After this it's the midterms: April's US election primaries
April 3, 2016 2:10 PM   Subscribe

And then there were five. On the Democratic party side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders remain. On the Republican party side, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Donald Trump remain. But there's also the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and lots of other parties. The dates for candidate debates are fluid; for example there may be a Democratic debate on April 14th. In other election news, the New York Times thinks that Candidate Trump would be "Wildly unpopular", while the Washington Post thinks that Republicans are gaming the voting system in their favor. Cruz and Sanders lead in Wisconsin polls, Kasich enjoys a beer, and the BBC describes five ways the Republican bloodbath could end.

Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press, Bloomberg and Politico, while election odds are shown at Oddschecker and PredictWise. How much more of this is there to go? And how should you effectively debate?

April 5th
- Wisconsin (Democratic and Republican open primaries)

April 9th
- Wyoming (Democratic closed caucus)

April 19th
- New York (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)

April 26th
- Connecticut (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Delaware (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Maryland (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Pennsylvania (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Rhode Island (Democratic and Republican semi-closed primaries)

Previously on MetaFilter...
- Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand.
- Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues.
- Super Tuesday.
- Nevada and South Carolina.
- New Hampshire.
- Iowa.

(Speaking of debating, there is a new MetaTalk thread about election issues here. Cortex has some words on what he hopes to see/not see in future debates.)
posted by Wordshore (1581 comments total) 48 users marked this as a favorite
 
Thank you Mr. Shore.
posted by Trochanter at 2:14 PM on April 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


The other day I was talking to a friend about how mystified I was that Trump was doing so well. The last time someone orange promised me greatness was Tony the tiger with Kellogg's frosted flakes, and it seemed like seconds after you serve it all you have is a soggy white mess.

Tell me about it agreed Melania.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:16 PM on April 3, 2016 [39 favorites]




We're still a month out here in Indiana. We may actually matter for once! That's kind of exciting.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:29 PM on April 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


The article on voting restrictions is maddening. This is one of the things that concerns me about the vitriol on the Democratic side--while we are arguing who's corrupt and who's lying, Republican state legislatures are merrily turning back the clock to a time when only White property owners could vote.

Does anyone know if there are any mass-organized non-partisan GOTV efforts geared towards the states with these restrictions?
posted by schroedinger at 2:30 PM on April 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


Pope Guilty, I'm in Pennsylvania and am very excited for my vote to possibly matter!
posted by schroedinger at 2:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Damn, I was banking on the idea that Pennsylvania's primary wouldn't matter. Now I actually have to figure out who to vote for.
posted by octothorpe at 2:33 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Damn, I was banking on the idea that Pennsylvania's primary wouldn't matter. Now I actually have to figure out who to vote for.

That orange fellow seems to be fairly passionate!
posted by beerperson at 2:35 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Plus he doesn't have the frighteningly large hands of the other candidates.
posted by Trochanter at 2:40 PM on April 3, 2016 [79 favorites]


When one side is systematically denying people the right to vote, any GOTV efforts will be automatically partisan, no?
posted by dilaudid at 2:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


PA's a closed primary state so my choices are limited to the Democrats. I agree with Sanders more but like Hillary a lot more so I have to decide if I'm voting with my head or my heart.
posted by octothorpe at 2:44 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was excited that Illinois actually mattered this year! Usually the nominations are all but wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

The article on voting restrictions is maddening. This is one of the things that concerns me about the vitriol on the Democratic side--while we are arguing who's corrupt and who's lying, Republican state legislatures are merrily turning back the clock to a time when only White property owners could vote.


I remember when this was regarded as a fringe statement. Now it's the mainstream Republican plan. Scary stuff!
I will say that Illinois enacted one major thing to make voting easier. As of this year, we now have same-day voter registration on Election Day.
posted by SisterHavana at 2:47 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump was recently interviewed for 96 minutes by Robert Costa and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Transcript.
posted by zarq at 2:49 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump won't be the nominee.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:50 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


When one side is systematically denying people the right to vote, any GOTV efforts will be automatically partisan, no?

I'd like to believe not all conservatives are into voting restrictions. . .
posted by schroedinger at 2:54 PM on April 3, 2016


I vote for MetaFilter to get the award for Least Annoying Front Page Election Coverage.
posted by johnabbe at 2:57 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


thank you for the new thread!
posted by angrycat at 2:59 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can we talk about the possibility that Trump won't be the nominee? I'm worried that it might be Cruz instead, in which case there's an arguably even crazier Republican nominee, without quite as high of an unpopularity rating or as much negative press.
posted by peacheater at 2:59 PM on April 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


I mean, in the very unlikely event Trump isn't the nominee, something goes terribly wrong in Cleveland, and people get seriously hurt or killed so Cruz can be the nominee? Don't see that working out.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:02 PM on April 3, 2016


The argument at the convention against Cruz is that his delegate strength represents the not-Trump vote more than the pro-Cruz vote. A second round should be open to consider anyone.

Then they try to foist Paul Ryan on us. Which we could also talk about as a problematic option.
posted by johnabbe at 3:02 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Then they try to foist Paul Ryan on us. Which we could also talk about as a problematic option.

If there's a third party this might be a distinct possibility at the presidential level.
posted by Talez at 3:05 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Trump said in an interview that economic conditions are so perilous that the country is headed for a “very massive recession” and that “it’s a terrible time right now” to invest in the stock market,

I think he's just giving himself an out in case he DOES get elected, because he knows it would cause a stock market crash. Also, anything he does to implement his plan to "get rid of the nation’s more than $19 trillion national debt over a period of eight years" would probably destroy the economy, making him the candidate of choice for anyone who just wants to "see everything burn" and has no assets of their own (which could be how he can improve his appeal to minorities and women).

But the most meaningful factoid in the interview article was that it was held "at Trump’s soon-to-be-finished hotel five blocks from the White House", which, to me, provides an important reason why he's running. Having the President's name on the building would be the ONLY reason anyone would want to stay there.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:06 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Third ballot at the convention, they give it to the guy who has built a national campaign and who handily and consistently beats Clinton in every national and battleground poll - Kasich. Republicans hold on to the Senate and the House and the Democratic Party falls apart.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:12 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I find myself in the strange position of hoping Trump gets enough delegates for a first ballot victory. Because I think at this point it has become clear he will get walloped in the general in a massive landslide. But if he doesn't make it on the first ballot they're going to give the nomination to someone like Romney who has a great shot at actually winning in the general. And this election is important.
posted by Justinian at 3:14 PM on April 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Romney is playing kingmaker this election, not king.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:15 PM on April 3, 2016


romney as the nominee scares me. i think he has a shot at the oval office.
posted by nadawi at 3:19 PM on April 3, 2016


I think no one really has a clue what's ultimately going to happen and we're all frantically reading tea leaves in a desperate attempt to make ourselves feel like the situation is still in any way rational and predictable.
posted by kyrademon at 3:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [81 favorites]


If Trump isn't the nominee, are the people who voted for him going to show up to vote for Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney with smiling faces after having their votes thrown in their faces?
posted by double block and bleed at 3:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Who would they give it to, then? Kasich may make a great general election candidate but it seems like a problem for them to hand the nomination to a guy who managed to win one state - the one in which he is governor - and only a handful of delegates.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


The problem for the Rs is that there's not a single Eisenhower left in the Republican party while the electorate that is showing up to primaries is giving them nothing but Goldwaters to work with.
posted by Talez at 3:23 PM on April 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


romney as the nominee scares me. i think he has a shot at the oval office.

I think any scenario in which the GOP comes out of the RNC nominating anyone, like Kasich, Bush or Romney, who received few or no votes during the primary is one which the utter chaos it causes will push every independent, "swing" voter to vote Democratic no matter how they feel about Clinton, or cause someone, like Trump, to run a 3rd party spite candidacy, splitting the vote, again, in favor of Clinton. So I'm not too worried about Romney.
posted by dis_integration at 3:25 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Kasich may make a great general election candidate

Let's put that in context. When you look at his record Kasich appears to be a great general candidate compared to Trump and Cruz but it's like saying human piss is better than cat piss when dealing with urine in carpet. Yeah it's better given the choice but you still really don't want either of them at all.
posted by Talez at 3:26 PM on April 3, 2016 [51 favorites]


Kasich may make a great general election candidate but it seems like a problem for them to hand the nomination to a guy who managed to win one state - the one in which he is governor - and only a handful of delegates.

Well which is it? Is he a great general election candidate, or is there a problem?

After Trump doesn't get it on the first ballot, and after Cruz almost gets it on the second ballot, Romney (who, seriously, has been orchestrating quite a bit of behind the scenes stuff the past couple of months) is going to get people in a room and say "why not give it to the guy who beats Hillary by 20 points in Ohio?" Everything else requires too many what-ifs. Who cares if Kasich's strike against him is that he's only won one state? How many have Paul or Romney won?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:28 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


As far as Republicans go, Kasich was the best of 17. I don't think you are going to get much better than that.
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:28 PM on April 3, 2016


The problem for the Rs is that there's not a single Eisenhower left in the Republican party while the electorate that is showing up to primaries is giving them nothing but Goldwaters to work with.
More like George Wallaces and Lyndon Larouches.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:29 PM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Best meaning least offensive to Democrats? Because the thousands of people voting for Trump didn't think Kasich was best.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:30 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who cares if Kasich's strike against him is that he's only one state? How many have Paul or Romney won?

I assume the argument would be that the voters had a chance to pick the three other guys and didn't do so. Someone else like Ryan or Romney could attempt to sell themselves as some sort of consensus candidate in a way you couldn't with Kasich, since he already had his shot at being a consensus candidate and failed at it.

But, yes, given a lot of bad choices for what to do giving the nom to the guy polling +20 in Ohio may be the best option. That's true.
posted by Justinian at 3:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The people who like Trump say they like him because he's a straight shooter. I can't think of very many people who are less straight shooting than Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:32 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The people who say they like Trump because he's a straight shooter are dog whistling, because he's the biggest lying flip flopper of them all. What they mean by "straight shooter" is "says racist and/or sexist things, and I am a racist and/or sexist who likes those statements."
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on April 3, 2016 [132 favorites]




The people who say they like Trump because he's a straight shooter are dog whistling,

I dunno. They might just be sincerely confusing "straight shooter" with "bigoted asshole."
posted by dersins at 3:38 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Because the thousands of people voting for Trump didn't think Kasich was best.

Trump's best result, BEST RESULT was Florida with 47.9% of the vote. 1 million votes in 20 million people. Less than 5% of the population turned out to affirm Trump.

Goldwater had the same thing. A bitterly contested primary with multiple contestants, he was the most extreme, and Goldwater ended up being the proverbial shit that rose to the top. He got absolutely smashed in the general.
posted by Talez at 3:39 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


trump voters aren't the only people who have been participating in the republican primary. if the people who were by and large voting "not trump" in all the various states, plus the people who didn't vote for anyone in the primary, got together behind an establishment candidate, i think someone like romney can win - especially since i think a fair number of people from a variety of sides would vote against clinton if she is the nominee.
posted by nadawi at 3:41 PM on April 3, 2016


Yeah I have a pretty hard time seeing the 'outsider! straight shooter!' crowd lining up to vote for whichever stooge the party tells them is better than Trump. The GOP seems to be in a kind of a double bind here.
posted by beerperson at 3:41 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kasich / Romney / Ryan coming in to save the day is insider baseball dreaming. What's the scenario where a non-Trump non-Cruz candidate gets the GOP nomination? It's hard to fathom. Between the few Trump loyalists and the many Cruz loyalists, there's simply not enough leftover slop to form a delegate majority around a candidate who would be running with zero mandate. Here's what I think goes down.

Cruz has done great work getting loyal delegates elected at the state level. When they go to the convention, they're not going to back down. Trump, on the other hand, has the ground game of a preschool soccer team, and is sending delegates who actually hate him and are only there to be bound for the first vote and then strike a deal.

If the first ballot fails to provide a majority, the double-agent Trump delegates will be jumping ship left and right, and the Cruz delegates will dig in for the second ballot. Cruz won't even need a majority of the defectors to claim a slim delegate plurality at this point because he'll suffer almost no attrition.

Of the 1,540 delegates allocated so far, 1,226 (80%) are bound to Trump or Cruz for the first ballot. If you figure pessimistically 30% of Trump delegates are actually loyal (220) and 80% of Cruz's are loyal (370), that's 40% of the vote locked up. What happens next? Romney drops in from the ceiling and sweeps up all of the remaining 60%? Kasich suddenly becomes the favored child of the John Birchers that populate the convention?

The second ballot fails again, 35% Trump / 35% Cruz / 30% White Savior To Be Named At A Later Date.

At this point the Trump coalition, having lost two plurality votes and seeing a slipping minority of True Conservatives getting votes, shatters. Trump supporters widely see Cruz as their second choice, and join him. Cruz, seeing an easy play, offers White Savior or Kasich the VP slot, and claims the third ballot with a comfortable 70%, giving the strong illusion of a primary mandate.

Cruz loses the general by 5 points (but surprisingly few electoral votes) after a brutal 30-second spot of Cruz simply speaking to another human being tanks his favorability ratings into territory previously reserved for STDs and airport security.

Alternatively, Trump claims a narrow majority in the late primaries after promising to choose Reanimated Strom Thurmond as a running mate, and loses to the Clinton / Castro ticket by 14 points in the fall.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:44 PM on April 3, 2016 [32 favorites]


Justinian: "The people who say they like Trump because he's a straight shooter are dog whistling, because he's the biggest lying flip flopper of them all. What they mean by "straight shooter" is "says racist and/or sexist things, and I am a racist and/or sexist who likes those statements.""

So then the question is can an alternative nominee be bigoted and misogynistic enough for them and still win the general election. I think these people say "fuck it" and stay home.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:45 PM on April 3, 2016


Trump's best result, BEST RESULT was Florida with 47.9% of the vote. 1 million votes in 20 million people. Less than 5% of the population turned out to affirm Trump.

I'm no Trump fan but that's an odd way to look at this. 20 million is the entire state of Florida, not the Republican primary voter pool. This wasn't a general election, so of course only a tiny fraction of the total Florida population voted for him, even if he had won 100% of the primary vote.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:47 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Let's take a moment to appreciate RNC chair Reince Priebus in August of 2015:
We have the strongest & largest field of #GOP candidates in party history
Strongest. Largest. Most in need of a democracy-defying coup by a guy who isn't even running.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:52 PM on April 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Kasich / Romney / Ryan coming in to save the day is insider baseball dreaming. What's the scenario where a non-Trump non-Cruz candidate gets the GOP nomination? It's hard to fathom.

It's incredibly easy to fathom. Unbound delegates decide to support the candidate who will easily beat Clinton in a general election. Let's take your scenario where it's 35/35/30 at the second ballot. So they pretty quickly realize that "primary vote total" isn't going to be the determinant. What will be the determinant? Anything they got-damn want it to be.

I do think Cruz has the second best shot. Like Stalin, he's stocking the rules committees with toadies. Trump will try to win the nomination through threats of violence, while Cruz will try to win it through lawyering and procedure.

Trump is a moron who still hasn't figured out how the game is played and when you look at how delegates are starting to get allocated, he's getting his ass handed to him in state after state.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:52 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]




As a side note, I think it's funny that the "older" link just above the comment box links to a post called "Haters gonna hate, baby."
posted by double block and bleed at 3:55 PM on April 3, 2016


The Republicans are toast. It doesn't matter who they choose. It matters how they rig the general.

2000 and 2004 will look like child's play compared to the fraud that they will attempt this election cycle.

They know they have only one way to win, and it ain't by counting votes.
posted by Max Power at 3:57 PM on April 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


Two things about Cruz... At what point does his Canadian pedigree get aired as a problem? And if it's true that Rubio advocates provided the impetus for the National Enquirer story about Cruz's alleged infidelities, is that because it's a potential vehicle for Marco to get back into contention? Related: Is Trump hoping Rubio or Kasich sill carry the birther flag?
posted by carmicha at 4:01 PM on April 3, 2016


so i love reality tv, especially competition reality tv, i also have a sick obsession with celebrity gossip - i say this to explain why i've watched multiple seasons of the apprentice/celebrity apprentice. i feel it likely that puts me in the minority of mefites.

re: straight shooter - i think a good amount is just dog whistling all the terrible bigotry he's stuffed his campaign with - but i also think a fair amount is from people who have watched his shows/followed his celebrity personality.

i always hated him on the shows, but i've read a lot of recaps and comment sections and participated irl in conversations about him/the shows. there are a lot of fans who love it when he (in the confines of a partially scripted/heavily edited reality show) smacks people down - especially the celebrities. people really do view him as 'telling it like it is.' they also don't view him as intrinsically racist or sexist on the show (a point i disagree with them on) because they don't view their own biases in that light. this is something i've heard about him going back to the omarosa days so it's not just a thing they relate to him as the candidate.
posted by nadawi at 4:02 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


I imagine if there was any chance at all of the Canadian thing having any traction, one of the campaigns would have launched a legal action by now. All of their legal teams have probably looked at the possibility and decided it was a non-starter.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:03 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the mistake being made here is to assume the Trump supporters are good Republicans who will fall in line if their candidate loses. I assume they will do everything in their power to insure the GOP is totally hosed in November should Trump be denied. They are partyless Jacksonians who insist on either being in charge or they trash the place. Just ask the Democrats after the 60's civil rights legislation...
posted by jim in austin at 4:08 PM on April 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump has always been awful. R.Crumb knew it in 1989.

But a lot of the Trumpists have been in the habit of "voting against", so even if they lose their man to "vote FOR", they'll still be motivated to come to the polls by an opponent who's A WOMAN.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:14 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump's best result, BEST RESULT was Florida with 47.9% of the vote. 1 million votes in 20 million people. Less than 5% of the population turned out to affirm Trump.

Actually, his best was in Massachussetts, where the hopeful clinged to the thought that Kasich's 16% for 2nd place in New Hampshire would bring him to victory with all the sensible Yankees just south as everyone regained their wits. Kasich improved to 18%. Trump, meanwhile, took 49.3%, with 311,000 votes -- itself actually 66% of the number of registered republican voters in the state in February.

Look, if Trump doesn't get the nomination after falling just short of delegates from the first ballot, there's no way he drops out and accepts Cruz or whoever taking the nomination instead. Since January, he's been saying that the "candidate with the most delegates" should get the nomination -- I'd believe that he would cede the nomination to Cruz if Ted somehow took the majority, but with more delegates going into the convention for Trump? He'll claim shenanigans and launch a third party bid ASAP.

Conversely, should the Republican mainstream try to run a third-party "real Republican" candidate, how are they going to square that position with all of the currently-elected Republican Trump supporters? It wouldn't be a 'just once and then back to the status quo' position. It would completely fracture the party. (As will a Trump nomination.)

An interesting way that could be done if the RNC thinks it necessary would be throwing support behind former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, who's already on most state ballots for the Libertarians.

This is all to say that no matter what, this will not resolve calmly. Lots to watch, folks!
posted by Theiform at 4:15 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Marylanders can vote early! We don't have to rejigger our whole schedules just to do our civic duty. (Offer not valid in all states. Check your local listings.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:19 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Okay, I'm a little behind. My assumption has always been that if Trump doesn't get the nomination, he'll run as a third party. Is this still a likelihood? Because if it is, I don't see any scenario in which anyone from the GOP side can win the general.

(on preview, Theiform kind of answered my question)
posted by triggerfinger at 4:19 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Someone will show up to the GOP convention wearing Reagan's skin as a suit and get the nomination.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Okay, I'm a little behind. My assumption has always been that if Trump doesn't get the nomination, he'll run as a third party. Is this still a likelihood?

He'd probably have to find a party that is already established that would want him at the top of their ticket. If you can think of one, great, but I can't.

By the time of the convention rolls around, his window to get on the ballot in all 50 states will have passed, and the amount of coordination and effort it would take for him to get on the remaining states would be way, way above his capabilities.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:23 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can Trump get on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate at this point? I'm not really clear on how those laws work, and whether you get on the ballot as a candidate, or as a candidate of a particular party.
posted by localhuman at 4:23 PM on April 3, 2016


My assumption has always been that if Trump doesn't get the nomination, he'll run as a third party. Is this still a likelihood?

He said he wouldn't, then he just rescinded that promise which is a pretty strong implicit "yes."

I actually hope that doesn't happen because given his hardcore supporters, a 3-way race is the only way I think he could win. Hell Ross Perot was in contention until he got paranoid about Republican dirty tricks ruining his daughter's wedding with lesbian rumors.
posted by msalt at 4:24 PM on April 3, 2016


I actually hope that doesn't happen because given his hardcore supporters, a 3-way race is the only way I think he could win.

Ennh, I think his best case scenario in a 3-way race is the election being thrown to the House, which would install the non-Trump Republican candidate.
posted by Justinian at 4:26 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I actually hope that doesn't happen because given his hardcore supporters, a 3-way race is the only way I think he could win.

It's almost as if you think Democrats don't exist.
posted by Max Power at 4:28 PM on April 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


General election polls show that something like 90% of Democrats have a fiery hot hatred of Trump. Independents aren't far behind. How exactly would he do well in a 3-way race? The only way he gets above 30% in a general is if he's tied to a major party.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:29 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


For anyone who's interested in this kind of stuff, the prediction market PredictIt has Trump's chances at the Republican nomination at 40% and Cruz's at 36%.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:30 PM on April 3, 2016


I actually hope that doesn't happen because given his hardcore supporters, a 3-way race is the only way I think he could win.

Oh, I can't see that at all. The Republican candidate will get most of the party faithful vote. All Trump'll have is the crazy ignorant bigot vote. Meanwhile the Democrat candidate will get Democratic party's usual half the pie, if not more, because so many Republicans are unwilling to vote for either Cruz or Trump. A right wing third candidate will assure a Democratic win, regardless of who it is.
posted by orange swan at 4:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Democrats need to hope Trump or Cruz can hold on the first ballot. Clinton loses hands down to Kasich, or probably any other generic white guy Republican not named Trump or Cruz, and she's not that far ahead of Cruz either.

She really is a horrible candidate in any normal cycle.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:37 PM on April 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


For anyone who's interested in this kind of stuff, the prediction market PredictIt has Trump's chances at the Republican nomination at 40% and Cruz's at 36%.

I have a bet on at PredictIt on Trump NOT being the nominee. I think the chances of that were around 32% when I put it on.

Anyway, here's more on the possibility of a third party/independent run from Politico:

With third-party routes shutting down, another option would be to run an anti-Trump conservative as an independent. Again, this is in the hands of state law. Each state has different requirements for the number of valid signatures needed, ranging from a low of 275 in Tennessee to a high of 178,039 in California. And each state sets its own deadline for filing independent petitions. All such state deadlines will arrive between now and the end of August.

Let’s take Texas, the biggest red state, as an example. No Republican, no conservative can win the presidency without Texas’ 38 electoral votes. So, what does it take to get an independent presidential candidate on the Texas ballot? Petitions have to be filed there by May 9, complete with valid signatures of nearly 80,000 voters who did not vote in the March 1 Texas primaries. Gathering this many signatures might seem easy; it’s not. It will take a lot of money, a great deal of organization and literally thousands of people to deploy in shopping malls and supermarkets (and any place they might find registered voters who didn’t vote in the primary willing to sign a petition) to pull this off before the deadline. Could the Republican Legislature change the law to extend the deadline? It’s possible, but the Texas Legislature doesn’t meet in even numbered years, so it is not scheduled to meet in 2016. Only the governor of Texas can call a special session and only to deal with a specific, publicly announced agenda.

posted by triggerfinger at 4:40 PM on April 3, 2016


no election result in the world is going to make me less fearful of what people who support Trump are going to do. I wish I understood them more, but it feels like dealing with rabid dogs and I don't know what the answer to the pain is
posted by angrycat at 4:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


no election result in the world is going to make me less fearful of what people who support Trump are going to do.

At this point I'm terrified someone will get murdered at a Trump rally. The level of violence at those rallies is escalating.
posted by orange swan at 4:45 PM on April 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


The demands that the attendees be allowed to carry firearms into the GOP convention sent a chill down my spine. I sincerely revile these people and their beliefs, but the idea of of a literal massacre isn't funny to me.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:55 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, I can't see that at all. The Republican candidate will get most of the party faithful vote. All Trump'll have is the crazy ignorant bigot vote.

I'm not saying it's likely that he would win, but a 3-way race is only way he can win. Again, look at the 1992 election. Ross Perot had no base whatsoever but was polling in the 30s before he showed himself to be truly crazy. Trump has 100% name familiarity and a genuine group of pre-existing fans, plus lots of money and a real gift for generating free media.

Assuming Hillary wins, she is not a great campaigner, might lose a chunk of Sanders supporters, and faces some real misogyny. She would still probably need a big scandal to blow this election but you can't say that's impossible.

Any non-Trump Republican will be marginal at best, and Cruz is truly and widely disliked. A 3-person race with Trump as the Republican nominee would give the Donald an even better chance.

IMHO, he has his 30-35% and is not likely to lose them. He may pick up some accelerationists or bored, low-information voters. And in a 3 person race, even 35% can win.
posted by msalt at 4:55 PM on April 3, 2016


538 points out that it's theoretically possible for the "delegates" arrive and vote for a rules change that wipes out any chance for trump on even a first ballot. But the problem there is the next choice is seemingly universally detested. The third choice is a nice guy for some approximation of nice but blah.

I'm putting my money on Bobbie Jindal just because of his name.
posted by sammyo at 5:00 PM on April 3, 2016


April 5th
- Wisconsin (Democratic and Republican open primaries)

April 9th
- Wyoming (Democratic closed caucus)

April 19th
- New York (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)

April 26th
- Connecticut (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Delaware (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Maryland (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Pennsylvania (Democratic and Republican closed primaries)
- Rhode Island (Democratic and Republican semi-closed primaries)


May 17th for Kentucky's Democrat Party primary! Hell yeah! Love to have a important say in the election vote
posted by Greg Nog at 5:08 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't shake the feeling that this is all just a prelude to Slim Pickens saddling up in the bomb bay.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:08 PM on April 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that Trump's going to be the nominee unless he bails on it himself. I could see him saying ,"fuck it, I was just trying to prove a point and didn't really want to be president" but otherwise, I think he's the nominee.
posted by octothorpe at 5:18 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, North Dakota is having its bizarre non-primary, non-caucus election starting today. According to this article, all 28 delegates are unbound. Still if you can get your candidate's diehard supporters chosen, it could make a difference.
posted by msalt at 5:18 PM on April 3, 2016


I could see Trump being denied the first ballot, Cruz taking it and Trump campaigning for him passive-aggressively all year.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:27 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Someone will show up to the GOP convention wearing Reagan's skin as a suit and get the nomination.

"It puts the ballot in the box or it gets the hose."
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:34 PM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I could see Trump being denied the first ballot, Cruz taking it and Trump campaigning for him passive-aggressively all year.

This guy. Look at this guy. His skin's great. I told him about my moisturizer. I have the best moisturizer. It works for me. It works on my skin. I paid for it, it works for me. It's great on his scales. His snakes love it. Look at them. You can see the way they wriggle under the cool facade of his flesh container. He's a great guy. The best container of snakes you can buy. You think I know a deal when I see one? This guy is an absolute steal.
posted by an animate objects at 5:36 PM on April 3, 2016 [53 favorites]


May 17th for Kentucky's Democrat Party primary! Hell yeah! Love to have a important say in the election vote

California is in June.

I would love to see California declare that in 2024 our primary will be exactly one week before the Iowa caucus (whenever they schedule it), and if the DNC wants to make hay about it they can kiss our ass. Lets see where all your sweet, sweet money comes from if you piss off California.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on April 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


Josh Marshall: "Elections of all sorts rest not fundamentally on rules and bylaws but on legitimacy. An RNC national committeeman recently complained that the press had given people the wrong impression that voters decided who the nominee was rather than the party. By the rules, he may be right. But good luck sailing that ship across any body of water.
...
Of course, there's another explosive element in the mix. You're not just talking about taking this away from anyone. Trump's constituency is the part of the electorate which Republican politicians have been marinating in grievance and betrayal politics for decades. It's a tangible confirmation of every betrayal, wrong and loss since Santa was killed in the first battle of the War on Christmas. Only it's not coming from Al Sharpton or Hollywood elites or limousine liberals or Feminazis. It will be coming from their supposed protectors, their party."
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:36 PM on April 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I could see Trump being denied the first ballot, Cruz taking it and Trump campaigning for him passive-aggressively all year.


"Hey, I promised to support the Republican nominee and I will. Vote for Teddy. He looks like Grandpa Munster. Terrific show."

On preview, dammit aao!
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


If he doesn't reach 1237 and he's a ways (like more than 100 delegates away) from reaching it, Trump should try to cut a deal before the convention. How's it gonna look if the "master dealmaker" can't even make a deal with his own party members?

As for what the deal would contain, I don't know. Maybe the GOP will make him take an establishment VP and stuff key cabinet positions with establishment. Or maybe Trump promises Kasich the VP slot?
posted by FJT at 5:39 PM on April 3, 2016


All Trump'll have is the crazy ignorant bigot vote.

This country is filled with disaffected ignorant bigots. They've had their feelings fueled for decades by right-wing radio and television.
posted by zarq at 5:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


"Clinton loses hands down to Kasich, or probably any other generic white guy Republican"

I know this is true in polls right now, but this is before Kasich has faced the full force and fury of the national media, let alone oppo research. Right now he's a little-known minor candidate from a state that hasn't had any major political scandals in the last few years. Clinton is the most-vetted, most-oppo'd candidate in history. Kasich polls well because he hasn't been dragged through the mud yet. I can't imagine those numbers hold up once he has been; he has some poison pills for both sides. A lot of the GOP "base" doesn't like him precisely because he's been an effective governor who compromises with Democrats and has accepted Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion; a lot of Democrats loathe him because of his positions on abortion (radical and a bit nuts) and unions. He's known in Ohio for his hair-trigger temper, stories about which will come out in spades if he looks like the likely nominee. Right now he's getting called the "last sane Republican" and a calm, establishment centrist ... in a year when the electorate is very anti-establishment, the GOP is very anti-centrist, and he's got a lot in his history that will raise eyebrows among Democrats and among "base" Republicans once the press starts vetting his actual history and policy positions rather than just calling him sane in comparison to the utter nutjobs leading the field.

I think Kasich is a pretty okay governor, but I am not sure he's all that electable to national office once the national electorate starts to get to know him. (Like, I feel like a lot of people are not aware he worked for Lehman Brothers, just to pick a quickie.) Part of his win in Ohio was a total Democratic collapse where they abandoned their own candidate almost completely due to some tax scandals; and the GOP legislature in Ohio does not like him. Not Ted Cruz-level dislike, but you notice he doesn't have a lot of Ohio colleagues out there stumping for him.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:50 PM on April 3, 2016 [34 favorites]


Kasich has zero chance v. Clinton, unless half the concerned voters in America want to restrict abortion rights as severely as the bil he recently signed in Ohio.
posted by Max Power at 5:54 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't understand why people think Kasich would end up being more popular than Clinton in the general. Hell, he's less popular than Trump and Cruz among Republicans.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:57 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think the mistake being made here is to assume the Trump supporters are good Republicans who will fall in line if their candidate loses. I assume they will do everything in their power to insure the GOP is totally hosed in November should Trump be denied.

I'm going to disagree with that. We have a conception of the GOP as this fractured not-getting-its-shit-together machine that's approximately ... 6 months old? I'm pretty sure you can go back less than a year and find articles about how the GOP votes lockstep while the Democrats are the "big tent" that can't get its shit together.

Look at the Tea Party. Lots of blah blah blah bluster and rage, yet for all their hot air, they all, to a one, voted Republican. So if Donald Trump decides to take his toys and go home, I'm willing to bet (as in actually lay money down) that not very many will follow him. Whomever gets the nomination will dispense with a lot of Soothing Language about how it's time to all get together and do what is right for the sake of the country, blah blah blah. They know how to talk to their audience. I have no doubt about this.
posted by panama joe at 6:01 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton's unfavorables are nearly as high as Trump's. Maybe she could run an effective campaign casting Kasich as the extremist he really is and overcome her polling, but she'd be starting out in a huge hole. True or not, the narrative building around Kasich is that he's the reasonable adult still left in the room, and that is a powerful appeal in this race with Trump/Cruz on one side and Clinton's lack of any crossover appeal at all combined with her long history of pseudo-scandal and distrust.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:03 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


As for who might get the nomination...

No, I don't think Trump will be the GOP nominee. It's obvious suicide for the party. Cruz would make the next logical choice, but if the GOP establishment blocks Trump, I think it will be hard for them to justify nominating Cruz. He's not any less divisive than Trump. Nominating Cruz wouldn't solve anything. Could they nominate Kasich? Maybe. I think Democrats are scared of Kasich because he most resembles an actual leader, but we have to remember that, to most of the GOP, he comes off as a pretty weaksauce candidate. They'd probably call him a RINO. As for any of the Dark Horse options? I can't imagine they'd put Romney up there. How many elections has this guy lost now? Even before he lost a general election, lots of the GOP was only half on-board with him anyhow. Can't imagine they like him any more now. Paul Ryan? Maybe. He's a white guy who can be relied on to spout all the standard Republican talking points. At this stage of the game, that might be enough to clinch the nomination.
posted by panama joe at 6:05 PM on April 3, 2016


This country is filled with disaffected ignorant bigots. They've had their feelings fueled for decades by right-wing radio and television.

A majority of Americans are perfectly capable of perceiving that Trump is grossly unfit for public office. The crazy ignorant bigot vote may be a larger strata of society than any of us would like, but it's not the majority by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by orange swan at 6:07 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


So Clinton beats Trump, Trump beats Kasich, Kasich beats Clinton? What are the hand gestures? Is it still just one election to determine who is president, or best two out of three?
posted by oulipian at 6:07 PM on April 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


msalt: "IMHO, he has his 30-35% and is not likely to lose them. He may pick up some accelerationists or bored, low-information voters. And in a 3 person race, even 35% can win."

35% of the GOP primary electorate. In a general election context, his base starts looking more like the crazified 27%.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:10 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


All general election speculation is incomplete without knowing who the vice presidential candidates are.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:11 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I wonder what Trump's next act will be after he loses. His entire career has been a pathetic (and decidedly unclassy) grasping for relevancy and respect, but after all this attention the hunger will be stronger than ever before....
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:11 PM on April 3, 2016


I would imagine something like a cross between 2009 Sarah Palin and post-Governorship Jesse Ventura. Journalists all hate him, so I don't know how easy it would be for him to become a new talking head, but I could see some production company having him host some sort of right-wing Unsolved Mysteries type program. Like Infowars meets Ancient Aliens.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:18 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


So, any chance that the RNC will try to recruit Bloomberg as a last-minute saviour?
posted by clawsoon at 6:20 PM on April 3, 2016


My prediction: In November the Sanders-Trump unity ticket will win in a landslide.
posted by DanSachs at 6:20 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Congratulations, DanSachs, you've found a scenario in which I wouldn't vote Bernie.
posted by wintermind at 6:23 PM on April 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


Verily, the Maverick Triumvirate of Sanders, Trump, and Bloomberg would officiate the demise of the American Republic, and the start of the American Empire.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:23 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


None of the Republican options are palatable. It truly feels like, if they could, they would prefer to just say, "you know what, let's skip this round, we've got nobody". But they can't, so they have to throw someone up there. And it will be Trump or Cruz. Anybody else doesn't work. Trump and Cruz have their core supporters and very little else (which is why neither has taken charge of this), but that also means that if the party gives the nomination to anybody else, those core groups are going to stay home and cause trouble. A third candidate splits the party.

The party doesn't want Trump or Cruz, but if either one ends up as the nominee they'll go along with it. The losing candidate's core will grumble at this, but won't feel they were cheated by having a less popular candidate elevated above their choice. The party stays together but is weakened.

So as a Republican, which would you rather? To lose half your party and the election, or just lose the election (and have an excuse to revise your nom rules to ensure this doesn't happen again)?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:24 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, any chance that the RNC will try to recruit Bloomberg as a last-minute saviour?
Nope. He's best known for being in favor of gun control and wanting to introduce new taxes to encourage people to make healthy dietary decisions. The only role he could possibly play for the national Republican party is scapegoat.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:39 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the thread, Wordshore.

I still think Trump is a sideshow act. The people who've voted for him don't have any investment in the electoral process; they don't see any candidate delivering them any benefit, so they are perfectly happy to screw the whole process up. Trump is their monkey wrench.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


None of the Republican options are palatable. It truly feels like, if they could, they would prefer to just say, "you know what, let's skip this round, we've got nobody".

At this point I suspect most of the RNC money has been diverted to a secret underground laboratory where teams of scientists are working around the clock desperately trying to resuscitate Ronald Reagan.

More seriously, the current crop of candidates is so farcically bad that I really do expect someone else to get chosen at the convention. Romney made his play the other week with that speech, and it didn't exactly launch him into orbit. Ryan is a possibility, as are probably any number of governors and a few congressional representatives.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:45 PM on April 3, 2016


I tend to side with kyrademon here, things are totally chaotic and making predictions about the Republican side is near impossible.

I do think we can safely predict that Clinton will take the Democratic nomination, and Sanders will extort either policy concessions or some cabinet appointments for real liberals as a condition of him graciously accepting her victory and campaigning for her.

The Republicans though... wow. Trump seems to have at least a path forward for getting the requisite number of delegates to win the first ballot, though that is a somewhat unlikely path. What happens after that is totally opaque.

I do think, however, that it is pretty safe to predict that if Trump doesn't get the nomination he will probably have gone in with the most delegates and both he and his supporters will see that as the nomination that was rightfully his being stolen from him. I've been wrong so far on every single Trump prediction I've made, but I'll make another: if Trump has a plurality of delegates but doesn't get the nomination he'll run independent, or third party, or whatever.

If he can't seriously run third party or independent he'll do whatever he can to wreck the Republican nominee's election. The man is petty, vengeful, and rich.

Which is why I really do think the election is Clinton's to lose. Trump is a terrible candidate for the general elections, Ted Cruz is despised by even most Republicans and has policy positions even further outside the mainstream than Trump (flat tax, national sales tax, abolish the IRS!), and then there's the also rans, the empty suits who couldn't even get a good showing in the primaries.

So while we can't predict with any real accuracy, I think that it *IS* safe to say that in general the Republicans are in serious trouble this time around. No matter who wins the nomination there will be a major faction who is enraged, and basically their choice is between Donald J. Trump and a random empty suit. That's not really a good thing for them.

Bringing in a person who didn't even run for the nomination as a savior is certainly within the rules, but I'm doubtful that anyone who got the nomination that way would have legitimacy with the average Republican voter. Perception really is a bit more important than technically legal here. Giving the nomination to Ben Carson would probably be less controversial and provoke less outrage among the Republican base than giving it to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. At least Carson was a candidate. But any decision they make will provoke shrieks of outrage from large portions of the base, the real question is which option will hurt them least, because none will benefit them.
posted by sotonohito at 6:52 PM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


At this point I suspect most of the RNC money has been diverted to a secret underground laboratory where teams of scientists are working around the clock desperately trying to resuscitate Ronald Reagan.

Well, they almost have the perfect Republican. Ideologically Cruz is the True Conservative dream, he just has the personality and charisma of a diseased snake carcass.

If they could somehow combine Cruz's brain with Rubio's looks and demeanor, they'd have an unstoppable machine.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:53 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Over?!? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now!
posted by petebest at 6:55 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


As distasteful as the GOP candidates are, the Republican success at the local and state level cannot be dismissed. A Dem candidate like Clinton where there really is not much enthusiasm is vulnerable. Yes, her negatives are high but that's because the Republicans have been playing the long game for years, both smearing her and building a electoral machine at the state level, not to mention the well-funded VRWC in the media.

The new laws restricting or encumbering voting will have an effect. Like in AZ, when people in urban areas can't vote, purple states will turn red. I would not be so quick to discount the possibility of a President Cruz - he is showing his campaign knows how to play the game.
posted by sudogeek at 6:55 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


A serious question for the USians from a rank outsider: Trump's supporters don't seem to like the Republican establishment (to put it mildly). If Trump doesn't get the nomination, what are the chances that they would stay home rather than vote for, say, Cruz? And would that sink Cruz in the general?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:59 PM on April 3, 2016


If Trump really is a deep cover Clinton agent, (in the most spectacular long con since Mossad spy Eli Cohen was almost made the Defense Minister of Syria and third in line for the succession for the presidency of Syria) eliminating Paul Ryan by forcing him to run as either a puppet of the brokered RNC or a doomed establishment conservative third-party effort both removes him as Speaker of the House and torpedoes his political future, would be quite another accomplishment.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:59 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ideologically Cruz is the conservative dream, he just has the personality and charisma of a diseased snake carcass.
I don't think that Cruz's problem is just that he's incredible jerk, although he is by all accounts a jerk. He's perceived of as a rigid ideologue who will throw other Republicans and the party under the bus to achieve his personal and ideological goals. And while there are definitely people in the Republican party who think that's a good thing, many Republicans think that he and people like him have been bad for the party and for them personally.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:00 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


most of the RNC money has been diverted (or will be) to local congressional races to help them hold onto both houses this year and state races to help them hold onto everything after the 2020 census. The party and its money men are in it for the long haul (at least until rising sea level floods Wall Street and Miami Beach). The only thing they neglected was grooming a New Reagan. (Spent too much effort in grooming a New Bush)
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:00 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ew
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:07 PM on April 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


And we're forgetting that the Republicans have a perfectly gerrymandered unbreakable majority in the House until at least 2020, when they'll most likely get another shot to gerrymander it further into absolute permanence.

For all the demographic advantages and disparity in national personalities, the Democrats have done a SPECTACULARLY terrible job of state and local level messaging. For 30+ years the DNC has cared only about shielding party insiders from challengers from the left, and siphoning as much corporate money as possible with the requisite payoffs in policy positions.

Obama won running his campaign largely outside of the official Democratic structures, and arguably his greatest failure was completely abandoning that effort as soon as he was elected, rather than transitioning his personal organization into building the broader Democratic coalition.

Howard Dean briefly showed that that's not the only way to do Democratic politics, and was quickly bounced out of the official power structure for it. Sanders is showing the same thing now, while Clinton and Wasserman-Shultz fight him tooth and nail.

There's nothing to suggest that anything has changed in DNC-Clinton land, and zero evidence that the Democrats can capitalize on the Republican chaos at the top of the ticket.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:12 PM on April 3, 2016 [48 favorites]


Isn't Cruz literally not eligible to be president? Seriously is that not a thing?
posted by odinsdream at 7:13 PM on April 3, 2016


Trump's supporters don't seem to like the Republican establishment (to put it mildly). If Trump doesn't get the nomination, what are the chances that they would stay home rather than vote for, say, Cruz? And would that sink Cruz in the general?

I don't think it will hurt Cruz.
a) Republicans tend to "fall in line" and vote, even if they don't particularly like their candidate. Democrats are seen as being a bit more finicky, so endorsements from the losing candidates and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts are more important for Dems.

b) Many of Trumps more diehard anti-establishment supporters aren't regular voters. He has brought more new voters in than the other candidates. Losing them won't hurt Cruz as they weren't really in the picture.

c) There's a pretty strong anti-establishment feel going on with both sides, even with moderates in the parties feeling a bit skeptical of politics as usual, but I can't see that stopping the "likely voters" from voting for an establishment candidate in November. While folks are sick of the establishment, they would still rather their political side win the White House.
posted by imbri at 7:15 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Today I learned of an exciting new economic idea from the Trumpheads: tariffs.
posted by telstar at 7:21 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


His thoughts were red thoughts The real big issue here is that due to the way US elections work, a two party system is pretty much baked right into the structure of the government. And, as anyone from a multiparty country knows, two parties really aren't enough. They get vague and similar because in order to appeal to half the country they can't be anything but vague and similar.

In a country with more than two viable parties, Trump and his supporters would be perfectly at home in one of the far right, ultra nationalist, type parties. The UKIP or the Nationalist Front, or the Golden Dawn, or what have you.

In the US those parties don't exist, they can't. So the people who want to be in them, who should be into them, get folded into the Republican party along with the big money people, the wonky religious people, etc. Which results in them often being very upset with "their" party, because they have to share the party with people who aren't really all that ideologically similar to them.

For several decades now, the Republican party has gotten a lot of votes by what is known as the Southern Strategy, which basically means appealing to the bigoted white racists of America (originally this meant mostly in the South, but racists are everywhere) promising them anything, and then delivering nothing.

The Republicans have been getting votes by promising to end abortion, roll back civil rights for black and brown people, roll back civil rights for gay people, etc, and then never delivering on any of those promises. All those people are now fed up with the Republicans and their decades of broken promises, so they're flocking to Trump who is technically Republican, but who speaks their language and seems (emphasis on seems) to share their outrage with the way the Republican party has been betraying them.

You see this a lot in the way the usage of the phrase "political correctness" has shifted. Originally it was used almost exclusively to claim that liberals, or Democrats, were trying to silence those who disagreed with them. These days you see it mostly from racists or other bigots outraged that the mainstream Republican party and their media organs are trying to get people to use dogwhistles to convey their bigotry rather than reveling in open bigotry.

Trump's voters are very upset that they've been told to keep quiet, keep their bigotry hidden behind dogwhistle phrases. They love Trump for saying aloud all the racist, sexist, homophobic, things they've been saying, and getting shushed by Republicans for saying, all these years. That's why they see him as authentic and display a hostility towards mainstream Republicans.

Basically its as if the UKIP and the Conservatives had to fuse into a single party, no matter what happened a significant chunk of people in the party would always be mad at the party.

The same thing, to a somewhat lesser extent, applies to the Democrats. The phrase to look for there isn't "political correctness", but "hippie punching", a term invented by left wing Democrats to deride the behavior of the more right wing Democrats to try and gain political advantage in an election by attacking the left.

odinsdream Ted Cruz is perfectly eligible to be president, any statement to the contrary is just nonsense.
posted by sotonohito at 7:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


0xFCAF: ...a brutal 30-second spot of Cruz simply speaking to another human being tanks his favorability ratings into territory previously reserved for STDs and airport security.

I am intrigued by your insights and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton's unfavorables are nearly as high as Trump's.

If by "nearly" you mean 10 points, while Clinton has 10 points on him on...favorability? Whatever the name for it is, characterizing a difference of 20+ points of favorables/unfavorables as "nearly" the same is pretty inaccurate.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:25 PM on April 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I wonder what Trump's next act will be after he loses.

Well, after he left the Prime Minister gig, Cerebus the Aardvark became Pope...
posted by happyroach at 7:30 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


beerperson: That orange fellow seems to be fairly passionate!

Look, I think Trump is a shallow, ignorant hack, just as passionately as most MeFites. But I want to see us stop calling him "orange": we're better than that, we can argue this on ideas, and we should stick to our standards.



Also, he's more of a butterscotch color, or "circus peanut," if I had to really narrow it down.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:30 PM on April 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Whatever the name for it is, characterizing a difference of 20+ points of favorables/unfavorables as "nearly" the same is pretty inaccurate.

She'd be the least popular major nominee in modern history, unless Trump were nominated as well, and then he would. That's not nothing, it's actually an enormous disadvantage that her supporters largely refuse to acknowledge or address.

Put it this way, there's a non-zero percentage of conservative Democrats and independents that would vote for Kasich over Hilary. There are zero Republicans that would vote for Hilary, ever, under any circumstances, and a far lower percentage of independents. You can see it in the so called #neverTrump movement. They acknowledge Trump might literally lead us into nuclear Armageddon...but even still refuse to consider voting for Hilary to stop him. That's the kind of opposition she'd be facing against any "generic non-insane Republican to be named later", which encompasses Kasich.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:34 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are zero Republicans that would vote for Hilary, ever, under any circumstances, and a far lower percentage of independents.

Total anecdata, I have been hearing from Republicans who do want to vote for her. They're disgusted by Trump and think Bernie is awful.
posted by schroedinger at 7:42 PM on April 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Which is why she's outpolling Trump, but not Kasich. Which was the original premises.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:46 PM on April 3, 2016


Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm someone who picked a Clinton-Bush matchup on this very site, but I think it might be Paul Ryan.

In the parallel universe where Romney-Ryan won in 2012, it might be his turn.

It might still be.
posted by box at 7:46 PM on April 3, 2016


I thought Kasich was out-polling her because Kasich has had absolutely no negative campaigning directed at him whatsoever.
posted by schroedinger at 7:51 PM on April 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


She'd be the least popular major nominee in modern history, unless Trump were nominated as well, and then he would. That's not nothing, it's actually an enormous disadvantage that her supporters largely refuse to acknowledge or address.

On what timeline? Bill Clinton had equally unfavorable ratings in April 1992.
posted by one_bean at 7:52 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


For all the demographic advantages and disparity in national personalities, the Democrats have done a SPECTACULARLY terrible job of state and local level messaging. For 30+ years the DNC has cared only about shielding party insiders from challengers from the left, and siphoning as much corporate money as possible with the requisite payoffs in policy positions.

Obama won running his campaign largely outside of the official Democratic structures, and arguably his greatest failure was completely abandoning that effort as soon as he was elected, rather than transitioning his personal organization into building the broader Democratic coalition.
For what it's worth, that isn't really the dynamic I have seen on the ground. I have seen a huge amount of tension between national actors, whether the DNC or Obama's organization, and the local party, which resents what they see as outside interference. The local party people are fairly set in their ways, and they really don't want to change how they do things. For instance, they believe that lawn signs are really important. They believe that print advertising, especially in the local newspaper, is super important. They believe that elections are won or lost by really convincing letters to the editor, so a very important part of electioneering is getting a lot of people to write excellent letters to the editor of the local paper pointing out the virtues of various candidates. They bitterly resent that the national people don't understand the importance of putting a lot of resources into parade floats. They believe in their very hearts that parliamentary procedure is extremely important and must be followed at every meeting, and they will interrupt the meeting to correct you if your form is slightly off. They believe that renters don't vote, so it's a waste of resources to knock doors in neighborhoods with a lot of rental units.

Obama dealt with these people in 2008 and 2012 by basically bypassing them and building his own organization, which in 2014 he handed over to organizations aligned with the DNC. That's who I am: I'm an OFA person who got reactivated in 2014. (The Hillary campaign then attempted to take over the organization, but it didn't work very well at the local level. 2014 was kind of brutal, and I ended up sitting this primary season out partly because I was really burnt out, and I know that some of the other local super-volunteers went for Bernie.) So basically, at the moment you have two distinct organizations: the local party, which does things like school board and city council and whatnot, and a national organization, which sweeps in during national elections. And there's not a lot of coordination between the two. I think that's going to be a very challenging gap to bridge, and I genuinely have tried. I also think that there would be tremendous backlash if the national organization tried to get its people to take over the local party.

This is not particularly an ideological divide. I know both relatively lefty and relatively conservative people affiliated with both the local and national groups, and both groups split between Bernie and Hillary supporters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:11 PM on April 3, 2016 [50 favorites]


Ryan was utterly deconstructed, eviscerated, and made to regret completely his decision to be Romney's runningmate by Obama's glad-hander, the backroom deal-maker and consensus taker. Biden so completely owned that debate, it turned a shoo-in into a landslide.

Clinton and Sanders are not at Biden's level. They are at Obama's. Ryan will be demolished systematically with wit and charm and a clear understanding of the positions. Either of them will absolutely use the phrase "Mr. Speaker, please proceed!" and everyone in these United States of America will know he is DONE, including Ryan.

So. It's going to be Romney vs. Hillary - Hillary is smarter and more charming than he is. She has two modes - policy wonk and nice person, and the shift between them is noticeable. Romney is all policy wonk, and it's an avuncular, gentle policy wonk, because the person isn't very nice or engageable. It will be a battle of the robots until the debate moderator makes her laugh, and she will chuckle and grin and quip back at him, and then go back to Hillary Bot, and Romney will try to do that, and well, he's not equipped.

Bernie is Bernie. He is always Bernie. Like most humans, he shifts from serious business to personal delight as the occasion warrants, and he is very intelligent with an amazing memory. He will be charming and jovial and authoritative and relentless, and Romney will seem to be a bewildered fool as Bernie subtly changes the questions with his answers. Hillary bot can barely keep up with that, and she'd utterly demolish Romney.

No. It's still going to be Trump.

You haven't figured it out. This is the long game. A democratic president will mean the mid-terms swing R. State elections will swing R. Trump will be nominated to lose.

In 2020 more than one state, and at least one of them a swing state, will gerrymander electoral votes for the presidency like they do for their House seats.

And then we will be in for interesting times.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:26 PM on April 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


There are zero Republicans that would vote for Hilary, ever, under any circumstances,

Not so sure about that. The flipside of the misogyny that Hillary collects is a percentage of the population that would like to see a female president, and/or is pro-choice. There are significant numbers of both among Republican women in particular, and Trump's open hatred of women will only make that easier.

If Cruz gets it, and his cheating scandal is verified, that would calve off some other Republcan votes.
posted by msalt at 8:27 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Still holding out for other RNC long-shot nominees, for the sheer hilarity- Condi, Jeb!, Tom Coburn (who?), Rick Perry?!?
posted by Apocryphon at 8:28 PM on April 3, 2016


2014 seems like it was way too late, by that point the damage from 2010 was already done and metastasized, I was thinking more about the 2009-2010 healthcare fight and 2010 tea party blood bath. The time for OFA to stay active was in the first two years of his Presidency. After 2010 Obama was basically done doing anything other than protecting Obamacare, the New Deal itself and keeping the federal government's lights on. I guess it's good to hear that at least some effort was expended in that direction by 2014, but those problems are kind of the same thing I was talking about. The Republicans for all the disaster at the top, have effective state and local machines which have won massive gains since 2010, where the Democrats for whatever reason have nothing remotely comparable.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:28 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Will Rogers said it in the 1920s: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Some things never change. But then, too many Americans will never realize that the political system that was so new and groundbreaking 227 years ago is now hopelessly obsolete (not to mention hopelessly corrupted).
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:30 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fuck it. Sulla 2016.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:33 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Isn't Cruz literally not eligible to be president? Seriously is that not a thing?

Technically he probably isn't but who has standing to sue? And when do you even resolve something like that? Before or after the nomination? After he wins the election? Can you imagine the crisis that would cause?
posted by great_radio at 8:35 PM on April 3, 2016


According to a lawyer I talked to, Trump might have standing to sue. How's that for a scenario?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:39 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Isn't Cruz literally not eligible to be president? Seriously is that not a thing?

He's not a black guy so it won't matter
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:42 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Republicans have been getting votes by promising to end abortion, roll back civil rights for black and brown people, roll back civil rights for gay people, etc, and then never delivering on any of those promises.

Let's dispel with this fiction that the GOP hasn't delivered on any of those promises. They've delivered exactly enough to keep the bigots interested. They use that to change the country.

I mean, really. New voting restrictions? New abortion accessibility restrictions? The fucking bathroom bills?

If that's "not delivering" actively harmful laws that disenfranchise and damage minorities...
posted by qcubed at 8:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


John Noonan, advisor to both Jeb and Romney (ahaha), has been pushing USMC General (ret.) James Mattis as a potential stop Trump candidate. All I can say about this suggestion is that it's cool how the general has both "Warrior Monk" and "Mad Dog" as nicknames.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:43 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Republican-controlled states have selected from this menu to restrict voting rights in any way they could."

the most disgusting thing I've ever read I think.

not to mention hopelessly corrupted

per my pull-quote from the Post article above, it is not the system that is corrupted, it is we, ourselves
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:51 PM on April 3, 2016


The system didn't start out being corrupted, but it was quite conducive to being compromised.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:55 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz is perfectly eligible to be president, any statement to the contrary is just nonsense.

depends if he was actually a US citizen on December 22, 1970 I would think (and not just eligible to become one should he later elect to do so).

Whatever "natural born citizen" means, it can't be granted ex post facto AFAICT.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:59 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


but it was quite conducive to being compromised

~half this country, more than half given the # of people who don't even bother to vote, are OK with that.

That is where the corruption lives, not the politicians.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:00 PM on April 3, 2016


The Republicans have been getting votes by promising to end abortion, roll back civil rights for black and brown people, roll back civil rights for gay people, etc, and then never delivering on any of those promises.

To follow up on gcubed's comment... They've been delivering on these promises in spades at the local and state level. On a national level they haven't done anything other than (which is quite important) nominate supreme court justices that would uphold bigoted and anti-woman and anti-LGBT laws.
posted by el io at 9:03 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]



depends if he was actually a US citizen on December 22, 1970 I would think (and not just eligible to become one should he later elect to do so).


These days, when a US citizen is born in a foreign country, the parents file a consular report of birth abroad. That functions as a US birth certificate. I don't know if these existed in 1970, but it seems to me that anyone to whom the US consulate is willing to issue a birth certificate as a US citizen would be regarded legally as a "natural born citizen. "
posted by bardophile at 9:10 PM on April 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ted Cruz is perfectly eligible to be president, any statement to the contrary is just nonsense.

Even if he wasn't, it's completely ridiculous that the US considers itself a country of immigrants, yet an immigrant is ineligible to be President or VP and has to settle for Secretary of State.
posted by FJT at 9:13 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cesarean section need not apply.

VBOGTFO!
posted by mikelieman at 9:15 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


If we're speculating on crazy contested convention theories, I've got two of them.

1. Trump goes into the convention without enough bound delegates to take the thing. Realizing that he can't win a second ballot* and needing to save face and come across as a Winner, he drops out to "save the party" and endorses... I dunno, Carson? Christie? Someone who's already sold him their soul, but would be marginally acceptable to the establishment. He rebrands himself as a king-maker and the rest of the party goes along with it because they don't really have a better plan.

2. Motherfucking Scott Walker. They'd want someone who actually ran, to avoid the Random Savior optics, but they also don't want someone who lost. Suddenly, Scott Walker dropping out at the beginning to try to avoid splitting the non-Trump votes looks downright admirable. Mother Fucking Scott Walker.

*Delegates are people, not just statistics, and most of them are party insiders who don't like him, plus Cruz might have Trump-delegate double-agents.
posted by Weeping_angel at 9:22 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


In fact, several lawsuits have been filed to get Cruz declared ineligible.

They have been dismissed so far in New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Two have been filed against Rubio, as well.
posted by msalt at 9:23 PM on April 3, 2016


The vehemence with which Reince Priebus ruled out, in a CNN interview yesterday, the possibility of Ryan being the convention candidate, "on a fourth or fifth ballot," made me suspicious. He was most insistent that the Republican candidate would be one of the people already running.


I agree with Sanders more but like Hillary a lot more so I have to decide if I'm voting with my head or my heart.

Octothorpe, I can relate to this so well.
posted by bardophile at 9:23 PM on April 3, 2016


Even with a third-party candidate, the vote is never going to the House. Yes, I know my history, Perot was at one point polling 30%. But remember, the majority needed isn't of the popular vote, it's of the electoral vote, and you don't get electoral votes with 30% support, by and large. A third-party candidate might well keep any candidate from getting a majority of the popular vote, sure, but that's not how the general election ends up contested.

Bear in mind that America consists of a lot of Democratic and Republican strongholds, and a handful of swing states. In a Clanders/Trump/someone else general, the Democratic certainties stay Democratic, and pretty much all of the swings (and quite possibly some of the weaker Republican reliables) split in a way giving a plurality to Santon. There's your majority right there.

The only way I can conceive of a contested general in the established political shape of America is if both parties end up splitting. If you hypothesize a four-way contest with Bloomberg in the race, then maybe? But not a three-way with one unambiguously party-anointed candidate.
posted by jackbishop at 9:26 PM on April 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm sure someone has noted this before, but what is it with the initials R and P? Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Reince Priebus...
posted by bardophile at 9:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Another issue worth mentioning: we haven't had a brokered convention in half a century. There is nobody politically active in the Republican party who has ever taken part in one. There have hardly been any at all since the widespread adoption of party primaries, and there was never (AFAICT) one since said adoption that didn't eventually choose someone who was at least a strong contender in the primaries.

So (a) none of the delegates actually know what they're supposed to do in such a situation, and (b) to the extent history is their guide, they'll probably see Trump or Cruz as the only people to reasonably put forward. But then, given the weirdness and irregularity of the whole scenario, nothing seems entirely impossible.
posted by jackbishop at 9:31 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Excellent point, bardophile, and thanks. I'm reassured.
posted by msalt at 9:43 PM on April 3, 2016


Even with a third-party candidate, the vote is never going to the House.

Remember in 2000 how the media created a narrative in which it was just absolutely a crisis and out of the question that the actual Constitutional procedure for deciding a disputed Presidential election be allowed to run its course?
posted by thelonius at 9:44 PM on April 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm sure someone has noted this before, but what is it with the initials R and P? Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Reince Priebus...

I give you as the next conservative candidate... Paul Reubens.
posted by el io at 9:49 PM on April 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


There is a book, Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention. The author has worked for many Republican candidates and at many conventions. He seems to come from Michigan, but has just gotten chosen as a convention delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, or maybe not, as there seems to be an issue with how long he's lived there. If he's a delegate to the convention is is eligible to get on all sorts of committees that will make decisions on how it will be run. I'm pretty curious to know what he has to say, but I don't think I'm $30 curious.

(His story is be followed occasionally by talkingpointsmemo.com, which is where I first saw read about it.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:13 PM on April 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyone else notice that all the Related Posts on this post are from the year 2000?
posted by benito.strauss at 10:18 PM on April 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Am I the only one expecting a lot of violence at the GOP convention? And, it won't be from protesters. The other day I was eavesdropping a conversation between two Trump supporters (both people I am good acquaintances with) about how if Trump isn't the nominee they expect and hope for a violent confrontation at the convention. The convo seemed to be going, they thought if Trump is not the nominee than fuck it all, we welcome a bloodbath. Both of these guys own guns, they support unlimited open carry, and seem to be of the opinion that might means right.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:37 PM on April 3, 2016


John Noonan, advisor to both Jeb and Romney (ahaha), has been pushing USMC General (ret.) James Mattis as a potential stop Trump candidate.

phew, I'm glad there's a military general who nobody's voted for ready to assume control, I almost thought the fascist guy was gonna win
posted by threeants at 10:55 PM on April 3, 2016 [39 favorites]


I don't know if it's been brought up in previous election threads or not, but Bloomberg has said he will not take the risk of getting Cruz or Trump elected.

I could see some of the Democrats I know voting Bloomberg instead of Clinton. I can't see that happening with anybody else who might show up at this stage of the game. Such a person could exist, theoretically, but I don't think that person suddenly announces a run in April. What I remember of Perot--bearing in mind that I'm not yet 40, so I was pretty young at the time--was that he was basically running as the same sort of technocrat that Bloomberg would be running as. Those technocrats these days have access to a hell of a lot of data, and I don't think they're going to show up unless they see a clear path to making that third party win possible; it just doesn't fit the type to invest the resources without expecting results. It would all look very different if people 12 months ago had thought Trump had a serious chance of getting this far, but... so would everything else, you know?
posted by Sequence at 11:08 PM on April 3, 2016


I don't think Perot was a data-driven shrewd dude. IIRC he made a fortune off of selling time on mainframe computers he owned, very early stuff.

In a way he was more like Trump -- pretty darned good at selling a blunt-talking businessman of the people image, in a somewhat corny Texas good old boy style, despite having a billion dollars of assets. You still hear people making references to his description of the budget defiicit -- "a giant sucking sound."

He was totally that schtick of "Wayull, I'm not the smartest guy who ever lived but from what I unnerstand, ya can't get sumpin for nuttin. And these cheesecrackers here are never gonna admit it. But I'm a-gonna be honest, we are in some serious trouble here people."
posted by msalt at 11:52 PM on April 3, 2016


Perot bought hours of programming in prime time to show us pie charts demonstrating what was wrong with America and how he'd fix it! He was very data driven, but I was thirteen at the time and I couldn't tell you if the data was legit or not.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:01 AM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


On what timeline? Bill Clinton had equally unfavorable ratings in April 1992.

And Sanders favorability compares with Obamas when he first ran, and he is closing the distance on the delegate count. Of course Clinton has all the super delegates in her back pocket and they don't care how the states are swinging.

Am I the only one expecting a lot of violence at the GOP convention?

Didn't Trump just come out and talk about riots if he loses or some such? I can't keep track of all the flip-flopping bombastic shit he's been flinging . But I am related to people who I thought were critical enough to understand Trump for what he is, and instead am constantly surprised at any amount of support he gets. From what I recall the riot talk was a thing both times Obama was winning, but I think the assumed loss of their real & psychological wage prevents most of those people from doing anything. It's the same thing with all those people (oath-keepers *eyeroll*) who "supported" Bundy and Finicum; in the end most of them have a life, job, and maybe a family that others high-falutin' ideals are not going to support. Most people just want to get through a day of work and then enjoy the rest of it. It's like every Anarchists dilemma, they wouldn't know where to start.

All in all, I would agree it's still a little early.
posted by P.o.B. at 12:07 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]




A Texan technocrat-populist, whodathunk?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:00 AM on April 4, 2016


You still hear people making references to his description of the budget defiicit -- "a giant sucking sound."

Actually, it was foreign trade and NAFTA (at that time still un-ratified.) Here he is.
posted by CincyBlues at 1:04 AM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


What if Trump & Sanders both got shut out in a very shady way in the conventions and both ran in the general election as independents?
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:13 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thanks, it's been a while. I love how Bush and Clinton both crack up at "giant sucking sound" while trying to hide their reactions.

More Perot -- on Saddam Hussein and his balanced budget pie charts, which prize bull octorok mentioned above. Perot bought a full half-hour of prime time television to show the pie charts.
posted by msalt at 2:16 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


What if Trump & Sanders both got shut out in a very shady way in the conventions and both ran in the general election as independents?

Sore loser laws in many states would prevent them from making a 50 state run. Filing deadlines in many states would precede the convention, making it difficult even in states which would let sore losers run. On top of that, if only one of them ran as 3rd party, they'd split the vote from their wing and would hand a semi-easy victory to the other wing.

It's not going to happen with Sanders. The worst he'll do is refuse Clinton an endorsement. Trump might try to weasel his way into some states, but I doubt it. I think he'd prefer to snark from the sidelines and yell "SAD!" at whoever the GOP nominee is.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:37 AM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have a theoretical question. This is not really about the Democratic candidates at all, it's about the Republican side, but it's a question for voters who are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate. I want to set up a vaguely analogous hypothetical situation so I can get some sense of what the likely reaction to one possible scenario would be among Republican voters.

Let's say that, somehow (I could set up an elaborate scenario as to how this would happen, but I won't bother, it's just "somehow"), the Democratic convention happens, and no matter who is in the lead at that time, Clinton or Sanders, when the convention is done, by some means entirely within the rules, the candidate that emerges is, oh, let's say Joe Biden.

How would you react?

Would it be:

1) I am staying home and not voting.
2) I am voting for a third party.
3) I'll vote for him, but only because it is better than the alternative of (Trump / Cruz / Kasich / Rubio / Ryan / Romney) getting elected.
4) I'll vote for him if it's (Trump / Cruz / ?), but if it's (Kasich / Romney / ?) I'll stay home or vote for a third party.
5) I'll vote for him, because I might have voted for him in the primary anyway.
6) I'll vote for him, because the party sets the rules and the party decides the candidate.
7) I will vote for the Republican candidate.
8) I will vote for the Republican candidate if it's (?), but not if it's (?).
9) Something else.
posted by kyrademon at 3:21 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


i don't think it's equivalent, because i don't think the democrats are as rigid this year as the republicans - i can see that almost all would settle for biden

i think there's going to be something much like 1968 chicago at the republican convention - it'll be nasty, it'll be bloody, and it will be divisive if trump doesn't win because trump and his followers are going to make it so - and i think the establishment is determined to cheat him out of the nomination

i don't think cruz's supporters are going to be anywhere near as angry if a 3rd person gets the nomination

my guess is the wall street business establishment part of the party has probably written this presidential election off and is just going to watch the fur fly - at least, if they were smart, that's what they'd do
posted by pyramid termite at 3:46 AM on April 4, 2016




> "i can see that almost all would settle for biden"

OK. But just to make sure I'm understanding your answer correctly, does that mean you would?
posted by kyrademon at 3:52 AM on April 4, 2016


i guess - truth is, i've never felt so apathetic about my choices as i do this year - underlying this is my belief that whoever wins is going to be woefully unprepared for what's going to face them - a sinking economy, a middle eastern war and an uncooperative congress that may let things be burned down rather than fix them
posted by pyramid termite at 3:58 AM on April 4, 2016


If it's Biden, I'm looking for him "campaigning" in his sweet ass Trans Am, rocking "Hot for Teacher," taking up a collection for another keg run. Hey, vote how you like, Diamond Joe will still offer you a red Solo cup.

Actually, Biden is a labor guy and is very shrewd politically, and I could vote for him, but any scenario where a candidate just drops out of the sky like that would do a lot of damage to party loyalty. Still, I've never missed an election in almost 30 years, and there is no timeline dark enough where I'd vote for a Republican.

As we speak, Uncle Joe's grilling up some kebabs for you on the hibachi...
posted by krinklyfig at 3:58 AM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Marylanders can vote early! We don't have to rejigger our whole schedules just to do our civic duty. (Offer not valid in all states. Check your local listings.)

Here's the thing - I want to take my kids to the polls with me and for them to see me vote, and get some sense of the gravity of the process. Filling out something and putting it in the mail just doesn't have the same effect. I appreciate have both options though.
posted by newdaddy at 4:04 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


newdaddy, you can do your early voting at the polls, in person.
posted by cashman at 4:29 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


GOD MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOOOOpppppppsob.
posted by eriko at 4:43 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


i've never felt so apathetic about my choices as i do this year

Each party has a status quo candidate and an anti-establishment candidate. What more do you want? Trust me, even your dream candidate would disappoint you in the end.

Am I the only one expecting a lot of violence at the GOP convention?

Probably not. I sigh. Other than adventurism, I see no reason for anti-Trumpers or anti-Hillaries to show up at the hated ones' rallies in the first place. It's not like the candidates' respective cheerleaders are unaware that their choice is not universally popular. Shouting is not going to change any minds. Protestors are clearly not interested in having their own mind's open for change. And by attempting to intimidate or shout down the speakers, said protestors prevent them from letting them put their own feet in their mouths.

I wish, but doubt, that the malcontents would stay home.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:03 AM on April 4, 2016


I wouldn't call Ted Cruz a status quo candidate.
posted by zutalors! at 5:06 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


9) Joe Biden? I get to vote for Joe Biden?! WOOOOOHOOO I'M VOTING FOR JOE BIDEN!!!!

Seriously, it'd be like the DNC gave me Christmas early. Now if it was, say, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, I'd pitch a fit but would hold my nose and vote for her because Supreme Court.
posted by imbri at 5:07 AM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Both of these guys own guns, they support unlimited open carry, and seem to be of the opinion that might means right.

If I remember correctly, the Secret Service is at least partially responsible for security at the conventions (and all the nominees at this point have SS protection). There won't be guns in the convention, period.

What level of insanity have we reached when this is a point we're legitimately discussing now?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is there a chance the Republican Establishment (tm) just decides, the hell with it, and nominates Ted Cruz as a way of getting rid of him? Just so he can lose 40 states and take Goldwater/McGovern's places as the new symbol of "doomed unelectable candidate"?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:12 AM on April 4, 2016


If I had to guess the most likely scenario, Huffy Puffy, I would say that it's that the Republicans find a way to nominate Cruz and then push the idea to moderates that, if you're going to vote for Hillary, you really should limit her power by voting for Republicans for Congress. That's the fair, balanced, moderate way to approach this wacky election: pick one from column A and one from column B. That way, even if they don't win the presidency, they can still hang on to Congress. I don't think their big concern about Trump is that he'll lose the presidency. I think it's that he'll drag Congress down with him and that he'll motivate a lot of former non-voters to vote and establish their identification with the Democratic party.
If I remember correctly, the Secret Service is at least partially responsible for security at the conventions (and all the nominees at this point have SS protection). There won't be guns in the convention, period.
Yes, I believe that the Secret Service's official response to the idea of allowing guns at the conventions was "lol, no."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:37 AM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


There are zero Republicans that would vote for Hilary, ever, under any circumstances,

Just a quick thought experiment to prove a point. Please, entertain me. Take just a second and I want you to imagine a disaffected voter who isn't a political partisan. Someone who occasionally votes for Democrats, other times Republicans. This election, they're pissed off. They think the country is in trouble. They're getting a bit riled up, and you better believe they're going to vote. Okay, you've imagined that person? Who is it? Is it an overweight white guy from, like, Toledo? Congratulations, that means you consume American media! Where every disaffected swing voter seems to be from one of five states in the middle of country, once worked in manufacturing, and has a name like "Ed" or "Vinny." Not only is it bullshit, it's also sexist and dumb.

My mother, a Republican her entire life and someone who has said no fewer than three squajillion horrible things about Hillary Clinton when I lived with her in the 90s -- she's leaning toward Clinton over Trump. I know that in the past few weeks the idea that Trump is a misogynist has been getting a lot of play in the media, which, great job, folks. That only took you six months to figure out? Meanwhile, the story is still centered on how Trump talks about and thinks about women. What about some stories about undecided women voters, or women voters who would vote for Kasich over Clinton but Clinton over Trump? What are they thinking?

I'm so sick of hearing about free-trade hating union Democrats who will vote for Trump in Ohio and Michigan. These have been consistently Republican voters for the past 20 years. And for every honest to goodness actual white male Democrat who voted for Obama twice and is now going to vote for Trump over Clinton, I bet I could find you two women who voted for Romney but who will vote for Clinton over Trump.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:42 AM on April 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


"My mother, a Republican her entire life and someone who has said no fewer than three squajillion horrible things about Hillary Clinton when I lived with her in the 90s"

My mother, life-long die-hard Republican who hates Hillary Clinton with the fire of a thousand suns, informed me back in January she was voting Clinton because Trump was a tire fire, and Cruz and Rubio were too far beyond her with their racist immigration positions and their determination to burn education to the ground, and their refusal to whole-heartedly embrace gay rights. (Kasich might be minimally acceptable to her but she's more an economic Republican and less a culture-war Republican so she's typically suspicious of anti-abortion campaigners.) Normally she'd sit the election out in a year like this where the GOP candidates were terrible rather than vote for a (gasp) Democrat especially (momentary fainting spell) Hillary Clinton, but she feels like she is morally obligated to vote for the Democrat to prevent any of the tire-fire GOP candidates from the presidency. She would rather deal with another 8 years of Democrats (and my mother thinks Obama is a socialist, just so we're clear on how she feels about moderate Democrats) taxing her too much and promoting programs she disagrees with than risk, you know, put a virulent racist in the White House, destroy all of our foreign alliances, destabilize the world order, and strip mine the country's infrastructure for tax breaks. (She's also got increasing concerns about global warming because she's got grandchildren, so the future matters to her.)

And while I mostly know Illinois Republicans, who tend to hate Democrats for slightly different reasons than national Republicans do, and who tend to be more social liberal/fiscal conservative sorts as a state party, I know a LOT of Republicans who are voting for Hillary. (And even a fair number willing to hold their noses and vote for Bernie if the alternative is Trump or Cruz.)

The idea of my mother voting for Hillary Clinton, the only person I have ever heard her refer to as a "bitch," was so shocking it required a family-wide text alert because it's a sign of the end times. AND YET she's pretty well made up her mind and resigned herself to that being her moral duty so we don't all die in a Trump-created WWIII.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:05 AM on April 4, 2016 [53 favorites]


There are zero Republicans that would vote for Hilary, ever, under any circumstances,

I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. I have friends who are Super Republicans (devout Catholics who are multimillionaires who voted Rubio in the primary) that have told me that in absolutely NO WAY will they vote Trump or Cruz, and that they don't know anyone in their (super wealthy 1% south Florida Republicans) business or personal circles that will. According to my friend, there's quite a lot of discussion about holding their noses and voting for Hilary (or Bernie if that turns out to be the case) because they're terrified of Trump getting us into a world ending war and Cruz is so offputting that they just will not vote for him. Nobody says that they won't vote, they are saying that they are voting for the Democrat.

(full disclosure: I don't run in 1% circles as a rule, this is pure anecdata from my super rich friends reporting on their super super rich friends)
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:08 AM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Today I learned of an exciting new economic idea from the Trumpheads: tariffs.

I'm not a Trumphead but tariffs were one of the things making sure that capital couldn't immediately chase the lowest labor costs all over the world. The removal of tariffs with the government's complete abandonment of enforcing good wages since the 1970s has basically resulted in the demolition of the working middle class. With tariffs based on a country's wages and standard of living we could have at least tried to preserve a standard of living for the working poor.

Instead we basically threw out the baby with the bathwater for a $3 t-shirt from Bangladesh. Great for us who are still middle class consumers but what a shitty deal they got. No wonder they hate it so much.
posted by Talez at 6:15 AM on April 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


This stuff about Republicans who would vote for Hillary reminds me of this Vox article about how the political axis separating the two parties is rotating, so that are separated less on economic lines, and more on "minority rights vs. white male hegemony" lines.

Interestingly my own mother cannot stand Trump's racism and won't vote for him, but can't vote for Hillary either, because my mother is a fan of traditional gender roles and is very anti-abortion. So there's not a perfect correlation between wanting white hedgemony and wanting male hedgemony... (I believe there are also a lot of Patriarchs of color out there.)

I wonder if that's partly responsible for the chaos in the Republican party right now. (I think my mother was a Carson supporter originally, but is relatively happy with Cruz too.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:23 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know a fair amount of one percenters and .01 percenters...from the sample size I have (straight white guys under 40 btw), they don't care about any social issues at all in terms of voting, they just don't want their taxes to go up. If pressed they're socially liberal, but would give that up in the voting booth in favor of a candidate who wouldn't raise their taxes, especially capital gains.
posted by zutalors! at 6:26 AM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I have a hard time supporting tariffs, because it feels like thr richest country in the world throwing the third world under the economic bus.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:39 AM on April 4, 2016


AP: Trump calls on Kasich to quit race: 'He's taking my votes'
MILWAUKEE (AP) — Donald Trump on Sunday called for John Kasich to drop out of the Republican presidential race, arguing that the Ohio governor shouldn't be allowed to continue accumulating delegates if he has no chance of becoming the nominee.

Working to recover his edge after a difficult week, Trump said it wasn't fair for Kasich, who has won only his home state, to continue his campaign. He suggested instead that Kasich, who has pledged to make it to the summer convention, follow the example of Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush — candidates who quit after lagging behind. "He doesn't have to run and take my votes," he said.

Trump said Kasich could ask to be considered at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July even without competing in the remaining nominating contests. He added that he had relayed his concerns to Republican National Committee officials at a meeting in Washington this past week.

"I said, 'Why is a guy allowed to run?' All he's doing is just he goes from place to place and loses," Trump told reporters at Miss Katie's Diner in Milwaukee, where he stopped for breakfast.
posted by cjelli at 6:40 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


zutalors! - do your friends have kids? The reasons my friends gave for not voting Trump or Cruz was more about what their kids' lives would be like, not that they are at all in favor of increased taxes. They pay deep into 6 figures income tax and feel that they already pay their fair share, but kinda feel that they'd rather have higher taxes and also avoid a global war. My friends (these particular 1%) are all married white couples that are Catholic and Jewish.

Now, I also have a friend who is absolutely middle class who becomes apoplectic at the thought of voting for anything other than the R nominee, no matter if it's Trump or Cruz. He's offended that Hilary is even running, much less the probable next POTUS.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:43 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


" [Trump] said, 'Why is a guy allowed to run?' All he's doing is just he goes from place to place and loses"

In other words, the time-honored "Don't you know who I am?!" of sputtering rage.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:43 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


ABC News: Hillary Clinton Says 'There’s No Indication' Sanders Would Help Elect More Democrats
Hillary Clinton questioned Bernie Sanders' loyalty to the Democratic Party during an interview on "Good Morning America" on Monday, saying "there's no indication" her opponent wants to help elect more Democrats to Congress.

"There's no indication there's any interest there," the Democratic presidential candidate responded when asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she thinks the Vermont senator would help the Senate go back to the Democrats.

"I am committed to electing Democrats. I'm committed to raising money. I'm already helping to fund Democratic campaigns, because at the end of the day a president can do a lot, and I have a very robust agenda with big goals for our country," she continued.

Over the weekend, Clinton knocked Sanders, an independent, for his loose ties to the Democratic party.

"I'm also a Democrat, and have been a proud Democrat all my adult life," Clinton said during a campaign event in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. "And I think it's kind of important if we're selecting somebody to be the Democratic nominee of the Democratic party."

Sanders responded to this critique on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday by arguing that the fact he's an Independent is a strength in a general election campaign, because he can bring independents into the party. He also noted that some polls show him doing better than Clinton in general election match-ups -- an argument Clinton brushed off on "GMA."

"Polls this far out don't mean anything," she told Stephanopoulos. "I think what's important is not what somebody's theory is but, 'How many votes have you gotten?' That's what we determine elections based on."
posted by cjelli at 6:43 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Amusingly, there are even neoconservative policy wonks expecting to back Hillary Clinton in the general, T.D. Strange. It's simply that Clinton is the electable hawkish pro-war candidate this round.

Trump might start wars through incompetence, insults, boasting, etc., but the neoconservatives want to imagine they control the blustering that leads to war, as opposed to it being random dick measuring.

In reality, there is negligible difference between Bush and the neoconservative starting the Iraq war with their lies and Trump starting a war with say Mexico through shear stupid, but the neoconservative ideology depends upon imagining that a difference exists. And Clinton lets them keep fight some limited wars while keeping that delusion.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:47 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have a hard time supporting tariffs, because it feels like thr richest country in the world throwing the third world under the economic bus.

I think the American government should stick to worrying about the American poor and working class as priority #1.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:51 AM on April 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


jeffburdges, are you suggesting that the foreign policy of a Trump presidency wouldn't be that dissimilar to a Clinton presidency? The fact that Trump cheers for the dissolution of NATO and is encouraging a nuclear-armed Japan and Korea -- to you this is the same as the foreign policy of the last 20 years?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:52 AM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


"I said, 'Why is a guy allowed to run?' All he's doing is just he goes from place to place and loses," Trump told reporters....

"Why do we even have elections? Clearly I'm the best, the greatest candidate for the job. We're wasting time and money here. I'm gonna petition Congress and the Supreme Court, (great guys -- really classy guys and women -- they stayed at my exclusive Resort in Cabo once and let me tell you, they had a fantastic time) to just make me President forever. No one else can be President better than me. Nobody."
posted by zarq at 6:52 AM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


my mom is generally politically apathetic generally, but also socially and fiscally conservative and super concerned about who is being "nice." i don't think she's voted a lot in her life, but she voted in the primary this year. my guess is she voted for kaisch. she is no fan of trump but she really really hates clinton. i think she'd stay home if those were the two options, but she might break for trump. presently she's praying for a third party candidate to give us all a better option. i would try to convince her, but everything i like about clinton feeds into what my mom hates about her - so i spend my time trying to get my bernie supporting father to agree to vote for clinton if that's the way it settles at the conventions.
posted by nadawi at 7:03 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


#SCOTUS rejects conservative challenge in Texas 'one person, one vote' case. The holding: As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a state or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:07 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


- I'd believe that he would cede the nomination to Cruz if Ted somehow took the majority, but with more delegates going into the convention for Trump? He'll claim shenanigans and launch a third party bid ASAP.

This is compelling to me because Trump is a reality-show celebrity, deep down; what would ensure he stayed in the news but didn't have to do any real work? A third-party run. It would be a publicity-generating machine which would also allow him to dodge lots of policy questions while taking potshots at the other two candidates. And at the end of the day, he can go take a vacation on one of his islands and plot his next celebrity show, while the actual winner has to be nation's whipping-boy or -girl for 4 to 8 years.
posted by emjaybee at 7:16 AM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


by some means entirely within the rules, the candidate that emerges is, oh, let's say Joe Biden.

How would you react?


I'd first check to see if everyone around me is wearing goatees.

Seriously, outside of a soc.history.what-if "Alien Space Bats" scenario, there is no way Biden would get the nod. It's going to be either Clinton or Sanders.

Actually wait, there is one scenario where it could happen- if both Clinton and Savers were assassinated. I'd actually put the chances of that as fairly low before the convention; after though, it's a different story.
posted by happyroach at 7:18 AM on April 4, 2016


Straw-man much, (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates? There are obvious differences in Clinton and neoconservative foreign policy, but overall many neoconservatives would prefer Clinton foreign policy over Trump.

There is no way to know if Trump's foreign policy would actually be worse than neoconservatives under Bush though. I'd kinda expect Trump to mostly fail to direct U.S. foreign policy, along with many more departments, simply because policy people hate him so much.

We saw the neoconservatives under Bush control the government by firing everyone who disagreed with them. Trump cannot use the same play because he lacks a consistent position. All Trump could do is replace policy wonk shysters with pure shysters like himself.

Anyways, there is no serious risk of a Trump presidency since either Clinton or Sanders obliterates him in the polls. If anything, Trump is expected to slightly reduce the Republican majority in congress, not enough for Democrats to control either house or pass legislation, but enough to prevent Republicans overriding any vetos.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:19 AM on April 4, 2016


Internal memo reveals Trump campaign’s mounting fury with its critics

It was about time for them to try to calculatedly paint themselves and their billionaire candidate as an underdog outsider who will clean up this town, because he won't let the establishment stop him, damn it!

*eyeroll*

Has anyone gone through a week by week analysis of Trump's campaign online, to see how often and on what subjects he and his staff have said or done controversial things to keep themselves in the public eye? For the last few months, it's felt like they were running along a set schedule: 'Today we talk about using nukes and let's bash NATO while we're at it. Later this week, we'll bash Mexicans and talk about Trump Wall™ some more. Next week, we'll bash Muslims and scare people over 'limitless terrorist attacks' if someone else is elected. The week after that we'll "accidentally" drop a bombshell about Benghazi. Or a massive recession.

And through it all the ongoing narrative: Only Trump Can Save Them."
posted by zarq at 7:21 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Actually wait, there is one scenario where it could happen- if both Clinton and Savers were assassinated.

And also let's not forget that we can never entirely rule out a King Ralph photography session gone awry scenario.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:21 AM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh, here we go. This timeline was published on March 1.
posted by zarq at 7:23 AM on April 4, 2016


Amusingly, there are even neoconservative policy wonks expecting to back Hillary Clinton in the general, T.D. Strange. It's simply that Clinton is the electable hawkish pro-war candidate this round.

I think it's less that she's the most hawkish person in the race, and more that every single Republican this time around is more likely than her to provoke a series of international incidents.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:26 AM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


The Times of Israel: Paul Ryan in Israel dismisses talk of being Republicans’ compromise pick
House Speaker Paul Ryan on Sunday rebuffed relentless speculation that he might emerge from Republican infighting as the GOP’s presidential candidate, telling The Times of Israel that there were “lots of reasons” why he hadn’t run for president this time, and that he wasn’t about to change his mind...

...Pressed, nonetheless, on how he might respond if prevailed upon to come forward as the nominee who could heal a divided party, Ryan was adamant: “No, I’ve already said that that’s not me."...“I decided not to run for president,” Ryan elaborated. “I think you should run, if you’re going to be president. I think you should start in Iowa and run to the tape.”

Asked why he had opted to stay out of the race this time, Ryan, 46, who is married with a daughter and two sons, said there were “lots of reasons” including “Phase of life: I have a young family.” He said he had “thought I could make a huge difference” in his former position as head of the House Ways and Means Committee, “and still be the kind of dad and husband I want to be.”

What’s more, he added, “We had 17 people running. We had a deep bench of qualified people. So I thought we had that fairly well taken care of.”
posted by cjelli at 7:31 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dammit Paul Ryan, stop making me like a few things here and there about you.
posted by zutalors! at 7:48 AM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has anyone gone through a week by week analysis of Trump's campaign online, to see how often and on what subjects he and his staff have said or done controversial things to keep themselves in the public eye?

this is something i meant to add way upthread about trump & reality shows. this man is a master at creating viral content. he was doing it before that was even really a thing. one of the things his show was great at was having 25 seconds of footage make it to all the gossip pages and celebrity news shows - the show knew how to create the perfect controversies to get those water cooler moments. when the so called mainstream media let him dominate airtime at the beginning of this primary season, i knew we were fucked. people underestimate how smart he is because they take him at face value that his acumen is in business - but that's never been the case, it's always been in publicity.
posted by nadawi at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


We had a deep bench of qualified people

For definitions of "qualified" that also mean "in no way qualified."
posted by zarq at 7:57 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


We had a deep bench of qualified people

For definitions of "qualified" that also mean "in no way qualified."
posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on April 4 [+] [!]


Bush, Kasich and even Christie on his DGAF days were all traditionally qualified candidates it's just that the crazies took over this cycle.
posted by nathan_teske at 8:16 AM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton loses hands down to Kasich

Polls in April for an event in November are about as accurate as every one of these "who will win the World Series" articles are today. There's a lot of road ahead. And while we're at it, sure, Bernie beats Kasich... but within the margin of error, and smaller than Hillary's over Cruz. This is before all the mudslinging really begins -- and all the Koch/Adelson money decides whether or not it's safe to come off the sidelines.

We do not know how the June-November season will go. It's almost like a new season entirely. Like I told everyone at the caucus, vote for the candidate you prefer, not the candidate you think will win a triangulated race. But be ready to campaign your ass off for them, because there are 100 million people you'll need to convince it's the right choice.
posted by dw at 8:18 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm sure someone has noted this before, but what is it with the initials R and P? Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Reince Priebus...

Richard Pnixon
posted by enjoymoreradio at 8:30 AM on April 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


The idea of my mother voting for Hillary Clinton, the only person I have ever heard her refer to as a "bitch," was so shocking it required a family-wide text alert because it's a sign of the end times.

This is also my mother, if she were ever to use the word "bitch" it would probably be about Sec. Clinton (but she never would although I have heard her say "shit" several times now so anything is possible) and Mother is definitely voting for (D) Not A Crazy Person in November. Having a gay social democrat son has definitely mellowed her view more than the average voter in her demographic though. But I think a lot of socially moderate, fiscally moderate people who voted Reagan / Bush / Dole / Bush / Obama are now firmly in the Democratic camp and more people are going to flee the GOP Tire Fire '16 in the months ahead.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:31 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election

Seth Abramsom at Huffpo
Every day for the past two weeks the Clinton campaign has attacked the ethics and integrity of Sanders and his campaign, usually by falsely claiming that Sanders — for instance, by broadly and on principle opposing super-PACs and money from lobbyists, no matter who their money goes to — was maliciously doing the same to them.

In short, the Clinton campaign went relentlessly negative and managed to get the national media to accuse the Sanders campaign of doing so — a premise set up by a Clinton campaign memo leaked to the media alleging that Sanders “was about to go negative” in New York
posted by Trochanter at 8:34 AM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]




Third ballot at the Republican National Convention goes for Lyndon Larouche (Yes, he is alive). His time has come.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:42 AM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Suggesting that Sanders has no interest in electing down-ballot democrats is ludicrous. The entire premise of his campaign is a top-to-bottom "revolution" at the polls in order to move his agenda through Congress. One of the benefits of having a Super PAC is that you can afford to spend time fundraising for the DNC, because you don't need to worry about fundraising for yourself.
posted by enjoymoreradio at 8:47 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]




Clinton loses hands down to Kasich

Polls in April for an event in November are about as accurate as every one of these "who will win the World Series" articles are today.


April polling has predicted the winner two-thirds of the time since 1952
. The polls at this point aren't anything you should bank on, but the warning signs that Hillary is in a dangerously close race with anybody but Trump are ringing loud and clear. She may be a great primary candidate, but independents do not like her and Republicans...well I'm not a good enough writer to describe in detail how much they hate her, but we all know the deal there. I'd be really worried about a loss if they don't nominate Trump. They are shooting themselves in the foot big time with him.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:53 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


SNL's Hillary Campaign Ad is amusing, but I think it would be even funnier by swapping Hillary with Trump, as I'd argue he's much less reliable on his views. But the Voters for Trump Ad is focused on a different aspect of Trump, rather the fact that he's been on both sides of every major topic, except misogyny. Donald Trump Hates Women. It’s the one position he’s never changed. (Slate, not SNL)
posted by filthy light thief at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2016


I think that headline is weird (um, the Nevertrump movement would have started six months ago in any major party that wasn't actually falling apart) but the analysis is sound. If Trump can't hit it on the first ballot, both he and Ted Cruz have a difficult path to the nomination; and I can't think of anyone besides Paul Ryan who is better positioned to "unify the party".

It's the same path that got him a Speaker's gavel, and it could well get him a desk in an oddly-shaped office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who would Ryan's VP be?
posted by cashman at 8:58 AM on April 4, 2016


Who even knows? I guess that it would be a pivot to the general (since in this scenario, the party elite is basically hijacking / reclaiming the party from its out-of-control base), so they'd probably be looking to have gender and/or racial balance on the ticket to try to repair the damage from the primary season. Um, Carly "demon-sheep" Fiorina? Kelly Ayotte? Nikki Haley?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:04 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Last Monday, Wasserman Schultz scored the official backing of President Barack Obama. It wasn’t entirely surprising, given her leadership position in the party. But it still gave her a high-profile boost and one of the most coveted endorsements in the party.

It also prompted her opponents to give Canova an infusion of cash.

In the four days following Obama’s endorsement, Canova received nearly $100,000, according to his campaign — almost a quarter of what he raised in the three-month period, even though they never actually fundraised off the endorsement."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Whomever Trump didn't buy to be his. Even Cruz hesitated and sputtered when asked if he would support Trump as the nominee literally seconds after he called him a coward.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:05 AM on April 4, 2016


Have either of the other two GOP candidates (or any of the contested convention stalking horses) officially declared that they would not support Trump if he were the nominee?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:08 AM on April 4, 2016


Isn't Cruz literally not eligible to be president? Seriously is that not a thing?

Technically he probably isn't but who has standing to sue? And when do you even resolve something like that? Before or after the nomination? After he wins the election? Can you imagine the crisis that would cause?
posted by great_radio at 11:35 PM on April 3 [+] [!] [quote]

According to a lawyer I talked to, Trump might have standing to sue. How's that for a scenario?


If you want five opinions, ask three lawyers. Your lawyer buddy might be a great person but my experience with practicing lawyers is that you can't necessarily expect them to even properly understand the law in areas of focus outside their own.

Less speculatively, the truth is that for any given case there will be at most a few dozen people whose opinions on the plaintiff's standing matter, and that's assuming appeals make it all the way to the top court. And in a matter this high profile? The repercussions for flubbing the call are effectively zero, so long as the ruling judge makes an effort to find decently thoughtful reasons for the decision. I don't think you can make any real prognostication about which way a filed suit would go.
posted by phearlez at 9:32 AM on April 4, 2016


A number of the state's primary rules require that the candidate on the ballot support the final nominee. To not do so could jeopardize your delegates (in theory, probably not in practice).
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:35 AM on April 4, 2016


Have either of the other two GOP candidates (or any of the contested convention stalking horses) officially declared that they would not support Trump if he were the nominee?

Cruz said he wouldn't support Trump, and Trump said he didn't want Cruz's support. Officially as in, at the last Town Hall, on CNN. The dustup over their wives was a real split, and probably irrecoverable, for no other reason than Cruz probably thinks he has to show macho strength in the face of attacks on his family.
posted by dis_integration at 9:37 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton loses hands down to Kasich

Polls in April for an event in November are about as accurate as every one of these "who will win the World Series" articles are today.

April polling has predicted the winner two-thirds of the time since 1952.


PPP ran a national poll last week that put both Clinton and Sanders behind Kasich, separated from each other by a single point. I think that's because he's largely an unknown, and I have no doubt his raging hate-on for women wouldn't go over well with independents in a general against Clinton. Also, FWIW it shows Romney trailing both of them by double digits (and with worse unfavorables than Trump), and Ryan not doing much better.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:38 AM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Have either of the other two GOP candidates (or any of the contested convention stalking horses) officially declared that they would not support Trump if he were the nominee?

Both Cruz and Kasich gave non-answers at the town hall at which Trump renounced his pledge to back the GOP nominee (if he didn't win the nomination). NPR:
Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, "I don't make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, also appearing on the CNN town hall, hedged as well. "I got to see what happens," he said. "If the nominee is somebody that I think is really hurting the country, and dividing the country, I can't stand behind them."
Not 'officially declared,' no, but about as close to that as possible. Given how many different and unanticipated ways the convention itself might go, I'm don't think affirmations of support for Trump beforehand (or protestations against endorsing) should be taken to mean much more than temporary posturing and positioning in the lead-up to the convention.
posted by cjelli at 9:39 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]




Electability in the general only matters as much as the people making the decision on the nominee think it does, though; and arguments about electability are also subject to that group's subjective judgement.

A significant plurality of Republican primary voters, who are currently in the driver's seat of this process, apparently believe Donald Trump to the be the best and most electable nominee. I think they're delusional not only on policy but also regarding their grasp of the electoral landscape in November. Party elites, less delusional; but I think they would consider Paul Ryan electable and it's hard to see what other options they would consider viable.

I think Paul Ryan is probably the Republicans' best shot to win back the White House, although I still don't think he'd be able to get to 270 particularly as there is a pretty strong chance of a third-party spoiler from the white-nationalist right (i.e. Trump). Even a 5-10% spoiler vote will demolish the Republicans' chances in swing states and in reddish states like Indiana and North Carolina. And if for some reason Trump doesn't run, I think a lot of his supporters will be finally disillusioned from GOP politics which: on the one hand, good riddance, but on the other hand, I'm not sure what they would do and there are some terrifying possibilities there as well.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:56 AM on April 4, 2016


Trochanter: "The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election

Seth Abramsom at Huffpo
"

Abramsom writes the exact same piece every week. I remain unconvinced.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:57 AM on April 4, 2016 [23 favorites]


At this point I feel like even Trump voters have to be sick of hearing him talk.
posted by zutalors! at 10:10 AM on April 4, 2016


Chrysostom, yeah even as a Sanders supporter I was just rolling my eyes a bit and going "really dude, chill". No, Hillary Clinton is not going to singlehandedly save the Republican party from itself and in so doing lose the election.
posted by sotonohito at 10:20 AM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm sure someone has noted this before, but what is it with the initials R and P? Ross Perot, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Reince Priebus...

Richard Pnixon


Rillary Plinton
Rernie Panders
Ronald Prump
Ponald Reagan
Rabraham Pincoln
Renjamin Pranklin

This is far more fun than it should be.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:41 AM on April 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Reorge Pashington sounds like a dog from the Jetson's.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Reads like Scooby Doo is giving a history lesson.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:45 AM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Good ol' Rillard Pillmore.
posted by cortex at 10:46 AM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


April polling has predicted the winner two-thirds of the time since 1952.

No, that's not what the article says.

'One of those volatile and consequential phases is the one we're in right now. The authors found that around 300 days before the election (mid-January), general election polls are essentially meaningless — their predictive value is close to zero. But by the time we get to mid-April of the election year, polls explain about half the variance in the eventual vote split. And mid-April polls have correctly "called" the winner in about two-thirds of the cases since 1952.'

It's saying that by mid-April, 2 out of every 3 cycles the polls are starting to show the ultimate outcome. But the time we're in right now -- March and early April -- is when we see some of the most volatile poll numbers.

I hold to what I said: Predicting the winner today is as effective as predicting the winner of the World Series today -- on Opening Day. There's just too much road ahead of us, too much money on the sidelines, too many mistakes and gaffes and scandals and Black Swans yet to happen. Arguing Sanders is more electable because of some March polls makes as much sense as telling the Mariners they shouldn't even play 2016 since the Astros have the division sewn up. The Astros, a team that was predicted to finish last in 2015 but ended up in the playoffs.

Elections, and electorates, are fickle things. Trump/Hillary/Sanders/Cruz already have some strange bedfellows. One can only assume that come November there will be some people you'd never think would vote for "that candidate they hate" espousing their support.
posted by dw at 10:52 AM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Abramsom writes the exact same piece every week. I remain unconvinced.

Every time a Seth Abramson piece gets linked my eyes roll slightly harder. I fear soon they will be pointing backwards. A few days ago it was the "Hillary Clinton's support among African Americans has collllllaaaaaappppppssssseedddd!!!!" article.
posted by Justinian at 10:59 AM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election
3. Fracture the Democratic Party by broadly supporting the Clinton camp’s attempts to smear Bernie Sanders and his supporters.


yes dude, she's running against him, she's allowed to say mean things about him
posted by Greg Nog at 10:59 AM on April 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


This is fun:

NYT, from March 28: Wisconsin Radio Host’s Combative Interview Surprises Donald Trump
Charlie Sykes, a popular radio host in Milwaukee, welcomed Donald J. Trump to his state in a phone interview on his program on Monday, explaining that “here in Wisconsin we value things like civility, decency and actual conservative principles.”

And then, for Mr. Trump, the 17-minute interview went downhill from there
Then today: 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
posted by zarq at 11:42 AM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


They're on a mission
and they're wishin'
Ted Cruz to solve their Trumpin' condition.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:54 AM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]




Is there any evidence that Trump delegates would tend to prefer Cruz or Kasich? I suppose it just depends on their state, individual circumstances, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:40 PM on April 4, 2016


Suggesting that Sanders has no interest in electing down-ballot democrats is ludicrous.

In that case, he shouldn't have prevaricated on the question of wherever he would support Democratic candidates. The obvious conclusion to make about waffling and saying "maybe" to supporting down-ballot Democrats is that he had no intention of supporting them.

It's his own fault if he gave Clinton ammunition like that.
posted by happyroach at 12:47 PM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Paul Ryan is probably the Republicans' best shot to win back the White House, although I still don't think he'd be able to get to 270 particularly as there is a pretty strong chance of a third-party spoiler from the white-nationalist right (i.e. Trump)

An establishment candidate forced into the process doesn't need to get 270, they just need to stop the Democrat from getting 270. Let Trump or whatever racist runs as a third party have the south. All you need to do is get Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado to stop the Democrat at 263. This is the problem Humphrey had back in '68. He didn't need 270. He just needed to win California, stop Nixon at 261 and he would have been president.
posted by Talez at 12:54 PM on April 4, 2016


Incidentally, this is why establishment Republicans running a third party is always a distinct possibility. Unless someone gets 270 the establishment of the party gets to decide the president anyway.
posted by Talez at 12:55 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


qcubed: The fucking bathroom bills?

As an outsider to the US political process I am intrigued by this piece of legislation. Can anyone provide more detail?
posted by biffa at 12:56 PM on April 4, 2016


In that case, he shouldn't have prevaricated on the question of wherever he would support Democratic candidates. The obvious conclusion to make about waffling and saying "maybe" to supporting down-ballot Democrats is that he had no intention of supporting them.

When did he prevaricate on this, exactly? I've seen this idea being pushed a lot lately but I don't think there's anything at the basis of it. I see Sanders taking a negotiating position when it comes to an endorsement of Clinton. That's politics, and besides, the party really ought to give in to some of the demands of the left after it's given nearly half of its votes to Sanders. When Clinton wins this, it will be by a slim margin, and she will not have anything resembling a mandate from the party. As much as people have been making hay about the allegedly traitorous character of Sanders' supporters and their need to "unite", it's just as important that she play ball with Sanders and his supporters even if she wins as it is that Sanders and his supporters play ball with her.
posted by dis_integration at 12:58 PM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think “no Republican will EvER vote for Clinton!” is a manifestation of cultural polarization (just as the GOP completely losing touch with the majority of their voters is as well).

I hear a lot of progressives talk about cutting off all conservatives in their lives, blocking them, unfriending them, whatever. And I get it! A lot of the things they believe and say are upsetting. But that also means you hear more about Republicans from other Democrats than you do from Republicans themselves, which sometimes means your perspective on them gets distorted.

For me, a lot of those people are members of my family, and so I mostly don’t discuss politics with them, hide them on social media when necessary, but still have them in my life (I realize this is not possible for everyone, and I am not saying everyone should do this, FTR). And it has been extraordinary, because this election cycle has turned me into some kind of outspoken liberal figure to whom conservatives quietly confess that they plan to vote for the Democratic nominee.

I’ve been pulled aside at multiple social occasions into quiet corners where lifelong pro-life, moral majority style Republicans quietly tell me that they are planning to vote for Clinton if she gets the nom, because Trump is terrible and frightening.

It’s hard to know how to respond, although “oh!” and “well, Trump is very scary,” tend to be my defaults so far.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:59 PM on April 4, 2016 [25 favorites]


As an outsider to the US political process I am intrigued by this piece of legislation. Can anyone provide more detail?

Conservatives think trans who identify as women are only doing it because they can walk into a woman's bathroom. Or at least that's what they say because what they probably think is that being trans is icky and they'd prefer it if everyone stick to their gender, suicidal tendencies or not. The latest is Kansas's bill offering a $2500 bounty (as a civil action against the institution) for hunting down a pre-op MTF trans in a woman's bathroom.
posted by Talez at 1:00 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trochanter: "The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election

Seth Abramsom at Huffpo "

Abramsom writes the exact same piece every week. I remain unconvinced.


Yeah, this article keeps showing up in my Facebook feed. He certainly is putting his creative writing expertise to work.
posted by schoolgirl report at 1:06 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


An establishment candidate forced into the process doesn't need to get 270, they just need to stop the Democrat from getting 270. Let Trump or whatever racist runs as a third party have the south. All you need to do is get Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado to stop the Democrat at 263.

I mean, sure, but how does that work? In Ohio, the Democratic candidate for President has won at least 46.5% of the vote in each of the last 5 elections. And the GOP candidate has never won more than 50.8%.

You have to assume that a huge number of Democratic voters are going to flip to the GOP Establishment candidate for Ohio to go to either of the conservative candidates as they are both working out of the same 50-55% pool of potential voters. So even if Trump were to pull away a huge chunk of these semi-mythical Angry Conservative Democrats and if the GOP Establishment Candidate grabs another chunk of Angry / Misogynist Centrists, they're still mired around 30% and Clinton takes it in a cakewalk with 40% or so.

Repeat for every swing state and light red state. A genuine three-way race will lead to a massive Democratic majority in the Electoral College, probably to the concurrent destruction of the Republicans' slim Senate majority and maybe even to a flipped House, if things go really really well for the Democrats (or the GOP crackup is really bad).
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:14 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


It looks to me like Wisconsin will be Sanders' high water mark. After that he's going to start falling inexorably farther behind with a string of problematic results in mostly large delegate-rich states. The map just doesn't work for him after the 5th.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Anyone know Paul Ryan's current position on the NSA, mass surveillance, etc. and defense spending more broadly? I'm dubious that anyone interested in cutting defense spending could make it to the presidency. It's true, he made it to Speaker of the House somehow, but the House was pretty crazy pants.

Also, Paul Ryan has a serous family history and combats it by being an exercise and health nut. It's plausible the presidency might shorten his life span due to the stress, etc., so maybe his reasons for not wanting to be the nominee extend beyond the obvious.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:19 PM on April 4, 2016


When did he prevaricate on this, exactly? I've seen this idea being pushed a lot lately but I don't think there's anything at the basis of it. I see Sanders taking a negotiating position when it comes to an endorsement of Clinton.


I think (not to speak for happyroach) that 'prevaricate' is in regards to down-ticket Democratic candidates, not in regards to Clinton. I would agree that as long as he's still in the race against Clinton it would be improper to demand that he unite behind her -- he's still running against her, after all. But, as to down-ticket Democrats who aren't running for President, there was, most recently, as I noted in the other election thread, this interview with Rachel Maddow:

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats
Maddow: [W]ill you at some point turn your fundraising abilities towards helping the Democratic party more broadly, towards helping campaigns for the house and the senate and other elections?

Sanders: Right now, Rachel, as you are more than aware, what I'm trying to do is to win the Democratic nomination. I never in a million years believed that we could have received over six million individual campaign contributions averaging twenty-seven bucks apiece, a very different way of raising money than Secretary Clinton has pursued. So, right now, we are enormously appreciative. Without that type of support, we would not be where we are right now, we would not be able to continue this campaign to the Democratic convention, so I am just blown away and appreciative of all the support we've gotten from grassroots America.

Maddow: Well, obviously your priority is the nomination, but you raised [sic] Secretary Clinton, and she has been raising money for the nomination AND for the Democratic party. Do you foresee a time when you'll start doing that?

Sanders: Well, we'll see. Right now our focus is on winning the nomination. Secretary Clinton has access to kinds of money that we don't. That we're not even interested in. Let's take it one step at a time.
There's certainly room to see that as prevaricating over fund-raising specifically rather than support in general, but he did not (either there or in the rest of the interview with Maddow) make that point himself, and I think it's fair to say that he didn't exactly take the opportunity -- at the initial question or when Maddow followed up -- to push any case for his plan to support Democrats (by endorsements, by fundraising, by rallies, etc) in down-ticket races.

That was a chance to reassure people with a 'yes' and he answered 'maybe.'
posted by cjelli at 1:19 PM on April 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


a fiendish thingy: I hear a lot of progressives talk about cutting off all conservatives in their lives, blocking them, unfriending them, whatever. And I get it! A lot of the things they believe and say are upsetting. But that also means you hear more about Republicans from other Democrats than you do from Republicans themselves, which sometimes means your perspective on them gets distorted.

An example: After Trump talked about punishing women for having abortions, a conservative columnist - can't find it now, or I'd link to it - pointed out that Trump was going with the caricature that progressives have of the conservative position on abortion.

Trump used to be pro-choice, of course. As Chris Matthews pushed him, you could see him searching in his mind for, "What's the conservative position on this? What do I say to prove I'm pro-life now?" And what he came up with was the distorted perspective on pro-lifers that he had learned from pro-choice friends in an earlier life. And most of the pro-lifers he was trying to impress were horrified at what he said.
posted by clawsoon at 1:22 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump used to be pro-choice, of course. As Chris Matthews pushed him, you could see him searching in his mind for, "What's the conservative position on this? What do I say to prove I'm pro-life now?"

My belief is that he's in it solely for publicity at this point (I honestly don't think he can win the general election and he knows it), so I suspect any move he makes now is a calculated to appeal to his core supporters and still hold on to the R nomination. So I think it's less "what's conservative" and more "women hate me already, so I'm going to throw any remaining female support under the bus and double down on the female hating."
posted by kyp at 1:30 PM on April 4, 2016


I mean, sure, but how does that work? In Ohio, the Democratic candidate for President has won at least 46.5% of the vote in each of the last 5 elections. And the GOP candidate has never won more than 50.8%.

Therein lies the crux. If they put Kasich into an Ohio election he'll easily beat Clinton by plurality.

Florida remains the sticking point but exists on a much slimmer majority. You cross your fingers that Scott denied enough of the black vote to cause a three way split and gain an establishment plurality.
posted by Talez at 1:34 PM on April 4, 2016


[A few comments removed. I appreciate the general intent of rerailing the thread, but let's try not to get several comments deep into talking about how we shouldn't derail the thread by talking about something and maybe just move straight on to just not belaboring it at all.]
posted by cortex at 1:37 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


clawsoon, I rather doubt any forced birthers were really horrified at the idea of punishing women who get abortions. Horrified at having that brought into the open when they'd spent decades carefully building up the narrative that they see women not as evil, but rather as too stupid and incompetent to even be aware of what abortion entails, that I can believe.

But the notion that the forced birth faction doesn't want to punish women who seek abortions is absurd. Their whole political movement is centered around punishing women who have sex, they get off on the idea of punishing women in general, and their efforts with TRAP laws are almost entirely focused on punishing women by forcing them to travel longer distances, pay bigger dollar amounts, and rape them with unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds.

More to the point, right this second, there are ALREADY women in the USA serving long prison sentences for illegal abortions.

Indiana resident Purvi Patel, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on the suspicion that she induced an abortion. She's the second in Indiana following Bei Bei Shuai who was imprisoned for a year for the same crime.

Meanwhile, Texas almost had a repeat of the death of Savita Halappanavar thanks to the 20 week abortion ban here. It is purely chance, not anything else, that Taylor Mahaffey didn't hemorrhage and die while the doctors stood idly by doing nothing because the forced birthers in Texas wouldn't let them save her life.

So let's not help the forced birthers spread their lies. Of course they will punish women who get abortions if they get their way and abortion is criminalized. They already are punishing women who get abortions. Their horror was exclusively at the fact that Trump had lifted the veil of BS they'd so carefully built and told the truth about their desire to hurt women who seek abortions as much as possible.
posted by sotonohito at 1:41 PM on April 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


[Secretary Clinton] has been raising money for the nomination AND for the Democratic party. Do you foresee a time when you'll start doing that?

This is a fundamentally different question than whether Sen. Sanders will ever seek to help down-ballot candidates through fundraising. The Clinton political apparatus is fairly well-equipped to raise funds both for her primary campaign AND for the DNC. Sanders, dependent as he is on small donations as opposed to $10,000-a-plate dinners, has to prioritize winning the nomination.

"Fundraising for the DNC" is a pol-speak that makes Sec. Clinton look selfless, when in reality its anything but. Even if entering into an agreement like that (the whole point of which is "to scoop up and share big checks from wealthy donors" and allow them to "solicit donations 130 times greater than what a supporter can give to Clinton’s campaign for the primary") wasn't antithetical to one of Sen. Sanders' biggest campaign issues, what are the chances that the DNC even wants to enter into a similar deal with him, given the cool reception he's received from the DNC highers-up?
posted by enjoymoreradio at 1:42 PM on April 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


kyp: so I suspect any move he makes now is a calculated to appeal to his core supporters and still hold on to the R nomination. So I think it's less "what's conservative" and more "women hate me already, so I'm going to throw any remaining female support under the bus and double down on the female hating."

Watching the interview, it didn't look calculated to me. It looked like he was pushed and pushed into a corner, and calmly held there by Matthews until he answered. He changed the subject so many times before finally being forced to answer the question that it was clear he didn't want to touch it until he had done some research into finding out what people wanted to hear. He was in a position of ignorance that he tried desperately to weasel out to the side of. When he realized that he was looking weak for not answering the question, he gingerly pulled out what he hoped his core wanted to hear.
posted by clawsoon at 1:43 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ah, yes, remember 2016: the year of the deep bench ?
posted by y2karl at 1:44 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Actually a "genuine three-way race" with two conservative candidates brings out far more conservative voters, tivalasvegas, exactly the opposite of your prediction.

If Trump wins, the Christians stay home. If Cruz wins, the racists stay home. In either case, we believe their scary factor should bring out left-wing voters too, boosting Democrats in down ticket races.

If otoh Trump and Cruz both run, then all those right-wing voters vote Republican in down ticket races. At the same time, there is no scare factor if the Republicans are divided, and Clinton in an awful candidate, so many Democrats just stay home rather than personally endorse her corporatist bullshit.

We know the Republican shall control both the House and Senate for the next 4+ years. It's simply that the Koch brothers have built up their talent pool, while hippie/progressive punching from DNC, Clinton, etc. has weekend the Democratic party.

Also, I understand the Koch brothers have kept their big donor friends out of the Presidential race this year, mostly due to not liking the candidates, but instead they've focused on down ticket races to control the damage done by running a crappy presidential candidate.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


We know the Republican shall control both the House and Senate for the next 4+ years.

I don't think that's been proven at all, certainly in the case of the Senate.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:48 PM on April 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


qcubed: The fucking bathroom bills?

As an outsider to the US political process I am intrigued by this piece of legislation. Can anyone provide more detail?


Biffa: the GOP, now having lost relatively conclusively on the legality of marriage equality, has decided to show its bigoted core that they can still deliver when it comes to legislating hatred. North Carolina and Kansas are merely the first states to have this GOP-led bullshit that started as reactions to cities like Houston. Essentially, if you're trans, they want you to go to the bathroom that matches your birth certificate. Never mind that you might pass for the other gender. Never mind that someone would have to violate your privacy to check your crotch before either beating the shit out of you or calling cops who won't give a shit about you.

The Republicans have delivered on a whole slew of bills that keeps bigots coming back to them. The bigots just aren't happy that the Republicans haven't gone far enough. And so the Republicans, the GOP, are gladly spewing the right words again, and then they'll make sure a few of those get passed.
posted by qcubed at 1:49 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is a fundamentally different question than whether Sen. Sanders will ever seek to help down-ballot candidates through fundraising.

Well, sure, if we ignore that thirty seconds earlier Maddow asked '[W]ill you at some point turn your fundraising abilities towards helping the Democratic party more broadly, towards helping campaigns for the house and the senate and other elections?'

I'm not sure how a good-faith reading of 'will you turn your fundraising abilities...towards helping campaigns for the house and senate' becomes not asking him whether he will seek to help down-ballot candidates through fundraising.
posted by cjelli at 1:51 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


His answer was pretty clear. It wasn't "yes", which was the only acceptable answer to that question. Perhaps "Yes, as soon as we lock up the nomination". But yes.
posted by Justinian at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


[hint hint that previous note was partly about not fisking-to-death the whole What Did Bernie Sanders Mean About Down-Ballot Stuff thing, which was indeed covered in detail in the previous gigantic election thread so maybe folks who want to talk about it can go re-read that whole thing first]
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


It looks to me like Wisconsin will be Sanders' high water mark. After that he's going to start falling inexorably farther behind with a string of problematic results in mostly large delegate-rich states. The map just doesn't work for him after the 5th.

Well, yes and no.

May looks to be a decent month for him -- Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon. They're all winnable, and Oregon should be his best non-caucus performance. But, that's only 235 pledged delegates.

In April, New York has 247. The Northeast primary the following week offers 384. And they're all closed primaries save Rhode Island. And he's the underdog in every state but Rhode Island.

So even as he's going to get some favorable states, he may fall considerably back by end of April. A good May might just put him back to where he is right now, making him need an even bigger swing in California and NJ.
posted by dw at 1:53 PM on April 4, 2016


But Clinton is currently leading in both CA and NJ, isn't she?
posted by Justinian at 1:57 PM on April 4, 2016


TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board

Justinian, those primaries are more than two months away.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:08 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


As for New York, I think Sanders is going to come close. A week or so ago, he was more than 20 points behind, and he's closed it to about 8 points now in current polling.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:10 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald Trump Has Been Wearing A Bulletproof Vest At Rallies

He's been wearing some weird helmet for the whole of his campaign too. Presumably that's to stop headshots.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:15 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


But Clinton is currently leading in both CA and NJ, isn't she?

Yep. He's within 10 in CA, though, and he has time to actually win. It's all for naught, though, if he loses badly in any of the three big April states (NY, MD, PA).

I'm not saying he's got a real chance. I am saying his chances are non-zero. But as Sam Wang noted, the swing he needs (about 22 points last week, a little closer now) is very unlikely to happen.
posted by dw at 2:17 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


A week or so ago, he was more than 20 points behind, and he's closed it to about 8 points now in current polling.

I really don't want to thread-sit... but while the margin has closed from 20+ to 10 since the start of the year, Clinton's NY support has been relatively steady at ~54%. He's not chopping into her support as much as sweeping up the undecideds.
posted by dw at 2:24 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


dw, that's not a bad thing for him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:25 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, but he needs to be chopping into her support if he wants to win. And so far he hasn't been.
posted by dw at 2:29 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think the Trump thing is fizzling, he had Palin speak on his behalf and it didn't go so well.
Sarah Palin gets tepid response stumping for Donald Trump in Wisconsin
There's lots of video of it, but I just can't bear another rambling, crazy pants harangue.
posted by readery at 2:38 PM on April 4, 2016


Stay out of MetaTalk, then!
posted by Chrysostom at 2:41 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]



A surprising turn: NPR just reported that Bernie Sanders' rallies the last two nights have had surprisingly soft turnout, with lots of empty seats, and his rally tonight was rescheduled from a basketball arena to a smaller venue.

To be fair, they also reported that the move also takes the rally further away from Trump's rally tonight, and that Clinton's turnout has been underwhelming too. Maybe people are burning out on this soap opera.
posted by msalt at 3:18 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: another rambling, crazy pants harangue.
posted by Rumple at 3:51 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


For a little levity, check out this Trump vs. Sanders debate. I laughed way more than I thought I would.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:52 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think what the Democratic Party needs to understand is that roughly half of their voters are significantly left of where it stands. And they want things to happen. I don't think Clinton/Wasserman/DNC are really even acknowledging that what this party looks like is similar to Republicans 30 years ago.

I am not a member of the party; I end up voting for them because I have few choices.

My personal "pie-in-the-sky" fantasy is for the Dem/Repub party to finally become one and let a People's Party emerge.
posted by waitangi at 4:02 PM on April 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


I think what the Democratic Party needs to understand is that roughly half of their voters are significantly left of where it stands.
I don't know. A significant number (not half though) of their voters supported a candidate this year who is significantly to the left of where the party stands. I don't think that anyone with a sophisticated understanding of voter behavior would say that this means that those people necessarily support positions significantly to the left of the mainstream Democratic party. People often select candidates based on things other than the candidates' policy positions, and often when polled they'll say that they have very different positions than those of the candidates whom they say they plan to vote for. This is a frustrating as fuck thing in my state, where polls routinely show that many Republican voters actually favor the policies proposed by Democrats.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:20 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Donald Trump Has Been Wearing A Bulletproof Vest At Rallies

I would think that any public figure taking advice from the Secret Service would do this routinely. Well, I'd hope so.
posted by Bee'sWing at 4:26 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Really? I feel like it would be alarming to see Obama running around with a vest on. I'd feel like the Secret Service wasn't confident in their task.
posted by zutalors! at 4:29 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think that anyone with a sophisticated understanding of voter behavior would say that this means that those people necessarily support positions significantly to the left of the mainstream Democratic party.
I get that. But I also think there are a lot of voters (like me) who are unavailable for any kind of polling. I don't think we really know what a lot of people think, except in generalities, and there are so many people that are "off the grid" in terms of what polling can show.
posted by waitangi at 4:32 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious, my read is that in previous years people voted against (some of) their self-interests because they saw no other option.

I think things are different this year, and a lot of progressive folks are seeing that they can actually vote for someone to the left of the Democratic Party who has a viable path to the nomination. I'm sure we can all agree there are some "revolutionary" things happening this election cycle, e.g., viable non-establishment candidates, record-breaking turnout and crowdfunding numbers.

This is my of course just my take and is not intended as refutation of what you're saying.
posted by kyp at 4:40 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm certain president Obama knows his way around body armor. There are many inconspicuous and comfortable possibilities if money is no object. And this election season is quite scary enough without assassinations.
posted by Bee'sWing at 4:41 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I did a quick google and Obama apparently wore a bulletproof suit to the inauguration in 2009. But that was a lot of standing outside and a big day.
posted by zutalors! at 4:43 PM on April 4, 2016


Brian Stelter ‏@brianstelter 32s33 seconds ago

Breaking: the Dems have agreed to debate again. CNN and NY1 will host a #DemDebate on April 14 in Brooklyn http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/democratic-debate-brooklyn/index.html
posted by Trochanter at 4:45 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Man, I just had the most amazing mental image of Obama striding forward, steel-jawed, with bullets pinging off his torso like Superman.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Pretty much
posted by zutalors! at 4:50 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


according to people who put screencaps on imgur, it looks like a lot of people are convinced that he's wearing some sort of bullet proof thing quite a bit when he does big public appearances makes perfect sense, especially if you can make it non-bulky/not distracting.
posted by nadawi at 4:52 PM on April 4, 2016


but I just can't bear another rambling, crazy pants harangue.

The only pants which interest me are SPACE PANTS.
posted by homunculus at 4:56 PM on April 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


On MSNBC's Hardball, a lot of discussion about Ryan as the selected nominee. I think it has a good chance of happening, even if Ryan's "No no! It's not me!" sounded pretty legitimate. But if it's one thing America loves, if our films and media is any guide, is a reluctant white male hero, pressed into action to save the day.
posted by cashman at 4:57 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


But if it's one thing America loves, if our films and media is any guide, is a reluctant white male hero, pressed into action to save the day.

Which is why I'm voting for Bernie "I'm Too Old For This Shit" Sanders.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:01 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Interesting supplemental read by Corey Robin on the left, liberalism, and conservatism.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:02 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Watching Melania at the Trump rally. She actually seems like a lovely person.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:05 PM on April 4, 2016


Short comment on taxes and tariffs (which is a form of tax) to help set context.

You can tax for revenue or tax to shape behavior. (Or do a combo of the two.) An FTT fits the combo aspect, as did (and do) tariffs. Tariffs were a very important force in our early national history; they were a part of the cause for the Civil War; and after the Civil War helped boost our own industrial prowess. So, tariffs are not necessarily bad. On the other hand, at some point it is legitimate to examine whether or not a tariff which has served well has become a sop for the particular sector of industry the tariff protects.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:08 PM on April 4, 2016


Carl Beijer bringing the wood.

Clinton's campaign is doing this because they're shook. That's why we're seeing a post that is this radically dishonest, radically implausible, and radically hostile to major Democratic constituencies: Clinton realizes the danger that her campaign is in. Expect more of this in the weeks to come.
posted by Trochanter at 5:11 PM on April 4, 2016


Watching Melania at the Trump rally. She actually seems like a lovely person.

She called Trump "kind". Yeah, no. Banning people based on religion, calling people rapists while actually being a racist - if someone tells me that person is "kind", just no.
posted by cashman at 5:21 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


She also talked about him punching back, which got everyone to shout Trump and ugh. Not a lovely person.
posted by zutalors! at 5:28 PM on April 4, 2016


We know the Republicans shall control both the House and the Senate the next 4+ years

You could make a killing if you knew that.
posted by one_bean at 5:40 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like it would be alarming to see Obama running around with a vest on. I'd feel like the Secret Service wasn't confident

They'd be almost negligent if he didn't. (Remember, most bulletproof vests are designed to be worn under clothing. They're not flak jackets.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:47 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah I Googled and only found the 2009 suit reference. Maybe they're all wearing thin bulletproof stuff, but for the most part when Trump does that stuff I figure he wants to make a stupid point.
posted by zutalors! at 5:50 PM on April 4, 2016


CincyBlues: "On the other hand, at some point it is legitimate to examine whether or not a tariff which has served well has become a sop for the particular sector of industry the tariff protects."

Yeah, they're very vulnerable to regulatory capture. At the far end, you get situations like the internal customs barriers of pre-Revolutionary France.

That's not to say that they can't have a place, of course.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:11 PM on April 4, 2016


If Ryan is the nominee...who the hell is going to be Speaker? Does no one remember that 6 months ago the Republicans begged him to take the Speaker job because they couldn't find anyone else stupid enough to do it? There's no possibility of the House flipping, and the poisonous, destructive Tea Party hardliners are still going to be there in September when it's time to pass yet another continuing resolution or shutdown the government 2 months from the election, and still going to be there in January when the incoming president has to pass a real budget. Republicans have all but said Ryan is supposedly the only person who has the...whatever...to manage the Tea Party crisis in the House. He hasn't had to do it yet, but it hasn't gone anywhere, and if he gets called up to be the nominee, someone else is going to have to step into the Speaker's crosshairs.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:40 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Republicans have all but said Ryan is supposedly the only person who has the...whatever...to manage the Tea Party crisis in the House.

The space pants, I think you mean to say.
posted by XMLicious at 6:44 PM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


every time people say that I want to watch the space pants again.
posted by zutalors! at 6:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Don't forget that Ryan, the poor baby, wouldn't take the job unless he got weekends off. The presidency is 24/7 with no guarantee of nap time
posted by futz at 6:56 PM on April 4, 2016


I knew "credibility" wasn't the right word. It must've been space pants.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:57 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


First Read: What the Wisconsin Primary Will (And Won't) Tell Us
The question is whether this kind of story -- the Sanders campaign all but admitting to the New York Times that Sanders is unlikely to beat Clinton -- ends up hurting him in Wisconsin and New York. "Mr. Sanders is now campaigning more effectively than many expected, exposing Mrs. Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate, and is positioning himself to win contests like the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday. But allies and advisers of Mr. Sanders say they missed opportunities to run an aggressive political operation in 2015 that would have presented more of a challenge to Mrs. Clinton. She has now firmly built a big lead in delegates needed to clinch the nomination — a margin that would be smaller if Mr. Sanders had run differently last year, according to interviews with more than 15 people who are on his team or close to him." It's hard to sustain a revolution when the revolutionaries are admitting that the war is over and that they lost. And that's the impression you get after reading the story. Will this affect Sanders' voter mobilization, his grassroots donor base, and his attacks on Clinton on the campaign trail?
New York Times article in question: Early Missteps Seen as a Drag on Bernie Sanders’s Campaign
posted by schroedinger at 6:57 PM on April 4, 2016


I'd like to add that I wouldn't have so much ire for him if he hadn't voted against family leave etc.
Apparently he is the only one who deserves it.
posted by futz at 6:59 PM on April 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Carl Beijer bringing the wood.
7. It is Clinton's path to victory that relies on "overturning the will of the voters".
This is so dishonest that it is really pretty upsetting. What's with linking guys like this and Seth Abramsom lately? All I can figure is the finger pointing for a loss is starting already.
posted by Justinian at 7:06 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


For people who didn't dig in, the points that Carl Beijer was being so disingenuous about (from Clinton campaign manager Mook's post) are as follows:
1.Plain and simple — Hillary Clinton is winning with voters.
2.When more people vote, Hillary Clinton wins.
3.The delegate math is on our side.
4.Hillary Clinton is the only candidate tough enough to beat Donald Trump.
5.The Sanders campaign’s path forward relies on overturning the will of the voters.
With the exception of #4 which is obviously a debatable opinion (though hardly something untoward for a campaign manager to say) as far as I can tell all that stuff is true.

So Beijer is freaking out and basically calling the Clinton camp shaken, dishonest, "radically hostile" liars for having the temerity to post what is at heart a pretty tame statement of mostly facts (and one opinion).
posted by Justinian at 7:13 PM on April 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


Bejier's piece definitely lives in an alternate reality, and I do wish it was presented here with a more useful description than "he's bringing the wood." Especially when he's mostly bringing the spin.

I think for me his lowpoint was saying that Bernie's path to a delegate win was simple! (with a hyperlink to a tweet that said, all he has to do is tie in every big east coast state, and win California 60-40. That's all!)

Of course, Hillary leads by 9-11% percent in all of those states as we speak, and 538 gives her an 86% chance of winning California.
posted by msalt at 7:25 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton Roundly Criticized for Referring to the Unborn as a ‘Person’

Mrs. Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidate, made the comment during an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” after she was asked about abortion restrictions and the rights of the unborn.

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said.

She added: “That doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”

...A longtime advocate of abortion rights, Mrs. Clinton is often criticized by anti-abortion groups. In this case, however, she frustrated some abortion rights supporters who said that her characterization of the unborn as a person shamed women who choose to terminate a pregnancy.

“Hillary Clinton further stigmatizes abortion,” Diana Arellano, community engagement manager for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, wrote on Twitter. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ and calls for later term restrictions.”

Abortion opponents also seized on the remark as evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s hypocrisy, arguing that if a fetus can be considered a person then it should have constitutional protections.

posted by futz at 7:27 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Show me a trend that's going her way. Tell me there's not a change in her tactics. Bernie's won 5 of 6 states lately and he's going to win Wisconsin tomorrow. Nevada flipped because the Clinton people screwed up not getting the delegates they'd won to the convention.

Tell me the good news for Hillary. Tell me why if they're a responsible campaign they wouldn't be freaking out.
posted by Trochanter at 7:28 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


The good news for Hillary is that she's built up such a commanding delegate lead that Bernie needs not just to win, but to win by margins that are going to be very, very difficult for him to pull off. That's the good news. Like most things about her, it's not flashy or exciting, but it's effective.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:39 PM on April 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


Tell me the good news for Hillary. Tell me why if they're a responsible campaign they wouldn't be freaking out.

I believe that Justinian just did that, three comments above yours.

Edit - or what ArbitraryAndCapricious said. Sanders is a hell of a long shot for the nomination at this stage, and I say that as someone who understands and approves of his decision to take it all the way to the convention. There's little reason for her campaign staff to be "freaking out", as far as I can see.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:42 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's also not ... news.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:42 PM on April 4, 2016


Trochanter, people have known for some time that Wisconinsin is likely going to be Bernie's high point, peaking too soon before a tough stretch that will put him away.

But tbh your comment sounds a lot more like taunting in the form of a rhetorical question than a good faith request for information or a different perspective.
posted by msalt at 7:43 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Does anyone know what happened in Wisconsin, exactly? 538 had Hillary winning at 83% just a few days ago (Mar 29). Now 538 says the odds of Sanders winning is 73%. That seems like a massive adjustment over just a few days?
posted by neeta at 7:44 PM on April 4, 2016


Show me a trend that's going her way.

I believe the trend is called "math". Bernie winning Wisconsin tomorrow is pretty irrelevant unless he does so by massive margins. 538 mapped out a possible path to the nomination. It requires things like winning Wisconsin by 16 points and California by 15. It is extremely unlikely. And while Sanders's favorables are still higher than Clinton's (for as much as those are worth), they have been flattening out and his unfavorables rising since he went on the offense.
posted by schroedinger at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


[Hello thread people, friendly nudge -- folks have been mostly keeping things reasonably civil in here -- let's keep it up.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:49 PM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Hillary just headlined a rally for a cause doesn’t believe in

Hillary Clinton was the star speaker at Gov. Cuomo’s “Fight for $15” minimum-wage victory rally Monday at the Javits Center. Only one problem: She’s not in favor of a $15 minimum wage.

...When Clinton spoke, she said the wage hike “started with a movement, the Fight for $15,” but made clear that it wouldn’t have gone anywhere without Cuomo’s pragmatism. “He had to put together the vote.”

Unless “feelings [are] matched with politics,” she said, “we’d still just be sounding and feeling good.”

All very nice — except this isn’t a case of Hillary and Bernie both being in favor of a $15 wage, and differing on who can get the job done. Clinton believes in a $12 federal minimum wage, not $15.

Indeed, in her “victory” speech Clinton was careful to pledge only to achieve “an increased minimum wage at the federal level” — a phrase with less ring to it than “Fight for $15.”

If Cuomo were going to showcase the guy who believes in this cause, he’d have invited Sanders. At a debate last November, Sanders said quite pointedly that “you have no disposable income when you’re making . . . 12 bucks an hour.” The solution, he said: “Put money in the hands of working people, raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.”

posted by futz at 7:56 PM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'll mention this again: Sam Wang at Princeton mapped out Bernie's chances last week... and found them to be small.
posted by dw at 7:58 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Me thread person.
posted by kyp at 7:59 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]




Me thread person.

Yeah, me too.
posted by Trochanter at 8:02 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Does anyone know what happened in Wisconsin, exactly? 538 had Hillary winning at 83% just a few days ago (Mar 29). Now 538 says the odds of Sanders winning is 73%. That seems like a massive adjustment over just a few days?

A few things, probably:

(1) New polls that were favorable to Sanders. These would be the Emerson and Yougov ones.
(2) Their algorithm *seems to* make more precise statements the closer we get to the election, but the precise way it does this isn't clear to me. That is, if the poll averages were the same and it were six weeks to the election, they'd (probably) be making a prediction closer to 50%. Anyway, what I am saying is that because we're close to the election the predictions will be closer to 100% for whoever is in charge, at least the way I see their results.
(3) It's not really such a big change because the two have been polling near the 50/50 mark for a little while now. It doesn't take much of a polling shift to go from a narrow Clinton lead to a narrow Sanders lead.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:02 PM on April 4, 2016


Does anyone know what happened in Wisconsin, exactly? 538 had Hillary winning at 83% just a few days ago (Mar 29). Now 538 says the odds of Sanders winning is 73%. That seems like a massive adjustment over just a few days?

Forgive my vague polling knowledge and imprecise use of statistical terms. A few thoughts:
  • Polls always tighten up closer to the actual race.
  • Chance of winning is not the same as percentage of delegates. 538 had Clinton with a high chance of winning. But the point spread--the actual percentage of votes she was expected to win--has been tight for a while. Say, Clinton's predicted to land 49% and Bernie 48%, and it's been this split for a while and a lot of polls reflect that. So they're 83% sure she's going to win. Now we're closer, and Bernie's at 49% and Clinton's at 48%, and since we're so close to the primary date they're more confident these numbers are accurate. So now they're 73% Bernie's going to win. The chances of winning have switched dramatically--but the actual percentage of votes won has not. And given the proportional delegate distribution, we're just talking a difference of a few delegates here or there. A Bernie win of that small a margin mainly serves to keep up morale and feed the media circus.
  • Clinton is focusing on New York now, right? Her campaign may very well have decided it's better for her to blow Bernie out of the water in New York and net a ton of delegates than fight it out in Wisconsin for a couple.
posted by schroedinger at 8:03 PM on April 4, 2016


Does anyone know what happened in Wisconsin, exactly? 538 had Hillary winning at 83% just a few days ago (Mar 29). Now 538 says the odds of Sanders winning is 73%. That seems like a massive adjustment over just a few days?

Are you referring to this summary? The top graph shows the shift you mention, but the second graph shows that the actual weighted polling averages are 47% Sanders to 45% Clinton. This has been close since late January (when Clinton was slightly ahead). Remember that 83% chance of winning doesn't mean that polling averages were at 83% for that candidate.

On preview: yeah, what ROU_Xenophobe said.

On last minute preview: and schroedinger.

*sigh*
posted by maudlin at 8:04 PM on April 4, 2016


Me thread person.
me three.
posted by futz at 8:05 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


OK, seriously, what are we supposed to take from a tabloid cover?
posted by schroedinger at 8:06 PM on April 4, 2016


Ah, thanks for the explanation Maudlin!
posted by neeta at 8:09 PM on April 4, 2016


(it would be interesting if 538's simulations for the D primaries focused more on the number of delegates and less on winning the state, which doesn't really matter)

Honestly, I expect better from the NY Post. That headline has no poetry or punch to it; it's just sad to think that comes from the paper that gave us "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR," "OBAMA BEATS WEINER," and of course "BOOTY GAUL" about Strauss-Khan.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:12 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hillary just headlined a rally for a cause doesn’t believe in

clinton believes in a $15 minimum wage for new york and that's exactly the stage she was on. she doesn't believe in a federal $15 (and i disagree with her) but she does believe in $12 - which much of the state of new york will barely reach by 2020. this is perfectly in line with everything she's been saying the whole time. reporting the opposite is uninformed or disingenuous.
posted by nadawi at 8:13 PM on April 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


Also note this line from the article: Hillary’s actually right on the policy — but that won’t help her on the politics..

So, yeah.
posted by Justinian at 8:15 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, New York's Senator Clinton is for $15 an hour, but Secretary of State Clinton is agin it?
posted by mikelieman at 8:16 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


She seems to think that $15 makes sense for NY but that on a federal level, $12 is a more manageable goal. Don't know if I agree with her, but this seems reasonably consistent.
posted by maudlin at 8:19 PM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


she's for a variable minimum wage based on cost of living. she thinks the federal level won't support 15 but thinks some places, like new york and california, will. it's not a difficult stance to understand even if you disagree with it (which i do).
posted by nadawi at 8:19 PM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Assuming google is giving me correct info, current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and NY minimum wage is $9/hr, or about 25% more than the federal minimum. If Clinton supports a $12/hr federal minimum wage, then a $15/hr NY minimum wage is exactly in line with that ( $12 * 125% = $15).
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 8:22 PM on April 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


(it would be interesting if 538's simulations for the D primaries focused more on the number of delegates and less on winning the state, which doesn't really matter)

They focus on percentage of vote won, which is close. I imagine part of the reason they don't go for specific delegate totals is because different states have different rules for delegate distribution--some grant extra automatically to the winner, some don't, and then you have to account for whether people actually show up to conventions where delegates are elected if that's a thing in the state.

So, New York's Senator Clinton is for $15 an hour, but Secretary of State Clinton is agin it?

This is an extremely disingenuous reading of an approach to policy that addresses things with nuance rather than black-and-white strictures. The theory goes that $15/hour is one thing in a higher COL state like New York, but somewhere like South Dakota demanding they double the minimum wage will have a devastating effect on local businesses. So support $15/hour where it's appropriate, and $12/hour minimum everywhere.
posted by schroedinger at 8:22 PM on April 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Bernie Sanders is less ambiguous, “As president, I will proudly stand with working families all across our country and fight for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and provide paid family leave to every worker in America."
posted by mikelieman at 8:22 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


[Couple of comments deleted. Cool it with the needling please.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:26 PM on April 4, 2016


Bernie Sanders is less ambiguous, “As president, I will proudly stand with working families all across our country and fight for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and provide paid family leave to every worker in America."

Nuance and ambiguity are not the same. Whether or not you believe minimum wage should be dependent on COL is one thing, but the statement in of itself is not ambiguous.

Personally, I appreciate somebody who demonstrates an ability to construct policy proposals with an eye towards nuance and an appreciation for the economic and social diversity with in the US.
posted by schroedinger at 8:29 PM on April 4, 2016 [23 favorites]


Also note this line from the article: Hillary’s actually right on the policy — but that won’t help her on the politics..


And?

And the people at the rally weren’t there because they thought it would be fun. They were there because they, too, are politicians, or political hangers-on.

As Clinton said, “I see representatives from the [state] Legislature and from the Congress and from the City Council, and I see representatives from the coalition of unions.”

People support Clinton because it’s their job.

That’s not true of the 18,500 people who showed up to Sanders’ rally last Thursday. He can look out at the crowd and see real fans — the New Yorkers who have registered to vote in record numbers in the past few months.

Sanders didn’t need a half-dozen politicians and union leaders to vouch for him before he talked.

posted by futz at 8:29 PM on April 4, 2016


Showing up at the rally and showing up at the polls are very different. We'll see how it translates in a few weeks.
posted by Justinian at 8:32 PM on April 4, 2016


exactly.
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


That article is quite obviously attempting to follow the narrative of "Bernie for the people, Clinton for the politicians." It kind of leaves out the fact that Clinton also regularly holds rallies that are full of people who are not paid to be there and are fans of hers.

I feel like I am using this a lot: it's disingenuous.
posted by schroedinger at 8:34 PM on April 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


That is funny. I keep choosing the same word in my head but try to avoid typing it. I feel the exact same way but obviously from the opposite point of view.

sigh
posted by futz at 8:38 PM on April 4, 2016




Re: the recent news about tax evasion in Panama:

Bernie giving a speech in Congress several years ago opposing a free trade agreement with Panama on account that it would further facilitate tax evasion (Hillary and Obama, of course, supported it)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:43 PM on April 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


Yeah, that article kind of made my skin crawl a bit.

Sanders didn’t need a half-dozen politicians and union leaders to vouch for him before he talked.

Yeah, those corrupt politicians and filthy union leaders, see them swarm about Clinton! Swarm, I say!

That said, Cuomo's statements in the article are also just a tad disingenuous. There was a lot of advocacy and giving speeches, as he put it, before enough energy was dinned up that the pragmatists could see a way forward. That's how it usually works. The case has to be made on the ground before political elites take it seriously.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:45 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I won't be surprised if some journalist ties together some of the Panama Papers stuff with some Clinton Foundation names, though I doubt it would change much.
posted by localhuman at 8:48 PM on April 4, 2016


There was a lot of advocacy and giving speeches

There were people marching in the streets, is what there were.
posted by Trochanter at 8:53 PM on April 4, 2016


How Tonight’s Bernie Sanders Rally Compared to Hillary Clinton’s

That's from a month ago? Not sure what you're trying to say with it. Anyway, US Uncut is clearly a Sanders booster, which I find annoying even as someone leaning Sanders myself.
posted by dis_integration at 9:00 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders didn’t need a half-dozen politicians and union leaders to vouch for him before he talked.

So I'm wondering- is the Sanders campaign officially anti-union? Or does that simply go with the Silicon-Valley techbro element?

Because between this statement and that activist telling the union leader that they "represent a special interest, not the American people", it's certainly starting to sound like the Sanders campaign doesn't care much for union representatives.
posted by happyroach at 9:01 PM on April 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


More from: Hillary Clinton Roundly Criticized for Referring to the Unborn as a ‘Person’

Rebecca Kiessling, the spokeswoman for the Personhood Alliance, which opposes abortion, said that defining fetuses as persons should mean that they are entitled to a right to life under the 14th Amendment. She considered Mrs. Clinton’s comment to be a “big gaffe” from the abortion rights perspective.

“It’s interesting that Hillary has now recognized the unborn as person and that she wants to deny them equal protection,” Ms. Kiessling said. “You can’t have it both ways.”

Mrs. Clinton’s use of the word “person” was also seen as a rhetorical victory by those who oppose abortion and a sign that the debate was shifting in their favor.


posted by futz at 9:06 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board

Wow, that transcript does not paint Bernie in a favorable light.
posted by dw at 9:08 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I'm wondering- is the Sanders campaign officially anti-union? Or does that simply go with the Silicon-Valley techbro element?

Hardly. It has been the case however that union leadership has supported Clinton while union membership has supported Sanders. Even still, The Sanders camp isn't out there bashing union leaders. I dunno who Nicole Gelinas of the NY Post is, but I doubt she's writing for them on Sanders' marching orders. I'd be surprised to see Sanders going after union leaders at all, except to suggest that they should support him when their members do.
posted by dis_integration at 9:09 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


That transcript is shocking, to be frank. Bernie does not appear to have a single developed idea of how to achieve his signature plan of breaking up the banks. It is pure hand waving, with zero analysis of the mechanism or legality of any of it.
posted by bepe at 10:00 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow, that transcript does not paint Bernie in a favorable light.

He's talking about re-negotiating all trade agreements and basically taking the US back to the economy we had in the 60's. I understand the appeal, I do, the export of manufacturing jobs has killed large swaths of the USA. But I don't think we can roll back the clock a half-century. That's not what the world is any more, and we can't wipe it back in time. I wish the people who were talking about this were offering up plans that were more creative and realistic.

You can tell he's not comfortable with foreign policy, either.
posted by schroedinger at 10:00 PM on April 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well now this is really unbelievable. I can't believe we've read the same transcript.

Bernie was absolutely great in that interview.

I'm astonished.

I mean I follow Bernie's twitter account, and sometimes I think it's sort of platitudinous so I didn't start reading the article with especially high hopes. But I really think quite a bit more of him now.

What can you say? Go figure doesn't put it strongly enough but... go figure on that one.
posted by Trochanter at 10:32 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is plenty of middle ground there because many countries like Germany have made intelligent decisions about what jobs they protect and what jobs they sacrifice for freer trade. America needed to sacrifice the automotive industry, but they took it much further than that. Instead, the USTR works only to protect the investor class by going after stuff like ISDS and IP laws.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:40 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is interesting. I guess I thought, that after years of promising to break up the banks, that he would have an actual legislative plan to do so, and to not say he hasn't even studied whether it would be legal to force a break up. I hadn't really checked his platform, so to see him basically admitting he hasn't worked any of it out yet, I found shocking.
posted by bepe at 10:41 PM on April 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


I can't believe we've read the same transcript.

I read the one in which Bernie blows their minds with his stellar rendition of "Space Pants."
posted by homunculus at 10:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


This is an honest question for anyone familiar with Bernie's platform, supporter or not. I'm not being snarky, just trying to understand his proposal. He said:
I'm not anti-trade. We live in a global economy, we need trade. But the trade policies that we have allowed to occur, that were written by corporate America have been disastrous for American workers.

So I think we need trade. But I think it should be based on fair trade policies. No, I don't think it is appropriate for trade policies to say that you can move to a country where wages are abysmal, where there are no environmental regulations, where workers can't form unions. That's not the kind of trade agreement that I will support. ...

I do believe in trade. But it has to be based on principles that are fair. So if you are in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 65¢ an hour, or you're in Malaysia, where many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions, no, I'm not going to have American workers "competing" against you under those conditions. So you have to have standards. And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States.
This sounds to me like Sanders only wants free trade with countries who have wages and environmental standards and unions that match ours -- basically, Europe and Japan. Not India or China or anywhere else in Asia, not anywhere in Africa, not anywhere in Latin America.

Is that right? What would we have with third world and developing countries -- no trade at all? Tariffs? How would he prevent companies from moving or creating factories there? I honestly have no idea what he's proposing.
posted by msalt at 10:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wait, no, I imagined that one. I get those confused sometimes.
posted by homunculus at 10:46 PM on April 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie was absolutely great in that interview

My feeling was I did not see a lot of policy, just a lot of "This is how I think it should work" and then when pressed for details some hand waving and "I have to research that." How are you going to promise to do something and not know how you're going to do it? For that matter, how can you even say your positions are correct if you don't know how to execute them?
posted by schroedinger at 10:58 PM on April 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


More from: Hillary Clinton Roundly Criticized for Referring to the Unborn as a ‘Person’

After this latest gaffe, and the previous one where Clinton admitted she would collaborate with Republicans to take away privacy rights, I'm honestly wondering if Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards has given serious thought to withdrawing her organization's support for Clinton's candidacy. After Trump threatens criminal consequences for women seeking abortions, her language has serious consequences, notwithstanding that she gives his kind of odious views legitimacy in the public sphere.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:54 PM on April 4, 2016


Donald Trump has the manner of an arrogant televangelist suspected of murder by Columbo - in which the Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle does not hold back on the US election. (dark satire)
posted by Wordshore at 12:09 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm honestly wondering if Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards has given serious thought to withdrawing her organization's support for Clinton's candidacy

I'd pretty much guarantee she has not.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 AM on April 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


The Frankie Boyle piece is excellent:
"For America, and indeed the rest of the world, Clinton versus Drumpf will be like being on a bus being driven at high speed towards a cliff by a psychopath, where there’s a chance that a chimpanzee might grab control of the steering wheel. It’s not a question of whether this will make things better or worse, it’s more that the whole idea of “better” may be gradually ceasing to exist."
posted by Meatbomb at 1:17 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


After this latest gaffe, and the previous one where Clinton admitted she would collaborate with Republicans to take away privacy rights,

By "privacy rights" I'm assuming you mean "late-term abortions"? Because the link you linked to is about late-term abortions. She's saying she's willing to consider restrictions on late-term abortions if exceptions are made for the health and life of the mother.

More from: Hillary Clinton Roundly Criticized for Referring to the Unborn as a ‘Person’

The whole quote:
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said.
It feels as if you are trying to convince us that after a half-century of defending abortion rights she has suddenly switched sides. Do you really believe that?

-----------------------

Metafilter: We are better than this.

We are better than disingenuous, false flag nonsense where we cherry-pick a quote that supports our particular point of view, ignoring the context in which it was spoken and the article in which it was written down. We are better than obviously biased sources. We are better than thoughtless columnists who engage in wild speculation for their own agenda. Posting this stuff doesn't convince anybody--because as soon as you click on the link it's clear what it is. It just makes the poster look slimy and intellectually dishonest, and it reflects badly on whatever position they're attempting to promote.

Look. A candidate doesn't have to be Satan for you to not like them. You can just disagree. It doesn't make them evil*. So could we please stop this? Could we discuss policy? Positions? Prioritization of goals? The budget deficit? The merits of single-payer and how we'd apply it in the USA? Energy development? Philosophical and cultural underpinnings of various candidates' bases? Who drives the nicest car? If candidates were puppies, what kind of puppies they would be, and who can find the cutest picture of the puppies?

The bullcrap is all over the internet. This site is usually really good at having decent, thoughtful conversations. So let's have one. We don't all have to agree, but we can argue our points intelligently and thoughtfully, without hyperbole and logical fallacies and biased reporting.


*Well, Ted Cruz is obviously a lizard person in a skin suit laying the groundwork for a future invasion, but a lizardman-in-a-skin-suit's gotta do what a lizardman-in-a-skin-suit's gotta do.
posted by schroedinger at 2:04 AM on April 5, 2016 [59 favorites]


I'd pretty much guarantee she has not.

After everything PP and its staff have been put through lately, from faked videos to clinic shootings, it would be unfortunate that Richards put her organization behind someone who would gamble trading people's fundamental rights for a few votes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:04 AM on April 5, 2016


happyroach: it's certainly starting to sound like the Sanders campaign doesn't care much for union representatives.

Union politics is complicated. My union, despite years and years of being a leader of an anti-Walmart campaign, endorsed Clinton without really asking their members what they thought. (This despite claims to the contrary.) They probably should have waited on an endorsement until after the convention, but the leadership seemed pretty eager, and premature, to get on the "Hey, the campaign is over so let's get on the winner's train."

Is this a cynical move by my union? I guess that depends on how one compares and contrasts their long-standing anti-Walmart campaign with their endorsement of a person who sat on Walmart's board for six years.

Am I to conclude that this sordid political calculation invalidates all the good things that my union has fought for over the years?

Some years ago I was asked to do some writing for the union. I gave it some serious thought and turned my rep down because, as I told her, it's my belief that the union isn't radical enough and as such, any writing I would honestly do would probably be out of sync with their intentions/policies/goals.

Sanders orientation towards unions and working class politics is easily discovered with a little research.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:43 AM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


When covering elections, journalists face a debilitating dilemma - how journalists are implicated in, and caught in a double bind about, covering candidates' untruths.
posted by tavegyl at 3:42 AM on April 5, 2016


By "privacy rights" I'm assuming you mean "late-term abortions"? Because the link you linked to is about late-term abortions. She's saying she's willing to consider restrictions on late-term abortions if exceptions are made for the health and life of the mother.

Abortion should be on demand and without stigma. If she's willing to throw ONE woman under the bus as a negotiation point, that's one woman too many.
posted by mikelieman at 3:45 AM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


And here's an entire class of women Hillary Clinton would throw under the bus to move towards the right's pro-life stance. The only people whose opinion matters is the woman and her doctor.
posted by mikelieman at 3:47 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I take Bernie's comments on trade to mean that he's for a lot of protectionist tariffs high enough to discourage imports, with a few exceptions for trade with countries which have similar labor costs (because they have similar labor and environmental protections, and standards of living) to the US.

But honestly I don't know how a poor country can possibly get to American standards of living without having economic development first, and without access to American markets, it's hard to achieve that development.

If we have All the Money, where are they supposed to get any, if we they can't sell us things? And until they have money, how can they raise standards? People take crappy jobs with no labor protections because they're desperate, because there are no other jobs. Countries allow companies to offer those jobs because the leadership of the country is desperate. Because horrible jobs are better than no job, better than poverty and starvation.

Protectionism can cause and has caused wars. If you are a rich country, protectionism is a way of hoarding that wealth, preventing it from being spread around, and poor countries resent it. Countries with good trading relationships rarely to go war with one another.

And yeah, maybe protectionism is better for the American working class (though not if it leads to a worse economy) but... I don't see why I'm supposed to care about people in other countries when it comes to our military and energy policies, and not when it comes to our trade policies. Children die from poverty and malnutrition just like they die from bombs.

I have a hard time seeing protectionism as more than tribalism. I think we have to insist on some labor and environmental standards in our free trade agreements, but they have to be achievable for our partners, and can rise over time. I think to have standards so high that we refuse to sign any such agreements leads to horrible tragedies on huge scales in third world countries, and to more wars.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:55 AM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's funny how free trade isn't something America thought was a great idea until after we were rich, and then suddenly it was the only possible policy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:11 AM on April 5, 2016 [17 favorites]


You know, Planned Parenthood is an organization made up of people who literally put their lives on the line every day to be the medical provider of last resort for a whole hell of a lot of American women. One in five American women has received care at Planned Parenthood. Every day there are picketers protesting at my local PP, and nobody who works there knows which one of them might decide that today is the day to bring a gun and save the babies. Every day there is some fucking asshole with a camera in a holster who takes pictures of every person who goes in or out the door so he can intimidate staff and clients alike. The people who work there face down terrorists, literally, to protect my fundamental rights. Every day they get up and face threats that most people in this thread never realistically worry about. If they say that they think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, I am going to trust them on that, because I see them prove their courage and integrity every day.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:11 AM on April 5, 2016 [31 favorites]


We don't all have to agree, but we can argue our points intelligently and thoughtfully, without hyperbole and logical fallacies and biased reporting.

*Well, Ted Cruz is obviously a lizard person in a skin suit laying the groundwork for a future invasion, but a lizardman-in-a-skin-suit's gotta do what a lizardman-in-a-skin-suit's gotta do.


Interesting. Is the second quoted statement an example of argument "without hyperbole and logical fallacies and biased reporting"?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:12 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


msalt:This is an honest question for anyone familiar with Bernie's platform, supporter or not. I'm not being snarky, just trying to understand his proposal.

I'll try to do so briefly. But first, this is an area really worth digging into, so let me recommend two books (which are biased, but still scholarly.)The first is Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" written in 2007. The second is Ian Fletcher's "Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why" written in 2010. (I mention the pub dates because these bracket the 2007-8 meltdown.)

(An aside: Does MetaFilter have an Amazon affiliate account? If so, is there a way to append the affiliate identifier so that MeFi gets credit in the off chance that someone buys a book from a link here? Mods, feel free to modify by adding any such ID if it seems worthwhile.)

I think a reading of those two books, plus a review of the origins and history of the Non-Aligned Movement, would be suitable background to situate Sanders general philosophy towards the 3rd world and foreign trade. This would be the milieu that many democratic socialists would find familiar and appealing. While I cannot directly map Sanders to this milieu at the moment, I strongly suspect that I'm reasonably close in claiming that he would find himself at home with substantial portions of this general worldview.

It's possible to conduct trade without many of the encumbrances imposed by the financial elites/IMF/World Bank. All one has to do is survey the details with respect to NAFTA and other trade deals as well as the many, many uneven arrangements between sovereign third world countries and lending sources over the last half of the 20th century to see that there is a certain financial capitalist/power bloc/conditionalities tenor to the whole shebang. In fact, the Non-Aligned Movement was, in it's heyday, an attempt to break through these impositions and to create a more just and equitable set of conditions by which to improve the less developed sector and to bring it into a more technologically advanced modernity--with commensurate improvements for their populations in terms of education, wages, etc... .

(Another aside: If anyone is interested in this, send memail. Long ago, I wrote a paper in grad school reviewing the politics/funding for the Suez Canal. Typically grad-schoolish but not too shabby, imo. Covers some of these notions in a more specific context.)

Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, in and of themselves, are good things. But the devil is always in the details. Back in the 80s there were some attempts to create more balanced trade pacts. Although I cannot remember precisely, I think that around this time there were discussions about trading with Mexico in which we would get oil and they would get some advantageous technology transfers which would help uplift their economy. I'm being grossly simplistic here and wish I could remember more details but that was the gist IIRC.

I do remember having some impassioned but friendly discussions with a close friend in the 90s about NAFTA and the maquiladoras, etc... . His job was to go to these places and set up plants. Did it in Eastern Europe, too, once the wall fell. We've fallen out of contact in recent years, but the last time we visited this issue, he remarked that he was setting up some stuff in Guatemala. When I asked why he said that Mexico was getting too expensive.

This is probably not a satisfactory answer, msalt. But I do hope it at least points out that some other directions other than the parameters that we have become accustomed to thinking of in terms of foreign trade--the neo-colonial/neo-liberal/financially engineered looting that has taken place over the past decades--is not the only method by which we can do this sort of thing.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:19 AM on April 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


If they say that they think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, I am going to trust them on that, because I see them prove their courage and integrity every day.
Did Planned Parenthood endorse Hillary Clinton?

Sort of. It all hinges on a distinction between the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the 501(c)(3) service organization that provides reproductive health services and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the 501(c)(4) advocacy organization that serves as the group's political arm.

The endorsement was made via the advocacy arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), which launched a new website in November, in the wake of campaigns to defund the parent organization and in support of abortion, Planned Parenthood itself, Obamacare, sex education, health equity for the LGBT community, and birth control.
Apparently the people in PP who endorsed Clinton are not the people in PP who face antiabortion terrorists every day. It's sort of similar to the union-reps-or-union-members question.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:21 AM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't think a 501(c)(3) can endorse a political candidate without risking losing their status as a non-profit to whom tax-deductible donations can be made.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:28 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Apparently the people in PP who endorsed Clinton are not the people in PP who face antiabortion terrorists every day.
I'm pretty sure that everyone who works for PP is a target for antiabortion terrorists.
It's sort of similar to the union-reps-or-union-members question.
This is not a winning strategy for you. As a middle-class (real middle-class, not "I make over $113,000 a year but I'm not the 1% so I'm middle class" style middle-class) woman in middle America, I believe that the political wing of Planned Parenthood is equally fighting for my fundamental humanity.

Anyway, I have to go start my day now, but thanks for this little exchange. It's been edifying. And I just realized that I'm visiting family in New York in late May and can sign up for a couple of door-knocking shifts for Hillary.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:29 AM on April 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


This is not a winning strategy for you.

"Winning"? My strategy is merely to point out that your comment lauding PP's front-line soldiers has no absolute relevance to their generals' endorsement of Clinton. You believe there is such relevance. But your comment did not acknowledge that there are two organizations with different missions involved.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:44 AM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think your sentiments are genuine, OnceUponATime, but this is a serious misreading of recent economic history. It presupposes that the manner in which trade pacts are hashed out these days are the only way to do things. The primary reason that many lesser developed countries are still immersed in tremendous poverty with even greater income inequality than we are experiencing here in the U.S. is due to the (dare I say it) corrupt bargains made by the elites without much consideration of their native populations.

This was not always the case: Tito, Nasser, Sukarno, Nehru and many others once fought valiantly for a different and better way to help their nations assume their sovereign place in the world--both politically and economically.

Let's be clear, among the candidates running for President in both parties there are many neoliberal lackeys. Sanders is not one of them.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:45 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sanders has a proposal to end tax policies that encourage offshore investment. It is not a tariff, and it is not protectionism, in the sense that is being used here.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:50 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


CincyBlues, I believe it is quite true that corruption exists and trade agreements can be made for the benefit of the elite rather than the people more broadly. But I don't see a way for a lack of trade agreements to benefit the people either.

Doesn't that just argue that we need appropriate policy-wonkish terms and conditions in our trade agreements to ensure that they function as intended, rather than that we shouldn't be making such agreements? But it is hard for me as an individual voter with limited expertise to judge these agreements and decide if any given one is well-constructed or not. I wish I had a trustworthy source of information and informed opinion on trade policies. I am pretty sure we should have free trade agreements, but do not feel myself to be in a position to judge whether any particular agreement is good or bad.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:00 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


CincyBlues: "(An aside: Does MetaFilter have an Amazon affiliate account? If so, is there a way to append the affiliate identifier so that MeFi gets credit in the off chance that someone buys a book from a link here? Mods, feel free to modify by adding any such ID if it seems worthwhile.)"

This already happens.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:08 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ted Cruz a lizardman in a skin suit ? I fail to see the hyperbole.
posted by y2karl at 5:12 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is no viable legislative plan to break up the banks, bepe, since the Republicans are going to control the House and Senate. There are however many laws that various banks and bankers broke that if prosecuted makes them unable to play the markets.

I suspect banks might become much more cooperative, or even find reasons to spin off subsidiaries, after an administration drags some C-level from one into decades long legal fights that place the whole organization into jeopardy and necessitate their being fired.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:16 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Good points, OnceUponATime. No one to my knowledge is suggesting that there be no trade agreements. And I agree, sort of, that we need a new class of policy wonks to negotiate trade agreements. There are policy wonks galore now, but many of the provisions that get inserted into these agreements are really antithetical to the best interests of sovereign nations participating. Consider just one, for example. As WikiLeaks exposed, a provision within the Investment chapter of the TPP allows corporations to abrogate/bypass national sovereignty:
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: "The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies."
As JeffBurdges has pointed out previously, the Investor-State-Dispute Settlement provisions of the TPP are, as this paper points out, "that the risks ISDS poses for domestic law are significant and unjustified, and that there are preferable policy alternatives to pursue as a means of protecting the rights of investors operating overseas."

Lastly, I would argue that we drop the word "free" in free trade when we discuss trade policy and agreements. That idea is now so associated with a particular political economic doctrine as to have become a loaded phrase. I personally do not think that the Hoover Institution, nor Milton Friedman (for example) are representative of what we might call the mainstream of economic thought. Though the thought of Hoover does lend an added layer of humor to Perot's "giant sucking sound" comment back in 91!
posted by CincyBlues at 5:26 AM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Not unlike Adam Smith, Miltom Friedman's ideas are more complex than what right wing think tanks have cherry picked. He invented withholding for taxes, opposed the Vietnam draft, and supported income support for the poor.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:31 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Agreed on the complexity, Chrysostom. Still trying to get over Chile, though, in the case of Friedman.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:34 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


A perspective from Europe published today in CounterPunch: What Is To Be Done With the Banks. Given the nod to Lenin in the title, I suspect that while some of this would be appealing to folks in the U.S., some might think it goes a little too far.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:40 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz does have this skin that looks like if he got in a fight, it would be a la V where it's like wrestle wrestle wrestle ARGH I PULLED HIS FACE OFF ACCIDENTALLY AND THERE'S A FACE UNDERNEATH
posted by angrycat at 5:40 AM on April 5, 2016


Interesting. Is the second quoted statement an example of argument "without hyperbole and logical fallacies and biased reporting"?

I thought it was clear that it was an attempt at a joke to add some levity to my plea. If it has offended you then I apologize, but I find it symptomatic of the larger issues I see happening in this thread that that is what you chose to focus on rather than the rest of the post.
posted by schroedinger at 5:52 AM on April 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm not really comfortable making fun of the way that anyone looks, even Ted Cruz and as Frank Zappa would point out, the ugliest part of his body is his mind so lets talk about the awful stuff that comes out of his mouth and not his mouth itself.
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 AM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm not really comfortable making fun of the way that anyone looks, even Ted Cruz

I don't want to speak for schroedinger's intent, but I read 'Ted Cruz is obviously a lizard person in a skin suit laying the groundwork for a future invasion' as a joke in reference to the varied and weird conspiracy theories about evil lizard people infiltrating the echelons of the political elite, not as making fun of his looks at all. Absent that context, though, I can see how it could be taken as a dig on his looks -- which I agree should be avoided.
posted by cjelli at 6:59 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sanders is less ambiguous, “As president, I will proudly stand with working families all across our country and fight for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and provide paid family leave to every worker in America."

Gee, that's swell! I am interested in details of his plan to round up the necessary* Republican support to double the Federal minimum wage.

*I suppose it's possible that a Sanders victory also comes with Democratic recapture of the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but I don't think it's likely.

I continue to believe that Sanders' purpose -- and it's a noble one -- is to raise income inequality into the national conversation and pull Clinton to the left. I support his efforts to do so 100% -- I don't think inequality would be part of the agenda at all if not for Sanders. Sanders speaks for a large bloc of voters, and will be in a position to extract concessions -- a Secretary of the Treasury who didn't hail from the financial sector, for example -- from Clinton in return for that support. And Sanders is forcing Clinton to put down some leftish markers it'll be hard to walk away from, and that's good.

But it's also clear, as elaborated in detail above, that Sanders doesn't have much of a path to the nomination, let alone the presidency. Which means he has the luxury of letting his mouth write checks his butt won't have to cash. He can promise a progressive pie in the sky, because I don't think even he thinks he'll actually have to deliver it.

I am as frustrated with anyone about the incremental nature of Obamacare, for example. I see Obama as foolishly hoping that at least one Republican might negotiate in good faith (fat chance, as it turned out). Not even a public option made it into the final package.

But Obama succeeded where Bill Clinton failed in enacting some kind of national health care reform, and at this point it's beyond doubt that Obamacare works. I maintain that for once in his life Bill Kristol was right when he predicted that voters would see successful passage of health care reform by Democrats as a validation of their approach to governance and a key part of their appeal. And over time, Obamacare can be improved -- for example, if a public option is added, it would be a significant stepping stone to single-payer, which is, of course, why the Republicans fought so hard to stop it.

Frankly, I don't see much hope for even a $12 an hour Federal minimum wage. But as pleasing as the rhetoric is, in the current political climate -- he's a member of Mitch McConnel's Senate, for crying out loud! -- he has to know that Republicans will fight any increase to the minimum wage, let alone a doubling of it, tooth and nail. Fighting is all well and good, but unless he has some method to actually win that fight, all the energy expended will be worse than wasted, especially if the issue becomes perceived as a loser for Democrats after it goes down to defeat.
posted by Gelatin at 7:06 AM on April 5, 2016 [14 favorites]


The thing I'm still trying to untangle about that transcript is that Bernie says Apple is not "destroying the fabric of America," even though he wishes they'd make more things in the US and they stop avoiding paying taxes. But GE IS "destroying the fabric of America" because they make things overseas and are avoiding paying taxes, sometimes as little as nothing.

Is it a matter of degrees? Is it that Apple makes some things in America? Because GE makes some things in America. Is it that Apple has avoided paying corporate tax, but GE has done a better job of avoiding it?

Or is it that Apple has better street cred? Or is it that GE is a military contractor, but he won't say that part?
posted by dw at 7:11 AM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


(All that said, I don't claim there's anything wrong with Sanders campaigning for a $15 an hour minimum age at all -- far from it. It's high time the Democrats started trying to push the Overton window back to the left, and Sanders' rhetoric lets Clinton's more modest proposal look like a reasonable compromise in the eyes of a political media that isn't liberal at all but obsessed with phony notions of "balance.")
posted by Gelatin at 7:14 AM on April 5, 2016 [11 favorites]




I don't want to speak for schroedinger's intent...

See also The Reptile Gaze.
posted by y2karl at 7:54 AM on April 5, 2016


Not to mention the whole Uncanny Valley.
posted by y2karl at 8:30 AM on April 5, 2016


But as pleasing as the rhetoric is, in the current political climate -- he's a member of Mitch McConnell's Senate, for crying out loud! -- he has to know that Republicans will fight any increase to the minimum wage, let alone a doubling of it, tooth and nail. Fighting is all well and good, but unless he has some method to actually win that fight, all the energy expended will be worse than wasted, especially if the issue becomes perceived as a loser for Democrats after it goes down to defeat.

The nice thing about the minimum wage debate is that it's super popular among all groups (obviously less so among conservatives and Republicans, but still it's a huge wedge issue). This Gallup poll is a little dated (2013) and the question asked was about support for a $9.00 federal minimum -- the debate has moved forward since then thanks to strong activism around the $15 level. But it's still revealing in terms of how exploitable the issue is for Democrats.

Not only is it good politics, it's also good policy and it's easily explainable. People making $10-15 an hour understand what a wage hike would mean for their lives. It's tangible in a way that many policy issues are not. And it drives a huge wedge straight through the already-fracturing Republican coalition.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:54 AM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


i'm sorry I criticized Cruz's looks. The honest truth is, I'm engaged but have little to contribute but my anxiety about the election, and thus I become juvenile. Mea culpa.
posted by angrycat at 8:57 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


The honest truth is, I'm engaged but have little to contribute but my anxiety about the election, and thus I become juvenile. Mea culpa.

I think this feeling of anxiety underlies a lot of the uncharacteristically heightened animosity in these threads. There's a sense that things are playing out in a way we can't really control and which may end up being really bad.

Everyone needs a hug.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:02 AM on April 5, 2016 [18 favorites]




There is no viable legislative plan to break up the banks, bepe, since the Republicans are going to control the House and Senate. There are however many laws that various banks and bankers broke that if prosecuted makes them unable to play the markets.

This really isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing. The Democrats also felt they couldn't allow the economy to collapse. It's not as if our Democratic President along with Democrats in Congress have spent the last 8 years trying to prosecute finance criminals.

The federal government lost their prime opportunity (no pun intended) to prosecute in 2008, when they could have allowed AIG, Goldman Sachs and other primary architects of the subprimes/CDOs disaster to fail. Or forced them to submit to heavy industry regulations by threatening to withhold TARP funding. But Paulson et al., didn't understand what had happened and how the system had been manipulated and gamed by those greedy bastards.

Which was precisely what was intended. The subprime and credit swaps market was designed from the ground up to be a mystery, filled with obfuscation and lies. Goldman, Merrill, Deutsche, Morgan, etc., conspired to lie to the American public, lie to the US government, lie to their investors and the financial markets, and even to their colleagues about the true nature of the garbage that was bundled in those CDO's. They were helped by the Big Three ratings agencies (Standard and Poor's (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch), who gave garbage triple-A status.

Face it: Democrats don't want to go after the finance industry. If they did, they would have tried before this.

I suspect banks might become much more cooperative, or even find reasons to spin off subsidiaries, after an administration drags some C-level from one into decades long legal fights that place the whole organization into jeopardy and necessitate their being fired.

You're being incredibly optimistic and I don't believe that's justified. The banking / hedge fund / bond trader communities live in bubbles of their own making and apparently think they are gods, put among us lesser mortals in order to scam as much money off us as they possibly can. Goldman literally claimed after the bailout that they hadn't really needed the money in order to avoid dissolution. And now they know that they can do anything, even screw millions of Americans, and still get bailed out.
posted by zarq at 9:03 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


tivalasvegas: "Not only is it good politics, it's also good policy and it's easily explainable. People making $10-15 an hour understand what a wage hike would mean for their lives. It's tangible in a way that many policy issues are not. And it drives a huge wedge straight through the already-fracturing Republican coalition."

If those people vote. I would have thought that the huge uptake on the KYNect healthcare program would have had an impact on the KY gubernatorial election, but apparently the people who benefited didn't show up at the polls.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:08 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can we cut it out with the "techbro" narrative?
posted by kyp at 9:09 AM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


I am as frustrated with anyone about the incremental nature of Obamacare, for example. I see Obama as foolishly hoping that at least one Republican might negotiate in good faith (fat chance, as it turned out). Not even a public option made it into the final package.

Sure, in part because Obama himself agreed to drop the public option in closed-door negotiations with hospital industry lobbyists in the summer of 2009. After that he went suspiciously radio silent about the public option for several months, at the exact same time that town hall meetings full of tea partiers screaming false talking points were dominating the news cycle and turning public opinion against the idea of a public option, which polls showed that a majority of American had supported. By September 9 Obama surfaced to say that he wouldn't insist on it being included in the plan, and when he addressed the Democratic caucus in December he didn't even mention it.

Because Obama has that tendency that pundits and DLC-style Democrats love so much of making concessions in advance on a theory that the other side will nobly, reasonably agree to make concessions of their own in return. But as you note, it's foolish to believe that modern day Republican congresspersons will ever negotiate in good faith. In this case, even without any kind of public option, they spent months whining about government death panels and a Marxist takeover of health care (and the hospital lobby still opposed the compromise plan anyway).

So with that said,

Frankly, I don't see much hope for even a $12 an hour Federal minimum wage. But as pleasing as the rhetoric is, in the current political climate -- he's a member of Mitch McConnel's Senate, for crying out loud! -- he has to know that Republicans will fight any increase to the minimum wage, let alone a doubling of it, tooth and nail.

Given that the Republicans are going to fight any attempt to raise the Federal minimum wage under either Sanders or Clinton, do you expect whatever compromise wage that eventually passes to be higher if the Democrats start with $12/hour as their opening position, or $15/hour?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:10 AM on April 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


[Several comments deleted. Please stop the sniping and stop going after the other candidate's supporters.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:13 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


The nice thing about the minimum wage debate is that it's super popular among all groups (obviously less so among conservatives and Republicans, but still it's a huge wedge issue).

But that's the problem -- it isn't so popular among conservatives and Republicans, the support of whom Sanders or Clinton will need to pass any minimum wage hike, even a relatively modest $12/hour one. And that's even before Mitch McConnell goes on TV every night to tout Republican opposition to the "job-killing" minimum wage proposal.

I would hope, yes, that voters might punish Republicans for their opposition to raising the Federal minimum wage, but so many Congressional districts are safe I doubt it'd have too large of an impact. And that still leaves unanswered the question of what Sanders' plan might be to actually pass the $15/hour version.
posted by Gelatin at 9:14 AM on April 5, 2016


What's the plan for the $12 version?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 AM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Democrats don't want to go after the finance industry. If they did, they would have tried before this.

The Obama Justice Department didn't want to prosecute. That does not mean that all prosecutions for financial crimes are forever foreclosed, although it's hard to imagine a Clinton Justice Department being any different.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:15 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]




Sure, in part because Obama himself agreed to drop the public option in closed-door negotiations with hospital industry lobbyists in the summer of 2009.

Of course. The hospital industry was among the stakeholders that would be affected by the law, and their support -- and not opposition -- was essential. As I've said, it'd too bad there wasn't more room for Democratic priorities, but I also maintain that it's a better outcome to have Obamacare passed without a public option than to have it defeated with one. I agree that the temptation of getting someone like Olympia Snowe on board was a foolish one, but I also don't see how a much more liberal plan would have passed a Senate where one of the key votes was Joe Lieberman's.

Given that the Republicans are going to fight any attempt to raise the Federal minimum wage under either Sanders or Clinton, do you expect whatever compromise wage that eventually passes to be higher if the Democrats start with $12/hour as their opening position, or $15/hour?

That seems to be exactly the situation we currently have, actually; the Democrats, via Bernie Sanders, are proposing a $15 an hour minimum wage, and hinting they'll settle for $12.
posted by Gelatin at 9:27 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Which is why, by the way, it's essential to overcome the normal Democratic fecklessness about the downballot races. Whoever the eventual Republican nominee, the primary process -- to say nothing of the candidates' own extremism -- has generated a wealth of material for opposition advertising. At the same time, a number of Republican Senate seats are in play. Democrats must work hard to sweep all possible contests, and should be working harder to contest the House, as well. Although many Republican seats are safely gerrymandered, so it's likely contesting some of them would be a waste of resources, any pickups are good pickups, as is forcing Republicans to play defense.
posted by Gelatin at 9:32 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Hopefully this also doesn't get deleted, but here is the policy paper that discusses how the $12 wage level basically brings it equivalent to 1968 levels.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:41 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Here is Hillary Clinton's full exchange on @TheView about whether someone can be a feminist & pro-life

i think someone can be pro-life and opposed to anti-choice laws. i have no issue with someone like that identifying as feminist. and even if they're straight up anti-choice - i disagree with them. i think they're wrong. it's not my feminism, but if they want to identify as a feminist, then i don't think its anyone's business to tell them they're not. saying that self-identity and the beliefs about women's autonomy are in conflict is fair game, but saying they can't use the label doesn't seem like the proper way forward. there are plenty of (popular, famous, well loved, important) feminists who are straight up transphobic and/or whorephobic and/or racist. i disagree with them vehemently on those topics, but i'm not about to say they're not feminists, that's not my job. these type of women identifying as feminists actually makes it easier to convince them on the other topics, i think. for instance, when i speak to mormon feminists and meet them where they're at and respecting how they choose to identify i can fairly quickly get them to consider more liberal ideas in feminism because they're already accepting of some of the framework.
posted by nadawi at 9:46 AM on April 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


here is the policy paper that discusses how the $12 wage level basically brings it equivalent to 1968 levels

I truly wish Democrats were better at pointing out how Republican economic policies are responsive for the sorry state of the middle class. Goodness knows Republicans are quick to try to shift blame to their own pet hobbyhorses.

There should be a great sound bite in there along the line of "We know guys like Ted Cruz want to return us to the 1950s, but it turns out they mean the kind of money workers earned back then."
posted by Gelatin at 9:51 AM on April 5, 2016


But that's the problem -- it isn't so popular among conservatives and Republicans, the support of whom Sanders or Clinton will need to pass any minimum wage hike, even a relatively modest $12/hour one. And that's even before Mitch McConnell goes on TV every night to tout Republican opposition to the "job-killing" minimum wage proposal.

It is popular among both conservatives and Republicans, though; the Gallup poll I linked to above gave 54% support among conservatives and 50% support among Republicans (for $9 minimum). All the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats and job-killing-regulations hectoring from the Beltway and Wall Street haven't been effective in getting the actual base voters In Line on this issue and I see no reason why any words coming out of Mitch McConnell's face will suddenly work now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:52 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I see no reason why any words coming out of Mitch McConnell's face will suddenly work now

Work in what sense? If McConnell is in charge of the Senate next year, a minimum wage increase goes nowhere. If he's in charge of a caucus that's big enough to filibuster the plan, same deal. And the so-called "liberal media" will do its typical he-said, she said style of reporting, in which anything McConnell says, no matter how insane or contradictory, will be presented as if it's offered in good faith. Republicans have already blocked any number of popular policies, including fixing our crumbling infrastructure, and where's the electoral angst about harming the American people? Nowhere to be found.

And if Republicans are in charge of the House, it's a moot point anyway, unless there's some plan to get House Republicans to defy the so-called "Freedom Caucus" and pass a minimum wage hike.

At best, the popularity of a minimum wage increase could be used as a club against Republicans who refuse to pass it, but I don't share confidence that the prospect worries them very much.
posted by Gelatin at 10:01 AM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I actually knocked a lot of doors in 2014 for a candidate who was heavily relying on a platform of raising the minimum wage, and I found it to be wildly popular. Voters respond well to things that are stated in terms of values, and that's an easy one to talk about in those terms. "I believe that people who are willing to work hard should be able to make enough money to live on. I have worked minimum wage jobs, and by the end of every shift I was sore and my feet were swollen. I don't think anyone should spend 40 hours a week working that hard and then have to go home and sleep on someone's couch because they can't afford to rent an apartment. I don't think that's how America is supposed to work." I think that $15 an hour would be a hard sell around here, but raising the minimum wage is very popular. I honestly think you might even be able to get it past the Republicans if you sold it as restoring minimum wage to its previous purchasing power, rather than raising it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:02 AM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]




Out of curiosity, ArbitraryAndCapricious, did your candidate win?
posted by Gelatin at 10:09 AM on April 5, 2016


Nope. He lost miserably despite poll after poll that showed that most voters supported his positions and rejected those of his Republican opponent.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:11 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm curious as well. Do you know the reasons for his loss? More money? Better marketing?
posted by kyp at 10:14 AM on April 5, 2016


Nope. He lost miserably despite poll after poll that showed that most voters supported his positions and rejected those of his Republican opponent.

America, fuck yeah
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:17 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


That's my concern with the idea that "polls show people support X." People will tell you they support lots of things, and then not vote for them.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:19 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's hard to say. I could give you a lot of reasons, but 2014 was pretty brutal for Democrats in general, and I'm not sure how much of it was dependent on the specifics of the particular race. But a lot of it is that the Republicans successfully figured out how to make the race focus on personalities, not issues, so it came down to "do you like the person who is like us, or do you like that elitist jerk who thinks farmers are stupid?" And then I would knock a bunch of doors and people would nod and tell me that they agreed with all of my guy's positions, but wasn't he the one who hated farmers? It was a little frustrating.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:23 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Do you support increasing the minimum wage for hard working americans?"

Yes!

"Do you support job destroying measures from godless commies?"

No!
posted by ian1977 at 10:23 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


i disagree with them. i think they're wrong. it's not my feminism, but if they want to identify as a feminist, then i don't think its anyone's business to tell them they're not.

I understand what you're saying here but am having trouble with the idea that someone who declares themselves a supporter of equality for women could also be for taking away a woman's right to control her own body. This feels like a logical disconnect.

I get that meeting that person on certain terms in order to allow both to relate and find common ground is important. But still, it makes no sense to me. I also tend to think this is different from TERFs, who deny that trans women are women. By which I mean that TERFs are (presumably) in favor of equality for women -- but they define who a woman is in a narrow and bigoted way to deny the existence of trans women.
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you know the reasons for his loss? More money? Better marketing?

I'd guess having a D in a red state. Culture war and other-ism driven by talk radio and FOX News trumps all policy arguments these days. Even when Republican voters agree with all the economic policies proposed by the Democratic candidates, which would benefit them too, they'll vote for the Republican every time, because Muslims or BLM or Kenyanantiimperialism or Jeebus or tax cuts or those people.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:24 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


And if Republicans are in charge of the House, it's a moot point anyway, unless there's some plan to get House Republicans to defy the so-called "Freedom Caucus" and pass a minimum wage hike.

At best, the popularity of a minimum wage increase could be used as a club against Republicans who refuse to pass it, but I don't share confidence that the prospect worries them very much.


Of all the liberal causes that might be prioritized, I think this one has the best chance of winning support from the few moderate and/or blueish-district-representing Republicans left in the House, and also folks like Collins, Kirk (who's hopefully out the door in November anyway) and such in the Senate. It's not like this is a policy shift or a new program per se; it's just changing a number.

And to expand on what I said above, pushing hard for min wage hikes draws a wedge in the Republican coalition, it makes a clear and easily understood distinction between Republicans and Democrats and it builds support for local minimum wage hikes in blue and purple states, as we've already seen in New York and California just this week.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:30 AM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]




The abortion issue is about definition too, from a pro-life perspective the fetus is defined as an individual person instead of just a part of the pregnant person's body. The pregnant person is presumed to have consented to the possibility of this other person being present in their body as a result of consenting to sex. I would bet very few people who identify as feminist and as pro-life would see themselves as denying people control over their own body, they see abortion as a choice to violate another person's body.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:33 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


it's essential to overcome the normal Democratic fecklessness about the downballot races

This is the kind of comment that makes me jump up and down saying yes! yes! yes! And it makes me miss the (decades ago) days when I was a Republican, because the GOP used to know this so well . . . it is all about the whole ballot, because down ballot controls voting districts until the US finally wakes up and makes gerrymandering a thing of the past by putting it everywhere in the hands of independent commissions. I'd be game for some constitutional amendments to prevent gerrymandering and repeal Citizens United and require full public disclosure of every $ spent on political support, but until that day comes, down ballot is just as important as top of the ballot. I am a determined Independent these days but I might someday formally become a D instead of just voting that way if I ever see that sort of concentrated approach to seek to win everything in a general election.

I'd add that we would not have to argue about whether it is better/wiser to propose a realistic minimum wage raise that is tailored to the different conditions in different parts of the country or require a demand for $15 or bust if there was actually decent Democratic representation in the state houses and governor's mansions as well as Congress. Because then everyone would be on board with mending the urgent problem of income inequality. Indeed, we might even return to having sensible bipartisan legislative solutions to burning issues like these.
posted by bearwife at 10:34 AM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


i don't find a difference between the disconnects in terfs and pro-life feminists. they are both attempting to harm women while claiming feminism. i think it's more useful to attack the 'harm women' side and leave the self identity side alone. feminists who are opposed to sex workers rights are in the same boat for me. they're being actively harmful to other women, and they're wrong about that, but it's easier to get them to see that if you don't deny their own identity. i think the suffragettes and temperance movement women were feminists, even though they were generally horribly racist. i think those who are best defined by 'white feminism' are still feminists even if i think they should be intersectional in their approach.

we are all filled with logical disconnects all the time. insisting on an ideological purity test for self identification just gets us bogged down in who is really a scotsman.
posted by nadawi at 10:34 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


He lost miserably despite poll after poll that showed that most voters supported his positions and rejected those of his Republican opponent.

Oh, hi, are you me?

Our nod-along issue was road funding, which is shit in Michigan and which my candidate's opponent steadfastly refused to even meet to discuss possibly raising some day ever. Every voter I talked to agreed that that was a horrible thing for an elected official to do, and we got fucking creamed by like 12 points.
posted by Etrigan at 10:35 AM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think the Trump thing is fizzling, he had Palin speak on his behalf and it didn't go so well.
Sarah Palin gets tepid response stumping for Donald Trump in Wisconsin
There's lots of video of it, but I just can't bear another rambling, crazy pants harangue.


You can skip the 18 minutes of madness and get the a-maz-ing summary from WaPo.
“Getting off the airplane ... Seeing all the green and gold and the green and gold until I’m dead and cold paraphernalia everywhere.”

“This awesome awakening, the shifting and sifting and the exposing of this rabid bite for them to hang on to any kind of relevancy and to hang on to their gravy train.”

“In order to work, to produce, to strive and to thrive, and to really be alive in the greatest country on earth.”

“Trashin’ our economy, shippin’ out jobs, lettin’ us foot the bill, palin’ around with the same old politicos and insiders.”

“And we won’t retreat, we’ll reload. We’ll reload.”
And I thought the Palin from SNL's A Hillary Christmas was unrealistic.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:41 AM on April 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


This is probably not a satisfactory answer, msalt. But I do hope it at least points out that some other directions other than the parameters that we have become accustomed to thinking of in terms of foreign trade--the neo-colonial/neo-liberal/financially engineered looting that has taken place over the past decades--is not the only method by which we can do this sort of thing.

Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed response. Here is one aspect that confuses me. If anything, it seems like the lefty / Democratic Socialist position that Bernie comes out of sees trade pacts as favoring the US and other developed countries, while exploiting Mexico and other third world countries.

While campaigning, though, Bernie's position seems to be closer to Trump's, arguing that the US got ripped off in these deals. He even echoes the Donald by saying that he would renegotiate the deals (though neither explains why countries who have an advantageous deal would have any interest in negotiating at all).

To my eye, it looks like Sanders is trying to have it both ways -- implying that he would improve the deal to the advantage of the US, when a more fair deal would probably make them even worse from our selfish perspective.
posted by msalt at 10:41 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Man, that is some world-class stream-of-consciousness rap from Palin. I'm serious. She should go into music.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:44 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of all the liberal causes that might be prioritized, I think this one has the best chance of winning support from the few moderate and/or blueish-district-representing Republicans left in the House, and also folks like Collins, Kirk (who's hopefully out the door in November anyway) and such in the Senate.

And to expand on what I said above, pushing hard for min wage hikes draws a wedge in the Republican coalition

I wish I believed that, but the experience ArbitraryAndCapricious just described suggests otherwise. And I haven't even mentioned the amount of money that would be spent from so-called pro-business groups like the Club for Growth in opposition.

Republicans have spent decades building its messaging and branding. They have an advantage in doing so, being a fairly narrow coalition -- pro-plutocrat, using evangelical and, frankly, racist elements to muster a majority -- whereas the Democrats are a far broader coalition (which means, when people turn out to vote, Democrats win). And so as I was coming of age in the 80s, Reagan was helping to make "liberal" a dirty word and Watergate was used to convince people not that Nixon was a crook but that the media was liberal. The Republicans sold that particular bit of propaganda so well that even presumably well-meaning organizations like NPR bend over backward to be "balanced" and, as such, give Republicans a national platform to tell outright and verifiable lies.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that unfortunately, Hillary Clinton isn't exactly the right person to carry this banner, so again, yay Bernie Sanders -- but the Democrats need to hammer that the Republicans are the party of the rich and no one else, and that middle America is struggling because of Republican policies, period, full stop.
posted by Gelatin at 10:45 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


The irony with Bernie Sanders' trade position is that he argues that the US shouldn't have free trade with countries who have less robust union rights, environmental protections or lower wages.

Based on those criteria, though, Europe probably shouldn't trade with the US either because from their perspective we are the low-wage, anti-union, highly polluting assholes.
posted by msalt at 10:45 AM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


To my eye, it looks like Sanders is trying to have it both ways -- implying that he would improve the deal to the advantage of the US, when a more fair deal would probably make them even worse from our selfish perspective.

Or maybe the world economy isn't a zero-sum game, and his supporters would like protections for U.S. interests and those of our trading partners.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:47 AM on April 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


He lost miserably despite poll after poll that showed that most voters supported his positions and rejected those of his Republican opponent.

Every voter I talked to agreed that that was a horrible thing for an elected official to do, and we got fucking creamed by like 12 points.

Which is why I won't connect any anecdotal evidence about conservative friend or relatives refusing to vote for Trump into any kind of meaningful trend just yet. Just watch -- three months from now, David Brooks will reluctantly conclude that as awful as Trump is, a Clinton or Sanders presidency will somehow be worse (because that kind of schtick is his job, yo), and wealthy suburbanites will vote not to have their taxes raised to be given to Those People, as per usual.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I hope they're thinking about ground game already, and then I remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in charge and despair.
posted by Gelatin at 10:49 AM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Or maybe the world economy isn't a zero-sum game, and his supporters would like protections for U.S. interests and those of our trading partners.

Maybe. It would be helpful if someone could explain how that would work in practice. Preferably Bernie himself, in the form of concrete proposals.
posted by msalt at 10:50 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


i don't find a difference between the disconnects in terfs and pro-life feminists. they are both attempting to harm women while claiming feminism. i think it's more useful to attack the 'harm women' side and leave the self identity side alone.

OK. When someone defines their feminism in such a way that actively attacks and harms women, to me that's an indication that their self-identity is an intrinsically interconnected part of the problem. I mean, especially in the case of TERFs, who are using it as an excuse.

we are all filled with logical disconnects all the time. insisting on an ideological purity test for self identification just gets us bogged down in who is really a scotsman.

Ah. True.
posted by zarq at 10:52 AM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Msalt: (re: trade deals) as I see it, the issue isn't so clearly understood as nations getting good or bad deals.

Working people in the US lose jobs that get shipped overseas; working people abroad are exploited by companies who use child labor, etc. These are not mutually exclusive, and it's easy to see how both of these things are simultaneously not good.

And while it may be true that European nations frequently have better labor laws than the US, it's a straw man to suggest that what Sanders is advocating is for is some sort of logical consistency. That's not the point; the point is that people everywhere should have a minimum degree of humane protection from the pursuit of private profit.
posted by eyesontheroad at 10:54 AM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


nadawi, I also know (and want to mention) that the perspective I'm voicing here re: pro-life and TERF feminists is overly simplistic -- and that identity (and feminism) is much more complicated than a single issue. I DO see where you're coming from.
posted by zarq at 11:06 AM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel like Palin's been listening to the Hamilton soundtrack quite a bit.
posted by gaspode at 11:08 AM on April 5, 2016


If those people vote. I would have thought that the huge uptake on the KYNect healthcare program would have had an impact on the KY gubernatorial election, but apparently the people who benefited didn't show up at the polls.

It's even worse than this, Chyrsostom. Plenty of those folks did come out to vote. For Bevin. KyNect is being dismantled as we speak, even though it works just fine. Bevin, the Tea Party ideologue, has rolled out Benefind and it's been a bumpy road thus far.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:12 AM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know, msalt, I was going to try to respond to this comment of yours but then I saw this one, and then this one. It's the same road you went down with the transcripts discussion. It's my belief that you are more interested in defending a position, almost a priori-like, that you have staked out rather than join in genuine discussion.

So, my response is this: Read the books I suggested before. Improve your understanding of trade policy and it's history. Independent of this campaign, it's worth the effort.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:24 AM on April 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


Working people in the US lose jobs that get shipped overseas; working people abroad are exploited by companies who use child labor, etc. These are not mutually exclusive, and it's easy to see how both of these things are simultaneously not good.

That would be true if all overseas labor was exploitative child labor, slave labor etc. but it is clearly not. Focusing on those extreme cases is a way to avoid the very real ethical issue here: is it ethically just for the US to claim all the wealth if that means blocking third world progress?

There are definitely some horrible abuses but there has also been tremendous improvement in standards of living in India and China. Wages in China, for example, have risen 12% a year since 2001. That is real progress for a very large number of people.

Sanders' position also ignores the progress that these deals bring directly -- the protections for unions, the environment etc. that the third world countries agree to in the deals. Even where there are abuses, the involvement of US companies provides leverage for exposing and fixing them (e.g. the Bangladesh fire, Nike's shoe factory deals, Apple's iPhone factories in China.)

I don't mean to suggest that these deals are 100% great things, but there is a genuine ethical dilemma here that I don't think Bernie is addressing honestly.
posted by msalt at 11:38 AM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


So...when do the polls close in Wisconsin?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:41 AM on April 5, 2016


Polls close: 8 p.m. local time (9 p.m. Eastern time)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


If anything, it seems like the lefty / Democratic Socialist position that Bernie comes out of sees trade pacts as favoring the US and other developed countries, while exploiting Mexico and other third world countries.

While campaigning, though, Bernie's position seems to be closer to Trump's, arguing that the US got ripped off in these deals.


They can both be true, you're just collapsing different groups of Americans into one.

Trade deals in recent decades have been great for U.S. capital. They've provided cheap sources of labor for U.S. manufacturers looking to cut costs by laying off domestic workers, they've pushed signatory nations into adopting local statutes that favor American interests at the expense of their own people (see, for instance, how many of these trade agreements are conditioned on the adoption of restrictive U.S.-style copyright enforcement regimes), and so on.

At the same time, those deals have ripped off U.S. labor, who have seen their jobs evaporate because they can't compete in wages with workers who not only live in much less expensive nations, but often work for nearly slave labor wages for companies with extremely low workplace safety and environmental standards and no means for workers to unionize.

It's possible to argue consistently that negotiating trade deals that require higher wages and higher standards of environmental and worker protection for covered goods are not only more morally defensible, but that they would be less exploitative of workers in the partner countries (via better pay, increased safety, and slower pace towards environmental apocalypse) and that they would serve to rip off American workers less (via providing a more even playing field for competition with foreign labor markets).

You could disagree with this stance for various reasons (e.g., if American firms use less foreign labor, less money will flow to people in poor countries who need it, so the people of those countries are better off with more work than less even if it is exploitative), but it's possible to defend it without trying to "have it both ways." That would only be if you collapsed the two separate categories of "US" and said more fair trade deals would benefit both U.S. capital AND labor. I don't think I've ever heard Sanders say that more fair trade deals would be beneficial for American businesses, but he's been pretty clear from the beginning that he feels they've been doing well enough lately, thank, and that American workers could use some help. Which is consistent with the goals of such a trade policy.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:56 AM on April 5, 2016 [18 favorites]


Sanders' position also ignores the progress that these deals bring directly -- the protections for unions, the environment etc. that the third world countries agree to in the deals.

Okay, but I think the problem is that these deals often don't include those kinds of protections, or do so only ineffectually. The labor provisions in NAFTA were unenforceable. The TPP sets a lot of vague requirements - e.g. there must be a minimum wage under law, but it can be as low as a penny. There's a requirement that workers be allowed to form unions and bargain collectively, but the consistency plans negotiated by the US Trade Representative for bringing potential signatory nations into compliance with the agreement aren't necessarily enforcing those provisions, e.g. in Mexico where very few workers are able to join independent unions. On the other hand, the ISDS provisions in the TPP allow corporations to sue nations in an international tribunal for doing things like passing more protective environmental regulations that happen to impact a corporation's bottom line. ISDS actually discourages nations from passing labor, environmental, advertising, IP, and other laws that positively affect their populations at the expense of multinational corporations.

So I think opponents like Sanders aren't ignoring that argument, they just disagree about how much progress / how great of a positive effect those deals actually provide.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


cobra_high_tigers, you seem well informed. Can I ask, what blogs/magazines/etc are you following, to get information about these trade deals and their contents?
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:24 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


the Democrats need to hammer that the Republicans are the party of the rich and no one else, and that middle America is struggling because of Republican policies, period, full stop.

Precisely, and I can't think of a better way to hammer that home than a strong stance on a high minimum wage. "A Democratic Congress is a pay raise for low-wage workers."
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:28 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]




Apparently the New Republic handed over their twitter account to Tricia Lockwood from 12-1 today, to help promote her longform Lost in Trumplandia feature story.

So she took advantage of the opportunity to tweet "fuck me daddy" at Donald Trump from their account.

The New Republic notes that it was a reference to the essay. That they decided to delete.

Killjoys.

Lockwood: "love means never having to say you're making a reference to your essay"
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Precisely, and I can't think of a better way to hammer that home than a strong stance on a high minimum wage.

We don't disagree about that, but that's true whether it's $12 or $15. My objection is the implication that Sanders is some kind of real progressive hero because he can deliver a $15 wage. He can't.
posted by Gelatin at 12:37 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


If those people vote. I would have thought that the huge uptake on the KYNect healthcare program would have had an impact on the KY gubernatorial election, but apparently the people who benefited didn't show up at the polls.

No one should generalize from the Kentucky example. It's impossible to understate how terrible of a campaign Conway ran against Bevin. He re-ran the same campaign that Alison Lundgen-Grimes ran 8 months earlier to lose by 16 points to Mitch McConnell at maybe the lowest point of his popularity in his career. There was not one single ad from the Conway campaign highlighting the effectiveness of KyNect, as Conway (and Grimes, and the KDP generally) has always been petrified to be associated with Obama in any fashion, even for something seen as a model success around the nation. Rather, Conway attacked Bevin on the sole issue of his failure to release his tax returns. Conway was horrible, he always was horrible. The KDP is horrible. Kentucky shouldn't been seen as illustrious of any national trends, except maybe that rebranding ObamaCare can be successful and popular even in red states, as long as it's not called "Obamacare".
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:44 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Actually, come to think of it, maybe I do disagree about that. The first priority needs to be the message that the Republicans are the party of the rich hogging all the benefits of American productivity. Yes, opposition even to a modest minimum wage hike is an example, and should be characterized as such, but a minimum wage hike itself shouldn't be the primary message.

The message is that if you work for a living, the Democratic Party is on your side.
posted by Gelatin at 12:52 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gelatin, well no of course he can't. And part of what distresses me about both Sanders and Clinton is that they're raising false expectations that are going to leave their base feeling betrayed. The Senate is at least slightly in play this year, mostly because of Trump and the assholery the Senate Republicans are displaying about the Supreme Court. But the House, barring an actual miracle, is going to be Republican until 2020, and unless the Democrats get off their asses and start seriously working their state government game it'll be gerrymandered enough even after the 2020 redistricting that it'll stay in Republican hands for another decade.

Which means that worst case for a Democratic presidential victory you have a continuation of the current state of affairs and until the mid terms all Clinton/Sanders can do is veto every single bit of legislation that comes out of the Republican held Congress. Best case, the Democrats take the Senate and that still leaves things at a stalemate because the Republicans have the House and that's where legislation originates.

Either way, their entire presidency will be a mater of, at absolute best, holding the line.

And at worst they'll "compromise" by selling the destruction of existing Democratic programs for a few short term nothings.

So talking about Clinton's program or Sander's program is just empty bloviating. Neither of them will get to do jack shit about their programs during their first four years in office and we all know it. Talking about their plans is a waste of time.

And unless they are willing to be up there, as often as possible, putting 100% of the blame on the Republicans, working day and night for state level wins in 2018 with an eye towards finally retaking the House in 2020, a lot of their voters are going to assume that nothing is happening because Sanders/Clinton are just incompetent or corrupt.

Their absolute best bet, their only possible chance of ever being able to actually do anything, is to buckle down to four years of serious, hard, vicious, and as partisan as it gets, work at building up state level wins, so that if they manage to get reelected in 2020 they'll have a Congress that is, at the very least, not quite as rabidly Tea Party owned as this one.

As for feminism, I certainly don't get to decide who is and isn't a feminist, but from my POV forced birth is one of the bright lines. I can't kick anyone out of feminism for being "pro-life", but I can refuse to agree that they are feminists and I will not hesitate in the slightest to say so. As far as I'm concerned any person who claims to be a "pro-life feminist" is simply lying and I refuse to be deceived.
posted by sotonohito at 12:54 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


9 things Bernie Sanders should’ve known about but didn’t in that Daily News interview

These things aren't pedantry; they are real pieces of knowledge that are crucial to forming opinions and policy about these matters, and the fact he doesn't know them is distressing. This is why people are saying he does not come off well--because these are very basic.
posted by schroedinger at 12:55 PM on April 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


Either way, their entire presidency will be a mater of, at absolute best, holding the line.

And, depending on how things shake out with Garland, appointing at least one Supreme Court justice, maybe two. Which makes me wonder, if McConnell really does get away with refusing to even hold hearings for Garland, if he'd try to pull the same stunt with a Clinton or Sanders nominee.

Because two Democratic SCOTUS appointees probably spell doom for a number of Republican policies, not to mention Citizens United.
posted by Gelatin at 1:00 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think a Republican Senate will ever again confirm a Democratic SCOTUS pick.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:04 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Which makes me wonder, if McConnell really does get away with refusing to even hold hearings for Garland, if he'd try to pull the same stunt with a Clinton or Sanders nominee.

There is absolutely no way that the Republican machine can stall a Supreme Court nomination in the 4 to 8 years of a Clinton/Sanders presidency. I am willing to eat one soft leather shoe that has been tenderized properly if they can pull that off.
posted by kyp at 1:04 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'll also say that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone a this point that people, both Republican and Democrat though it mostly applies to Republicans for this discussion, are mostly tribal voters not rational voters. The issues have never been much more than a thin excuse to justify saying that your tribe is awesome and that the other tribe sucks, so of course people will smile, nod, agree that on every issue the candidate from your party is great, then go out and vote for the candidate for the other party because he's part of their tribe.

Plus, of course, we on the Democratic side (I've said it before, but it needs repeating often until we get rid of the harmful myth) have the delusion that Republican voters are mostly motivated by money and that if they'd just realize that the Democrats have the better economic policies they'd vote for us.

They won't.

Money, to the average Republican voter, is nice and all but their core issues when it comes to voting are sticking it to whatever minority group they hate, enshrining their religion of over all others and enacting it as public policy, controlling the sex lives of others, maintaining the current social hierarchy, and above all strutting around acting tough and playing bully with the US military. The fact that our candidate will fix the roads and make sure they get a raise is irrelevant, such issues aren't even something they consider when it comes time to vote.

They want to know if the politician will hate on gay people, work to make the lives of black people worse, pray in public a lot and erect monuments to the Ten Commandments, put those uppity women and brown people back in their place, and bomb the shit out of some third world country. Michael Leeden summed up this last, and possibly most important, attitude very well: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

Why do you think Trump is doing so well? Look at what he says, look at the issues his voters say are important.

Sure, they also think it'd be nice if Trump can beat up China and get some good paying jobs over here, but that's way, way, way, down on the priority list. Ultimately, to the average Republican voter, economic wellbeing is something they will give up in order to get what they truly want.

So yeah, they'll agree the roads are shit and your candidate will fix the roads. And they'll go vote for the Republicans who talk tough and hate brown people.
posted by sotonohito at 1:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Schroedinger, thanks for that article. The first few items listed were the exact parts, that, like the author says, left me "agape." It is just staggering that, after decades in Congress talking about these issues, Bernie's plans for financial sector reform are still no deeper or more developed than his stump speech. Does anyone know, are there more detailed plans up somewhere on his webpage?
posted by bepe at 1:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is absolutely no way that the Republican machine can stall a Supreme Court nomination in the 4 to 8 years of a Clinton/Sanders presidency.

I don't know; a few months ago I would have said there was absolutely no way that the Republican machine could stall a Supreme Court nomination for the remainder of the Obama presidency. It remains to be seen if they really can, but McConnell sure seems determined to. If he can do that, why not the other?

Besides, if the Republicans control the Senate, they could simply vote every nominee down.
posted by Gelatin at 1:09 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Money, to the average Republican voter, is nice and all but their core issues when it comes to voting are sticking it to whatever minority group they hate, enshrining their religion of over all others and enacting it as public policy, controlling the sex lives of others, maintaining the current social hierarchy, and above all strutting around acting tough and playing bully with the US military. The fact that our candidate will fix the roads and make sure they get a raise is irrelevant, such issues aren't even something they consider when it comes time to vote.

As a progressive, I'm gonna say this is an extremely sweeping statement
posted by schroedinger at 1:13 PM on April 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


If he can do that, why not the other?

Well, one is not like the other. Stalling a nomination for 1 year (and they have not succeeded yet) in the last year of a presidency is very different from stalling it for (let's say) 4 years at the start of a presidential term.
posted by kyp at 1:18 PM on April 5, 2016


kyp, I think you're wrong, and that if Sanders or Clinton win, but the Republicans keep the Senate, McConnell will absolutely try to keep any Democratic nominee out of the Supreme Court for the next four years.

Besides, the next Justice to die is almost certain to be Ginsberg, if they can stretch things out long enough they'll have a 4-3 majority in the Court and get to keep deciding things their way until, they hope, 2020 when a Republican might take the Presidency and replace both Saclia and Ginsberg.

Or, on preview, what Gelatian said. The Republicans are desperate, one of their more powerful but subtle strengths has been their dominance of the Supreme Court these last forty years. With their demographic decline, the Republican party absolutely has to hold the Supreme Court to remain relevant nationally past 2020.

schroedinger It is a sweeping statement, and it's also largely true. Not universally, but largely.

Republican, in general, voters put social issues first, US tough image second, and economic issues a distant third. There are exceptions of course. But they're exceptions.

Why do you think Trump is doing so well? Why do you think they keep voting for people like Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback? It isn't because Republican economic policy helps them, it clearly does not, and they aren't so stupid that they're fooled into thinking it does. It is because they put their economic wellbeing below social issues.
posted by sotonohito at 1:19 PM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


kyp, I think you're wrong, and that if Sanders or Clinton win, but the Republicans keep the Senate, McConnell will absolutely try to keep any Democratic nominee out of the Supreme Court for the next four years.

OK, let's agree to disagree. There is no doubt that McConnell and his buddies will try, but they will not succeed.
posted by kyp at 1:21 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Republicans have an argument (a bad argument, but an argument) for now about lame duck status and the Supreme Court. There's no argument they can make for leaving the vacancy open after the next president is sworn in. I have no doubt they'll vote against anyone nominated, but I can't see them succeeding in putting off the vote for an entire presidential term.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:29 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, Jump the Turnstile is this year's Jump the Shark.

Or is that Attempt to Jump the Turnstile ?
posted by y2karl at 1:36 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


To add to my reply, I believe Republicans have been successful in the last 40 years because the establishment could control public discourse via media.

But things are changing rapidly. Someone shared this Storify from Clay Shirky earlier, and the meta-point he is making about how the internet is opening new lines of communication and participation really resonates with how I feel and what I'm seeing.

I suspect we will see this play out with the Panama Papers, where big media and politicians will be forced to talk about details that will be uncovered and shared by alternative media and ordinary people.
posted by kyp at 1:36 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


The KDP is horrible.

Amen. When I first moved here from the Northeast I was truly taken aback at the feudal character of politics here. I had some exposure to a few of the Wilkinson clan. Was that ever a wake-up call.

I will say that thus far I am pleased with my State Senator, Reginald Thomas.
posted by CincyBlues at 1:36 PM on April 5, 2016


These things aren't pedantry; they are real pieces of knowledge that are crucial to forming opinions and policy about these matters, and the fact he doesn't know them is distressing. This is why people are saying he does not come off well--because these are very basic.

The financial corruption answers were too basic, I agree.

However, his answers regarding Israel and the Palestinians are clearly him keeping his mouth shut because if he speaks his mind that might cause problems. There is no way in hell he hasn't thought about what concessions Israel might have to give up in a peace plan. Similarly, he'd be out of his mind to speculate in anything but the most generic and basic terms regarding what Israel should or shouldn't have done in 2014.

The last one was the interviewers being a little silly at the end of a long interview. The fact that the article author even included it as an example is annoying. Why not go all the way and complain that the Senator is encouraging crime with his "jumping the turnstile" comment? Ridiculous. No one should give a damn whether a Presidential candidate knows what a metrocard is or how to ride the subway. Least of all New Yorkers. He's not running for President of the MTA. Don't we have more important things to concern ourselves with?
posted by zarq at 1:38 PM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Or, on preview, what Gelatian said.

Didn't he come before Galba in the Year of the Four Emperors?
posted by Chrysostom at 1:41 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


yeah, followed by Jell-Otho
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:44 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


No one should give a damn whether a Presidential candidate knows what a metrocard is or how to ride the subway. Least of all New Yorkers.

He is a Brooklyn native who hasn't ridden the subway in years, so the Daily News was catching him out on his NYC bona fides. It was in the transcript, so you should include it for completeness. But yeah, it's pretty throwaway.
posted by dw at 1:47 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't you get more NYC bona fides for having been around to ride the subway with a token? I mean, the guy went to high school in Brooklyn. Those are bona fides. I'll always identify with the state I grew up in, even though I haven't been back there except to visit family since I went off to college. The whole thing is absurd.

I think the kerfuffle over bank reform is also a bit disingenuous. His biggest 'gaffe' there was in response to a question about the recent ruling declaring MetLife not too big to fail. His answer, that he hasn't studied the legal implications of that ruling sounds perfectly fine to me. The ruling is a week old, and it's not clear that it's actually relevant to the question of whether JP Morgan or Bank of America are too big to fail. Incidentally, if it does declare certain of these institutions as not systemically important, that's actually a win for the left, because it means when they do fail, we don't have to bail them out. And when they defraud the public again, the Justice Dept can't say: oh, normally we would prosecute these obvious criminals, but doing so is too dangerous since they are Too Big To Fail.
posted by dis_integration at 1:59 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I grew up using tokens. The Metrocard was only launched... 22... years... ago.

Damn, I'm getting old. :P
posted by zarq at 2:02 PM on April 5, 2016


Least of all New Yorkers.

I lack the chutzpah to speak on all their behalf but I would suspect that some New Yorkers might disagree. It is something I know and I have been living in Seattle some forty odd years with no visits to New York since the turnover. It amounts to commonplace common knowledge, after all.
posted by y2karl at 2:05 PM on April 5, 2016


I'm still using tokens! As a Philadelphian, his answer seemed perfectly cromulent.
posted by cjelli at 2:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least he didn't mention bike lanes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:08 PM on April 5, 2016


At least he didn't mention bike lanes

I bet he salmons up 6th ave like Alec Baldwin.
posted by dis_integration at 2:11 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm still using tokens! As a Philadelphian, his answer seemed perfectly cromulent.

Right, as Philadelphians we vote based on if the candidate ordered a cheesesteak right or not.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:12 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


With cheez whiz?
posted by kyp at 2:15 PM on April 5, 2016


it was a shit answer on IP though. Not saying that I agree with Clinton more on IP, but at leas she knows her business.

And it wasn't just that he hadn't sat down and studied the latest bank case. It was that he seemed clueless as to how he would end too big to fail.

I never got once from Obama in '08 the idea he didn't know what he was talking about. Yeah, part of the appeal was the hope-changey shit, but I never once recall him blowing off a question with vague answers about hope and change. Mostly I was impressed with him as a progressive guy with a mind that was as sharp as a tack on policy matters.

I admit my memory is imperfect, but that sort of contrast with Sanders is what makes me so frustrated with the Sanders campaign. It's like, maybe Sanders can't address constitutional law with the depth Obama could in '08, but Sanders should be able to talk about what mechanisms he would use to break up the banks.

And actually, I think he should have sat down and studied that case, if ending too big to fail is important to his candidacy
posted by angrycat at 2:20 PM on April 5, 2016 [22 favorites]


His answer, that he hasn't studied the legal implications of that ruling sounds perfectly fine to me.

It's not, though. When you are making sweeping promises whose realism and efficacy are entirely based on your understanding of the legal and governmental framework around them, then you better damn well know what you're talking about. Otherwise you're basically saying "Oh, I'm going to do this thing, and just make some shit up until it happens." Oh, there isn't any legal precedent or reasoning? Well, let's force some in there, Dubya-style.

As angrycat said, it's not just one case. But you know, even if it was then if he was seriously interested in developing these policies and making a strong argument then he'd be familiar with the arguments going into it and have a pretty good idea of the implications of the outcome of the ruling.
posted by schroedinger at 2:24 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can't see them succeeding in putting off the vote for an entire presidential term.

Say that Clinton is elected and then gets impeached in the first two years over something or other that she's done. Republicans continue to hold off on hearings during impeachment proceedings (it's in the public interest to help prevent "distractions") and their party sweeps the 2018 midterms on a platform to clean up Washington. Whether she is removed from office or not, her ability to conduct Presidential business is over. They bring an argument to the public for continuing to hold off a vote until the 2020 election, when Paul Ryan sweeps in unopposed.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:25 PM on April 5, 2016


What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About ‘the Deal’

"In recent weeks, hearing Trump talk, I’ve realized that his economic worldview is entirely coherent. It makes sense. He is not just a rent-seeker himself; his whole worldview is based on a rent-seeking vision of the economy, in which there’s a fixed amount of wealth that can only be redistributed, never grow. It is a world­view that makes perfect sense for the son of a New York real estate tycoon who grew up to be one, too."

(This may have been posted before. I'm having trouble keeping up with the firehose of Trump pieces)
posted by gamera at 2:26 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


So I voted today at 7:08am. I was #36 at my polling place (shared between two wards, suck it Ward 27!!!!).

I didn't have to wait, but it's clear there was some disorder for the first run of voter ID in Wisconsin (suck it Walker!!!!). The poll worker who greeted me, and has always greeted me at this polling place, had a sort of cat-seeing-dead-people look in his eyes. The tables for greeting and registering new voters created a kind of weird obstacle to those of us already registered and just needing to show our ID and get our ballots.

If my ward doesn't go for Bernie, I'll eat just about anything you care to put in front of me. For that matter, the same goes for the county. The yard signs and bumper stickers are everywhere. It doesn't surprise me; Madison is the same white, liberal enclave that Bernie seems to do very well in.

Although biking from my polling place to work, through the (very) liberal east side, I found it interesting to spot two Kasich yard signs. This isn't scientific data, obviously, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Kasich finish second behind Cruz. Wisconsin allows same-day registration in addition to open primaries, so very-late-deciding voters can still get in on the game. This also doesn't take into account the mischief-making that goes on here - in 2012, Rick Santorum won Dane County in the Republican primary O_O

Come November though, I can't imagine any scenario where the (R) candidate wins over the (D) candidate. Even Paul Ryan is hated in his hometown - he only goes to congress because of his gerrymandered district giving him the most conservative reaches of the Milwaukee suburbs. Yes, Scott Walker was elected three times here, but all of those elections were in "off-brand" years. And since the last election he has become tremendously unpopular.

Okay, enough rambling. See you all in November.
posted by rocketman at 2:28 PM on April 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


Also, in that superdelegate doxxing website it says "It's time we take our democracy back from the DNC. Together we can find the Superdelegates and hold them accountable to our votes."

The DNC is a private organization. Bernie chose to run under them, he chose to be subjected to their rules for the nomination. He's not running third-party because he wants the benefit of the networking, attention, and money he gets from running under the DNC. Well dude, in exchange for that you follow their rules. It's ridiculous to expect the entire party--a party you haven't been a member of your entire career--to start bending to your will because you're behind in delegates.
posted by schroedinger at 2:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [20 favorites]


>>Right, as Philadelphians we vote based on if the candidate ordered a cheesesteak right or not.
>With cheez whiz?


Yes but if you say "cheez whiz" instead of "whiz," you're still wrong.
posted by msalt at 2:32 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've never gotten the impression that Sanders was particularly smart, but you could argue that very smart people don't necessarily make great presidents.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:32 PM on April 5, 2016


[One comment deleted. It's fine to discuss this, but let's not actually link to a document called "hit list" that has people's home addresses and stuff.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:33 PM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Really. Wilson was super smart.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:38 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


To repost without the link:

Sanders supporters had put together a Google doc with names, addresses (including home addresses), and phone numbers and other contact information for superdelegates. It has now been compiled into a searchable website titled the "Superdelegate Hit List", asking people to add more data and "take back our democracy from the DNC."

The author of the website has some profoundly disturbing views, asking people directly to harass the superdelegates and said if someone was injured "it would be a shame, but the site wouldn't be responsible and [he] wouldn't take it down."

I am starting to wonder what the overlap is between GamerGators and some of these guys, because this is some real "it's about ethics in primaries" bullshit.
posted by schroedinger at 2:38 PM on April 5, 2016 [23 favorites]


I think the problem is that these [trade] deals often don't include those kinds of protections, or do so only ineffectually. The labor provisions in NAFTA were unenforceable. The TPP sets a lot of vague requirements ... So I think opponents like Sanders aren't ignoring that argument, they just disagree about how much progress / how great of a positive effect those deals actually provide.

AFAIK all the agreements contain these protections, though there is plenty of room to criticize their effectiveness. Bernie is not talking about the types and effectiveness of these protections. The big applause line for both Sanders and Trump is "These agreements are terrible, they cost us a bunch of jobs, I'm against them!" That leaves the clear implication that as president they would end them, or certainly not do new ones.

I don't believe either candidate would be successful with this more realistic statement in their stump speech:

"I'm going to renegotiate these deals with tougher protections for foreign workers, so that when American jobs go to India and China and Malaysia, those new workers get good union jobs with living wages in a green factory!"
posted by msalt at 2:46 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think all MeFi Sanders supporters will stand with you and say that doxxing and advocating violence against superdelegates is reprehensible and disgusting.
posted by kyp at 2:47 PM on April 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


That leaves the clear implication that as president they would end them, or certainly not do new ones.

No, it doesn't.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:47 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Sanders supporter, Spencer ThⒶyer — who uses the anarchist symbol to spell his name — is is urging fellow Sanders supporters to “harass” Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates, in order to get them to change their vote to Bernie Sanders.

This sounds to me a lot more like a singular jack-ass, rather than "Sanders supporters". Haven't we had multiple calls to not portray candidate's supporters in the most grar-inducing light possible?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:48 PM on April 5, 2016 [20 favorites]


It sounds like one crank got a hold of a list that was being used for things like sending a postcard to urge delegates to change their vote. Maybe a card is a bit invasive (though it's not like all of us don't get hammered with direct mail political spam, you know?) but it's hardly gamergate.

Found on Reddit: "I would like to send postcards to all 718 superdelegates encouraging them to support Bernie Sanders. There is a list of 341 superdelegates available on wikipedia. If you have a way to provide me a list, I will make sure each superdelegate receives a postcard."

Link to the google doc to be developed follows.

I'd resist the temptation to spin this into another round of hating on Bernie supporters as a group stereotype.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:51 PM on April 5, 2016


>>That leaves the clear implication that as president they would end them, or certainly not do new ones.
>No, it doesn't.


This is from FeelTheBern.org

"Why is Bernie against most trade agreements?
He believes that free trade agreements like NAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement have allowed too many American jobs to move overseas. ... Point number seven of Bernie’s Presidential agenda is ending such trade policies."

posted by msalt at 2:54 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Say that Clinton is elected and then gets impeached in the first two years over something or other that she's done.

please unsubscribe me from your fanfic list thanks
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:01 PM on April 5, 2016 [19 favorites]


... Point number seven of Bernie’s Presidential agenda is ending such trade policies."

Ending bad trade policies and replacing them with better trade policies does not mean ending all free trade relationships and not doing any new ones.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:05 PM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


This sounds to me a lot more like a singular jack-ass, rather than "Sanders supporters". Haven't we had multiple calls to not portray candidate's supporters in the most grar-inducing light possible?

I'm treading on dicey territory since we don't want to link the list here. But Sanders supporters have been putting together Google Docs of superdelegate info for months--I found a link from three months ago. This latest and biggest database is from a spreadsheet that started over a week or so ago, has been spread around pro-Sanders online communities and chatrooms, and blew up from there. All this guy did was give it a nicer interface. This is not one crazy dude with postcards.

I am not saying all the supporters here promote this. I am saying that this is a real thing that's happening and is being perpetuated by large communities of Sanders supporters on Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, and elsewhere. I apologize for not linking directly to these posts and spreadsheets, but the mods have stated they do not want links to these databases of personal information on here.
posted by schroedinger at 3:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


This sounds to me a lot more like a singular jack-ass, rather than "Sanders supporters".

But it is true that some Sanders supporters have started campaigns to contact superdelegates. The article mentions a group called "The Superdelegate Task Force Army" that has 3,000 members. It's more than just one or two people.
posted by FJT at 3:07 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


i don't think it in any way is "all sanders supporters" (as i voted for him and i'm certainly not harassing superdelegates) but it's obviously not just one guy. it's also a pretty predictable end to the type of rhetoric that has taken hold among some sanders supporters. i wish they'd cut it out because they're seriously not helping. since there is an overlap of where these types are discussing these tactics and where gamergate has a large following, and these tactics are similar to tactics gg has used, it doesn't seem out of bounds to point that out. i don't see anyone saying "see, all sanders supporters are like THIS" and it would be great if we didn't react as if they were.
posted by nadawi at 3:11 PM on April 5, 2016 [21 favorites]


The article mentions a group called "The Superdelegate Task Force Army" that has 3,000 members. It's more than just one or two people.

See Rick Larsen's Facebook page as an example of the harassment campaigns. Look in the comments. 50+ on more recent ones attacking him for supporting Clinton, with the number of comments passing 1000 last week when he was publicized on the SandersForPresident subreddit.
posted by schroedinger at 3:13 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Stalking superdelegates to get them to change their votes is a nearly perfect encapsulation of "actually, you could just..." internet culture. This kind of stuff only works in comic book universes.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:14 PM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Haven't we had multiple calls to not portray candidate's supporters in the most grar-inducing light possible?

Not sure what you mean. The quote you provided says he's urging other supporters. There's nothing from schroedinger's comment implying Sanders supporters in general or on MeFi.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:15 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is not one crazy dude with postcards.

I did not say it was, the postcard person was separate from the anarchist crank. Frankly, I don't think we can have any productive conversation on this topic if we can't link. All I know is I can't find with googling myself any evidence of an organized harassment campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:30 PM on April 5, 2016


See Rick Larsen's Facebook page as an example of the harassment campaigns.

I'd recommend going there and seeing just how... questionable this campaign is. A lot of bile mixed into the comment spamming.
posted by dw at 3:37 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]




All I know is I can't find with googling myself any evidence of an organized harassment campaign.

Here are several news stories, a couple already posted here but maybe with ambigous link text:

Reuters:: Sanders supporters' courtship of Clinton superdelegates may be backfiring
Seattle Times: Bernie Sanders backers slap superdelegates with ultimatum to ditch Hillary Clinton
Washington Examiner: Clinton delegates feel the Bern — hey, 'b—-h,' switch your vote
Americablog: Sanders supporter publishes “hit list” of superdelegates, includes woman’s home address
posted by msalt at 3:51 PM on April 5, 2016


Right I'm seeing two things here. Sanders supporters organized to try and contact superdelegates, and also some people used that data for harassment and this one crank encouraged it. I'm not seeing organized harassment outside of that one dude.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2016


Oops, sorry. Just noticed that Reuters article is old.
posted by msalt at 3:55 PM on April 5, 2016


Big turnout in WI. Exit polls look good for Sanders.
posted by Trochanter at 3:56 PM on April 5, 2016


WI exit poll... 75% of Republicans defined themselves as "very or somewhat conservative." 70% of Democrats defined themselves as "very or somewhat liberal."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:56 PM on April 5, 2016


Editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of U.S. individuals in the documents, saying "Just wait for what is coming next"

It might just means U.S. and U.K. banks violating various countries' laws like usual. It might even mean some presidential contender being engaged in this stuff. Trump is the obvious candidate there, especially given this tax haven's clients' desire real estate. It'll be interesting if the Clintons' were involved somehow though. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 3:57 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think any revelations in these documents will particularly harm Trump since he's been pretty upfront about the fact that he's cool with exploiting tax loopholes, as a businessman he views it as playing by the rules of the game and his voters respect him for it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:09 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks NYT

"Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year."


The Bill

posted by Trochanter at 4:10 PM on April 5, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm not seeing organized harassment outside of that one dude.

Did you look at that sample Facebook page I posted? Did you read the accounts of the people in those news articles? What does that look like to you? Polite disagreement?

I feel that you're splitting hairs. Bernie supporters have put together a database of superdelegate contact information, and now Bernie supporters are harassing superdelegates. I don't know how this is different than GamerGators who doxx female gamers and journalists, and then when they get death threats they said they only encourage "contacting" and "protest", not harassment.
posted by schroedinger at 4:11 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


It'll be interesting if the Clintons' were involved somehow though.

My secret dream is for that to happen this week, and my secret nightmare is that it happens during the general.

I don't think any revelations in these documents will particularly harm Trump since he's been pretty upfront about the fact that he's cool with exploiting tax loopholes

He'd also have no problem smearing his opponent for the same, and his supporters would just love him all the more for it.
posted by neonrev at 4:13 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think the Clintons could possibly be involved with Panama. If they were, she would have to come out and drop out immediately, rather than risk losing the general election to Trump, right?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:16 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


The muddier question would be the involvement of how many Clinton Foundation donors.
posted by Trochanter at 4:20 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I worry that the world of the extremely wealthy and connected is such a knotted web that it'd be almost impossible to not have some connection to some shady money hiding when you work at that level for so long, especially with the Clinton Foundation having fingers in so many areas. I don't think she's hiding millions, but I also think that even a minor connection to that could be fatal. Evidence of all the worst ideas about her.
posted by neonrev at 4:21 PM on April 5, 2016


200 years from now there will probably be a vigorous campaign to put an asterisk with a footnote reading "INDICTMENT COMING ANY DAY NOW" where Hillary Clinton's presidency is mentioned in American history textbooks
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2016 [20 favorites]


Yeah, I mean, I haven't been shy that I'm not a Clinton fan, but I've got to believe the Clintons aren't involved in that crap.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:24 PM on April 5, 2016


It'll come out this month or next if the Clintons' were involved with that particular firm, neonrev. These journalists have already announced their timeline, but moreover they would not throw the election to the Republicans, being left-leaning Europeans.

I think Trump being involved with "foreigners" evading their own taxes by "buying up America" would push the Republican establishment towards ousting him with backroom tricks, tivalasvegas.

Imho, it's actually bad for the left if Trump is involved because Cruz is worse and has better odds against Clinton or Sanders. We'd enjoy watching Trump dragged down quickly more than him simply disappearing after they give the nomination to Cruz or after he loses to Clinton though.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:24 PM on April 5, 2016


I don't think she is directly, I just think that any connection at all would be a circus, and she and Trump are high value targets for investigative journalism here. I'm also not a fan of Clinton, but since when has the reality of the situation ever mattered to the media coverage of her? It's be nuts.
posted by neonrev at 4:27 PM on April 5, 2016


I thought that the consensus was that not very many Americans were going to get caught up in the Panama Papers because we have much easier, legal ways to do all the shady shit that people from other countries relied on Mossack Fonseca to do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bernie Sanders has literally millions of donors. It's almost certain that one of them is in those documents. But I think for any candidate you'd need something a lot more direct than "someone with a swiss bank account donated to your campaign."

If any of the candidates has their own sheltered foreign account hidden behind a front company, THAT would be damaging. My best guess would be Alan Grayson, since we already know he ran a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands.
posted by msalt at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2016


It'll come out this month or next if the Clintons' were involved with that particular firm, neonrev. These journalists have already announced their timeline, but moreover they would not throw the election to the Republicans, being left-leaning Europeans.

And yet they were more than happy to essentially throw Iceland's leftist government out on its ass.

I would think that if Clinton were directly involved not only would we already know it, but also the House GOP would pull themselves off recess to do non-stop investigations because, I mean, come on, Hillary. There may well be Clinton Foundation donors on the list -- hell, I would be shocked if there weren't -- but that's far, far harder to tie her and her campaign to.
posted by dw at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


The people doing the releasing are claiming there's big stuff coming re: America.
posted by Trochanter at 4:32 PM on April 5, 2016


I find it hard to believe that people would hold onto "big" information. Put up or shut up and go away.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:35 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


NYT: Libertarian Smells Opportunity in a Trump-Clinton Race
"Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, is seeking to position himself as an alternative for disillusioned Republicans."
posted by msalt at 4:35 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Crossing my fingers for Rahm Emmanuel.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:36 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel that you're splitting hairs. Bernie supporters have put together a database of superdelegate contact information, and now Bernie supporters are harassing superdelegates. I don't know how this is different than GamerGators who doxx female gamers and journalists, and then when they get death threats they said they only encourage "contacting" and "protest", not harassment.

Sanders supporters on Reddit are phonebanking every day. Straight up calling the homes of individual voters. This is a common practice in politics. Often much to the annoyance of the people called. It's unreasonable to assume an attempt to lobby superdelegates directly could only be a dogwhistle cover for an organized harassment campaign. I would say it was ill-advised to publicly compile that information, because you can't control what anarchist cranks will do with it, but being dumb isn't the same thing as being malicious.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:38 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I find it hard to believe that people would hold onto "big" information. Put up or shut up and go away.

Apparently, they've got a schedule. I'm just going by Wikileaks tweets.
posted by Trochanter at 4:40 PM on April 5, 2016


Gary Johnson sounds like one of those made-for-TV generic politician names you'd see in an episode of Law & Order:

"Police have named Senator Gary Johnson as a person of interest in the disappearance of senate page Christine Kaminsky."
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:43 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mr. Johnson, who garnered more than a million votes as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 2012, attracted attention last month after a national Monmouth University poll included him in a hypothetical general election matchup with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. He drew the support of 11 percent of voters, raising the possibility that if his numbers continue to pick up, he could be eligible to participate in the presidential debates this fall.

I want Jill Stein up there too, but this would be excellent.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:46 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


These voter ID laws are going to be a nightmare in the general. It's sickening. Instead of arguing over trying to paint Sanders/Clinton supporters as whatever, we should come up with a plan to make sure people can actually vote. In every state. Come the general election in November.
posted by cashman at 4:47 PM on April 5, 2016 [20 favorites]


Also, Johnson is more likely to show up in a Cheech and Chong type crime.

More recently, Mr. Johnson was the chief executive of Cannabis Sativa, a company that develops new marijuana products. He quit that job to run for president this year but still uses marijuana recreationally and says it should be legalized.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


cashman: excellent idea and it's not too late. I'm guessing the rules are the same in primary states as in the general, so that should be a template for what issues to look out for.

Make lists of the biggest pitfalls -- help people plan for them, e.g. getting proper ID in advance -- encourage early voting wherever possible -- demand and scour election plans (e.g. number of polling places) in advance, and aggressively sue wherever things aren't ideal -- use "they are suppressing your vote!" as a rallying cry to get people to vote.
posted by msalt at 4:53 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


my area organizes ride shares during all of early voting, not just on the day of the election, which seems to be v. useful for all sorts of reasons. i encourage people to do the same in their areas if they can.
posted by nadawi at 4:55 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders feeling media heat after new interview.
Bernie Sanders' interview with the New York Daily News ahead of the state's primary later this month didn't go as planned.

The Vermont senator's April 1 sit down with the paper's editorial board, a transcript of which was published Monday, showed him having difficulty clearly answering some questions about both foreign and domestic policy, including the implementation of his much-touted plan to reform Wall Street.
posted by Justinian at 4:56 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


US politicians and celebrities with shell companies set up through Mossack Fonesca have had advance warning and a chance to prepare their responses. So far, we haven't seen any signs of that from any of the presidential primary candidates. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if other politicians and people connected to the primary candidates were outed as having set up overseas tax shelters. Actually, I'd be really surprised if that didn't happen.
posted by nangar at 5:00 PM on April 5, 2016


Sanders supporters on Reddit are phonebanking every day. Straight up calling the homes of individual voters. This is a common practice in politics.
I was the staging director for the local phone bank in 2014, and I've trained hundreds of people to make political phone calls. Literally the first rule of political phone calling is that you don't engage with people who have already decided to vote for the other candidate. Arguing with people is a waste of your time, it makes you angry and throws you off your game for future phone calls, and it never convinces anyone. You also should try not to be rude to people, no matter how awful they are to you. If someone screams a bunch of obscenities at you, thank them for their time and hang up. I am not saying that most Bernie supporters behave badly, but I have definitely seen some stuff that would not be considered common practice or at all appropriate in any campaign that I have ever been involved with.

(I did once have to tell a fellow volunteer that while I agreed our opponent was very bad news, I didn't think it was appropriate to suggest that she was literally a minion of Satan, because that was rude, plus we had no way of knowing what other people's religious beliefs were. A better way to put it would be "out of step with our values" or "has proposed things that would be bad for our state." The volunteer seemed a little irked at me, but she grudgingly agreed to stop mentioning the Antichrist.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:04 PM on April 5, 2016 [17 favorites]


Both sides do the same thing. They latch onto something as proof of what they already believe and then get upset when people ignore them.
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:04 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


i think even discussing it as "sides" from either end is overstating it. i think there are a huge amount of people in the middle - who maybe prefer one candidate over the other, but are generally fine or resigned to the other moving forward if it comes to that - and a minority of very rabid supporters. i think most of us can think clinton fucked up on the aids thing and sanders didn't have the best interview and move forward much like we did before.
posted by nadawi at 5:13 PM on April 5, 2016 [30 favorites]


It's unreasonable to assume an attempt to lobby superdelegates directly could only be a dogwhistle cover for an organized harassment campaign.

Given the tenor of the campaign, the attitude of his supporters towards superdelegates, and the comments encouraging people to "get him" or "blow her Facebook up", and the subsequent thousands and thousands of harassing comments and phone calls, believing the behavior of his nastier supporters and the decision to publicize superdelegate contact information are wholly separate is wishful thinking, at best.

Phonebanking is also wholly different. First of all, phonebanking efforts target undecideds, independents, and people who the campaign have determined to be possible Bernie voters. Second, as obnoxious as the random calls are it's basically a polite interaction where the phonebanker asks to speak about their candidate and then doesn't call back when the person refuses. Third, once a person turns a phonebanker down they're ostensibly not supposed to get called by the campaign again, and it is considered bad organizing and bad GOTV practice to do so because the person ends up turning against you.

Contacting superdelegates consists of contacting a person you know supports your opponent, contacting them multiple times, and then crowds of other people also contacting them about the same damn thing. There is no "off" button, there is no consideration for the person's decision or privacy.

Superdelegates can be elected officials, but they are not elected to the position of superdelegate. They are private individuals chosen by a private organization, ultimately making a private decision about the organization's leadership. I wouldn't even call it "lobbying", because "lobbying" implies they are somehow serving as members of the government when they make these decisions and they're not.
posted by schroedinger at 5:14 PM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Iceland's ruling PP and IP parties are clearly center-right, dw. Iceland has real left-wing parties like the Greens and a strong Pirate party. Right now, the center-right IP-PP are trying to hold off new elections that might elect a Green-Pirate coalition.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:29 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Given the tenor of the campaign, the attitude of his supporters towards superdelegates, and the comments encouraging people to "get him" or "blow her Facebook up", and the subsequent thousands and thousands of harassing comments and phone calls, believing the behavior of his nastier supporters and the decision to publicize superdelegate contact information are wholly separate is wishful thinking, at best.

If you really can't in your mind find a way to separate someone who wants to send a postcard from people sending death threats I don't know what to tell you. It's not the same thing.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm saying that if someone publicizes a list like that to a community that they know feels intense animosity to the very concept of superdelegates, much less ones that support Clinton, and then they tell them to "contact them for Bernie", and people reply to that posting with comments like "GET HIM", how can the publisher not know what's going to happen to the superdelegates?

An extremely common tactic for GamerGaters was to claim that nobody was endorsing or encouraging the harassment. If the contact information of a journalist or gamer was publicized, they simply encouraged polite disagreement. Anything more than that, and it was just the responsibility of a few bad apples. It's a bullshit defense, because those journalists and gamers wouldn't be inundated with "polite disagreement", they'd be inundated with abusive comments all over their social media and worse.

As has been said multiple times, the superdelegates are not receiving postcards and polite calls. They are receiving angry and abusive tweets, Facebook comments, phone calls, and emails. They are having their public pages taken over by Bernie supporters who reply to all their posts with arguments about Bernie and worse. You are minimizing what these people are being subjected to because you favor the candidate they favor, but actual people are experiencing harm, here.
posted by schroedinger at 5:41 PM on April 5, 2016 [24 favorites]


This is from a storify of a series of tweets from Zach Carter, Senior Political Economy Reporter for The Huffington Post:

1. The 2016 election has been pretty sad in a lot of ways.
2. It's particularly sad to watch a bunch of people who claimed to care about Wall Street reform just totally discard it as an issue.
3. The people guffawing at this Sanders interview on breaking up the banks clearly have never had any interest in this issue at all.
4. The legal landscape he describes is basically correct and not embarrassing to anyone who actually understands it.
5. Everybody who studies this thinks the best way to break up the banks is to set a size threshold and make the banks do it.
6. There is and never has been any need for the government to detail what the banks should do.
7. Just tell them $X is too much, let them downsize in the most profitable way they can.
8. People in a democracy are allowed to care about different issues, and don't have to care about economic policy if they don't want to.
9. But it's pretty sad when people pretend to be allies and then crap all over Wall Street reform bc they like a different candidate.
10. Much of the Democratic Party is deeply apathetic on economic policy. And this election is bringing it all out.
posted by Trochanter at 5:43 PM on April 5, 2016 [24 favorites]


Literally the first rule of political phone calling is that you don't engage with people who have already decided to vote for the other candidate. Arguing with people is a waste of your time, it makes you angry and throws you off your game for future phone calls...If someone screams a bunch of obscenities at you, thank them for their time and hang up.

I've volunteered for the Sanders campaign. Our phonebankers are following exactly the same rules. It's standard practice. Don't conflate people who volunteer for the campaign with internet trolls for Sanders. I doubt if there's much overlap. If our phonebanking and canvassing volunteers acted anything like trolls I've run into we'd never have won any states at all. I've gotten pretty angry at Hillary trolls too, but I don't think her volunteers or most of her supporters are like that.
posted by nangar at 5:51 PM on April 5, 2016 [8 favorites]




I'm a Sanders supporter and am disappointed that he didn't have a better answer on this. It's a big deal to me, I want specifics, not grumpy deflecting. Not addressing TBTF is one of the biggest economic disappointments of the Obama administration to me, and one of the bigger reasons I'm not enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency. I don't think it can be as simple as "any bank worth more than X has 12 months to sell off enough assets to be less than X or else". But if it is, and that's his policy, then tell us. Saying he doesn't need to answer is a peculiar response.
posted by skewed at 5:55 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Our phonebankers are following exactly the same rules. It's standard practice. Don't conflate people who volunteer for the campaign with internet trolls for Sanders. I doubt if there's much overlap.
I was directly responding to someone on this thread who defended harassment of super-delegates by saying that people phone-called voters, and some voters find that rude, too. It's a bad argument, but it's not my bad argument.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:57 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Today in "Donald Trump's spokespeople are as awful and terrifying as he is."

MSNBC Joins CNN In Banning Roger Stone From Network
posted by homunculus at 5:59 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]




From the "Diddn't See Any Big Deal" link:

“A lot of people thought my answer was excellent, by the way,” the GOP frontrunner said. “There were a lot of people who thought that was a very good answer.”

Everything this guy says sounds like self-parody. It literally reads like someone writing a script for a Trump impersonator.

Also, after this week I am officially not scared of Trump as nominee anymore. I'd prefer him the possibly slightly less evil but enormously more competent Ted Cruz, and definitely to the RNC choosing the most electable guy they can think of at the convention. I'd be worried about Kasich, but I think the only thing he's been able to prove is that Republicans don't care for him, given any imaginable alternative.
posted by skewed at 6:13 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was directly responding to someone on this thread who defended harassment of super-delegates

No, you weren't. You were responding to someone who pointed out harassing people and contacting them are not the same thing.

I'm saying that if someone publicizes a list like that to a community that they know feels intense animosity to the very concept of superdelegates, much less ones that support Clinton, and then they tell them to "contact them for Bernie", and people reply to that posting with comments like "GET HIM", how can the publisher not know what's going to happen to the superdelegates?

Well we have two options, we can assume the people who made the list originally confirm all the stereotypes about the evil Sanders supporters and then repeatedly compare them to members of a video game hate group they have nothing to do with because one anarchist tried to use that data for harassment. Or, we could consider the possibility that over enthusiastic amateurs operating outside of the campaign organization don't know what they are doing and are prone to making mistakes of this kind and are likely just as horrified as anyone else about what the information was used for.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:16 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


NBC has called Wisconsin for both Cruz and Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 6:21 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


MSNBC just projected Cruz and Sanders as winners in Wisconsin.
posted by cashman at 6:21 PM on April 5, 2016


Bernie wins. Might be a blowout...
posted by Trochanter at 6:21 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or, we could consider the possibility that over enthusiastic amateurs operating outside of the campaign organization don't know what they are doing and are prone to making mistakes of this kind and are likely just as horrified as anyone else about what the information was used for.

Then why does that list continue to be publicized? Why are those same communities celebrating the creation of that website? Why do the exhortations to contact superdelegates continue? Surely by now those well-meaning amateurs would have figured out that this is counter-productive behavior?

You keep trying to reduce the harassing behavior to "one anarchist dude"--but as has been repeatedly pointed out this is not one dude. It is not even a small group of dudes, led by one dude. This was happening before that guy made the website, it was happening independent of that guy, and it was happening in large numbers.

It is wrong to claim this behavior is endemic of all Sanders supporters, and nobody here is claiming that. It is also wrong to claim this behavior is just a couple of outlier experiences and no big deal and there's just a few crazies here and there.
posted by schroedinger at 6:23 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bern, baby, Bern.
DISCO INFERNO!
posted by entropicamericana at 6:24 PM on April 5, 2016


Appears the brother of Clinton's campaign chief lobbied for a Russian bank involved with Mossack Fonseca. It'll surely taint people in the Cruz and Trump campaigns too, probably all the campaigns.

It's even possible that Trump's ass hattery was a "straw that broke the camel's back" for the whistleblower from Mossack Fonseca, so maybe a big story there.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:24 PM on April 5, 2016


In other races, the "Democrat" (it's nominally non-partisan) in the WI Supreme Court race is up 54-46.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:25 PM on April 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Are the people on that list reporting harassment?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:25 PM on April 5, 2016


The Guardian has Bernie and Hillary painting in counties as they win them. It's amusing.
posted by clawsoon at 6:26 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


[Folks, this is the point in the conversation where it becomes too circular to continue. Please agree to disagree over the Gamergate comparisons and move on. Thanks.]
posted by restless_nomad at 6:26 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


And the entire nation turns its eyes to New York. Wheee, here we go.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:26 PM on April 5, 2016


My scorekeeper guy is pretty excited about the score:

Larry Elections ‏@LarryWebsite 5m5 minutes ago
BERNIE DOING NUMBERS. GANG GANG
posted by Trochanter at 6:27 PM on April 5, 2016


Wow. The brother of Clinton's campaign chief lobbied for a bank that, unbeknownst to him, was involved in some way with a shady Panamanian law firm. Clearly this is the end of her campaign!

There may be bigger revelations to come, but I don't think that one is going to make much of a ripple.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on April 5, 2016 [12 favorites]


9. But it's pretty sad when people pretend to be allies and then crap all over Wall Street reform bc they like a different candidate.

I mostly agree with those tweets, but I'd hesitate to make it explicitly about support for one candidate over another.

But yeah, I've been really surprised at how many issues I had previously thought of as left-wing bread-and-butter are now just unthinkable this year. There's either been a change in how we talk about things, or I was way more ignorant of mainstream left-wing talking points than I thought. I could have sworn Wall Street was a bigger issue than it apparently is.
posted by teponaztli at 6:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Guardian has Bernie and Hillary painting in counties as they win them. It's amusing.

Cruz and Trump are there too. With cutesy little captions. It's pretty funny.
posted by cashman at 6:31 PM on April 5, 2016


Are the people on that list reporting harassment?

Uh, yes. There were four or five articles posted saying exactly that.
posted by schroedinger at 6:32 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Guardian tracker is cutesy but it's annoying when the candidates are hovering over a county I'm trying to get more info on. Move out of the way damn it!
posted by kyp at 6:33 PM on April 5, 2016


We're expecting Mossack Fonseca might hurt many real estate tycoons, ArbitraryAndCapricious. At minimum, those people would favor Trump because he'd favor their industry, so that should hurt his fundraising.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:37 PM on April 5, 2016


I've come to find the Guardian animations annoying as hell, but I don't want to be a wet blanket for anyone who's seeing them for the first time and finding them clever and amusing (which they are...I just want an off-button at this point).
posted by uosuaq at 6:38 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ahahaha, 20% in and Cruz is at 51%. Please please please Wisconsin, please put him over the 50% mark and rub it in Trump's stupid face (and give us the brokered convention we're dreaming about).
posted by schroedinger at 6:40 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


That brokered convention is looking more likely by the day. You couldn't write a script like this.
posted by codacorolla at 6:41 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


But yeah, I've been really surprised at how many issues I had previously thought of as left-wing bread-and-butter are now just unthinkable this year. There's either been a change in how we talk about things, or I was way more ignorant of mainstream left-wing talking points than I thought. I could have sworn Wall Street was a bigger issue than it apparently is.

Wall Street is big but there are a great many Americans for whom immigration policy, police violence, voter suppression, gun control, health insurance reform (retention of Obamacare or further pursuit of single payer), or one of any number of issues that might, y'know, happen to come up before the Supreme Court in the next four years, are more significant factors in their lives and those of their loved ones than Too Big To Fail. The framing that Wall Street is not a "big issue" to such people and that they are therefore Insufficiently Pure and Noble Citizens is just one of several reasons why that Zach Carter list is a load of condescending horseshit.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:42 PM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


Well, Wisconsin awards by winner of CD + winner of state. Trump is leading in a couple of CDs, might well pick up a few delegates here.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:44 PM on April 5, 2016


AP calls WI for Sanders.
posted by dis_integration at 6:48 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hope everybody knows to stay and keep voting.
posted by Trochanter at 6:50 PM on April 5, 2016


Fun fact: On The Guardian tracker, in the event of a tie, an official appears instead and uses grey paint.
posted by kyp at 6:52 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


watching Ted Cruz's speech, the song they play or his intro is fucking hilarious, like a parody of country music. I had to look it up, it's called "Where the Stars and Stripes and Eagles Fly".
posted by skewed at 6:53 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


... and frisbees and balloons, too!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:55 PM on April 5, 2016


in the event of a tie, an official appears instead and uses grey paint

Also, if you watch it long enough, bobblehead Trump starts building little walls around counties he did not win
posted by oulipian at 6:56 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Larry Elections ‏@LarryWebsite 3m3 minutes ago

Bernie's lead is gonna blow open when these other counties come in. Milwaukee was supposed to mitigate these expected blowout losses
posted by Trochanter at 6:58 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it very likely now that Trump will not quite hit 1237. So now it's going to be about how his followers react when he doesn't get the nomination.
posted by Justinian at 6:59 PM on April 5, 2016


Does Wisconsin have a minimum percentage for a candidate to get delegates? Kasich is at 14.7% with 37% in.
posted by schroedinger at 7:01 PM on April 5, 2016


I wonder if Sanders's ratings are going to improve in other states as much as they did in Wisconsin for the 2 weeks just before their primary. Maybe it's good for him that California and New York are late-stage primaries?
posted by neeta at 7:03 PM on April 5, 2016


I believe there's an indirect threshold, in that they only award delegates to winners of congresional districts and to the state overall. I can't imagine Kasich is going to take any districts.
posted by skewed at 7:03 PM on April 5, 2016


Wisconsin is 18 delegates for the statewide winner plus 3 delegates each for the winner of the 8 congressional districts. So there is no minimum % of the vote you have to get but practically speaking 15% aint near enough to win any of the 3 delegate districts.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on April 5, 2016


Ted Cruz actually scares me more than Trump. I'd like to think he's unelectable, but I'm not nearly as confident in that as I would like to be.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:05 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Cruz is less unelectable than Trump but that still leaves a pretty wide margin for losing.
posted by Justinian at 7:06 PM on April 5, 2016


I think Cruz is really doing well with bringing out Heidi, it's hard not to feel bad for her having to go through the shit with Trump's campaign.
posted by skewed at 7:07 PM on April 5, 2016


I am voting for Cruz solely to screw up Trump. Then for everything to go up in glorious flames at a brokered convention.
posted by schroedinger at 7:08 PM on April 5, 2016


Yeah, as a politics nerd, have to admit I'm pretty amped for a contested convention.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:12 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Don't vote for Cruz. He's a smart man with a coherent ideological agenda, and I don't think I would enjoy living in the Republic of Gilead.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:15 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


And by "voting" I mean "rooting", because no way in hell would I actually cast a ballot for him, anywhere.
posted by schroedinger at 7:15 PM on April 5, 2016


Yeah, as a politics nerd, have to admit I'm pretty amped for a contested convention.

nnnnnngh gonna be full of esoteric parliamentary procedures and backdoor politicking and strategic rule changes that exist solely to demonstrate political power and I can't waaaaaaaaaait
posted by schroedinger at 7:17 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]




Whenever I see the candidates at a rally or even a late nite talk show I am amazed by their stamina. I couldn't and wouldn't do it. Often their raspy voices are the only thing that gives them away.

Go get 'em Bernie!
posted by futz at 7:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [9 favorites]


WI delegate update (538):

Cruz looks poised to win at least 33 delegates out of Wisconsin: he’s won the18 statewide delegates by winning the state, and is clearly on track to win 15 more in five congressional districts: the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Districts.

Meanwhile, Trump looks likely to avoid a shutout because he’s leading Cruz fairly consistently across the 7th District

posted by Chrysostom at 7:36 PM on April 5, 2016






Who wants a brokered convention? It might be fun to watch but it would be a bad thing. I want Donald J Trump to be the nominee. Then I want America to come to it's senses and for the democratic nominee to obliterate him in the general election.
posted by rdr at 8:10 PM on April 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Half of the vote in Dane county (Madison, currentry 62-37 for B) is still out, so I see his current percentage lead increasing a few points before the night is out.
posted by localhuman at 8:12 PM on April 5, 2016


BERNIE THE BUILDER EXIT POLLS
84% - 18-24
78% - 25-29
70% - 30-39
56% - 40-49

from @LarryWebsite
posted by Trochanter at 8:15 PM on April 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Who wants a brokered convention?

Watching those f▓▓▓ers rat▓▓▓▓ themselves will be the height of schadenfreude.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:48 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Farmers do need to be careful about their ratcheting, yes.
posted by rifflesby at 8:52 PM on April 5, 2016 [31 favorites]


Cruz is much scarier than Trump, he has a plausible path to the presidency with some breaks. Like the Wisconsin voter ID law working as intended, and winning Florida with enough of the Cuban vote. And that's even assuming he can't win Ohio. His floor is much higher. There's not really any such scenario for Trump, who really could bottom out.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:54 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


In the last topic IIRC someone posted that some Republicans feared Cruz because he would seize control of the party permanently the way Stalin did in Russia, while Trump would lose, get bored and leave. The work Cruz has done with delegates after primaries seems to support this fear.
posted by msalt at 9:25 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


trying to hold off new elections that might elect a Green-Pirate coalition.

*bursts in from alternate timeline* Minority whip Stein and MP McAfee are going to band together to uphold Chancellor Johnson?!
posted by Apocryphon at 9:31 PM on April 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's a weird irony via 538: due to arcane Republican primary rules, Trump is cleaning up in majority-minority congressional districts where votes count more.

Also from 538
: Cruz is nearly 50% more rightwing than Goldwater (.943 vs .656). Bernie is .543 in the other direction vs. Hillary's .381
posted by msalt at 10:17 PM on April 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz is definitely scarier than Trump. He has a concrete ideological agenda and is shrewd and ruthless enough to achieve it. Cruz is also the master bureaucratic infighter and ratfucker. None of his Senate colleagues would give him a hand if they could save him from drowning, but he just might end up with the nomination anyway because he is already angling to control the delegate situation in a brokered convention.

I know I like to keep throwing comparisons to Canadian politics, and they may or may not be of any relevance, but I can't help but make a connection here. Cruz reminds me of another politician from Calgary who is the evangelical, libertarian progeny of upper-middle-class cogs in the oil industry. His ascendancy to the leadership of a major party perplexed most pundits, and he shocked everyone even more when he managed to unite the parties of the right in a way that seemed to devour the essence of the staid, moderate PCs. Barely over 1/3 of Canadians ever voted for a Stephen Harper government, but somehow he managed to rule us for a decade.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:23 PM on April 5, 2016 [7 favorites]




Also from 538: Cruz is nearly 50% more rightwing than Goldwater (.943 vs .656). Bernie is .543 in the other direction vs. Hillary's .381

This is the first I've heard of the DW-NOMINATE application. It's interesting to be introduced to it in this context, although I'm forever and always very skeptical of statistical analyses of politics.
posted by teponaztli at 11:01 PM on April 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Melania Trump - If someone attacks him Donald will punch back ten times harder

Well of course he has to just to make it even because his fists are so tiny
posted by XMLicious at 11:06 PM on April 5, 2016 [15 favorites]


Okay I know we've agreed not to criticize peoples' appearances in this thread but what's with that dress is she wearing a hospital gown
posted by Apocryphon at 11:12 PM on April 5, 2016


Perot bought a full half-hour of prime time television to show the pie charts.

This is from way back in the thread but this was apparently out of a studio once used by Joe Bob Briggs; while Perot was doing his thing the MonsterVision set was just off camera.
posted by edeezy at 11:33 PM on April 5, 2016 [10 favorites]


Okay I know we've agreed not to criticize peoples' appearances in this thread but

Don't do it!! The internet gets murky real quick.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 12:08 AM on April 6, 2016


Bernie is .543 in the other direction vs. Hillary's .381

Yes, Sanders is -0.541, Clinton is -0.381, Kerry -0.373, and Obama -0.363. So Clinton is just to the left of Kerry and Obama, which is more or less where I'd place her intuitively. Nice to see it quantitatively though.

Compared to Cruz, the differences between Clinton and Sanders are negligible.
posted by Justinian at 12:15 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Let's comment on the smarmy, patronizing look on Trump's face, instead. Grrrrrrr.
posted by bardophile at 12:16 AM on April 6, 2016


this was apparently out of a studio once used by Joe Bob Briggs; while Perot was doing his thing the MonsterVision set was just off camera.

That is amazing and wonderful, and it restores my faith in politics. Also explains why Perot kept using the word "aardvarking."
posted by teponaztli at 1:03 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Don't vote for Cruz. He's a smart man with a coherent ideological agenda

Yes, but it's narrow, and he is unlikely to moderate any of his positions. Also, he is getting some sympathy as the challenger to Trump, but Cruz' personality is toxic outside of his hard core base of supporters, his record in office demonstrates little else but obstruction, and in the long run he will be too repulsive to most voters to have any sort of broad, cross-over appeal. I mean, he totally gets strategy and is politically smart, but it's not enough when it comes to the presidential election.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:18 AM on April 6, 2016


Since nobody seems to have posted actual primary results:

Sanders 56.5%, 45 delegates
Clinton 43.1%, 31 delegates


Cruz 48.3%, 33 delegates
Trump 35.1%, 3 delegates
Kasich 14.1%, 0 delegates
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:58 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


That is a huge margin for Sanders. We kept hearing "well, he needs to win" - well, he's winning. Then we heard "Well, he needs to win big" - well, guess what?

Super Tuesday 2 - Electric Boogaloo on the 26th is going to make or break Clinton and Trump. Trump needs to run away with them, and Clinton needs to win it decisively.

If Cruz and Sanders put up numbers, or even win one of the big states outright, this thing is going to the wire.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:41 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Super Tuesday 2 - Electric Boogaloo on the 26th is going to make or break Clinton and Trump.

I think New York is more important for Sanders. If he wins New York, the 26th will follow.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 AM on April 6, 2016


That is a huge margin for Sanders. We kept hearing "well, he needs to win" - well, he's winning. Then we heard "Well, he needs to win big" - well, guess what?


Isn't the margin less than what he needed? I thought he needed 50 delegates from Wisconsin?

I think this will go to the convention for the Dems and that's a good thing. I don't think the probabilities on that have changed due to this result.
posted by bardophile at 4:53 AM on April 6, 2016


I think New York is more important for Sanders. If he wins New York, the 26th will follow.

That seems spot on to me.
posted by bardophile at 4:55 AM on April 6, 2016


It's a splashy win and might cause momentum in upcoming states but a net 14 point delegate gain doesn't really move the needle much.
posted by octothorpe at 4:57 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


That is a huge margin for Sanders. We kept hearing "well, he needs to win" - well, he's winning. Then we heard "Well, he needs to win big" - well, guess what?
What we heard specifically was that he needed to get 50 delegates to be on track to beat Clinton. He had a huge night in a state that is extremely demographically favorable to him, and he still didn't do that.

We'll see what happens in New York. If he wins New York, then I think we have a horserace.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton is not exactly striking a conciliatory tone. This is pretty much the opposite of what she needs to do to not lose a significant chuck of Sanders supporters.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:02 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's a fucking political campaign, not a tea party.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:12 AM on April 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


These days, they told me, her pique is turning outward: She expected the Vermont senator to fight on, but has been aggravated by Sanders’ aggressiveness and how willing his team is to go after her by name

Not a tea party.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:24 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's a fucking political campaign, not a tea party.

Sure, and there are lots of strategies one can take in politics. If Clinton wants to win decisively in the remaining states, she needs to eat into some of those undecideds that are going for Sanders. Going negative on him is not going to convince them. They don't care that Sanders is not a party-line Democrat. They like it.
posted by dis_integration at 5:29 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


That article is weird. I also find the whole "omg he is not a perfect party guy, it's terrible!!!" thing to be a weird tack. The Democratic Party as it is currently constituted is all about milquetoast DNC crap and bad party building. Like whine all you want about how "all those Republicans are taking state races" but that's the Democratic Party's fault. People who like Bernie don't really like the party as it is now, so how would we possibly care that he isn't of them? It's a feature! Anyways, sent in my NY absentee ballot today!
posted by dame at 5:31 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]



Clinton is not exactly striking a conciliatory tone. This is pretty much the opposite of what she needs to do to not lose a significant chuck of Sanders supporters.

Why should she strike a conciliatory tone? Did Sanders strike a conciliatory tone when Clinton won other states?
posted by peacheater at 5:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


But Clinton's untrustworthy and dishonest ratings in the WI exit polls were horrible. She needs to spend less time attacking Sanders and more time working on any hope she has of turning those numbers around.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Right she's attacking him as 'not a Democrat' when she's badly losing the under 35 vote, who are notoriously unreliable in showing up to begin with and only marginally at best attached to "the Democratic Party" brand. She needs to not burn bridges that will decrease Democratic turnout. Is suggesting that the Democratic party is not the place for a Democratic Socialist or his supporters the way to do that?

Did Sanders strike a conciliatory tone when Clinton won other states?

Yes. Also he's still a massive longshot even after "winning" Wisconsin, where "winning" is somehow defined as not meeting his delegate targets. This has long been thought to be the highwater mark of his chances, he needs to run up double digit wins in the remaining large states like CA and NY, where Clinton has a durable lead. He doesn't need to mend bridges with her supporters, and wouldn't to the same degree even if he pulled it out, because Clinton is much stronger in traditionally reliable constituencies.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:41 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


In depressing Wisconsin election news, the horrible Rebecca Bradley won a 10-year term to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As far as I can tell, the numbers for her and her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, tracked pretty closely to the turnout numbers in the two primaries, so I suspect the attention-getting race on the Republican side just screwed over the people of Wisconsin for 10 years.
posted by kyrademon at 5:43 AM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


Going negative on him is not going to convince them. They don't care that Sanders is not a party-line Democrat.

If "not a Democrat" is "a feature," then how does "I don't know if he's a Democrat" count as "negative" or "an attack"?

The context was about campaigning for down ticket Democrats, and in that context is does matter that his connection to the party isn't so strong, because the part gets Congress people elected and forges compromises among them to get the president's agenda passed.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:45 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton Camp says 'Vigorous campaign is a good thing, but really now'"

Clinton Camp says 'Primary only half over, but come on we're ahead'"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:48 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


If "not a Deomcrat" is "a feature," then how does "I don't know if he's a Democrat" count as "negative" or "an attack"?

I think she thinks it's a negative. But the real negative part was this:
I know that Senator Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama, you know, calling President Obama weak and disappointing, and actually making a move in 2012 to recruit somebody to run a primary against him. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy, just not to put too fine a point on it.
I don't think Sanders attacks any of them, exactly, so much as criticize their neo-liberal economic agenda, and neo-conservative foreign policy. Saying they had bad policies is not a smear, especially if you believe they had bad policies. But insinuating that Sanders is a fan of Bush is a very nasty suggestion, almost as nasty as insinuating that Sanders is going to take away senior citizen's Medicare. And equally absurd!

But I don't really know that any of this counts as an attack. I don't think either side has genuinely gone on the attack, but I've found the Clinton campaign making the suggestion more and more often that the Sanders campaign is playing dirty, without evidence. But that's not exactly an attack either, although it is disingenuous.

So it's not an attack, but I don't think it's a winning strategy if she wants to change the dynamic. Maybe she doesn't, because she's likely to win with this dynamic.
posted by dis_integration at 5:53 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also, I don't get why she keeps mentioning Sanders calls for a left-wing primary opponent. She ran against Obama in '08, and she ran a much nastier campaign through her surrogates like Bill in that era than either side is running this year. I don't know how she gets a free pass on her dogwhistle racist politics in 2008.
posted by dis_integration at 5:54 AM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't think she is at all implying that he's a fan of Bush. Just that he is going after the wrong targets, doing damage to his own side instead of the people who really stand in the way of progressive change.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:56 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's fascinating how people read the same text and come away with such different impressions. I thought the comments on Sanders were the least interesting part of the interview.
posted by bardophile at 6:00 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Campaigning against a sitting president is pretty different from contesting an open nomination. An open nomination is open. A sitting president is the presumed nominee, and a serious challenge, whether successful or not, weakens the party's chance of holding on to the office.
If Clinton wants to win decisively in the remaining states, she needs to eat into some of those undecideds that are going for Sanders.
She doesn't have to win decisively in any of the remaining states. She has to not lose all of them by overwhelming margins. She could lose all of them by small margins and still get the nomination, because she already has a lead among the pledged delegates. She does not have to be sweet and conciliatory, and she does not need to be twice as good to get half as far.
He doesn't need to mend bridges with her supporters
In the unlikely event that he got the nomination, he really, really would.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:01 AM on April 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


kyrademon: "In depressing Wisconsin election news, the horrible Rebecca Bradley won a 10-year term to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As far as I can tell, the numbers for her and her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, tracked pretty closely to the turnout numbers in the two primaries, so I suspect the attention-getting race on the Republican side just screwed over the people of Wisconsin for 10 years."

Yeah, this was shitty. Why was a "non-partisan" Supreme Court race on the ballot at the primary election, rather than in November at the general?
posted by Chrysostom at 6:05 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]




She doesn't have to win decisively in any of the remaining states. She has to not lose all of them by overwhelming margins. She could lose all of them by small margins and still get the nomination, because she already has a lead among the pledged delegates. She does not have to be sweet and conciliatory, and she does not need to be twice as good to get half as far.

The delegate math on the Democratic side is interesting, in that it looks like, as you say, Clinton could lose most of the remaining states but win the delegate count. Any win is better than a loss, but it would not be the resounding victory that a candidate would desire.

(The delegate math on the GOP side is interesting also, for whether or not Trump is able to hit the required number without ever creating a strong majority nationally.)

I am guessing both parties will rework their nominating processes after this season is over.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:24 AM on April 6, 2016


This is going to be so weird when Clinton squeaks into the nomination backwards and Cruz gets it by way of party leaders. People (~50% of voters) are going to be wicked disenchanted.
posted by avalonian at 6:27 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is going to be so weird when Clinton squeaks into the nomination backwards and Cruz gets it by way of party leaders. People (>50% of voters) are going to be wicked disenchanted.

Weird maybe = horrifying. Very low voter turnout, I'd guess.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]




Barely over 1/3 of Canadians ever voted for a Stephen Harper government, but somehow he managed to rule us for a decade.


I don't think the U.S. has had more than 1/3 of its citizens vote for a President sicne the 19th century. Maybe in the 60s?
posted by avalonian at 6:35 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


New PA poll: Trump leads among likely Republican primary voters with 39 percent, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with 30 percent and Kasich with 24 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont 50 - 44 percent among Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters.

Pennsylvania votes April 26.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 AM on April 6, 2016


The Democratic side is closer than I expected. Guess I'm actually gonna have to show up to vote.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 AM on April 6, 2016


The thought of a contested Democratic convention makes me want to shrivel up and die.
posted by angrycat at 6:46 AM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't think the U.S. has had more than 1/3 of its citizens vote for a President sicne the 19th century. Maybe in the 60s?

I took that table from Wikipedia and threw it into a spreadsheet: You seem to be right (unless I messed up).
posted by erdferkel at 6:48 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Reminder that PA delegates are...well, its complicated, but they are mostly unbound.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:48 AM on April 6, 2016


I would much rather see a contested Democratic convention than Hillary Clinton winning the nomination by small mathematics/superdelegates, a situation which is going to drive a number of Sanders supporters elsewhere.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:49 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let’s Dispel Once and for All With This Fiction that Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Break Up Banks

This is another example of how people seem to be able to read the same exact words and take away entirely different conclusions, because the majority of the critics cited there are noting that Sander's failed to clearly explain how he would break up big banks. They are not criticizing his knowledge, they are criticizing his expression (or lack of expression) of that knowledge. Take this part:
Caitlin Cruz at TPM argues that Sanders “struggles to explain how he would break up the banks” and that’s relatively kind. Chris Cillizza says it was “pretty close to a disaster” and David Graham says the answers on his core financial focus is “tentative, unprepared, or unaware.” Tina Nguyen at Vanity Fair writes that Sanders “admits he isn’t sure how to break up the big banks.”

This is not correct. Sanders has a clear path on how he wants to break up the banks which he described.
That's a pivot to addressing Nguyen's piece (which does accuse Sanders of not knowing how) that conflates her argument with every other argument cited, which are all about his explanations and not his inner knowledge, and then promptly ignores everything other than Nguyen's claim.

So when, after a few paragraph's attacking the idea that Sanders 'isn't sure' -- a claim few of his critics have made -- he notes that, regarding the specific ways in which we might break up big banks, ''This is both a good and correct answer. This may not be intuitive to people who haven’t thought it through, but it’s not necessary, or even desirable, for regulators to specifically describe how to break up the banks.'

Exactly: Sanders is giving an answer that's not clear to people who aren't already closely involved with this stuff. That's basically the critique that Caitlin Cruz, Chris Cillizza, and David Graham are making, and apparently the author here agrees. Likewise in the closing paragraphs, where he makes an argument off of what he 'assumes' Sanders means -- well, is that what he meant? That we have to assume and take implication is the exact criticism being made. Sanders was pressed for details and he didn't clearly communicate them.

That reads very differently to people who have been following his campaign closely, and can infer (or think they can infer) his meaning, and people who have not, who were looking for a more clearly articulated answer.

I agree that 'Sanders doesn't know how to break up banks' is a gross way to characterize his interview with NYMag. But I don't agree that that was actually the criticism being made by most people.
posted by cjelli at 6:49 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


A Clinton Superdelegate Just Admitted That Hillary Lied About Bernie and Guns

The Superdelegate in question is Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has to be careful about alienating a state that really loves Sanders, and anyway, he doesn't say that Hillary lied at all. That's a deeply subjective interpretation of his rather politic remarks.
posted by dis_integration at 6:51 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean, something interesting that they were talking about this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe is that the Daily News interview didn't do anything, really, to mitigate the vote in Wisconsin. People (voters) don't care about the specific policy wonk details so much. They trust that if Sanders wins, he will surround himself with people who can figure it out. This is becoming a race of personality and honesty and trust on both sides of the aisle.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:53 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


So to me, to point to Bush and say "he ruined the economy, why are you picking on me?" is to once again display a misunderstanding of the leftists that support Sanders. It isn't as though everything were hunky-dory before Bush. American capital has been stealing the productiveness gains from American workers for 40 years and the kinds of policies Clinton and the DNC support are why. Yeah, Bush governed like a Republican; I am not shocked. But I do take more exception to people who claim labor support while promulgating neoliberal policies.
posted by dame at 6:56 AM on April 6, 2016 [25 favorites]


> Cruz reminds me of another politician from Calgary who is the evangelical, libertarian progeny of upper-middle-class cogs in the oil industry. His ascendancy to the leadership of a major party perplexed most pundits, and he shocked everyone even more when he managed to unite the parties of the right in a way that seemed to devour the essence of the staid, moderate PCs.

And he did it with even less personal charisma than Cruz has. Stephen Harper is some kind of evil wizard.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:58 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I care about whether he can explain the specifics of his proposals..
posted by angrycat at 6:59 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


I would much rather see a contested Democratic convention than Hillary Clinton winning the nomination by small mathematics/superdelegates

The irony here is that Sanders' only path is via small math/superdelegates. Unlike many of his supporters, his campaign is at least aware of this fact and to their credit they have recently begun pushing the "superdelegates should give it to Bernie even if he has fewer votes/pledged delegates" position. It is so odd to see so many of his supporters cheering on this view instead of recognizing the absurdity of such an about face.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:00 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]




I don't think the U.S. has had more than 1/3 of its citizens vote for a President sicne the 19th century. Maybe in the 60s?

I took that table from Wikipedia and threw it into a spreadsheet: You seem to be right (unless I messed up).


That turnout table is based on voting-age population, so cut the numbers in half again for the 19th Century.
posted by Etrigan at 7:02 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Blimey. I was thinking this morning "Oh, I might have a tiny bet of say one pound on Paul Ryan to be the Republican candidate as a very long shot bet. Odds of 66/1 when I looked very recently."

Then I checked just now.
posted by Wordshore at 7:03 AM on April 6, 2016


Oh that's interesting. I do think having it in the Navy Yard — which is huge and inaccessible to the public — is kinda a middle finger to populated Brooklyn.
posted by dame at 7:03 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


in 2000 we had the clearly qualified (if uninspiring) Gore who had detailed policy knowledge and experience against Bush who's appeal was as an outsider and who got by on his folksy charm.

Substitute Clinton for Gore and Sanders for Bush and therein lies my trouble with the 2016 Democratic nominating contest.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:06 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Substitute Clinton for Gore and Sanders for Bush and therein lies my trouble with the 2016 Democratic nominating contest.

That's a huge mischaracterization. Sanders won something like 85% of the under 30 vote last night in Wisconsin. Young voters aren't solely voting for Sanders because he's charming. They want change.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:07 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


I agree that 'Sanders doesn't know how to break up banks' is a gross way to characterize his interview with NYMag. But I don't agree that that was actually the criticism being made by most people.

That was exactly the criticism being made all day again and again.
posted by Trochanter at 7:09 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


They are not criticizing his knowledge, they are criticizing his expression (or lack of expression) of that knowledge.

Maybe the TPM article but not the others. I'm seeing lines like: The Daily News interview amounts to a moment of reckoning for Sanders. Okay, let’s say you get elected — now what? And have you thought through what it might mean to the American worker and the American economy if all of the things you insist have to happen actually did happen? Judging by Sanders’s responses, he hasn’t.

This isn't saying he doesn't explain himself well, it's saying he hasn't thought about the implications of his proposals.

The entire thesis of the Atlantic article is that Sanders is broadly ignorant on policy, not that he doesn't communicate his policy well.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:10 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bush 2000 voters presumably wanted change, too?
posted by Chrysostom at 7:11 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Carl Beijer:

How did media get it so wrong on Sanders and banking?

But for the most part, the media is crawling with generalists and dilettantes who have no significant background in the field. And they are loudly declaring - at odds with the assessment of actual scholars and credible professionals - that a major national figure advocating an agenda backed by millions of Americans doesn't know what he's talking about.
posted by Trochanter at 7:12 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bush 2000 voters presumably wanted change, too?

George W. Bush was not proposing anything that would be considered a paradigm shift in politics, so I find that unlikely.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:13 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]






in 2000 we had the clearly qualified (if uninspiring) Gore who had detailed policy knowledge and experience against Bush who's appeal was as an outsider and who got by on his folksy charm.


An oligarchy ordained outsider swimming in private interest money, an established [Major Party] brand as a last name, and the establishment of his particular party ushering him along.

We can all oversimplify and draw comparisons to make decisions, not sure how we'd get by without them, but there are more parallels Clinton to Dubya than Dubya to Bush in this context.
posted by avalonian at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


in 2000 we had the clearly qualified (if uninspiring) Gore who had detailed policy knowledge and experience against Bush who's appeal was as an outsider and who got by on his folksy charm.

Bush never ran as an outsider. He did run as a bit folksy, but that isn't the same thing. You don't get to be an outsider when a family member was recently President.

In a never-before-reported meeting in Bush’s Dallas office, Cruz began to outline his 2012 campaign playbook for the former president, according to people familiar with the conversation.

Cruz explained how he would consolidate conservatives yearning for a political outsider, how he would outflank the front-runner on the right, how he would proudly carry the mantle of the ascendant tea party to victory over entrenched elites.

It was impressive foreshadowing. But Bush cut Cruz off before he could finish.

“I guess you don’t want my support,” Bush interrupted. “Ted, what the hell do you think I am?”

posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


i don't think so, roomthreeseventeen. Bush supporters in 2000 were sick of Clinton and wanted change from business as usual. And Bush promised that change with no real viable policies to support his promises. Bernie is making lots of pie-in-the-sky promises ("free college! income equality! isngle payer!") that are all basically non-starters. just are not going to happen, certainly not in the years 2017-2021. Clinton is offering far more nuanced answers to things - far more based in reality. It's not all as drastic as the situation calls for, but they are far more cognizant of the reality on the ground. That's the approach that is more likely to move the ball in the right direction.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


My company recently did an internal search for a vacant position. A woman I work closely with was up for the position; in every situation in which I've interacted with her, she has been beyond professional -- to the point that I always come away from our meetings wondering how she's always so prepared, and has such good ideas. She's been with the company for about 10 years. Anyway, she lost the job to a guy who's been here for a year, and who in every interaction I've ever had with him has been a bit vacant -- he talks about things that have gone wrong and that we need to do a better job "connecting the workforce" and "listening to our partners" and other such pablum.

I can't imagine being a woman in a professional workplace who experiences such daily sexism and then have to watch this primary play out.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [30 favorites]


Axelrod's advice to Clinton: Stop insinuating young Sanders supporters are 'dupes'

She feels sorry for them, but she'll forgive them when they come along and vote her way in the general. People who don't think Hilary would have fences to mend....welp
posted by avalonian at 7:17 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


also - i'm not disputing that W carries the mantle of political dynasty - that's what made his 2000 run so infuriating. Can't find it now but I'm certain that On the Media did a piece in the last 6 months about people running as outsiders, and both Reagan and W featured prominently.

It was said a few comments upthread that Bernie supporters know that he will surround himself with intelligent people who will advise him on how to break up banks. Same type of thing that was said about W.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:22 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Dubya Plays The Outsider

"My zip code is 78701. That's Austin, Texas. It's not Washington, DC. I'm not part of the Washington scene," Bush told CBS News' Face The Nation in Bedford, N.H. on Sunday."
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:24 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Bush never ran as an outsider. He did run as a bit folksy, but that isn't the same thing. You don't get to be an outsider when a family member was recently President.

He talked a lot about the toxic atmosphere of partisanship in Washington and how he would be able to work across party lines because he was an outsider to Washington politics. A lot of people didn't buy it, but a lot of people did.
posted by Etrigan at 7:24 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


I stand corrected. Guess I didn't remember it because it's so absurd a claim I just ignored it at the time.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:26 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Young voters aren't solely voting for Sanders because he's charming. They want change.

After Obama, who I love, I think he's been great, but he promised change and kind of mishandled the wave of Democrats elected in with him, after Obama's presidency I, a young voter, want someone who can promise change and deliver on it. I want someone who understands that downballot races are important, someone who can help foster up and coming young Democrats for future races. Granted I'm not getting a great sense of that from either candidate but Sanders has been deeply disappointing on this front. You can't boldly promise change and not back it up with a strong show of how you're going to implement this change.

I live and vote in DC, my vote doesn't matter, but everyone else's matters for me. It is extremely, extremely important for the health of my city that as many Democrats as possible end up in Congress. I will wholeheartedly support either candidate - no one has to mend fences with me - but after Obama, you can't just promise change.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:28 AM on April 6, 2016 [23 favorites]


I don't want someone to promise me they'll win. I want them to promise me they'll try for things I believe in. And to display they get it. Right now I will take that thin, thin milk.
posted by dame at 7:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


avalonian: "This is going to be so weird when Clinton squeaks into the nomination backwards and Cruz gets it by way of party leaders. People (~50% of voters) are going to be wicked disenchanted."

It's hard to remember now but Obama just barely won the delegate count in '08. Clinton had 1639.5 and Obama had 1766.5 which was short of the 2118 that was needed for the nomination but the super-delegates put him over the top. Not only that but Clinton actually won the popular vote in the primaries. There were some grumbly PUMAs but Obama won the general pretty handily.
posted by octothorpe at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, the whole Dubya - governor of Texas and son of a former Vice President and head of the CIA - posing as an "outsider" thing was so goddamn transparently cynical that it was hard to believe that anyone could be dumb enough to fall for it. But apparently all you had to do was put on a cowboy hat and be photographed "working" on your "ranch."
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


Not only that but Clinton actually won the popular vote in the primaries.

That may be true though it doesn't include the totals from caucus states, which don't report popular vote numbers.
posted by localhuman at 7:49 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton Needs Sanders
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:50 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama also lost 5 of the last 7 primaries in 2008, including New York. He won because superdelegates put him over the top, not "momentum". I don't think a string of primary losses is sufficient to disqualify a front-runner.
posted by maudlin at 7:52 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


New York was not Barack Obama's home state. If Hillary Clinton loses New York by any margin, it's a huge game changer.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on April 6, 2016


Not only that but Clinton actually won the popular vote in the primaries.

That may be true though it doesn't include the totals from caucus states, which don't report popular vote numbers.


It also includes the fucked-up Michigan and Florida situations -- in the former, Obama received literally zero votes because he took his name off the ballot after Michigan was penalized by the DNC. "Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries" is at best a little misleading.
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


New York was not Barack Obama's home state. If Hillary Clinton loses New York by any margin, it's a huge game changer.

New York is a closed primary and she will do well. Even if she loses the state by, I don't know, let's say 5%, that still means that Bernie would have to win the remaining states by something like a 75-25 margin. Momentum matters less than math right now.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:57 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Momentum matters less than math right now.

I totally disagree with that. Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 states, and may increase that to 8 of the last 9 with Wyoming. If he continues winning, Clinton isn't going to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 AM on April 6, 2016


Hillary and Bernie are closer on the delegate targets than I realized - 1,298 vs 1,089.

Ted Cruz's changes look much more grim, and Rubio has (had?) more delegates than Kasich does.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:59 AM on April 6, 2016


[Obama] won because superdelegates put him over the top

He had a majority of non-super delegates. Superdelegates put him over the top of a hill that the existence of superdelegates had raised up higher.
posted by Etrigan at 7:59 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


Yeah, the whole Dubya - governor of Texas and son of a former Vice President and head of the CIA - posing as an "outsider" thing was so goddamn transparently cynical that it was hard to believe that anyone could be dumb enough to fall for it. But apparently all you had to do was put on a cowboy hat and be photographed "working" on your "ranch."

One local I met on an Amtrak wasn't taken in. But, unfortunately, many others were, yes.
posted by Wordshore at 8:00 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


The thought of a contested Democratic convention makes me want to shrivel up and die.

Not gonna happen. By definition one or other other of them are going to have a majority of pledged delegates. Unless that winner has been incapacitated, or been indicted, or has done or said something that renders them absolutely and undeniably unelectable -- like at a Martin Sheen holding up a baby to defend himself level -- then whoever that is will be the nominee.

The only circumstance where the superdelegates would invert that decision would be one where basically everyone acknowledged that doing so was the only responsible thing to do.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:00 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


If he continues winning, Clinton isn't going to be the nominee.

This is a great tag line to get people to keep sending donations to the Sanders campaign, but it's not true. The only way he wins the nomination is if he wins each remaining state by staggering margins.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:01 AM on April 6, 2016 [16 favorites]


[A few comments removed. Chrysostom, I totally appreciate the spirit of your "has your mind changed?" question but it feels more like a meta-question than anything, so maybe best over in the grey if we are gonna have a conversation about that as a community. The "here's how I'm voting and why (and who on mefi is responsible)" stuff has been among the most contentious and thread-weirding content of these big long election threads and I'd rather folks not lapse back into that when it's something we've just recently been talking about wanting to see a lot less of.]
posted by cortex at 8:02 AM on April 6, 2016


This is a great tag line to get people to keep sending donations to the Sanders campaign, but it's not true.

:shrugh: Okay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 AM on April 6, 2016


As Sanders took a victory lap following a 14-point triumph in Wisconsin, Clinton took fresh aim at the Vermont senator as part of a three-part strategy before the New York primary on April 19: Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.

That sounds like a strategy for taking on the Republicans, not someone on your own side. I would suggest "Surpass his rhetoric, outperform him, and unify the party now." But I'm no campaign manager, just some guy.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2016 [16 favorites]


He had a majority of non-super delegates. Superdelegates put him over the top of a hill that the existence of superdelegates had raised up higher.

Exactly. Clinton also leads in pledged delegates in 2016, and if Sanders doesn't really start racking up big wins, she will still lead in pledged delegates when the primaries are over.

Look, Sanders may win enough pledged delegates to become the new leader and nominee (and Democrats should all work to support him then), but I'm just giving the side-eye to "Clinton is losing a bunch of contests and Sanders has momentum". "Momentum" alone wasn't enough for Clinton in 2008 and it won't be enough for Sanders in 2016. Delegate math is real.
posted by maudlin at 8:04 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


The only way he wins the nomination is if he wins each remaining state by staggering margins.

My thinking is that he's got to win big in one of the big states and he can't afford to lose big anywhere.

I almost think NY will decide the whole thing.
posted by Trochanter at 8:05 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Actually, that belittles Pennsylvania. Lotta delegates there too. Drinky, it's all on you.
posted by Trochanter at 8:11 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]




How To Not Be An Asshole This Election Season

Yup. I've avoided posting pretty much any of my thoughts on the election anywhere, with the exception of anti-Trump stuff. No good can come of it.

I *do* believe that we have a moral obligation to participate in the democratic process by voting, though, even if the vote is for Bill The Cat. But I won't harangue people.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:17 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Worth noting that NY is a closed primary - Sanders has done very well with independents, but that
posted by Chrysostom at 8:18 AM on April 6, 2016


My thinking is that he's got to win big in one of the big states and he can't afford to lose big anywhere.

Yep, pretty much. Like I said way upthread, he has a number of favorable states in May, but if Hillary wins in NY, PA, and MD (states she's currently over 50% in in the polls) his path becomes incredibly narrow.

NY won't decide it. It will be decided on June 7 regardless of what happens this month and next. But the next three weeks will decide whether he can widen his slim chances or not. His best shot might be Pennsylvania.
posted by dw at 8:19 AM on April 6, 2016


I don't think the U.S. has had more than 1/3 of its citizens vote for a President sicne the 19th century. Maybe in the 60s?

Sorry, this was really badly worded on my part. His party's best share of the popular vote was under 38%. For that he won a crushing majority government that he used to radically alter the country.

The natural response to this, of course, is that Harper faced a divided opposition. This is true but he also achieved his power by first participating in a party revolt that split the right, then reunifying the parties after winning the leadership of the hard-right party while not even being a member of parliament. In less than two years he went from being the head of a think tank to the autocrat of a party that had been in schism for a decade and that people were thinking would never reconstitute. I think Cruz has that same mastery of behind-the-scenes stuff.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2016


I almost think NY will decide the whole thing.

I was so sure I wouldn't even get to vote in the primary because I figured it'd be tied up for Clinton by now, so this is kinda cool to hear.

Man, though, I just... Sanders' rise is such a positive sign for American liberalism, yet I'm worried this primary is turning so nasty that people will forget who the actual enemy is, and what those people want to do to this country.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:22 AM on April 6, 2016 [28 favorites]


Worth noting that NY is a closed primary - Sanders has done very well with independents

This is one big reason I think Clinton will win NY. The deadline to switch party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary was October 15th, 2015. Back then people who were not registered for a party didn't think Sanders had a snowballs chance in hell. Now that he's got momentum, they can't vote for him.
posted by dis_integration at 8:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


"This is going to be so weird when Clinton squeaks into the nomination backwards and Cruz gets it by way of party leaders. People (~50% of voters) are going to be wicked disenchanted."

Well, Clinton is winning the aggregate popular vote 58% to 42%. There's nothing "backwards" about her winning the nomination, and it's not remotely squeaky.
posted by mpbx at 8:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [21 favorites]


I think it's more of a positive sign for public funding of campaigns than American liberalism.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I love Bernie but I don't think he is going to win New York, less because New Yorkers love Clinton but because it is a closed primary and if you wanted to switch your registration (as opposed to being a new voter), you had to do so last October, so I think a lot of people are locked out. I do hope he will pick up a decent number of delegates, as I believe it it not winner take all.
posted by dame at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2016


I *do* believe that we have a moral obligation to participate in the democratic process by voting, though, even if the vote is for Bill The Cat.

What if people vote for Donald Trump's brain in Bill the Cat's body?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


The deadline to switch party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary was October 15th, 2015.

In New York? No, it wasn't. It was in late March.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:34 AM on April 6, 2016


Yes, yes it was. If you were not registered, you could register as a new voter till late March. If you were registered as a Green (for instance), you had to switch in October. (I did so because I am self-punishing and would have voted for Bernie even if he was doing as badly as people expected.)
posted by dame at 8:38 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "My thinking is that he's got to win big in one of the big states and he can't afford to lose big anywhere."

I think this underestimates how far behind he is right now. If my math is right, there are 1661 pledged delegates left up for grabs after Wisconsin, and Sanders is just a little bit over 200 delegates behind. Let's back-of-the-envelope eyeball that he needs about 937 of those remaining delegates to get a majority.

That's 56% of the remaining delegates -- about the numbers he got in Wisconsin. Making no judgements on how likely or unlikely any scenarios are, winning big in one big state isn't going to do it even if he never loses big from now on. He needs to win by that much everywhere from this point forward, or he needs to win massive blowouts in several big states to make up the difference anywhere he doesn't.
posted by kyrademon at 8:39 AM on April 6, 2016


In New York? No, it wasn't. It was in late March.

Maybe that's only for newly registered voters?
posted by dis_integration at 8:40 AM on April 6, 2016


The way the law defines it is: 25 days before the general election. So that's 25 days before Nov 3, 2015. which was actually October 9th, 2015, not the 15th.
posted by dis_integration at 8:44 AM on April 6, 2016


Clinton is not exactly striking a conciliatory tone. This is pretty much the opposite of what she needs to do to not lose a significant chuck of Sanders supporters.

All I can say is that Sanders has been losing Clinton supporters with his attacks on her. I am not sure he's going to win without them--so if we're tone-policing, perhaps he should as well.
posted by schroedinger at 8:45 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Like, what's "squeaky" about the Democratic campaign is that a Bernie Sanders delegate equates to about 6700 voters, whereas a Hillary Clinton delegate equates to about 7300 voters.

So in order to earn a single delegate, Clinton needs to get 9% more votes than Sanders does to earn one. A lot of this is due to the distorting nature of caucuses vs. primaries.

Sanders got 17 delegates on 23,000 votes in the Hawaii caucus. Clinton got 17 delegates on 140,000 votes in the Oklahoma primary.

Democracy!
posted by mpbx at 8:45 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


Here's the basic rule to understanding viewpoints on party primary procedures, and election process in general: when your candidate is winning, you think it's great. When your candidate's opponent is doing well, clearly they're taking advantage of undemocratic processes. I expect to hear exactly this line from each side both now in the primary and later in the general.
posted by dis_integration at 8:51 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


Can we talk about the possibility that Trump won't be the nominee? I'm worried that it might be Cruz instead, in which case there's an arguably even crazier Republican nominee, without quite as high of an unpopularity rating or as much negative press

Let me explain, as a POC and Republican member of the #nevertrump brigade, why even Democrats should want to kill Trump's nomination, even if he is unelectable in the general - and why many Republicans, including me, are working their tails off to do so.

The problem is not that Trump will get elected. I mean, that's a possible problem, but it's not The Problem. The Problem is that every week Trump is the nominee or possible nominee, he moves the Overton window of acceptable discourse in this country. He moves it from quiet, isolated bigotry to a loud community of bigotry tied to a deep, existing anger. We are already seeing upticks in race-related hate crimes. I think a Trump nomination is a quick ticket to more. You can say "yeah but only until November", but I think it entirely, entirely likely that another six months of this will poison America for another twenty years. We cannot afford to normalize this. We cannot afford for bigots to band together.

We need to nominate someone other than Trump and get him out of the spotlight asap. We are making the hard choice to essentially tank our chances of winning the general in order to avoid this. Any Democrat who tries to vote in an open primary for Trump because he's unelectable is saying that they'd rather encourage bigotry now if it gives them a better chance of getting their guy into office. And that is just really not okay, no matter what party you are. Or at least, it needs to not be.
posted by corb at 8:51 AM on April 6, 2016 [28 favorites]


We need to nominate someone other than Trump and get him out of the spotlight asap.

For what purpose? He can't win a general election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:54 AM on April 6, 2016


a Bernie Sanders delegate equates to about 6700 voters, whereas a Hillary Clinton delegate equates to about 7300 voters. [...] Sanders got 17 delegates on 23,000 votes in the Hawaii caucus. Clinton got 17 delegates on 140,000 votes in the Oklahoma primary.

And Sanders got 21 delegates on 174,000 votes in the Oklahoma primary, which is one delegate for 8300 voters. There are distortions all over the nominating process.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:54 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think it entirely, entirely likely that another six months of this will poison America for another twenty years. We cannot afford to normalize this. We cannot afford for bigots to band together.

Seems to me that the poisoning and the banding-together of bigots have been happening for decades, it's just that Trump is the only one saying "hey, let's stop being coy about this."
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:54 AM on April 6, 2016 [29 favorites]




I did so because I am self-punishing and would have voted for Bernie even if he was doing as badly as people expected.

Quixoticism for the win. Yes.
posted by Trochanter at 9:01 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


While it's true that Trump is the millstone that many Democrats wish to tie around the Republicans' neck, his success is not the result of strategic Democratic voters. Republicans are the ones fashioning that millstone themselves.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:07 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


And Sanders got 21 delegates on 174,000 votes in the Oklahoma primary, which is one delegate for 8300 voters. There are distortions all over the nominating process.


True, but overall Hilary's delgates have cost around 7300 voters while bernies have cost around 67-6800. If this primary were decided by popular vote, Bernie would be in a bigger hole than he is now.

Source: probably bad math:

Clinton Sanders Total
Votes 9350448 6946757 16297205
% of votes 0.573745498 0.426254502
Delegates 1279 1027 2306
0.554640069 0.445359931

Votes per delgate 7310.749023 6764.125609
posted by avalonian at 9:07 AM on April 6, 2016


when your candidate is winning, you think it's great. When your candidate's opponent is doing well, clearly they're taking advantage of undemocratic processes. I expect to hear exactly this line from each side both now in the primary and later in the general.

Hmm, I think there's been a lot more pointing to Clinton and the Democratic Party as being undemocratic than the other way around. And I don't think it's necessarily only from Sanders' supporters. I think because Hillary Clinton has nearly always been or seen as the frontrunner, there's gonna be this accusation hurled from independents and Republicans as well.
posted by FJT at 9:12 AM on April 6, 2016


True, but overall Hilary's delgates have cost around 7300 voters while bernies have cost around 67-6800. If this primary were decided by popular vote, Bernie would be in a bigger hole than he is now.

The whole structure of American democracy is designed to balance power out between rural, low-population states and urban states with dense populations. Similar calculations often go on within states. Whether or not that's anti-Democratic is a philosophical question. Should the town dominate the country? I dunno. Often I feel like it should, like in St. Louis, where the County has much more power than the independent city, to that city's detriment (especially its loss of a tax base). But my heart lies in the city. In any case, that's how American democracy works.
posted by dis_integration at 9:14 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


The whole structure of American democracy is designed to balance power out between rural, low-population states and urban states with dense populations.

Honest question, but wasn't this because the "rural low-population states" were where slavery was most predominant, and thus, economically, those slave owners carried the economic power to ensure their enfranchisement?
posted by avalonian at 9:18 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Interesting post on the archive.org blog: Three takeaways after logging 1,032 political ads in the primaries
posted by valetta at 9:19 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Honest question, but wasn't this because the "rural low-population states" were where slavery was most predominant, and thus, economically, those slave owners carried the economic power to ensure their enfranchisement?

Yeah, basically. But it remains the case that farm-heavy areas like Iowa would get completely dominated at the national level and find it difficult to have their interests heard if they didn't have disproportionate power through their Senators. Whether or not that's a bad thing is hard to say.
posted by dis_integration at 9:23 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


The deadline to switch party affiliation to vote in the [New York state] Democratic primary was October 15th, 2015.

This is causing some consternation among would-be Sanders voters, for sure. Just this morning there was a guy in my local coffeehouse who had just figured out he wouldn't be able to vote in the primary because he was registered as an independent until last month. Boy was he upset. He was there for about an hour and didn't talk about anything else. I do kinda feel for him and think that's an awfully early deadline, but, yeah, you gotta follow the rules. And I think dis_integration is right that this will prevent a lot of enthusiastic Sanders supporters who have long been registered as independent for whatever reason from casting a vote in New York that they would very much like to cast.
posted by Mothlight at 9:24 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Whether or not that's anti-Democratic is a philosophical question.

It's really not a question at all, because people vote and land doesn't. The bicameral legislature and various other mechanisms in federal and state governments to balance power between regions rather than providing each eligible voter equal voice in determining outcomes are explicitly less democratic. One can believe the ends justify the means, but the means put democracy in the back seat in favor of pragmatic compromises between stakeholders.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 AM on April 6, 2016


The deadline to switch party affiliation to vote in the [New York state] Democratic primary was October 15th, 2015.

This is causing some consternation among would-be Sanders voters, for sure.


I'm trying to decide whether I have so little sympathy for this consternation because I'm a bad person or because I've worked with teenagers and twenty-somethings in an academic setting for my entire career.
posted by bardophile at 9:28 AM on April 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


On Oklahoma:
1. The Democratic primary was open; the Republican primary was closed. Therefore, the independents pulled Democratic primary ballots.
2. The formula for delegates is based not just on population but on percentage of votes for Democrats in recent elections. This is why Oregon, despite being only a little larger than Oklahoma, has 61 pledged delegates to OK's 38.
3. Oklahoma has voted for one Democrat for president since WWII: LBJ. Last election every county had a majority for Romney. Tulsa had the highest MOV for Romney for any of the 50 largest cities in the US save Arlington, Texas.
posted by dw at 9:32 AM on April 6, 2016


Is there any reason for NY to have such an early cutoff date except to protect the parties? That October date seems awfully early when most people aren't even paying attention to the election at that point.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:35 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm trying to decide whether I have so little sympathy for this consternation because I'm a bad person or because I've worked with teenagers and twenty-somethings in an academic setting for my entire career.
Huh. I have too, and I actually have a fair amount of sympathy. People change their political views. Young people, especially, do. I don't think there should be a six-month lag time on changing your party registration if you realize that your beliefs are no longer in line with those of the party you were originally registered for.

But yeah, it's going to be pretty brutal for Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:36 AM on April 6, 2016


Is there any reason for NY to have such an early cutoff date except to protect the parties? That October date seems awfully early when most people aren't even paying attention to the election at that point.

I think the legislators in NY know that many of the state's elections are decided at the primary, not the general election (that's certainly the case for Albany County elections, where the Democratic primary is the real fight) and they don't want people mucking around.
posted by dis_integration at 9:37 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


corb:
"The problem is not that Trump will get elected. I mean, that's a possible problem, but it's not The Problem. The Problem is that every week Trump is the nominee or possible nominee, he moves the Overton window of acceptable discourse in this country. He moves it from quiet, isolated bigotry to a loud community of bigotry tied to a deep, existing anger. We are already seeing upticks in race-related hate crimes. I think a Trump nomination is a quick ticket to more. You can say "yeah but only until November", but I think it entirely, entirely likely that another six months of this will poison America for another twenty years. We cannot afford to normalize this. We cannot afford for bigots to band together."
Not a point to be easily dismissed. I've previously been of the "let him bring all the cockroaches out to the sunlight" attitude, but it's good to remember that these cockroaches are large and potentially violent to minorities.
posted by charred husk at 9:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


We cannot afford for bigots to band together.

Uh, they already did. Back in 1964. They're having their convention in Cleveland this summer.
posted by mpbx at 9:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]




Pretty much. I don't think it should have been so early: I only figured it out because my husband was registering and I was like "oh yeah I should change mine" and that was at the beginning of October 2015. What I can't remember is the deal for city primaries and whether they differ; because I could swear I have voted for mayor in the primary, but I have been registered Green till this year.
posted by dame at 9:42 AM on April 6, 2016


I wonder if they were also concerned about the possibility of people intentionally spoiling. It might just reflect a kind of philosophical position that party affiliation should be a really deep, identity-based thing, like religion, rather than something that you change casually. That's how Americans thought about partisan identity in the 19th century, although it seems a little odd to most of us now.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:42 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


At least back then the Democrats helped immigrants, threw parties, and gave people beer. Maybe if they still did I would like them better.
posted by dame at 9:45 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Honest question, but wasn't this because the "rural low-population states" were where slavery was most predominant, and thus, economically, those slave owners carried the economic power to ensure their enfranchisement?

Virginia was both the most populous state and the most slave-holding for the first three Censuses, and it was a while before there really were "rural low-population states" as we think of them now. The balance was really more between smaller states and bigger ones, regardless of their rural/urban balance (only 5 percent of people lived in cities in 1790).
posted by Etrigan at 9:46 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Well, Clinton is winning the aggregate popular vote 58% to 42%. There's nothing "backwards" about her winning the nomination, and it's not remotely squeaky."


While the popular vote is still a wide margin, I'll grant you, it's the closest margin in a democratic primary race since the McGovern three way that reached the convention in 1972.

It's debatable whether it'll be squeaky, time will tell, but Clinton reached her peak popular vote percentage back in Arkansas in March of 67% of the overall popular vote. So in a month her hold on the popular vote has dipped by 10% to 57.3%. To me, that's backwards.

Her peak delegate hold was 65%, Arkansas as well. Now it's 55% after a month.

Obviously these aren't homogenized groups, but perception is often reality in politics. Losing 10 points in both measures in a month is going backwards by my definition. If this trend plateaus, sure, she won, albeit not convincingly by primary standards. If the trend continues to where she wins by single digits, you bet it'll look like she backed in and squeaked in.
posted by avalonian at 9:52 AM on April 6, 2016


New York Election Board:

"The voter registration form should be used to change your party enrollment from one party to another or to enroll for the first time in a party. A change of enrollment received no later than 25 days before the general election shall be deposited in a sealed enrollment box and opened the first Tuesday following that general election and entered in the voter's registration record."

So you could have changed your party registration up to March 30.
posted by dw at 9:53 AM on April 6, 2016


While the popular vote is still a wide margin, I'll grant you, it's the closest margin in a democratic primary race since the McGovern three way that reached the convention in 1972.

Well, except for the 2008 one, where Hillary won the popular vote but lost the delegate race anyway.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:54 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


If this trend plateaus, sure, she won, albeit not convincingly by primary standards. If the trend continues to where she wins by single digits, you bet it'll look like she backed in and squeaked in.

Okay let's play out this scenario. Let's say that Sanders win every remaining state by 5-10%. At the end of the process, Clinton still leads in pledged delegates and popular vote total. Are you suggesting that because of "momentum," Sanders should be awarded the nomination?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:55 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


"The voter registration form should be used to change your party enrollment from one party to another or to enroll for the first time in a party. A change of enrollment received no later than 25 days before the general election shall be deposited in a sealed enrollment box and opened the first Tuesday following that general election and entered in the voter's registration record."

No, that means: 25 days before November 3rd, 2015, the last general, not primary, election. If you sent in an enrollment change on March 30th, it will be kept in a sealed box until tuesday the day after the 2016 general election.
posted by dis_integration at 9:56 AM on April 6, 2016



"The voter registration form should be used to change your party enrollment from one party to another or to enroll for the first time in a party. A change of enrollment received no later than 25 days before the general election shall be deposited in a sealed enrollment box and opened the first Tuesday following that general election and entered in the voter's registration record."

So you could have changed your party registration up to March 30.


But it says general election.
posted by zutalors! at 9:56 AM on April 6, 2016


Uh, they already did. Back in 1964. They're having their convention in Cleveland this summer.


I thnk this kind of snark--like the "all conservatives are bigots" snark--minimizes the degree of polarization and increase in extremist dialogue that has occurred in the past 10, 20 years. It's not just our politicians that have polarized, the population has, too. When we flippantly dismiss this behavior as the same as it's always been, we leave the door open for worse. It's dangerous and promotes divisive attitudes.
posted by schroedinger at 9:57 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


They are who we thought they were.
posted by mpbx at 9:59 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is my "if it were a snake, it woulda bit me" face. Obama squeaked and then won convincingly in the General. I have no idea what anything means anymore.
posted by avalonian at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2016


Are you suggesting that because of "momentum," Sanders should be awarded the nomination?


God no. I'm thinking of Republican talking points in the general.
posted by avalonian at 10:01 AM on April 6, 2016


Well that, and what the anti-establishment sects are going to do come general and politically in general moving forward.
posted by avalonian at 10:02 AM on April 6, 2016


God no. I'm thinking of Republican talking points in the general.

Okay, sorry. I guess I'm just confused by Sanders' supporters who seem to be angry with Clinton for, like, continuing to stay in the race, when she has a lead and is the presumptive nominee.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:02 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


... political views. Young people, especially, do. I don't think there should be a six-month lag time on changing your party registration if you realize that your beliefs are no longer in line with those of the party you were originally registered for.

Yeah, fair point. I wasn't thinking about the fact that the deadline is arguably an unreasonable one in this case. Is this a new and different timeline? Or has the issue just not been such a big deal before?
posted by bardophile at 10:03 AM on April 6, 2016


I'm thinking of Republican talking points in the general.

The GOP has shown us over the last two decades that "Republican talking points" can be made of anything, up to and including nothing. John Kerry? Coward. Barack Obama? Born in Kenya, Muslim, socialist. Worrying about what they're going to say in the general is pointless, because they will make things up as necessary.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on April 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


Let's say that Sanders win every remaining state by 5-10%. At the end of the process, Clinton still leads in pledged delegates and popular vote total. Are you suggesting that because of "momentum," Sanders should be awarded the nomination?

To me, it would seem like that should/would surely enter into a superdelegate's thinking.
posted by Trochanter at 10:05 AM on April 6, 2016


'Voter ID law will help eventual GOP nominee win Wisconsin'
...U.S. congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Campbellsport) said he thinks Wisconsin's new voter ID law will help the eventual GOP nominee win in the state. Grothman's response came as [NBC reporter Charles Benson] asked him about the GOP's poor performance across recent presidential contests in the state.

"You know that a lot of Republicans, since 1984 in the presidential races, have not been able to win in Wisconsin," Benson said. "Why would it be any different for Ted Cruz, or a Donald Trump?"

...Grothman [responded] "now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference."
posted by cjelli at 10:06 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


For those of you wondering why we should shove Trump out of the spotlight asap, it's because his rhetoric and the sentiments he's riling up among his base make a lot of us minorities feel actively unsafe. I'm pointing and laughing at the GOP tire fire of a nomination as much as anyone else, but I assure you, I've been wanting Trump out of the news for months. Every time he says something vile to cheers at his rallies, or to disingenuous wide-eyed lack of challenge from reporters, it makes me and people like me wonder just how safe we are.

Honestly, I think it's too little, too late at this point though. The racist, rabid cat is out of the bag, and shoving it back in doesn't seem to be an option. I don't overmuch care about the Republicans' internal crisis over this, because this is their doing and they get to reckon with it, but I do care that there's a not insignificant percentage of the population being incited into leveling up their racism from dog whistle to active bigotry and violence. I've seen a lot of people expressing sentiments like "good, let it lance the boil" or whatever, but that's not much comfort to those of us who might be the target of violence.

I'm not saying I walk around in fear or anything, but this is low-level exhausting and anxiety-inducing, and that's not an irrational response.
posted by yasaman at 10:07 AM on April 6, 2016 [24 favorites]


This vote suppression stuff is just downright evil.
posted by bardophile at 10:08 AM on April 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


mpbx:
"Uh, they already did. Back in 1964. They're having their convention in Cleveland this summer."
The horrible, violent racists may have all voted Republican but the people they were voting for never actually incited violence either because they didn't want to lose the non-violent votes or because they had some sliver of conscience. Trump is riling these people up with incendiary and violent language. It's a reasonable response to want him off the national stage if you're feeling endangered.
posted by charred husk at 10:08 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Trump is shoved out the wrong way, he'll have more than enough ammunition to keep himself relevant until November, and perhaps even beyond.
posted by FJT at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Trump’s “days of rage”: As the GOP primary reaches its tipping point, Trump prepares for all-out war

Wow, I really don't know what to think about this. It's one thing to wonder what if and to read the ranting opinions of internet peanut gallery but entirely another when there's active organization behind those same ideas. Hopefully this is just more hot air because if not, this convention is going to be seriously dramatic.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Honestly, I don't think anyone has any idea what Trump would do after losing the nomination. Not even Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:11 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Let's say that Sanders win every remaining state by 5-10%. At the end of the process, Clinton still leads in pledged delegates and popular vote total. Are you suggesting that because of "momentum," Sanders should be awarded the nomination?

So, suppose it turns out like this: Clinton 2050, Sanders 2001, but Sanders having won every state remaining. (This won't happen! But let's imagine it does).

Clinton would look pretty bad at this point, like her campaign had really faltered and broken apart. I don't know what the superdelegates would do, but I wouldn't blame them for reconsidering.
posted by dis_integration at 10:13 AM on April 6, 2016


Honestly, I don't think anyone has any idea what Trump would do after losing the nomination. Not even Trump.

Claim that he actually won it but was cheated out of it in some way, probably. That man's ego is so big and so deep and so tall that he can not see around it in any way at all.
posted by orange swan at 10:13 AM on April 6, 2016


If Trump actually gets the nomination, regardless of whether he then becomes president.... he demonstrates that flirting with the KKK, threats to journalists, campaign promises which require violation of the constitution to keep, threats of violence against countries with whom we are not at war, promises of torture, and rhetoric about building walls and banning Muslims... is a viable path to the Republican nomination. And we will see people try to take that path again. The more he succeeds, the more he emboldens those like him who would follow. If he wins the nomination, we will be in for generations of Trump imitators on the national stage.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rush says the new fat cat Republican cheer is: Lose with Cruz!

(Well it made me chuckle anyway.)
posted by bukvich at 10:16 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


To me, it would seem like that should/would surely enter into a superdelegate

But... Sanders supporters would practically riot if superdelegates overturned the pledged delegates and handed it to Clinton. But you're suggesting they should... not just could but should... hand it to Sanders under the same circumstances.

No. That's the single best way to fracture the party, in either direction. The superdelegates under no circumstances here should overturn the will of the actual voters.
posted by Justinian at 10:17 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


And if Trump wins, the chances that he could actually become president and carry out those threats become unacceptably high.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:17 AM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


In my view the point of the superdelegates is to prevent a situation like Trump from occurring. Or if there's a deus ex machina like a federal indictment or something. Not to overturn the voters and put one acceptable candidate ahead of another acceptable candidate because reasons.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 AM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yes, the Trump run has really darkened my view of the American electorate. Things that I thought were just so beyond the pale that they could never be said again in polite company have become campaign promises.
posted by bardophile at 10:20 AM on April 6, 2016 [16 favorites]


Something interesting from the exit polls: Many Sanders voters answered "did not know" who they voted for in the Supreme Court or did not vote for Kloppenburg.

15% of Sanders supporters did this.

Only 4% of Clinton supporters fell in this category.
stuff like this is why I am deeply skeptical of the whole 'revolution' thing
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:28 AM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


I would agree that the superdelegates shouldn't alter the outcome of the popular election, but if it's at all close it will be clear what would have happened if the establishment hadn't had its thumb on the scale from the very beginning in favor of Clinton inevitability.
posted by XMLicious at 10:29 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


if it's at all close it will be clear what would have happened if the establishment hadn't had its thumb on the scale from the very beginning in favor of Clinton inevitability.

...more pro-Clinton people who stayed home because her win seemed inevitable would have actually gone out and voted, giving her a larger lead in the end?

...more pro-Sanders people who stayed home because her win seemed inevitable would have actually gone out and voted, giving him a larger lead in the end?
posted by cjelli at 10:32 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


In my view the point of the superdelegates is to prevent a situation like Trump from occurring. Or if there's a deus ex machina like a federal indictment or something. Not to overturn the voters and put one acceptable candidate ahead of another acceptable candidate because reasons.

Once we accept the necessity of superdelegates, we've accepted that there are valid reasons to deny someone the nomination even if they've amassed the most delegates. At that point, we're just haggling over the price, as the saying goes. I agree that the superdelegates should be used only in exceptional circumstances if they must exist at all, but my exceptional circumstances might not be someone else's, and the lack of bright-line rules on when to push the big red "ignore the will of the people" button is a serious problem.

To be clear, I do not in any way think Sanders or his supporters have any right to ask superdelegates to overrule the clear will of the Democratic electorate to make Clinton the nominee, but this is what we get for having the monkey-patch of superdelegates in place of an electoral system that would allow for other means of stopping a Trump-like candidate.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know people have theorized what a three-way race w/ Clinton, [establishment GOP candidate], and Trump would look like, has anyone talked about what a four-way race with the above plus Sanders as an independent could look like?
posted by entropicamericana at 10:35 AM on April 6, 2016


has anyone talked about what a four-way race with the above plus Sanders as an independent could look like?

What's the point. Sanders will not run as an independent.
posted by cashman at 10:39 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


has anyone talked about what a four-way race with the above plus Sanders as an independent could look like?

Sanders has stated multiple times he won't do this, so no, most folks have ruled it out.

Edit - cashman beat me to it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:39 AM on April 6, 2016


it means nobody gets enough EVs and we end up with President Ryan IIRC
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:39 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


but this is what we get for having the monkey-patch of superdelegates in place of an electoral system that would allow for other means of stopping a Trump-like candidate.

On balance I more or less agree. Superdelegates cause more problems than they purport to solve. The irony of Sanders possibly attempting to rely on them for the nomination is, however, quite palpable.

So Trump is hovering right at the 50% mark in the New York polls. New York awards all its delegates to anyone who gets over 50%. Trump's remaining hopes for avoiding a contested convention, I think, reside squarely in getting 50%+1 in New York and taking all those delegates.
posted by Justinian at 10:39 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


has anyone talked about what a four-way race with the above plus Sanders as an independent could look like?

I dunno how that would go, except that it would be a disaster. But it's a non-issue, since Sanders has ruled out running as an independent. He'd betray a lot of us. If he runs as an independent I, for one, would vote Clinton.
posted by dis_integration at 10:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh well.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2016


It's a far-shot, but I've speculated what if Sanders' most hardcore supporters pivoted to doing a mass write-in campaign in his name to draft him at the election booths. As opposed to staying at home, or voting for Trump. He'd at least end up getting more votes than the usual third party candidates, right?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:47 AM on April 6, 2016


If Trump actually gets the nomination, regardless of whether he then becomes president.... he demonstrates that flirting with the KKK, threats to journalists, campaign promises which require violation of the constitution to keep, threats of violence against countries with whom we are not at war, promises of torture, and rhetoric about building walls and banning Muslims... is a viable path to the Republican nomination. And we will see people try to take that path again. The more he succeeds, the more he emboldens those like him who would follow. If he wins the nomination, we will be in for generations of Trump imitators on the national stage.

Even if he gets completely crushed in the general? I doubt it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:47 AM on April 6, 2016



'Voter ID law will help eventual GOP nominee win Wisconsin'
...U.S. congressman Glenn Grothman (R-Campbellsport) said he thinks Wisconsin's new voter ID law will help the eventual GOP nominee win in the state. Grothman's response came as [NBC reporter Charles Benson] asked him about the GOP's poor performance across recent presidential contests in the state.

"You know that a lot of Republicans, since 1984 in the presidential races, have not been able to win in Wisconsin," Benson said. "Why would it be any different for Ted Cruz, or a Donald Trump?"

...Grothman [responded] "now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference."


It's nuts how they don't even try to hide the true intention behind their bullshit voter fraud claims. I mean, I know the base doesn't care but do they think that the party is going to be rich white guys forever? I can imagine we're getting close to the tipping point where voter ID laws are going to hurt them more than they help them.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:50 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Justinian: "So Trump is hovering right at the 50% mark in the New York polls. New York awards all its delegates to anyone who gets over 50%."

Not exactly. There are 14 at-large delegates that are awarded winner take all, if someone is over 50%. There are also 81 delegates for the CDs (3 per each of the 27 CDs). Those are also winner take all over 50%. So, Trump could definitely take over 50% statewide, but still lose some CD delegates.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:50 AM on April 6, 2016


It's a far-shot, but I've speculated what if Sanders' most hardcore supporters pivoted to doing a mass write-in campaign in his name to draft him at the election booths.

Against his own wishes? Seems a bit of a reach. If "hard-core" means "Left wing", why wouldn't they just vote Green or something?

Even if he gets completely crushed in the general? I doubt it.

Getting crushed in the general didn't stop Goldwater from having an outsized impact on the later trajectory of the Republican Party. The question would be if Trump is interested, after losing, in carving out the same elder statesman role that Goldwater gained among the hard right after 1960.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:55 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am deeply skeptical of the whole 'revolution' thing

Does Sanders ever talk about a 'revolution' without saying 'political revolution'? As far as I can tell, a political revolution basically means getting people to vote who wouldn't otherwise, and it happens every so often in our political climate. By this measure I think his political revolution will succeed if it brings in new people and energy for the future.

It's saddening that some voters don't research their state elected positions but getting them to vote is a big first step. The interesting question to me is how to engage them in local politics now that they've found a presidential candidate to support. If we can answer that, I think it becomes a successful political revolution.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:03 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


But... Sanders supporters would practically riot if superdelegates overturned the pledged delegates and handed it to Clinton.

My instance would be where Sanders was extremely close at the finish and it had all come in the late stages of the season.

The superdelegates exist for the sake of electability and yes, that should enter into their thinking.

It's an anti-democratic mechanism anyway. That's the point of it.
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on April 6, 2016


It's an anti-democratic mechanism anyway. That's the point of it.

The question is whether the party wants to make it an anti-Democratic mechanism, which it would almost certainly be if they tipped the nomination against the will of the people.
posted by Etrigan at 11:07 AM on April 6, 2016


[One comment removed; if you're getting to the point of editing your own comment to manually Drumpf-up both your own words and the already-not-verbatim words of others that you're putting in quote marks, we're into pretty problematic territory. Please skip that stuff going forward.]
posted by cortex at 11:08 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Listen to Wasserman-Schultz. That's its purpose.
posted by Trochanter at 11:08 AM on April 6, 2016


So that whole 'Drumpf' thing is still a thing? Huh.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why the word "I" causes Hillary Clinton so much trouble: In an interview with Politico's Glenn Thrush, Hillary Clinton said something pretty interesting about gender and pronouns. She says it took her years to get comfortable with using the word "I" instead of words like "he," "she," or "we," and to directly ask people to vote for her instead of just appealing to collective ideals. And this tendency, she said, "may be gender-linked."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:20 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Listen to Wasserman-Schultz. That's its purpose.

I think we've been through this repeatedly. The Democratic Party is an organization and as an organization it allows members within the organization to have a say in who they are going to be working closely with for the next few months if not years and who represents the party. it's a balance between members of the organization and people who vote.
posted by FJT at 11:21 AM on April 6, 2016


Mike Konczal/Rortybomb: Let’s Dispense Once and for All With This Fiction that Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Break Up Banks
Bernie Sanders gave some fairly normal answers on financial reform to the New York Daily News editorial board. Someone sent it to me, and as I read it I thought “yes, these are answers I’d expect for how Sanders approaches financial reform.”

You wouldn’t know that from the coverage of it, which has argued that the answers were an embarrassing failure. Caitlin Cruz at TPM argues that Sanders “struggles to explain how he would break up the banks” and that’s relatively kind. Chris Cillizza says it was “pretty close to a disaster” and David Graham says the answers on his core financial focus is “tentative, unprepared, or unaware.” Tina Nguyen at Vanity Fair writes that Sanders “admits he isn’t sure how to break up the big banks.”

This is not correct. Sanders has a clear path on how he wants to break up the banks which he described. Breaking up the banks doesn’t require, or even benefit from, describing the specifics on how the banks would end up, neither for his plans or the baby steps Dodd-Frank has already taken.

Generally, I believe Sanders would benefit from taking the important points Clinton has made in expanding how to tackle the financial sector as a whole. But bad arguments are bad arguments, and the arguments against Sanders here are bad.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:22 AM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think what bothers me is that Clinton seems unwilling to admit that Sanders' success so far as a candidate puts an obligation on her when she wins the primary [1]. She came close to getting the nomination in 2008, and Obama made her Secretary of State.

Yet Clinton isn't talking about doing **ANYTHING** to win over Sanders supporters, or suggesting that she'll offer them anything in terms of policy positions or appointments.

Maybe it's just too soon in the process? Maybe that kind of thing happens only after the convention? But I do think that she owes the left some concessions. We've expressed, very loudly and quite convincingly in the polls if not quite enough to win, that we aren't on board with the mainstream center-right Democratic ideal she represents. She needs us, desperately, to win in the general.

And yet, so far, there's nothing, not the slightest hint of a hand extended our way. Maybe I'm looking too early, but that worries me.

I'll be voting for her in November no matter what, even if she literally punched a hippie on stage at the convention. But I worry that a lot of the other, younger and less politically geeky, Sanders voters may stay home if she doesn't start offering us a consolation prize of some sort, and a pretty big one at that. Making Clinton his Secretary of State was a huge concession from Obama, that's a position he could no longer award to one of his supporters after all, but it was both necessary and justified given how tight the primary race was and how much support that indicated Clinton had.

So what will Clinton be offering to Sanders supporters, and when will she start talking about this?

[1] because let's face it, she's going to win, it'd take Sanders winning every single primary from here on out with unprecedented success for him to get the nomination, there's no viable path forward for him.
posted by sotonohito at 11:25 AM on April 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


So what will Clinton be offering to Sanders supporters, and when will she start talking about this?

He would have to drop out first. So if he intends to stay until the convention, it'll probably happen after the convention. And he'll probably be given input on cabinet appointments, and the like.

Obama didn't make Clinton Secretary of State until after he was elected.
posted by mpbx at 11:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


yeah, idk if it's really appropes to be talking about positions or influence she'll offer Sanders in her future cabinet when he's still saying he's running to win against her, especially when the "inevitability" narrative is being held as a mark against her by the very people she'd be trying to win over with that kind of move
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yet Clinton isn't talking about doing **ANYTHING** to win over Sanders supporters, or suggesting that she'll offer them anything in terms of policy positions or appointments.

She's still running against him, if she started offering things like that she'd be absolutely slammed for it, for being too presumptuous, or something. I think a lot of vocal Sanders supporters would view that very poorly. Once (if) she's the official nominee, I think you'll see a lot of reaching out from the Clinton camp.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:30 AM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


And I almost think it would be illegal, no? (note: I'm not a lawyer.) Wouldn't an offer like that be construed as corruption -- offering a government position in exchange for consideration (i.e., dropping out of the race)?
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


No, that means: 25 days before November 3rd, 2015, the last general, not primary, election. If you sent in an enrollment change on March 30th, it will be kept in a sealed box until tuesday the day after the 2016 general election.

OK, a little more online research says if you're a newly registered voter, you can vote on April 19 if you declared yourself a Democrat. But if you're an independent or Republican and tried to change, you don't get to change until after the general.

Oh, East Coast voter rules. You're so byzantine.
posted by dw at 11:33 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's the logic behind having a different deadline for changing party registration versus registering as a new voter?
posted by bardophile at 11:37 AM on April 6, 2016


Keeps established party members from gaming the other side, I'd guess.
posted by avalonian at 11:39 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Whether or not that's anti-Democratic is a philosophical question.

It's really not a question at all, because people vote and land doesn't.


Honestly, when we're talking here about state-run elections for political parties and anti-competitive stuff supporting them baked into state laws/ballot access... apportionment of delegates strikes me as being Titanic deck chair positioning when it comes to anti-democratic concepts.
posted by phearlez at 11:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think we've been through this repeatedly. The Democratic Party is an organization and as an organization it allows members within the organization to have a say in who they are going to be working closely with for the next few months if not years and who represents the party. it's a balance between members of the organization and people who vote.

What about this, too. What if Sanders is really close, with a lot of late wins. In that case, what about states, like Washington, where Sanders won big and yet the superdelegates are all for Clinton? And it was close enough that those superdelegates would tip the balance?
posted by Trochanter at 11:40 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yet Clinton isn't talking about doing **ANYTHING** to win over Sanders supporters, or suggesting that she'll offer them anything in terms of policy positions or appointments.

That's because it's illegal.
posted by Etrigan at 11:41 AM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


What's the logic behind having a different deadline for changing party registration versus registering as a new voter?

I've been thinking about that since it was posted here, I actually emailed the BOE about it. I am assuming it has something to do with resource allotment, but that's just idle speculation. I have no idea. Will report back if the BOE has an answer for me.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:41 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe to prevent a concerted campaign to cross-vote? Otherwise the Republicans could in theory organize a bunch of their voters to switch parties to support a weak Democratic candidate or vice-versa.

That's just a guess though. These rules are stupid, arcane and whatever purpose they may individually have been intended for, they're certainly now collectively a tool of the political elites to control or shape elections, as opposed to establishing an orderly process for democratic decision-making about government.

(This is not to say that the rules necessarily ever had good intent behind them.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:44 AM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


What if Sanders is really close, with a lot of late wins.

My concern with this is it's not like a sports season where a better record late in the season means you've developed in to a better team. Washington is not New York. Iowa is not Arkansas. These demographics are different and the reasons for their voting patterns are not the same. Bernie winning Philadelphia late doesn't mean he would have won Arkansas had it been late. The voters voted when they voted and their votes aren't of greater value because they're late.
posted by avalonian at 11:45 AM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


The voters voted when they voted and their votes aren't of greater value because they're late.

I believe that's factually true, but don't believe it would play out in real life that way.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:48 AM on April 6, 2016


it's not like a sports season where a better record late in the season means you've developed in to a better team.

But also, all through the process you've also had polling showing growing support for Sanders.
posted by Trochanter at 11:49 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, here is an article from Gothamist from last October which seems to get into it:

NY State Board of Elections spokesman Tom Connolly couldn't pinpoint when the rule went into effect, but said he believed it was created to discourage "party raiding," where activists from one party change affiliation en masse to screw with an opposing party's primary results.
"My understanding is the reason why [25 days before the general election] is the date that it is is to prohibit party raiding," he said. "Even if somebody were to change their enrollment this year so that they could vote in a specific party's primary next year, they're stuck with that party enrollment for the likely federal primary that's going to happen in June, then also the state primary that's going to happen in September."

posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:51 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton gets slammed for acting like she's inevitable and she gets slammed for not acting like she's inevitable (by not making concessions to Sanders supporters before the nomination fight is over). She really can't win.

Once Sanders concedes the race I'm sure she'll extend olive branches. Hell, probably an olive orchard. But as long as Sanders is in the race he's her opponent. I haven't seen a lot of calls for Sanders to make concessions to Clinton after all.
posted by Justinian at 11:53 AM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


An irony just occurred to me: The more democratic we make the presidential primary process for the two main parties, the more entrenched we become in the two party system. Not that we aren't already shoulder deep already.
posted by charred husk at 11:55 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


The last 6 or 7 contests have been very friendly to Sanders demographically. Let's wait to see what happens in New York and such. I expect that once Clinton wins New York by 8-10 points the map will become essentially impossible for Sanders so the whole talk of superdelegates will be irrelevant.
posted by Justinian at 11:55 AM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I've got not problem with it. Campaign vigorously. Don't ask Sanders to drop out without olive branches though.
posted by Trochanter at 11:55 AM on April 6, 2016


Clinton is leading by just about 11 points now in New York. She needs for Sanders not to move those polls at all in two weeks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:59 AM on April 6, 2016


An irony just occurred to me: The more democratic we make the presidential primary process for the two main parties, the more entrenched we become in the two party system. Not that we aren't already shoulder deep already.

I was thinking along the same lines. The two major parties are basically quasi-governmental at this point and can lean private-ish or public-ish as benefits them. The party or parties make the primary rules and get the local government boards of elections to enforce them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:01 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


She's at 53-54% in New York, roomthreeseventeen. Sanders gains/passes Clinton when he swings undecideds while Clinton is under 50%. He can't surpass her in places where she's over 50% barring disaster for her campaign.
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


He can't surpass her in places where she's over 50% barring disaster for her campaign.

i'm not sure what you're saying. If people who were polled and said they were voting for Clinton vote for Sanders, she won't win.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:04 PM on April 6, 2016


...or if the polls were wrong, as they have been in most states.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


That's been a big issue for me in this election. People claiming the parties can do what they want because they're "private". When two "private" entities have control of the choices for government in every single election, they cease to be private. They are de-facto parts of the government. And need to be treated as such. As it stands now, they want all the benefits of being unaccountable as private but the power of being part of government.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:06 PM on April 6, 2016 [11 favorites]


I guess we'll see in two weeks. I think we'll see Clinton win by a healthy but not landslide margin, as expected.

I do hope everyone agrees this whole process is ridiculously drawn out, though. There's no reason primary voting should stretch out for months and months and months. It's hard on the candidates, expensive (and thus contributes to the money-in-politics problem), leaves people burned out, and is one reason for all the hard feelings. It's just stupid on every level.
posted by Justinian at 12:07 PM on April 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


Clinton is leading by just about 11 points now in New York. She needs for Sanders not to move those polls at all in two weeks.

What do you mean by "she needs"? Even if Sanders improves 11 points and they split the delegates in New York, it's essentially over. He needs to win New York comfortably and net quite a handful of delegates to stay competitive.

I'm really curious where this narrative of "If Sanders closes the gap in polls, he'll win the nomination!" is coming from.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:07 PM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton is leading by just about 11 points now in New York. She needs for Sanders not to move those polls at all in two weeks.

She can survive with any swing less than about 6-7%, since he's polling at 42.5% per that poll and he needs to be taking at least 56% of votes going forward. Even a 54% win in NY will almost certainly be the nail in the coffin. Now, if he hits 60%, then we can start talking about momentum. Otherwise it's still the same situation -- slowly making up ground, but running out of time.

We can want Sen. Sanders to win and still be realistic about his chances. We can think the primary rules are unfair and opaque and still accept that these are the current rules.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:08 PM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has Sanders done much campaigning in Upstate (actual upstate, not just the northern suburbs of NYC) and Western New York? I know that Clinton has, and Bill's appearance there is on the front page of the Buffalo News today, but I haven't heard much about any Sanders activity.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:08 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


...or if the polls were wrong, as they have been in most states..

The polls have actually been extremely accurate this cycle.

Sam Wang: Are Democratic primary polls accurate? In individual states they are good, with a few exceptions. At an aggregated level, they are remarkably accurate. The delegate-weighted polling margin has a total error of 3.1%. This is better accuracy than one would expect from the reputation of polling these days.
posted by mpbx at 12:12 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Has Sanders done much campaigning in Upstate (actual upstate, not just the northern suburbs of NYC) and Western New York?

He hasn't shown up in the Capital region although he did open an Albany office. Clinton has done one event in Cohoes this week. I haven't heard about Sanders coming up here yet.
posted by dis_integration at 12:13 PM on April 6, 2016


it's also not really clear that Sanders is eating into Clinton's supporters in NY or elsewhere -- he's obviously drawing a lot of Sanders voters to the polls, but his gains in the NY polls mostly seem to be undecideds breaking his way, and even in WI last night Clinton performed better than she did vs Obama in 2008
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:13 PM on April 6, 2016


Bernie Sanders still has a path to the nomination, even with modest NY victories.

See below for two possible victory paths. Both scenarios has his NY target at 54% or less. It would be very nice if he could beat that, but the point is that Sanders supporters do see a path forward.

PoliChart

FiveThirtyEight

Disclaimer: Superficially the math looks OK, but I haven't looked into the details, for example how they are generating each state's targets.

He's been doing well, but the Mid-Atlantic bloc will be the true test. We'll see how the polling shakes out in the next few weeks.
posted by kyp at 12:14 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ok, yeah, that was a foolish question from me. Of course no concession prizes until Sanders concedes.
posted by sotonohito at 12:15 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary is feeling fine about yesterday's results. She sent a very classy congratulatory tweet last night too.
posted by bearwife at 12:18 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


You can drill into the underlying poll details on RCP...in the recent CBS poll, for example, Sanders is actually winning among whites but he is losing massively again among blacks and hispanics. If they haven't warmed to Sanders by now I don't think they're going to suddenly switch.

Even after reading all the various explanations and analyses it still amazes me that he basically gets such low Republican-level percentages of the POC vote.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 12:29 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


...or if the polls were wrong, as they have been in most states.

I agree that this is a possibility, particularly after the shocking poll fail in Michigan. From the point of view of wanting Sen. Sanders to win, though, I'm more concerned about the fact that he's not particularly breaking into the 50-55% (nationally) of voters who have already decided for Sec. Clinton.

What I see in this graph is a clear trend line where Sen. Sanders gains in popularity as his name recognition goes up among undecided Democratic voters -- but I don't see already-decided Clinton voters switching sides. Based on the latest poll in that chart, Sec. Clinton is polling at 48% and Sen. Sanders is at 42%. Even granting that he take the entire remaining 10% of undecided voters, that only puts him up to about 52% nationally when he needs about 5% more to tie in the delegate count. (I know, I know, national polls don't necessarily reflect state demographics. But there's not really a better way to get a general average across all the remaining states without doing a bunch of poll aggregation. I'll leave that to Nate Silver & Co.)

Sen. Sanders is not yet out of the running entirely, but as I've said before I think it will take some actual game-changer to flip enough voters quickly enough to make a difference.

If there had been enough time between the start of the primary season (i.e. when people actually started paying attention), I think we'd be looking at a much closer race. Sen. Sanders simply has not been able to organize and propagandize (I mean this in a neutral sense) quickly enough to overcome the huge institutional advantages that Sec. Clinton had going into this.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]




...Grothman [responded] "now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is gonna make a little bit of a difference."

corb is right; they're saying the quiet parts loud now.
posted by Gelatin at 12:40 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


This whole eating into Clinton's support base sounds to me like a shift from Sanders' original strategy that a huge wave of new voters would win the day.
posted by FJT at 12:47 PM on April 6, 2016


i'm not sure what you're saying. If people who were polled and said they were voting for Clinton vote for Sanders, she won't win.

Except people decided for one candidate rarely switch to another candidate wholesale. Instead, what you usually see is moving from Candidate A to Undecided to Candidate B. So, to beat a Hillary running at 55%, you'll need to move most of that 5% through undecided to Bernie.

It happens, but it's far, far easier to convince undecideds to vote for you than voters for another candidate. Add to it that New York is a closed primary -- You can't do a GOTV with independents, and you don't have a caucus that only draws the motivated. Your route is only to identify the possibles and spend the next two weeks pulling them off Clinton and pulling them towards your side.

This is why we're saying that momentum isn't as helpful as people think it is. The demographics of Bernie voters don't match the NY-PA-MD primaries, and closed primaries suppress Bernie's advantages in caucuses and with independents.
posted by dw at 12:49 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]




Has Sanders done much campaigning in Upstate (actual upstate, not just the northern suburbs of NYC) and Western New York? I know that Clinton has, and Bill's appearance there is on the front page of the Buffalo News today, but I haven't heard much about any Sanders activity.

He did some events in Rochester and Syracuse in February. And I'm sure he will do more in coming days.

Clinton's currently making the rounds and has also been attending a lot of small fundraisers.

While she was Senator, Clinton spent a lot of time at various events upstate. During her first campaign in 2000, she visited all 62 New York counties on a "listening tour" to learn as much as she could about the state and what mattered to the people who lived here. A calculated move, but it worked to help increase her appeal and shed her carpetbagger image. She knows New York well. I'm sure her campaign stops will make maximum use of that hard-earned knowledge.
posted by zarq at 12:56 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't believe that we in New York suddenly get to have an important - maybe even decisive - say in this primary! And on both sides! I don't think that has ever happened before...
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:59 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can't believe that we in New York suddenly get to have an important - maybe even decisive - say in this primary! And on both sides! I don't think that has ever happened before!

speaking as a californian, i can relate. except for the part about having a say in the primary.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:03 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


By the way... the 62 counties thing? Originally suggested to Clinton by a former aide to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Mandy Grunwald, who is now Clinton's senior communications advisor. Moynihan used to do it, and that arguably had a lot to do with why he was such a popular Senator. Chuck Schumer now makes it his business to visit every single New York county at least once a year. When Kirsten Gillibrand took office after Clinton left the Senate, she continued the tradition. As a result, Schumer and Gillibrand's travel expenses are usually higher than any other Senators. But it pays off. Both Gillibrand and Schumer are extremely popular, because they take the time to meet with their constituents and listen to them.
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


well, makes sense. New York state has 19 million people in it, more than Chile.
posted by zutalors! at 1:11 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


So what will Clinton be offering to Sanders supporters, and when will she start talking about this?

This moves both ways right? Given Clinton's success, shouldn't we be seeing movement from the Sanders campaign? Shouldn't we be seeing an "obligation" to "extend a hand" to Clinton's supporters?

Can we expect to see some movement to "win over Clinton supporters"? Or is this the usual narrative of Clinton being told to do things that aren't expected of Sanders?
posted by happyroach at 1:25 PM on April 6, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think it's more people wanting to know they'll get something for their support and trying to hedge their bets. Clinton supporters aren't in a situation where such hedging is called for.
posted by avalonian at 1:41 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can we expect to see some movement to "win over Clinton supporters"? Or is this the usual narrative of Clinton being told to do things that aren't expected of Sanders?

Sanders was interviewed by Spike Lee in the April 22 issue of The Hollywood Reporter. It's clearly a softball, non-challenging piece, but worth reading.

Anyway, to address your question, Sanders seems honestly dumbfounded that older voters aren't streaming to him in larger numbers and notes that they have a lot of work to do in outreach.
What do you have to do to get the older generation of African-American votes? You're like the new guy on the block. You've got the young Hispanic, African-American, you got it. But the older generation, black folks, they know the Clintons 20-some years.

We're doing phenomenally well with all of the young people — white, black, Latino, you name it, Asian-American. And we're getting killed, frankly, not just with older African-Americans but also older whites, older Latinos. It's the weirdest thing in the world. And what really bothers me is I spent half my life in Congress helping to lead the effort for senior citizens: We led the effort against cuts to Social Security — we want to expand Social Security; we took on the drug companies who are doing terrible things to elderly people. You know seniors are cutting their prescription drugs in half. So we have a lot of work to do in terms of reaching out to seniors, not just African-Americans, but seniors all across the board. We're figuring out how you get the message out there.

posted by zarq at 1:45 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


So what will Clinton be offering to Sanders supporters?

How about a progressive VP candidate? I'd love to see Al Franken as the first Comedian-American candidate. (Joke candidates like Pat Paulsen don't count.)
posted by msalt at 2:04 PM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


happyroach, if there was the slightest chance of Sanders winning I think that'd be a perfectly valid question. But generally you extend a hand to the losers who came close to winning.

If (by some miracle) Sanders wins, then yes I absolutely think he'd be obligated to make a move to Clinton, offer her and her supporters either some policy concessions or postings, or what have you.

I was speaking of Clinton making concessions to Sanders and his supporters because I'm assuming that the nomination is her's and that Sanders has no realistic chance at all of taking it. But since she's taking it by a squeaker, and since there's basically a whole new movement out there asking for things she doesn't represent, I'd say that she'd be well advised (and morally obligated) to offer the Sanders voters some sort of consolation prize in exchange for their support. Pledges not to vote for more fucking stupid wars for example, or placing either Sanders or a person on his side in a critical post where they can push some of their agenda.

Not all, because after all she did (or will) win, but winning by a squeaker in a race that goes all the way to the convention is a very different thing from winning after the first few states have their primaries and everyone else drops out before most states even vote.

And, again, there's a practical as well as moral aspect here. Me and other wonks will vote for just about anyone with a D after their name because we know the Supreme Court is at stake, and because President Donald Trump is so terrifying to contemplate. But a lot of the Sanders supporters aren't quite that cynical, they'll need some solid reassurances from Clinton that the movement to the left she made in the primaries is more than just empty words.
posted by sotonohito at 2:04 PM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


How about a progressive VP candidate? I'd love to see Al Franken

It is pretty goddamn sad that someone who supports a NSA panopticon is what passes as progressive in America these days.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:12 PM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


Can we expect to see some movement to "win over Clinton supporters"? Or is this the usual narrative of Clinton being told to do things that aren't expected of Sanders?

Speaking solely for myself, I'm more worried about what she'll do for the Sanders camp than vice versa because I fully expect her to win this thing. I'm sure I'm voting for her in the general, not Sanders. If it looked like he were going to win, I would hope for the same from him.

Upon preview:
Heh. Beaten to it. Posting anyway because I wanted to add: that was a fair question, and I wish it wasn't. Clinton has been treated unfairly, and it's been deeply upsetting to watch.
posted by mordax at 2:13 PM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


How about a progressive VP candidate? I'd love to see Al Franken as the first Comedian-American candidate.

You're not the first to suggest that option.

Bonus: Franken reads mean tweets about his support for Clinton.
posted by maudlin at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton is not exactly striking a conciliatory tone.

Sanders is taking it all the way to the convention. If she struck a conciliatory tone now, it would be incredibly condescending. It would also seem like she's trying to bribe him to get out of the race. Wouldn't be good for either of them.
posted by clawsoon at 2:44 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


This moves both ways right? Given Clinton's success, shouldn't we be seeing movement from the Sanders campaign? Shouldn't we be seeing an "obligation" to "extend a hand" to Clinton's supporters?

Or maybe everyone would be better off expending their energy by working to promote their own candidate on their merits. *empties wineglass, fills wineglass, empties wineglass again*
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:46 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Right, I understand why Sanders isn't being expected to extend an olive branch yet; he's losing. I just think Clinton is being put in a no-win situation where she'd be attacked if she acted like the winner already and has been attacked for acting like the presumptive nominee in the past.

The time for regrouping as a party is after there is a nominee. Just like in 2008.
posted by Justinian at 2:48 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Folks, I think we're missing the bigger picture and the hardest decision: What will be done to win both Clinton and Sanders supporters when O'Malley wins the nomination? Who will get the VP slot?
posted by FJT at 2:52 PM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


Jim Webb? Has he finished his hissy fit yet?
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


@NancyCordes - Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:58 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]








That reminds me of this piece from a previous election thread: Think the NSA is scary now? Wait till Donald Trump controls it.

lol no one controls the NSA
posted by entropicamericana at 3:03 PM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cuomo says he knows @HillaryClinton well because he "spent a lot of time looking in her eyes and looking in her soul" -- audience giggles

I hope that was an intentional riff on Bush's infamous quote about Putin, because otherwise... Sheesh!
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:18 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]



@NancyCordes - Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.


okay, the only equivalent WTF moment I remember from 2008 was when Clinton said some slyly to the fact that as far as she knew, Obama wasn't a Muslim.

Am I wrong? I would like to be wrong because we ended up with a pretty good president that bout.
posted by angrycat at 3:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wrong about what? So far as I am aware Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sandy Hook stuff and Sanders. It was the New York Daily News that pushed that.
posted by Justinian at 3:31 PM on April 6, 2016


(I know you didn't say otherwise I just mean I'm not sure what equivalence you're trying to draw.)
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on April 6, 2016


So far as I am aware Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sandy Hook stuff and Sanders.

Ummmm, .@BernieSanders prioritized gun manufacturers' rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook.
posted by localhuman at 3:33 PM on April 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think whether you view that as a "WTF moment" depends largely on your view of the Iraq War vote and, specifically how you rate the causality between (a) Iraq War vote ---> existence of Iraq War victims vs. (b) Gun Mfr. Liability vote ---> existence of mass shooting victims. If you don't view his gun manufacturer liability stance as a significant contributor to mass shootings, then asking him to apologize for that stance seems silly/weird. If you don't view Clinton's stance on the Iraq War as a significant contributor to Iraq war victims, then you'd see calls for her to apologize for that as seeming silly/weird. If you do think one of these policy positions is causally connected to the negative outcome, then you'd (in the pro-Sanders view) see this statement as one that make sense or (in the pro-Clinton view) a WTF moment.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:34 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ummmm, .@BernieSanders prioritized gun manufacturers' rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook.

Huh, I didnt realize she was on Morning Joe today. Thanks.
posted by Justinian at 3:40 PM on April 6, 2016


To me, this is a really good refutation of the arguments claiming Bernie is throwing the Developing world under the bus with his trade policies.

Fredrik deBoer: Outsource Brad DeLong
"Yes, as the working class in America have suffered, the incomes of some of the poorest people in the world have risen. You know who else have seen their incomes rise? The world’s wealthiest, by vast margins. Pretending that globalization is a simple matter of siphoning from the poor-but-less-poor to the more-poor is a willful deception. It completely ignores the vast explosion in the income and wealth of those at the top. So if you want to know where we can get the money to help poor people in China and India and Mexico, we know where to look"
posted by Trochanter at 3:50 PM on April 6, 2016 [11 favorites]




He would have to drop out first. So if he intends to stay until the convention, it'll probably happen after the convention.
yeah, idk if it's really appropes to be talking about positions or influence she'll offer Sanders in her future cabinet when he's still saying he's running to win against her
She's still running against him, if she started offering things like that she'd be absolutely slammed for it, for being too presumptuous, or something.

Well, eight years ago, Hillary floated a trial balloon about offering the VP spot to Obama back in March. I'm having a hard time finding a graph of delegate counts over time, but from what I recall she had an early lead that Obama gradually overtook, so she may have been ahead at that point. (Doesn't seem like it would have made sense to make the offer if she weren't...) But I'm getting sidetracked from my main point:

It isn't crazy at this point to ask what Clinton will do to retain the Sanders primary coalition. Note that I'm not saying she needs to do anything to appease Sanders, and I include in that any kind of offer of a position - I don't know how much that will really impress Sanders voters if her positions remain the same otherwise.

This isn't some double standard, where people are asking Clinton to do something they haven't asked of Sanders. People have been talking basically since the beginning of his campaign about how Sanders needs to make concessions to win over coalitions or demographics he's been weak in. We've been talking for months (in the mainstream at least since the BLM action at the Sanders rally in August) about how Sanders doesn't do well with African-Americans and that he needs to work harder to earn their support. There was a huge flap one news cycle about how Sanders wasn't clear on his opinion of the Hyde Amendment, and given PP's endorsement of Clinton and his critical comments later, he needed to speak clearly about his support for women's rights. People have criticized him incessantly for "running a single issue campaign" about income inequality and Wall Street and big business and called on him to talk more about other issues because many Clinton supporters have more pressing concerns. He's taken much of this criticism in stride and indeed he's gained support as he's made changes to his message, developed plans and talked more about issues he had previously neglected, hired women and minorities to help run his campaign, and so on.

So given that it is, as many have reminded us, incredibly unlikely for Sanders to win the nomination, will Clinton adjust any of her policies or platforms to win over Sanders's voters? (Not to win the primary of course, but to win their support in the general election.) The answer seems to be no, given recent events. She's been characterizing any criticism of her actual platform, voting record, sources of support and funding, etc. from the left as Sanders "going negative" without bothering to address the substance of those criticisms. For about the past week she's been characterizing Sanders fans as dupes who only support him because they've been lied to, or because they don't understand why she's right/he's wrong. It comes across as condescending, and it doesn't make her sound at all receptive to those supporters' concerns.

Meanwhile the DNC is musing about "wow, how can we tap into this huge network of small donors as a potential revenue source?" in any way that doesn't involve, like, adopting some of the policies championed by the candidate that those donors support. It seems like this should be an important issue for the DNC's long-term survival considering the incredibly strong support Sanders has among younger demographics. Young voters were a crucial element of Obama's general election coalition - shouldn't the DNC and Clinton want to make sure they have their support in the fall, especially given that a brokered GOP convention looks likely and she may be facing someone like Kasich or Cruz who poses a much tougher head-to-head matchup for her in the general? Turnout is already a problem in midterm elections, are there voting blocs supporting one of the party's candidates whose concerns the party can afford to write off as inconsequential while still expecting to have their support?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:53 PM on April 6, 2016 [13 favorites]


How about this - the Sanders and Clinton camps find reforms they both agree on - campaign finance limits, say, or an end to voter suppression -- and prepare a joint crusade behind some concrete proposals.

Bernie is put in charge of the campaign, along with Elizabeth Warren and as many of the pro-Bernie celebs as he can muster. This allows him to keep campaigning for his issues while maintaining independence, gets Clinton behind some concrete proposals, and allows Bernie to use these issues to help elect a better Congress in this very election.
posted by msalt at 4:15 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think that sounds like a great idea. Honestly I think even without policy shifts from Clinton, if the candidates could be seen visibly working together instead of sniping at each other, it would cut down on the animosity among sides' supporters.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 4:33 PM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie is put in charge of the campaign, along with Elizabeth Warren and as many of the pro-Bernie celebs as he can muster.

Wait, do you mean as a talking head and representative (like Bill Clinton), or do you mean as the actual campaign manager? Because the latter would be a bad idea.
posted by schroedinger at 4:36 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think that sounds like a great idea.

Ditto. It really is time to join forces to go for the Golden Opportunity that awaits this year, to take the whole darn shebang, including seats the Ds thought weren't in play, and roll back income inequality, voter suppression, letting the rich buy elections, and oppressive criminal justice policies, to name a few key issues. And it means the Rs stop getting a pass as the Ds fight on the fact that every one of their candidates is utterly unacceptable, not just Trump.
posted by bearwife at 4:41 PM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]




Wait, do you mean as a talking head and representative (like Bill Clinton), or do you mean as the actual campaign manager? Because the latter would be a bad idea.

I'm talking about a completely separate (but slightly overlapping) parallel campaign with Bernie as the leader/spokesman. Who organizes it? Up for negotiation, probably 2 or three people including Bernie's top choice but some outside expertise as well.

Bernie would of course talk about the need to elect Hillary and downticket progressives at each speech but could focus on the agreed issues. Hillary would embrace those issues in her campaign but stay independent otherwise. Win win.
I
posted by msalt at 5:50 PM on April 6, 2016


Yea, none of that is going to happen. Clinton doesn't even see that there's a unity problem at all, it's all a big joke to her.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:55 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just watched Barney Frank go to bat for big banks in a Clinton/Sanders proxy argument with Robert Reich on MSNBC -- when did Barney Frank become a bank shill?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:07 PM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]



Yea, none of that is going to happen. Clinton doesn't even see that there's a unity problem at all, it's all a big joke to her.


Yea, that's a completely inaccurate characterization of that link.

She's laughing at the attack that she's destroying the party. I mean people attack this woman all day long for years on end, some are valid, but the idea that she's destroying the democratic party is pretty silly.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on April 6, 2016 [13 favorites]


when did Barney Frank become a bank shill?

Since he started working for one, probably.
posted by kyp at 6:17 PM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


She's laughing at the attack that she's destroying the party. I mean people attack this woman all day long for years on end, some are valid, but the idea that she's destroying the democratic party is pretty silly.

What's left of the democratic party after everyone under 40 decides it is ineffective and bought and it doesn't have their best interests in mind? What's left of Hillary's campaign in the general after she confirms Sanders' supporters worst fears that she really doesn't get it, and never will?

We young voters don't have any reason to give a shit about the democratic party. I came into political consciousness during two terms of Bush that the Democrats couldn't stop (Gore? Kerry? Wtf?) and I've been sitting around watching Obama bomb the middle east and coddle Wall Street while the Republicans took control of the discourse and government itself. I voted to recall Scott Walker and the democratic party completely failed to offer a meaningful challenger.

So why should a millennial register as a democrat except to vote for someone like Sanders? Why should they donate? Why should they campaign?

Any party operating on the ideological principle of "At least we're not crazy" basically proves that statement self-evidently false.
posted by an animate objects at 6:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [31 favorites]


zutalors!
Totally correct. The question she asked was asinine and she reacted accordingly.
posted by dougzilla at 6:22 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


when did Barney Frank become a bank shill?

Well, you could argue he was acting like one when he was getting yelled at about the banks in the depths of the 2008 crisis.

But that's BillO doing the screaming, so.
posted by dw at 6:33 PM on April 6, 2016



So why should a millennial register as a democrat except to vote for someone like Sanders? Why should they donate? Why should they campaign?


You know, all i can say to this (and I'm probably close to you in age, and also think the democrats were weak as all hell in the 2000s against the Bush machine) is that Sanders would probably not be the progressive hero that you think he is once the pressure of national office starts its work on him.

If we have a Sanders presidency, in 8 years there will be a whole new set of "young voters" criticizing him on the drone program, etc.
posted by zutalors! at 6:35 PM on April 6, 2016 [17 favorites]


when did Barney Frank become a bank shill?

Barney Frank is pretty charming, but he's pretty much a prime example of regulatory capture and the public-private revolving door in DC. When you write the banking regulations (Dodd-Frank) and then the banks hire you, it's fair to wonder to what extent you had your future in banking in mind as you were putting pen to paper.
posted by dis_integration at 6:43 PM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


You know, all i can say to this (and I'm probably close to you in age, and also think the democrats were weak as all hell in the 2000s against the Bush machine) is that Sanders would probably not be the progressive hero that you think he is once the pressure of national office starts its work on him.

Sanders is already a progressive hero, so no need to wonder or wait 8 years.
posted by kyp at 6:48 PM on April 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


Progressive hero President, to clarify then.
posted by zutalors! at 6:56 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why is Rachel Maddow obsessed wtih this DC Madam case and some documents that her crazy lawyer may have? No one else is talking about this...it makes her look kinda nuts. She's using Enquirer talking points about things about Ted Cruz being in the documents.
posted by zutalors! at 7:00 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Perhaps Bill Clinton is in her little black book?
posted by futz at 7:04 PM on April 6, 2016


I don't think Rachel Maddow would be interested unless it seemed like a Republican was involved.
posted by zutalors! at 7:06 PM on April 6, 2016


Just watched Barney Frank go to bat for big banks in a Clinton/Sanders proxy argument with Robert Reich on MSNBC -- when did Barney Frank become a bank shill?

I would like to know more details about this. What shilling was he doing?
posted by schroedinger at 7:07 PM on April 6, 2016


Maddow is often going on about stories that take a while to get picked up by the more mainstream press outlets. I know she was talking about the Flint water crisis long before it was a big national issue. She's not always my favorite progressive but I trust her instincts on a story.
posted by dis_integration at 7:07 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Since he started working for one, probably.

Curious. Did that come up a few days ago when Barney said Bernie was a "MacCarthyite" and all that other shit? (checks) Not mentioned in the Slate piece. Didn't happen to come up.

Just Barney. Retired.

To me that seems outrageous.

I mean, I thought he was carrying water for the Party, but jesus lord.
posted by Trochanter at 7:08 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Flint water issue is a different thing though. This is a very tabloidy story about a DC Madam who revealed some clients in the 90s, killed herself, and her remaining list is with her lawyer, who is now petitioning the US Supreme Court to get them released and has set a timer on his computer which if not turned off means he's dead or missing and will release the client list.

WTF? Deeply weird story to pick up. Google the guy, there's not much out there. I don't think Flint is really a comparison.
posted by zutalors! at 7:10 PM on April 6, 2016


I don't think it is nutty at all. Distasteful, sure. Journalists get insider info all the time. She may have trusted that info and is laying out her plan of attack.

Or it could be nothing. The lawyer is going to court to try to get the names released.
posted by futz at 7:12 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it's a weird thing to take up so much airtime on so I was wondering if anyone felt like there was more story there. Doesn't seem like it.
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 PM on April 6, 2016


Seems like there could be to me. Maddow doesn't often waste her time on something unless there is some there there.
posted by futz at 7:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maddow was way ahead on the GWBridge scandal as well. I just don't understand this black book thing at all, and she doesn't seem eager to explain the significance.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


yea, I guess we'll see. I guess I hope so, but a sex scandal thing is not very interesting to me and wouldn't disqualify most of these candidates for me. I doubt it's Hillary or Bernie, Trump is terrible enough, and Cruz doesn't make sense because it was from the 90s.
posted by zutalors! at 7:22 PM on April 6, 2016


If we have a Sanders presidency, in 8 years there will be a whole new set of "young voters" criticizing him on the drone program, etc.

Eight? Based on Obama, try one year. Two, tops.
posted by happyroach at 7:24 PM on April 6, 2016 [14 favorites]


If Hillary was dating a DC madam, that would make her more interesting to me.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 PM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]




Cruz doesn't make sense because it was from the 90s.

Pamela Martin and Associates, her pimping front, was operating up to 2006. God I shudder to think that Sanders was using her services. Cruz is a longshot since he was in Texas then but also possible, since he argued often before the Supreme Court and I'm sure did other DC insider things.
posted by dis_integration at 7:37 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yep, Sanders just attacked Clinton as unqualified to be President. If the gloves are coming off like that I hope Sanders supporters aren't surprised if she hits back... hard.
posted by Justinian at 7:38 PM on April 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


He was responding to her comment this morning where she refused to say he was qualified.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:40 PM on April 6, 2016 [11 favorites]


It does seem like a weird strategy to me on his part. If he was going to do that, he needed to do it months ago when the race wasn't so far along. It's like they didn't believe they had a chance themselves early and only decided to really go for it recently... when it was likely too late.
posted by Justinian at 7:41 PM on April 6, 2016


Clinton said "I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs" which is the bog standard answer when asked that question. Every candidate running in a contested election has that memorized.

It's a far cry from one candidate saying the other is unqualified.
posted by Justinian at 7:42 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


No, he said she said he was quote unquote unqualified and she said no such thing. Yes, she evaded the question but she did not say he was quote unquote unqualified, which implies a direct quote.
posted by zutalors! at 7:43 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's maybe not the best rhetorical strategy, but it's a tit-for-tat kind of thing, responding to the kinds of remarks the Clinton camp has been making lately.
posted by dis_integration at 7:43 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, of all the things to attack her on, "she's not qualified" seems a bit suspect. Hard to imagine someone more qualified. I mean, I know he's attacking her judgment but all most people are going to see is the headline -- "Sanders says Clinton isn't qualified." I'm just not seeing that as a winning message to get Clinton supporters to switch allegiances.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:44 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


If we have a Sanders presidency, in 8 years there will be a whole new set of "young voters" criticizing him on the drone program, etc.

Change always happens first as an idea, a shift in culture, a subtle realignment of bearings until north is east and up is across.

In this sense Bernie Sanders' campaign has already given the left a platform to make our voices heard and it's just the beginning (of a continuation of an endless repeating cycle yadda yadda.)

In retrospect we might be able to say his campaign played a major role in changing the game. I think it's already fair to argue it has, pushing the political process back into the people's court. As kyp said, Sanders is already a progressive hero.

Sanders isn't about electing this one guy who can fix all the problems. It's about fighting to bring the people of the United States back into the political process by making their votes and donations matter. It's about no longer accepting the torrential influence of elite power as a reasonable status quo. His success, already tremendous in context, suggests that the working class voter, the impoverished voter, the disenfranchised voter, they can be heard.

And the success of Hillary Clinton's political machine that runs on gas I could never afford and travels through secret tunnels, it drowns my voice out, blaring as if through megaphones "I REPRESENT YOU, TRUST ME"

I mean, aight. Cool. She is a pretty kickass woman. But she doesn't get it.
posted by an animate objects at 7:46 PM on April 6, 2016 [18 favorites]


If the gloves are coming off like that I hope Sanders supporters aren't surprised if she hits back... hard.

Like someone said upthread, this ain't no tea party. I also hope that Clinton supporters aren't aggrieved when Sander's hits back too. Or when his supporters do. Please note that criticism of Hillary is not always sexist.
posted by futz at 7:47 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


It seems like he just wants to start a tire fire on the Democratic side. I think a lot of his attacks on her have merit, but not this one.
posted by zutalors! at 7:47 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


It seems like he just wants to start a tire fire on the Democratic side. I think a lot of his attacks on her have merit, but not this one.

Clinton directly, overtly attacked Sanders' qualifications. He has a sense of humor. Humor has barbs sometimes. Sanders doesn't think she isn't qualified, and he doesn't think voters are stupid enough to take him at face value when he argues about her qualifications. He's making a reasonable point that politicians who are beholden to financial interests might not be best suited to represent the millions of Americans who are not financial interests and can wield no stake in that landscape.
posted by an animate objects at 7:49 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, there's a way to spin it as he's just joking, of course.
posted by zutalors! at 7:51 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean, he said "She said I was quote unquote unqualified." I'm sure you want to spin that as no he didn't say it or she did something first, but everyone who heard him say that surely thought it was a direct quote.
posted by zutalors! at 7:52 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton left no doubt as to the insinuation. It's fair for Sanders to say she called him unqualified. And it's fair for him to use the same rhetoric to make his points. Which are not that Hillary Clinton is in some way deficient but that, as he's been arguing since day one, politicians who get lots of money from powerful people are fundamentally operating at odds with their constituencies.
posted by an animate objects at 7:57 PM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


He's not "just joking", he's saying that her own record should disqualify her from being the choice of the Democratic party...which is exactly what she said about him earlier today. That's campaigning, attacking her own record.

"Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC. I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries"

That's taking her own "he's not a Democrat" attack and turning it right back around into his standard speech. It's not a tea party, after all.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:57 PM on April 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


yeah, no tea party, a tire fire rather to get lots of headlines.
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


If we have a Sanders presidency, in 8 years there will be a whole new set of "young voters" criticizing him on the drone program, etc.

yeah but you can say that about anyone elected president. Even yourself. That's the nature of the beast.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:02 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I agree but the whole argument about Sanders is that he'll President like no one's ever Presidented before.
posted by zutalors! at 8:04 PM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


This back and forth between the two candidates should be expected.

Quote from above is:

It's a fucking political campaign, not a tea party.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious


If we nitpick every single thing that each candidate says like a dog with a bone we'll never actually have a productive conversation. It is exhausting.
posted by futz at 8:09 PM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Pretending that globalization is a simple matter of siphoning from the poor-but-less-poor to the more-poor is a willful deception. It completely ignores the vast explosion in the income and wealth of those at the top. So if you want to know where we can get the money to help poor people in China and India and Mexico, we know where to look"

(Full disclosure: I took a class from DeLong, but it was years ago.) I don't think DeLong was arguing the only way is to pit poor against poor and actually he would probably completely agree with deBoer about the rich:
an unequal economy is one that is lousy at turning productive potential into societal well-being. We could be doing better—and with a more equal income and wealth distribution would be.

Second, as noted above, established wealth, especially inherited wealth, is by its nature hostile to the creative destruction that accompanies rapid economic growth, for it is established wealth that is creatively destroyed. Plutocrats and their ideologues like to claim that too equal an income distribution destroys incentives to work and turns us into a “nation of takers.” But a return to the inequality levels of the 1960s would not turn us into Maoist China. In the relevant range of levels of inequality, it is much more likely that higher inequality will slow growth by depriving the non-rich of the resources to invest in themselves, their children, and their enterprises; It will further slow growth by focusing effort on helping the rich keep what they have at the cost of squelching the development of the new.
I think ideally it would kind of work like the way deBoer describes: Those that are transitioning between jobs (due to trade or automation or whatever reason) should have ample support in the form of retraining, education, medical care, and social services provided by a robust public sector that's funded by the wealthy and some, honestly, by government borrowing.

I mean, you can definitely have disagreements about certain things on trade like how stringent environmental regulations are, but I really don't think supporting free trade is automatically a wish for Thunderdome.

But I think along with a larger social safety net and focus on helping people get jobs and get paid more, there probably needs to be at least some action in readjusting trade policy and getting some manufacturing jobs back. Not because I think all the jobs will come back, I think it will only incrementally help things on that front (but admittedly will help with stuff like climate change and labor safety). But more along the lines that there's a huge amount of xenophobia and resentment and it's minorities, foreigners, and immigrants that are in going to suffer for it. So, maybe that should hopefully reduce the hostility out there. But I honestly don't know and that worries me.
posted by FJT at 8:10 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


I definitely don't believe in political messiahs but I do believe in presidencies built on great forces of history. I think some candidates are more likely to be open to an oncoming progression, while others will stand against it for the benefit of entrenched interests. You have your McKinleys, and you have your Roosevelts.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


yeah but you can say that about anyone elected president. Even yourself. That's the nature of the beast.

Thanks, Frank.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:40 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Okay, I am not sorry for finding Twitter to be an amazingly entertaining addition to our political process.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Lately the Clinton campaign has been calling out Sanders in general on his ongoing lack of articulation of plans to achieve his noble goals and in particular on his admitted lack of information about his signature ones like breaking up banks by publicizing the Daily News transcript of his interview there. These are fair points whether you like them or not. How IS Bernie going to do it?

But that is no quote unquote statement Sanders isn't qualified. To call it that is a straight lie.

And frankly Bernie has made me feel outrage. At him. To say Clinton isn't qualified is -- well-- on Donald Trump's level. If Bernie wants this Hillary voter, and many more like me, he just did exactly what makes me feel he'll never win me.
posted by bearwife at 9:27 PM on April 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


bearwife, I don't know if this will help or not but here is a link that might help explain Bernie's stance better.
posted by futz at 9:35 PM on April 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would like to know more details about this. What shilling was he doing?

He was arguing with Reich about whether or not a bank could even be "too big to fail", the implication being that Dodd-Frank had basically solved the problems of 2008 and big banks were fine so long as they don't put the economy in danger with massive debt. Reich's argument was that the only way to guarantee that would be to break the banks up, which Frank thought was completely ridiculous (now that I know he works for one this makes more sense).
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:51 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


And this:

Let’s Dispel Once and for All With This Fiction that Sanders Doesn’t Know How to Break Up Banks

If anything, Sanders is too wonky. The Daily News and commentators on this, I think, mean regulators as a whole, instead of the specific powers of the Federal Reserve itself, when they ask if the Fed has that authority already. Does the Fed have that authority? The Federal Reserve does have an extensive set of powers under the second and third approach, but it isn’t unilateral, but it also isn’t clear how much they could push if they truly wanted it. Sanders is correct to say it’s unclear how far the Federal Reserve can go but it is clear, however, that the Treasury secretary can lead FSOC to it.
posted by futz at 9:54 PM on April 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


The thing that bothered me about the Sanders interview was this specific passage:
Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.
Any major federal action is going to have positive and negative consequences. The positive consequences of breaking up big banks seem self-evident, and Sanders covers them well. But he is given the opportunity here to expound on what some of the negative consequences there might be - for example, massive unemployment in NY state, which the DN kind of tries to get Sanders to admit to. Sanders isn't interested. He has no interest in considering how banks might respond to being broken up. He says it's not his job, he's not running the banks. Actually, the job of any politician is to anticipate the consequences of their decisions. Presumably, Goldman Sachs has spent a considerable time thinking about how to subvert any legislative or executive action to break them up. If you're not thinking one step ahead of them - about what their strategy for avoiding regulation might be, they'll just keep doing what they've been doing. And the thing is, Sanders is brilliant about recognizing the drawbacks of policies he opposes. He knew exactly what would happen with the Iraq War, and NAFTA, and whatever that legislation he's been crowing about that helped the Panama stuff happen. He has a fine eye for neoliberal and neoconservative bullshit. I wish he would spend a little more time honing that on some of the policies he's in favor of, because I'm in favor of most of them in principle, I'm just not sure how they would work in reality.

Frankly, that's really what's so tragic about the complete nutsofication of the Republican Party. Obamacare would have been so much better with a few pairs of eyes in opposition picking out the parts that were bad ideas.
posted by one_bean at 10:08 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


The bank breakup answer thing seems like such a Swiftboat-style ratfuck where you take one of a candidate's strengths, spin it as a weakness, and media blitz until that's the narrative that sticks. There was that initial salvo of articles in a bunch of different media outlets within a matter of hours calling him a wrong idiot who didn't know what he's talking about, which spread like wildfire over social media, and by the time the actual financial experts and reporters weighed in to say hey what he said was legally and factually correct, it was too late. This guy who's made financial reform one of his top priorities for years is some kind of lightweight on the subject now.

LOVE THE NEVERENDING ELECTION SPIN CYCLE ONLY 216 MORE DAYS TO GO
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:13 PM on April 6, 2016 [23 favorites]


(And also what's depressing about the turn this primary has taken. The first few months had legitimately interesting policy debates but somehow we've been reduced to arguing about who is qualified and whether the other person said they weren't. Who gives a shit.)
posted by one_bean at 10:13 PM on April 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


I also hope that Clinton supporters aren't aggrieved when Sander's hits back too. Or when his supporters do.

"When?"

Because evidently for the last few months, we haven't seen Clinton hit with a continuous negative campaign?
posted by happyroach at 11:09 PM on April 6, 2016 [4 favorites]



Because evidently for the last few months, we haven't seen Clinton hit with a continuous negative campaign?


No, we haven't AFAIK. What have you seen that I missed?

Bernie's wife was forced to resign her job as a college president because (of still unresolved allegations that) she made fraudulent statements to get a loan (and they share finances). He has a son out of wedlock. It would be easy to paint him as anti-Israel, were Hillary so inclined.

Those would be negative attacks, and you can expect Republicans to come with them full throttle if he is elected. Plus other stuff we can't imagine. "Your dramatic policies are unrealistic" and "you aren't tough enough on gun control" is not negative campaigning. It's not a personal attack on character, unlike his repeated descriptions of her as corrupt and bought off.
posted by msalt at 11:20 PM on April 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


Happyroach, I am not sure what your point is.I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with me?

On preview, do you have links msalt? It seems like a bizarre thing to throw out there. The repubs are going to go hard at either DEM candidate but they are salivating at the chance to go after clinton.
posted by futz at 11:31 PM on April 6, 2016


If we nitpick every single thing that each candidate says like a dog with a bone we'll never actually have a productive conversation. It is exhausting.

It's almost as if tiring us out this way so we can't discuss the issues towards any resolution is one of the goals.
posted by mikelieman at 11:34 PM on April 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


I get it now hr.

You believe Sander's has been negative for months. Apologies for my confusion.

carry on.
posted by futz at 11:40 PM on April 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


do you have links msalt?

Sure. I assume you mean the Jane Sanders loan scandal. His son and relatively neutral position in Israel vs. Palestinians are public record.

- Vermont Digger
- WCAX
- Politico

Searching for those, I also stumbled upon another attack line -- funneling campaign funds from congressional races, and money from Burlington College, to Bernie's wife and stepdaughter -- though this short Vanity Fair article is based on an article in the highly biased right-wing Washington Free Beacon -- citing ProPublica!! -- so be forewarned.
posted by msalt at 12:29 AM on April 7, 2016


Believe? No. Concluded from watching various social media for the last three months? The positive comments about Savers have been vastly outweighed by anti-Clinton talking points, ranging from attacks in her past decisions, to attacks on her character.

Do I believe it's a official policy of the Sanders campaign? *shrug* I think they haven't exactly condemned this all that much. And why should they? Negative campaigns work.
posted by happyroach at 12:35 AM on April 7, 2016


CNN's article on the kerfluffle.
Secretary Clinton appears to be getting a little bit nervous," he told a crowd in Philadelphia. "And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am 'not qualified' to be president. Well, let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."
As far as I can tell, Sanders is just flat-out wrong about Clinton saying he is not qualified. I'll be charitable and assume he's just mistaken rather than knowingly misrepresenting what she said. Either he went off message there or I don't understand their strategy because like I said before the time for that tactic was a few months ago. It doesn't get him anything at this point in the race.
posted by Justinian at 1:22 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm assuming he's referring to her comments hashed out above, obviously, where she said she'd let the American people decide. If she made other comments elsewhere that could be different. Stuff's flying fast and furious at this point so it's always possible.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 AM on April 7, 2016


Supporters gonna support, but I'm not so sure Clinton hasn't exactly gone on the attack. Clinton's campaign was more than happy to spread around the idea that Sanders didn't have any real answers in the Daily Mail interview, not only that many people here seem to be under that impression also. Both the New York Times and HuffPo think that was garbage reporting. It's not like CNN has been a big supporter of Sanders either.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:42 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


#HillarySoQualified has about 98,000 tweets this morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:21 AM on April 7, 2016


#HillarySoQualified has about 98,000 tweets this morning.

But it has been hijacked rather quickly.
posted by kewb at 3:36 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


welp, the bucket of shit this is becoming is probably to the GOP like a new dawn, or something.
posted by angrycat at 3:51 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Not really; it's a lot of heat and noise, but it's not the kind of deep, actual split in the base the GOP is dealing with. A sizable chunk of Bernie's base strike me as unlikely Democratic voters in most years, and the rest are likely to vote against the GOP (or even...for Hillary!) in the fall.

This is a fight over what kind f rhetoric the nominee will use post-convention, an effort to drag the Overton Window left. It's not an existential crisis for the Democratic Party. And I think it suggests that the Democratic party will launch more progressive candidates down the road, if only via a generational shift. Let's not confuse people registering discontent with the neoliberal consensus with people trying to burn down the whole house.
posted by kewb at 3:56 AM on April 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


To the mainstream of the Democratic party an effort to shift the party left is an existential crisis.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:58 AM on April 7, 2016 [23 favorites]


I agree but the whole argument about Sanders is that he'll President like no one's ever Presidented before.

If I were to endorse this "whole argument" framing -- which I certainly do not -- the correct argument would be that Sanders will President like no one since before Reagan, not like no one ever.

Of course, that is not the whole argument, as has been repeatedly pointed out here. The whole argument is whether to change the direction of government priorities away from being for the benefit of corporations and toward being for the benefit of the People. It's not about Bernie, except to the extent that he is leading the charge. Whatever dirt the Clinton campaign may dig up to throw at him is irrelevant to the "whole argument."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:16 AM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


But it has been hijacked rather quickly.

Oh, I didn't even realize it had been started as a pro-Clinton thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]




I can't wait for the primaries to be over.
posted by bardophile at 6:44 AM on April 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


Oh, it gets better.
Clinton: New York criminals get guns from Vermont
posted by Trochanter at 6:53 AM on April 7, 2016


But it has been hijacked rather quickly.

Ms. Frederick accused Revolution Messaging of astroturfing:
“Any time a Hillary Clinton hashtag gets started, in the beginning … it’s going to be our stuff,” she said. “Whenever it starts to trend, we own it for five, 10 minutes, and then these Bernie tots come in and start trying to take it over.” Referencing Revolution Messaging, the company behind Sanders’s digital fundraising, she added: “Revolution media pays interns $15 an hour to troll people on the Internet. Hillary Clinton does not pay people to sit and troll the Internet. We are real people with real lives, full-time jobs, and we don’t have time to sit there.”
Interestingly enough, RM has a page on their site which discusses how unethical astroturfing is.

They also were no doubt behind Sanders' six-figure purchase to promote a hashtag after his first debate. (Promoting the hashtag helps prevent it from being hijacked.) Also, spending that kind of money undermines the idea that they're astroturfing themselves. The organization is good at what it does.

It seems more likely that this isn't astroturfing, but rather representative of his popularity with a certain demographic. For example, the S4P brigade has been extremely active on Reddit. Far more than Clinton supporters. r/politics has turned into a bit of a cheerleading section for Sanders. The r/sandersforpresident sub is now working with the campaign to organize phone banks, etc. (They also have a really great interface, with lots of positive cheerleading and immediately visible information about how their volunteers are doing, and upcoming opportunities.) r/HillaryClinton isn't coordinating with her campaign, as far as I know. And they also seem less organized.
posted by zarq at 6:54 AM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton: New York criminals get guns from Vermont

That's not true. The majority come from right here in New York state. The largest non-New York state that our guns are traced from is Maryland. I don't remember the statistics, but would be willing to bet less than 1 or 2% of our captured guns get traced back to Vermont.
posted by zarq at 7:00 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


i just don't grok Sanders's game here. So he gives a crotchety interview to the Daily News where he sounds ignorant a bunch even on issues he knows a lot about. So he suggests Clinton apologize to dead Iraqi children. So he vows to fight to the convention.

He is coming of as someone who may understand the upset of youth better than Clinton. Great, we need some of that. But HOW. Oh right, a revolution based on a cohort of voters many of whom can't be bothered to vote in off year elections.

If he was busily promulgating specific policies, I'd be interested. As is, I resent him for prioritizing promises that seem to have little substance I resent that he is benefiting from decades of GOP bullshit related to Clinton
posted by angrycat at 7:03 AM on April 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Here we go: ATF statistics (pdf). See page 7 for a map. Vermont accounted for 55 recovered guns in 2014 out of 7,686.
posted by zarq at 7:04 AM on April 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


And I wish Clinton would shut up about Vermont and guns. I wish everyone would shut up, essentially
posted by angrycat at 7:07 AM on April 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think everyone's bored with the primaries right now? Yesterday in Bethpage Donald was reading song lyrics about a snake biting a lady. The snake is Syria and the lady is America.

I mean, I guess I should be outrage but WTF EVEN
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 AM on April 7, 2016


I mean, in New York, we've devolved to discussing how many swipes it should take of a Metrocard to get on the subway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:19 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


one swipe dammit

#swipecountistoodamnhigh
posted by zutalors! at 7:20 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thousands of New York maple syrup addicts get their fix from Vermont maple labs. Where is the outrage, Berniebros ?!?!.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 7:21 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Make America Snake Again
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:25 AM on April 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yesterday in Bethpage Donald was reading song lyrics about a snake biting a lady. The snake is Syria and the lady is America.

The Donald reads this poem at every rally. I don't know why. People like it? It's the stupidest thing ever and he seems really bored when he reads it.
posted by dis_integration at 7:27 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I didn't know that, that's the first time I ever saw it. He did look bored.
posted by zutalors! at 7:28 AM on April 7, 2016


And I wish Clinton would shut up about Vermont and guns. I wish everyone would shut up, essentially

I think she should retract the statement. Immediately.

Yet his record on guns shouldn't be swept under the rug. Especially to New Yorkers, because he voted for the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which not only granted "sweeping legal immunity to the gun industry," it also "helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market." New York state's "mammoth lawsuit against 14 gun manufacturers and 27 distributors and dealers" which tried to prove they "bore a responsibility for the volume of guns illegally trafficked into the city. " Sanders voted for gun industry immunity so rural mom and pop stores in Vermont could continue to sell guns without fear of someone suing them if someone committed murder using their merchandise.

I have two kids in New York City's public schools. They go through lockdown drills every few weeks. Around 20 states have laws that make them mandatory. New York has much more restrictive gun licensing, purchasing and possession laws than most other states. Yet we still have a huge gun problem. And because they're so prevalent, my 8 year old kids get to huddle in fear in their classrooms every once in a while, hoping that this is another drill and someone hasn't walked into their school carrying a damned firearm.

I hope like hell she doesn't shut up about guns. Let him feel pressure and move to further to the left on this issue.
posted by zarq at 7:33 AM on April 7, 2016 [24 favorites]


"Hillary Clinton has been advised to do a lot of things on the campaign trail: smile more, speak with a softer voice, stop being so mad. Bernie Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, adds another one to the list: have less ambition."
via
Vox

Real life is once again taking cues from the Onion: Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President
posted by madamjujujive at 7:35 AM on April 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Here we go: ATF statistics (pdf). See page 7 for a map. Vermont accounted for 55 recovered guns in 2014 out of 7,686.

Maryland doesn't even show up in the top 15 there. On the other hand, southern states like VA, NC, SC and GA seem to account for the majority. But those are states that Hillary just won and might need in the general, so best not to bad mouth them, better stick to bashing progressive states like Vermont who have no choice but to kiss the ring.

election threads, i wish i could quit you
posted by indubitable at 7:36 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Probably time to tell Weaver to STFU. Bernie doesn't need that pitbull bull shit.
posted by Trochanter at 7:39 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Two weeks of boredom, then the quick hits of NY and the Northeastern primaries, then a few scattered primaries before the three WEEK pause before California.

This is just too damn long a campaign season. At least it wasn't the SIX WEEK pause in 2008, but I think everyone is tired and punchy given this campaign started in mid-November 2012.
posted by dw at 7:46 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Two weeks of boredom

The good Democrats of Wyoming take umbrage to that, I'm sure. But I agree it would be better if we could do the rest of the primaries next week or something. Bernie needs to win CA, PA and NY by impossible margins to come out of this ahead, and he's just not going to make that happen. So I wish we could tear this band-aid off.
posted by dis_integration at 7:50 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Two weeks of boredom, then the quick hits of NY and the Northeastern primaries, then a few scattered primaries before the three WEEK pause before California.

If Clinton wins NY, PA, CT, DE, and MD -- not saying she definitely will, but if she does -- then Oregon and California might not actually matter. But yeah, I agree with your sentiment here that the primaries are too spread out. And that the South's influence is disproportionately greater than that of the West's.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:53 AM on April 7, 2016




the primaries are too spread out

Make Tuesday Super Again?
posted by cjelli at 7:57 AM on April 7, 2016


Why Donald Trump Supporters Are Voting Alone: "among voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, Trump draws 37 percent support, to Ted Cruz’s 31 percent. But among the same voters, 50 percent of those who are civically disengaged back Trump, while just 24 percent favor Cruz."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on April 7, 2016




Hillary Clinton Fundraiser Hosted by All-Star Cast of Financial Regulators Who Joined Wall Street

"how to best work with and around the regulations they once enforced."

Not a single word of this article explains how they're "working around" regulations that some of them helped draft and implement while they were in public service. Law firms and companies who hire former regulators are probably not doing so because they hope their new hires are going to help them evade the law. It's more likely that they don't want to get fined for non-compliance. Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) do exist at many companies, after all.

The idea that regulators who spent years of their lives trying to bring the financial industry to heel will suddenly toss those principles away is stupid and kind of offensive.

Their attack of Tyler Gellasch and the Healthy Markets Association shows real chutzpah, too. Gellasch helped draft "the Volcker Rule provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the crowdfunding provisions of the JOBS Act, and the securities law provisions of the STOCK Act.” It's also possible that he was responsible for leaking information about the SEC's internal discussions about what to do with J.P. Morgan to a reporter at Reuters while he worked there. Gellasch today works for the Healthy Markets Association. The Intercept describes them as "a group that advocates for its members, which include various financial firms."

The Healthy Markets Association is "a non-profit organization of investors focused on improving the stability and integrity of US capital markets by empowering market participants with better data and analysis." Their core principles include greater data and pricing transparency to consumers and investors, helping those investors understand what markets are toxic, etc.

They are literally trying to eliminate the secrecy that led to the 2008 economic collapse, by protecting investors from financial company lies about the viability of their investments.

It would be nice if The Intercept could put their partisanship aside for a moment and acknowledge that yes, a few people have been trying to change things for the better, and maybe it's not a bad thing if they want to help elect a Presidential candidate. Perhaps they think she's on their side?
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on April 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


From Robert Reich:
One of you just sent me these numbers for the Democratic primary at this point in time -- which I've checked out and appear accurate.

Total pledged delegates - 4051
Pledged delegates needed to win - 2026
Pledged delegates yet to be decided - 1662
Pledged delegate for Sanders - 1088
Pledged delegates for Clinton - 1302
To win sanders needs - 938
To win Clinton needs - 724

What sanders needs to win (938) divided by what's left (1662), 938 ÷ 1662 = 56.438. We'll round that up to 56.5%

So it's not 60 or 70, it's 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates Sanders need to win.

What do you think?

posted by Trochanter at 8:26 AM on April 7, 2016


The idea that regulators who spent years of their lives trying to bring the financial industry to heel will suddenly toss those principles away is stupid and kind of offensive.

You find me a single one of them that has, in fact, been "trying to bring the financial industry to heel" and I'll grant you that.
posted by dis_integration at 8:28 AM on April 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


The qualified debate definitely seems like a tactic to get us talking about who's more qualified, which I do think favors Clinton. Now she'll get the chance to brag about her glowing qualifications because she got attacked over it. She implied the exact same thing about Obama in 2007/2008.

That being said I was so confused by Sanders going after her like that. Interestingly, I feel like his speech would've worked a lot better if he'd've said 'disqualified' instead of 'not qualified'. Tell the voters you think she disqualifies herself by the amount of money she takes from Wall St, etc.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:28 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think she should retract the statement. Immediately.

Was there a specific statement from her or just some reporter's recap of her private speech? I am asking in sincerity. After yesterday's reporting fiascos, I am increasingly reluctant to give credence to anything but direct quotes. The Washington Post's misleading headline & article stating Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president seemed to be the flashpoint yesterday -- although the video of her remarks shows she said no such thing. Even Joe Scarborough (that odious worm and Clinton hater) said he tried to goad her into saying something about Bernie's competence 3 or 4 times yesterday and she would not.

Wapo corrects the record today: Sanders’s incorrect claim that Clinton called him ‘not qualified’ for the presidency

So some reporter's click baitey headline and reportage significantly turned up the heat on this contest. The media has so much to gain if this devolves into an ugly food fight. Short of a few trusted sources, I am going to try to listen more to the candidate's actual words.

Something I would advise Sanders to do too. He jumped the gun with his remarks and it may gain him votes or cash from his supporters - but it significantly upped the ante and is not something that can be easily walked back. Although supporting Clinton, I began this race on the fence because I've followed and had enormous respect for Sanders over decades. Last night's remarks were not his finest hour. Keep it classy Bernie, don't tarnish that above-the-fray brand that has earned you so much respect.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:30 AM on April 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


You find me a single one of them that has, in fact, been "trying to bring the financial industry to heel" and I'll grant you that.

Investment News: 10 of the biggest regulatory fines of 2014.
posted by zarq at 8:32 AM on April 7, 2016




The idea that regulators who spent years of their lives trying to bring the financial industry to heel will suddenly toss those principles away is stupid and kind of offensive.

Offensive? Really?

Yes, it's entirely understandable that companies would want to hire people with expertise enforcing the regulations so that they don't run afoul of them, buy I don't see how it's so far-fetched to believe that people who worked in public service for a good but not great salary (relative to what they now make in the private sector) would understand what side their bread is buttered on and also help those companies evade those same regulations. Many won't, but many will, and to throw the word offensive out there for what seems like a perfectly reasonable characterization of the revolving door problem seems like a needless escalation of the rhetoric.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:34 AM on April 7, 2016 [13 favorites]




Many won't, but many will, and to throw the word offensive out there for what seems like a perfectly reasonable characterization of the revolving door problem seems like a needless escalation of the rhetoric.

I meant that it's offensive to accuse people without also presenting a shred of evidence.
posted by zarq at 8:36 AM on April 7, 2016


Investment News: 10 of the biggest regulatory fines of 2014.

The biggest fine on there is $15 million. These companies manage assets in the billions upon billions.
posted by dis_integration at 8:36 AM on April 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


The idea that regulators who spent years of their lives trying to bring the financial industry to heel will suddenly toss those principles away is stupid and kind of offensive.

It's kind of a thing.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:42 AM on April 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


The biggest fine on there is $15 million. These companies manage assets in the billions upon billions.

Stats at the bottom of the SEC enforcement page:

Stats (as of Jan. 13, 2016)
Number of Entities and Individuals Charged 198
Number of CEOs, CFOs, and Other Senior Corporate Officers Charged 89
Number of Individuals Who Have Received Officer and Director Bars, Industry Bars, or Commission Suspensions 53
Penalties Ordered or Agreed To > $1.93 billion
Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest Ordered or Agreed To > $1.47 billion
Additional Monetary Relief Obtained for Harmed Investors $418 million*
Total Penalties, Disgorgement, and Other Monetary Relief > $3.76 billion

I agree they need to do more. But they're not doing nothing.
posted by zarq at 8:45 AM on April 7, 2016


Ex-Staffer: Wisconsin GOPers Cheered Voter ID Bill For What It 'Could Do For Us’. Vote suppression is going to deliver them Wisconsin.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:46 AM on April 7, 2016


Hadn't seen this TPM story when I posted my comment above: Sanders Blames The Media For His 'Unqualified' Tiff With Clinton

Dammit, I almost beat TPM to the story.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:57 AM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, the SEC has been pretty active for the last 5 years, fining the companies involved in the financial crisis.

Yeah, the NFL is using this method to try and stop touchdown celebrations too. So far it hasn't worked. It turns out rich people can afford to pay fines.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:02 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]






So it's not 60 or 70, it's 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates Sanders need to win. What do you think?

That's basically correct, I think, but the math on this actually gets a little weird once you drill down to the state-by-state numbers, because there are several states for which you can't evenly split delegates into two even piles of 56.5% of the total and the remainder. If you presume that Sanders takes 56.5% of every remaining state's delegates, state-by-state, rounded down to a whole delegate, he ends up with 2,016 -- ten short. If you round up, he's one short at 2,025 going into DC and then closes the race with 2,037 after the DC vote.

Caveat: I just did the math on this, so it might be wrong, but the principle is correct -- treating the delegate count as one number gives you odd results because it's broken out unevenly between different primaries.

If Sanders is pulling 56.5% of every vote (give or take) going forward, that means that he'll probably win (depending on exactly how many states break a bit above that percentage), but also that, calendar-wise, he won't win a majority of pledged delegates until the Washington DC primary on June 14th -- the very last primary of primary season. In order to win during California or before, he'd need to be pulling in consistently above 56.5% in the states preceding.
posted by cjelli at 9:09 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


In order to win during California or before, he'd need to be pulling in consistently above 56.5% in the states preceding.

To amend that slightly: there's basically no way for Sanders to hit 2,026 pledged delegates prior to California (and others) on June 7th. If he took 99% of *all* the delegates available between now and then, he could just barely, maybe, make it by Puerto Rico on June 5th -- but not if he took 98% or lower.
posted by cjelli at 9:19 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Caveat: I just did the math on this, so it might be wrong, but the principle is correct -- treating the delegate count as one number gives you odd results because it's broken out unevenly between different primaries.

I've done the math quite a bit the last month, and yes, it's 57%, not 56.5%. (Which hey, it was 58% two weeks ago.) And yes, there's no way in hell Bernie wins DC, so he'd need to be at or very close to 2026 by the end of the night June 7.

I saw 67% in the Chicago Tribune the other day and didn't know where they got it from. I guess they're assuming the unpledged (aka super) delegates won't change their votes based on the pledged delegates. And that won't happen... unless the Bernie people so piss them off they refuse to move.

And this is where NY becomes a problem -- it's 247 of the 1662 remaining delegates. He loses, or even draws, and now you're fighting for the 1400 remaining delegates at a higher percentage.
posted by dw at 9:21 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


And to amend that further (apologies: this should all have gone in one comment), that's also true for Clinton -- if she pulls in 56.5% of the delegates from now forward, she won't hit 2,026 until June 7th.
posted by cjelli at 9:21 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]




weird decision to go to the Bronx
posted by zutalors! at 9:26 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


And to amend that further (apologies: this should all have gone in one comment), that's also true for Clinton -- if she pulls in 56.5% of the delegates from now forward, she won't hit 2,026 until June 7th.

That's the other thing I kept discovering when I ran the numbers -- Hillary can't clinch before June 7 UNLESS Bernie implodes. We're going to June 7 no matter what happens.

Sadly.

Sigh.
posted by dw at 9:28 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz! You are ordered to leave the Bronx!
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Hillary can't clinch before June 7 UNLESS Bernie implodes. We're going to June 7 no matter what happens.

I'm in a June 7th state (NJ)- is it wrong to be excited? MY VOTE REALLY MATTERS!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:36 AM on April 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


weird that NJ votes so much later than the tri state/NE seaboard. Y'all must feel left out.
posted by zutalors! at 9:42 AM on April 7, 2016


Life in NJ, what else is new.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:48 AM on April 7, 2016


Democratic Party voter info dump for New Jersey:

New Jersey is a closed primary. If you are unaffiliated, you can register the day of the election.

However, if you are already affiliated with another party, voter registration deadline is April 13th. You must complete and hand in your registration form before then.

You can check your voter registration status here.
posted by kyp at 9:53 AM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


And I wish Clinton would shut up about Vermont and guns.

In her defense, maybe she's having another Nancy Regan moment, Vermont : Virginia :: AIDS : Alzheimer's.
posted by peeedro at 10:39 AM on April 7, 2016


Wow, I just saw Hillary swipegate. As much of a nonstory as the Bernie tokens. "Oh she's such a panderer! She never takes subwayz!" No one ever gets that swipe speed perfectly right every time.

Whatever, I'm glad we're coming out strong against Cruz.
posted by zutalors! at 11:00 AM on April 7, 2016


Has Trump even seen the subway?
posted by dw at 11:09 AM on April 7, 2016




Yeah the swipegate is hilariously dumb. I'm thankful HRC doesn't ride the subway. I mean, just imagine all the man spreading those Secret Service agents would be guilty of. People with motorcades don't ride public transit.
posted by dis_integration at 11:12 AM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


The last few days have really shown the difference in experience in running a national campaign. Sanders has run a bunch of campaigns but they've all been in a really small state. That hasn't mattered until now but the last few days have shown a real lack of discipline. Vastly ramping up the rhetoric, not being quite sure how to handle the response to his editorial board meeting, etc. They should take a step back from the edge in the same way the news is reporting the Clinton camp is doing and trying to ramp the rhetoric back down.

MotherJones: Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats

Which is, as I've said before, probably the single biggest reason for supporting Clinton as far as I am concerned. Politics is a team sport, not a revolution for one single (albeit very important) position.

The way to get someone like Sanders elected is to get engaged in the process, get guys like Sanders elected locally, then statewide, then to the Presidency. Thinking you can just ignore all that boring local/state stuff and have a revolution from the top is not going to work.
posted by Justinian at 11:18 AM on April 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hillary Clinton Responds To Bernie: 'I'll Take Sanders Over Trump Or Cruz Any Time'

Well, she finally took the high road. Good. I only wish she had done it yesterday.
posted by zarq at 11:20 AM on April 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


That hasn't mattered until now but the last few days have shown a real lack of discipline.

Oh, come on. Clinton has made way worse errors, and she's been campaigning nationally for close to 30 years.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:20 AM on April 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hillary Clinton Responds To Bernie: 'I'll Take Sanders Over Trump Or Cruz Any Time'

Well, she finally took the high road. Good. I only wish she had done it yesterday.


Yeah, I think this was a great response. Go Hillary!
posted by zutalors! at 11:25 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The errors she's made have been things like the comments at Reagan's funeral which weren't part of a campaign strategy but rather a flub. The Sanders thing in the last few days looks like a campaign misstep. While the results may be the same from the outside I think they come from different places.

I disagree that Clinton was made way worse errors, though. She's made errors but not way worse.
posted by Justinian at 11:25 AM on April 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've said it before and I'll say it again. This whole primary campaign is two groups looking through vastly different prisms at what's going on and choosing the view that suits their pre-held beliefs. Which is not uncommon and not limited to politics. It's just human nature I guess. But I wish people would stop thinking their opinions are the real truth and not just their opinions.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:25 AM on April 7, 2016 [13 favorites]


The way to get someone like Sanders elected is to get engaged in the process, get guys like Sanders elected locally, then statewide, then to the Presidency. Thinking you can just ignore all that boring local/state stuff and have a revolution from the top is not going to work.

Isn't the party already full of guys like him, even the establishment? 7% voting difference with Hillary, right?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:27 AM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


that sounds like a gotcha but I have no idea what cha got got
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:30 AM on April 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


The way to get someone like Sanders elected is to get engaged in the process, get guys like Sanders elected locally, then statewide, then to the Presidency. Thinking you can just ignore all that boring local/state stuff and have a revolution from the top is not going to work.

I don't understand what you're trying to imply. This literally describes Bernie Sanders. He is the very definition of a grassroots-powered candidate.

He was elected mayor of a small town, then to Congress, then made it to the Senate. And now he's running for POTUS. All while running against the establishment.

Fun fact: In at least 2 instances, both Republican and Democratic parties endorsed the same candidate over him.
posted by kyp at 11:31 AM on April 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


The Sanders thing in the last few days looks like a campaign misstep. While the results may be the same from the outside I think they come from different places.

Definitely. Is there any way to figure out who in the Sanders campaign took sick days yesterday?
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:33 AM on April 7, 2016


I disagree that Clinton was made way worse errors, though. She's made errors but not way worse.

This time around I would agree. But in 2008 she made a strategic error significantly worse than anything Sanders has done, and it isn't even close.
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee.
Probably the twentieth time I've said this, but it's too bad Sanders probably doesn't have another run in him. Even the pros make serious mistakes in this game, you need to grow and learn how to lead a campaign on a massive national scale. Hillary is benefiting from 2008, even though it was a defeat.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:36 AM on April 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Vermont ranks 16th among among crime gun "export" states. But the way they come to that ranking is per 100K people, so it's not high the number of guns among states because Vermont is a small state. Basically, it's a state that punches above it's weight for gun trafficking. So I think the only VT to NY connection is to say that a lot of Vermont traced guns used for crime end up in New York.
posted by FJT at 11:44 AM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


This time around I would agree. But in 2008 she made a strategic error significantly worse than anything Sanders has done, and it isn't even close.

And she learned from that. That's why the 2016 campaign looks very, very different -- more like Obama's 2008 campaign. She went and locked up the establishment, worked the room, and built the inevitability BY being the person willing to have $300K fundraisers aimed at the downballot races. Her flubs have been more tactical fumbles than strategic failures.

Bernie's campaign has been very schizo from the beginning -- they didn't run to win, then they were; they were going to take the high road, but then Jeff Weaver kept opening his mouth; his campaign as wobbled between central control and independent surrogates. And meanwhile, Bernie kept going to Congress and doing the work three days a week.

It is too bad he's too old for a 2020/2024 run, but the hope is that someone will come behind him to take up this mantle. And they'll learn from his mistakes and do it better. Just as Obama learned from Howard Dean's mistakes, and just as Hillary learned from her own.
posted by dw at 11:48 AM on April 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Thinking you can just ignore all that boring local/state stuff and have a revolution from the top is not going to work.


I can name at least 5 friends under the age of 28 actively working everyday to get progressive candidates elected at the state and local level, including a couple working on a Somali-American candidate. I can name for you dozens of other friends who work phonebanks and canvas, who work polling places and drive people to vote. I'm one of them. Every single one of us is a Sanders supporter. I know one Clinton supporter. I cannot possibly tell you about the mountain of disrespect we endure doing so, this kind of statement amoung them. Remember that video a few weeks back, where Clinton told a young Black lady to 'Go run for something'? That's a friend of mine, and she works full time for a campaign.

The assumption that Sander's supporters don't care about local politics is offensive and super-duper close to the insults about just wanting free stuff. Can we all just quit that already? Many of us do, we actually work in it, and the reason many people who aren't is because local politics are incredibly toxic to young people and they aren't willing to be insulted for showing up.
posted by neonrev at 11:57 AM on April 7, 2016 [32 favorites]


Bill Clinton made some odd remarks at a speech today, essentially defending his crime bill. While pointing at a trio of protestors, holding signs that say "Hillary is a murderer", "Clinton Crime Bill Destroyed Our Communities", and "Black Youth Are Not Super Predators", talks about how drug dealers got "13 year olds hopped on crack and sent them out in the street to murder other African American children".
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:02 PM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]




Shut up Bill

Just shut. Up.
posted by angrycat at 12:11 PM on April 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


It is too bad he's too old for a 2020/2024 run, but the hope is that someone will come behind him to take up this mantle.

By happenstance I was reading an an article at the Nation about a couple of good progressives running for Congress - wouldn't be surprised to see their faces turn on in 2024. Everyone talks about Elizabeth Warren, and I'd be surprised if she wasn't touted as a candidate eight years out. It's been refreshing to see more and more focus brought to progressive down-ticket races (on reddit, among other places). So yeah, the next generation is out there.

This assumes that the progressive tide doesn't ebb over the next few years.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:14 PM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Longer video of Bill speaking. Actual discussion of the crime bill starts around 1:28.
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:14 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


GE CEO: Bernie Sanders says we’re ‘destroying the moral fabric’ of America. He’s wrong.

excerpt:
"The senator has never bothered to stop by our aviation plant in Rutland, Vt. We’ve been investing heavily (some $100 million in recent years), hiring and turning out some of the world’s finest jet-engine components in Vermont since the 1950s. The plant employs more than 1,000 people who are very good at what they do. It’s a picture of first-rate jobs with high wages, advanced manufacturing in a vital industry — how things look when American workers are competing and winning — and Vermont’s junior senator is always welcome to come by for a tour."
posted by madamjujujive at 12:15 PM on April 7, 2016


Further context:
President Clinton pushed back against the criticism by pivoting away from the typical stump speech and launching into a series of arguments about ways the crime bill did help the black community and times when Hillary Clinton worked on civil rights reform.

“I talked to a bunch of African-American groups [in 1994], they think black lives matter. [The groups said] to take this bill because people are being shot in the street by gangs. We had 13-year-old kids planning their own funerals,” Clinton said at the Philadelphia rally.

“Whose lives were saved that mattered?”

He went on to highlight other provisions of the crime bill—the assault weapons ban, money for after-school programs for inner-city children and funding for additional police officers that Clinton said reduced the need for police to bring in ‘militarized’ equipment— as well as Clinton’s work with disadvantaged children and on cataloging discrimination in an Alabama school.

Clinton also criticized the protestors by accusing them of overlooking the positives that came from the 90's bill.

"See these other signs? I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year olds-hopped on crack and sent them out in the street to murder other African-American children. Maybe you thought they were good citizens, she didn't," Clinton said to the protestors.

Clinton paused at times to let the protestors speak, but they did not relent and continued shouting in the background as the former president continued.

“I listened to them, they don’t want to listen to me. You never learn anything when you are talking,” he said of the protestors.

“You can trust them, or you can trust Congressman John Lewis, one of the last remaining heroes of the civil rights movement.”

posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on April 7, 2016


Yeah, they need to pull Bill off the campaign trail. That's going to look great on Twitter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:16 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe you thought they were good citizens, she didn't," Clinton said to the protestors.

Ugggghhhhhh. You can defend your intentions with the crime bill without lowering yourself into the sewer by accusing people of not caring about drug related violence. I seriously doubt the campaign wants to have this conversation. Especially not when Hillary is still running with the extremely cowardly position that she won't say if marijuana should be decriminalized or not without more research.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:19 PM on April 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


(Bill) Clinton has been one of the most effective surrogates for Democratic candidates in the last 30 years. Just not Hillary. I think he's too personally close to her. But look at how great he was for Obama and others. Maybe it's like how surgeons probably shouldn't operate on close family members.

This wouldn't be a problem in the general election. He should take a vacation or something until then.
posted by Justinian at 12:21 PM on April 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


Giuliani just announced he's supporting Trump. I wonder if he'll appear, like Christie and Vercingetorix before him, naked and defeated at the feet of his conqueror.
posted by Justinian at 12:22 PM on April 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


President Clinton really, really needs to stop defending it. He needs to say outright that despite some positives, the bill created an environment in this country that was toxic to Blacks and Latinos, led to unjust persecutions and mass incarcerations and left a lasting, terrible legacy. Not only on their communities and two generations of minorities but also with the creation of a class of police that distrust minorities by default. Which he regrets. Full stop.
posted by zarq at 12:28 PM on April 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


I watched the Bill C debacle on cable news. I couldn't believe my eyes or ears. I kept waiting for a vaudeville hook to appear to yank him offstage. Egads.
posted by futz at 12:29 PM on April 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


That's it. Bill just lost my vote.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:33 PM on April 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


[Bill Clinton:] “You can trust them, or you can trust Congressman John Lewis, one of the last remaining heroes of the civil rights movement.”

It looks like Rep. John Lewis was originally opposed to the crime bill, and reluctantly changed his vote at the end.

Huh.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:41 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The assumption that Sander's supporters don't care about local politics is offensive and super-duper close to the insults about just wanting free stuff. Can we all just quit that already? Many of us do, we actually work in it, and the reason many people who aren't is because local politics are incredibly toxic to young people and they aren't willing to be insulted for showing up.

Kudos to you and your friends for getting involved and showing up. It matters.

Just to try and expand on the initial comment (it wasn't mine, but I certainly feel similarly), when I see the exit polls that show 15% of Sanders voters in WI didn't even bother to cast a ballot in the state Supreme Court race, it definitely raises my eyebrows.

I'm not saying Sanders voters are bad, lazy people who want free stuff. But the state Supreme Court race was the real election happening on Tuesday, and to witness that many people just plain skip over it - a number that could have turned the tide away from Scott Walker's preferred candidate, mind you - deeply wounds me.

It's not just that Bernie was once mayor, and then leveled up to congressperson, then senator, and now is running for POTUS. We need more than just him. We need progressives on county boards in rural areas, progressives on school boards, progressives as county clerks and alders and whatnot. Yes politics can be toxic and brutal and largely unrewarding. But the chance of a Bernie Sanders or a Sanders-analog being elected President is seriously undermined when candidates with those views are few and far between. You need them on State Supreme Courts, in State legislatures, any elected office in any corner of the country.

It was Michael Moore who pointed out that local party operations are surprisingly easy to overthrow. You and ten friends (obviously this is more difficult in more populated areas) can make a huge difference. This is how the Republicans did it, starting decades ago.

I'm consistently disappointed in the progressive/Democrat/liberal coalition and its failure to capitalize on its majority numbers. Yes, voter suppression is real and it happens, but the reason it's happening right now in Wisconsin is because the left wing never showed up in 2010 or 2014. The reason I have idiot-man-child senator Ron Johnson representing me is because of this failure to show up.

The center-left coalition always wants to change things by voting in a President. It just doesn't work like that.

So kudos, neonrev. You're doing the right thing, and I realize it's emotionally taxing (I, too, work to elect progressives) but even if we don't end up with a President Sanders this time around, it's the work that's going to make a President with those values successful down the road.
posted by rocketman at 12:49 PM on April 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


GE CEO: Bernie Sanders says we’re ‘destroying the moral fabric’ of America. He’s wrong.

Counterpoint: All that vacant land in Schenectady, NY where GE used to have buildings ( and pay taxes on said buildings )
posted by mikelieman at 12:51 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Actually on further reading, the NYT article I linked just above appears to refer to the vote to allow debate on the measure. I guess Rep. Lewis eventually voted 'no' on the final bill?

The point still stands: John Lewis and the CBC generally shared the same deep concerns about the crime bill as then-Rep. Sanders did.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:52 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


GE CEO: Bernie Sanders says we’re ‘destroying the moral fabric’ of America. He’s wrong.

From Immelt's wikipedia page.

At the end of 2001 when Immelt replaced Welch, GE employed 219,000 worldwide and 125,000 in the US, as reported in its SEC Form 10K for 2001. GE's SEC Form 10K for 2014 states that worldwide employment is 305,000, and US employment is 136,000

So, you've grown the outside the US jobs at 3x the rate of your US based ones.

Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million through 2011, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.

I wonder how that compares to the lowest paid GE employee? I don't subscribe to the belief that CEO salaries can't be very high, but I think Ben&Jerry were onto something important when they tried to make sure the CEO didn't make more than a non-insane multiplier of their lowest paid employee. As we have seen the top earners grow their take I become more and more convinced of this.

B&J had to compromise to a 17x multiple. Would anyone care to wager whether the lowest paid employee at GE makes $500,000 a year?

He also presided over cutting dividends, while sitting on a giant pile of money they won't repatriate because of the taxes.

Maybe he's not destroying the moral fabric of anything but he's sure dancing along to the fiddle while things burn. So yeah, fuck that guy.
posted by phearlez at 12:53 PM on April 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


Further context

Thanks for the link, zarq. With full context it sounds much less mustache-twirly. Still wrongheaded and very poorly-worded, but it's clear he was speaking extemporaneously and trying to at least engage with protestors and answer some of their criticisms. But I agree that he's doing more harm than good and should probably take a powder for the rest of the primary campaign.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:55 PM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's it. Bill just lost my vote.

The problem is, her silence when he says things she disagrees with comes across as tacit acceptance.
posted by zarq at 12:57 PM on April 7, 2016 [2 favorites]




I believe John Lewis did end up voting against the Crime Bill FWIW. I suspect Bill Clinton is confusing Lewis' overall strong support for the Clinton's with supporting individual legislation while speaking, as Atom Eyes says, extemporaneously. Lewis has endorsed Hillary but that doesn't mean he endorses the crime bill. Not sure what Bill was getting at.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on April 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem is, her silence when he says things she disagrees with comes across as tacit acceptance.

I agree with you, but remember her tacit acceptance has to be balanced against Sanders' active participation in voting for the bill even if he did it reluctantly.
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on April 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I agree with you, but remember her tacit acceptance has to be balanced against Sanders active participation in voting for the bill even if he did it reluctantly.

I disagree. Primarily because I believe this isn't a "who's worse" situation. Sanders voted for it. Hillary stumped for it. President Clinton signed it into law.

Hillary Clinton has taken responsibility for the superpredators comment and apologized for it. She's also said she thinks the crime bill was a mistake. Her husband just got up and defended the crime bill and parts of its legacy to protestors. She really should be publicly disagreeing with him, to make it clear that he's not speaking for her. More importantly, it would acknowledge that she realizes the protestors have a point.
posted by zarq at 1:12 PM on April 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


> MotherJones: Bernie Voters Not Very Interested in Non-Bernie Democrats

Which is, as I've said before, probably the single biggest reason for supporting Clinton as far as I am concerned. Politics is a team sport, not a revolution for one single (albeit very important) position.

The way to get someone like Sanders elected is to get engaged in the process, get guys like Sanders elected locally, then statewide, then to the Presidency. Thinking you can just ignore all that boring local/state stuff and have a revolution from the top is not going to work.


Hear, hear. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with all the hype about Bernie's "Revolution." He isn't going to be able to accomplish anything all by himself. A revolution of one isn't a revolution, it's a cult of personality. People who don't understand that are no more living in reality than Trump's supporters are.
posted by homunculus at 1:13 PM on April 7, 2016 [16 favorites]


The center-left coalition always wants to change things by voting in a President. It just doesn't work like that.

Hippie self-punching is really the most tiresome thing about being a lefty. I respect the desire for self-reflection but this line of chatter goes around a lot and what it really is is lefty narcissism.

Here's the real statement: Human beings want big changes with little consistent effort via big visible actions. That's not just lefties, and you can see it very clearly by how big the non-presidential year turnouts for both parties.

Looking at my county's 2008 presidential turnout we had 79k/30k. Looking at the following year's governor's race (because fuck you Virginia and your odd-numbered-year bullshit) we get 37k/19k. Yeah, 53% falloff is worse than 36% but that's not trivial.

Look back to a similar time when republicans were disappointed by a result in 92 and you see 48k/27k, then 33k/19k for the 93 governor's race.

To the extent the republicans get the vote out in off years - and they suffer from off-year and downticket falloff too - they do it by motivating the rank and file to show the hell up. Those people aren't magically more enthused. They were reached.

The sneering at people who show up and voted bernie but not in that court race (let's stipulate my annoyance at judges running for election here plz) it's because someone got them out for bernie and didn't communicate the importance of the other race to them.

tl;dr: Whining that people didn't do research and make that other important vote is cursing the darkness. Recognizing that most people are just coasting and making sure to reach them on everything - even when they're primed only to care about grand scale shit - is lighting the candle.
posted by phearlez at 1:14 PM on April 7, 2016 [12 favorites]


Giuliani just announced he's supporting Trump.

Supporting, but not 'endorsing' -- 'Rudolph Giuliani to Vote for, but Not Endorse, Donald Trump'
Rudolph W. Giuliani is not endorsing Donald J. Trump. But he is voting for him.

In an interview, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who has been uncharacteristically quiet in the last week about the Republican primary, said that he was planning to vote for Mr. Trump in the state’s primary on April 19, over Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

“He’s my friend, and I think of the candidates, of the choices that I have, he’s the best choice for president,” Mr. Giuliani said. “He’s a better choice than Cruz and a more realistic choice than Kasich.”

Mr. Giuliani, who will be a delegate from Manhattan at the Republican National Convention, said he would have more sway on the floor as someone who had not endorsed anyone. But he spoke out as speculation swirled about why he had been absent in the lead-up to the primary in his home state.
'I think he's the best candidate and I'm going to vote for him, but I'm definitely not endorsing him, no sirree. I just think that he'd be the best president out of everyone running. That's not an endorsement, only a statement. I might yet choose to endorse someone who