8 weeks. You're welcome.

Actually, it starts about a year out. You get you pre-election bribe 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]


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]


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 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]


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 [6 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.

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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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 [15 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]


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 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]


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 [2 favorites]


"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]


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:
  • 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
But I'd always assumed that y'all Europeans (and Australians, and whatnot) were learning this stuff by studiously reading Serious Newspapers or something. I mean, I see a lot of US-centric stories from sources like The Guardian and Der Spiegel—and here in the US, coverage of foreign affairs is largely relegated to the monocle-wearing likes of The Economist and The New York Times—so maybe that's where I got that idea. But I'm surprised to learn that you have a weekly half-hour TV show on a major network about our elections, complete with silly graphics.

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 [22 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]


[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]


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 [6 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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


"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 [17 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]


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 [2 favorites]


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


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 [8 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 [3 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 [2 favorites]


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 [5 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 [31 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]


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]


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 [2 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.

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


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]




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]


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]


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 [58 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]


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]


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


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]


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


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]


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.

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 [3 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 [6 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]


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]


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 [62 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]


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]


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]




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 [36 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'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


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]


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]


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]


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


> 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


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]


The US Primaries: It's like EuroVision for assholes.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:32 AM on March 5, 2016 [28 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]


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]


also:

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.

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.
this is Clinton's approach to "progressivism".
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 [7 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]


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]


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]


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


-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]


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]


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 [41 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


"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]


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


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]


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]


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 [18 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 [11 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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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 [62 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]


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]


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


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]



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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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 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 [15 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]


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 [40 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]


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]


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.
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 [29 favorites]


Kansas caucus results are starting to trickle in.
posted by Wordshore at 12:56 PM on March 5, 2016




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]


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


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]


>"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


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 [21 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]


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]


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]


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]


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]






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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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 [5 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]


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.

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 [9 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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


"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 [27 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]


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]


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]


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]


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 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]


... or maybe we just like her?
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]


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]


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]


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]


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 [4 favorites]


You're not Canadian, are you? Because that would be maximum irony.
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]


Kate Brown is the governor of Oregon.
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


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]


Tammy Duckworth, though she can't run for President
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]


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


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]


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


Tammy Duckworth, though she can't run for President

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]


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]


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


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


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]


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]


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


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


...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]


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


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


I should've said Dick Romney. Oh well.
posted by chimaera 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]


"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 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


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


[Okay, enough on the dynasty derail.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee 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


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:
    [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]


"(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, 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


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]


Everybody knows guitars destroy fascists, not comics.
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]


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


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]


well they called Kansas for Cruz.
posted by Max Power at 4:03 PM on March 5, 2016


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]


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'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]


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 [35 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]


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]


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 [31 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]


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


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]


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


I hope SNL draws up something good tonight against this maniac. Something memorable.
posted by cashman at 4:41 PM on March 5, 2016




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]


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]


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


"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]


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 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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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 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]


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]


"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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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 [6 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.”

“Ok I’ll vote for Cruz.”

“Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo”

— Republican Establishment
posted by zombieflanders at 5:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


"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]


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]


Kansas has been called for Sanders!
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


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]


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


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


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]


Somebody tell Jello Biafra he needs to update California Uber Alles for Trump.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:35 PM on March 5, 2016


On Jello Biafra's whiteboard:
  • California Über Alles
  • We've Got A Bigger Problem Now
  • Just WTF America?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


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]


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]



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]


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]


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]


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]


He can see 1st place from his big chair!
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]


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]


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


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


> 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


MSNBC calls Nebraska for Sanders, too!
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]


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]


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]


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 [22 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]


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



Louisiana projected for clinton...NBC
posted by futz at 6:23 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]


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]


They were a mess last time, too, just ask Rick Santorum.
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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


"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


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]


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]


"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]


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



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]


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


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]


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]


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


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]


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


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


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]


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 [8 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


"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]


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


Cool. Thanks for the insight.
posted by futz at 7:11 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


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]


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]


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


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


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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 [6 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 [2 favorites]




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


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]






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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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:

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.
If you want to stop reading here, this is all you need to know.

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]


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]


I'll take what I can get.
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]


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]


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]


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


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]


Potentially the Nixon Tapes.
posted by futz at 10:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Frost's Nixon Interviews...
posted by futz at 10:43 PM on March 5, 2016


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


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]


"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"
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]


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]


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]


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]


"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]


Any others?

Threads
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:50 AM on March 6, 2016 [5 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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


The penis debate reminds me of The Anthony Weiner award for technology.
posted by clavdivs at 6:33 AM on March 6, 2016


Joe Biden on Cruz:
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]


> "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]


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]


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]


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


> "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 [30 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]


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]


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]


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 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]




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]


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]


I feel so bad for Cleveland having to host this crapfest.
posted by octothorpe at 8:38 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


MSNBC reporting Nancy Reagan has died at age 94.
posted by cashman at 8:43 AM on March 6, 2016


I was just wondering a couple days ago if she was still alive.
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]


> 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 [15 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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


> "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 [14 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]


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]


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]


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 [8 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]




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]


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]


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


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


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


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


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]


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 [25 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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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 [1 favorite]


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]


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]


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


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


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


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]


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]


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]




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]


Not sure what that has to do with anything.
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]


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]


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 [9 favorites]




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 [8 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]


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


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]


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


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]


Clearly the 20 states we have data on are outliers.
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


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]


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]


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
Clinton-Booker vs. Trump-Rubio
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."
Drinky Die
Clinton-Castro vs. Trump-Rubio
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. "
Cash4Lead
Clinton-Kaine vs. Trump-Christie
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."
Honorable mentions: if you grant a mulligan on the Iowa Democratic caucus, which was a virtual tie, two more users have perfect slates so far:

mightygodking
Clinton-Castro vs. Trump-Rubio
Result: Clinton - GOP House - Dem Senate
Automacar
Clinton-Biden vs. Trump-(Ivanka) Trump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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."
BONUS EDIT: A look at the colorful prediction spreadsheet!
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]


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]


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]


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


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]


Isn't Italy still in Europe?
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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


That 538 link is amazing, dialetheia, thanks!
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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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 [14 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]


> 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]


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]


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


*DEBATE THREAD DECLARED* ?

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]


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


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]


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]


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


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 [9 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]


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


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]




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]


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]


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


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


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]


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


"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


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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 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]


"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


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


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]


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]


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]




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 [2 favorites]


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]


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]


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


This is a really good debate.
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




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


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


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 [11 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]


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 [29 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]


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]


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]


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 [8 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]


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]


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


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


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 [19 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


Too much smirking.
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:20 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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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


"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


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]


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


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]


YUGE!
posted by homunculus at 6:41 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Are they wro--"
"Yes."
posted by Room 641-A at 6:42 PM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


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


"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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


Question: Sen. Sanders, do you believe that God is relevant?

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]


Well, God isn't particularly relevant in Buddhism, actually.
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]


WTF is up with these religious-test questions??
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]


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]


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 [21 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]


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


Glad they talked about prayer instead of reproductive rights.
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]


You wanna seltzer the ocean?
posted by um at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can a sista get a bottle of water? Dang.
posted by cashman at 7:01 PM on March 6, 2016


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


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]


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


Watch CNN?
posted by clavdivs at 7:08 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


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]


Fox is the next debate
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 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]


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


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]


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]


"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]


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


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]


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


Justin who?

Bern pulled out of that question.
posted by clavdivs at 8:05 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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


(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]


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]


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]


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]


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


"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]


thank you.I'll watch it tomorrow.
posted by futz at 8:50 PM on March 6, 2016


"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]


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 [11 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]


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]


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


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


She has Reddit gold and 0 comment karma.

DIGITAL PRIVILEGE!
posted by clavdivs at 10:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


DIGITAL PRIVILEGE!

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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


"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]


[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 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]


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]


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


"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto. You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car."

My problem with this is that plenty of whites do know what it is to be poor, live in a "ghetto", and get harassed by police. What they don't know is how much worse all those things are when you're black.

I lived in the Ypsilanti neighborhoods linked above. It was predominately black, but it also had immigrants and poor whites. Poor whites who were resentful of how much "easier" blacks had it, without caring that they themselves were using the same services that they looked down on their black neighbor's for using. Because of course they "deserved" it, while the others didn't. That's what systemic racism looks like. And that's what the GOP has been capitalizing on for decades.

So Bernie not only made it seem like black = poor and ghetto, but that white people didn't know what it was like to experience those things. I don't think he meant those things, but it sure as hell made me sit up in my chair.
posted by snickerdoodle at 4:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


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]


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


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


would be good to have absolute numbers for some of those stats

My quick and dirty calculation came up to about 11.8M for whites and 27.9M for blacks. Awful, but it actually understates how bad it is because poor white neighborhoods tend to be less unstable than poor black ones.
posted by snickerdoodle at 4:59 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


To clarify, I don't think that Bernie's statement was necessarily racist. But I'm picturing Trump's "Career politician says you don't know what it's like to be poor" ads and I'm cringing. So yes, a gaffe.
posted by snickerdoodle at 5:08 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


This has been going around, not sure the original origin.
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]


Enough with the white people derail. It's boring.
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.

“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.”
posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


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


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 [10 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]


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]


Madame Defarge was knitting the fourth Doctor's scarf.
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


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]


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 [36 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 [6 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


"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


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


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]


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)
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


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.

Trump asked them to pledge to Trump. Not to America, not the republic, not to the flag, not to the party, not to an ideal, not to voting, not to morality, not to doing good in the world. To Trump.

The Tennis Court Oath was to an ideal. The Pledge of Allegiance is to a country. The Nazi salute was mostly to Hitler, and secondarily to the party to which he belonged. If someone asking their supporters, at a political rally, to pledge allegiance to them personally doesn't at a minimum 'invoke echoes of Nazism' I don't know what would.

That does't necessarily mean that Trump is a fascist, or a Nazi, but that imagery, in that particular context -- and notable in the context of his xenophobia -- it's not a stretch to draw that comparison.
posted by cjelli at 8:56 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


"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]


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 [4 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]


Other than this, I mean.
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on March 7, 2016


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


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]


"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]




Ted Cruz, Please Help Us, We Have No Idea How to Stop Donald Trump
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!

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.
*worried sigh*
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


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]


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


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]


...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


The Donald just Streisanded a music video. (His letterhead is amazing.)
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]


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


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


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]




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]


It can't happen here!
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]


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]


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


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]


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


>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


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]


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]


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


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

Focusing on what angle people are holding their arms at ignores the other half of the parallel drawn by, among others, Foxman:
“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.”
That Trump is asking for an oath of personal loyalty makes splitting hairs over the exact positioning of people's arms pointless -- he explicitly wasn't asking people to pledge to defend the constitution, so to say it 'was like that' isn't to say much. It wasn't that: it was something else.

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.

A defense that amounts to 'Trump is just accidentally invoking Hitler parallels' is not exactly reassuring. Either he's so dumb he doesn't see the parallel it invokes, in which case -- that's not good. Or he's doing it on purpose -- that's worse. There's no upside here.
posted by cjelli at 11:03 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


> 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 [7 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]


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 [8 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 [4 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]


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


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


>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]


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


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]


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


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]


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


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]


He's just telling them he really needs them to actually show up at the polls

Well, no, he's not. 'Just telling them he really needs them to actually show up at the polls' would be him telling people he really needs them to actually show up at the polls. That would be easy: I just did it twice in one sentence.

He asked people to take an oath to vote for him. That's a categorically different thing than merely reminding people to get out and vote.

We can slice and dice this a dozen different ways, but if you're a presidential candidate holding a political rally, and people come away from it thinking 'this is uncomfortably similar to a Nazi rally,' that's on you. It may or may not have been intentional, but that Trump might be accidentally invoking Nazi parallels is also not good?

But it's not the third reich arisen, that's pretty ridiculous.

That's not what anyone is claiming, so, sure? I think you're misreading what people are (mostly) claiming -- that Trump is invoking a lot of fascist, and particularly Nazi, imagery, has a lot to do with building support among white supremacists, but not with literally resurrecting Nazi Germany. His rhetoric has been more directed at China and Mexico than anywhere else.
posted by cjelli at 11:36 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


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

Heh. That's fair, but, at the same time, that's a large part of why people are reacting strongly to this latest rally in particular -- that Trump's actions exist within the context of the election season, in which Mexico's president has compared Trump to Hitler and Mussolini. Which will be, you know, mildly awkward at the least should Trump somehow win.
posted by cjelli at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


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


>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]






Especially if her term ends up being one-and-done.
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 [15 favorites]


Trumping. (NSFW Language)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:41 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


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 [5 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]


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 [15 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.

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]




People get mad when I say that.
posted by Justinian at 2:42 PM on March 7, 2016


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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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]




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]


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]


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]


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]


And, of course, FoxNews is the first to ask about abortion.
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
[...] 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.

[...]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.

posted by tonycpsu at 3:42 PM on March 7, 2016


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]






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]




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]


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]




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




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


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'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


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]


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]


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


"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]




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]


"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


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




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]


"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]


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]


Trump: I Didn't Know Hand-Raising Pledge At Rallies Was A Problem
Donald Trump on Tuesday morning addressed a new routine he's introduced at rallies where he asks attendees to raise their right hands and pledge to vote for him, saying he didn't realize that some were offended by the gesture...

"Well, I think it’s ridiculous. We’re having such a great time. Yesterday, I had 20,000 people in Mississippi. I had tremendous crowds in Michigan. And sometimes we’ll do it for fun, and they’ll start screaming at me, ‘Do the swear-in! Do the swear-in!’ They’re having such a great time," Trump said in response. "Honestly, until this phone call, I didn’t know it was a problem."

...Co-host Matt Lauer jumped in and said that the pledge combined with some of Trump's rhetoric may be why images of rally attendees with their arms raised "evokes images of Nazi Germany."

"Well, I think that’s a big, big stretch," Trump responded before again noting how large his campaign rallies have been.

Lauer then asked Trump if he would consider no longer asking rally attendees to take a pledge.

"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."
posted by cjelli at 6:29 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 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]


The Flint water crisis and the US elections
Clinton and Sanders both sought to demagogically exploit the outrage of Flint residents...

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.
“Left” demagogy and nationalism dominate Democratic debate in Flint
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.

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.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:35 AM on March 8, 2016


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]


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]


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


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.


Silicon Valley Technoliberarians actually don't really underpay their H1Bs. It's the giant outsourcing firms like IBM, Tata, and Infosys who will be most affected (cite).
posted by snickerdoodle at 7:37 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


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]


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]


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:
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.

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.
So, that's politics on Maui.
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
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]


"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]


New numbers suggest Michigan has tightened up.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:33 AM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yes they do underpay. From your citation, look at the salaries they pay H1Bs compared to green cards.

Do you have access to that data? From what I can see, the actual Silicon Valley company salaries listed aren't far from the average software engineer with with citizenship.

There are definitely H1B abuses, but they're overwhelmingly happening at outsourcing firms. When you add up the cost of getting the H1B itself, the lost time, etc., it always winds up costing me more than hiring someone local. We only do it if we have to, which is how it's supposed to work.

Look at the number of applications too. The system is overwhelming flooded with crappy outsourcing firms. Because it's a lottery, that means they get most of the actual visas too. I believe the system needs to be scrapped for just this reason.
posted by snickerdoodle at 9:35 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 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]


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]


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]


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]


"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 [26 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 [4 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]




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]




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]


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


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]



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]


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


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]


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]


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]






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 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]


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]


Some more Hawaii GOP analysis.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:22 PM on March 8, 2016


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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 [20 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]


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


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


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]


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


Absolutely not counting Rubio at this point
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


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


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]


Where are the REAL numbers kept?
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


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]


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]


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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




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


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]


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]


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


How many news outlets does Google own?

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


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]


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 and self-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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]




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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


It's both.
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]




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!

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]


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]


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 [14 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]


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 [9 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


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]


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]


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 [21 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]


> "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


Well, they haven't, so they're relevant.
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]


> "... 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.

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


> "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 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]


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 [2 favorites]


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




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 [19 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]


They mean the general election, don't they?
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on March 8, 2016


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]




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]


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


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]


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]


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


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]


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


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]


(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


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




NBC projects Hillary for Mississippi
posted by futz at 5:01 PM on March 8, 2016


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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


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


"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]


> "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]


"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]


"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


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]


Did you pronounce it "Demmycrat" like Grampa Simpson?
posted by FJT at 5:17 PM on March 8, 2016


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]


"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


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


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]


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]


Republicans:Republican Party::Democrats:?

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]


MetaFilter: Fuck Frank Luntz.
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]


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]


Mississippi has been called for Trump.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on March 8, 2016


Anybody have a link for live results from Michigan?
posted by zug at 5:29 PM on March 8, 2016


Clinton apparently did well with whites in MS.
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


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


> "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]


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


[Folks, please don't derail what will no doubt be a long thread with bickering about linguistics. Thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad 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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


his speeches are garbage.
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


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


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]


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


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


"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]



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]


Clinton and Sanders have rallies, not press conferences.
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


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]


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]


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


media should cut away from the questions.
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]


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]


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]


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]


"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]


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]


"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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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]


Dearborn went huge for Sanders which is pretty interesting.
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]


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


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


That is where the people live.
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]


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]


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


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]


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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]


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


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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


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 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]


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]


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


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


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]


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


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


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


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]


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


Wow, Sanders won independent voters 70-28%.
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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


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




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]


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]


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]


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


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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]


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


Or on non-preview !!!!
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


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]


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


New York Times/AP just called Michigan for Sanders.
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]


FJT!!!!!!!!! [khaaaan voice]
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


HOLY CRAP
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]


Cruz in early lead in ID, up 5 points on Trump, 10% reporting.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016


MSNBC finally called it for Sanders.
posted by Windigo at 8:34 PM on March 8, 2016


WOOOOOO
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]


screaming SCREAMING THE BERNERS DID IIIIIIT
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]


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]


The Reagan Democrats are coming home.
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]


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]


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


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


(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]


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


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


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]


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]


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]


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


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 [7 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


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


Plenty of Appalachian highlanders in Michigan, lol.
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 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


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


Idaho called for Cruz.
posted by lalex at 9:00 PM on March 8, 2016


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]


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 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]


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


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]


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]


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


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]


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]


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]


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


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


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


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]


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 [31 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


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]


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]


sallybrown: Democrats Abroad announces results on the 21st.
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 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