It's still only April: the US election drags ever onwards
April 11, 2016 2:22 PM   Subscribe

As we enter the last 30 weeks of the election campaign, delegate talk becomes more prevalent. On the Republican side, current Donald (future Donald) did not have a good Saturday in Colorado and South Carolina, with Cruz picking up delegates, and Kasich seeing a path despite lacking delegates. On the Democratic side, Bernie's recent good run has added to his count, although he remains behind Hillary. Voter suppression continues to be a strong issue, while Wikipedia has some interesting data on historical voter turnout. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan may or may not be running, while Kevin Spacey, who plays Frank Underwood in House of Cards series, says some real-life presidential candidates ‘appear to be fictional’.

Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press and Bloomberg, while election odds are shown at Oddschecker and PredictWise. And it's not just the MetaFilter mods who this campaign is mortally affecting.

Primaries coming up...

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...
April 3rd - After this it's the midterms: April's US election primaries.
March 15th - Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand.
March 5th - Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues.
March 1st - Super Tuesday.
February 18th - Nevada and South Carolina.
February 9th - New Hampshire.
February 1st - Iowa.

(Housekeeping. There are currently two US election MetaTalk threads with overlapping subtopics, here and here. In the former, Cortex has some words on what the mods hope to see/not see in future debates.)
posted by Wordshore (1208 comments total) 43 users marked this as a favorite
 
Thank you, Wordshore. Excellent post.
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


By the time November rolls around, the election thread count will be approaching luxury hotel bedsheet levels.
posted by oulipian at 2:32 PM on April 11, 2016 [97 favorites]


This election has been like a very slow game of Russian Roulette.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:32 PM on April 11, 2016 [25 favorites]


First order of business for the GOP convention rules committee will be to change the 2012 rule that a candidate must have at least 8 state wins to at least one state win.

Just listen to off hours election coverage, the reporters talking about a contested convention, trying trying to keep the burning excitement out of their voices. It's just so cute to hear the pent up enthusiasm.
posted by sammyo at 2:34 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


That Kevin Spacey quote is great. The article also has this:
He revealed he is now recognised in China as House of Cards has become a hit there and said a friend told him “the Chinese government rather enjoy it” while Underwood is popular with “the common man”, as he is seen as someone who fights corruption.
posted by msalt at 2:35 PM on April 11, 2016 [11 favorites]




while Kevin Spacey, who plays Frank Underwood in House of Cards series, says some real-life presidential candidates ‘appear to be fictional’.

Santos / Ziegler 2016
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on April 11, 2016 [24 favorites]


First order of business for the GOP convention rules committee will be to declare that anyone who announces their candidacy prior to February in an election year is barred from winning the nomination.
posted by beerperson at 2:36 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


> This election has been like a very slow game of Russian Roulette.

.... where almost all of the chambers have a bullet.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:36 PM on April 11, 2016 [19 favorites]


Married to the Sea is relevant as always.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Please don't hurt me, but I actually found Limbaugh's analysis of Trump's bad day in Colorado somewhat fascinating. A contested convention would be amazing to see. So much chaos this year!
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right
Ain't buying the importance he assigns to all those groups, but interesting reading anyways.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


.... where almost all of the chambers have a bullet.

Well, some of them do have bandaids. The problem is, you've already been shot.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:39 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


The whole thing with delegates in Carolina and elsewhere has been a nice reminder that the early articles about Trump having the organizational infrastructure of a racist orange rutabega weren't actually wrong, despite his success at the polls.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]




Is it just me or have things gone suspiciously quiet on the Trump/Cruz front? The last thread just devolved into a stupid mess of Bernie/Hillary/Bill back-and-forth, and there's the barest peep of news on the other side. How come Trump's not burning up the interwebs with his tweets? What's up?
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:44 PM on April 11, 2016


Trump being denied the nomination if he's short even by a few bound delegates -- and quite possibly even if he's not, given that many of "his" bound delegates are actually Cruz supporters, who can vote to unbind themselves -- will work to assure Clinton's nomination. Superdelegates will happily not switch to Sanders, even if he has a majority of bound delegates, if the Republicans are doing it too.
posted by MattD at 2:46 PM on April 11, 2016


So Metafilter poll, how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention? I'm up to 4.
posted by emjaybee at 2:48 PM on April 11, 2016 [19 favorites]


Are we counting ones that I would have to block again if they weren't blocked already?
posted by LionIndex at 2:51 PM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


> "Is it just me or have things gone suspiciously quiet on the Trump/Cruz front?"

Oh, there's still utterly horrifying stuff going on, no worries on that front.
posted by kyrademon at 2:52 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


Are we counting the ones that I agree with politically, but have blocked anyway because they're always posting OutrageFilter about what the other side is doing?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:57 PM on April 11, 2016 [40 favorites]


> "Superdelegates will happily not switch to Sanders, even if he has a majority of bound delegates, if the Republicans are doing it too."

Could we maybe not invent conspiracy theories?
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on April 11, 2016 [30 favorites]


Is it just me or have things gone suspiciously quiet on the Trump/Cruz front?

March 15th basically killed Cruz's campaign dead in the water. His inability to win most of the shit he should have won basically sealed it. There's 0% chance of him getting over 1,237.

It's either Trump or it's contested at this point.
posted by Talez at 2:59 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wordshore, thanks for another in a great series of posts. I don't know who put you under this geis but I'm sure an army of appreciative Mefites will be happy to slay the enchanter in question come November.
posted by Zeinab Badawi's Twenty Hotels at 3:01 PM on April 11, 2016 [18 favorites]


> "... how many friends have you had to temporarily block ..."

Only one, but to put that in context, that is thus far the second person I have ever blocked in my entire life.
posted by kyrademon at 3:01 PM on April 11, 2016


So Metafilter poll, how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention? I'm up to 4.

I haven't, but only due to a systematic disengagement with social media for years. My girlfriend, on the other hand... oy. She's been getting passive aggressive stuff from her sister even though we all favor the same candidate. (Her sister feels she is not doing it *hard* enough. I despised her sister before, but man, lately is Not Helping.)

Upon preview, right there with DevilsAdvocate:
Are we counting the ones that I agree with politically, but have blocked anyway because they're always posting OutrageFilter about what the other side is doing?
posted by mordax at 3:01 PM on April 11, 2016


And yes, the person I blocked voted for the same person in the primaries that I did.
posted by kyrademon at 3:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


High School Soccer Fans Chant ‘Trump, Build That Wall’ At Minority Opponents

It's profoundly disturbing how much and how often this keeps happening. I knew how bad it is intellectually of course, but I still wasn't at all prepared when a (fairly drunk) guy near me at a SF Giants game started shouting "Trump! Trump!" and "Check his papers" and "Build a wall" when one of the Dodgers was up to bat. Ironically, I'm pretty sure the Dodger in question was Yasiel Puig, who's Cuban, and had one of the strangest journeys to his pro baseball career in the US via Mexico.

His buddy did have at least some decency to be embarrassed and made a half-hearted effort to get him to stop. I mean I knew this was the kind of thing people were shouting, but I could not fathom someone near me was actually doing this, in San Francisco of all places.

Yes, drunk guys are going to taunt their rival team and racists are going to racist, but think about it: Trump's own name, the name of the guy poised to become the nominee, has literally become a racist chant in and of itself.
posted by zachlipton at 3:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [47 favorites]


Can we get these posts on an automated schedule somehow? "SUPER TUESDAY XIV: THE CRUZING - IF ALL TUESDAYS ARE SUPER, NO TUESDAYS ARE SUPER" 69.99 on Pay-per-view!
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm still speaking with my Bernie friends, but I think they're annoyed that I keep fact-checking their USUncut links on Facebook.
posted by dw at 3:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [22 favorites]


I admit that I've hidden most of the people who only post about Hillary Clinton. If you can't even post a cat picture once in awhile, I'm done.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


suppose the cat wears pantsuits
posted by thelonius at 3:06 PM on April 11, 2016 [87 favorites]


Could we maybe not invent conspiracy theories?

You don't know about superdelegates, dude. They're like regular delegates? But they have no empathy or conscience. They just sit around playing video games and listening to the hippity hoppity music. Superdelegates would just as soon kill you for your tennis shoes as vote for you.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:07 PM on April 11, 2016 [69 favorites]


Is it just me or have things gone suspiciously quiet on the Trump/Cruz front?

One thing that jumped out at me as I was looking at the upcoming rounds of primaries -- Cruz may finish third in most all of them, and it's winner-take-all or winner-take-most. Trump may not get to 50%, but he's about to put a LOT of daylight between him and Cruz.
posted by dw at 3:07 PM on April 11, 2016


The good news about Ted Cruz's delegate machinations is that, if he does end up with the nomination, they will dovetail nicely with voter suppression strategies to give the Democratic nominee a powerful story about how Republicans are using legalities to deny the will of the people.

I would love to see voter suppression be one of the leading issues of this campaign.
posted by msalt at 3:08 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


suppose the cat wears pantsuits

I believe we could unite around that as a party. (And links like that are why I kept following the last thread - all credit to schroedinger.)
posted by mordax at 3:08 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


goddamnit, 30 weeks is so fucking long
posted by koeselitz at 3:09 PM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]




I would love to see voter suppression be one of the leading issues of this campaign.

That would be so great.
posted by mordax at 3:09 PM on April 11, 2016


Joe Biden would like to see a woman elected President. Who the heck does he have in mind?
posted by bearwife at 3:15 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


This election cycle is disgusting and the longer it takes, the more money that is required to be a competitor and that means counting more and more on corporations and wealthy donors...the length thus sets the very nature of that which so many complain about, ie, how the wealthy control outcomes. Further, the cable channels no longer give us news unless some spectacular terror attack takes place, but instead has dumb representatives from various campaigns giving us their biased wisdom, when we know in advance that what they push is what they represent.
posted by Postroad at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


Speaking of voter suppression, the Kansas Secretary of State's office put out inaccurate Spanish-language voter guides with the wrong registration deadline and omitting a passport as a valid form of ID that can be used to satisfy the state's voter ID requirement. The English-language guides had the correct information.
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 PM on April 11, 2016 [33 favorites]


Who the heck does he have in mind?

Knope 2016!
posted by Talez at 3:18 PM on April 11, 2016 [39 favorites]


> "Trump may not get to 50%, but he's about to put a LOT of daylight between him and Cruz."

No one is really expecting Cruz to win a majority of the delegates at this point. The only question is whether or not it's going to be a contested convention, which still looks surprisingly possible.
posted by kyrademon at 3:18 PM on April 11, 2016


Eight days to go until New York... and the race isn't tightening. Well, maybe slightly. But there's no obvious shift appearing. Hillary's still over 50% and in double digits in every poll.
posted by dw at 3:19 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm so tired of it all. Tired of the mendacity, racism, and stupidity in the Repub race and weary of friends and family making asses of themselves in a constant war of Hillary vs Bernie. And I live with a woman who is constantly watching cable news. 30 weeks. Kill me fucking now.
posted by Ber at 3:21 PM on April 11, 2016 [19 favorites]


No one is really expecting Cruz to win a majority of the delegates at this point. The only question is whether or not it's going to be a contested convention, which still looks surprisingly possible.

Right, the only remaining question before the convention is whether Trump can cobble together enough delegates for a first-ballot win. He needs to absolutely crush it in New York to have a shot. Like take virtually every single delegate.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on April 11, 2016


An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

He dox'd Moldbug. Ha ha ha ha ha ha
posted by bukvich at 3:26 PM on April 11, 2016


the more money that is required to be a competitor and that means counting more and more on corporations and wealthy donors

It's interesting that one candidate has shown that an alternative to corruption is at least still possible on some non-marginal level. Democracy may still lose this election, but I have a bit more hope that it has a fighting chance next time around.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:27 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


He needs to absolutely crush it in New York to have a shot. Like take virtually every single delegate.

NY is winner-take-all if you win 50%+1 of the votes. Right now Trump is over 50% in NY polls.

He'll also need to do the same in PA and MD and CT week after, but again, running over 50% in those states. (Correction: He's only ~40% in MD, but Cruz is a distant third.)
posted by dw at 3:28 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Moldbug's identity has been an open secret even before the Dark Enlightenment arrived in the mainstream back in late 2013.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:39 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


So, has everyone just dropped the Cruz "native born" question? It seemed like that was going to be an actual thing, but it's seemingly disappeared from sight. Or, did it get figured out while I was in the shower?

I just want this over with. Here in Indiana, we are being deluged by ads for our various Senate and House candidates trying hard to out-conservative everyone else. I have restrain myself from throwing something heavy at the tv when another one comes on. The weird thing is, they are all running against Obama.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:39 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, has everyone just dropped the Cruz "native born" question? It seemed like that was going to be an actual thing, but it's seemingly disappeared from sight.

He's white, so it doesn't matter. Not even joking, that's super obviously what it is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:43 PM on April 11, 2016 [37 favorites]


Only 31 more weeks until the 2020 election season begins!!!!
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:46 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


Look, fair is fair, I think Cruz should have to provide his long-form birth certificate, or at the very least the Akkadian tablet where his first manifestation on earth was recorded (if he wants to redact the imprecatory prayers that are to be used to keep him at bay for privacy reasons, I don't have a problem with that)
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:48 PM on April 11, 2016 [64 favorites]


Could we maybe not invent conspiracy theories?

30 weeks to go
30th President was Calvin Coolidge
Coolidge was a lawyer from Vermont
Sanders is a Senator from Vermont
Vermont makes maple syrup
Maple syrup is super delicious
Superdelegates most likely need super delicious foods for their super sustenance
There's something here...I just know it
posted by Hoopo at 3:49 PM on April 11, 2016 [29 favorites]


He's white, so it doesn't matter.

No question that being white is a large part of it. But I think the even bigger part is that he's not winning. If he were, then he'd be facing it from all sides. The other candidates, Trump especially, would be bringing it up. And the Democrats probably would too, as revenge for birtherism, though they'd be smart enough to use proxies. Like a well-timed "gaffe" from Biden.

Since he's not winning, there's no reason to use it now. That's just wasting perfectly good ammo.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:51 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, has everyone just dropped the Cruz "native born" question? It seemed like that was going to be an actual thing, but it's seemingly disappeared from sight. Or, did it get figured out while I was in the shower?

Settled or not, there is one elected official who claims he would file a suit against Cruz (assuming he can even get to the general, let alone past it):

Alan Grayson Explains Why He'll Sue Ted Cruz Over Presidential Eligibility
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


I would love to see voter suppression be one of the leading issues of this campaign.

That would be so great.

I wish it could be at the beginning of anything related to this election season. Like, sing the national anthem, right into voter suppression news.
posted by cashman at 3:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Alan Grayson Explains Why He'll Sue Ted Cruz Over Presidential Eligibility"

this my troll face
posted by klangklangston at 3:58 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Alan Grayson seems like a buffoonish blowhard. But lots of people seem to like him. Don't get it.
posted by Justinian at 4:00 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Moldbug's identity has been an open secret even before the Dark Enlightenment arrived in the mainstream back in late 2013.

Yeah there was a whole thing when he got cancelled from a tech conference over it.
posted by atoxyl at 4:01 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I read a theory that Donald Trump secretly wants a contested convention or last-minute rule change to lose the nomination.

If you assume he ran for president to get his name on the news and strengthen his brand, it makes sense. After all, a president doesn't make a lot of money, and he probably knows he can't make good on many of his promises since the president has fairly limited power without the courts and legislature on board. But a failed candidate gets lots of speaking gigs and TV time, just look at Palin. However, his brand is about winning, and he doesn't want to be a loser or quitter, but if the contested convention loses him the nomination, he's not losing in a fair contest, he's getting cheated by a cabal. If he loses hard in the general, he enters the public consciousness as a loser blowhard, and if he doesn't accept the nomination, he's a quitter. If so, the incentives line up, as the GOP establishment doesn't want Trump as their nominee.

To be clear, I think a contested convention is inevitable at this point. Trump clearly can't win the general, and the GOP doesn't want him to define their party. They have no reason to keep him, other than to keep his supporters on board, many of whom usually don't vote. My big question is what will politics be like in the future when we see more Trump-like campaigns. Interesting times.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [15 favorites]


Alan Grayson seems like a buffoonish blowhard

Yeah, but he's our buffoonish blowhard.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


Alan Grayson seems like a buffoonish blowhard. But lots of people seem to like him. Don't get it.

This election cycle must be a mystery wrapped inside an enigma for you.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [15 favorites]


Robert Kagan, area neo-con:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
posted by Trochanter at 4:05 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


goddamnit, 30 weeks is so fucking long

If you can remember what you were doing now mid-September, just before Scott Walker dropped out - that was 30 weeks or so ago from now. However, the advantage (if you're in the northern hemisphere) of this next 30 weeks is that it's late spring through summer through early autumn - outdoor nature possibilities!

I would love to see voter suppression be one of the leading issues of this campaign.

While trying to keep election FPPs a bit neutral, I must admit I'm really fascinated and disturbed by voter suppression in its many forms, both contemporary and historical. Hence I've been putting links into some of the FPPs about this topic. Reminded of this by a friend in Arizona who tweeted about some of the waits in the recent vote there [1] [2] [3]. Just so extreme.
posted by Wordshore at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's my pro-tip for surviving 2016 In Anglophone Politics (*)

1. Paint a wall in white, hard-wearing, easy-clean vinyl emulsion.
2. Buy a projector

You can now throw a variety of satisfying objects at your TV picture, with no expensive or long-term consequences. More expensive modern projectors can render your mobile phone, tablet or laptop screen very legibly, thus making it if not safe then less fiscally punishing to read social media, web news and MetaTalk, if you resist the urge to hurl the device itself at te image.

(* Canada excepted)
posted by Devonian at 4:07 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


At least one military spouse I know is in the tank for Gen. James Mattis; he creeps my liberal ass the hell out, but that's probably the appeal.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:07 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's profoundly disturbing how much and how often this keeps happening. I knew how bad it is intellectually of course, but I still wasn't at all prepared when a (fairly drunk) guy near me at a SF Giants game started shouting "Trump! Trump!" and "Check his papers" and "Build a wall" when one of the Dodgers was up to bat. Ironically, I'm pretty sure the Dodger in question was Yasiel Puig, who's Cuban, and had one of the strangest journeys to his pro baseball career in the US via Mexico.

His buddy did have at least some decency to be embarrassed and made a half-hearted effort to get him to stop. I mean I knew this was the kind of thing people were shouting, but I could not fathom someone near me was actually doing this, in San Francisco of all places.


Hahaha what? Going to ATT Park is to listening to a never ending chorus of "FUCK LA!", even when the Giants are playing Arizona. Hearing someone yell racist stuff at a Dodger who is actually playing in the current game should be far from surprising.
posted by sideshow at 4:12 PM on April 11, 2016


At least one military spouse I know is in the tank for Gen. James Mattis; he creeps my liberal ass the hell out, but that's probably the appeal.


Who? How adorable.
posted by General Malaise at 4:13 PM on April 11, 2016


emjaybee: "So Metafilter poll, how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention? I'm up to 4."

Three. I can put up with the constant posting for your candidate but the Reddit meme stuff makes me hit the mute button fast.
posted by octothorpe at 4:14 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sir Ian Richardson did it, so can we all!
posted by clavdivs at 4:15 PM on April 11, 2016


the Reddit meme stuff

Is that the stuff that's like "think about this, now think about that. Now think Bernie Sanders. He is the only one..." and "as you sit down to dinner, think of the one man and his wife who are working for you..." because that stuff is damn weird.
posted by zutalors! at 4:21 PM on April 11, 2016


I'm still speaking with my Bernie friends, but I think they're annoyed that I keep fact-checking their USUncut links on Facebook.

I never click through to that site because I just assume from the name it's anti-Semitic.
posted by escabeche at 4:22 PM on April 11, 2016 [24 favorites]


Hahaha what? Going to ATT Park is to listening to a never ending chorus of "FUCK LA!", even when the Giants are playing Arizona.

I remember being 15 and going to Candlestick on a family trip:

"GOO-DEN SUCKS!
FUCK THE METS!"
posted by escabeche at 4:23 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tell me of your homeworld, Usuncut
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:23 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


I haven't blocked anybody, but I've muted a looooooooot of names & hashtags in the Twitter app on my phone.
posted by epersonae at 4:24 PM on April 11, 2016


Trump clearly can't win the general, and the GOP doesn't want him to define their party.

It's a bit late for that.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:24 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you assume he ran for president to get his name on the news and strengthen his brand, it makes sense.

Would someone be that high strung and wear a bulletproof vest just to improve their brand? I think it's not only possible but probably right that self-promotion was Trump's reason at the beginning, but the motivation and purpose of the campaign changed as he realized the opportunity he stumbled into. There was probably a middle stage of "let's see how far I can go," and then that has gradually been replaced with, "Yeah, I think I may actually win this."

I recall even Sanders admits he was surprised at the response from his campaign and it's shifted from a awareness campaign to an actual attempt to win the nomination.
posted by FJT at 4:28 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


NY is winner-take-all if you win 50%+1 of the votes. Right now Trump is over 50% in NY polls.

I don't think that's quite accurate. I believe New York is partly WTA by the state and partly district-by-district, so Cruz could still amass significant numbers of delegates even if Trump wins the state.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:31 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


NY is winner-take-all if you win 50%+1 of the votes. Right now Trump is over 50% in NY polls.
Getting over 50% of the statewide vote would give Trump all 14 of the “at-large” delegates. To be guaranteed all of the remaining 81 delegates, he’d need to also get over 50% in every single one of the twenty-seven NY congressional districts. So it’s very possible for Trump to get over 50% of the vote but under 100% of the delegates.
posted by mbrubeck at 4:33 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention?

I have one friend who has taken the extra step to be meta-annoying by constantly posting how annoying it is for everyone else he knows to be posting Bernie-vs-Hillary all the time, but he leavens it with enough other interesting stuff that I haven't unfollowed him. Yet.
posted by psoas at 4:34 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


So Metafilter poll, how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention? I'm up to 4.

I had to drop one of the earlier election threads, so a whole bunch of you.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]


you know if this all leads to a moment a la back in 2012 when Biden wiped the floor with Ryan and we were all shouty-caps in here in won't be, well, not worth it, but pretty cathartic, I guess
posted by angrycat at 4:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


MetaAnnoyingFilter
posted by kyp at 4:39 PM on April 11, 2016


Bernie didn't win Wyoming. He and Hillary each got 7 delegates in the caucus. If you count total Wyoming delegates Hillary actually leaves Wyoming with more than Bernie.
posted by humanfont at 4:41 PM on April 11, 2016


It feels really, really, REALLY strange as a Pennsylvania resident to have a primary vote with above-zero meaning.

I mean, not that I'm not planning on writing in the Philly Phanatic anyway.
posted by delfin at 4:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


From the Mattis link:

“The process is actually quite simple, but it’s difficult,” one of the strategists concedes in a memo, and the chances of Mattis winning the White House outright as a third-party candidate are “very low.” But if the retired military officer could win several states won by President Obama in 2012, they might be able to block Clinton, thus forcing the incoming House of Representatives to make a decision on the next president of the United States.

With the House split, the strategists reason, Mattis could be the consensus choice.


Is this the long game of the apparently suicidal unwillingness to even hear the Garland Supreme Court nomination - that the Republicans are hoping for this sort of end-run around the electoral college? And while a 4-4 court is not ideal, it's better than a 4-5 court when things get litigated.
posted by Rumple at 4:44 PM on April 11, 2016


I saw the same "strategy" in some Libertarian Party thing a little while ago. Basically, the House can choose from the "top 3" candidates in the electoral college, so if you can get even 1 elector then theoretically the House could choose you if there is no majority in the EC.

(Their strategy was premised on Trump v Clinton v Some Libertarian Guy and suggesting the House would prefer SLG to Trump)

This strikes me as absurdly unlikely (regardless of who the "3rd party" candidate in question is).
posted by thefoxgod at 4:49 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


If the election goes to the House of Representatives, that's how we wind up with Paul "My Ads Don't Mean I'm Running" Ryan.
posted by carmicha at 4:51 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I hope the GOP runs everybody. Trump runs. Cruz runs. Kasich runs. Paul Ryan runs. (Romney is his VP.) Jeb/Rubio. Scott Walker crawls back. Rick Perry rides into the RNC on the back of a horse. Mad Dog Scholar Warrior Monk general arrives at the head of a tank column. Condi parachutes in from a stealth bomber. Everrrrrybody runs!
posted by Apocryphon at 4:52 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


(One interesting thing they did point out is its not a simple House vote. Its a crazy thing where each state votes for a candidate and then you just tally those up, so like electoral college where each state gets exactly 1 elector. Right now this probably wouldn't make much difference, but you could imagine a House where the Democrats were the majority, but still ended up electing a Republican president because there are generally more "Republican" states.)
posted by thefoxgod at 4:52 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


If the election went to the House of Representatives, that's how we wind up with Paul "My Ads Don't Mean I'm Running" Ryan.

Well, only if he was the Republican nominee or ran 3rd party. They can't just choose anyone, it has to be "from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President" according to 12th Amendment.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


I read a theory that Donald Trump secretly wants a contested convention or last-minute rule change to lose the nomination.

Right. Can't recall where I heard a similar idea. Basically, this whole thing has gotten out of control for Trump but he can't back down. His whole image is about winning! But, he doesn't actually want to be President. His best case scenario is that he wins the most delegates and is therefore still Winning Trump, but is stabbed in the back by the GOP elite at the convention. He can claim victory without having to be responsible for anything afterwards.
posted by Gotanda at 4:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I hope the GOP runs everybody. Trump runs. Cruz runs. Kasich runs. Paul Ryan runs. (Romney is his VP.) Jeb/Rubio. Scott Walker crawls back. Rick Perry rides in at the RNC on the back of a horse. Mad Dog Scholar Warrior Monk general arrives at the head of a tank column. Condi parachutes in from a stealth bomber. Everrrrrybody runs!

Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.
posted by zutalors! at 4:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [34 favorites]


But, he doesn't actually want to be President.

I still feel that way. Also, how unsurprising that the two highest profile Trump kids, Eric and Ivanka, didn't sign up as Republicans in time to vote in the NY primary. They probably thought it wouldn't matter by now.
posted by zutalors! at 4:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


To combine the above two wild speculation threads, I've read that Perot was on his way to win '92 via electoral college vote-splitting, but then sabotaged his own campaign so that he wouldn't actually become president. Any basis to that?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:59 PM on April 11, 2016


Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.

Nah, I say we put 'em all on a boat together and send them on a nice charter cruise.
Nothing too extravagant, though. Perhaps a three hour tour?

A three hour tour.
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:00 PM on April 11, 2016 [40 favorites]


Nah, I say we put 'em all on a boat together and send them on a nice charter cruise.
Nothing too extravagant, though. Perhaps a three hour tour?

A three hour tour.


You almost owed me a new keyboard.
posted by mordax at 5:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]




Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.

I made Sims of some of the candidates earlier in the election cycle. Trump was the first one to take an autonomous action other than going to see the new furniture; he made a beeline for the bathroom mirror to "Check Self Out." Bernie and Hillary had quite a nice time playing foosball together. Jeb struck up a conversation with Trump and actually caused him to pass out from boredom which I did not know could happen in the Sims. All the other Republican candidates spent their time making trolling forum posts except for Ben Carson who started autonomously reading pregnancy books. Trump and Bernie went skinny dipping together but Trump kept randomly freaking out as he swam around, I think because I made him a coward and I forgot to put lights outside so he was afraid of the dark. I had Hillary steal Trump's clothes but he just walked around in a towel and didn't seem bothered.
posted by sunset in snow country at 5:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [61 favorites]


Is there anyone, in the entirely of the unitie states and its overseas depancies and holdings, who is still undecided in this primary?
posted by The Whelk at 5:06 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was out canvassing yesterday and there were a few people, yes.

Which did weird me out a bit but I didn't press further as I didn't want to push my luck.
posted by kyp at 5:09 PM on April 11, 2016


Is there anyone, in the entirely of the unitie states and its overseas depancies and holdings, who is still undecided in this primary?

There are a shit ton in NY who are CLASSED as undecided, and they're not going to be able to vote.
posted by Trochanter at 5:12 PM on April 11, 2016


Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World Hunger Games style.

FTFY.

Although, I don't know, at this point maybe JLaw pulling out an unlikely win is our best option.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:15 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I made Sims of some of the candidates earlier in the election cycle.

I would watch a TV show of this.
posted by epersonae at 5:16 PM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sadly, JLaw is constitutionally ineligible to be President.
posted by Justinian at 5:17 PM on April 11, 2016


> To combine the above two wild speculation threads, I've read that Perot was on his way to win '92 via electoral college vote-splitting, but then sabotaged his own campaign so that he wouldn't actually become president. Any basis to that?

Why no, "he did it to protect his daughter".
According to Perot, his daughter Carolyn's wedding was in danger of being disrupted by a nefarious Republican plot to embarrass her with lurid and ostensibly doctored photographed. And this same nefarious plot included some sort of disruption of the wedding day itself. And there was this other nefarious plot to tap his phones.
posted by benito.strauss at 5:19 PM on April 11, 2016


Hey, if she can play Mystique, she can play 35.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:19 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


JLaw/Robot 2028
posted by zutalors! at 5:20 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


Paul Ryan terrifies me. I don't need the They Live glasses to see the alien skull monster lurking beneath that smirky Ken doll face. Trump and Cruz seem like such absurd assholes, I can picture Clinton or Sanders beating them. But Clinton and Sanders are both weird, flawed candidates who probably wouldn't have a chance against some Republican swine who can act half normal. Ryan fakes "moderate" well, but his actual politics are horrific. Trump is an asshole 24/7 but he's unpredictable and some of his positions are relatively moderate. He's a big selfish baby and he'll do some good things, if it benefits him. Ryan acts like he wants to be your pal, but he will eat your liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

People keep saying that if Ryan gets the Republican nomination all the Trump fanatics will revolt. Here's hoping. I think it's more likely he'd head straight to the Oval Office and get right to work ruining everything.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:21 PM on April 11, 2016 [26 favorites]


Racially Charged Joke by Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio Earns Scorn Instead of Laughs

It happened on Saturday night when Mrs. Clinton made a surprise visit to the Inner Circle dinner, an annual black-tie event that brings together the city’s press corps, lobbyists and lawmakers. She strode on stage with Mr. de Blasio and Leslie Odom Jr., the actor who plays Aaron Burr in the hit musical “Hamilton.”

“Thanks for the endorsement, Bill,” Mrs. Clinton said to Mr. de Blasio, a former aide to Mrs. Clinton when she was a senator from New York who nonetheless dallied in supporting her. “Took you long enough.”

“Sorry, Hillary,” Mr. de Blasio said. “I was running on C.P. time,” a reference to the stereotype “Colored People Time” that drew some cringes from the audience.

Mr. Odom, who is black and appeared to be in on the joke, interrupted: “That’s not — I don’t like jokes like that, Bill.”

Mrs. Clinton jumped in. “Cautious politician time. I’ve been there,” she said.


How tone-deaf is this? Tell us in three emojis or less.
posted by dhens at 5:23 PM on April 11, 2016 [17 favorites]


Just for the record, Gen. Mattis is the guy quoted in "Generation Kill" as demanding that a blocked road be "unfucked," which instantly smote my heart.
posted by wenestvedt at 5:25 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea until Cruz and Trump realize they really like each other and start hooking up.
posted by zarq at 5:25 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]




Trochanter: ahem.
posted by dhens at 5:27 PM on April 11, 2016


Trump's holding a rally here at 5:30 PM on Wednesday in the always traffic jammed Oakland neighborhood just before the Pen's first playoff game. I fortunately will be in Illinois this week.
posted by octothorpe at 5:28 PM on April 11, 2016


Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea until Cruz and Trump realize they really like each other and start hooking up.


BRB, face melting off of my skull like in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.
posted by dhens at 5:28 PM on April 11, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yeah, it sounds like a good idea until Cruz and Trump realize they really like each other and start hooking up.

Whoa, whoa, let's not start any mental images we can't unsee.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


I dunno, Paul Ryan seems like a Republican John Edwards to me. Maybe he doesn't have any extramarital scandals in his closet, but he's been tried and found wanting during a general election already, and it's just a matter of time before something trips him up when he's in the hot seat.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:30 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


too late, I'm suing for damages
posted by yasaman at 5:30 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trochanter: ahem.

Yeah. I wanted to post Rembert's take.
posted by Trochanter at 5:32 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


too late, I'm suing for damages

oh, like you haven't already shipped them using something Very American for lube. Like the butter in "Last Tango in Paris." Or freshly frakked oil.
posted by sweltering at 5:33 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I dunno, Paul Ryan seems like a Republican John Edwards to me. Maybe he doesn't have any extramarital scandals in his closet, but he's been tried and found wanting during a general election already, and it's just a matter of time before something trips him up when he's in the hot seat.

But compared to the total clowns now in the race, he looks positively Reaganesque. Moreover, he might play well against either Clinton or Sanders, neither of whom is running the most amazing campaign ever.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:34 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


How dare you, the only election-related fanfiction I have read is the one where Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer who's haunted by the vengeful ghost of Alexander Hamilton. You're welcome, Metafilter.
posted by yasaman at 5:37 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


I dunno, a Great British Bake Off with the GOP clown car would be AWESOME.

Trump: "I made the best, most luxurious, most delicious pineapple upside down cake ever!"
Mary: "It's quite dry."
Trump: "You know nothing about baking, you loser! I sold more copies of Art Of The Deal than you ever will of your cookbook!"
Paul: "Yes, but there's not really any pineapple. I can't find any. Did you even put pineapple in?"
Trump: "@HitlerWuzRight on Twitter says you're SJW ISIS apologists and only one of your seasons is on Netflix in America -- SAD!"
posted by dw at 5:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


That Time Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton Made a ‘Colored People Time’ Joke

No, the time Bill de Blasio made a 'Colored People Time' joke and Hillary Clinton tried to make it less awkward.
posted by msalt at 5:39 PM on April 11, 2016 [18 favorites]


Racially Charged Joke by Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio Earns Scorn Instead of Laughs

Maybe, just maybe, the only people who genuinely want to be president at this point are Sanders and Cruz.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:40 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am sad that only one season is on Netflix, though. Don't make me agree with pretend Trump!
posted by amarynth at 5:40 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


“Sorry, Hillary,” Mr. de Blasio said. “I was running on C.P. time,” a reference to the stereotype “Colored People Time” that drew some cringes from the audience.

I appreciate that his partner is black, and that this very subject may happen to come up a lot (looking at you Ms. Tucker) but how tone deaf do you have to be to make it a bit!? At a rally!!??
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


"...the last 30 weeks."

Are you fucking kidding me.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, the time Bill de Blasio made a 'Colored People Time' joke and Hillary Clinton tried to make it less awkward.

Bunk. The whole thing was a cheezy, unfunny bit.
posted by Trochanter at 5:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah, no way Hillary ad libbed "Cautious Politician Time."
posted by zutalors! at 5:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bernie didn't win Wyoming. He and Hillary each got 7 delegates in the caucus. If you count total Wyoming delegates Hillary actually leaves Wyoming with more than Bernie.

Wellllll it's more complicated than that. Bernie won 12% more than Hillary, but because it was at-large and county delegates he lost a delegate. Regardless of the Wyoming outcome Hillary would leave with more delegates given she still has a 200+ pledged delegate lead.

All in all, a disappointing delegate result for Bernie, but we're talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of the total delegates. Wyoming was always going to be more symbolic.
posted by dw at 5:46 PM on April 11, 2016




Honestly, that's the kind of joke I'd expect at a Republican rally, sometime before the point about a year ago when the racist subtext became just the text. Like, you could elbow the person next to you, haha, get it? We know minorities are lazy welfare parasites, but we can't say it, and that's the joke! Chuckles.
posted by indubitable at 5:48 PM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]


Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional: In the ’90s, Bill Clinton exploited fears about crime in the same way that Donald Trump uses immigration today.

Never forget what Clinton policies actually look like.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:49 PM on April 11, 2016 [13 favorites]


I had never heard of CP time before I saw that clip. I don't know who that was for. Dumb, but I wouldn't call it a Republican joke.
posted by zutalors! at 5:52 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


But compared to the total clowns now in the race, he looks positively Reaganesque.

Anyone else remember when Reagan was the terrifying unserious republican that courted the religious right in a way that made people shiver?

I miss those days.*

to be clear, I don't actually miss the 80s. I do miss where the republican overton window was though.
posted by el io at 5:53 PM on April 11, 2016 [6 favorites]


No, the time Bill de Blasio made a 'Colored People Time' joke and Hillary Clinton tried to make it less awkward.

Bunk. The whole thing was a cheezy, unfunny bit.


Yeah, I watched the video with an open mind, but it's clearly scripted. Very frustrating that nobody stopped that from happening.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


Just bring back the original 17 candidates and have them live in a house together Real World style.


Cruz is totally the Puck of the house, right? How long before the rest of the housemates band together and smother Cruz with a pillow in his sleep? A week?
posted by gyc at 5:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]




Yes, I associate both Puck and Cruz with boogers
posted by zutalors! at 5:57 PM on April 11, 2016


Much like her Reagan praise comments, I have no idea who that De Blasio joke was intended for. It wouldn't even appeal to right-wing independents or Republicans.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:59 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


The Reagan thing didn't seem very planned, but this was something they like, practiced. As far as gaffes though it's pretty much nothing though.
posted by zutalors! at 6:00 PM on April 11, 2016


Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional

No. But it was mostly demanded by community leaders.

Look, I'm a Bernie supporter. But the one thing Hillary is unfairly tagged with is her husband's response to the parents of BLM.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


As far as gaffes though it's pretty much nothing though.

Well, now we get to see if Jeff Weaver was worth all these months of inanity and bloviation. This is the sort of dumb nothing-of-a-gaffe that can turn a primary.
posted by dw at 6:09 PM on April 11, 2016


Meet the "Trump Bros"
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:11 PM on April 11, 2016


This is the sort of dumb nothing-of-a-gaffe that can turn a primary.

All Howard Dean had to do was a wee little woo-hoo.
posted by sweltering at 6:14 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jeff Weaver has jumped the shark.
posted by zutalors! at 6:15 PM on April 11, 2016


Dean was in 3rd place at the time of the scream. I'm still weirded out about that, though. I had no negative reaction to that. I'm still mad at the media for whipping up that frenzy.
posted by zutalors! at 6:16 PM on April 11, 2016 [14 favorites]


re: Ross Perot's often mentioned 1992 third party run, it's frequently mentioned that he lead Clinton and Bush at one point, and suggested he could have won if he hadn't gone crazy/been threatened by shadowy Republican operatives. It's bullshit. He peaked just about two months after his psuedo-campaign got rolling (they didn't start back then until February of election year), which follows the pattern of lots of flash-in-the-pan candidates, who generate lots of enthusiasm and attention before withering upon close examination of their policies. Perot had basically zero substance or ability to talk about anything other than his pet topics. All the craziness about fearing for his daughter came *after* he had already cratered in the polls. This is just my opinion, but there was no real scenario where he was still running neck-and-neck with Clinton and Bush in November. He was splitting the anti-Bush vote with Clinton for awhile, but then after Clinton had some time to define himself, he lost most of that.

As far as this General Mattis, sure if he could take a couple of blue states away from the democratic nominee, it's very possible he could throw the election to the House. But that seems like an extremely unlikely outcome. Much more likely is that Mattis would split the conservative vote and lead to an electoral college landslide for the democrats, while perhaps protecting the Republicans in Congress from losing many seats. That's the real benefit to a potential Mattis run, I think. It would be a good move if the party is kind of giving up on the White House for this term but wants to prevent their side from staying home on election day and losing the Senate/HoR.
posted by skewed at 6:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


But Perot did give us H. Ross Parrot so it was probably all worthwhile.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


That Time Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton Made a ‘Colored People Time’ Joke

Technically, that time Bill de Blasio, Hillary Clinton, and Leslie Odom, Jr. made a "Colored People Time" Joke.
Not that it excuses it at all, but Odom was clearly in on the bit, too.
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dean was in 3rd place at the time of the scream.

Yes, please, please keep this in mind. The idea that The Scream was the turning point for Dean is to completely ignore the whole point of the speech. His whole campaign was predicated on winning Iowa, and he got *hammered*, he came in third with only 19%. Kerry had pretty much locked up New Hampshire, so when he started out by winning Iowa as well, Dean had lost his only chance. Adding to that the fact that he came in behind Edwards, there was no reason to believe he could come back from that.
posted by skewed at 6:50 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump's holding a rally here at 5:30 PM on Wednesday in the always traffic jammed Oakland neighborhood just before the Pen's first playoff game.

Oh Christ, I work a block from there. I have to be on campus for a class at 6, so I should go protest for an hour yes/no? Being on campus, it's sure to be a shitshow. Why couldn't he stay out in the suburbs where the people who will actually vote for him live?
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:53 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Emjaybee: "So Metafilter poll, how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention? I'm up to 4."

Three so far. I've also stopped sharing articles or even discussing the election outside of basically anything that isn't walks in the park with my girlfriend. Individual posts from others get blocked. I'm also actively blocking meme generators.

This whole "Don't/won't talk politics now" thing is really new to me. At this point, though, I can't stand it. I don't want to engage, because nobody can concede any point at all anymore, in any direction. If you can't accept that your candidate and my candidate are both flawed, I don't even want to talk...and at this point, that's becoming a pretty broad category of people I can't talk to.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


Just spitballing here, but could we legislate that the entire election season be no longer than, say, four months? Because this is a huge weight on the entirety of the American attention (focus, media, mental process, collective subconscious)? At twelve months, the big money simply outlasts any kind of grassroots enthusiasm.
posted by newdaddy at 7:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


skewed, I was a pretty solidly "young voter" in 2004 though, and it was really demoralizing to see my favorite candidate mocked like that, especially since he opposed the Iraq war, which was my 100% main issue at the time.
posted by zutalors! at 7:04 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


This video has two things you don't want to associate with Trump: the phrase "do a quickie" and House of Pain's Jump Around.

On the latter: Everlast makes it clear he's not supporting trump:
Hey @realDonaldTrump stop using my song jump around at your rallies you piece of shit. Cease and desist is coming you scumbag.
He told Billboard "the smartest businessman in the world should know that you have to license this music if it makes an appearance on TV with you."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:08 PM on April 11, 2016 [18 favorites]


That thing where Spock is in heat, and he and Kirk have to fight in loincloths with three-headed axes? Could we make an election like that?
posted by newdaddy at 7:13 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


The election for almost any office is almost a 24/7 ordeal. Limiting election cycles would be unconstitutional if not desirable.
posted by clavdivs at 7:13 PM on April 11, 2016


i agree, zutalors!, it was mean spirited and super frustrating to see the only person who seemed serious about saying the war was a mistake lose. My only point is, by the time of the scream speech, dean had basically lost. The scream was his epitaph, not his death warrant.
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


The convergence of "Sanders does better as his message spreads" and "OMG this election is too fucking long kill me now" is one of those things I'm afraid to bring up on Facebook. Or in person with friends. 'cause I feel like that's a thing a lot of people need to take a long, hard look at, but...ugh.

In fact I'm feeling a sense of dread while typing it out here. I can't tell if the yellow "Post Comment" box is trying to warn me away or not.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


koeselitz: “goddamnit, 30 weeks is so fucking long”
I lasted through about 45 seconds of Chris Hayes tonight before putting it on the ballgame. "Only seven more months," I said to Dad.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


scaryblackdeath, not sure what you mean?
posted by zutalors! at 7:17 PM on April 11, 2016


scaryblackdeath, my state has already voted, like a lot of states, so in terms of getting to be the nominee, Sanders' message spreading is moot here. And if he gets the nomination he'll get plenty of time to spread it some more.

So yeah I want this to be over, I want the convention done and the nominee decided. I scarcely care who, because this deathmarch of a campaign is beating me down.
posted by emjaybee at 7:22 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


Zutalors!: An awful lot of us (myself included) are ready to claw their own faces off if it would get the election over with. We don't want a long-ass election cycle like this. It's horrible. (Also, emjaybee, I'm in WA so our bullshit caucus thing is over, too.) And that feeling seems to be widespread, regardless of which candidate people prefer.

Yet it seems like the longer primary is helping Sanders more than Clinton. He's benefiting from the longer stretch.

You can look at this negatively: If he couldn't get it done with all this time on his side, then...?

Or you can look at it positively: A longer campaign gives underdog candidates a better chance to fight it out.

...but I don't see many Sanders supporters (or Clinton supporters or anyone else) making that connection. (Also, again, I don't want to bring it up to my friends, because everyone will inevitably see it as an attack and not simply something to consider.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:28 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I lasted through about 45 seconds of Chris Hayes tonight before putting it on the ballgame. "Only seven more months," I said to Dad.

ballgames do seem to last forever, but I think they're really only like 7 hours long.
posted by Justinian at 7:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [24 favorites]


[Couple of comments deleted. Let's keep the magic of the new thread alive while we can.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:41 PM on April 11, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think the longer cycle gives Republicans more fodder to attack the Democratic nominee in the general.
posted by zutalors! at 7:43 PM on April 11, 2016


Never forget what Clinton policies actually look like.
Ok
HillaryCare -- attempting to provide a single payer system for the US
SCHIP -- health care for millions of kids
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Record employment, a balanced budget and 8 years of economic growth with 22 million jobs created.
The START I treaty eliminating 9000 nuclear warheads from the world, also START II and START III
The Dayton Accords end the war in Bosnia
Good Friday Accords begin process of peace in Northern Ireland
COBRA benefits allow you to keep your health benefits after you lose or change jobs
HIPPA rules protecting your health information privacy.
First female Attorney General, First female Secretary of State.
US ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention leading to US ending its production and development of Chemical Weapons.
Record numbers of African Americans and women appointed as Federal Judges
Had the first African American head presidential speechwriter.
Appointed multiple African Americans and Women to high level positions in the government including his cabinet.
posted by humanfont at 7:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [74 favorites]


Big part of the reason we can expect/demand more now than we got under a first Clinton administration is because we had a first Clinton administration.
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:59 PM on April 11, 2016 [21 favorites]


A note for foreign friends wondering about the need to block people on social media who actually agree with you and eagerly support the same candidate you support:

I find it helps to think of Bernie Sanders supporters as Miss Bunting from Downton Abbey.

Okay, yes, I completely agree with you, but for fuck's sake!
posted by Naberius at 8:08 PM on April 11, 2016 [13 favorites]


Perot's campaign also gave me a t-shirt that said "To the polls, children of freedom! Ross for Boss" that I found in a Traverse City Salvation Army in 2006. It was lost in a move from New York, and I still mourn it.

how many friends have you had to temporarily block for OMG Enough reasons until after the convention?

I just straight up deleted my personal Facebook back in March. I can honestly say I do not miss it at. Fucking. All. It's been genuinely freeing, if a little weird to go from ten years of near-daily use to just a common shared work account. I look forward to soon asking in a FPP, "Is this one of those things I'd need a Facebook to understand?"
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 8:10 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't really mind whatever people post (it's all Democrat one or the other on my FB, Republicans are quiet), I just don't like people coming on to anything I post and making comments about how much they hate the person I am supporting.
posted by zutalors! at 8:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [5 favorites]


This Delaware Address Is Home to 200,000 Shell Companies—Including Hillary Clinton’s
Another company at the same location, ZFS Holdings, LLC, was set up in February 2013, one week after Hillary Clinton left the State Department. Hillary Clinton received $5.5 million from her book publisher, Simon & Schuster, through the company.
posted by Trochanter at 8:20 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just straight up deleted my personal Facebook back in March

I would happily except that it's a crucial networking tool in standup comedy. People literally never email anymore and rarely call about gigs -- it's all posts to closed groups, or FB messaging. Very frustrating. But I can see it, I've never gotten a spam facebook private message (knock on wood).
posted by msalt at 8:26 PM on April 11, 2016


Take heart those of you who are burned out by the Democratic primary: Most people don't argue about politics online and Clinton and Sanders supporters basically agree about everything.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11385786/clinton-sanders-supporters-beliefs
posted by eagles123 at 8:27 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


Using a company like Corporation Trust Co. as agent for service of process and etc. for a Delaware LLC is utterly commonplace, as is the practice of setting up a separate entity for a new venture. (Is someone in HRC's entourage a Unix storage nerd?)

How much money the Clintons make (and how open they are about it) may be of political interest, but the choice of a Delaware LLC and the use of an agent for registration is unremarkable and hardly newsworthy.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:28 PM on April 11, 2016 [16 favorites]


Somebody photoshop Clinton and Sanders into the Enemy Mine poster
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


This Delaware Address Is Home to 200,000 Shell Companies—Including Hillary Clinton’s
There is no evidence the Clintons are using the entities for any nefarious purposes, and it is perfectly legal for non-residents to set up corporations in Delaware.
And her book deal is listed on her 2013 and 2014 tax returns under ZFS Holdings LLC with addresses in the famous tax havens Washington, DC (2013) and New York (2014), so what is she being accused of?
posted by one_bean at 8:40 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


Using a company like Corporation Trust Co. as agent for service of process and etc. for a Delaware LLC is utterly commonplace, as is the practice of setting up a separate entity for a new venture..

Exactly. Delaware (and most every state I think) law requires that you designate an agent to be responsible for your company, so that if someone wants to sue your company, they know where to mail the papers, and so when the state wants your company to pay its registration fees, they know where to send the bill. It's pretty common to use a service for this purpose instead of trying to be your own agent, so that a trusted party receives any mail and there's a reliable record for what happened. Otherwise, you wind up discovering the hard way that you lost a lawsuit by default because you moved a year ago and never updated all the right records. Or the state is coming after you for not keeping your corporation in good standing because you never got their letters.

If you want to evade taxes, you funnel the money through countries where the US doesn't have access to records. That's not remotely the same as registering a corporation the same way virtually everyone else starts a new corporation.
posted by zachlipton at 8:44 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


The Free Beacon is a conservative site, so it looks like she's just being accused of being Hillary Clinton. They also have hard hitting commentary like "This toddler hates being picked up by Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton hasn't driven since 1996"
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


Why just this morning I told Facebook that I never want to see another US Uncut link. Most puzzling to me has been when I see Sanders supporters posting Breitbart links. It makes me wonder what it is they actually like about their candidate.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 8:49 PM on April 11, 2016 [12 favorites]


Or rather, why they get so easy riled up about Hillary Clinton.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 8:49 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


Most puzzling to me has been when I see Sanders supporters posting Breitbart links.

Don't go to Reddit's /r/Politics then! Sanders supporters there seem to spend an awful lot of time reading BreitBart, the Blaze, the Washington Examiner, the Free Beacon, The Herd, and a dozen other extreme right wing websites.

Some of these folks seem pretty clearly to be Trump supporters who see attacking Hillary or pumping up Bernie as good strategy. I suspect that's where part of the BernieBros concept comes from.

But there is also straight ahead condescension (against a woman of color no less) like this at a debate among progressives in NYC.
posted by msalt at 9:00 PM on April 11, 2016 [8 favorites]


Or rather, why they get so easy riled up about Hillary Clinton.

Some are ideologues who hate Hillary's record and talk about her as though she might as well be Republican (with a straight face, no less). Some hate her because [insert misogynist dogwhistle here]. It's hard to tell the difference.
posted by chimaera at 9:02 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


> I read a theory that Donald Trump secretly wants a contested convention or last-minute rule change to lose the nomination.

Right. Can't recall where I heard a similar idea. Basically, this whole thing has gotten out of control for Trump but he can't back down. His whole image is about winning! But, he doesn't actually want to be President.


That sounds like this: An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector

Note that Cegielski was not Trump's top campaign strategist, she was a strategist for the Make America Great Again super PAC. Whoever wrote the title fucked up. It's still an interesting piece, though.
posted by homunculus at 9:06 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really appreciated Ijeoma Oluo's piece today about the 1994 Crime bill.
posted by SarahElizaP at 9:29 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't especially care whether the Delaware stuff is illegal. Part of the deal is that the way the laws are set up is crooked. That's a central argument of the whole Sanders thing. The laws allow rich people to dance around even the low-assed tax rate they already get.
posted by Trochanter at 9:33 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]


[In the name of this new thread not turning into the exact same fight as the previous threads: please lay off posting lots of Shocking Reveal articles from sketchy sources, and let's leave the topic of "how annoying do you find the other candidate's supporters", please.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:35 PM on April 11, 2016 [30 favorites]


Whether it relates to Clinton or not, setting up shell companies in Delaware is primarily about a race to the bottom to evade/"minimize" state taxes: "Delaware is home to more than a million companies, meaning it has more companies than actual human residents. In 2012, The New York Times reported that a single building in Wilmington was the legal address of over 285,000 separate businesses. About 65 percent of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. Many companies choose to incorporate there because of the “business-friendly” climate and extensive body of corporate law, or because Delaware has much lower corporate taxes than most states. The New York Times says incorporating in Delaware “has enabled corporations to reduce the taxes paid to other states by an estimated $9.5 billion.” But it also happens to be one of the easiest places in the world to set up an anonymous company, making it a great place to establish an LLC to do business that you don’t want anyone to know about or you don’t want to be easily connected to."

It's also a huge part of Delaware's economy: "According to The New York Times, taxes and fees from these absentee businesses accounted for a quarter of the state’s budget in 2011. In 2015, the Delaware’s secretary of state retained the huge lobbying firm Peck Madigan Jones to lobby on “legislation impacting corporate formation process” and “issues relating to beneficial ownership,” priced at $50,000 per quarter. The state also retained Peck Madigan Jones to lobby on beneficial ownership in 2009; the firm has been retained by the state since 2009 to lobby both the House and Senate on other issues, too, paying as much as $90,000 a quarter."
posted by dialetheia at 9:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [26 favorites]


The laws allow rich people to dance around even the low-assed tax rate they already get.

According to the Clintons' 2014 tax return, which includes the ZFS holdings income, they paid 43% of their taxable income in federal tax, or 35% of their total income. The deductions accounting for the difference between the total and taxable amounts were primarily large charitable donations and state income tax.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium thinks there's a 70% chance that Trump will reach a majority on first ballot even assuming Cruz outperforms polls by 10%. Essentially, California is Trump's firewall.
posted by the cydonian at 9:45 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's either Trump or it's contested at this point.

Contested favors Cruz after the second ballot. Let me tell you his delegates are organized as hell.
posted by corb at 9:47 PM on April 11, 2016


But the one thing Hillary is unfairly tagged with is her husband's response to the parents of BLM.

Look, I can understand how it can be unreasonable to paint a candidate in a bad light if their supporters say something stupid... But if someone in your 'camp' or someone that is actively working on your campaign says some stupid shit, then you need to either disavow those statements, fire the person responsible, or make it clear they weren't speaking for you.

If you think that Trumps spokesperson(s) speak for him, then its fair to say that Hillary's speak for her as well (this goes for any candidates).
posted by el io at 9:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [9 favorites]


But if someone in your 'camp' or someone that is actively working on your campaign says some stupid shit, then you need to either disavow those statements, fire the person responsible

Fire Bill Clinton: No one is doing more damage to Hillary’s campaign than her husband.
posted by homunculus at 10:14 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]


Honestly, that's the kind of joke I'd expect at a Republican rally, sometime before the point about a year ago when the racist subtext became just the text. Like, you could elbow the person next to you, haha, get it? We know minorities are lazy welfare parasites, but we can't say it, and that's the joke! Chuckles.

This is more somebody trying to tell an "insider" joke without actually having a pass to tell it and in a context that makes it, like, not even plausibly appropriate.
posted by atoxyl at 10:15 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]


Why just this morning I told Facebook that I never want to see another US Uncut link.

How did you do that? I've been trying to do that for weeks (so I get some of my fact-checking time back).
posted by dw at 11:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]


US ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention leading to US ending its production and development of Chemical Weapons

Not the fault of Clinton, but just for the record even though the U.S. may have stopped production and development, at the moment we're retaining the option to use chemical weapons for at least the next two presidential terms:
In 1993, the U.S. signed the CWC, which required the destruction of all chemical weapon agents, dispersal systems, chemical weapons production facilities by 2012. Both Russia and U.S. missed the CWC's extended deadline of April 2012 to destroy all of their chemical weapons.[27] The United States destroyed 89.75% of the original stockpile of nearly 31,100 metric tons (30,609 long tons) of nerve and mustard agents under the terms of the treaty.[28] Chemical weapons destruction resumed in 2015 with expected completion by 2023.[29]
posted by XMLicious at 11:27 PM on April 11, 2016


I'm surprised to read that, XMLicious. A bunch of the nerve gas was here in Oregon at the Umatilla Chemical Depot, a long way from anywhere. There were regular evacuation drills and there was a lot of NIMBY opposition to destroying it, too, understandably but frustratingly. They finally got rid of all of it in 2011 though.
posted by msalt at 11:49 PM on April 11, 2016




Blue Nation Review:
DEJA VU: In Mass. Race, Warren Faced Nearly Identical Likability and Honesty Challenges as Hillary
posted by msalt


Blue Nation Review was formerly owned by Moko Social Media Limited, a multi-media platform developer. Blue Nation Review was sold to Media Matters for America founder David Brock on November 25, 2015.[1][2] After Blue Nation Review's sale, almost all of its staff were terminated.[3]

Brock is associated with several Super PACs that support the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Peter Daou, the new CEO of True Blue Media, had previously served as a digital media strategist for Clinton's 2008 campaign.[3] Since the sale of the publication to Brock, it endorsed Clinton for President.[4] Blue Nation Review has also published numerous negative articles about Clinton opponent Bernie Sanders and his supporters.[5]

Blue Nation Review is a blatantly biased "source".
posted by futz at 12:14 AM on April 12, 2016 [22 favorites]


Sale of Blue Nation Review gives Hillary camp its very own media outlet

You may remember David Brock, founder and head of Clinton's Correct the Record Super PAC, as the guy who smeared and discredited Anita Hill: "Brock confesses in a Talk magazine excerpt of his new book, Blinded by the Right, that he had printed "virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation" he could to make Hill seem "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." I guess at least he's since recanted.
posted by dialetheia at 12:43 AM on April 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, Blinded By the Right is an insider's look at the campaign to find something, anything to hurt the Clintons with in the 90's by somebody who was deeply involved. Good reading. Media Matters doesn't get the play that it used to, but used to be regularly attacked by right-wing media during the Bush administration for refusing to let them pretend they weren't publishing 24/7 horrible garbage.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:30 AM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


DailyNewsBin is another Hillary-supporting media outlet/propaganda blog, though I wonder if her campaign had much control or influence over it, given its blatant disregard for facts.
posted by tommyD at 4:00 AM on April 12, 2016


dw: How did you do that? I've been trying to do that for weeks (so I get some of my fact-checking time back).

Click the down arrow at the top right of the post, and select “Hide All From ___."

So if someone shares a link from say, US Uncut, you would pull down and select "Hide All From US Uncut". The little text underneath that option will say, "Stop seeing posts from this page."
posted by zarq at 5:52 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


It seems like Clinton's interview by the NY Daily News editorial board was buried by the awful "CP time" joke. Notable mostly because of the contrast to Sanders' interview.
posted by zerbinetta at 5:57 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


The two in-person people who I know who hate Hillary Clinton are leftist white women in their forties, which puzzles the shit out of me, because their efforts to articulate their hate are just so weird. It's like HRC shot their dogs but they can't say something about that so they latch onto some random thing (Bill's wandering penis, some random thing she did against Obama in '08)

I wonder if maybe HRC's success is something that is not inspiring to other women but nefarious? I can't put my finger on it; it's not jealousy so much as it is a sense that HRC made a devil's bargain being with Bill and now she's reaping all these goodies from it?

I don't mean to characterize all women Sanders supporters as this, but man, it weirds me out when a white lady in her forties with tattoos starts sort of staring into space and making hands into claws when I ask hey why do you hate HRC so much?
posted by angrycat at 6:07 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


whoops, just saw LM's advisory. Sorry. Although my point wasn't that these women are annoying so much as I just can't see what is driving them.
posted by angrycat at 6:11 AM on April 12, 2016


I don't mean to characterize all women Sanders supporters as this, but man, it weirds me out when a white lady in her forties with tattoos starts sort of staring into space and making hands into claws when I ask hey why do you hate HRC so much?

Sanders is Jewish. I'm Jewish. I'm a Democrat who will not vote for him in my state's primary. Judging by facebook and IRL conversations, I am pretty sure most if not all of my local friends who are Jewish are not voting for him either. This doesn't make any of us bad Jews. :) It simply means we're (hopefully) voting for someone we think is a better choice. For me, that means I think she has a better chance of winning the general, has done a better job of articulating her ideology and plans, and I think her campaign platform is more realistic. I certainly don't think she's perfect, and she's not my ideal candidate. (Her repeated, varied screwups during this campaign have been very frustrating.) Her gender is of secondary if not tertiary importance to me -- although I do think it's about damned time a woman were President. Her religion and culture are secondary as well, except where they inform her ideology.

In 2008 and 2012 conservatives argued that African Americans voting for Barack Obama simply because he is Black, was racist. By that metric, women voting for Hillary Clinton simply because she's a woman would also be sexist. But I tend to think that's not a great way to view things and reducing people's politics to such a simplistic formula is inaccurate. Most African Americans who supported him probably saw Candidate Obama as someone who they could relate to, and who would stand up for their community's needs. I think some women supporters of Hillary probably feel similarly. Someone who best represents them, in other words.

Your friends don't think she best represents them, so they're not going to vote for her. That's okay, and it doesn't mean they're betraying their genders, so to speak.
posted by zarq at 6:34 AM on April 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


The people who said that about black Obama supporters were wrong, and the people saying it about women Clinton supporters are also wrong.

It's not "voting for her just because she's a woman" so much as acknowledging that "yes, because she's a woman, her presidency would inspire generations of girls into leadership, in politics and elsewhere". And for some people, absolutely that benefit is what tips the scale in her favor.
posted by gilrain at 6:46 AM on April 12, 2016 [15 favorites]


Your friends don't think she best represents them, so they're not going to vote for her. That's okay, and it doesn't mean they're betraying their genders, so to speak.

All that is true, zarq, but I think (correct me if wrong) that angrycat was speaking to the seemingly incoherent *rage* some women have wrt Clinton. I've no idea what informs it. I mean, I'm voting Sanders in the primary because I will not happily vote for someone who supports the death penalty. On that I become single issue.

But, I'm not, like, mad at Hillary. I just don't agree with her on that issue. So many women are mad at her.
posted by gaspode at 6:55 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]




There is a genuine war of ideas between Hillary and Sanders and we should get back to it, rather than the nastiness of late. In my mind it boils down to:

What's the best political strategy to implementing a liberal agenda. Clinton wants to eek out marginal gains over many years, using triangulation and lots of defensive moves. Sanders wants to be aggressive and press hard for big results right away.
posted by humanfont at 7:02 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


That's not actually a "genuine war of ideas". That's a disagreement about strategy. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.
posted by kyrademon at 7:04 AM on April 12, 2016 [25 favorites]


I think that's her greatest weakness. Along the lines of ("shot their dogs but they can't say something about that") that amorphous just don't like her. In some way it's both of them. I personally distinctly remember the first time I heard Bill speak, I did not like him. I think he was a fine president, better than a lot. Same with Hil, as good a Secretary of State as any of them, clearly very competent and capable, but not someone I'd hang and have a beer with. There are nebulous questions about how a politician goes from pauper to multimillionaire and a smoking gun email may be held back until it's really needed in October, but mostly there's that element of "she's smart but I just don't like her" element. How substantial that dislike is, is probably impossible to accurately poll, but it's clearly kept her from crushing Sanders.
posted by sammyo at 7:06 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]




Boulder Daily Camera: Colorado Democrats admit mistake that cost Bernie Sanders key delegate
The revelation that the state party misreported the results to the public March 1 — and kept it quiet to all but the Clinton campaign for five weeks — comes as Sanders promotes his case that he can win the Democratic nomination.

And it arises a day after the Colorado Republican Party faces blistering criticism from Donald Trump and his supporters about how it awarded national delegates in what the candidate called a "rigged" system.

The double-barrel controversies regarding Colorado's caucus system will only reinforce calls for the state to move to a primary vote that allows more transparency and participation among voters.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:17 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


All that is true, zarq, but I think (correct me if wrong) that angrycat was speaking to the seemingly incoherent *rage* some women have wrt Clinton. I've no idea what informs it.

Ah... sorry, angrycat. I misinterpreted. Thanks for explaining gaspode.
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]




The discussion of her "fine tuning" of the Vermont "crime guns" argument is a perfect example of how her campaign alienates folks that should be supporters. No one has ever heard or would imagine that the hunters of Vermont are driving to the Bronx to sell their small unregistered handguns to a little extra cash.

No one imagines Sanders on his first day as President will magically implement single payer, but his message while idealistic is consistent and honest.
posted by sammyo at 7:30 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]




At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to the notion that once every four to eight years I'm going to find Metafilter a strange and baffling place where people make impassioned arguments that one politician with policies I mostly like is a great and wise human being whereas another politician with policies I mostly like is a tool of Satan.
posted by kyrademon at 7:40 AM on April 12, 2016 [41 favorites]


Wait, which is the tool of Satan?
posted by sammyo at 7:44 AM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]




Going to ATT Park is to listening to a never ending chorus of "FUCK LA!"

I'm pretty embarrassed for our whole state.
posted by malocchio at 7:46 AM on April 12, 2016


Here is my hope: everybody runs. Hillary and Cruz (or maybe someone else) as the Democratic and Republican candidates and both Sanders and Trump as independents. For the first time we have two viable independent candidates, if they both run they are not just spoilers for the nearest established party, they both have a legitimate chance to win.

There are a lot of independents out there - this may be the first election where they have asserted themselves as a forces separate from the two established parties.
posted by rtimmel at 7:57 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


As we enter the last 30 weeks of the election campaign

What, 30 more weeks of this?

IS THERE NO GOD?
posted by sour cream at 8:00 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


Clinton wants to eek out marginal gains over many years, using triangulation and lots of defensive moves. Sanders wants to be aggressive and press hard for big results right away.

It's been an endless source of bafflement to me that the same leftists who complain about the Republicans dragging the Overton Window to the right don't realize that's exactly what Sanders is doing, leftwards.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:03 AM on April 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to the notion that once every four to eight years I'm going to find Metafilter a strange and baffling place where people make impassioned arguments that one politician with policies I mostly like is a great and wise human being whereas another politician with policies I mostly like is a tool of Satan.

Or the other side of the coin, the people that have been saying awful things about race/income/etc that suddenly think it's monstrous when a politician actually says essentially the same awful things, but more blatantly and forcefully (or not-monstrous when they try to be coy about it).
posted by zombieflanders at 8:14 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's been an endless source of bafflement to me that the same leftists who complain about the Republicans dragging the Overton Window to the right don't realize that's exactly what Sanders is doing, leftwards.

You ever hear that Crass song, "Do They Owe Us a Living?" If there's nobody saying "Of course they fucking do!", the center gets dragged toward "the rich have the right to own people as slaves".
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:18 AM on April 12, 2016 [18 favorites]


Here is my hope: everybody runs.

The hope: democracy in full flower, varied and diverse viewpoints represented on the national stage, third parties achieve legitimacy

The reality: nobody gets enough EVs, congress gives us President Ryan
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:20 AM on April 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


Sanders wants to be aggressive and press hard for big results right away

It's been my experience that big changes lead to a pendulum effect, and when the pendulum swings back you just don't know where it will hit. I've become wary of broad sweeping changes in favor of incremental, consensus building change. I think that is pretty much the description of being middle-aged, but there it is.
posted by readery at 8:32 AM on April 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


It's been an endless source of bafflement to me that the same leftists who complain about the Republicans dragging the Overton Window to the right don't realize that's exactly what Sanders is doing, leftwards.

I love Sanders for that, and I think that's a great thing for a Presidential candidate to do. Moving the Overton window is calls for masterful rhetoric, and Sanders scores a lot of rhetorical points. Hooray for that! I hope he has a long career of interviews and speeches ahead of him.

But I want the President to do a lot more than that. Once you're President, it's not just about rhetoric any more. It's about policy. It's about being willing to not only watch the sausage being made, but get your hands dirty helping to make it.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:34 AM on April 12, 2016 [11 favorites]




There is a difference in ideas or ways of thinking about things. Among other things, this campaign has highlighted the difference between liberal and social democratic approaches to social programs. Liberals think in terms of using tax revenue to benefit the less fortunate. The social democratic approach is 'We're all in this together. Everybody pays in, everybody benefits'.

The liberal approach is to create what are basically publicly funded charities, and so we end up with a debate about whether the recipients are deserving or not. The social democratic approach is based on collective self-interest. 'We benefit from these policies. We're willing to pay for them. If a majority of us agree to do this, we can do this'.

You can see this really clearly in Clinton's objection to Sanders' college tuition proposal: 'Why should Trump's kids get free college tuition?' The response from a social democratic perspective is 'Of course rich people's kids should get free tuition at public colleges. Their parents helped pay for it, right?' This also comes up in discussions about means-testing Social Security.

This isn't just about incrementalism or a question of who's more liberal. Clinton's a liberal, and Sanders is a social democrat. They have different different ways of thinking about policy.
posted by nangar at 8:53 AM on April 12, 2016 [66 favorites]


That's a super interesting point nangar, and I haven't heard it put that way before.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:55 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Paul Ryan just wants to work on his lifts, man.
House Speaker Paul Ryan will hold a news conference Tuesday afternoon to again definitively rule out a White House bid this year, according to an aide. Ryan will appear at the Republican National Committee's headquarters on Capitol Hill Tuesday at 3:15 p.m. Ryan (R-Wis.) has ruled out running for president multiple times, but the denials have not stuck. ...
posted by maudlin at 8:59 AM on April 12, 2016


Colorado Democrats admit mistake that cost Bernie Sanders key delegate
"Denver Post uncovers that Democratic Party told Hillary Clinton's campaign about caucus counting mistake, but kept public and Bernie Sanders camp in the dark"
posted by Trochanter at 9:03 AM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


The liberal approach is to create what are basically publicly funded charities, and so we end up with a debate about whether the recipients are deserving or not. The social democratic approach is based on collective self-interest. 'We benefit from these policies. We're willing to pay for them. If a majority of us agree to do this, we can do this'.

People have been discussing the differences between taxes and charity a bit in this thread. "Publicly funded charities" is not an accurate or helpful way to explain taxpayer-funded social services, especially those directed at a specific group. It is also wrong to describe an attitude towards them as charity as "liberal". Both liberals and social democrats understand quite well that social services are intended to benefit the whole. The people who consistently compare their tax paying to charity are Conservatives. Typically, those who shame and attack minorities, women and the poor for daring to rely on government assistance and its (dwindling, inadequate) safety net are also conservatives.

There are philosophical differences between liberals and social democrats. But no, liberals are not creating "basically publicly funded charities." They are attempting to help those in need by leveling the playing field against injustice, inequality and poverty.
posted by zarq at 9:04 AM on April 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


I suppose it is inevitable that here on Metafilter the majority off talk is about Clinton vs. Sanders. Most of the people here are liberals to one degree or another so the view on the Republicans is that any of them will be roughly as awful as any other nominee. Cruz is a bit smarmier and less overtly racist/bigoted/sexist/homophobic/etc than Trump, but below the surface most mefites would doubtless agree that they're about the same.

Plus, right now there isn't much going on in the Republican race. The only real question is whether Trump gets the nomination on first ballot or whether [1] we see the first brokered convention since 1952. And that'll be interesting when data is available, but right now it's just all guesswork and thus not all that attractive a topic.

And, of course, there's a human tendency to get a lot more incensed about minor deviations from what you think is right than there is to get upset about major deviations from what you think is right. Trump wants to build a wall? Well, duh, he's a Republican. Clinton says X and Sanders says not quite X? RRRAAAGGGGHHH why can't he/she see that they're wrong!

Sort of why so many Christians are really massively opposed to Islam, but shrug off Hinduism. Islam is close enough to Christianity that it falls into the "so close to right they must be evil/assholes/deliberately not seeing the truth so I hate them category, while Hindus are so different from Christianity that they fit into the totally wrong and so who cares category.

[1] And my inner political geek is still squeeing over the possibility.
posted by sotonohito at 9:05 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


House Speaker Paul Ryan will hold a news conference Tuesday afternoon to again definitively rule out a White House bid this year, according to an aide. Ryan will appear at the Republican National Committee's headquarters on Capitol Hill Tuesday at 3:15 p.m. Ryan (R-Wis.) has ruled out running for president multiple times, but the denials have not stuck. ...

Yeah, that'll happen when you definitively rule out running for Speaker of the House a month before you become Speaker of the House.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:05 AM on April 12, 2016 [14 favorites]


Plus, this is the first time in roughly forever that anyone truly to the left of center has been running as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. Mostly we've gotten center-right types like Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, Mondale, and so on. So the left wing Democrats have basically been sidelined and now they've got a real contender (who will lose and has no serious chance of winning, but hey at least he had more of a shot at it than anyone else in our lifetimes) and that's going to get them excited no matter what.

Which contributes to some of the intense tribalism. After decades of being told that center right triangulation was the way forward, and seeing that fail time after time, a lot of the more liberal Democrats are increasingly frustrated with the continuation of the center right triangulation approach. And, of course, the fact that Sanders has no chance at all of winning is going to be frustrating too. It is to me. He almost had enough to win, but not quite, and that's really more annoying than it would have been if he'd been washed out in the first few weeks.
posted by sotonohito at 9:10 AM on April 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


but below the surface most mefites would doubtless agree that they're about the same.

I DISAGREE!

Trump below the surface

Cruz below the surface
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:12 AM on April 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


Odds are available on whether there will be a first round result at the Republican National Convention. ('No' is currently favorite)
posted by Wordshore at 9:18 AM on April 12, 2016


It's been my experience that big changes lead to a pendulum effect, and when the pendulum swings back you just don't know where it will hit.

If this were true we'd have real universal care and high taxes by this point. Seeing as the right has been dismantling the New Deal since 1980, at least.
posted by dame at 9:28 AM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Not knowing where it will hit" is very different from "it will swing back to where the other side wants and expects it to hit".
posted by kyrademon at 9:37 AM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


(I'm not actually sold on the pendulum view of politics, but I thought I would point out that universal health care and high taxes is not necessarily the end result of New Deal dismantlement under its philosophy as it has been stated here.)
posted by kyrademon at 9:39 AM on April 12, 2016


Sanders is left of center but I wouldn't quite say left wing.
posted by zutalors! at 9:39 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


It hasn't swung anywhere but further to the right.
posted by dame at 9:40 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Nation: We Asked 4 Prominent Bernie Supporters if They’d Vote for Hillary in November. Here’s What They Told Us:
[...] It has become accepted orthodoxy in establishment circles to view Trump as an authoritarian race-baiter who poses a uniquely grave danger to the United States and the world. While he is all of those things, this characterization obscures the fact that Clinton is also a threat to world stability, and that, unlike Trump, she already has the blood on her hands to prove it. [...]

[...] The counter-arguments are, frankly, incoherent. If droves of Sanders supporters were to stay home and deliver the White House to the GOP, the political establishment would view that as further proof that parties rarely win three terms in a row. The story would be that Clinton had too much baggage, or that Trump had brilliantly appealed to “Reagan Democrats.” Whatever message the “Bernie or Bust” crowd might think they’d be sending to the establishment would undoubtedly fall on deaf ears. [...]

[...] I can, in fact, imagine myself voting for Hillary Clinton—but only if David Brock, her nemesis turned promoter, were holding a gun to my head. I’ve spent too much time reading about her hawkishness and her loyalty to corporate power to bring myself to pencil in the oval next to her name. It’s likely she’d rip up the nuclear deal with Iran—more elegantly than Donald Trump, perhaps, but no less thoroughly—and try to change a disobedient regime or two. And her apologists who want to know what specific quid pro quos she’s granted in exchange for campaign contributions from banks and other powerful corporations are missing the point: They shouldn’t be read as transactional but as votes of confidence from people who don’t part with money lightly. [...]

[...] I understand the feelings of frustration and disappointment that are driving the “Bernie or Bust” phenomenon, because I share them. But it’s peculiar for leftists, of all people, to be so fixated on individual candidates. After all, leftist thinking has always downplayed personalities and stressed the importance of systems and structures. We know that movements are ultimately what makes change, and that change begins at the grassroots. The presidency is the last place where we’re likely to see a revolution. [...]
Scott Lemieux: Losing Does Not Drive Democrats to the Left
  • There is of course no “endless rightward shift” in our politics. The federal status quo has shifted substantially to the left over the past 8 years — cf. health care policy, tax policy, environmental policy, financial and consumer regulation, LBGT rights, etc. etc. etc. [...]

  • It is true that the Republican Party continues to shift to the right. This is important, because the way this is happened is precisely the opposite of the rejection of lesser-evilism that Henwood implies is the path to political change. While #BernieorBusters tend to be obsessively focused on the presidency and challenges to the Democratic Party (whether through third party challenges or abstention), Republicans have 1)worked within the party and 2)focused more on Congress and statehouses.  While they have sometimes overreached, the right of the Republican Party has followed a very effective formula — try to get the most conservative viable candidate nominated and vote for the Republican win or lose in the primaries. It’s simple, but it works. [...]

  • There’s an additional assumption here, which is that if the Democrats lose they will be forced to move to the left. But what is the basis for this assumption? They didn’t after 1968, they didn’t after 1972, they didn’t after 1984 (which produced the DLC), they didn’t after 1994. They have finally moved left now, but this was much more about the wins in 2006 and 2008 than the loss in 2000.

  • posted by tonycpsu at 9:42 AM on April 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


    > "It hasn't swung anywhere but further to the right."

    Since the 1980's? A lot of gays and lesbians would not entirely agree with you.
    posted by kyrademon at 9:45 AM on April 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


    And frankly I am not getting embroiled in this stupid argument. Trying to argue that outside of a few incidents American politics isn't on a vast rightward slide is to ignore pretty much all current events — Nixon is a leftist compared to Clinton at this point —, and while I am happy for expanded civil rights, that is an aberration — not proof of a trend. And don't even try "oh healthcare!" — a law that requires private citizens to give their money to private firms is not a leftist law no matter what people want to think.
    posted by dame at 9:54 AM on April 12, 2016 [13 favorites]


    [If you have problems with the moderation take it to the contact form or metatalk; you know better than to complain about it in thread, especially in an intense thread like this one.]
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:00 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]






    Vermont has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country, no waiting period, no limits on quantity, no restrictions for private sellers, open carry without license, no assault weapons ban. New York has very restrictive gun laws. The two states are adjacent. Geography and demand suggests that the market should exist.
    posted by humanfont at 10:24 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    > "... while I am happy for expanded civil rights, that is an aberration — not proof of a trend."

    Well, as I said, I'm not really a proponent of pendulum theory so I'm not going to go to bat for it. I do, however, think it's a mistake to write off hard-fought and long-awaited civil rights victories as nothing more than aberrations. I think the left has had both tremendous successes and devastating losses in the U.S. over the past three and a half decades. My personal opinion is that writing off either side of that makes the battle to push things leftwards more difficult. I tend to believe it's important to acknowledge both that victory is possible and that more work is necessary.
    posted by kyrademon at 10:27 AM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Trying to argue that outside of a few incidents American politics isn't on a vast rightward slide is to ignore pretty much all current events — Nixon is a leftist compared to Clinton at this point —, and while I am happy for expanded civil rights, that is an aberration

    This is classic No True Scotsman, though. Any counter-examples will be written off as aberrations. It also depends strongly on very, very specific choices of end points. A vast rightward slide since when? 1950? 1970? 1990? The answer changes things immensely.
    posted by Justinian at 10:28 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


    And frankly I am not getting embroiled in this stupid argument. Trying to argue that outside of a few incidents American politics isn't on a vast rightward slide is to ignore pretty much all current events — Nixon is a leftist compared to Clinton at this point —, and while I am happy for expanded civil rights, that is an aberration — not proof of a trend. And don't even try "oh healthcare!" — a law that requires private citizens to give their money to private firms is not a leftist law no matter what people want to think.

    For real. We have been on a steady rightward lurch on economic and "kitchen table" issues since Reagan, not to mention a continued right-wing dominance on social issues, like crime, voting rights, and a woman's right to choose. The recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is really out of keeping with the general legislative trends in the US even if it is in keeping with the general trend in attitudes towards lgbt people. And the ACA was a pro-corporate, insurance-industry written, originally Republican bill, and one that the GOP would've happily supported if they had proposed it themselves.

    Nixon is a leftist compared to Clinton at this point

    Many authors have been tempted into writing revisionist histories of the 37th U.S. president, but these counterintuitive takes often do not hold up under closer scrutiny.


    From that article:
    It’s true enough that in his domestic policy Nixon was a pragmatist who occupied a place slightly to the right of center—and the right at that time was considerably to the left of where it is today.
    Even if he thought of himself as a right winger, his policies generally put him in the modern-day Democratic party.
    posted by dis_integration at 10:31 AM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    humanfont: Vermont has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country, no waiting period, no limits on quantity, no restrictions for private sellers, open carry without license, no assault weapons ban. New York has very restrictive gun laws. The two states are adjacent. Geography and demand suggests that the market should exist.

    We discussed this in the previous thread. Vermont accounted for 55 recovered guns in 2014 out of 7,686. ATF statistics.

    Are there guns coming into New York? Yes. Are the vast majority from other states? Also yes. It was a dumb thing for Clinton to assert and she rightfully got called out on it.

    She should still keep talking about his position on guns and gun manufacturers. Because his NRA "D-minus" rating isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned.
    posted by zarq at 10:31 AM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Even if he thought of himself as a right winger, his policies generally put him in the modern-day Democratic party.

    The section you quoted does nothing to assert that, and nothing in the article provides evidence for it. Saying the GOP was to the left of where it is now says nothing about where Hillary Clinton is compared to Richard Nixon. Furthermore, Nixon's given far more credit for his domestic record than he deserves.
    Ok. I see some environmental legislation that passed with massive veto-proof majorities despite Nixon’s contemptuous indifference to the subject. I see the Clean Water Act passing over his veto. I also see Nixon vetoing a bill aiding the unemployed and local services, a pay equity bill, a minimum wage bill, and a bill creating a national day care system. On the other hand, I see on the one hand Barack Obama signing the most progressive package of legislation since Johnson with razor-thin margins to work with in Congress, and I also see him vetoing zero progressive bills. When Richard Nixon got his first choice he nominated Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court; Obama nominated Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. So, in short, I see that anyone claiming that Nixon is to Obama’s left on domestic policy is revealing their own massive cluelessness.
    That case was made against the Nixon/Obama comparison, but go ahead and put Clinton's name in there where you see Obama and make your case that any of it is wrong. Hillary may be to Obama's right on foreign policy -- it's hard to tell given that he had her as his Secretary of State and we don't know enough about who was driving the bus on things like Libya -- but the idea that Nixon governing today with a GOP0-controlled congress is to her left on domestic policy is simply laughable.
    posted by tonycpsu at 10:42 AM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    The Clinton Campaign's site has a new 404 page, and it's a thing of beauty.

    I love this.

    From this angle, we can even see that she flipped it backwards(!) on her second attempt. (White side should be facing the camera, not the yellow part.) So she must have seen a message on the turnstile after failing the first time, which would have said something like "swipe again," and STILL flipped it around the other way. :D
    posted by zarq at 10:48 AM on April 12, 2016


    I mean, at that moment HRC was every suburban kid who moved to NYC's mom. Definitely my mom using the subway, which is why I always have her go first.
    posted by zutalors! at 10:49 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Ha! Yes. :)
    posted by zarq at 10:52 AM on April 12, 2016


    Blue Nation Review

    I stay away from this one for the same reasons I stay away from USUncut: I don't trust their view isn't biased clickbait.
    posted by dw at 11:01 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Yea I think we would be better served by trying to avoid "news" from clearly biased sites, either pro Hillary or Bernie, or right wing sites.
    posted by zutalors! at 11:04 AM on April 12, 2016


    Even if he thought of himself as a right winger, his policies generally put him in the modern-day Democratic party.

    But a lot of that isn't because the Democrats turned center-right but because the GOP has moved themselves to the right and far right. The Democrats always had a center-right wing; they just got bigger as liberal Republicans fled the party of Reagan, Gingrich, and the Koches.
    posted by dw at 11:06 AM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I mean, Hillary is center-left with some center-right and right wing policies. But she's not Nixon. She's more a classical Democrat with moderate and independent appeal. More like Obama than the progressive/leftist parts of the Democratic party. Meanwhile, the GOP is fighting over whether to keep the poor around as useful idiots or criminalizing being poor.

    A sizable chunk of this country is still independent and centrist. So long as there's a two-party system, the battle will always be over bringing them in vs centering on your True Believers. If we ever go multi-party, it'll change, but right now the system isn't built to force compromise or allow for third and fourth parties to flourish, so it ain't happening any time soon.
    posted by dw at 11:12 AM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    It is kind of exciting to see NY in play even in the primary. We have MSNBC camped out in a Brooklyn coffee shop. It's cool! We're Real Mericans! What Do We Think?
    posted by zutalors! at 11:27 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    What's a "classical Democrat", though? It feel like the party has shifted economically right in some ways since the New Deal.
    posted by Apocryphon at 11:32 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Even if he thought of himself as a right winger, his policies generally put him in the modern-day Democratic party.

    A not insignificant number of prominent, modern-day Democrats would distance themselves from publicly issuing support for the EPA and Clean Air Act, both products of the Nixon administration.

    For example, the former DNC Senate candidate in Kentucky said: "Coal keeps the lights on in Kentucky—plain and simple—and I will not stand idle as overreaching regulation adversely impacts jobs and middle-class families."

    Democrats on the House Committee for Energy and Commerce voted 95 times between 2011 and 2012 on legislation to dismantle the Clean Air Act.

    Climate change is real and we still have Democrats who attack identifying carbon as a pollutant.

    Prominent Democrats in the House and Senate work with Republicans to accuse the EPA of overreach.

    The Democratic Party has an increasingly problematic record of being close to industry and big business, and that kind of "centrism" or "triangulation" — or "pragmatism", as one candidate's daughter so Orwellianly puts it — guides legislative and executive choices that have adverse effects on everyone.
    posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:38 AM on April 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Even if he thought of himself as a right winger, his policies generally put him in the modern-day Democratic party.

    Nope. Nixon's dw-nominate score, based on the positions he took on bills before Congress and how Congress voted on them, is 0.563. This is well to the left of Reagan (0.703) or Dubya (0.723) but about the same as Bush the Elder (0.580).

    There have only been four modern Democrats to the right of 0.300, and the latest any of them served was 1985.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:39 AM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


    I'd argue the "classical Democrat" is a Cold War Liberal. Most rank-and-file liberal Democrats fell into this camp -- wanted the social state, but opposed totalitarianism and Communism. They were also usually internationalists and not opposed to military intervention.

    Thing is, neo-liberal and neo-con ideals have their roots in Cold War Liberalism, tho devoid of the liberal social policies. That, plus the rise of the anti-war liberal and the neo-progressive movement that came out of it, has pushed the Cold War Liberal into the margins.
    posted by dw at 11:41 AM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Although it's a little short on quantitative data, Politico's look at the level of Sanders' digital outreach strategy is pretty interesting.

    I attended one of their self-described barnstorms and it was a nice opportunity to learn more about the campaign machinations and strategy, and how the dots connect between the official campaign and the physical/digital grassroots level.
    posted by kyp at 11:42 AM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    It is kind of exciting to see NY in play even in the primary. We have MSNBC camped out in a Brooklyn coffee shop. It's cool! We're Real Mericans! What Do We Think?

    Heh, yes, finally New York has a chance to shape the culture and politics of the US.
    posted by indubitable at 11:47 AM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Heh, yes, finally New York has a chance to shape the culture and politics of the US.

    Yes, yes, but is the primary trendy in Williamsburg? I NEED TO KNOW, NEW YORK TIMES.
    posted by dw at 11:50 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    The regular voter in the Bronx hasn't really shaped a lot of politics actually.
    posted by zutalors! at 11:50 AM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I have no doubt that Clinton, or Obama, or any establishment Democrat even those who would have been in the DLC are for the social state and for "fiscal liberalism." I think the issue is that with the advent of triangulation, pro-business policies have increasingly supplanted pro-worker policies. The thing about the Sanders faction is that most of them aren't even really a social democrat, much less a democratic socialist or a socialist- they simply want the New Deal back. They want the opening of a New Frontier. They want the reconstruction of a Great Society.
    posted by Apocryphon at 11:53 AM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    They want the opening of a New Frontier. They want the reconstruction of a Great Society.

    And I think it's partially due to the way history classes present those programs that people tend to think of those programs in terms of electing a "President who will Make Things Right Again". Details like having the support in Congress and the Supreme Court is just not important.

    That's why the handwavy responses about "revolution" regarding non-presidential races are so frustrating.
    posted by happyroach at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Please forgive me but I hold out hope that things continue to be in doubt for both parties when we in California hold OUR Primary on he First Tuesday in JUNE, which IS perfectly sensible when you consider it's the Primary for ALL the elective positions to be decided in November. But dangit, he said waving his cane, I remember when the California Primary was relevant enough that the winning Democrat got assassinated right afterwards (1968, read your history books).

    And when you're talking about The Overton Window, you really should be talking about multiple ones, for various major groups of issues, because some have moved leftward as others have moved rightward. It's not that long ago that North Carolina's 'Trans Bathroom' law would have been hardly worth noticing, while Automated Attacks on Foreign Civilian Targets was just a piece of bad dystopian scifi. OMG, so many Windows... are you sure Overton isn't a product of Microsoft?
    posted by oneswellfoop at 12:27 PM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I think Ryan wants Kasich for the nominee. That's what I'm getting from his speech.
    posted by Justinian at 12:27 PM on April 12, 2016


    Kasich is far less loathsome in bearing and aspect than Trump or Cruz, and as a relatively unknown quantity, polls better than either of them in the general. I suspect Ryan agrees with me that while Kasich is unlikely to actually win, he is probably the GOP's last best hope for the White House this year.

    And since he hasn't won fuck-all, making him the nominee is essentially saying hey, we'll take this primary election thing under advisement, but if you chuckleheads pick a non-starter we're going straight back to the party-bosses-making-deals-in-smoke-filled-rooms days.

    Horrors aside, this is a fun primary season.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 12:38 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Strange, I think Kasich would be heavily favored to win the White House.
    posted by Justinian at 12:39 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Strange, I think Kasich would be heavily favored to win the White House.

    Kinda like Bernie Sanders, his poll numbers right now are essentially meaningless. At least Sanders has been the target of a campaign, Kasich is currently polling as "generic Republican."
    posted by zombieflanders at 12:43 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Kasich would be favored because he's not-(your candidate's name here). That's the advantage of being an unknown quantity, especially among independents.

    Problem, of course, is being unknown means there's a lot of unknown to become known and defined.
    posted by dw at 12:45 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Strange, I think Kasich would be heavily favored to win the White House.


    Based on what?
    posted by defenestration at 12:46 PM on April 12, 2016


    On not being Trump?

    On the general Republican distaste for what polling numbers actually say (e.g. Obama/McCain, Obama/Romney)?
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on April 12, 2016


    If you put any stock in polling at this point in the cycle, he could take Ohio and Pennsylvania against Hillary.
    posted by Drinky Die at 12:51 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I talked last thread about what's the matter with Kasich, once the national press gets ahold of him and starts seriously examining his record. To quote meself:
    "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."
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:52 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    I meant the general total misunderestimation of the numbers of people who'd rather tick a box marked D on general principles.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:52 PM on April 12, 2016


    Current general election trends

    Kasich beats Hillary straight up. Bernie beats all three of them, but he's within margin of error with Kasich, and Kasich has beat him in three polls.

    Again, though, this is April. We're not even past the conventions yet.
    posted by dw at 12:53 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    "THIRD PLACE FINISHER CHOSEN AS NOMINEE BY PARTY ELITE, REJECTED BY GOP PRIMARY VOTERS IN 49 STATES" would be a fun drum for the Dems to bang, too
    posted by prize bull octorok at 12:56 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I'll believe Kasich can get votes when he starts getting votes.
    posted by kyrademon at 12:57 PM on April 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Kasich beats Hillary straight up. Bernie beats all three of them, but he's within margin of error with Kasich, and Kasich has beat him in three polls.

    The thing about these polls is, they might as well be asking "if some Republican who is not Trump or Cruz were facing Clinton, who would you vote for?" or "if some Republican who is not Trump or Cruz were facing Sanders, who would you vote for?" Nobody knows a damn thing about Kasich except that he isn't Trump or Cruz, making him seem like a breath of sane air by default - but he's been subjected to basically no scrutiny so far, except by super-wonky sites like ours, whereas pretty much every single negative for Clinton and Sanders is known to basically everyone.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 12:59 PM on April 12, 2016 [11 favorites]


    yes, Kasich is an enticingly boring mystery at this point, and that is like 99.9% of his appeal
    posted by prize bull octorok at 1:02 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    The Ohio press corps (even from more conservative outlets) reportedly finds it HILARIOUS that Kasich is being considered calm and reasonable, since his temper problems and enraged outbursts are well-known in Ohio politics and a lot of people think he's a JERK (or sometimes a sanctimonious jerk!). Usually when governors run they have a lot of surrogates from their home state out campaigning for them -- legislators from their party, party leaders, big donors, etc. There are basically NO prominent Ohioans out campaigning for Kasich because even his own party in the statehouse really doesn't like him. Like, personally. They may tolerate him politically but he's burned virtually ever bridge he ever had interpersonally. Not quite Ted Cruz level, but he's not a dude with a lot of allies, and the calm, avuncular persona is very much a temporary persona that does not concord with his long-term demeanor.

    If and when the national press starts really digging in to Kasich's record, the public perception of him is going to change very rapidly. (Like, again, dude was a manager/shareholder/whatever they're called at Lehman leading up to the collapse. There's plenty there even before we get to his unpleasant personal interactions.)
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:03 PM on April 12, 2016 [22 favorites]


    The question is more "Would you vote for this well-defined politician, or this one you know no dirt on?" People will always choose the unknown because there's a chance they COULD be spotless. The former candidate is already ruined.
    posted by dw at 1:04 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Alright folks, reality check: we have broken 300 comments in less than 24 hours on a pre-election thread on a week when there are no caucuses or primaries!!!

    I think we all (myself included) need to take part of the 6 days until the New York Primary to detox a little. And 'toxic' is a good word for it all. I'm outa here, and I'll see you folks again on Monday (or sooner if a story hits that's more than "just filling time on CNN or selling papers in NYC").
    posted by oneswellfoop at 1:15 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I don't put a huge amount of stock in current polling as I've said before. Kasich is just a formidable candidate in the general. Yes, you and I and those reading this realize that he isn't what he appears to be. I'm not sure the rest of the country would realize that fast enough.
    posted by Justinian at 1:16 PM on April 12, 2016


    Odds we can all agree on what sites are clearly biased: 9-1 against.
    posted by Justinian at 1:20 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Kasich is Mitt Romney in so many ways, except even more of a political insider. Right now, he has fewer than three million votes, that's less than Rubio. How does he win?
    posted by zachlipton at 1:29 PM on April 12, 2016


    [Discussion of sources mostly deleted; an early comment had to go and a lot of responses went with it. Sorry about that. Maybe drop it as pretty derail-y anyway? We're not going to be able to enforce where you're allowed to link to, although it's nice for us if you try to pick higher-quality sources instead of bottom-feeding, fight-starting clickbait.]
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:33 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Speaking of independents, does anyone know of a trustworthy source that regularly polls independents?
    posted by kyp at 2:01 PM on April 12, 2016


    The standbys are Sam Wang and 538, and I'm pretty impressed by both. Do you mean only polls independents?
    posted by msalt at 2:17 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Do you mean only polls independents?

    Kind of. Most of the polling of independents I've seen is set within the context of the election cycle, which is useful but still pretty partisan.

    Someone mentioned upthread that most independents were centrist, so I wanted to see what the policy breakdown was within that group.
    posted by kyp at 2:22 PM on April 12, 2016


    We discussed this in the previous thread. Vermont accounted for 55 recovered guns in 2014 out of 7,686. ATF statistics.

    Per the second slide in your link the firearms trace data is not a random sample and should not be used to reach the conclusion you claim regarding the source of all guns used in crimes in NY.
    posted by humanfont at 2:22 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Speaking of independents, does anyone know of a trustworthy source that regularly polls independents?

    Generally you'd have to dig into the crosstabs of individual polls. I haven't seen anyone aggregating specific crosstabs across different polls though - I think it would be very tricky with all the different methodologies. The Reuters tracking polls can be filtered in a lot of different ways - here's the Dem race for registered independent voters, for example, and here's the same tracking poll/filter for Republicans. Real Clear Politics usually has direct links to the poll pdfs on their polling aggregation pages too.

    On preview I'm not sure that addresses your question, but Pew has some interesting info about independent "leaner" behavior.
    posted by dialetheia at 2:23 PM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Great, thanks msalt and dialetheia. Was hoping for more "independent" polling of independents but these shed some light as well.
    posted by kyp at 2:34 PM on April 12, 2016


    Sam Wang thinks Trump is on track for a first ballot victory. I'm surprised, I thought he had stumbled a bit. But Wang knows more about this than I do so here's hoping.
    posted by Justinian at 2:58 PM on April 12, 2016


    Is there anyone, in the entirely of the united states and its overseas depancies and holdings, who is still undecided in this primary?

    I'm undecided on whether to vote in the primary because I have only a very weak preference for one candidate's policies over the other and a strong and growing stronger disgust for the way both campaigns have been conducting themselves recently. I will vote in the general come hell or high water, but will probably sit the primary out.

    I also highly recommend tuning out of election coverage for a week or so. It feels pretty awesome.
    posted by sallybrown at 3:04 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]




    Here's a few more links about independents:

    Top 10 issues for independent voters, from a 2013 poll - #1 is money in politics
    Five myths about independent voters: About two-thirds of them say they are independent because “both parties care more about special interests than about average Americans,” according to a Pew survey.
    What do we know about independent voters?, based on a book by Linda Killian: In her book, Killian breaks independent voters into four groups. First are the NPR Republicans, who used to be known as Rockefeller Republicans, who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative and don't relate to today's Tea Party and religious right-dominated Republican Party. The second group are the America-first Democrats, formerly Reagan Democrats, who tend to be working- or lower-middle class. Although more socially conservative than NPR Republicans, they are concerned about trade issues after being impacted by outsourcing and offshoring. The Facebook generation are voters under 35, who decline to register with either major party in higher numbers than any other age group, even though the youth vote went for Obama in huge numbers in 2008. The final group is the Starbucks moms and dads, suburban parents concerned about the economy, jobs, education and national security.
    posted by dialetheia at 3:06 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    > "I'm undecided, could there maybe be 500 comments from supporters of each candidate elucidating why the supporters of the other candidates are suckers?"

    Sure! It can be plainly seen that the supporters of the other candidate are actually shoots springing from the base of a tree or other plant, especially arising from the root below ground level at some distance from the main stem or trunk. Also, they are freshwater fish with thick lips. And lollipops. I have links that prove this, but I cannot post them right now because LOOK OVER THERE oh never mind it's gone.
    posted by kyrademon at 3:17 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    NPR Republicans
    America-first Democrats
    Facebook generation
    Starbucks moms and dads


    Ironman Republicans
    Flywheel Democrats
    Stone Cold Steve Austin Republicans
    Tesla deposit Democrats
    I'm-a-Charlotte Republicans
    Local Lost Pet Facebook Group moms and dads
    Zoodle Republicans
    Kombucha Democrats
    10000 Steps generation
    posted by sallybrown at 3:17 PM on April 12, 2016 [8 favorites]


    I think it's dangerous to draw conclusions about independents, a category that includes me. Here in Oregon some smartasses qualified a new party for major party status by calling it "The Independent Party" and more or less tricking people into signing up for it.

    To me it's like the label "non-denomination" in religion, which includes atheists, agnostics, Bible self-readers, new age adherents, me again, and some of the most fundamentalist Christians who happen to attend megachurces with pastors who don't care to share their power or money. Really had to draw any through lines amidst all that.
    posted by msalt at 3:20 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]




    > Hundreds arrested at Capitol protest on voting and campaign finance

    Democracy Spring

    Democracy Spring: Over 400 Arrested at U.S. Capitol Protesting Corruption & Money in Politics
    posted by homunculus at 3:28 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I think it's dangerous to draw conclusions about independents, a category that includes me. Here in Oregon some smartasses qualified a new party for major party status by calling it "The Independent Party" and more or less tricking people into signing up for it.

    In California there is the American Independent Party, far right-wing racist party that is anything but progressive.

    When I say independent (without the capital I) though I mean non-religious rather than non-denominational. As long as that distinction is very clear, I think there is a lot of value in understanding what that bloc is and what they want.
    posted by kyp at 3:37 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    And to add to that, (for now) the other parties are insignificant enough that they might as well be included in the Independent category anyways. At the end of the day they'll most likely vote in D/R races since that's the only way they'll have an impact on their lives.
    posted by kyp at 3:44 PM on April 12, 2016


    I'm undecided, could there maybe be 500 comments from supporters of each candidate elucidating why the supporters of the other candidates are suckers?
    posted by beerperson 35 minutes ago [11 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


    Just look at this shameful pour. I think this is all the information we need.
    posted by Drinky Die at 3:48 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I'm given to understand that among American Christians, "nondenominational" in practice means "Baptist, but anxious for everybody to come so the pastor can turn around a chair, sit astride it and get down to some real talk."
    posted by Countess Elena at 3:51 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Josh Marshall at TPM: Yes, the Democratic primary system needs reform. Thing is, the weird parts are mostly helping Bernie Sanders right now.
    posted by msalt at 3:53 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I'm undecided, could there maybe be 500 comments from supporters of each candidate elucidating why the supporters of the other candidates are suckers?

    I got a letter from the Democrats the other day
    I opened and read it, it said they were suckers
    They wanted me for Bernie or Hillary
    Picture me giving a damn -- I said never
    Here is a party that never gave a damn
    About leftists like me and myself
    Because they never did
    I wasn't with it but just that very minute it occurred to me:
    The GOP had authority!

    -- Black Lives Matter In The Hour Of Trump
    posted by dw at 3:54 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Hillary on the CP Time skit:

    Well, look, it was Mayor de Blasio’s skit. He has addressed it, and I will really defer to him because it is something that he’s already talked about.
    posted by futz at 3:54 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Drinky Die: Just look at this shameful pour. I think this is all the information we need.

    Let's not forget this:
    “I haven’t been in many [drinking contests], but the most famous one, I suppose is the one I engaged in with Sen. John McCain when he and I were on a congressional delegation and he kind of challenged me,” Clinton said in a video posted on her Facebook page Thursday. “We have our political differences, but we sat there drinking vodka.”

    Now we know how to settle this election.
    posted by msalt at 3:57 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Speaking of independents, does anyone know of a trustworthy source that regularly polls independents?

    The problem with "independents" is that it means multiple things.

    It can mean "people who didn't register with any party or who registered as independent," but that includes the entire population of Texas and around 20 other states that don't have partisan registration.

    It can mean "people who answer the party ID question with 'independent,' and that's it," which seems to be how Killian is using it. This is the group that includes that "leaners," who are behaviorally almost identical to weak partisans.

    Or it can mean what it (usually) means in political science, which is "people who answer that they are independent and then decline when they are offered a chance to say they lean towards either party," or "pure independents." As a matter of central tendency pure independents tend to be disengaged lunkheads.

    Without wanting to be more of a dick about it than I have to to make the point, and with only having read her online pieces rather than her book, Killian seems rather strongly wrong to me. She writes that we know 23\% of the population shift their votes from election to election but then points to a survey that just plain doesn't say that; you need panel data across elections for that. It's certainly possible that her actual analysis is not so facile or, well, methodologically just wrong, but I would not bet that way.

    Anyway, what we know about people-who-register-independent is not so much because registration in general is not seen as terribly important, at least not in analytic/academic circles.

    What we know about the broad group of people who identify as independent is that most of them are fooling themselves and that they are partisans, though there's another question there about the stability of party ID over time where I'm unaware of the current state of the art.

    What we know about pure independents is that they tend to be disengaged lunkheads whose opinions seem to be largely random statements unconnected by any broader scheme of thought.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:59 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    It'd be interesting to see how the self-identification would shift if we stopped using the term "independent," which has very positive connotations ("gosh, I'm a self-sufficient free-thinker! I don't need anybody to tell me what to do! I'm INDEPENDENT! Even though I always vote for that one party").
    posted by prize bull octorok at 4:05 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    What would we call it then? Solitary? Confused? Undeclared? Non-Aligned?
    posted by msalt at 4:07 PM on April 12, 2016


    What we know about the broad group of people who identify as independent is that most of them are fooling themselves and that they are partisans

    Sure, but something convinced them to register outside of either major party. Just because political scientists don't seem particularly interested in figuring out what that is as long as it doesn't affect general election voting behavior doesn't mean it isn't something worth wondering about.

    If independents behave identically to partisans, why do they have such clear preferences in e.g. this primary, or even the 2008 primary? Independent voters strongly preferred Sanders and Obama over Clinton, which doesn't seem easily explainable if they are functionally identical to registered Democrats.

    Anyway, I'm more interested in what gets people to leave the parties and what issues are most important to them, as opposed to how they vote in general elections (which is largely a function of the candidates on offer). Just shrugging and saying we don't care because they are still "leaners" seems increasingly unsatisfactory given that so many people are leaving the two parties; the plurality of voters (39%) are not registered Republicans or Democrats at this point.
    posted by dialetheia at 4:08 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]


    What would we call it then? Solitary? Confused? Undeclared? Non-Aligned?

    Neutral: Live Free or Don't
    posted by FJT at 4:09 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Sec. Clinton: “We have our political differences, but we sat there drinking vodka.”

    msalt: Now we know how to settle this election.

    Wasn't there a thing about how Trump doesn't drink? I'm picturing him throwing back a few shots, and then twenty minutes later ripping off his wig thingy and delivering a coherent monologue.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 4:10 PM on April 12, 2016 [5 favorites]


    My image of an "independent" was cemented with H. Ross Perot, when I was a girl: a loud, elderly autodidact whose proposed policies are often, well, bracingly unique. This is, of course, entirely unlike Sanders in every way.
    posted by Countess Elena at 4:17 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Aren't people just not "joiners" now for a variety of organizations, groups, and clubs, not just political parties?
    posted by FJT at 4:24 PM on April 12, 2016


    Well, look, it was Mayor de Blasio’s skit. He has addressed it, and I will really defer to him because it is something that he’s already talked about.

    H. S. Truman: "The buck stops here."
    H. R. Clinton: "Please talk to the mayor."
    posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:27 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Wasn't there a thing about how Trump doesn't drink?

    Yeah, his brother died from issues related to alcoholism. Trump says he has never tried any alcohol or drugs.
    posted by Drinky Die at 4:29 PM on April 12, 2016


    Aren't people just not "joiners" now for a variety of organizations, groups, and clubs, not just political parties?

    As one anecdotal point, I consider myself independent and like joining things. There just isn't a political club that I really fit in with. In other areas of interest, especially online, there are a lot more clubs to choose from than we get in politics.
    posted by Drinky Die at 4:32 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]




    Sure, but something convinced them to register outside of either major party

    You can be an independent, or even pure independent, and have been registered D/R your entire adult life. Same way you can be not registered with any party and identify as a strong D/R.

    There are people who look at why people identify as an independent leaner instead of a weak partisan but I don't follow that stream of research.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:34 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    the fact that we have only two viable political parties in this country and one of them is basically still okay with restricting human rights and the other has been generally on the right side of trying to open up and secure those rights, occasional periods of heads-up-their-asses-in-the-wilderness notwithstanding, has made it real easy for me to join and identify with one of those parties.

    maybe someday both of those parties will be on the same page as far as the human rights stuff goes and we can have nuanced disagreements over fine points of foreign relations and economic policy and shifting allegiances from election to election may make some kind of coherent sense, but for now? nah
    posted by prize bull octorok at 4:41 PM on April 12, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Joining parties only makes sense to me if you have to do it for something. Like it was when I wanted to vote in a closed Democratic primary so I switched to Democrat from undeclared/non-aligned/whatever it's called. But I don't see why anyone would join in states where it's not required. You can still vote for the candidate as an independent.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 4:47 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    “6 Ways US Elections Look Insane To Non-US Citizens,” Mark Hill and Pauli Poisuo, Cracked, 12 April 2016
    posted by ob1quixote at 5:07 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    But I don't see why anyone would join in states where it's not required. You can still vote for the candidate as an independent.

    Well, a lot of people do really identify as loyal members of the party. You don't win so many elections otherwise.
    posted by Drinky Die at 5:15 PM on April 12, 2016


    All independents should have to self-identify according to the D&D Alignment system. I pick Chaotic Good.
    posted by kyp at 5:24 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I registered as independent when I lived in states where I could still vote in primaries, but really, it was sort of needless because I always voted in the Dem primary. I think it was because I had been raised to believe that joining a political party was for sheeple. As if collective action is not how shit gets done!
    posted by mandymanwasregistered at 5:31 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    sheesh guys this election stuff is ridiculous. next time let's have a preterition instead.
    posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 5:37 PM on April 12, 2016


    New York is a hotbed of anti-testing activism:

    Hillary Clinton has already distanced herself from the education-reform movement, which is a predictable course of action for a Democrat facing a contested primary. The looming New York primary has raised the pressure for her to placate the burgeoning “opt-out” movement, which encourages students to boycott standardized tests. Bill Clinton asserted last week that even one national test per year is too many.

    ...Bill Clinton framed his wife’s position in remarkable terms: “She thinks [the tests] are just too much, that it’s national overreach,” he said, “and the most it could ever do is to help people at the very bottom levels of achievement.” Turn that last passage over in your head and consider its meaning: The most it could ever do is to help people at the very bottom levels of achievement. As if helping people at the bottom is so insignificant that it’s not worth doing. What a thing for a Democrat to say!
    posted by futz at 5:42 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Yes, that article written by the husband of a charter school advocate certainly paints an unbiased picture of standardized tests.
    posted by one_bean at 6:04 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    "the fact that we have only two viable political parties in this country and one of them is basically still okay with restricting human rights and the other has been generally on the right side of trying to open up and secure those rights, occasional periods of heads-up-their-asses-in-the-wilderness notwithstanding, has made it real easy for me to join and identify with one of those parties."


    And I think that's dangerous because unless you assume good faith in politicians (I cannot), you have to realize that these same politicians will quickly move to use that standpoint to their advantage. They will happily move in ways that they don't have to make sacrifices for (civil rights and nondiscrimination) while consolidating power by aligning themselves with special interests. They can literally only pay lip service to reform and push outrage-filter social wedge issues that we should have agreed on decades ago--while regulatory capture grows, corporations continue to consolidate, money flows to tax havens, income disparity skyrockets, and so on.

    The Democrats literally only have to be a little less evil to earn votes
    --the establishment knows that--and I think our current political climate illustrates that clearly. The social wars of tomorrow aren't going to be against the bigots on the far right, they're going to be against the ghost of Standard Oil having finally looted the United States once and for all and moving on. If you look at income disparity right now, either you assume that most of that massive uptick on the far right is over, or you realize fairly soon the US economy will have almost no interaction with more than 70% or so of US citizens.

    The status quo isn't good enough for global warming, it isn't good enough for income disparity, and it isn't good enough for regulating the architects of our economy's last few catastrophic failures. Either we do better than what we have now, or we suffer radical consequences from economic manipulation and our planet alike. Triangulation is great when you're between the yellow lines, but we're well into the curb and triangulation is really only going to get us there a little more slowly and maybe with fewer rocks in the way.
    posted by Phyltre at 6:04 PM on April 12, 2016 [12 favorites]


    What a load of crock that New Yorker "article" is. Tests show kids in better schools do better in life, ergo, the tests themselves help kids learn! Correlation IS causation! Tell the author to return his/her's masters degree, TIA.
    posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:08 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    (New York Magazine, not the New Yorker)
    posted by mbrubeck at 6:34 PM on April 12, 2016


    Whoops, sorry. I, too, will return my masters degree.
    posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:08 PM on April 12, 2016 [6 favorites]


    NY Daily News endorses Hillary. Of course, newspaper endorsements don't matter much so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
    posted by dw at 7:20 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    What continues to frustrate me about the framing of political optimality in these threads (regarding how parties should be and what they should do,) is that the parties have ceded outreach to outsiders and then turned on those outsiders with veritable disdain even as the outsiders and their outsider support seek political involvement by the only means the system has offered them.

    It doesn't take much numberwang to see Sanders and Trump have been bringing in a lot of people from outside the political process. A lot of people. Isn't that one of the most important things a political campaign can do? Find the many millions who reciprocate the apathy they feel by the system, and earn their vote and bring them to the table?

    How are the outsiders doing it? Not, I think, by offering to make a lot of well-calculated compromises at the expense of so-called values.

    So much time spent playing delegate Battleship, the fundamental crisis of political disinvolvement is shrugged off besides the occasional obligatory aside.

    I'm just saying there are like 3 chess pieces on this board and two of them are Nate Silver and the third has the last name of some political dynasty or another and all three of the pieces are the same color and even if you think this metaphor is a mixy mess you have to agree it's no way to run a country, really, and we could do so much better. And some politicians deserve a lot more credit than others on this front, whether or not it earns them your vote.
    posted by an animate objects at 7:23 PM on April 12, 2016 [16 favorites]


    In case it hasn't been prior linked, Sanders, Trump, and the Rise of the Non-Voters
    posted by an animate objects at 7:35 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Suggested bumper sticker:
    I'M A NON-VOTER AND I VOTE
    posted by mmoncur at 7:53 PM on April 12, 2016 [9 favorites]


    > Wasn't there a thing about how Trump doesn't drink?

    Yeah, his brother died from issues related to alcoholism. Trump says he has never tried any alcohol or drugs.


    Donald Trump cut off medical funds to nephew's sick baby because he was 'angry' over family feud
    posted by homunculus at 8:08 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I'm undecided, could there maybe be 500 comments from supporters of each candidate elucidating why the supporters of the other candidates are suckers?
    posted by beerperson 35 minutes ago [11 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


    who said this
    posted by beerperson at 8:30 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    How are the outsiders doing it? Not, I think, by offering to make a lot of well-calculated compromises at the expense of so-called values.

    No, but arguably by manipulating legitimate anger of dispossessed people despite not having any real solution to their problems.
    posted by msalt at 8:43 PM on April 12, 2016 [7 favorites]




    Democracy Spring

    Do motherfuckers even study current events? This shit is barely even history - the most recent namesake Spring didn't exactly work out that great...
    posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:20 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    That is quite the endorsement by the NY Daily News. It is long, detailed, and substantive, like the interview Clinton gave them, her policy plans, and her credentials. And much as I like many of Bernie's goals, I'd add (which I am firmly convinced Clinton shares), I think it will be difficult to ignore the detailed and substantive criticisms the editorial articulates.
    posted by bearwife at 9:51 PM on April 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Its almost as good as their endorsement of Romney.
    posted by localhuman at 10:26 PM on April 12, 2016 [4 favorites]


    What a load of crock that New Yorker "article" is.

    I have issues with the article too but they didn't fabricate the quotes from the Clintons.
    posted by futz at 10:31 PM on April 12, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I have issues with the article too but they didn't fabricate the quotes from the Clintons

    Which of the Hillary quotes did you think it was important for us to read?
    posted by one_bean at 10:35 PM on April 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Whoops. I should have said singular Clinton, meaning Bill. Good catch.
    posted by futz at 10:40 PM on April 12, 2016


    NY Daily News endorses Hillary.

    Interesting. They've been attacking the Clintons in print for years. While she was a Senator, they ran anti-Clinton covers and editorials very often and that continued after she became Secretary of State. They certainly have no love for Bill Clinton. Most days it still feels like their editorials rip into her or her husband. Yet in the last 24 hours, they posted this glowing, practically worshipful editorial about her, and have now endorsed her candidacy in similar terms.

    What does it mean? Not much. Who pays attention to newspaper endorsements any more? Also worth noting (on preview I see localhuman beat me to it) that they were one of many newspapers that switched their endorsement to Romney from Obama in 2012, and that sure didn't seem to affect the final outcome.
    posted by zarq at 10:50 PM on April 12, 2016


    Hmph. Got a Senator.

    Why I’m Supporting Bernie Sanders
    By JEFF MERKLEY

    NO decision we make as Americans more dramatically affects the direction of our country than our choice for president. He or she is more than the manager of the executive branch, commander in chief or appointer of judges. The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.
    posted by Trochanter at 3:51 AM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    The Democrats literally only have to be a little less evil to earn votes

    Yes, and that is the root of why Bill Clinton and the DNC have been so bad for the country. They abandon the actual liberal component of their party to plant their flag just to the left of wherever the Republicans happen to be this year, thus capturing lots of voters who are more moderate than the Rs. To try and differentiate themselves from the Ds, the Rs move ever rightward, and the DNC moves the flag after them. The Left mostly isn't going to vote R because the Ds have abandoned them; they'll either stay home or vote for some inconsequential 3rd party. While the Ds continue to pay lip-service to *some* traditional Democratic positions, the only ones of those they actively work at are the ones that don't adversely affect the corporate sector. The Rs get more and more extreme, the Left is more and more marginalized, and corporations amass more and more wealth and power.

    Since I don't see Hillary Clinton abandoning that DNC strategy in any way, I can't support her. She's going to continue that destructive spiral.

    Edit: I should have said "The Left mostly isn't going to vote R because the Ds have abandoned them; they'll either continue to vote D, stay home, or vote for some inconsequential 3rd party. "
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:33 AM on April 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


    And where I wrote DNC, I meant DLC.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:42 AM on April 13, 2016


    * NYT: Mothers of Black Victims Emerge as a Force for Hillary Clinton

    * Esquire: The Mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner Endorse Hillary Clinton in a Heart-Wrenching New Ad. "Finally, someone here is really willing to listen."

    And on Clinton's website: These moms are turning grief into action—and reclaiming the narrative around their children’s deaths. The mothers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Dontre Hamilton, and Jordan Davis share what it’s like fight for justice alongside one another.

    posted by zarq at 6:38 AM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    * Esquire: The Mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner Endorse Hillary Clinton in a Heart-Wrenching New Ad. "Finally, someone here is really willing to listen."

    I mean, Barack Obama went on television and said that if he had a son, he might look like Trayvon. Let's not say "finally , someone here is really willing to listen."
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Listening is a small start.

    What are her plans for reforming the police so that Good Cops aren't afraid for their and their families' lives from retaliation for arresting the Bad Cops who are ruining their honor and integrity?
    posted by mikelieman at 7:32 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    The Daily News Interview has some of her plans...
    We do need to reform police practices so that police don't reach for their gun as the first choice. They try to deescalate situations.

    [...]

    We do have to invest federal funds in police retraining and work with those departments that set a high standard. Create regional training centers or use ones that are already there to try to introduce and reinforce best policing practices.

    Secondly we've got to do more to demilitarize the police. I think some of the issues that need to be addressed result from what we did predominately after 9/11 where there was a lot of concern about homeland security and a lot of military equipment was shared with, sent to local police departments, including in small places where any threat assessment would have demonstrated that maybe New York, maybe L.A., but not these smaller towns.

    So thirdly I think we need to do much more to incentivize diversion programs on the front end and work with the police and communities to be partners in that and much more to incentivize different behaviors and programs inside correction facilities. Right now, we are putting people in prison who have addiction problems, mental health problems, lack education and skills, and we're basically doing nothing other than warehousing them and very often, putting them in conditions that make their future lives even more dangerous.
    posted by OnceUponATime at 7:36 AM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]




    Let's not say "finally , someone here is really willing to listen."

    That was Jordan Davis' mother. I think she can say whatever she wants to say.
    posted by zutalors! at 7:41 AM on April 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


    That was Jordan Davis' mother. I think she can say whatever she wants to say.

    She absolutely can, but personally, based on track records, Obama has been and is a much better president on criminal justice than Clinton would be.
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 AM on April 13, 2016


    The Daily News Interview has some of her plans...

    Is there anything here beyond the level of platitudes? "Give police more Federal money / Stop giving military hardware to small towns but keep it going to NYC and LA / 'incentivize diversion programs'"? What parts of this does she expect to get through a Republican Congress that will do anything to stop her?
    posted by indubitable at 7:45 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Same questions to Sanders, then.

    The fact is that most policing is local. The federal executive can and should do some things, but you need action from state and local authorities.
    posted by Chrysostom at 7:50 AM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    What parts of this does she expect to get through a Republican Congress that will do anything to stop her?

    I can't wrap my head around people who direct this sort of statement at Clinton but not at Sanders.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 7:53 AM on April 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


    Is there anything here beyond the level of platitudes?

    Those are pretty specific policy proposals, to me. She didn't say "Give police more Federal money," she said "Create regional training centers or use ones that are already there to try to introduce and reinforce best policing practices." (In a context where she'd already mentioned methods "to deescalate situations" as a good practice.)

    I mean, what kind of specifics are you looking for? If you support a different candidate, what more specific policy proposals has that candidate got? Or do you have some better specific ideas for addressing this yourself?
    posted by OnceUponATime at 7:53 AM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    I mean, what kind of specifics are you looking for?

    I mean, her comments make it obvious she hasn't thought much about specific proposals that policy people in this area are already doing. what does she mean by re-training police? What does she consider to be proper cultural competency (which she doesn't mention but should)? Stuff like that.
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on April 13, 2016


    Also "invest in retraining police not to murder people so often" and "give police more money" are SORT of equivalent statements, if you squint, but it's a pretty disingenuous thing to say.

    Security sector reform is a pretty well-established area of practice (though mostly in developing and post-conflict countries so far), and the overwhelming consensus is that retraining, plus firing specific bad actors after a proper investigation, is better than just cleaning house and firing everyone. Because then, not only do you lose a huge amount of irreplaceable institutional knowledge, but you also have a huge number of pissed-off unemployed people with quasi-military training and a brotherhood mentality. (And as former Secretary of State, Clinton will definitely be familiar with this concept.)
    posted by showbiz_liz at 7:56 AM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    WP: Cruz’s campaign is now pushing to use Roberts Rules of Order, instead of House rules, to govern a contested floor fight. Why? Because House rules would allow the convention’s Rules Committee to convene during the convention to change the rules of the game as it is being played. Cruz’s team fears this could be used to elevate an alternative from the establishment wing of the party on the third or fourth ballot.
    posted by Chrysostom at 7:59 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Same questions to Sanders, then.

    Yes, and he has been crystal clear about the fact that we need a Democratic Congress to get done the work which needs to be done. Again I say, Sec. Clinton actually is the idealistic and naive candidate if she thinks she can get any legislation of real importance thru the House as currently constituted. It took Barack Obama 5 years to figure that out and Sec. Clinton had front row seats -- it's a mystery to me why she thinks she will fare better.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 AM on April 13, 2016


    The president does other things besides sign bills into law, not all of which require Congress to do jack squat.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 8:05 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Yes, and he has been crystal clear about the fact that we need a Democratic Congress to get done the work which needs to be done. Again I say, Sec. Clinton actually is the idealistic and naive candidate if she thinks she can get any legislation of real importance thru the House as currently constituted.

    Is....is it opposite day?
    posted by everybody had matching towels at 8:07 AM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Is there anything here beyond the level of platitudes?

    Yes. Criminal justice reform is a major part of her campaign. She's been speaking about it often in speeches and interviews, not just to the Daily News. The page on her site regarding it is here. Also see: 9 things you should know about Hillary Clinton’s plan to reform our criminal justice system.

    Summary:
    * End the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons.
    * Encourage the use of smart strategies—like police body cameras—and end racial profiling to rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities.
    * Help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter society.

    Strategies:
    * Making new investments to support state-of-the-art law enforcement training programs at every level on issues such as implicit bias, use of force, de-escalation, community policing and problem solving, alternatives to incarceration, crisis intervention, and officer safety and wellness.
    * Strengthening the U.S. Department of Justice’s pattern or practice unit by increasing resources, working to secure subpoena power, and improving data collection for pattern or practice investigations.
    * Doubling funding for the U.S. Department of Justice “Collaborative Reform” program to provide technical assistance and training to agencies that undertake voluntary efforts toward transformational reform of their police departments. Across the country, there are police departments deploying creative and effective strategies that we can learn from and build on.
    * Supporting legislation to end racial profiling by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials.
    * Providing federal matching funds to make body cameras available to every police officer to increase transparency and accountability on both sides of the lens.
    * Promoting oversight and accountability in use of controlled equipment by limiting the transfer of military equipment by the federal government to local law enforcement, eliminating the one-year use requirement, and requiring transparency by agencies that purchase equipment using federal funds.
    * Collecting and reporting national data on policing to inform policing strategies and provide greater transparency and accountability, including robust state and local data on issues such as crime, officer involved shootings, and deaths in custody.
    * Creating national guidelines for use of force that recognize the need for officers to protect their safety and the safety of others, but emphasize use of force as a last resort and at the appropriate level. The federal government has an important role to play in standardizing best practices for the use of force.
    * Take action on mandatory minimum sentences. Excessive federal mandatory minimum sentences keep nonviolent drug offenders in prison for longer than is necessary or useful and have increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system.
    - Reducing mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses by cutting them in half.
    - Applying Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively to allow current nonviolent prisoners to seek fairer sentences.
    - Eliminating the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine so that equal amounts of crack and powder cocaine carry equal sentences and applying this change retroactively.
    - Reforming the “strike” system to focus on violent crime by narrowing the category of prior offenses that count as strikes to exclude nonviolent drug offenses, and reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.
    - Granting additional discretion to judges in applying mandatory minimum sentences by expanding the “safety valve” to a larger set of cases.
    - Focus federal enforcement resources on violent crime, not simple marijuana possession. Marijuana arrests, including for simple possession, account for a huge number of drug arrests.

    * Further, significant racial disparities exist in marijuana enforcement, with black men significantly more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white counterparts, even though usage rates are similar. Hillary believes we need an approach to marijuana that includes:
    - Allowing states that have enacted marijuana laws to act as laboratories of democracy, as long as they adhere to certain federal priorities such as not selling to minors, preventing intoxicated driving, and keeping organized crime out of the industry.
    - Rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. Hillary supports medical marijuana and would reschedule marijuana to advance research into its health benefits.
    - Prioritize treatment and rehabilitation—rather than incarceration—for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Over half of prison and jail inmates suffer from a mental health problem, and up to 65 percent of the correctional population meets the medical criteria for a substance use disorder. Hillary will ensure adequate training for law enforcement for crisis intervention and referral to treatment, as appropriate, for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with mental health or addiction problems. She will also direct the attorney general to issue guidance to federal prosecutors on seeking treatment over incarceration for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes.
    - End the privatization of prisons.
    - Promote successful re-entry by formerly incarcerated individuals. Including taking executive action to “ban the box” for federal employers and contractors, so that applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records and supporting legislation to restore voting rights to individuals who have served their sentences.
    Newsday:
    Clinton: My first speech in this campaign, back a year ago in April, was about criminal justice reform and tackling the problem of mass incarceration, so I am well aware of the consequences of what happened in the last 20-plus years that did result in a significant and disproportionate number of African-American and Latino, primarily men, but also women, being arrested, charged, convicted, incarcerated for offenses that would not have led a white man or women to the same outcome. So that is something that I intend to address.

    I am supportive of President Obama's policing commission recommendations and we're going to, I hope have bipartisan support to do this. But I think it's also important, despite the rejection of the argument, to remind people, particularly young people, who would have been very young, back in those days, that we had a serious lethal crime problem in America. There's a great op-ed in The New York Times today by David Yassky, who was Chuck Schumer's principal legislative assistant, when Schumer was one of the architects, and authors of the crime bill, and Yassky talks about what we were up against when my husband became president, and you looked at the spiraling crime rate, the murder rate, the violence that was being inflicted, particularly in communities of color, and poor communities, to the point that even Al Sharpton has defended the crime bill because he was one of the people coming to the White House to ask that something be done.

    Then you've got to put this in a broader context. And there are a lot of things about the crime bill, the 100,000 police force increase, the violence against women provisions, the assault weapons ban, which is part of the package, the Brady Bill, which was part of the package and there was a lot that was put into place that contributed to the decline in crime that we are enjoying today, thank goodness, because it's keeping a lot of people alive, uninjured and communities safer. So we have to learn from any kind of policy, what works and what did not work as intended. The Federal government has a relatively limited responsibility when it comes to incarceration. Most of that happens at the State and local level. And the Federal government, though, can again, change its relationship with state and local policing and corrections department by altering what we are doing at the Federal level. So when it comes to police, for example, a lot of military equipment was actually sold at a very low cost to a lot of police departments.

    And I'm not just talking New York City, I'm talking about little tiny police departments who had no more need for, you know, armored vehicles, then I do in my yard. And so what they did was to kind of push out this militarization of the police, which we now have to dial back. And we have to have a national program for retraining and de-escalating and working with the best police departments and the best police officers. And similarly with incarceration, we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system in the first place. And we need to put back in the kind of education and skills training programs we used to have in prisons, which for a lot of states they just wiped out for budget reasons. And then we have to have more second chance programs. So I have a very broad set of policies that I want to pursue.
    ---

    What parts of this does she expect to get through a Republican Congress that will do anything to stop her?

    To pass it all, she'd no doubt need a Democratic Congress. I think mandatory minimums won't change unless that happens.

    However, some of these proposals would probably gain Republican supporters if they were promoted as supportive of the police, including increasing their skill sets and making them efficient and better protected. Which isn't a stretch: they would. Decreasing tensions between the police and their communities would certainly make things safer.

    There's already wide bipartisan agreement that police forces in this country should wear body cameras. Resolutions were passed by Congress last year to fund a pilot program. Expanding that shouldn't be too difficult. Some of the proposals Clinton mentions are already being launched by Democrats in Congress, so bipartisan support is at least possible. If she has strong Democratic support, that certainly makes things easier.
    posted by zarq at 8:07 AM on April 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


    Which is why I qualified my comment to discuss prospects for legislation.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:08 AM on April 13, 2016


    Sec. Clinton actually is the idealistic and naive candidate if she thinks she can get any legislation of real importance thru the House as currently constituted

    She is also hoping (and campaigning and fundraising) for a Democratic Congress, of course. But she is also looking for solutions which Republican politicians could support without enraging their voter base and losing their jobs.

    Total obstructionism is a relatively new tactic for Republicans. And if it is not working for them, it is very possible that they will change tactics. But their underlying principles won't change, so it's necessary to find solutions which don't violate those principles.
    posted by OnceUponATime at 8:10 AM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    So...

    She'll never get this through Congress!

    What if she did it without going through Congress?

    You're changing the subject!

    Like, dude. I am voting for Sanders in the primary, but Clinton is not the fool people seem to desperately want her to be. She does have actual plans, at least some of which do not simply involve sucking up to Wall Street.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 8:11 AM on April 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


    [Couple comments deleted. Maybe we can let this most recent spiral on Clinton drop; points made, let's move on rather than going back over and over the same ground.]
    posted by LobsterMitten at 8:16 AM on April 13, 2016


    Here's a tweet from Ted Cruz's former roommate: Ted Cruz thinks people don't have a right to "stimulate their genitals." I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.
    posted by everybody had matching towels at 8:26 AM on April 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


    Well I'll be skipping lunch.
    posted by phearlez at 8:35 AM on April 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


    Not directing this at anyone in particular.

    If you aren't aware of what the candidates are saying about certain issues you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Seek out information. Read their sites. Listen to their speeches. Read their interviews, good and bad. Think of it as part of the process. And know that it's unwise to expect the internet to spoon-feed information to you, because the result is usually one-sided. Creating a mental caricature of a candidate also isn't particularly helpful. Even if they lend themselves to it.

    What candidates say in interviews and to crowds when they try to sell themselves to the public is, I think, far more important than the insta-outrage gaffes and fuckups that the media promote endlessly. Are they making promises that they seem likely to be able to keep? Why have they taken a particular position on an issue? Do their policies have depth or are they soundbites? You can learn a ton of information about what a candidate wants to do when they're in office by just looking things up and paying attention.
    posted by zarq at 8:44 AM on April 13, 2016 [34 favorites]


    Here's a tweet from Ted Cruz's former roommate:

    So we can pretty much declare the Burn Of The Year nominations closed at this point.
    posted by Etrigan at 9:09 AM on April 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


    OnceUponATime I mean, what kind of specifics are you looking for? If you support a different candidate, what more specific policy proposals has that candidate got? Or do you have some better specific ideas for addressing this yourself?

    My candidate of choice (Sanders) actually doesn't have a lot of specifics here and was really tone deaf towards the beginning and isn't all that much better now. Like a lot of socialist leaning people, Sanders likes to view the problem with racism as a problem of class instead. Sanders also goes for the pathetic cop out state level approach for ending the war on drugs, rather than simply pushing for ending it federally. He talks a good game about reforming the police and ending institutional racism, but offers few specifics and never did much about it as a Senator. Likewise his gun control stance is the kick the can down the road "let the states handle it" sort of bullshit I'd expect to hear from a Libertarian.

    For all that I'm a Sanders supporter, he's pretty awful here.

    Clinton's proposals have some specifics that are pretty nice baby steps in the right direction but I'd really like to see more than baby steps proposed.

    And, of course, neither one will be able to get anything they want passed so the whole discussion here is all theoretical. But talking is the first step to action so let's talk.

    Neither of them propose what I'd actually like to see, even if its impossible now someone needs to be talking about it to start the Overton Window shifting.

    1) The war on drugs is over, drugs won. Legalize, license, and tax at a federal level and just end the whole nightmare, release all non-violent drug offenders. Pump some of the money we're currently squandering on drug warriorism into treatment and let's move on.

    2) Pass a law permitting people to sue police or challenge law or whatever based on statistical evidence of racism rather than the current requirement of limiting racial justice to finding an individual cop who is caught on tape specifically saying that they are racist and sought to harm someone based on racial animosity.

    Because the current state of things is horrifying, the Supreme Court has ruled that science, statistics, all of that don't count, it doesn't mater if you can prove at a p < .05 that racism is involved you can't sue based on that. Institutional racism can't be challenged in courts, only individual racist cops can be challenged and then only if they admit or are caught personally saying that they are racist and police based on their racism.

    Which basically shuts the door to any lawsuits that might try to address systemic, institutional, racism. A law saying that people can sue based on statistical evidence of racism would fix a lot.

    3) (the hardest and the one that is basically just going to be Overton Window shifting for a while), advocate strongly to reduce the number of independent law enforcement agencies in the USA. We may not be able to get them all officially under the Department of Justice like they should be, but at least we can try to get the number down to 50 with the law enforcement at county and city levels answerable to the State DoJ equivalents.

    Right now there are around 18,000 (seriously, no exaggeration) completely independent law enforcement agencies that are answerable only to their local top cop (sheriff, chief of police, whatever), and if they are corrupt, or abusive, or whatever, there is absolutely no recourse to a higher authority available, because there is no higher authority.

    Reigning that in so that the state level DoJ equivilent can at least fire, discipline, set standards for, etc the local police departments and sheriffs would make reform and ending abuse so much easier.

    4) End the prison culture entirely. Reserve prison only for genuinely violent offenders and deal with all non-violent offenders exclusively through non-prison means. Tracking cuffs, whatever. Just don't lock them up.
    posted by sotonohito at 9:15 AM on April 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


    I support and applaud your efforts to shift the Overton Window. That's a fantastic set of long term goals. Seriously, those seem like genuinely workable, well-thought-out policy changes. In the meantime, though, I hope we can also get some of the "baby steps" passed into law.
    posted by OnceUponATime at 9:22 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]




    that's remarkable.
    posted by zutalors! at 9:29 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Historic. Has any Presidential candidate joined a picket line since RFK in '68? I can't think of any.
    posted by zarq at 9:37 AM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    OnceUponATime, well since Clinton is all but guaranteed to win, I do hope she manages to get her baby steps passed too. They all look good, and unfortunately they're also almost certainly too much for Congress to even consider. I rather doubt they'd get passed even if by some miracle both the House and Senate went Democratic. Far too many politicians dearly love being all tuff on crime and lawnorder advocates.

    Hell, back during his presidential run, Bill Clinton suspended his campaign so he could go back to Arkansas and sign the death warrant for a retarded black man. Ann Richards, otherwise a damn fine Texas Democrat, when she was running for governor talked so much about how she just loved killing criminals it seemed more like she was was running for state executioner than governor.

    So if Clinton can get even half of her baby steps passed (the crack/powder sentencing gap especially) I'll be all but dancing in the streets.
    posted by sotonohito at 9:50 AM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Looks like Sanders is starting to mobilize his donor base to crowdfund downticket candidates:
    NEW: @BernieSanders hosting team fundraising drive for Teachout, Pramila Jayapal, Lucy Flores online today pic.twitter.com/8I8l1q8poq— E McMorris-Santoro (@EvanMcSan) April 13, 2016

    posted by kyp at 9:52 AM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    4) End the prison culture entirely. Reserve prison only for genuinely violent offenders and deal with all non-violent offenders exclusively through non-prison means. Tracking cuffs, whatever. Just don't lock them up.

    Can we redefine white collar crime that ruins the life of others as violent before we do this?
    posted by Talez at 9:53 AM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Dershowitz: Ted Cruz 'One of Best Students I Ever Had'

    (Tuesday on Fox News Channel's "The Kelly File."

    (This was not an endorsement.))
    posted by bukvich at 9:58 AM on April 13, 2016


    Yes, and that is the root of why Bill Clinton and the DLC have been so bad for the country. They abandon the actual liberal component of their party to plant their flag just to the left of wherever the Republicans happen to be this year, thus capturing lots of voters who are more moderate than the Rs. To try and differentiate themselves from the Ds, the Rs move ever rightward, and the DLC moves the flag after them. The Left mostly isn't going to vote R because the Ds have abandoned them; they'll either continue to vote D, stay home or vote for some inconsequential 3rd party. While the Ds continue to pay lip-service to *some* traditional Democratic positions, the only ones of those they actively work at are the ones that don't adversely affect the corporate sector. The Rs get more and more extreme, the Left is more and more marginalized, and corporations amass more and more wealth and power.

    interesting how this fracturing is manifesting on the right as well! (via)
    The deeper problem for Ryan and the rest of the Republican leadership is that House Freedom Caucus is more and more the anti-establishment wing of the Republican Party. And its reflexes have now been trained to distrust whatever leadership does. Any whiff of compromise smells like the cronyism of politics as usual. Hence that sour "crap sandwich" stench of budget politics under divided government... which means that in all likelihood, Congress will once again be faced with the same end-of-the-year up-against-the-deadline crisis it faced last year.

    And at that point, the House speaker will face the same impossible choice Boehner faced last time around: Make a deal with the Democrats to get a spending agreement that can actually become law with the signature of a Democratic president and lose your speakership, or shut down the government by demanding cuts and an Obamacare repeal no president named Obama [or Sanders ;] will ever sign...

    Over the past few years, a few folks have picked up on one way to measure this new dimension of conflict. While most analysts rely on first-dimension DW-NOMINATE scores to measure polarization, the algorithms that generate these scores also produce a second-dimension score. And the political scientists behind DW-NOMINATE, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, "suspect that the second dimension is tapping into establishment vs. outsider divisions in both parties." They note that this dimension "pops up on votes such as raising the debt ceiling, domestic surveillance, and government funding bills."

    [...]

    Consider what's happening on trade policy. Last July. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a leader in the HFC, demanded concessions from Boehner in advance of a vote on trade promotion authority. The following day, Jordan pronounced that "[y]esterday will be the day that we look back at as the day that conservatives finally started getting organized in the House."

    A fellow Republican noted of Jordan, "He's mobilized some pretty significant opposition, which is a little strange because on the substance of this you're basically bringing guys over to [side] with the AFL-CIO." In other words, the far right and the far left converged against the establishment center. They may oppose the trade agreement for different reasons, but they came down in the same place on the vote. And while Boehner did not give in to Jordan's demands, the fight is not going away anytime soon. Trade policy has become a major issue dividing both Republicans and Democrats. [/em added]

    Measuring the new outsider conflict

    If discussions of dimensions and algorithms make your head spin, think of it this way: Most of the time, members of Congress just vote their party line. But sometimes, other considerations enter into play. The second dimension tries to explain the votes that don't make sense on what we've come to think of as the liberal-conservative dimension, on issues like surveillance or trade or budgets, where the most conservative and most liberal members of both parties find themselves in agreement against the center.

    Back in the 1960s and '70s, second-dimension scores picked up race and region issues, with Southern Democrats voting like conservative Republicans. But as the parties realigned based on race and region (with Southern conservative Democrats becoming Southern conservative Republicans and Northern liberal Republicans going extinct) the second dimension explained less and less of voting behavior.

    Below, I've plotted the correlations of first- and second-dimension DW-NOMINATE scores for the House over the past nine sessions of Congress... By 2011-'12, something new has happened. The most conservative Republicans start to look more like the most liberal Democrats on this second dimension of conflict. Put another way, there are a growing number of votes where the extremes of both parties are voting together against the center. [/em added]

    In arguing that politics had hit peak polarization, I noted the many similarities between now and the early 1910s, when politics last began to depolarize after an extended period of bitter polarization. There was then, as now, a strong populist anti-centralized power energy that swept across both parties, causing internal rifts.

    By the 1910s, that populism had found its way from the grassroots to Washington. In 1910, as now, an insurgent Republican faction in the House led a successful revolt against a sitting speaker. And in 1912, the Republican Party split into two for the presidential election, with Teddy Roosevelt running as a third-party candidate against Howard Taft.

    Now, looking more closely at voting patterns, I see another similarity, pictured below... Outsiders in both parties start looking similar to each other on the second dimension of conflict. An outsider-insider dimension emerges. And in the historical record, a period of depolarization follows...

    Perhaps we will go through the same budget dance over and over again, in which a last-minute bipartisan compromise is worked out after the normal process breaks down, the anti-establishment conservatives go crazy, the existing speaker resigns, a new speaker is elected with new promises, and that new speaker subsequently disappointments because no other deal is possible.

    But what happens if Republicans have a narrower majority in 2017 than they do now (which seems increasingly likely)? And what if a greater share of the Republican caucus is made up of HFC or HFC-aligned conservatives, making a speaker more reliant on them (also likely, since HFC members tend to come from safer seats)? After all, no Republican could look at the 2016 primary as anything other than a referendum against the "establishment."
    the vox author lee drutman backs away at the end from concluding there's an increased likelihood of more gov't shutdowns/debt 'ceiling' showdowns if the HFC doesn't get their way, but that's what the 'GOP establishment' is facing with trump/cruz... but then trump would pick rubio, kasich or walker as his running mate?

    anyway, in his peak polarization article drutman lists "four interconnected but ultimately unsustainable trends that have turbocharged polarization over the last two decades:"
    1. The unusually close competition for control over Congress
    2. The increasing importance of money in politics
    3. The tendency of both parties to privilege their donors over their voters
    4. The increasing narrative of anger and corruption that puts all the blame for everything that's gone wrong in America on the other party
    so to go back to Kirth Gerson's point -- of going after (the demon princes ;) 'the corrupt alliance of Washington and Wall Street, a conspiracy of career politicians and crony capitalists and lobbyists' -- and 1912: "Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in a landslide. Around 1910 was also when the last great anti-establishment movement in America, the progressive movement, emerged in response to growing concentrations of wealth and political power, concentrations that many Americans felt had left them behind. As political scientist Grant McConnell once wrote of 'the progressive legacy', it consisted of a 'charges made against virtually all the institutions of American society' with 'one common theme — corruption... Corruption of such prevalence, disorder of such magnitude could only be explained by something more than the assumption of a slow-spreading decay. The theory of conspiracy was ready at hand and in one way or another it was invoked as an explanation'. This resonates with today's anti-establishment mood."

    if clinton does win and, for example, appoints larry fink to the treasury?* "issues, especially those of corporate/Wall Street power, antitrust,[1,2,3] interventionist foreign policy, will likely split the parties... It also may mean that 2020 becomes an even more violent and nasty election... This feels like chaos, and it is. But it is also good news, because chaos scrambles the rules. We've hit peak polarization. Politics is slowly coming unstuck. A period of new possibilities awaits."

    cheers!
    posted by kliuless at 10:03 AM on April 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


    BBC: whiny man whines.
    posted by Wordshore at 10:07 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    AJ+: The Hatemonger Behind Ted Cruz

    Frank Gaffney Jr., who as mentioned in the previous election thread was named last month by Cruz along with three employees of his think tank as national security advisors, wrote an entire book about his theory that Grover Norquist of all people is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which, among other things, got him banned from CPAC.

    12 years ago on MetaFilter: What kind of an idiot would call for an attack on our ally Qatar?
    posted by XMLicious at 10:29 AM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Here's a tweet from Ted Cruz's former roommate: Ted Cruz thinks people don't have a right to "stimulate their genitals." I was his college roommate. This would be a new belief of his.

    Alright, this is just fucking ridiculous. "News flash, presidential candidate masturbated in college. Also, water is wet."
    posted by corb at 10:39 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]




    I would happily circulate as many "It's OK That Ted Cruz Masturbated, Seriously, It's No Big Deal" op-eds as I can find.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 10:50 AM on April 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


    The thing is, if Bernie or Hillary can build coattails, at least part of the Republican Congress problem gets fixed (the Senate), perhaps both (if things break the right way). This is why everyone has been all over Bernie for not doing more to promote and raise funds downticket (something he and his team have started to change). This is why Hillary's $300K Schmooze-With-George-Clooney dinner isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be.

    Congresses CAN be changed. Hell, electing Bernie or Hillary means you'll probably see a more liberal Supreme Court that will take a hard look at gerrymandering. But with the right money and the right message and the right candidates, things will change.

    I have more trust in Hillary's ability to have coattails. I think Bernie can form them up, too, but that hasn't been a focus of his.
    posted by dw at 10:52 AM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Alright, this is just fucking ridiculous. "News flash, presidential candidate masturbated in college. Also, water is wet."

    If water declared that it had no right to be wet, that would be news too.
    posted by Etrigan at 10:57 AM on April 13, 2016 [23 favorites]


    The president reflects, but also helps define, our national values, priorities and direction.

    As long as "our national" is changed to "multi-national corporation's profit" this statement is true.
    posted by telstar at 11:06 AM on April 13, 2016


    "News flash, presidential candidate masturbated in college

    Coulda gone my whole life without that mental image. Just sayin'.
    posted by zarq at 11:07 AM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Some context.
    Back in 2007, Republican Presidential candidate and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was working as a Texas solicitor general, fought to uphold a law that banned the sale of sex toys in Texas, Mother Jones reported on Wednesday. And part of Cruz's team's legal argument was that there is no legal "right to stimulate one's genitals."


    Republicans: the party of Small Government, Unless We're Talking About Sex Stuff, Then We'll Convene A Ton Of Meetings and Write Up Laws, Burning A Ton Of Government Funding Just To Limit What You Can Do In Your Own Home and Limit What Businesses Can Sell.
    posted by filthy light thief at 11:27 AM on April 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Republicans: the party of Small Government...

    ... Just Small Enough To Fit In Your Bedroom
    posted by Etrigan at 11:30 AM on April 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Salon: It's the year of the GOP creep.
    A sponsor for an anti-trans bill in Tennessee, state representative Jeremy Durham, has been deemed “a continuing risk to unsuspecting women” by the state attorney general and has been put under strict rules regarding his movements in state offices, out of fear that he will compulsively sexually harass women he comes into contact with. Durham denies the allegations, but has already resigned his position as House majority whip because of the constant drumbeat of women saying he’s a pig who won’t quit with the inappropriate behavior.

    The situation is one of rather unsubtle irony because the anti-trans bill that Durham is backing, which bans trans students at public schools and universities from using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender, is being defended using the same urban legend employed to pass similar legislation in other states: That men dress as women or pretend to be trans in order to hide in the ladies room to harass and even rape women

    posted by zarq at 11:31 AM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    >> Republicans: the party of Small Government...

    > ... Just Small Enough To Fit In Your Bedroom


    Heck, they've been sticking themselves in woman's uteruses for years.
    posted by benito.strauss at 11:51 AM on April 13, 2016


    kliuless, dang that's an excellent link collection. Thanks much!

    And dang is Larry Fink aptly named.
    posted by sotonohito at 11:55 AM on April 13, 2016


    Fink and the other looter class insiders that Clinton will be bringing along are the main reason why I support Sanders. Hire an economics prof, or something, as treasury secretary. We don't need more foxes guarding the henhouse.
    posted by sotonohito at 11:58 AM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Sotonhito: Excellent proposals.

    One more I've read, is to remove local DAs from cases involving police misconduct. Since they have to work together to develop the prosecutions that win DAs higher political office, there's an inherent conflict of interest. Some kind of state or federal independent prosecutor should be in charge of judging the presence or absence of misconduct in all police shootings and in charges of beatings, torture, etc. And all shootings and taserings should automatically be investigated logged in a national database for data analysis.
    posted by msalt at 12:08 PM on April 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


    Before you say the Clooney fundraiser doesn't matter or count it as equivalent to Sanders asking donors to give money directly to specific candidates make sure you understand what the objections to the Hillary Victory Fund are and why so many state party organizations chose not to participate.

    From the WaPo article:
    “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Lawrence Noble, a former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who is now with the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Joint victory funds are not intended to be separate operating committees that just support a single candidate. But they appear to be turning the traditional notion of a joint committee into a Hillary fundraising committee.”
    In addition to the four and a half million dollars Clinton has given herself out of the fund (versus the few tens of thousands of dollars that have gone to most of the participating state parties so far), which she directly controls:
    Of the $6.4 million the Hillary Victory Fund spent on operating costs last year, two-thirds went to two Washington, D.C.-area vendors that also work for the Clinton campaign: Bully Pulpit Interactive, which received $1.9 million for online ads, and Chapman Cubine Adams +Hussey, which was paid $2.4 million for direct mail solicitations, Federal Election Commission records show.

    The victory fund also sponsors Clinton’s online store, allowing donors who have already given the maximum to her campaign to purchase Hillary lapel pins, caps or car magnets, with their money benefiting the party. It’s similar to the way President Obama’s online shop was run in his 2012 reelection. Aides to Sanders, whose joint fundraising committee with the DNC has not yet been active, said the Hillary Victory Fund appears to be functioning as an arm of Clinton’s campaign.
    posted by XMLicious at 12:10 PM on April 13, 2016 [10 favorites]




    You can't* expect Sanders' socialist plans to reform banking, make college free and implement single-payer health to sail through, then criticize Clinton for plans that will face a battle.

    The fact they they are competing candidates makes them and others see them is contrast. In fact, they are more alike than not in ideals. We are lucky to have 2 excellent candidates - look at the GOP with a big crop of horrid, vile, nasty people who would cause untold harm.

    *well, you can, but you shouldn't
    posted by theora55 at 12:18 PM on April 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


    This is why Hillary's $300K Schmooze-With-George-Clooney dinner isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be.

    Ehhhhhhh. I mean, I'm not going to lose sleep over big chunks of money going toward progressive democratic candidates. But I am equal opportunity in being pretty well discomforted by this sort of huge money in the process. I think if people are bothered by it, the party that constantly condemns Citizens United doesn't have any place scolding people with a no no, but it's good corruption!

    then criticize Clinton for plans that will face a battle

    Oh come on. To the extent that any Sanders supporter ever says "well Hillary won't be able to do those things!" it's because they have had to listen to a never-ending litany of Sanders can't do what he says he wants to do. Since so many Sanders boosters think that Clinton's promised efforts are weak sauce why would they bother to haggle over whether she can pull them off? They are only walking through the door that Clinton boosters opened when they told Sanders boosters to be practical.
    posted by phearlez at 12:27 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Super detailed look at the GOP landscape in the remaining states from 538.
    posted by Chrysostom at 12:29 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Fink and the other looter class insiders that Clinton will be bringing along are the main reason why I support Sanders. Hire an economics prof, or something, as treasury secretary. We don't need more foxes guarding the henhouse.

    How do you feel about Neel Kashkari?
    posted by one_bean at 12:30 PM on April 13, 2016


    Fink and the other looter class insiders that Clinton will be bringing along are the main reason why I support Sanders. Hire an economics prof, or something, as treasury secretary.

    I'm guessing you've never met an econ prof?
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:40 PM on April 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


    ROU_Xenophobe, eh there's good and bad ones. But I'd rather have a bad econ professor as Treasury Secretary than a looter like Fink. I know what you mean, and yes there are plenty of truly awful and/or really devoted to theories not even slightly related to the real world economic professors out there. At this point though I'm fairy sure I'd be a better Treasury Secretary than anyone from Wall Street, and I'm completely unqualified for the job. But at least I'd just be screwing up through massive incompetence and ignorance rather than rigging the system for yet more theft by the ultra elites.

    one_bean: Not only does he have a truly excellent name, he looks basically like a very intense Lex Luthor. I'd rate him as at least an 8 out of 10 in terms of name and appearance matching his job.
    posted by sotonohito at 12:55 PM on April 13, 2016


    Oh, I know; there would be worse Treasury Secretaries than Amartya Sen. I was just ragging on econ, because that's always fun.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:57 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'm surprised more people aren't talking about Sanders joining the picket lines. It kind of warms my cold, dead heart.

    What do Hilary supporters think of this? Not arguing just wondering. Any Hilary supporter is most likely pro-labor, but Hilary would never do this because of her ties to Verizon. (Bernie received $500 from them in '12)

    This has to give Hilary supporters some cognitive dissonance right? (I'm not trying to start a fight, but is there a pro-labor reason to support Hilary?)
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 12:57 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Depends if they're from say, George Mason.
    posted by Chrysostom at 12:57 PM on April 13, 2016


    I'm a Hillary supporter and I thought Bernie joining the picket lines was awesome. I like Bernie fine, I just don't think he should be POTUS, so it doesn't make my head spin to have both views frankly.
    posted by zutalors! at 12:59 PM on April 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


    Ditto zutalors!
    posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:04 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Same!
    posted by zarq at 1:09 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    That makes sense. I'm a Sanders supporter but I do see the appeal of Hilary from one particular angle and that is executive experience.

    One could argue that running the executive branch is technically the President's only job and Hilary has that in spades while Bernie is lacking. Also I understand why women would vote for Hilary as well.

    However, my filthy kind-of-straight, white, male self loves the Bern.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 1:10 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I'm not trying to start a fight, but is there a pro-labor reason to support Hilary?

    I know several union organizers/reps, and they're all pretty solidly pro-Sanders, but most of them also say they'll ultimately be fine with Clinton if she's the nominee.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 1:11 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Well, she is certainly more pro-labor than the GOP shitshow. Remember when Scott "Unionbuster" Walker was deemed too moderate for the nom?
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 1:15 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    This has to give Hilary supporters some cognitive dissonance right?

    Wellllllllll she has a comprehensive, forward-thinking labor section on her website and has been endorsed by a ton of labor unions, so no cognitive dissonance over here.

    I am planning on voting for Sanders in the DC primary, I think the Democratic Party needs to do a much better job of acknowledging its progressive element. But I am also pretty excited to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general, and I am really tired of the idea that her supporters are crazy, lobbyists, and/or uninformed.
    posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:21 PM on April 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


    I'm Voting for Bernie, but on One Condition (that he won't win the nomination).

    Which is pretty close to my own position. As everyone who patiently explains why Obama could never have done X or Y understands, Presidents can't actually do much. They have three main powers: the veto, the bully pulpit, and the army. Neither Clinton nor Sanders are likely to pass anything substantial absent a surprise turnover in the House in 2020, so in terms of minor bills and vetoes, they are practically identical; all of Sanders's grand plans and all of Clinton's detailed policy positions are equally as nothing, legislatively. In terms of the army, I imagine Sanders would bomb fewer people, but perhaps that's debatable. But in terms of the bully pulpit, there are huge differences. Some claim that the bully pulpit makes no difference, but I myself would prefer eight years of idealistic empty rhetoric to eight years of centrist empty rhetoric.

    All that said, I think Sanders's chances of winning the general are considerably lower, so my dream would be that Clinton becomes more like Sanders. The best I can do to further than aim is to vote for Sanders and hope he drags her ever farther left. But a part of me, like Judis, hopes she wins anyway.
    posted by chortly at 1:21 PM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    One could argue that running the executive branch is technically the President's only job and Hilary has that in spades while Bernie is lacking.

    Four years as Secretary of State vs. eight years as a Mayor isn't really "in spades" vs. "lacking".
    posted by Etrigan at 1:22 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I do worry that if Sanders wins it all and then has a lackluster presidency, the very concept of leftism will be blamed and become anathema, again, just when it's starting to get real traction in America, whereas if the same thing happened with Clinton I think it's just Clinton herself who would be blamed.

    I'm not worried enough about it to not vote for him, but I am worried about it.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 1:22 PM on April 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


    As a Sanders supporter, I would.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 1:24 PM on April 13, 2016


    Remember when Scott "Unionbuster" Walker was deemed too moderate for the nom

    Something really fascinating I'm learning about via volunteering seriously with the anti-Trump Republicans this year is that the "too moderate" may not just be about electability - because so much of their work relies on unpaid, committed labor, the characters that can be seen as "true X" have a lot more committed volunteers turning out in droves and being willing to open their wallets and hearts. Even though many of us would rather have a more moderate candidate - the state I'm in, maybe even most - the volunteers, the people who turn out, are the ones for the extreme positions.
    posted by corb at 1:25 PM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    One could argue that running the executive branch is technically the President's only job and Hilary has that in spades while Bernie is lacking.

    Is "executive branch" experience all that important to how a president will do in office? Obama had none, and he's done pretty well. W Bush was governor of Texas before becoming President and... well, you know how that turned out.
    posted by indubitable at 1:31 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Shit, Obama can't even get a supreme court nominee either advised or consented to, so all this talk of "$Some_Candidate can do xyz..." strikes me as wholly pointless.

    The reality is, unless some company is going to make bank, nothing much happens.
    posted by mikelieman at 1:31 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    my dream would be that Clinton becomes more like Sanders. The best I can do to further than aim is to vote for Sanders and hope he drags her ever farther left. But a part of me, like Judis, hopes she wins anyway.

    This is sort of how I've been feeling - my preference for Bernie over Hillary is pretty mild because I think they will have similar problems with obstructionism in office anyway, but I'm very, very interested in showing the Democratic party that a lot of us want to move to the left. I mostly want Bernie to help the party see that a lot of us are excited by what he has to say, and that the support is there if more of them are willing to try it.

    Even though many of us would rather have a more moderate candidate - the state I'm in, maybe even most - the volunteers, the people who turn out, are the ones for the extreme positions.

    That's a good point, and my own anecdotal experience from the other side would suggest the same thing. Being a volunteer in politics, especially at a local level, is difficult and thankless, and a real time sink. Only people with a strong stake in it tend to stick around.
    posted by mordax at 1:34 PM on April 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


    my preference for Bernie over Hillary is pretty mild because I think they will have similar problems with obstructionism in office anyway, but I'm very, very interested in showing the Democratic party that a lot of us want to move to the left. I mostly want Bernie to help the party see that a lot of us are excited by what he has to say, and that the support is there if more of them are willing to try it.

    This is exactly how I feel - like a vote for Sanders is a vote on the direction of the Democratic party, almost rather than a vote for who I'd like to be the next president.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 1:41 PM on April 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


    It's amusing to me that running for/joining local politics is a plot point for bored suburban housewives in so many TV shows lately.

    Off the top of my head, it's happened in Mad Men, Parenthood, Togetherness, Orphan Black, and Modern Family. It's getting to the point where I just expect the bored, pretty housewife character to run for something instead of packing lunch.
    posted by zutalors! at 1:42 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    It's amusing to me that running for/joining local politics is a plot point for bored suburban housewives in so many TV shows lately.

    If I still lived in NC I'd probably be doing this too, but I don't think the terrifying meatgrinder of NYC local politics either needs or wants me involved
    posted by showbiz_liz at 1:44 PM on April 13, 2016


    I had a friend who worked on a local campaign and really liked it. I looked around for a candidate to support and couldn't find one inspiring - my House Rep and Schumer are locks for re election and there isn't a specific campaign otherwise that jump out at me.
    posted by zutalors! at 1:46 PM on April 13, 2016


    Lois Griffin!

    Ray from Girls!
    posted by prize bull octorok at 1:49 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    *I'm very, very interested in showing the Democratic party that a lot of us want to move to the left.

    *This is exactly how I feel - like a vote for Sanders is a vote on the direction of the Democratic party, almost rather than a vote for who I'd like to be the next president.

    I've heard this sentiment a lot, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race? It's like saying Congress has to pass laws because the president came into office with a "mandate". Well, maybe, but that's not how the system works and the people elected a Congress that's opposed. In all likelihood, Hillary will swing right as soon as she's nominated, and this is the last that we will hear about progressive policy from the White House for the next eight years.
    posted by indubitable at 1:53 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    "Bored housewife" is a good description of Ray, now that I think about it.
    posted by zutalors! at 1:54 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I've heard this sentiment a lot, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    Well, we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side - the establishment wing is no longer in change of the party. There are a million reasons you can point to, of course, but pushes at every level for more conservative candidates in the primaries are a huge part of the reason why. And if they can do it, why not us?

    In all likelihood, Hillary will swing right as soon as she's nominated, and this is the last that we will hear about progressive policy from the White House for the next eight years.

    It's not about her, or her White House - it's about 25 years from now.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 1:59 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I've heard this sentiment a lot, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    Bernie's raising money. Gotta be someone younger who wants those dollars and is willing to chase them. (I do tend to agree that the old guard aren't really interested in his message, though a guy can dream.)

    Upon preview:
    Well, we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side

    Yeah, this. If they can do it, I don't really see why it's such an unrealistic thing to be interested in.
    posted by mordax at 2:03 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    > What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    Well, the idea would be to get Hillary to commit to various left-ish ideals in exchange for Bernie's endorsement, and to demonstrate to her campaign and the rest of the country that there is solid public support for those left-ish goals. As someone who is pretty ok with either of them as the Dem nominee, I'm glad the Sanders campaign has been doing its job so far! (Except for that "unqualified" mistake.)

    > In all likelihood, Hillary will swing right as soon as she's nominated, and this is the last that we will hear about progressive policy from the White House for the next eight years.

    Well, we'll have a chance to weigh in again in four years, not eight. And second, if she's running against Trump or Cruz, the Hillary campaign won't have to swing right to appeal to the middle. They just need to not screw things up (and Hillary has demonstrated a knack for foot-in-mouth disease, which terrifies me).
    posted by RedOrGreen at 2:03 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    My mini-accelerationist theory is that if HRC really is that bad, her administration will be the straw that breaks the Democratic Party's back and usher in a leftist populist revolt. A progressive equivalent to the Tea Party- the Whiskey Rebellion, anyone? Committees of Correspondence?

    The Democratic Party has to change sooner or later. It might be built upon stronger foundations than the GOP, but a realignment and a new party system is inevitable.
    posted by Apocryphon at 2:04 PM on April 13, 2016


    What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    Current representatives and future candidates looking at the number of progressives who came out and voted, and thinking 'hey, maybe if I speak to their concerns and act on their concerns, they'll vote for me, too!'

    Will that shift current elected officials? Maybe, maybe not. But 'the Democratic establishment' is, in practice, a constantly shifting group of actual, discrete, individual people, and as different people win and lose races it changes. On the other side of the aisle, look at what happened to Eric Cantor, and look at what's happening right now with the Freedom Caucus; a lot of that is simply obstruction, but not all.
    posted by cjelli at 2:04 PM on April 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


    And on lack of preview,

    > we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side ... pushes at every level for more conservative candidates in the primaries are a huge part of the reason why. And if they can do it, why not us?

    Yeah, this, exactly.
    posted by RedOrGreen at 2:05 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    This is one of the reasons why downballot races are so important. The more people vote in the primaries and general election for the most progressive Democrats on the ballot, the more Democrats we have in office at the local and state level. Not only does this inform local and state politics, where a lot of change is actually made, it creates a rising class of young progressives in office, working their way up through the ranks. The Republicans are great at this - how many candidates did they have, 17 or something? Isn't it kind of screwy that the Democrats only had, like, 4? I know there's the argument that the party told everyone to sit this one out, but who else *would* be running? And don't say Elizabeth Warren, she'd made it extremely clear that she is not interested at this time. We don't have a deep bench waiting in the wings. We need one.


    In all likelihood, Hillary will swing right as soon as she's nominated, and this is the last that we will hear about progressive policy from the White House for the next eight years.

    I've heard this sentiment a lot, but it seems like wishful thinking to me.
    posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:06 PM on April 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Well, we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side - the establishment wing is no longer in change of the party.

    Is this really true though? The nominations aren't wrapped up yet. Aren't they just going through the same motions (but to a larger degree) as the Democratic party?

    Or are there other signs that this is happening, like lower level candidates breaking away from establishment platforms on a large scale?
    posted by kyp at 2:07 PM on April 13, 2016


    Bernie's raising money. Gotta be someone younger who wants those dollars and is willing to chase them.

    Exactly!

    Everybody has taken it for granted that lefty politics are completely unfeasible on the national stage since Reagan. Sanders has proven that to be false. It doesn't mean entrenched Establishment types will change their minds - but the next generation of politicians is watching this race and learning from it.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 2:07 PM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Is this really true though? The nominations aren't wrapped up yet. Aren't they just going through the same motions (but to a larger degree) as the Democratic party?

    I'm not just talking about the Prez race, but about state and local politics.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 2:08 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I'm not just talking about the Prez race, but about state and local politics.

    Totally, that's what I mean. I haven't been paying as much attention to the Republican races, especially at local levels, so I'm curious if there have been articles showing that this is happening.
    posted by kyp at 2:11 PM on April 13, 2016


    corb is the movement you're part of just generically anti-Trump, or do you have a specific moderate candidate in mind?

    I'm asking, because when we strip out the batshit insane rhetoric, Trump seems more moderate than Cruz on most issues. Trump is calling for a horribly irresponsible tax cut, but seems content to leave the basic progressive income tax structure alone. Cruz is advocating for a flat tax, a sales tax, and abolishing the IRS.

    I'm hard pressed to think of a single issue where Cruz actually has a position that is more moderate than Trump's, though admittedly that's coming from my extremely left wing (for America) POV.

    I'll certainly agree that Trump is crazier in his speeches than Cruz, but on the actual issues he seems to be much more establishment Republican than Cruz.

    Am I missing something big, or misrepresenting Cruz's politics, or what?
    posted by sotonohito at 2:16 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Or are there other signs that this is happening, like lower level candidates breaking away from establishment platforms on a large scale?

    If you look at the fights between former Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party Caucus and the newer Freedom Caucus, and the difficultly current Speaker Ryan has had -- take, for example, their opposition to establishment Republican budget proposals -- the GOP has been anything but unified over the last few years, and because of the current and recent composition of the House, the need for party unity to pass legislation has led to smaller groups of hardliners having an outsize influence on the party (where 'smaller groups' make up well more than 10% of Republican Representatives, so 'smaller' doesn't necessarily mean 'small').
    posted by cjelli at 2:17 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Well, we'll have a chance to weigh in again in four years, not eight.

    Historically, it is very rare that an establishment incumbent does not garner the automatic support of their party. Realistically, the public would not have much input on who runs in any case, given the current setup.
    posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:20 PM on April 13, 2016


    I've heard this sentiment a lot, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. What mechanism actually makes the Democratic establishment move left once Bernie is out of the race?

    In addition to the other points already made, oddly, it turns out that politicians often stick to their campaign promises once in office (that is, they try to enact them, they don't necessarily succeed). So each little nudge can matter, even on the executive level. HRC is now against social security reform, TPP, the Keystone pipeline, and supports a $12 minimum wage -- leftward changes that all happened during the campaign. If we could get similar shifts on other issues that would be even better, such as health care (eg, explicit support for an eventual path from Obamacare to single-payer); policies to significantly reduce state college costs and not just loan costs; commitments to significantly weaken the biggest banks; raising her minimum wage goal to $15; etc. Political science has shown that promises do have effects on future policy positions (despite strong assumptions otherwise by political scientists!), even though the enforcement mechanism to hold politicians to their promises is pretty weak. So there's reason to think the competition from the left has indeed pushed her leftward, and could still do so further.
    posted by chortly at 2:21 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    I'm hard pressed to think of a single issue where Cruz actually has a position that is more moderate than Trump's, though admittedly that's coming from my extremely left wing (for America) POV.

    For me, it's not so much "What Are Trump's Positions" and more "What kind of hatreds does Trump and some of his followers espouse and popularize?" Trump beats a racist and misogynist drum - hard. Cruz has a lot of places where I don't agree with him, but he at least seems to be missing the hate that Trump and serious Trump followers share.
    posted by corb at 2:22 PM on April 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Well, we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side

    Actually, I think I misunderstood the original comment, I thought "opposite" referred to the effect of an outsider candidate on the party, when upon rereading I think you mean "it's happening on the opposite party as well". My bad!
    posted by kyp at 2:23 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Cruz has a lot of places where I don't agree with him, but he at least seems to be missing the hate that Trump and serious Trump followers share.

    The biggest problem I have with Cruz is that he's also a fascist. He's Christian fascist not a nationalist fascist like Trump. His ties to Kevin "execute the gays" Swanson are just sick. They are absolutely fucking sick.
    posted by Talez at 2:26 PM on April 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


    because so much of their work relies on unpaid, committed labor, the characters that can be seen as "true X" have a lot more committed volunteers turning out in droves and being willing to open their wallets and hearts.

    This is actually one of the current theories of where polarization is coming from. Throw a bunch of stats at it and you could publish it!
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:27 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Yeah, it's not about policy positions on the Republican side. Trump barely even has policy positions. Trump is dangerous because he is willing and eager to resort to torture, violence at his rallies, vague threats to journalists, calls for executions (for the innocent Central Park five, who had not even been accused of a capital crime, for anyone who kills a cop, regardless of whether he as president actually would have any kind of jurisdiction over the case...)

    His stated policy positions, vague as they are, don't matter. He feels no need to adhere to them. Trump's campaign promises are as meaningful as his now-repudiated pledge not to run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. He will do what he wants. He has no real principles. (Whereas Cruz has principles, they're just medieval principles.)
    posted by OnceUponATime at 2:30 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Chaotic Evil vs Lawful Evil, ladies and gents. Which one would you rather have pulling your entrails out
    posted by prize bull octorok at 2:34 PM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Well, we've certainly seen the opposite happen on the Republican side - the establishment wing is no longer in change of the party.

    On the other side of the aisle, look at what happened to Eric Cantor, and look at what's happening right now with the Freedom Caucus; a lot of that is simply obstruction, but not all.

    This was only possible because the Tea Party types were willing to lose Republican seats for the cause of pushing the party to the right. And some of them did end up losing to Democrats. But in the process they also flushed out the establishment figures, and the party has moved even further to the right than it was during the Bush administration.

    In contrast, when anyone suggests primarying a Democrat from the left, it's met with gasps, scolding and disbelief. When a progressive runs in a primary, there's endless handwringing over "electability". If you're happy with the status quo, then this is a pretty sweet arrangement. If you really want the party to move left from where it is now, you need to recognize that this is going on and support more progressive candidates.
    posted by indubitable at 2:37 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    When all is said and all is done
    Cruz has beliefs. Trump has none.

    I regret nothing. #hamiltrash 4 life!
    posted by corb at 2:37 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Which one would you rather have pulling your entrails out

    Thinking really hard about that, I feel like an android Captain Kirk is talking to death. "Trump is pushing for open riots, but Cruz is a dominionist with real organization who may have a lasting impact on policy Trump can't match, but who knows what Trump would do anyway, but... but..." *steam pours outta my damn ears*
    posted by mordax at 2:39 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Primarying your own sounds like more of a worthwhile risk to take when your districts are gerrymandered af to be safe for your party for the forseeable future
    posted by prize bull octorok at 2:42 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    NYT: Who Could Save the G.O.P.? Republicans Weigh Some Ideas

    Spoiler: Mitt Romney, Condoleeza Rice (??? huh?), Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan. And each of these options is just as unappealing and unlikely as you'd think.
    posted by RedOrGreen at 2:51 PM on April 13, 2016


    Being a volunteer in politics, especially at a local level, is difficult and thankless, and a real time sink.
    That's true on one level, but it's also pretty fun, if you like things that are hard, intense work and then end. It's also a really good way to get to know people who are pretty different from you. It's a good way to get out and see parts of your town that you probably wouldn't go to otherwise. I actually really recommend it, if you have the time and don't mind that it is sometimes difficult, thankless, and a huge time sink.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:54 PM on April 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


    So...
    Mitt Romney - lost twice already (and didn't even win the primary the first time)
    Condoleeza Rice - never elected and reminds everyone about the Bush adminstration
    Marco Rubio - just lost a primary
    Chris Christie - just lost a primary
    Paul Ryan - already ruled it out and was part of Mitt's last loss
    posted by downtohisturtles at 2:57 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Cruz has beliefs. Trump has none.

    I don't like pile-ons on you but I have to know this.

    Over the past few months I've come to respect you a great deal. I've spoken to people and it appears that you, out of all the people on Metafilter, are the closest to following the actions of Jesus Christ and you work in the spirit of love and helping your fellow human beings. Even thought we haven't always agreed I can at least respect that everything you believe in does come from a good place.

    You're a proud veteran, while Cruz wants to pull women back from the armed forces. Can you really stand up and say this man, who would install Christian theocracy to the Supreme Court, who would send women back to second class citizens, who would support the words of hateful pastors is truly reflective of your beliefs? Because I look a Ted Cruz and I look at you and I can't for a second think of any reason why, if this guy didn't have an R after his name, you would want to endorse any of his beliefs.

    Anyway, feel free to Memail me if you're not comfortable with the discussion publicly.
    posted by Talez at 2:58 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    That's true on one level, but it's also pretty fun, if you like things that are hard, intense work and then end. It's also a really good way to get to know people who are pretty different from you. It's a good way to get out and see parts of your town that you probably wouldn't go to otherwise. I actually really recommend it, if you have the time and don't mind that it is sometimes difficult, thankless, and a huge time sink.

    I've started physical volunteering recently and it's an eye-opening experience, for all the reasons ArbitraryAndCapricious mentioned.

    I'll add that it also gives you a much more holistic (and cynical) perspective of how political campaigns work, and a realization as to just how god-damned difficult it must have been before the Internet.
    posted by kyp at 3:01 PM on April 13, 2016


    Mitt Romney

    Sits by the phone, straightens his tie. "Any minute now," he thinks.

    Condoleeza Rice

    "Condi? Phone for you."
    "I'm playing piano."
    "It's Rein--"
    [bangs keys harder]

    Marco Rubio

    Shirtless in backyard, doing kata moves with the Sword of Chang. "Little Marco, huh?" he says breathlessly, stabbing into the air. Jeanette Rubio sees the call on his phone, thumbs the "Decline" button, pours herself another glass of pinot grigio.

    Chris Christie

    Can't run; not allowed to leave his offal pit in the Trump Taj Mahal basement.

    Paul Ryan

    Needs to spend more time with his abs, try again in 2020?
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:07 PM on April 13, 2016 [30 favorites]


    Because I look a Ted Cruz and I look at you and I can't for a second think of any reason why, if this guy didn't have an R after his name, you would want to endorse any of his beliefs.

    Oh no, it's quite alright and I'm happy to answer! I appreciate your extremely undeserved kindness (goodness!) but I think you mistake me a bit.

    When I say that I think Cruz has beliefs, or that I think Cruz is a good man in his heart and truly believes he is working towards the best America, that doesn't mean that I think that his America is in fact the best America that can be. What it means is that I don't feel it utterly repugnant to my conscience to support Cruz in defeating Donald Trump. To put it another way, he's just wrong on some matters, rather than actively being evil. There are some people I could not do this with, even to defeat Trump - he is not one of them.

    And I truly, truly feel like the worst evil in the presidential race right now is the drumming up of violence, of the threat of riot and hatred gaining dominion. A world in which the tactics of Donald Trump are acceptable is I think the worst America.

    So I am committed 100% to denying Trump the nomination, and the best path to that right now seems to be endorsing and fighting for Cruz - who admittedly does not share many of my values - but who does seem to have values, and who roundly condemns the tactics of his opponent.

    Does that make a little bit more sense?
    posted by corb at 3:10 PM on April 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I'm not trying to start a fight, but is there a pro-labor reason to support Hilary?

    Because she's been solidly pro-union for fifty years? And is a lot likelier to get pro-union changes done, once you factor in realism?

    Bernie joining a picket line is a great optic in the Democratic primary, but it's a campaign appearance not a policy. If you want to apply his "bought by contributors" rhetoric, which I don't, he's "bought and sold" by support from that Communications Union specifically.

    Hillary joined protesting Culinary Workers in Nevada, too. Even though they declined to endorse a candidate. I don't think it qualified as "walking a picket line" because it was a rally to organize workers, not a strike at a unionized location. But it seems pretty equivalent.
    posted by msalt at 3:14 PM on April 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


    solidly pro-union for fifty years
    Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
    posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:22 PM on April 13, 2016 [23 favorites]




    That's true on one level, but it's also pretty fun, if you like things that are hard, intense work and then end.

    Oh, certainly. I would not want to dissuade anybody from giving it a go - I phrased that badly. I learned a lot from my limited time in the trenches too. (I grew up around this stuff - my first picket was in grade school.)

    Just pointing out that you're not going to find a lot of undecideds in those roles - volunteers in any area tend to believe in what they're volunteering for, or they wouldn't be doing labor for free.

    I'll add that it also gives you a much more holistic (and cynical) perspective of how political campaigns work

    Yep. If anybody here is interested enough to be reading this thread, but hasn't tried it, I would recommend seeing if it's for you.

    Does that make a little bit more sense?

    I was wondering the same thing as Talez, and while I would not speak for anyone else, that does make sense to me.
    posted by mordax at 3:26 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]




    To put it another way, he's just wrong on some matters, rather than actively being evil.

    I dunno. On the "evil" scale, I think that a known homophobe who has stated his desire to use state violence against LGBT people happily attending the events of someone who believes that LGBT people should actually be put to death, and only apologizing about it when it becomes a PR liability a month later ranks pretty high up there.
    posted by zombieflanders at 3:29 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


    The reason I'd prefer a Cruz nomination is that no one likes Cruz. Trump has enormous charisma and charm. It is not the type that appeals to us regular Metafilter readers, yet it's undeniable. But Cruz is a creepy little man, loathed openly by everyone who can afford to be open about it. Just being perceived as physically lesser and off-putting has lost elections. Poor Michael Dukakis was the opposite of Cruz in every way, but he was small and dark instead of tall and WASPish, and he never had a shot. Nixon's image crumpled on TV before that of the confident, charismatic Kennedy. If Cruz were nominated, I would trust the American people to make the right choice for the wrong reasons.
    posted by Countess Elena at 3:47 PM on April 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


    > Charles Pierce: The Clintons Can Have Their Own Opinions, But They Can't Have Their Own History - Particularly when it comes to criminal justice and the 1994 Crime Bill.

    I thought that was a really good article. He showed how the bill fitted into a longer history of anti-crime laws that hurt minorities disproportionately without letting Clinton/the Clintons off the hook. He also brought up a lot of details on proposals that African-American leaders made at the time that I didn't remember (and that didn't get passed.)
    posted by benito.strauss at 4:12 PM on April 13, 2016


    I'm still holding out for the unexpected victorious return of Jeb to the brokered convention. More fun than even Scott Walker, Rick Perry, or Tom Coburn.
    posted by Apocryphon at 4:45 PM on April 13, 2016


    Four years as Secretary of State vs. eight years as a Mayor isn't really "in spades" vs. "lacking".

    Four years as chief executive officer of a highly visible and international 14,000 employee agency vs eight years as mayor overseeing a 100+ employee government in a 37K person town.

    No, Bernie isn't lacking in executive experience. But the scale is very, very different. OTOH, Bernie's political track record is much longer.
    posted by dw at 4:53 PM on April 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Jeb!
    He will come back to you
    Jeb!
    He will come back to you
    When the roll is called
    He'll save the GOP
    And the Bushes' dynasty

    posted by prize bull octorok at 4:54 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I think at this point the brokered convention is something GOP wonks hang onto as a comfort against the sad reality this last 8 years has wrought on their party. The sooner these sad people swallow hard and admit the truth, the better off the GOP will be long term.

    But given the denialism has been running for over a generation now, I think the GOP is going to have to implode in order to be saved from itself.

    In that sense, it might actually be good for the GOP to sabotage Hillary and push Bernie through. Then the Dems will slide hard to the left and the Republicans can reposition as the centrist party.

    But that would require taking a longer view of politics. And politics isn't about taking the long view.
    posted by dw at 5:00 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I can kind of understand that, though. If people are depending on Obamacare, abortion, LGBT equality, etc, and changes to those rights and benefits will dramatically change or end their lives in four years, I can understand why persuading them to wait for a revolution to realign society in a generation.
    posted by zutalors! at 5:47 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    whoops

    I can understand why trying to pursuade them to wait for a revolution to realign society in a generation might not work.
    posted by zutalors! at 5:55 PM on April 13, 2016


    The only difference between Trump and Cruz is that Trump is a Vogon. Cruz is more like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:58 PM on April 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


    The only difference between Trump and Cruz is that Trump is a Vogon

    That hyperspace bypass just got 10 AU longer!
    posted by mordax at 5:59 PM on April 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Trump would clearly be Zaphod Beeblebrox, but with his Eviler and Stupider Head in perpetual control.
    posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Apparently Clinton visited striking workers on 42nd street as well.
    posted by zutalors! at 6:25 PM on April 13, 2016


    You know, Trump speeches as Vogon poetry explains so much.
    posted by dw at 7:01 PM on April 13, 2016 [5 favorites]




    considering Trump and his children went to college in PA, though not Penn State, I'm kind of surprised he'd actually say that.
    posted by zutalors! at 7:05 PM on April 13, 2016


    Oh my god. It's not like the campaign's 'clarification' made it any better. "Oh no we don't want a guy who covered for a child molester back, we just want a statue of him!"
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:06 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    well, he's also dead. so.
    posted by zutalors! at 7:07 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    You know, Trump speeches as Vogon poetry explains so much.

    No wonder the crowds are getting violent.
    posted by Drinky Die at 7:09 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Oh and praising Paterno is a good thing to say to PA voters. There is an honorary beer for him here. No, I have not bought any.
    posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on April 13, 2016


    "Oh no we don't want a guy who covered for a child molester back, we just want a statue of him!"

    This isn't exactly an outside-the-mainstream position around here, and his campaign consultants probably told him that. It's the perfect mix of dog-whistly goodness to the people he wants to reach and outrage-bait for the people he wants to offend.
    posted by tonycpsu at 7:11 PM on April 13, 2016


    Drinky: don't bother, even my Penn State friends say it's meh.
    posted by tonycpsu at 7:12 PM on April 13, 2016


    Nah me having ethical disagreements with the product name is the one thing that can get me not to drink something, whether it's good or not. Same reason I don't buy Rebel Yell bourbon even though it's delicious and well priced.
    posted by Drinky Die at 7:14 PM on April 13, 2016




    /me starts manufacture of Drinky Die Is Totally Awesome And Has Correct Opinions brand booze that totally isn't a new label on Milwaukee's Best that's gone a bit squiffy and that I got from a dumpster.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:20 PM on April 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


    'I am very sorry for using the term "whore" to refer to some in congress who are beholden to corporations and not us. It was insensitive.'

    Insensitive to sex workers. Being compared to congress is insulting.
    posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on April 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


    I'm surprised PPP hasn't done a poll on whores and congress to compare approval ratings yet.
    posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 PM on April 13, 2016


    PPP did do some polling on Hamilton though:
    Hamilton may not be New York's favorite founding father, but he is seen in a pretty positive light with 48% of voters having a favorable opinion of him to 10% with a negative one. He's in much better standing with the electorate than nemesis Aaron Burr, who has just a 13% favorability rating to 33% of voters with an unfavorable view of him. In a hypothetical Gubernatorial contest between Hamilton and Burr, Hamilton takes 48% to 6% for Burr, with 38% saying 'neither because they're both dead.'

    We also asked some questions about the play itself. Overall 45% of New Yorkers say they're interested in seeing it to 31% who aren't. There's an interest party divide with Democrats saying 53/28 they'd like to see it, but Republicans saying 35/38 they're uninterested. It's a similar split when it comes to the issue of George Washington being portrayed by a black actor. Overall voters are fine with it 49/28, but Democrats approve 61/20 while Republicans disapprove 31/42.
    I presume the 6% who would support Burr are loyal NRA members?
    posted by zachlipton at 8:04 PM on April 13, 2016


    So I'm one of those weird people that doesn't actively avoid but somehow doesn't get exposed much to popular culture. How historical is Hamilton anyway? Is it actually factual or is it mostly historical costuming for a fictional play?
    posted by downtohisturtles at 8:11 PM on April 13, 2016


    Pretty historical. You can quibble about framing (totes pro-Hamilton) and some details (Burr's several runs for office are compressed into a pair of campaigns), and it definitely takes an anti-Jeffersonian stance, but Washington sings his actual historical farewell speech and so on.
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:33 PM on April 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Elizabeth Warren pushed back against Krugman's and Clinton's recent talking point about how the big banks were not primarily to blame for the financial crisis. Krugman wrote a column about it recently, and Clinton has used this line a number of times, most recently in her NY Daily News interview. Elizabeth Warren has basically had it with Paul Krugman's big bank nonsense:
    “There’s been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren’t really responsible for the financial crisis,” Warren said. That talk isn’t new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue.”

    “There would have been no crisis without these giant banks,” Warren continued. “They encouraged reckless mortgage lending both by gobbling up an endless stream of mortgages to securitize and by funding the slimy subprime lenders who peddled their miserable products to millions of American families. The giant banks spread that risk throughout the financial system by misleading investors about the quality of the mortgages in the securities they were offering.”

    On Friday, Krugman argued that the financial crisis wasn’t really a problem of too big to fail, but rather a failure to regulate so-called shadow banks — a broad term including just about every financial activity beyond traditional loans and deposits.

    “The crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on ‘shadow banks’ like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big,” Krugman wrote.

    “Revisionist history is dangerous because it can blind us in the present - and bind us in the future,” Warren countered. “Today’s announcement should remind us of the central role that the big banks played in the last crisis - and it is a giant, flashing sign warning us about the central role they will play in the next crisis unless both Congress and our regulators show some backbone. ... Today, our top regulators warned us about the danger of the biggest banks - and we would be foolish to ignore their warnings.”
    posted by dialetheia at 8:39 PM on April 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


    And I truly, truly feel like the worst evil in the presidential race right now is the drumming up of violence, of the threat of riot and hatred gaining dominion. A world in which the tactics of Donald Trump are acceptable is I think the worst America.

    This is something I've been hearing from my more conservative relatives as well, as well as some of my minority co-workers. Even if a Trump presidency is unlikely, they see his legacy as opening the doors to the sort of explicit political violence and bigotry that previously had been forced further out to the margins of mainstream political discourse. Trump may vanish in the same way so many presidential hopefuls do after November 8th, but the radioactive garbage that's been spewed out by his campaign could have a really long half-life.
    posted by AdamCSnider at 8:45 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    How historical is Hamilton anyway? Is it actually factual or is it mostly historical costuming for a fictional play?

    At the risk of dragging this thread further astray, it's fairly historical, but it depends on who you ask. The musical is very much based on Ron Chernow's book and recognizes the factual history, but it is absolutely a work of fiction and so takes liberties for the sake of telling a story. The chronology is compressed and altered somewhat (problematically, in that it basically misstates the timing and causes of the duel), and it obviously puts words in everybody's mouth (sadly, the founding fathers did not actually rap). While those words are generally rooted in history (and some are literal quotes), there's certainly dramatic license involved to tell a good story.

    Recently, there have been a couple of articles criticizing the show for historical inaccuracy. For instance, see Let’s Not Pretend That ‘Hamilton’ Is History, where a disgruntled Burr biographer throws shade in pursuit of pageviews, and ‘Hamilton’ and History: Are They in Sync?. They're worth reading.

    The show is a fairly unabashed celebration of the man, and is very sympathetic to (most all) of his behavior and views, where historians naturally disagree on these issues. A number of these disagreements cut to political issues that are still contentious today, such as the proper role of the Federal Government and the limits of executive power. In reality, there's a fair amount of nuance missing from the story. The musical doesn't mention, among other things, that Hamilton promoted the idea of an elected American monarch with a life term, and it certainly doesn't go out of its way to pit Hamilton's enemies in a good light. The good news is that there's plenty more to read if you become interested in the subject from the show.
    posted by zachlipton at 8:52 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Hamilton is very well-done and entertaining hagiography, and bears roughly the same relation to the life of the actual person as Shakespeare's Henry V does to the actual king. That is to say, it incorporates but is not particularly limited by the actual historical events, rather using them to comment on broader themes.
    posted by AdamCSnider at 9:01 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


    “There’s been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren’t really responsible for the financial crisis,” Warren said. That talk isn’t new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue.”

    Yes! I'm so glad Warren spoke out about this. This has been the most baffling aspect of this election season, that we keep seeing arguments about why it's pointless to go after the big banks - and it seems like this is coming from a lot of the same people who were all for going after them in the first place. It's enough to make your head spin.
    posted by teponaztli at 9:12 PM on April 13, 2016 [7 favorites]




    Thanks wise Hamil-people. I think I have a better idea now. Sounds roughly equivalent to "Inspired by a true story" in bio-movies.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 9:34 PM on April 13, 2016


    (sadly, the founding fathers did not actually rap)

    LIES! PISTOLS AT DAWN (IN NEW JERSEY)!

    Your obedient servant,
    R. Thoughts
    posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:42 PM on April 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


    NY Times: Mr. Trump Reopens the Wounds of a Hate Crime

    Trump is scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Patchogue, NY Thursday. The location is controversial because it's just a few blocks from where, in 2008, an Ecuadorean immigrant was stabbed to death by a gang of seven white teens who were out "beaner hopping." More context about the anti-immigrant climate in that area and how it's changing previously.
    posted by peeedro at 9:50 PM on April 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


    "She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup

    DANA FRANK: Well, I just want to say this is like breathtaking that she’d say these things. I think we’re all kind of reeling that she would both defend the coup and defend her own role in supporting its stabilization in the aftermath. I mean, first of all, the fact that she says that they did it legally, that the Honduras judiciary and Congress did this legally, is like, oh, my god, just mind-boggling. The fact that she then is going to say that it was not an unconstitutional coup is incredible, when she actually had a cable, that we have in the WikiLeaks, in which U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens says it was very clearly an illegal and unconstitutional coup. So she knows this from day one


    ...DANA FRANK: Well, I want to make sure that the listeners understand how chilling it is that the leading presidential—a leading presidential candidate in the United States would say this was not a coup. The second thing is that she’s baldly lying when she says we never called it a coup; we didn’t, because that would mean we have to suspend the aid. Well, first of all, they repeatedly called it a coup. We can see State Department statements for months calling it a coup and confirming, yes, we call it a coup. What she refused to do was to use the phrase "military coup." So, she split hairs, because Section 7008 of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for that year very clearly says that if it’s a coup significantly involving the military, the U.S. has to immediately suspend all aid. So she—they decided to have this interpretation that it was a coup, but not a military coup. So, she, Hillary Clinton—and Obama, for that matter, I want to make clear—in violation of U.S. law, that very clearly said if there’s a coup, they have to cut the military aid and that—all other aid to the country, she violated the law, decided, well, it wasn’t a military coup, when of course it was. It was the military that put him on the plane, which she says in her statement.


    ...DANA FRANK: Well, I mean, it’s incredible this woman is a presidential candidate, that she’s doing like things like this, the fact that she would say we wanted to "render the question of Zelaya moot," we wanted to bury the democratically elected president’s existence and act like the coup didn’t happen. I mean, that’s why it’s so terrifying that today—or rather, on Saturday, she would say—she would defend this coup, say it wasn’t a coup, and defend her actions in installing this terrifically horrific, scary post-coup regime

    ...AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to what happened most recently in Honduras. Last month, gunmen assassinated Berta Cáceres, a well-known Honduran dissident, winner of the prestigious 2015 Goldman Environment Prize. They assassinated her in her home. In 2014, Berta Cáceres spoke about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup with the Argentine TV program Resumen Latinoamericano.

    BERTA CÁCERES: [translated] We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it. It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, Hard Choices, practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country. The return of the president, Mel Zelaya, became a secondary issue. There were going to be elections in Honduras. And here, she, Clinton, recognized that they didn’t permit Mel Zelaya’s return to the presidency. There were going to be elections. And the international community—officials, the government, the grand majority—accepted this, even though we warned this was going to be very dangerous and that it would permit a barbarity, not only in Honduras but in the rest of the continent. And we’ve been witnesses to this.
    posted by futz at 10:11 PM on April 13, 2016 [25 favorites]






    Here in England, all bar one of the US election "news" stories on the TV I've seen so far this week are mostly or wholly focused around Trump. What's particularly galling is that, when they do show people queuing to vote in long lines, there is no mention of why those lines are so long. It's just "Will Trump do well / become the candidate / become president?".

    Nowhere is perfect and, heck, we have many problems here, but In England and Scotland, in a wide variety of places since 1987, I've only ever queued once (2010, when lots of students came out to vote Liberal Democrat), and that was for 10-15 minutes. Any other time, it's just been straight walk in, not have to show ID, get your ballot paper, go into the booth and mark it, shove it in the box, leave. I can't comprehend queuing for more than a few minutes, let alone several hours.

    To me, anyway, that's the central story of US elections (and US history): the attempts in a myriad of ways to slow down, deter, bar or otherwise mess with who can vote for the people in power, and even the candidates for elections, at whatever level.

    A few recent articles on voter suppression, ID and related problems:

    New York Post: Independent voters could make polling sites a nightmare.

    Phoenix New Times: Lawsuit Alleges Voter Suppression in Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election.

    MSNBC: Court ruling could soften Wisconsin voter ID law.

    Truthdig: Kansas Voter Registration Discrepancy May Have Disenfranchised Spanish-Speaking Voters.
    posted by Wordshore at 12:49 AM on April 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


    This has been the most baffling aspect of this election season, that we keep seeing arguments about why it's pointless to go after the big banks - and it seems like this is coming from a lot of the same people who were all for going after them in the first place. It's enough to make your head spin.
    I have not seen anyone say it's pointless to go after the big banks. What I see them saying is that Bernie's blaming of the big banks as the sole or primary cause of the crisis is way too simplistic and that his solutions based on that analysis -- and on the metric of pure size, rather than market share in particular areas, capital reserves, etc. -- are suspect as a result.

    It's funny that Warren takes the Fed/FDIC's rejection of 5 big banks' "living wills" as proof that Bernie is right. Bernie is arguing that current laws are too lax and regulators are too weak-willed to tackle the banks. Looks to me like they're on it, and have the power to enforce their will.

    It's notable that the one big bank that passed was Citigroup -- which failed its stress test under these regulations two years ago. So regulators are making a difference. And even then:
    Keep in mind that even Citi didn’t exactly pass with flying colors. Regulators cited shortcomings in governance, assumptions about the bank’s ability to hedge portfolio risk and estimating liquidity needs during resolution. They officially put Citi on notice that failure to address these shortcomings could land them in the penalty box next time around.

    In other words, regulators intend to tighten the screws over time—just as they have with the stress tests. Each year, getting regulatory approval will likely become incrementally more difficult. Passing now isn’t a guarantee of passing forever.

    posted by msalt at 1:15 AM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    What I see them saying is that Bernie's blaming of the big banks as the sole or primary cause of the crisis is way too simplistic and that his solutions based on that analysis -- and on the metric of pure size, rather than market share in particular areas, capital reserves, etc. -- are suspect as a result.

    I keep seeing this kind of argument, and what it sounds like to me is "Bernie should make speeches full of policy details, because that will bore the hell out of voters and make my candidate's soundbites more effective." As for the question of whether the Big Banks were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, my senator has enough credibility in that area that I can readily accept her assessment, which is reported above.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:45 AM on April 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


    by taking [a] position that only quid pro quo equals corruption, Clinton supporters are essentially adopting the reasoning of the Roberts court that they claim to abhor – that unless there is direct evidence of overtly trading money for votes, corruption doesn’t exist. As Lawrence Lessig has written, Democrats have been slowly embracing this stance for years, but the Clinton campaign seems to be cementing it as the party’s policy.
    Money Influences Everyone: That Includes Hillary Clinton (Trevor Timm, The Guardian).
    posted by Sonny Jim at 4:53 AM on April 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


    HRC is now against social security reform, TPP, the Keystone pipeline, and supports a $12 minimum wage -- leftward changes that all happened during the campaign.

    She enthusiastically praised the concept of TPP while she was SoS, but once negotiations were completed and signed she said the final document didn't meet her standards. Which wouldn't be a shift leftward as the result of outside influence. It's a reassessment.
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended her opposition of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the first Democratic debate of the 2016 race.

    Clinton announced last week that she no longer supports the international trade deal, despite supporting it while serving as secretary of state -- once calling it the "gold standard." CNN anchor and debate moderator Anderson Cooper picked up on those words and asked Clinton about her reversal at the Oct. 13 debate in Las Vegas.

    "I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not."

    posted by zarq at 5:46 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    We've already been through that. She didn't say she "hoped it would be the gold standard," she said it "is the gold standard." There's more than a little bit of difference there.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:56 AM on April 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


    I'm not having any luck getting around the paywall on that WSJ article about "living wills" for banks so here's one from the NYT.

    Unless I'm misunderstanding something, what we're talking about here is that eight years after the global financial crisis and four years after big banks were actually required to by Dodd-Frank provisions, one single bank has finally managed to produce an adequate plan (which it's allowed to write for itself) for what would happen if that one institution went bankrupt. That's what we're calling our regulatory system being "on it" and "making a difference"?

    So banks are still allowed to grow to unlimited sizes, those banks still have the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the political system driving their regulation (via money-in-politics mechanisms which Hillary herself is readily leveraging and which hence she will be impaired from changing even if she actually wants to), and the president can still fill the appointed official heads of the regulatory agencies with executives from the same banks, but at least the unlimited-size banks are required to submit not-completely-ridiculous-and-inadequate plans for what would happen once each individual institution has already gone bankrupt by itself?

    To me, that more falls into the category of remedying a "holy shit, they weren't even required to do that before?" situation rather than something that shows we have a handle on and mastery of preventing financial institutions from systemically taking risks with cataclysmic consequences such that we no longer need to worry about the size of banks.
    posted by XMLicious at 6:07 AM on April 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


    We've already been through that. She didn't say she "hoped it would be the gold standard," she said it "is the gold standard." There's more than a little bit of difference there.

    So? She says she saw the final product and changed her mind.

    I don't understand "gotchas" which require candidates to never learn from new information. To never change their position on an issue or else be labelled a "flip-flopper" or some other nonsense. The flexibility to adapt is not a negative trait in human beings.
    posted by zarq at 6:33 AM on April 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


    I keep seeing this kind of argument, and what it sounds like to me is "Bernie should make speeches full of policy details, because that will bore the hell out of voters and make my candidate's soundbites more effective."

    No, people want Bernie to have more details than just "break up the banks." That's why everyone was shocked at his response to the NYDN questions about it. I want to know -- does he think "breaking up the banks" means splitting the investment bank from the consumer bank? Does it mean regionalizing a national consumer bank like Chase? Does he want to set a cap on bank size?

    Those aren't minutiae. Those are real questions people have when you go one level down. I really don't need to know whether he thinks JPMorgan Chase needs to sell their building. What I need to know is whether he's thought about it more than a bromide.

    Compare that with Hillary's answer on policing with the NYDN -- specific policy details, but still broad enough strokes that it doesn't go into the minutiae. Yes, more to criticize, more to knock down. But it also shows she's thought about solutions and can talk about the substance.

    Yes, she'll still have her staff manage it. But at least it sounds like she's not yielding the thinking to her staff and swooping-and-pooping with her ideas.

    No one is asking for Bernie to turn into Al Gore 2000. But we'd like a little more detail than sweeping promises that you have to point to HuffPo "but he wrote a bill about it!" articles later when he could have just explained it the first time.
    posted by dw at 6:43 AM on April 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


    A Pittsburgh Man Made Yard Signs About Donald Trump’s Bad Taste In Food

    Disappointed he didn't include Trump's love for well-done steaks.Or that Trump probably likes the Browns.
    posted by dw at 6:46 AM on April 14, 2016


    John Kasich apparently doesn't know what Yeshiva students are; explains the Torah to them.

    This maybe wouldn't've happened if he had moved into the Governor's Mansion in Bexley (near where most of the Orthodox Jews in central Ohio live).
    posted by damayanti at 6:55 AM on April 14, 2016


    The economic crash was caused by Big Banks like HSBC, Citi and Bank of America, financial companies like Morgan and Goldman, hedge fund managers, insurance groups like AIG and regulatory entities like Moody's. All working in fraudulent collusion with one another to manufacture profits at the expense of investors and poor, working class and lower middle class homeowners. Blame can also be laid at the feet of the American people, who applied for loans about which they did not educate themselves. And a lion's share of that blame should be heaped on those in Congress who helped repeal Glass-Steagall as well as President Bill Clinton who signed that legislation. There is no one group who is singularly responsible for the financial crash. The banks made subprime loans they shouldn't have. Companies like Goldman packaged them into entities which could be sold and insured. The regulatory agencies labelled dogshit "triple-a." Etc, etc.

    This has been discussed and much of it documented at length in the last 7-8 years. Books written. At least one Hollywood blockbuster released.

    We know what happened. We know the names of many of those involved. We can even pinpoint people who clearly had no clue what they were doing or the risks they were taking. And those who were so aware, they bet the economy would collapse. It should be obvious even to a casual observer that the entire system is corrupt and needs massive oversight and regulation.

    Arguing who was most culpable is not constructive. It won't prevent a repeat of '08. We need to see this clearly and deal with the entire system.
    posted by zarq at 7:03 AM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    A Pittsburgh Man Made Yard Signs About Donald Trump’s Bad Taste In Food

    Has anyone in New York raised his habit of eating pizza with a fork yet?
    posted by indubitable at 7:14 AM on April 14, 2016


    This was in a new email from the campaign. Looks like the Sanders campaign is behind downballot races.
    ... Split a $36 contribution to Bernie 2016 and to Zephyr Teachout to make sure we have people in Congress who can stand up to special interests and do what's right for working people.
    posted by mikelieman at 7:14 AM on April 14, 2016


    Looks like the Sanders campaign is behind downballot races.

    About time. I wouldn't call supporting 3 individuals broad support, but it's a start.
    posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:17 AM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    considering Trump and his children went to college in PA, though not Penn State, I'm kind of surprised he'd actually say that.

    Then you don't know Penn State. All of my old college friends from there still think that Joepa was falsely accused and that the statue should go back up. I don't understand it but Nittany Lion football fanaticism is a world to itself.

    My friends are mostly all Democrats and would never vote for Trump though. How you can reconcile supporting both Paterno's legacy and Bernie Sanders is beyond me but quite a few of my friends manage to do just that.
    posted by octothorpe at 7:19 AM on April 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


    John Kasich apparently doesn't know what Yeshiva students are; explains the Torah to them.

    Oh, it gets better.
    Kasich was amused to learn about the afikoman. As Friedlander described how the children “steal” the middle matzah and ask for a reward for its return, Kasich walked away astonished and mumbled, “pass-over.”
    So, he's had his McGovern "kosher and a glass of milk" moment.
    posted by zarq at 7:20 AM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Couple of comments.

    On Hamilton: He didn't call for a monarch at the Constitutional Convention. He did call for an executive Governor to be elected and to hold office while in good standing. This idea hit opposition (for good reason) and he dropped it pretty quickly. The reason for the opposition is that this idea was very close to the way in which some of the appointed governor's of the individual colonies were put in place. And one of the complaints that helped push forward the idea of separation was that it was awfully difficult to get a governor replaced--keeping in mind that while there were decent governors at times during the colonial period, there were often unresponsive governors who considered themselves as above and beyond the actual colonists and responsible only to TPTB back in England. The issue at hand was the division of powers and Hamilton's remarks fall within arguments for a "unitary executive." He raised the matter again in one of his Federalist papers (somewhere n the middle of the pack) where he argued for a unitary executive again, without the "in good standing" loophole. (This is coming from my memory, so I may be off in a few details.) Anyhow the key point is that Hamilton (and others) thought there was a need for a powerful executive to administer the law. This is partly due to the often ineffective and indecisive execution of the law both during the revolution and after it where administration was left to various committees of the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation.

    On Banks: Well, I thought that folks by now understood that the NYDN interview was being used as an excuse to discredit Sanders (as desired by the Clinton campaign. See the hullabaloo about qualifications that erupted last week between the campaigns.) Another artful smear, so to speak. To which Sanders replied with an artful smear of his own.

    That the Fed and the FDIC have qualms with the "living wills" is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that regulators have more or less been captured by that industry. That is beginning to change though, as we see. At issue is the debate over whether we need a 21st century version of Glass/Steagall. Sanders (and others) have argued in the past in favor of a separation of commercial and merchant activity. And also argue that Dodd/Frank doesn't go far enough. So, those who want to pin the "Sanders doesn't know policy" tail on that particular donkey could easily (if they wish to do a little research) clarify the actual stance of Sanders.

    I'd also suggest a closer look at how Glass/Steagall was repealed. And I'd begin with The Citi/Traveler's merger in 1998--which was in fact illegal that the time but later sanctioned.
    posted by CincyBlues at 7:22 AM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


    dw Trump's love for well-done steaks

    Wait. What?!

    Trump loves WELL DONE STEAKS?

    I knew he was a terrible person, I knew he was a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a misogynist, but damn. How did I miss that he's also evil fucking incarnate when it comes to food?

    Shit, is there anything where he isn't not only wrong, but actively evil and malicious?

    I mean, I can understand his evil elsewhere, but what possible personal benefit does he get from ruining a steak? I bet he uses A1 sauce too.....

    As for the banks, maybe big isn't the worst possible thing, but why not just break them up when they get too big on general principle? Whatever else is wrong, surely having enormous monster banks is at least a contributing factor?

    I also can't say I'm surprised at the support for Joe Paterno among huge swathes of the population. Devotion to a team, or a church, or art, or whatever, will often convince people that a little rape is perfectly fine and anyone who makes a fuss must be a bad person. Look at the Catholics who still want to downplay the rapes by priests. Look at all the Hollywood insiders who still want to claim that Roman Polanski is a great person and that if he anally raped a 13 year old girl well, that's not (to quote Whoopi Goldberg) "rape-rape" so it's all ok and only big meanieheads would try to deprive the world of his art by imprisoning him.

    So of course the football fanatics want to keep statues to Joe Paterno. He footballed well and surely footballing better than the other team footballs excuses minor little things like covering up for the rape of several young boys by his assistant coach (who also footballed really good!).
    posted by sotonohito at 7:28 AM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    but who does seem to have values

    I guess it's my inner nihilist at work, but I have never quite seen the point in considering legitimately-held loathsome beliefs as any better than no beliefs at all. They both seem horribly dangerous, if not always in the same manner.
    posted by phearlez at 7:30 AM on April 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


    People with legitimately held horrible beliefs are more predictable. You know what they will do and what they won't do. And unless they are sincere anarchists, typically what they won't do includes "Destroying the government and the institutions which support our civilization."

    Someone with no principles at all is someone who is capable of dismantling the checks and balances of democracy in order to more effectively rule by fiat. That kind of damage, unlike damage done from within the system, can't be undone by the next president. That's the kind of person who increases the risk that there won't be a next president.
    posted by OnceUponATime at 7:35 AM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    If you're feeling processy today, 538 talks a little about how voters turn into delegates and how that's been favoring Trump (his protestations to the contrary).
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:38 AM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    To Protect Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument Glenn Greenwald

    For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
    Does that sound familiar? It should. That key argument of the right-wing justices in Citizens United has now become the key argument of the Clinton campaign and its media supporters to justify her personal and political receipt of millions upon millions of dollars in corporate money: “expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” – at least when the candidate in question is Hillary Clinton.

    posted by Trochanter at 7:49 AM on April 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


    In the same speech where Trump referenced Paterno, he also promised Pittsburgh he'd bring back their steel and coal industries. The steel industry in Pittsburgh collapsed decades ago. The collapse began in the 70's and ended in the early 80's when top companies left the city. Coal mining is still a major part of the city's economy, but may be headed for a downturn:
    Pittsburgh is now a leader in the emerging robotics industry, which Trump did not mention on Wednesday. Google opened a major research office in the city in 2006, housed in a former Nabisco factory. And Uber, the ride-sharing company, last year poached dozens of robotics engineers from Carnegie Mellon University to open a center to research self-driving cars. In February, Uber announced it is acquiring a former locomotive roundhouse along the Monongahela River — where the LTV Coke Works long ago belched out the kind of toxic smoke that once earned the city the description “hell with the lid off” — to serve as a proving ground for its new vehicles.

    And the region’s largest employer is now the behemoth UPMC health system — not struggling U.S. Steel, which announced on April 6 it is cutting a quarter of its North American workforce.

    Trump’s Pittsburgh rally also came the day that Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world, declared bankruptcy, buffeted by competition from natural gas and cratering demand for coal in Asia.
    .
    posted by zarq at 7:55 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    considering Trump and his children went to college in PA, though not Penn State, I'm kind of surprised he'd actually say that.

    Pennsylvania is large, and the University of Pennsylvania -- a.k.a. 'Not Penn State' -- is, though historically often confused with Penn State, not actually close except in name: New York City is closer (by distance) to UPenn than is Penn State by half, and considerably easier to reach overall.

    It's surprising that he'd say that in and of itself, because it was such a huge news story, but I don't think Trump's familial college record has a lot to do with that.
    posted by cjelli at 8:02 AM on April 14, 2016


    Yea I am aware PA is a big state, I just meant that he has more than a passing acquaintance with the state.
    posted by zutalors! at 8:09 AM on April 14, 2016


    Trump knows exactly what he's doing with the talk about coal and steel. Yes, the employment growth here has been concentrated among high-tech industries (it's why I moved here) but that still leaves a lot of people behind.
    posted by tonycpsu at 8:23 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Maybe Trump's agents have gotten their hands on a Lazarus Pit, and he's going to literally bring back Paterno
    posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:39 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Trump loves WELL DONE STEAKS?

    Indeed.
    posted by dw at 8:49 AM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    "it would rock on the plate"
    posted by zutalors! at 8:55 AM on April 14, 2016


    Well, I thought that folks by now understood that the NYDN interview was being used as an excuse to discredit Sanders

    When I worked at the University of Washington, my boss would tell me, "Don't do or say anything you wouldn't be OK with the Seattle Times running on the front page."

    Bernie walks into an editorial meeting. You better damn well be ready for what they throw at you, knowing full well it'll get rolled into an endorsement editorial. They recorded it; that's pretty damn normal now. They then turned around and published the transcript AND the audio, as they did for Hillary's.

    If you walk out of that and start whining it was a setup, then why the hell are you in politics?

    Bernie stumbled all over himself in that NYDN endorsement interview. But politicians fuck this shit up all the damn time. Accept that Bernie is just a guy who fucks up, like we all do.
    posted by dw at 8:56 AM on April 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


    Bernie stumbled all over himself in that NYDN endorsement interview.

    That is your take. I have a completely different take.

    However, you are just wrong about him not having a good answer for the bank break-up question. His answer was sound, and in line with accepted thinking on the subject. You set a ceiling and let the banks figure out how to get there. The questioner was confused about which agency has the mandate for such actions.

    I don't think whether separating speculative and consumer aspects even came up, but Bernie has spoken about bringing back the provisions of Glass/Steagall in some form many times.
    posted by Trochanter at 9:10 AM on April 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Bernie Sanders mic drop about New York Values.
    " It's me: Bernie "Brooklyn-born" Sanders. And guess what, Ted Cruz? I have New York values. I value a living wage for all Americans. I value a justice system that treats everyone fairly. I value a government which works for all of us, not just Wall Street and powerful special interests. Those are New York values."
    Click through, you'll like it, I promise.
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:15 AM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


    No, people want Bernie to have more details than just "break up the banks."

    Do the people not know about the bill he filed in the Senate last year to do that? It wasn't filed in secret.


    So? She says she saw the final product and changed her mind.

    No, she lies about what she said, then claims her "hope" didn't materialize, so she didn't support TPP after all. She didn't "not support" it until she was in a primary debate.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:16 AM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Yeah but the problem is he sounded like an idiot in that interview and not just on bank questions. If you're like he's the left wing Reagan okay but remember the whole Great Communicator thing? Where he would talk vaguely about Star Wars and it was a bunch of bullshit, but it sounded good. Sanders has explanations at hand that maybe aren't bullshit (eg on TBTF) but he failed to communicate them.

    And this is the guy who is supposedly leading a revolution?
    posted by angrycat at 9:19 AM on April 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


    From Southern Poverty Law center: The Trump Effect: The impact of the presidential campaign on our nation’s schools [PDF]
    [F]or students and teachers alike, this year’s primary season is starkly different from any in recent memory. The results of an online survey conducted by Teaching Tolerance suggest that the campaign is having a profoundly negative effect on children and classrooms...Our survey of approximately 2,000 K-12 teachers was not scientific...But the data we collected is the richest source of information that we know of about the effect of the presidential campaign on education in our country...

    Here are the highlights:

    •More than two-thirds of the teachers reported that students—mainly immigrants, children of immigrants and Muslims—have expressed concerns or fears about what might happen to them or their families after the election.
    •More than half have seen an increase in uncivil political discourse.
    •More than one-third have observed an increase in anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiment.

    ...The survey did not identify any candidates. But out of 5,000 total comments, more than 1,000 mentioned Donald Trump.
    posted by cjelli at 9:32 AM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Let's just drop the Bernie-flubbed-the-NYDN argument since it's turning into the same damn circular argument. I hold that he gave vague and messy answers that looks like a candidate that relies on his staff to handle a level of detail I don't want them to yield to staff. But it's an opinion.
    posted by dw at 9:32 AM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    [If the sum total of your comment is "NUH UH" or "I know you are but what am I?" maybe rethink whether it needs to be made.]
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:41 AM on April 14, 2016


    You know, dw, I don't disagree too much with what you are saying--except for the flubbed part. If you consider that interview, in and of itself, as the prime source of your judgement of Sanders acumen re the finance industry, then I can see how you might be dissatisfied with what might appear to be vague and messy answers. I read the same transcript as you did and did not see it as messy. A little vague in the standard politician-being-interviewed sense, but that's pretty normal--especially when you consider that those asking the questions pretty clearly demonstrated (to me, anyhow) that their level of expertise on finance was pretty shallow.

    I think that during campaign season in particular, the best thing that we citizens can do is to try to separate out the policy debates from the political maneuvering. Not always easily done, but it's a helpful guideline to keep in mind. Speaking for myself, as someone who has more than passing familiarity with political economy because I've been reading extensively on various topics in the area since 1979, I'm less bothered by a clearly antagonistic interview than perhaps others might be.

    On another note: if we're resurrecting folks, let's dig up Irvine Sprague. It'd be nice if he were around to put in his two bits.
    posted by CincyBlues at 9:50 AM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I mean, nice comeback, Bernie, but if a fair justice system was part of "New York Values" we wouldn't have the NYPD shooting people on the street for fun and a court system that keeps people in jail for year awaiting trial.
    posted by corb at 10:06 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Trochanter: However, you are just wrong about him not having a good answer for the bank break-up question. His answer was sound, and in line with accepted thinking on the subject. You set a ceiling and let the banks figure out how to get there. The questioner was confused about which agency has the mandate for such actions.

    I thought his answers were thinner than I would have liked. I also thought his bluntness worked against him. I'm not even a Sanders voter and I found his answers frustrating because I felt he was missing opportunities. He has policy and legislative ideas regarding the finance industry! He should be talking about them until he winds down or the interviewer tells him to stop.

    I do media training for some of my clients, which in part involves teaching them how to focus and answer questions well in interviews. Mostly it's an exercise in helping them overcome their own anxiety helping them to stay on message, and showing them how the wording they use is important. So it was interesting to read the differences between Clinton's and Sanders' interviews from that perspective, because you can tell that both have had a certain amount of training and experience but her delivery seems more polished.

    If an interviewer asks a question based on incorrect assumption, it is the job of the respondent to correct and explain further, leading with the answer they want to give. "Let me correct you on that. And now let me tell you my policy ideas." Clinton didn't need to do that sort of correction very much in her interview, which was slightly more softball than Sanders'.

    But note how she handled the question about Dodd Frank.

    Here's the question:
    Daily News: If I hear you correctly, Dodd-Frank has got mechanisms for looking at institutions that are grave perils to the United States' economy. Do you believe now that any of the banks are inherently a grave threat to the United States' economy?

    Clinton's answer:

    Clinton: At this point, I am not privy to the analysis that is being conducted under Dodd-Frank to make that determination.

    This is obviously another way of saying, "I don't know." But...

    I am however quite concerned about the recent district court judgment overturning the regulators' assessment that MetLife should be considered an institution under the too big to fail rubric, because I don't think that the Financial Stability Oversight Council acted precipitously when they so labeled MetLife. And they clearly did their homework and came to that conclusion. And for a district judge to in a sense substitute her judgment for FSOC concerns me.

    She's taken her answer from "I don't know" about Dodd-Frank, to "this is my opinion about something related to this issue" This shows the questioner and anyone listening that she's knowledgeable. Note also that she's not talking about a bank here! She has taken control of the answer and pivoted it so she can say something she feels is important.

    More from Clinton: So right now, I don't know what the analysis of the existing potential for a grave threat or the suitability and completeness of their living wills might be.

    Another "I don't know." This one said more bluntly. But then:

    But I want to stress I will be looking for regulators who I have confidence in will be able to make those hard calls. We can't ever let what happened happen again.

    "This is what I'm going to do, to prevent another disaster."

    Note that she still hasn't answered the question.

    And: But we've got to go further. We've got to have more transparency with hedge funds. We don't even know what kind of risk they pose. We need to look at repurchase agreements, which need more collateral so that they can't be used for the leverage that they were used before. That was a big problem with Lehman Brothers. We have to look at money market funds. One of the problems with one of the big money market funds back then was that it had too much Lehman Brothers debt in its portfolio and the government had to step in to boost it back up.

    So my point has been continuously: The banks always have to be under now a tight regulatory oversight. But if all you do is look at the banks, you are missing shadow banking, and I have put forth a plan that everybody from Paul Krugman to professors of finance have said is a top-to-bottom, comprehensive look at not just what happened in the past but how we prevent risks in the future.


    Two graphs in which she repeatedly referenced her plans and discussed how and why she would like to do certain things. She also gave a great deal of insight into her thought processes.

    So now, do you remember the question she was initially asked?

    It was: Do you believe now that any of the banks are inherently a grave threat to the United States' economy?

    Did she answer it?

    No!

    But her answers imply the banks could be a danger, unless she's able to institute stronger oversight, regulations, etc. And without answering the question, readers have been given the impression that she knows what she's talking about.

    By contrast, Sanders answered the same question without the interviewer even asking it. And in doing so (I think) failed to adequately explain in enough detail how he'd address that issue while in office:

    The Daily News asked him: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

    And in the course of his answer this happened:

    Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

    Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

    Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

    Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

    Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

    Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

    Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

    Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.


    His answers are much shorter, much blunter and more direct and because of that, right here at this moment, he loses control of the interview. Because then when he's asked about breaking up the banks, he has to clarify that the President is not a dictator and can't rule by fiat. When he's asked details on what specific laws were broken and how his Attorney General would prosecute, he doesn't answer with adequate details. And then they ask him again and again about the mechanism by which he would have the AG prosecute fraud.

    Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

    Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

    Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

    Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

    Daily News: I'm only pressing because you've made it such a central part of your campaign. And I wanted to know what the mechanism would be to accomplish it.

    Sanders: Let me be very clear about this. Alright? Let me repeat what I have said. Maybe you've got a quote there. I do believe that, to a significant degree, the business model of Wall Street is fraud.

    And you asked me, you started this discussion off appropriately enough about when I talk about morality. When I talk about it, that's what I think. I think when you have the most powerful financial institutions in this country, whose assets are equivalent to 58% of the GDP of this country, who day after day engage in fraudulent activity, that sets a tone.

    That sets a tone for some 10-year-old kid in this country who says, "Look, these people are getting away from it. They're lying. They're cheating. Why can't I do that?"

    Daily News: What kind of fraudulent activity are you referring to when you say that?

    Sanders: What kind of fraudulent activity? Fraudulent activity that brought this country into the worst economic decline in its history by selling packages of fraudulent, fraudulent, worthless subprime mortgages. How's that for a start?

    Selling products to people who you knew could not repay them. Lying to people without allowing them to know that in a year, their interest rates would be off the charts. They would not repay that. Bundling these things. Putting them into packages with good mortgages. That's fraudulent activity.


    All of his answers are accurate. But the difference between him not answering the question and Clinton not answering the question is that it becomes increasingly obvious to the reader from the way he answers that he isn't offering enough depth or knowledge.

    They committed fraud. Okay, great. So what specific laws did they break and how will a Sanders administration hold them accountable and make sure they can't do it again?

    I came away from the interview wondering where the hell the Bernie Sanders had gone that I see in stump speeches, and whose policy ideas I read about online. The guy who knows his stuff.
    posted by zarq at 10:10 AM on April 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


    but if a fair justice system was part of "New York Values" we wouldn't have the NYPD shooting people on the street for fun and a court system that keeps people in jail for year awaiting trial.

    This doesn't follow at all unless you assume that politicians perfectly reflect the values of the people they represent, which I'm sure you realize is a fantasy.
    posted by tonycpsu at 10:11 AM on April 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


    If you consider that interview, in and of itself, as the prime source of your judgement of Sanders acumen re the finance industry, then I can see how you might be dissatisfied with what might appear to be vague and messy answers.

    OK, here's what I would have liked to have seen:
    Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

    Sanders: Look, I filed a bill last year in the Senate to do just that. I think it starts with reinstating Glass-Stegall. It starts with using the powers within Dodd-Frank. We have got to break the investment side of banks, all these Wall Street types, away from the consumer side of banks, which hold the savings of the American people. I don't need to tell Chase how to break up Chase. What I will do is put this framework in place, like I laid out in that bill, to let Chase decide how best to break themselves up. I don't want to micromanage their decision making, but I want Chase to stop hurting America with their speculation.
    I think this is what his core argument has been. If he'd said this, I think it would have not only been a lot clearer, it would have led to a more substantive argument than what resulted in that transcript.

    I have other problems with his interview beyond that. But there's so much he could have ameliorated by simply not eliding and handwaving.

    ADDENDUM: What zarq said. Yeah, Hillary skirted the question, but she showed her work. Bernie didn't show the work, and then everyone who questioned it got yelled at for not knowing HE FILED A BILL WHY DIDN'T YOU READ IT.
    posted by dw at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


    tonycpsu: "This doesn't follow at all unless you assume that politicians perfectly reflect the values of the people they represent, which I'm sure you realize is a fantasy."

    Not even a fantasy, an impossibility, as not everyone holds identical values.
    posted by Chrysostom at 10:41 AM on April 14, 2016


    I mean, nice comeback, Bernie, but if a fair justice system was part of "New York Values" we wouldn't have the NYPD shooting people on the street for fun and a court system that keeps people in jail for year awaiting trial.

    Putting aside the fact that that's pretty much the most disingenuous reading of Sanders' statement, let's keep in mind that this is a response to a guy who is almost a caricature of an overzealous prosecutor who was using the phrase "New York values" as a not-particularly-subtle anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT dogwhistle.
    posted by zombieflanders at 10:52 AM on April 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


    Anybody know what started the war between Trump and Sweden on Reddit? I'm missing something.
    posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 AM on April 14, 2016


    His existence?
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:05 AM on April 14, 2016


    I think your remarks, dw, as well as zarq's, are reasonable takes. I would have liked him to be more clear in that interview. But, and this goes to my comment about separating policy from political maneuvering, perhaps I'm simply more forgiving of that interview because of the context. It was one interview before an editorial board among no doubt many other public-facing things he did that day. And, I say this as well, having spent some time working at a newspaper: It's important to be sharp at candidate interviews before an editorial board.

    And yet, you both clearly have some understanding of the larger picture with some familiarity of Sanders views outside of that interview. So, if this is the case, I suppose the question is this: Just how much weight are you going to put on one interview? And why?

    For example, and I'm only speaking for myself again. One of the important reasons I cannot in good conscience support Clinton rests on my assessment of her foreign policy work. When I saw her "We came, we saw, he died" comment I was flabbergasted. I thought it was very unprofessional. And, it definitely shaped my view of her character. But on the policy front I already knew that I thought her foreign policy was bad prior to that interview. All the humanitarian interventionism, the color revolutions and "responsibility to protect" justifications that are really, in my mind, a thin veneer of rationale for good ole US imperial geopolitics is very distasteful to me.

    But look at the follow up to that unprofessional moment. Listen to the politispeak. Listen to her dodge the specifics of her unprofessional outburst. Bother you? It bothers me though I am not surprised by her responses.

    The point being this, I suppose. We have our reasons for favoring one candidate over another. No one is going to persuade anyone to switch sides at this point in time. (Or at least, that would be extremely rare.) So, in my view, the most important reason for following all the debate and all of the back and forth is to try to improve my understanding of the issues. I'm not an epistemological naif and I'm aware of the potential for bias as I do try to improve the depth of my understanding. And I'm not accusing others of lacking a similar discernment. It's just that we all have our own reasons for determining that which is wheat and that which is chaff.

    So, on the financial side of things, I'm pretty confident in why I prefer Sanders' orientation over Clinton's. Others are welcome to conclude as they wish, for reasons that are comfortable to them.
    posted by CincyBlues at 11:11 AM on April 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


    Anybody know what started the war between Trump and Sweden on Reddit? I'm missing something.

    What I heard is that /r/The_Donald made fun of what the map of Sweden resembles, to which /r/Sweden unleashed its full fury.

    The centipede may be a nimble navigator, but sometimes it gets stepped on by a moose anyway.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 11:14 AM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Just how much weight are you going to put on one interview? And why?

    Very little. Primarily because I'm aware from other sources (including his speeches) of where he stands on many of the issues he was interviewed about. Also because I think he was put off balance early and never regained his footing, so to speak. I commented about this a little bit in the other thread. I thought he could have done a much better job in the interview and felt he didn't come off well. I'm disappointed, but it's not the end of the world. If this had been Clinton, I would have shrugged and still voted for her. I also thought his back-and-forth about the subway was lighthearted and funny.

    I'm voting for the Democratic nominee for President. I honestly don't want to bash or be down on either Sanders or Clinton. I want them to do their best. I want to hear visionary plans from them both. I want them to succeed. And I want to be able to celebrate when they say the right things and draw in voters. I'll save my ire for Trump and Cruz.
    posted by zarq at 12:13 PM on April 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


    Look, I'm a Sanders fan and he totally blew it in that interview. Everyone has off days, that must have been one of his. He sounded vague, befuddled, evasive, and defensive. That's the exact opposite of the image he needs to project and his failure there was harmful.

    It isn't the end of the world, but it was a bad interview. All politicians have them sometimes. With luck he'll learn from that mistake and move on.

    I do wish my fellow Sanders supporters would admit that he flubbed it rather than trying to pretend that it's being misrepresented.
    posted by sotonohito at 12:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


    It's frustrating that every time Sanders or Clinton makes a mistake or underperforms it's brushed off as an anomaly that should be overlooked or because the media that does the reporting is bias in some way and thus it's not fair. I'm not denying media bias or that even when media attempts to be objective they still at the very least are trying to make sense of things through a certain narrative or perspective. And I also see that when supporters of each candidate share articles and writings because they either confirm that it was a good decision to support their candidate or reinforce that the rival candidate is not the right person.

    And I think because of this, a sort of decision fatigue is setting in. Not necessarily or only in the big choice between who to support, but the many small choices that determine whether I'm getting informed or getting duped: What media outlet is this from? Who funds this media outlet? Who is the primary writer or creator of the story? Does the content of the article check out? What do other outlets say about this (and while we're at it, let's scrutinize these other media outlets)?

    And while it's good that the internet adds more voices, it also seems like we're just replacing each mention of "media outlet" above with every Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, and social media user.
    posted by FJT at 12:59 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    the many small choices that determine whether I'm getting informed or getting duped: What media outlet is this from? Who funds this media outlet? Who is the primary writer or creator of the story? Does the content of the article check out? What do other outlets say about this (and while we're at it, let's scrutinize these other media outlets)?

    I think these are generally good practices and good questions to ask yourself. I think people need help learning to be good media consumers, especially with the decline of good journalism.
    posted by zutalors! at 1:09 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I brush it off because I genuinely don't give a shit about these supposed mistakes and underperformances.
    posted by kyrademon at 1:10 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I do wish my fellow Sanders supporters would admit that he flubbed it rather than trying to pretend that it's being misrepresented.

    It's also okay to have the opinion that he did fine.


    Or, that it was misrepresented! dw and zarq, I thought your comments about the interview just now were very thoughtful and nuanced. zarq in particular, you had some great insights into the contrasts between how Sanders and Clinton respond to questions in interviews, why what Clinton does works better, etc. - the media strategy side of things. I agree with both of you that Sanders could have given better answers in that section.

    And yet both of you seem to appreciate that Sanders does know what he's talking about, and that what he said wasn't actively wrong. Whereas, beginning first thing in the morning after the interview transcript was posted, at least a dozen pundits made blog posts, and thousands of people made snarky tweets, about how breaking up the big banks is Sanders's only issue, and he doesn't even know what he's talking about! Look at the stupid answer he gave in the NYDN interview, he doesn't even know! An argument that I believe is a misrepresentation, but that quickly became the conventional wisdom about his performance in that interview and continues to live on today in a lot of people's opinions (obviously not either dw and zarq).

    IOW it's also possible to believe both that he could have done better AND that he's been misrepresented.
    posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:12 PM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


    I do wish my fellow Sanders supporters would admit that he flubbed it rather than trying to pretend that it's being misrepresented.

    I do wish he had sounded more confident in some of his answers but the facts of his answers (particularly the bank stuff) were actually correct according to people who are actually involved in bank reform efforts, even though some of it does sound a little counterintuitive. The facts are worth getting right, though; nearly all of the progressive economists working on these issues responded that the backlash to his bank answers was overblown and that his facts were correct. One of the biggest sources of misunderstanding is that the NYDN confused the Fed and the Treasury's roles. Anyway, it's worth listening to economists who actually work on this stuff, not just overheated commentators with political agendas.

    Mike Konczal from the Roosevelt Institute has a good explainer, and Dean Baker dissected his answers very nicely here.

    Here's what Konczal said about the NYDN's confusion between the Fed and the Treasury:
    "If anything, Sanders is too wonky. I think the Daily News and commentators on this 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, though they aren’t unilateral. But it also isn’t clear how much the Fed could push if it truly wanted it. Sanders is correct to say it’s unclear how far the Federal Reserve can go, but it is clear that the Treasury Secretary can lead FSOC to it."

    And here's what Dean Baker had to say:

    "The Daily News editorial board also seemed to think it was a gaffe that Sanders said he didn't know how to break up JPMorgan, that he instead would leave that to JP Morgan. This is exactly the route that almost every economist who has given the issue thought would endorse. The Treasury Secretary, or other government officials, don't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan. JP Morgan does. It has incentive to break itself up in the most efficient possible way to preserve value for its shareholders. The government's role in this story is set the size caps and give the bank a timeline, not to get in the specifics of what a downsized JP Morgan and its broken off companies should look like. ...

    DB: On two other questions in this area, the Daily News editorial board was just being silly. It asked Sanders whether the Fed has the authority to break up the big banks. Sanders said he did not know. Under Dodd-Frank the Fed oversees the "living wills" prepared by the big banks. These living wills are supposed to ensure that if the banks got into trouble they could be unraveled without creating a larger financial crisis. It is not clear what the Fed can do if it determines that the living will is inadequate. Arguably it could order the bank to downsize itself, although I don't think there is any consensus that this is a power given to the Fed under Dodd-Frank.

    The editorial board also asked Sanders about a District Court decision overturning the designation of Metropolitan Life Insurance as systemically important institution by the FSOC, and therefore subject to special oversight. Sanders said that he didn't know the implications of the decision since he had not seen it. The decision had just been issued at that point and was not published, so it's hardly unreasonable for Sanders not to be in a position to comment on its implications."
    posted by dialetheia at 1:12 PM on April 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


    And I think because of this, a sort of decision fatigue is setting in.

    I agree that there is a lot of fatigue, but I think most of it comes from just endlessly discussing it than the actual process of vetting of it at the individual level, or relying on trusted 3rd party authorities to perform that vetting. There is so much value in being able to evaluate all media critically, and we should encourage that independent of what we believe or who we support.

    But maybe if we're continuously rehashing the same topic again and again, it's a good sign that everyone has made up their minds and we should move on.
    posted by kyp at 1:19 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    PSA: Sanders/Clinton debate on CNN tonight at 9pm EST.
    posted by futz at 1:22 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Is this the debate thread? LOL.
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:23 PM on April 14, 2016


    But maybe if we're continuously rehashing the same topic again and again, it's a good sign that everyone has made up their minds and we should move on.

    One can dream! Again and again...
    posted by futz at 1:26 PM on April 14, 2016


    Is this the debate thread? LOL.

    I think we're going to have it in the Gordon Korman thread.
    posted by Chrysostom at 1:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ DEBATE THREAD DECLARED (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
    posted by Justinian at 1:34 PM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


    I have apologizing/disavowing fatigue

    trump should apologize about retweets
    sanders should apologize about democratic whores
    clinton should apologize about cp time
    cruz should apologize about boogers
    kasich should apologize for still being a thing

    DISAVOW
    posted by zutalors! at 1:34 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    "Disavow" just sounds like Mission: Impossible to me.
    posted by Chrysostom at 1:37 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Vox: Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution
    When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.
    de Boer: one simple link that shows why Vox is unserious
    • We know almost nothing about the methodology of this poll. Such polls are notoriously sensitive to how these questions are asked. Glaring gaps in information about methodology is common at Vox.
    • The political incoherence of voters is a universal aspect of politics. All polls show that voters have inconsistent policy preferences. In any given poll asking about policy preferences and tax rates, you’re likely to get vast numbers of voters who both call for the government to do more and to pay less in taxes. [...]
    • These policies include cost savings for most people, and yet there’s no indication that these savings are discussed in the polling. [...]
    • You know who’s out to raise taxes by a trillion dollars, by her own admission? Hillary Clinton! That’s not a bad thing in and of itself — we need to raise taxes to pay for our austerity-starved country. Indeed Clinton’s plan doesn’t go far enough. The problem is that Vox doesn’t go out of its way to demonstrate that HRC supporters wouldn’t support her tax raises either. [...]
    And that is why the notion of supposedly objective data journalism is so dangerous: data is never neutral. It always exists in a framework that is laden with ideology. That’s not postmodern rejection of science; it’s an acknowledgement that the questions you ask and how you investigate them influence the results you get.
    posted by tonycpsu at 1:41 PM on April 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


    People with legitimately held horrible beliefs are more predictable. You know what they will do and what they won't do. And unless they are sincere anarchists, typically what they won't do includes "Destroying the government and the institutions which support our civilization."

    Or sincere modern republicans? Cruz would like to roll back marriage equality, thwart/remove a lot of regulation, slash social support mechanism, etc etc. Why is a legitimate belief in those things better than the loose cannon who might be distracted or bought off? I think you can squint and tilt your head and this sort of argument works just as well as a case that people with beliefs are more dangerous, as they are predictable in being unwilling to compromise or trade where the nihilist might find payoff X, which you can live with, equally palatable to payoff Y, which you cannot.
    posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Ezekiel Kweku (a Sanders supporter) says that Sanders should explain more. It's a really good article (says this explainer-for-a-living):
    I think Sanders has got to worry less about inspiring, and worry more about explaining. I can already see Sanderistas beginning to get very mad (although Actually They’re Not Mad, They’re Just Laughing), but stay with me here. Sanders’s platform is inherently inspiring. ...

    Still, many voters are evidently convinced that for all of Sanders’s positive qualities, his ideas are impractical — that it’s unclear how the mechanisms in his policies would actually work, and that those policies would be nonstarters in a polarized political environment in which the Republicans control Congress.

    This latter concern is basically baked into Sanders’s candidacy. It’s hard enough to convince gun-shy Democrats, accustomed to bloodless, middle-of-the-road post-Reagan liberalism, that an unabashedly leftist agenda can work in 2016. Convincing them that other people will be convinced is probably a task too tall, and moderating his policies to make them more accessible to everyone would destroy the appeal of his candidacy. ...
    He zooms in on the NYDN interview:
    Note the hesitant language and the qualifications Sanders uses here, which are so unlike the sure-footed and strident anti-Wall Street rhetoric that he’s been using to great effect in speeches and in his debates. ...

    Wall Street regulation and breaking up the banks has been one of the central themes of his candidacy, and he comes across as surprisingly tentative and a bit vague. Predictably, Sanders’s detractors and the media pounced on this, calling him unprepared and uncertain. Sanders supporters defend him by pointing out that if you’ve studied bank regulation and understand the issue, you’ll realize that Sanders’s answers here are not only reasonable, but also perfectly consistent with the approach that economists and policymakers recommend.

    This is true, and it’s exactly the problem. Most voters aren’t experts, and haven’t studied bank regulation. They are laypeople, and to them, Sanders comes across as someone with a weak grasp of policy details. The impression of being “serious” and “wonky” is more important than actually having plausible answers (one need only look at Paul Ryan’s career to see that). But political campaigns are about more than just ideas and positions. They’re about selling your candidacy. They’re about marketing, and while that doesn’t mean Sanders has to elevate style above substance, it does mean he’s got to pay attention to how style gives the impression of substance. ...
    posted by maudlin at 1:52 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    de Boer: one simple link that shows why Vox is unserious
    • We know almost nothing about the methodology of this poll. Such polls are notoriously sensitive to how these questions are asked. Glaring gaps in information about methodology is common at Vox.


    Either Vox edited it or de Boer missed the link right at the top of the second paragraph. The PDF has a paragraph on methodology and exact wording of the questions. You can still quibble about the amount of disclosure but if you specify the impact of how questions are asked you should notice if exactly how they were asked is provided.
    This poll was conducted from April 08-11, 2016, among a national sample of 1975 registered voters. The interviews were conducted online and the data were weighted to approximate a target sample of registered voters based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, region, annual household income, home ownership status and marital status. Results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
    posted by phearlez at 1:57 PM on April 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


    > Looks like the Sanders campaign is behind downballot races.

    About time. I wouldn't call supporting 3 individuals broad support, but it's a start.

    Unless the claim that Clinton is supporting downballot races involves something other than her raising money for the Hillary Victory Fund she hasn't necessarily done anything at all for downballot races.

    You can see on Open Secrets that besides the $4.5 million Clinton gave herself out of the fund and the millions spent on expenses for the fund's activities (going to contractors also working for the Clinton campaign) the other members of the fund are state political parties rather than candidates, most of whom have received ~$65,000 out of the money disbursed so far.

    I don't believe the state parties are bound to spend that money on state races. For example, a commentator I was listening to on an NPR program this morning was saying that state parties often pay for the airfare and other travel expenses of delegates going to the convention.
    posted by XMLicious at 1:59 PM on April 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


    de Boer: one simple link that shows why Vox is unserious

    Uh, Vox linked to the cross-tab file in the second section. The methodology is in there. He's free to critique voters or point out that Hillary wants to raise taxes, but most of his argument is handled by the cross-tab doc they linked to. It's not like they did this and then hand-waved over the methodology.

    Just how much weight are you going to put on one interview? And why?

    I put some weight on it because I was shocked at how he came off. And as said above, I know that he's nuanced and thoughtful about it. I was just flabbergasted at how self-contradictory this interview was. And I would expect him to play at a higher level than this.

    It's not the end of the world. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. But I expect better of our candidates than interviews like that. You're running for the executive position in this country; talk like an executive. (And I should say -- Bernie is perfectly capable of this! Own it! Come on, dude.)

    I've said on other threads that while Hillary's interview with NYDN was way more polished and more befitting someone running for the executive office, I'm still deeply troubled by her responses on Honduras and Black Lives Matter. And for those reasons, along with Keystone XL and TPP and the minimum wage increase, I'm happy Bernie has been in the race to pull her left. What I'm not happy about has been the degrading level of discourse. We're collapsing towards something that looks like the GOP race and its endless "well your wife is ugly -- LOSER!" bile. I really hope that the debate starts us back towards elevating the Dem race again... but I have serious doubts.

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ DEBATE THREAD DECLARED (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

    That said, I think I'll find a nice underground bunker with Great British Bake-Off on repeat for a few days.
    posted by dw at 2:11 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    dw: You know, Trump speeches as Vogon poetry explains so much.

    If he's not fully into Vogon poetry yet, Trump did turn a northern soul song into a parable poem about Syrian refuges as snakes, so he's getting close.
    posted by filthy light thief at 2:30 PM on April 14, 2016


    I don't know, I think this debate could have some fireworks. We've all passed a lot of water since the genteel days of the last one...
    posted by Trochanter at 2:31 PM on April 14, 2016


    That said, I think I'll find a nice underground bunker with Great British Bake-Off on repeat for a few days.

    I love that show. Exponentially better than any other reality bullshit on US television.
    posted by kyp at 2:34 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    sanders should apologize about democratic whores

    Sanders condemns supporter's 'whore' comment
    posted by teponaztli at 2:34 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Uh, Vox linked to the cross-tab file in the second section. The methodology is in there. He's free to critique voters or point out that Hillary wants to raise taxes, but most of his argument is handled by the cross-tab doc they linked to. It's not like they did this and then hand-waved over the methodology.

    Thanks for the correction. Shortcuts like that are why I so seldom link to de Boer even when I agree with him, but I do think the other three points he makes hold up, as does his general point that data-driven journalism can have a bias that's just as problematic, but often gets overlooked because of the flashy charts and numbers. I'm as guilty as the next guy of loving a good infographic that gets a point across, but I do think that the case Vox is making could just as easily be made against Clinton's plans, and I do think it's dirty pool to make hay out of the fact that voters / poll respondents aren't generally informed enough to understand how much the programs they want will cost them.
    posted by tonycpsu at 2:38 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    He apologized immediately.
    posted by futz at 2:39 PM on April 14, 2016


    Washington Post: Democratic Party, Clinton and Sanders campaigns to sue Arizona over voting rights.
    posted by Wordshore at 2:39 PM on April 14, 2016 [12 favorites]




    Song did apologize the evening of 4/13 via a tweet, by saying he was sorry. Sanders tweeted the next morning, an hour or so after Clinton's campaign complained, that the remark was "inappropriate and insensitive" and that there "isn't room for language like that in our political discourse."

    I prefer what Song's own organization said: "Courage Campaign does not endorse political candidates. Dr. Paul Song, acting in his own capacity as a health care advocate, and separate from Courage Campaign, made comments at a rally in New York for Senator Bernie Sanders last night that are contrary to the values of Courage Campaign," the statement said. "These comments were unacceptable and that sort of rhetoric has no place in our political dialogue."

    For those who love irony, it may be interesting to learn that Song's wife, journalist Lisa Ling, is a Clinton supporter, CBS News reported. In 2009, President Bill Clinton helped rescue her sister Laura, another journalist, from a North Korean jail.
    posted by bearwife at 2:57 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    bearwife, Song actually does mention his family and Clinton's help in his speech, and makes it clear that he is grateful for that but he supports Sanders because of his policies.
    posted by kyp at 3:04 PM on April 14, 2016


    Thanks for the correction. Shortcuts like that are why I so seldom link to de Boer even when I agree with him

    For what it's worth, I think it was a silent edit on Vox's part - this morning, there was a link but it just went to the Morning Consult site and asked for a login.
    posted by dialetheia at 3:07 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Awww, that soup thing is adorable! "I'm the man of the house, you'll never go hungry again! I HAVE BOUGHT SOUP." I could see my own husband doing something sweet yet boneheaded like that. I'm liking Heidi more and more.
    posted by corb at 3:22 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




    > Ted Cruz's wife reveals he bought 100 cans of Campbell's soup after their honeymoon

    I gotta confess that I don't understand that whole thing. Did he think "well neither of us cooks so I better go stock up"? Did they not live together before they married — I guess that still happens? But how would he know she doesn't cook if there wasn't some cohabitation?

    Or was it a passive-agressive thing on his part, needling her for not cooking? I know he's supposed to be a massive jerk, but I always assumed there were some people he cared for and treated well, just that I'm not one of them. But if that what you do in your first week of marriage ....?

    And then her sneaking them out and then going and rebuying them?

    It all sounds as strange as those exoticing tid-bits like "Macedonian newlyweds spit on a pile of salt before entering their house the first time". Can anybody make heads or tails out of it?
    posted by benito.strauss at 3:27 PM on April 14, 2016


    The exact quote is a little less adorable - sounds like he just didn't think she would be cooking:

    This was shocking to me, so we had a tough conversation about it. I said, “You don’t buy 100 of anything, much less canned soup. We can’t do this. I’ll be making things.” He said, “No, I know you. You won’t be making things.”
    posted by dialetheia at 3:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    She said she slipped out of the house before Ted woke up in order to return all of the soup cans he bought. She was scolded by her mother for doing so.

    "So when Ted opened the pantry, I had to quickly tell him that I would go back and buy those cans again."


    haha her mom chewed her out for showing agency, adorbz
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:31 PM on April 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


    Idk, maybe it's only funny if you're Hispanic or from a traditional culture with a long history of well meaning husband fuckups and catering to their ego while secretly fixing said fuckups, but if a family member told me this I would be doubled over cackling. "So then I snuck them out because it was fucking ridiculous, but then my mom reminded me you can't just casually disappear 100 cans of soup..."

    Rookie mistake, Heidi! The key is to slowly disappear them into the trunk of the car and/or tell him it would be a good deed to donate them to the next church canned food drive.
    posted by corb at 3:37 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    If I truly believed that I would have to live on prepackaged meals for a while, probably the last thing I would get is canned soup. Frozen pizza? Yeah. Easy Mac? Sure. Spaghetti-Os? Well, ok. But canned soup is like spooning flavorless broth with occasional chunks of nothing into your mouth. I'd start losing my mind by the third day if not sooner.
    posted by indubitable at 3:39 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    But in seriousness, I suspect the coding on this is:

    1) Ted Cruz is the head of his household
    2) He and his wife love each other and have a relatable traditional marriage
    3) Ted Cruz is a human
    posted by corb at 3:39 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    What I'm saying is, this guy should not have his finger on The Button, clearly.
    posted by indubitable at 3:40 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'll cede that it's funny. 100 cans of soup! It's like he thought, what is human food? what do humans eat? SOUP YES SOUP how many soups does a human consume in a day? 25? 40? I'll just bring back an even hundred
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:40 PM on April 14, 2016 [32 favorites]


    3) Ted Cruz is a human

    I'm getting a real kick out of how far we diverged on how this story reflects on point 3
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Now I'm picturing alien Cruz wandering the supermarket in a MIB-style Edgar suit (what we see today as "Ted Cruz") demanding more canisters of cubed meat in brine.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 3:45 PM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    3) Ted Cruz is a human

    No.
    posted by dis_integration at 3:47 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    corb: Idk, maybe it's only funny if you're Hispanic or from a traditional culture with a long history of well meaning husband fuckups and catering to their ego while secretly fixing said fuckups....

    We have a large cultural divide. :)

    If I brought 100 cans of soup home, my wife would ask the following: (not necessarily in this order)

    Why?
    Just why?
    Was there a sale?
    Are they expired?
    Are you really, really high?
    What the hell were you thinking?
    Where are you gonna put all that soup? (Note: not "Where am I going to put all that soup." Since I brought 'em home, they're my problem, not hers.)
    Leading into:
    "You bought 'em, you can return 'em."

    The idea that she would secretly fix something I fucked up to protect my ego is funny tho. :)
    posted by zarq at 3:50 PM on April 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


    When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.

    This is what gets my goat.

    1) They phrased it wrong. Nobody wants to pay an extra $1,000 for a car but they'll happily pay $30/mo more over a lease. This is scientific fact and stupid people have been bilked by it for decades.

    2) The "average" taxpayer isn't ever average. The system is so fucking busted that the median wage is only $28,851.21 while the average wage is $44,569.20. The vast majority of people earning $30K a year aren't going to be asked to contribute an extra $1,000 a year. In fact, if you earn less than $250,000 a year your only new tax is a 2.2% Medicare for All tax which, as a low end worker, I can guarantee is going to be less than your share of your employer's health plan. The people earning more than $250,000 a year are being asked to contribute a hell of a lot more. Phrasing it as an extra $1000 a year on everyone is intentionally deceptive.
    posted by Talez at 3:53 PM on April 14, 2016 [25 favorites]


    What I'm saying is, this guy should not have his finger on The Button, clearly.

    What about The Official White House Can Opener?
    posted by zarq at 4:30 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    america: is it soup yet?
    posted by pyramid termite at 4:44 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Bernie has a CSA share. Hillary and Donald have chefs. Kasich makes a point of being seen at some big non-union grocery chain, probably in his Casual Friday fleece. I may never say this again, but Ted might be the relatable one here.
    posted by box at 4:58 PM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]




    So proud of these two remarkable people.
    posted by an animate objects at 5:59 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ DEBATE BEGINS (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
    posted by homunculus at 5:59 PM on April 14, 2016


    I don't remember cheering like this at previous Dem debates.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on April 14, 2016


    I don't remember cheering like this at previous Dem debates.

    Welcome to New York
    posted by an animate objects at 6:03 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Anyone have a link to watch the debate online, particularly one that works outside the US?
    posted by barnacles at 6:07 PM on April 14, 2016


    Judgement! Woo!
    posted by homunculus at 6:07 PM on April 14, 2016


    Clinton going right in on Sanders's NY Daily News interview.
    posted by defenestration at 6:07 PM on April 14, 2016


    hahaha holy shit this debate is filthy
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:08 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Yah just right from the get go going after each other.
    posted by DynamiteToast at 6:09 PM on April 14, 2016


    I wish he'd brought up her judgment on Libya instead of Iraq. He had a perfect opportunity to point out that following her advice in Libya led President Obama into the "worst mistake of his presidency."
    posted by dialetheia at 6:11 PM on April 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


    go.cnn.com is working for me inside the US...
    posted by uosuaq at 6:11 PM on April 14, 2016




    Yeah, that says "Live Stream only available in the US", because CNN are assholes.
    posted by barnacles at 6:14 PM on April 14, 2016


    Bernie talking specifics, that's good
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:14 PM on April 14, 2016


    barnacles: "Yeah, that says "Live Stream only available in the US", because CNN are assholes."

    ... Reddit to the rescue, with a sneaky YouTube stream.
    posted by barnacles at 6:15 PM on April 14, 2016


    Tried to watch. Too many woos. Can't take it.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 6:17 PM on April 14, 2016


    Sanders came off as childish with the sarcasm.
    posted by defenestration at 6:18 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    She's coming off as childish when she lies about him not knowing how to break up the banks. It's not a good look for either of them. They can do better than this.
    posted by Drinky Die at 6:18 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    It's only a vague sense, but I feel like Bernie's a little off his game tonight. Like just exhausted from campaigning or something. (I say this as a Bernie supporter.)

    It's certainly a more combative debate than I hoped to see on the Democratic side this year.
    posted by uosuaq at 6:20 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'm not going to lie, I'm kind of enjoying the mud-slinging. Does that make me a terrible liberal?
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:21 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Wish Sanders had brought up her vote on bankruptcy reform. Further, the entire Citizens United decision is premised on the idea that campaign donations only influence behavior via direct quid pro quo situations - the way the Clinton campaign keeps using this line directly weakens Democratic arguments against campaign finance reform.
    posted by dialetheia at 6:23 PM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Yeah, they both seem exhausted. Shit, I'm half their age and I'm exhausted just following them.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 6:24 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    "Given your contempt for large American companies..." WTF
    posted by homunculus at 6:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    is it the job of the president to "promote american business abroad"? What is up with that question?
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I'm glad Sanders called him out on his use of the word "contempt." Wolf Blitzer is a contemptible human being.
    posted by barnacles at 6:27 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    "human being"
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I wasn't really planning on watching, but now that I know Wolf Blitzer is involved, I'm definitely not watching.
    posted by teponaztli at 6:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Here's some backstory behind Sanders' vote for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, Bill Clinton's Wall Street deregulation bill:
    When Sanders voted for the House version of the CFMA in October 2000, the bill was not yet a total debacle for Wall Street accountability advocates. The legislative text Sanders supported was clearly designed to curtail regulatory oversight. The GOP-authored bill was crafted as a response to a proposal from ex-Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born to ramp up oversight of derivatives. But the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version, and it didn’t draw any of the protests that the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall did. In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn’t vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.

    But in December, Gramm — after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials — added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm’s workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government “shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank.” That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called “Enron Loophole,” which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.
    posted by dialetheia at 6:30 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Wolfe interviewed one of Sander's spokespeople earlier today and I was wtfucking at every question. I don't know how the guy kept his cool. The questions were out of left field and completely biased. My mom who supports Hillary was wtfucking right along with me.
    posted by futz at 6:30 PM on April 14, 2016


    is it the job of the president to "promote american business abroad"? What is up with that question?

    Not his primary job, but arguably yes. It's to promote American interests.

    And I say that as a Bernie supporter.
    posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:30 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Not a clinton supporter but her barely contained contempt for the crowd is hilarious/awesome.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:31 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Sanders came off as childish with the sarcasm.

    She's coming off as childish when she lies about him


    This debate is giving me flashbacks from middle school, especially when Hillary chuckles at Bernie.
    posted by homunculus at 6:32 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    ... and when Bernie chuckles at her. FFS.
    posted by homunculus at 6:33 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Sanders thinks gun violence is funny! That's it, I'm voting for Hillary.
    posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on April 14, 2016


    Hilary is relishing being able to take the moral high ground in regards to gun stuff.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:36 PM on April 14, 2016


    That was a righteous thumping she gave him about the Sandy Hook parents' lawsuit, afaic.
    posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    yup, Bernie's stance on guns makes me uncomfortable.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 6:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    A piece from about a month ago by the parents involved in that lawsuit: Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown
    posted by homunculus at 6:43 PM on April 14, 2016


    Yeah, the gun issues are the area where I agree with Sanders least. But at the same time, as someone from a rural state, I think he does make a decent point about understanding rural gun issues well enough to forge a consensus on the stuff that most people agree on: universal instant background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning semi-automatic assault rifles, and making straw-man purchases a federal crime.
    posted by dialetheia at 6:45 PM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Uh, no, Bill didn't apologize for the 1994 crime bill. He almost wanted to apologize, but that's not the same thing.
    posted by homunculus at 6:47 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    So far, Clinton loses on banks and the minimum wage, Sanders loses on guns, and both lose on the 94 crime bill, though both pivot to saying winning things on incarceration. I wish the party would someday realize that the winning position is almost always the leftmost position.
    posted by chortly at 6:58 PM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


    I wish the party would someday realize that the winning position is almost always the leftmost position.

    Took the words from my very keyboard.
    posted by mordax at 7:00 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    There are guns and then there are weapons.
    posted by CincyBlues at 7:01 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    He had decades and significant political capital to stand up against the Vermont gun interests as senator. In almost every way, shape, and form, he acceded to the powerful political interests in his state. I don't get the confidence in him as a firebrand.
    posted by Salamandrous at 7:06 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Hillary feels under pressure! Will she....
    Hide behind Obama
    Ramble until everyone forgets
    "Laugh it off"
    posted by futz at 7:07 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Oh wow. I am loving the tough questions tonight on both sides. Wolf just asked Clinton about Obama's biggest mistake in office, the Libya intervention that she was a proponent of.
    posted by DynamiteToast at 7:07 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Is Clinton f'real blaming Libya?
    posted by an animate objects at 7:12 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Eh, that rural state stuff is meaningless. It isn't like you need assault rifles to hunt deer or that sensible gun regulation isn't universally applicable.

    Carrying a gun to hunt deer is categorically different from open carrying to be an asshole. Banning the latter doesn't have to ban the former.

    Banning assault rifles won't end deer hunting.

    Universal background checks won't end deer hunting.

    A system of registration, a mandatory gun owner's insurance, a requirement to report all thefts of guns or ammo immediately, a requirement to keep guns in gun safes when not in use, none of that is some horrible Big City Slicker plan that fails to recognize the needs of rural hunters.

    I hate this idea that somehow guns are magically special and understood by rural people in a way that city folk just can't comprehend. No, they aren't. I've lived in rural places, I know damn well that rural people don't have some mystic rapport with their guns that makes sensible gun laws a horrible burden to them.
    posted by sotonohito at 7:15 PM on April 14, 2016 [19 favorites]


    I missed her whole statement on minimum wage. Did she really say that she was for a $15 minimum wage all along?
    posted by futz at 7:15 PM on April 14, 2016


    I missed her whole statement on minimum wage. Did she really say that she was for a $15 minimum wage all along?

    In so far as she clearly and directly says anything, yeah. She sortof said arguing for $12 is just the more appropriate way of fighting for $15
    posted by an animate objects at 7:17 PM on April 14, 2016


    She said she supports the Fight for $15 people and also that she supports a $12/hr federal minimum. I think. She said a lot of contradictory things in quite a short period of time.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 7:18 PM on April 14, 2016


    If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must support $12 or possibly $15.
    posted by Justinian at 7:21 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




    If you have to explain the joke...
    posted by tonycpsu at 7:24 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I just didn't want people who never saw South Park to think I was having a stroke.
    posted by Justinian at 7:26 PM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


    That's it, I'm voting for Hillary.

    That's awesome, now I can stay home on election day.
    posted by tonycpsu at 7:34 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    what happened to this thread?
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 7:59 PM on April 14, 2016


    I guess that after 20,000-ish comments we just ran out of things to say about the primary election?
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:01 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ DEBATE IS CONCLUDED (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
    posted by homunculus at 8:03 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I guess that after 20,000-ish comments we just ran out of things to say about the primary election?

    I wouldn't have thought that possible...
    posted by DynamiteToast at 8:03 PM on April 14, 2016


    Shit got real.
    posted by kyp at 8:03 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    tivalasvegas: "I guess that after 20,000-ish comments we just ran out of things to say about the primary election?"

    Hmm. I'm actually kinda all right with that.
    posted by barnacles at 8:04 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    D- for Debate. Would not re-purchase. Smells funny. Seller be advised. Still better than xenophobic rotten vegetables.
    posted by an animate objects at 8:13 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]




    This was indeed very familiar territory. Maybe Clinton inched closer to $15, and she almost seemed to support raising the social security cap for a while there. But in the end, she walked both of those back and we end up pretty much where we started. On the other hand, for the X% who hadn't seen them debate before, it was a pretty good debate, covering the basic territory and delineating their differences pretty clearly on a half-dozen different issues. But given that the CNN stream never choked once for me this time, I'd guess that X was quite small indeed.
    posted by chortly at 8:20 PM on April 14, 2016


    Yeah I was trying to remember who had mentioned in a few of the debate threads that the abortion issue hasn't been mentioned. I think it was nadawi.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:21 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I wish they'd asked her to clarify her views on late-term abortion but I'm really glad she brought it up! It's shameful we've had so many of these interminable things and not had one question about reproductive rights.
    posted by dialetheia at 8:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


    tivalasvegas: "Yeah I was trying to remember who had mentioned in a few of the debate threads that the abortion issue hasn't been mentioned. I think it was nadawi."

    Genuine question (because I genuinely don't know the answer!): was there any suspicion that Sanders would give an answer other than supporting pro-choice views or abortion rights? I was surprised to hear that abortion hadn't been mentioned yet, but I assumed it was just because the response was a sure thing, and completely counter to the GOP's idiocy.
    posted by barnacles at 8:27 PM on April 14, 2016


    Abortion and climate change have been criminally absent from the DEM debates.
    posted by futz at 8:30 PM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


    It just seems to me like women's rights are way down the list for Sanders. It's not that he doesn't have good views, it's just that he'll get to them when he gets to them, but I think Clinton will work on them right away.
    posted by zutalors! at 8:30 PM on April 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


    Maybe I've listened to too many Republican debates in a row, or maybe I just haven't been paying attention but I feel like Clinton's language was very verbose tonight. I enjoyed it.
    posted by DynamiteToast at 8:36 PM on April 14, 2016


    It's shameful we've had so many of these interminable things and not had one question about reproductive rights.

    Fox news asked about abortion previously

    yay, Fox?
    posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:37 PM on April 14, 2016


    I was surprised to hear that abortion hadn't been mentioned yet, but I assumed it was just because the response was a sure thing, and completely counter to the GOP's idiocy.

    That was my assumption as well. It's surprising to me that there is actually a meaningful (if not very large in practice) distinction between the two here, and that I actually agree with Sec. Clinton over Sen. Sanders on the issue.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:38 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




    It's hard to see these things in an unbiased way (at least, I often see reviews the next day that don't match my impressions at all). And in this year's Democratic debates there tend not to be clear winners and losers. But as a Berniebro, I'm not disappointed (overall) in his performance, and he seemed to have a lot of support from the crowd (which, sadly, can matter in these things). So, not a bad night as far as I'm concerned.
    posted by uosuaq at 8:43 PM on April 14, 2016


    I agree; I think he had the edge, and the support of the crowd. Still I think NY is a tossup, whereas he needs a blowout (approaching 60% probably) to have a hope of closing the gap.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:48 PM on April 14, 2016


    I think Clinton has a clear lead in NY at this point. We've only got a weekend basically before the vote and she's up in all the polls.
    posted by zutalors! at 8:49 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I was really thrilled to see him speak out about Palestinian human rights. Their answers on that question presented one of the clearest contrasts of the night.
    posted by dialetheia at 8:50 PM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Yeah, I'm going to Israel & Palestine in a couple weeks. It will be quite interesting to hear what people there are saying about the candidates.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:55 PM on April 14, 2016


    I'm not sure New York can be characterized as a tossup. I'd be surprised if Clinton wins by less than 10 points.
    posted by Justinian at 8:57 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Thanks, zutalors!, I appreciate your insight!
    posted by barnacles at 9:04 PM on April 14, 2016


    is that sarcastic?
    posted by zutalors! at 9:10 PM on April 14, 2016


    Who even knows anymore?
    posted by homunculus at 9:13 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Re: hrc bringing up abortion.

    People on twitter are rightly pointing out that she said this:

    Tweeted by Diana Arellano (Community Engagement Manager for Planned Parenthood Illinois)
    .@HillaryClinton further stigmatizes #abortion. She calls a fetus an 'unborn child' & calls for later term restrictions. #MeetThePress
    7:16 AM - 3 Apr 2016

    And that Clinton was answering a question about whether she would support President Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court when she made her the point about the absence of abortion questions. (Talking Points Memo)

    Mother Jones

    ...During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders' stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop. Clinton's answer was murkier. She began her response to moderator Bret Baier with a broad defense of a woman's right to an abortion, mentioning the current Supreme Court case involving Texas' anti-abortion regulations and the continued Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood. But Baier persisted on the matter of late-term abortions, asking, "Just to be clear, there's no—without any exceptions?"

    Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."....

    ...Clinton's comments on Monday were largely in line with statements she has made over the years supporting bans, with exceptions, on late-term abortions. Last month, PolitiFact reviewed Clinton's statements on late-term abortions over the years and concluded, "Clinton does not believe that all abortion should be legal. Instead, she's said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life and health are in danger." This would mean that despite being the nominee endorsed by the nation's leading pro-choice groups, she is more open to abortion regulation than Sanders.
    posted by futz at 9:14 PM on April 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Yeah, I don't think Bernie needs to "win" NY by any margin; if he were to tie, it would be enough to keep his momentum going. But so far the polls don't show that. I'll continue to hope against hope, but NY is likely to be the firewall the Clinton supporters have been wanting.
    posted by uosuaq at 9:15 PM on April 14, 2016


    if it's sarcastic, why call me out? I don't think NY is a "tossup," sorry. Even Jeff Weaver seems to be managing expectations against a loss.
    posted by zutalors! at 9:16 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I don't think it was sarcastic?
    posted by futz at 9:19 PM on April 14, 2016


    It Wouldn’t Be A Democratic Debate Without Men Criticizing Hillary Clinton’s Voice

    Meanwhile, The NY Post Endorses Trump mostly by saying that various things are wrong with him but that's OK because he'll "pivot" and a different Trump will be president.
    posted by mmoncur at 9:21 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Momentum is great but it doesn't get any votes at the convention.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 9:22 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Wow. I knew the NY Post was a rag, but that is disgusting.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 9:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    zutalors!: "is that sarcastic?"

    Ummm, no ... I asked a question in good faith and you answered it. Why take a "thank you" this direction?
    posted by barnacles at 9:37 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


    sorry, I misunderstood.
    posted by zutalors! at 9:43 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Yeah, I don't think Bernie needs to "win" NY by any margin; if he were to tie, it would be enough to keep his momentum going.

    To win he would need to win every remaining state with sweeping majorities.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:33 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    New Gallup Poll

    Clinton's Image Among Democrats at New Low

    From a long-range perspective, Sanders' image became more positive than Clinton's for the first time in January, and except for a period in the second half of February, has been above hers since. He reached his personal net favorable rating apogee (+63) in late March/early April, and although it's been down slightly since then, his is still the most positive rating for any candidate of either party at this point, by a large margin.

    posted by futz at 10:35 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop. Clinton's answer was murkier.

    I wish the larger media would stop taking a hands-off, free-pass attitude about this. It's kind of important, given the pro-Gilead options the Republicans are fronting.
    posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:18 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Clinton's Image Among Democrats at New Low

    If only that link worked so we could see that both Clinton and Sanders' net favorables among Democrats are worlds ahead of net favorables for Trump and Cruz among Republicans.
    posted by one_bean at 11:21 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


    So, on HRC's subreddit they are saying right after the debate Sanders is gonna take a 9 hr flight to Rome, and then I think he has an hour or so to get from Rome to the Vatican.

    Let's hope he can catch some sleep on the flight. Gotta admire these candidates for their endurance.
    posted by FJT at 11:33 PM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


    She said she supports the Fight for $15 people and also that she supports a $12/hr federal minimum. I think. She said a lot of contradictory things in quite a short period of time.

    That's not contradictory at all, as we've discussed in this thread several times. Fight for $15 is a campaign specific to New York, where wages and the cost of living are higher. $15 makes great sense there, not so much in say South Dakota or Arkansas where prices are also much lower.
    posted by msalt at 12:07 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Fight for $15 is a campaign specific to New York

    "The Fight for $15 started with just a few hundred fast food workers in New York City, striking for $15 an hour and union rights. Today, we’re an international movement in over 300 cities on six continents of fast-food workers, home health aides, child care teachers, airport workers, adjunct professors, retail employees – and underpaid workers everywhere."
    posted by dialetheia at 12:19 AM on April 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


    OK, I stand corrected. It has expanded since it started in New York City.

    In any case, Clinton has been clear about her stance that minimum wage should be raised, while she doesn't think the nation as a whole is ready for $15.
    Although she heaped praise on New York for passing the higher wage and called it a national model, she did not endorse the idea of a $15 wage across the board. Clinton supports raising the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, but says the $15 an hour rate should only apply in localities that choose it. She said the New York law will help put pressure on opponents of a higher national minimum wage.
    There are a lot of things to criticize Clinton for, but her wanting to raise the federal minimum wage 66% immediately instead of 107% is a pretty thin one. Especially when you factor in the likelihood of success of the different amounts.
    posted by msalt at 1:05 AM on April 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Bernie Sanders Suspends Staffer for Criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

    LOL @ "Criticized."

    Bury the lede much, Gawker? She cursed out the Prime Minister and called him a murderer in a Facebook rant.

    So to recap, Sanders just suspended someone that he hired a whole three days ago specifically because she holds vehement condemnatory views of Netanyahu, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and pretty much the entire right wing Israeli government. Views which lots of people on the far and mid-left agree with, whether they're Jewish or not. I guess "Fuck you Bibi" was a bridge too far?
    posted by zarq at 5:42 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Sanders just suspended someone that he hired a whole three days ago specifically because she holds vehement condemnatory views ...

    Assertion of facts not in evidence. You have not shown where Sanders hired her because of those views. Without some evidence, this is mind-reading.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:09 AM on April 15, 2016


    Sure, Kirth. I'm sure he hired one of the most intellligently outspoken critics of right wing Israel for her cooking skills. *eyeroll*

    Rereading my other comment, it came out snarkier than I intended. The first line of this one though... that's entirely intended.

    He's not getting the right wing Jewish vote. He never was. If they're voting Dem, they'll vote for Hillary, but it's much more likely they'll vote for a Republican that holds neo-con views with regard to Israel. So they're out. The media makes a lot of hay over the fact that Clinton is pummeling (the NY Times used that word this morning) him with Jewish voters. But the thing is, younger and more liberal Jews agree with his criticisms of Israel. Including ones like me, who believe in a two-state solution, think the Netanyahu and the right wing don't want peace (and as a result are destroying Israel), yet also believe Israel's existence as a Jewish state is necessary as a refuge for us.

    So Sanders hired someone who would appeal to us. No one could credibly accuse her of being an antisemite based on her background and views (she went to day school, has been extremely vocal in her support of Jewish causes, peace and Israel as a Jewish homeland.) The logic of it was obvious -- she'd say the things he couldn't say on the national stage. She could even say things he didn't agree with. (She reportedly supports a pro-BDS group. He's against that movement.) He could easily distance himself if pushed. A simple "Well, I have a more nuanced view of the situation" could allow her opinions to have more visibility and a louder voice and reach more people without embroiling his campaign in controversy.

    Why the hell didn't the campaign talk to her about scrubbing her most controversial posts? Or barring that have a plan in place to address them? Assuming he doesn't reinstate her, the campaign, and by extension many of us, have lost a huge opportunity.
    posted by zarq at 6:19 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Something that I would like to see, especially in people who think the $15 is too much everywhere, is a concomitant support and discussion for COL adjustments to benefits thresholds as well. I know there are incomes in cities that sound like a lot, but actually aren't a lot on the ground and it would be nice if the benefits system accounted for it. If we are going all COL in one direction, it seems only fair to apply it in both.
    posted by dame at 6:21 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Also, as much as I wish it weren't the case, I think Bernie is suffering in New York from the draconian registration laws. I pretty much only got in on time (switching from Green to Dem) because I was getting married and just moved back to the city.

    Okay, also two Bernie campaigners were in my building last night and they were very cute and I was happy to be like "my husband and I already voted for him absentee" and they seemed so pleased.
    posted by dame at 6:24 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I'm concerned about what a $15 minimum wage would mean for the cost of child-care, which is definitely the number one financial stressor for most of my friends. Where I live, the annual cost of daycare is higher than the annual cost of in-state public college tuition. In my county, a living wage for a single adult is about $10.50 an hour. A living wage for a single adult with a child is $22.50 an hour. Most of the difference is the cost of childcare. My friend had to leave the workforce for five years when she had twins, because her salary didn't cover the cost of childcare. (And that wasn't voluntary. She wanted to work but couldn't.) My friend who is a single parent can only swing it because her mom and aunt are providing childcare for way under minimum wage. If we double the minimum wage, the cost of childcare is going to be even higher, and I'd like to see some sort of concrete proposal to address this.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:40 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    The logic of it was obvious -...

    It isn't. It's your opinionated analysis of the candidate's decision-making, for which you offer no evidence.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:53 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'm a Jewish Democrat. That's my take on the situation. By all means feel free to suggest a different opinion.
    posted by zarq at 7:03 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."....

    Just a reminder, the "regulation" she's referring to here is what she described this way last year:
    Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that takes into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.
    posted by XMLicious at 7:09 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I think that Simone Zimmerman is awesome, and I also find the entire episode with her hiring and firing to be bizarre. She's sort of a weird hire for Jewish outreach director. Bernie is running mostly on domestic issues, and it's odd to hire someone for that position who is known for her (highly controversial, but in a good way) opinions on foreign policy. But it's also weird to apparently not anticipate that she would be controversial.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:09 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I would almost single-issue vote for the candidate who offered the best, most realistic plan for child care. I have too many single parents in my classes who grades just tank because their child care arrangement with their family falls apart.
    posted by angrycat at 7:10 AM on April 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


    I would probably just have a kid pretty soon if I knew reliable affordable daycare were possible.
    posted by zutalors! at 7:20 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    If we double the minimum wage, the cost of childcare is going to be even higher, and I'd like to see some sort of concrete proposal to address this.

    It's certainly a problem, but I think it's really just the most visible/direct variation on a larger problem in society. A lot of what we do and consume is built on the back of unsustainable labor compensation. When it comes to child care for the under-5 set we - the 'we' that is those of us actually using those services - see it more directly, since we use these single-purpose operations where we interact with basically every person on staff, and have a higher interest in their work quality and personalities than we do places like a fast food joint or the corner store.

    But really, it's not all that different than what's going to happen to any other business that is largely labor-focused. If we use over the counter labor with benefits to pick those tomatoes then the price of them is going to have to go up. It's just that those people are more hidden from us and the product less consistent. We can tell ourselves we'll skip a tomato here and there, or that we don't buy them all the time. My kiddo goes to preschool every day and it's not something I have an option to skip here and there to save a buck - they need to charge me for every week because they need to staff for the possibility he's there.

    This uncertainty is the inevitable result of letting the minimum wage stagnate for so long; if we'd been keeping it reasonable then presumably other wages would move along with it and presumably two-parent households would earn enough that they might need less outside child care. I'm not sure how we ever cope with the need for single parents to get care if they're going out and earning a salary at a job that's not higher compensated than child care.

    It wouldn't help parents with younger kids but we could help address it for school-age kids if we'd get real and have full-day schooling and ditch this summer vacation nonsense.
    posted by phearlez at 7:26 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    What does that mean? The kids never get any time off? Because if what you're suggesting is replacing [9 months school/3 months vacation] with [9 weeks school/3 weeks vacation], I'm not sure how that helps - you still have to find childcare coverage for those 3 weeks.
    posted by Chrysostom at 7:35 AM on April 15, 2016


    Well, so some people would have said that is why AFDC existed. So single parents with infants could be at home instead of working a job that covered childcare. Another option is to go French-style, with government supported creches of a uniform high quality. Formerly, when more women stayed home and there were more children, you might have availed yourself of a neighbor — my grandmother made pocket money watching other kids along with her own five. When I was small, I went to daycares that had financial aid. I hate to think that we can't find an option that doesn't set the ability of one group of women to work against the need for another group to make a living wage.

    We could also consider things like better entitlements and support overall. It is true this is a very obvious issue when you are considering / have young children, but it is of course a part of the whole unfortunate fabric of our current societal setup.
    posted by dame at 7:42 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I'm about to go vote for Clinton, but Heather Mizeur's endorsement of Sanders is one of the best things I've seen all cycle. It's thoughtful, nuanced, and optimistic, and I'm sad all over again that she isn't my governor right now.

    And as someone in a relationship with a strong Sanders supporter, I really love that she included her wife and talked about how they debated and ultimately disagree.
    posted by Akhu at 8:10 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    But really, it's not all that different than what's going to happen to any other business that is largely labor-focused.
    It's different because the lack of affordable child care is a fundamental economic justice issue, and it's one that disproportionately affects working and middle-class women. Women are the people who are forced out of the workforce because of the lack of affordable childcare, and that gap in their employment history affects their earnings for the rest of their lives. Custodial single parents, who are overwhelmingly women, are the people who are most burdened by lack of affordable childcare. It also, obviously, affects children. Low-quality childcare is bad for kids' cognitive development. Sometimes it's unsafe. Kids whose families are paying half of their income for childcare are kids who don't have a lot of other opportunities.

    (I checked: I would have to pay slightly more than a third of my take-home pay to keep a kid in the daycare affiliated with my workplace. That's significant. That's about the same as my rent.)
    I hate to think that we can't find an option that doesn't set the ability of one group of women to work against the need for another group to make a living wage.
    I hate to think that, too, but I think that's where we are now. Bernie has made it pretty clear what his priorities are: raising the minimum wage, free college, single-payer healthcare. He has specific plans for those things. He doesn't have plans for this one. I also think that affordable child care is part of a the idea of a living wage, because a living wage for parents has to cover the cost of providing for children. And parents aren't a special interest group.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:10 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I think school scheduling should resemble typical work scheduling. Longer days, fewer complete closures. I think these year-round schemes that don't really work out to more days in classrooms are kinda dopey and just trade one hassle for another, but really the bottom line is just that these extended periods with no coverage are a hassle for anyone with younger kids.

    If we weren't on a race to the bottom for school funding we could find ways to have M-F coverage 52 weeks a year. Doesn't always have to be classroom-style learning or led by certified teachers. Longer days and school years provides more time for unstructured activities and play and physical activity. Scheduling less structured time in the traditionally free afternoons can let parents choose to opt-out if they're privileged to be able to have those kids at home.

    Personally I have about 0 hope of this getting unfucked, as there's a hugely loud contingent whenever any changes are proposed that seem to be almost exclusively around but this is how it was when I was a kid and that was fine and we should never change anything. That's the rabid reaction to the mountain of evidence that very early high school start times are harmful to kid, and that's only talk around pushing start times out an hour. More significant time or duration changes? I don't see how it ever happens, no matter how much it's harming the lower compensated families out there.
    posted by phearlez at 8:13 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    > I would almost single-issue vote for the candidate who offered the best, most realistic plan for child care.

    Same here. I think the availability of paid parental leave and subsidized daycare are the main reasons Scandinavian countries have more gender equality in income than most other countries. We should try to emulate this.
    posted by nangar at 8:19 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I really don't think it is okay to argue that other, poorer women should suffer for middle class women's wages. I am kind of shocked to see you baldly arguing that ArbitraryAndCapricious. But I guess if I had to choose, I would choose helping the women who already have less. (And I personally would lose there, seeing as I am definitely on the better-remunerated side of the line.)

    I also thought this was an interesting thing to talk about that wasn't about the primaries, but I guess not. I don't think there is a quick solution because it is evidence of a structural problem and I clearly don't think the current Democratic establishment is capable of undertaking real structural reforms and reifying current growth in inequality.
    posted by dame at 8:24 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    I also think that affordable child care is part of a the idea of a living wage, because a living wage for parents has to cover the cost of providing for children.

    Sure, but child care workers are parents too. So there's just no way you solve this issue merely with salary floors unless you accept that you're not going to solve it for people whose jobs are at similar skill/scarcity levels to child care workers. Seriously addressing it almost has to involve some variations of basic income guarantees and a society that allows parents more time with their kids, perhaps by reducing working hours.

    I think we don't hear anything about it because there's nothing for it but solutions that are several hundred little bites off the problem that all have to happen. The only things we can do that would accomplish more than a few percentage points per action are pretty much non-starters in our current political landscape, like the basic income guarantee.

    I don't see how we avoid a really painful adjustment period as these wage floors come into effect. It's not new pain, it's just moving around the pain we've asked low wage workers to suffer constantly. That's not going to be much salve for the folks who receive it. The fact that it will be worse because we have kicked the can down the road for so long isn't going to help anyone either. I wish I thought we'd learn from it but I'm not real optimistic there either.
    posted by phearlez at 8:27 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Los Angeles Times editorial, today: Proof-of-citizenship registration requirement is blatant voter suppression.
    posted by Wordshore at 8:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Doesn't always have to be classroom-style learning or led by certified teachers. Longer days and school years provides more time for unstructured activities and play and physical activity. Scheduling less structured time in the traditionally free afternoons can let parents choose to opt-out if they're privileged to be able to have those kids at home.

    That's how my childhood was! It was great! School + enrichment daycare. I too wish we had the will to make that happen for everyone. Another excellent trick my mother used was private schools with solid scholarship programs. I think that is how she afforded daycare when we were super poor, since it was all wrapped up together. I wish it was available for everyone.
    posted by dame at 8:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    By all means feel free to suggest a different opinion.

    Thanks, but I'm not going to do any mind-reading on this one.
    posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:55 AM on April 15, 2016


    I really don't think it is okay to argue that other, poorer women should suffer for middle class women's wages. I am kind of shocked to see you baldly arguing that ArbitraryAndCapricious.
    I'm not surprised that you're shocked: we have pretty different perspectives on things. But I don't think that someone making $30,000 a year is some privileged person whose struggles don't matter. I don't think that person should be thrown under a bus because she's "middle-class" and not that important. If we're going to provide free college education for families who earn five times that much, then I think it's worth asking why we're not addressing childcare needs for middle-class working families who are currently paying more for childcare than the cost of college tuition.
    Another excellent trick my mother used was private schools with solid scholarship programs.
    ? That's a great solution for individuals who have access to it, but it's never going to be a solution to the overarching problem. (And it probably shouldn't be, because privatizing education has its own very serious problems.) Private schools aren't really a thing where I live, except for religious schools that aren't better than the local public schools and are also really religious.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:10 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I feel like no one wants to hear a long back and forth on this, but I do want to make sure I was clear because your response makes thing perhaps I was not.

    I think education and care from nursery to doctorate should all be free, and I am pretty sure most social democrats would agree. And (I'm sure you've heard this argument before), the reason you make it free for everyone is then everyone is invested in the system and not in clawing it back — the French creche example with uniform high quality, sliding scales, and subsidization even at the top is pretty much the gold standard of that, as are the cash payments the French state gives to parents.

    I don't think daycare is at all unimportant and I am intimately familiar with this issue: my mother didn't buy any clothes for years in order to keep me cared for and food on the table. I just wish we weren't fighting at the level of whether the woman making $30k or $18k was more hard done by but instead the best machine to use to extract the wealth that belongs to all of us from the rich so we can afford the support we all deserve.

    As for the private school thing, all places are different, but right now, that might be an approach that is good for someone reading this. If you don't have a lot of cash and are worried about school and care, if you live where there are a lot of non-religious private schools, don't think you can't afford to go: they probably have assistance for you and they pay the teachers more than $7/hr. If it doesn't apply, no harm. But private schools can be a tiny redistributive state! Use them!

    Anyways, it is true, all working people need better support. And that's the end of the back & forth on my part. :D
    posted by dame at 9:39 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I think school scheduling should resemble typical work scheduling. Longer days, fewer complete....

    Kids already spend too much time in classrooms. There is ample evidence that the continued expansion of the school schedule had actually harmed kids. Kids need more time to develop and more time to be at home with their family.

    How about instead we have more holidays for the parents and shorter work days.
    posted by humanfont at 9:57 AM on April 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


    There's little evidence that year round school is any better for kids than the current fall-to-summer schedule.

    What we SHOULD be doing is providing full funding to public schools and then focusing on a science-backed structure for school years and school days. More recess. Earlier starts for elementary school kids.

    As for child care, day care in places like Seattle is as expensive as sending your kid to a public university. I agree with Bernie that we should pay child care workers more, but really, we need to figure out how to make child care less expensive. A $3000 deduction off your income just isn't enough.

    We need a holistic view of preschool-to-college education in this country. While I think Hillary has a good understanding of K-12 and Bernie has a reasonable place for college, neither of them have a birth-to-25 strategy that is going to improve our education system as it stands. We need more than free tuition in college. Sadly, so long as you have people demonizing Common Core and insisting charters and vouchers are magical panaceas while Texas is writing textbooks that call slaves "workers"....
    posted by dw at 10:23 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Pope Francis has given the most powerful name to the predicament of modern society: the Globalization of Indifference. “Almost without being aware of it,” he noted, “we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.”

    Sanders Vatican speech ( full text )


    Also, Sanders annotates a Pope Francis speech
    posted by localhuman at 10:32 AM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Sadly, so long as you have people demonizing Common Core and insisting charters and vouchers are magical panaceas while Texas is writing textbooks that call slaves "workers"....

    I love how also the Mexican majority counties have the "Mexico is the largest source of immigration to the United States" and I'm thinking "until the 1840s that literally WAS MEXICO you ignorant dipshits".
    posted by Talez at 10:49 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    As for child care, day care in places like Seattle is as expensive as sending your kid to a public university.
    It's not just places like Seattle. A recent report found that infant childcare is more expensive than public college tuition in 33 states. Daycare or preschool for a 4-year-old is more expensive than college in 23 states. I truly can't wrap my head around why free college should be a higher priority than affordable childcare, especially since less-privileged college students are more likely to be non-traditional students, many of whom have kids and for whom the lack of affordable childcare is a big barrier to educational success. Inequality in access to quality childcare is also a contributor to inequality in later educational outcomes, which means that working-class kids are less likely to be in a position to take advantage of the opportunities that free college would provide. If you're really invested in social, economic, and gender equality, this seems to me like it should be a high-priority issue, not a back-burner issue for after we've solved the important stuff.
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:50 AM on April 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


    so long as you have people demonizing Common Core and insisting charters and vouchers are magical panaceas

    The thing is, there are people who are passionate public school advocates who are extremely critical of Common Core, too. I'd recommend Diane Ravitch's blog and Curmudgucation to anyone who is interested in reading more of that perspective. Ravitch is well-known for her change of opinion about Common Core, going from being a supporter to a strong critic. Edushyster is also worth reading. Common Core sounds like a good idea in theory, but the way it's been implemented is really problematic.
    posted by bardophile at 11:13 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'm a little disappointed that public school education has been such a back-burner issue in this campaign, given the dire straits that public schools are in.
    posted by bardophile at 11:22 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Akhu, thank you so much for sharing that endorsement link - it was so inspiring!

    I am sure I was not the only one to be rather distressed by the tenor of last night's debate. I certainly expect things to get a bit vigorous but I think it got a tad uglier than that. I respect both these candidates and will vote for the winner even if it is not my preferred choice. I do not want to see either one too bloodied or too damaged when that day comes, I am keeping my eyes on the prize, to borrow that phrase.

    The way that couple expressed their differences and also their unity was just great. I wish we could have more of that!
    posted by madamjujujive at 11:23 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Did Sanders release his taxes yet?
    posted by DynamiteToast at 12:12 PM on April 15, 2016


    Did Sanders release his taxes yet?

    I agree he should release them, but I'm not sure why I keep seeing this thrown out there to deflect from the Wall Street speeches. It's just silly at this point.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 12:18 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I truly can't wrap my head around why free college should be a higher priority than affordable childcare,

    20-somethings vote and campaign, children don't. Don't expect to see any movement on this from the Sanders campaign, other then something mumbled about class.
    posted by happyroach at 12:20 PM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


    if you think affordable childcare is for the child's benefit rather than the parents',
    posted by beerperson at 12:21 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Politico: “The Republican National Committee is expected to debate a proposal next week that would dramatically shift the balance of power at this summer’s convention — and impose a new rulebook for selecting the party’s nominee.”
    posted by Chrysostom at 12:35 PM on April 15, 2016


    Bill Clinton's humanizing story was he played a mean sax. Obama tells jokes that are decently funny, and he likes basketball. Even W had the 'you'd love to get a beer with this dude' thing. Ted Cruz has 'one time I bought some soup because my wife can't cook'. Look, he's an everyman!
    posted by T.D. Strange at 1:01 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Who would you rather have a bowl of soup with?
    posted by Trochanter at 1:04 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    my mental image of Ted Cruz eating soup is of him standing alone in his kitchen, in the dark, eating cold soup directly out of the can with a fork.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 1:06 PM on April 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


    Presidential candidate movie picks - "Ted Cruz: Princess Bride" :P
    posted by kliuless at 1:12 PM on April 15, 2016


    "Definitely not David Fincher's Zodiac" he hastily added, mopping his brow
    posted by theodolite at 1:14 PM on April 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


    I don't think it has to be completely dark, prize bull octorok. There can be a single dim lightbulb hanging from the ceiling swinging back and forth via some unearthly power.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 1:16 PM on April 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


    I agree he should release them, but I'm not sure why I keep seeing this thrown out there to deflect from the Wall Street speeches. It's just silly at this point.

    I'm just asking because he explicitly said at the debate last night he would release one year's taxes today. I think it'd be nice if he actually did it on time to add further wait to his demands for Clinton's speeches, by showing how forthcoming he is with personal records when she asks. I hadn't heard about it today but have been busy and thought I might've missed it.
    posted by DynamiteToast at 1:22 PM on April 15, 2016


    I doubt there's anything interesting in Sanders' taxes, none of the various micro-scandals that have been hypothesized are anything worth changing your vote over. It'd be kind of hilarious if the terrible shameful secret he's trying to hide is that if you add up all his assets, he's...gasp...a millionayuh!

    I really, really want to see Trump's tax returns. But we never will.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 1:28 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    my mental image of Ted Cruz eating soup is of him standing alone in his kitchen, in the dark, eating cold soup directly out of the can with a fork.

    That's a pretty unfair, he's not completely without manners. I'm sure he eats soup with his proboscis like every other civilized being.
    posted by indubitable at 1:30 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I think it'd be nice if he actually did it on time to add further wait to his demands for Clinton's speeches, by showing how forthcoming he is with personal records when she asks.

    It won't. Nobody is interested in his tax returns outside of using it as an issue to deflect attention from Hillary's Goldman speeches. After he releases his tax returns, it'll be something else.
    posted by indubitable at 1:36 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Self-Prepared: Bernie's 2014 taxes
    posted by localhuman at 1:39 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    That can't be real. The refund is $39 instead of $27.
    posted by XMLicious at 1:52 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    The 2014 Sanders tax returns have been out there quite a while. The question is why just the one year and where the rest are. Release of tax returns IS standard, while this is the first time transcripts of talks has been at issue. I'd add that Clinton has made it clear, repeatedly, that she WILL release the transcripts of her talks when all her opponents do, meaning she is looking to compare what she said to whatever the R nominee said.

    And, as long as we are on the subject of the nefarious talk transcripts, I'd add that the ongoing suggestions and claims that speaking to Wall Street folks for pay means Clinton is somehow beholden to them has never been verified or supported at all. And it seems nonsensical to me. Michelle Alexander charges $10,000 for each speaking engagement, and Sherman Alexie's and other writer's fees to speak are out of sight. Most celebrities charge for speaking. It is a way to make money. Sanders used to know this. It is a huge and unjustifiable leap to claim that means ownership of their souls by the organizations to whom paid speakers speak.
    posted by bearwife at 1:59 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Clinton has made it clear, repeatedly, that she WILL release the transcripts of her talks when all her opponents do, meaning she is looking to compare what she said to whatever the R nominee said.

    But I don't care about what the Republicans said to Wall Street. I'm not going to vote for a Republican in this election. I am voting for a Democrat and I'd like to know what she said (and I honestly didn't care until she kept delaying and refusing to release them - that looks worse than anything). From my perspective, it looks like she's trying to delay until after she has the nomination when it's too late for the people that would have a problem with anything in there to do anything about it.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 2:06 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    The whole transcripts thing is guilt-by-insinuation and I think there's a legitimate argument for not caving to demands for unprecedented levels of transparency for your business activities as a private citizen in ways that are going to disadvantage you against political opponents from other parties of whom no such demands will be made. Of course, in true Clinton form, she balks at the request for transcripts in a way that looks sketchy as hell. But the idea that there's something gravely compromising in those speeches is as much a fantasy as the indictment that's coming any day now.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 2:13 PM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Unprecedented levels of transparency for your activities as a private citizen is for little people!
    posted by XMLicious at 2:19 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Hell, you can argue that candidates should wear cameras on their heads 24/7, but if you're willing to allow them some maintenance of a private life while still running for president then the question isn't about degrees of transparency relative to, um, "little people," but to their fellow candidates, of both parties.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 2:28 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Unprecedented levels of transparency for your activities as a private citizen is for little people!

    Clinton is from a middle class background herself and she has spent practically her entire political life fighting for "little people" -- women, children, working people, LGBT people, people of color, etc.

    Sanders supporters dreams notwithstanding, Clinton will be the nominee. She is left of Obama and the primary fight has, if anything, cemented that. At this point these allegations that she is a corrupt elitist are not only unfounded, but damaging to the cause of throwing the Republicans out of power in November.
    posted by bearwife at 2:32 PM on April 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


    I appreciate politicians willing to hold themselves to high standards instead of looking at Republicans and going, "They do it too!" I know they do bad shit and hold themselves to low standards of behavior, that's why I don't like them.

    There is a political cost to profiting off of companies who ruined our economy. You can avoid it by profiting by speaking to someone else instead, I'm sure there was plenty of interest. I doubt there was anything on the level of Romney's 47% said in those speeches, but I'm pretty certain she said far more nice things about them then than I would like because a little bit of flattery seems like part of the job. She created this mess on her own.

    Regardless, this issue is pretty much done. She's essentially won the race without releasing them, she has no reason to do so now.
    posted by Drinky Die at 2:34 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Release of tax returns IS standard

    But not required. Trump is also refusing to release his, and no one can make him.

    The arguing over Clinton's Wall Street speeches feels so weird. It's like, after 20+ years of GOP fishing expeditions into the Clintons' documents, there's still stuff of theirs everyone just HAS to read. I wouldn't be surprised if they burn their trash in high temperature kilns and then put the ash into three mile deep injection wells at this point. Hell, if I were them I'd get the hell out of politics and drop off the grid.

    Bernie needs to release his taxes already. But honestly, I don't give a rip if he does or not. And I'm not sure any of us should.
    posted by dw at 2:40 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    My point was that no one is going to shut down government or corporate surveillance and hence, whoever the president is will be able to know whatever they might wish to about the activities of private citizens. Unprecedented levels of transparency is the default for average people, much less marginalized people.
    posted by XMLicious at 2:51 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]






    The speaking fees actually aren't exactly industry standard in politics, Clinton's efforts to make it look otherwise to the contrary. There's certainly a history of politicians cashing in with speaking fees after they aren't in government anymore, but we should all be alarmed about normalizing a practice where politicians who are still politically active (and widely expected to be the next President!) are taking millions from private companies into their own pockets. It's beyond campaign finance. If campaign contributions are a problem, surely direct payments from corporations into politicians' pockets are a problem. It's against Senate ethics rules for a reason. The scale of their income on speeches is also far beyond most politicians, former or active; they have made much of their fortune on these speaking engagements, making $153 million on speeches since Bill left the White House in 2000. Many of these are innocuous, certainly, but the scale of it is way beyond the norm.

    Here's one story about how the speaking fees at least have the appearance of influencing Clinton's policy: Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons:
    “A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

    Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”
    posted by dialetheia at 3:05 PM on April 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


    Advice like Ladies, stay away from alcohol so you don't get raped is the kind of thing that's gonna haunt Kasich when (if) people actually start paying attention to him.
    posted by TwoStride at 3:17 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    You know, dialetheia, I respect your support for Sanders, but the quoted information really proves nothing. That UBS contributed to the Clinton foundation and some of the worthy programs it runs, and paid Bill Clinton speaker fees, does not establish a payoff to Hillary. That Hillary as secretary of state was asked by the Swiss secretary of state to discuss how a US IRS demand was putting the biggest Swiss bank in a legal bind, and ultimately helped arrange a settlement, is not connected to UBS' ties to the Clinton foundation in any way at all, and mostly preceded them.

    I've grown increasingly tired of the insistence on demonizing Clinton via innuendo, and bemused by the willingness of people to continue to do this when she is close to a key face off against a Republican opposition that truly is in bed with monied interests.
    posted by bearwife at 3:17 PM on April 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


    The idea that quid pro quo is required to demonstrate influence is the foundational argument behind the Citizens United decision. Not only do I not agree, I think the way people are requiring quid pro quo be proven is destructive to campaign reform efforts. Ultimately, the fact that she made an unusual intervention to prevent the IRS from suing to expose tax fraud stands on its own - the money just highlights the conflicts of interest at play.
    posted by dialetheia at 3:21 PM on April 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


    . The scale of their income on speeches is also far beyond most politicians, former or active; they have made much of their fortune on these speaking engagements, making $153 million on speeches since Bill left the White House in 2000.

    That's not really an unusual sum. At the rates Bill Clinton could command even ten years ago, that's approximately one speech a month since 2000. Add Hillary Clinton into that mix and really, they are making the amount of money for speeches that is bog-standard, per speech, for anyone similarly high profile. Hell, just after An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's rates jumped from (IIRC) ~$100K for a speech to north of $300K.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:23 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    But Gore wasn't still active in electoral politics. That's the difference. It's one thing to do that sort of thing when you're done with politics; it's another thing entirely to do it when you still have an active role in government.
    posted by dialetheia at 3:25 PM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


    The idea that quid pro quo is required to demonstrate influence is the foundational argument behind the Citizens United decision.

    What? The foundational argument of Citizens United is that corporations have personhood and a first amendment right to be heard via their spending.

    The idea that there should actually be some proof of corruption to back up repeated insistence that a person is corrupt is the foundation of the idea that we have some evidence when we make damning, stigmatizing accusations.
    posted by bearwife at 3:28 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    What? The foundational argument of Citizens United is that corporations have personhood and a first amendment right to be heard via their spending.

    That's the part of it that establishes campaign donations as speech. The part that makes campaign finance restrictions an unfair limit on speech is the idea that unless quid pro quo can be proven, no corruption can be assumed - it was the bedrock of Kennedy's reasoning and the final decision. The biggest problem with this idea is that it's going to hamstring us in the general, too - if we can't even accuse Republicans taking e.g. Koch money of selling out their constituents without hard evidence of quid pro quo, it weakens some of our best arguments against them.
    posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on April 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


    if we can't even accuse Republicans taking e.g. Koch money of selling out their constituents without hard evidence of quid pro quo, it weakens some of our best arguments against them.

    Those aren't our best arguments against them.

    "Your stated policies will do horrific damage to our environment, economy, civil rights, and national security" is our best argument against every joker running on the GOP side right now.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:39 PM on April 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


    And a consistent voting record that favors the same monied interests that fund their campaigns, which almost every R has (except Trump, who has a consistent and very attackable record of terrible business decisions and fraud/misrepresentation) is fine evidence of quid pro quo. But Clinton has no such record.
    posted by bearwife at 3:43 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    environment, economy, civil rights, and national security

    You have to follow the money. The GOP isn't anti-environment because they are truly motivated by religion (at least, not anymore). Et al.
    posted by kyp at 3:44 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    I'm not always clear on what motivates Republicans, but I've met enough of them to know that many of them are very sincere in their belief in things I completely and utterly disagree with, even when it provides them no material benefits whatsoever.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 3:46 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I don't doubt that, but I think there are stark differences between what the base thinks and what the GOP establishment thinks, and what motivates them.
    posted by kyp at 3:50 PM on April 15, 2016


    I didn't mean all Republicans everywhere, prize bull octorok, though I certainly wasn't clear in my phrasing. I agree many Rs are sincere if very wrongheaded. Just saying that it's not tough to find quid pro quo voting on that side of the aisle.
    posted by bearwife at 3:56 PM on April 15, 2016


    The GOP leadership and the base are detaching from one another. That, after all, is the lesson of Trump and the consequences of the GOP's embracing of Tea Party politics.

    The only things keeping the GOP in the game right now are gerrymandering, control of state houses, and the white-hot heat that the House Freedom Caucus generates on the ground level. Koch money is not helping -- they can't directly control it, after all.

    In a post-Citizens United world, the Democrats are playing by the same dirty rules. Is it awful? Of course. But it's awful on both sides, because it's a prisoner's dilemma.
    posted by dw at 4:02 PM on April 15, 2016


    (bearwife, I was replying to kyp)
    posted by prize bull octorok at 4:04 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




    The idea that quid pro quo is required to demonstrate influence is the foundational argument behind the Citizens United decision. Not only do I not agree, I think the way people are requiring quid pro quo be proven is destructive to campaign reform efforts.

    I *think* what you are saying is that even if there really is no quo for the quid, there is still an issue with high value 'donors' funding campaigns, and there is still a need for campaign finance reform.

    I'm pretty sure I agree with that.

    But that is a completely different issue from evaluating to what extent a specific politician is for sale. And in this case, there seems to be plenty of evidence that Clinton is not for sale. I found Abramson's article on this very compelling. And if people have reasons to doubt her expertise/knowledge/credibility, I'd like to hear it. And to the extent there really appears to be no quo, I can't bring myself to be that concerned with the quid (and the fact that we live in a world where women's financial ambitions are continually frowned upon, part of me cheers her on too, for commanding these fees).

    In terms of politicians being for sale, corporate money is one suspect, but to what extent do we consider the effects of being beholden to particular constituency for continued power? Power is a form of currency as well. And to the extent that Sanders' position on gun manufacturer liability and gun control represent a form of compromise with his constituency to maintain his elected position, I think it's fair to consider that in the calculus of the extent to which we can trust an individual to be guided by their own moral compass, especially for a gig with potentially multiple terms.

    (IACSAWGAOFTN disclaimer - I am a Clinton supporter and will go all out for the nominee).
    posted by Salamandrous at 4:07 PM on April 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


    The entire last century of progress in restricting corruption has been that the appearance of corruption is sufficient to constitute an ethical violation, even absent demonstration of quid pro quo.

    If a parent gives their student's teacher $100,000, you don't have to show that the teacher adjusted the student's grade to conclude that accepting this money was an ethics violation. If a subject in a case before a judge gives that judge $100,000, you don't have to prove that the judge changed their judgment to determine an ethics violation. Similarly for a government regulator accepting $100,000 from a regulatee, or a policeman accepting $100,000 from a legitimate businessman under his jurisdiction, etc, etc, for almost every industry now in existence. Politicians -- ie, elected government officials -- are one of the only categories where these sorts of rules that we otherwise almost universally agree upon are loosened, in part because they write their own rules. But that doesn't mean that the ethical logic doesn't hold, especially when it comes to money directly in their personal pockets. Up until a few short months ago, the entire Democratic party was unanimous that accepting millions of Koch money told us something about the acceptee, no proof of quid-pro-quo necessary. Up until a few months ago, the entire Democratic party agreed with the four liberal Justices that Citizens United was misguided precisely because it upended a century of ethics in favor of requiring proof of quid-pro-quo. A few short months ago, the entire Democratic party was consistent in their beliefs about politics and about business -- where almost every single one of us works in an industry where accepting large amounts of money from underlings or others under our power is sufficient to get us fired, absent any need to prove quid pro quo. The entire basis of corruption ethics has been the "appearance" threshold, heretofore agreed upon by nearly everyone outside of politics, and by at least half the country in the domain of politics -- up until now.
    posted by chortly at 4:43 PM on April 15, 2016 [23 favorites]




    The GOP isn't anti-environment because they are truly motivated by religion (at least, not anymore).

    Guys. The GOP is not anti-environment at all, they are anti-regulation and anti-hippie. The lack of seeing that is partially what causes these environmental efforts to fail. If you wanted to get some bearded, macho hunters, historically in tune with conservation, onboard on a lot of environmental stuff, there would be a lot more success.
    posted by corb at 4:54 PM on April 15, 2016


    Insufficiently protecting the environment is anti-environment.
    posted by Etrigan at 5:00 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Anti-regulation == anti-environment, as only regulation can protect the environment. Even "macho hunter" Teddy Roosevelt understood that.
    posted by tonycpsu at 5:02 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    If you want to go by that standard, I think the Democratic Party has some hard questions to answer too.
    posted by corb at 5:02 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    In seriousness, though, no, it is not fair to claim that someone is opposed to something simply because you don't find their way of doing it tactically sound enough.
    posted by corb at 5:04 PM on April 15, 2016


    It might be fair to claim someone is opposed to something if they say they oppose it and go on record saying they don't think the problem it addresses even exists.
    posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:06 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    What would their way of doing it be, precisely? I'm dead serious.
    posted by tonycpsu at 5:07 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    True, nobody in the GOP is "anti-environment" in the way, say, a Captain Planet villain of the week would be. But macho hunting preserves aside, they'll prioritize anti-regulation over environmental protections pretty much any chance they get, and that's bad enough for me.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 5:08 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    To a point, I agree with you. In my rural state, the Game and Fish Commission does a lot of conservation-minded heavy lifting in the service of the hunters and fisherfolks that make up a lot of their constituency. But conservation and environmentalism are not the same thing--things like climate change and clean energy are not really a part of the former, and, while I think that conservatives can be sold on conservation (hey), I don't know if they can be sold on environmentalism.
    posted by box at 5:09 PM on April 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Republicans who run Michigan were responsible for lead poisoning of residents of Flint. When their lies were found out, after it was discovered they knew that their fellow citizens were being poisoned for a year, instead of manning up and taking responsibility, they pointed their dirty fingers at the EPA.

    Beware if anyone who tells you that the GOP is against polluting the environment. If poisoning people makes them a lousy buck, Republicans have demonstrated that they will fall all over each other to make it happen.
    posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:12 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    True, nobody in the GOP is "anti-environment" in the way, say, a Captain Planet villain of the week would be.

    I dunno, all that "Drill Baby Drill" stuff has a Captain Planet vibe to it to me.
    -
    The GOP stance on climate change is largely denialism, either denial that the problem exists or that anything can be done about it. I think on a lot of issues they can be said to have an alternative policy, but in this case I think they just got nothing.
    posted by Drinky Die at 5:16 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    The entire last century of progress in restricting corruption has been that the appearance of corruption is sufficient to constitute an ethical violation

    I'm not at all sure this is so. Ethics violations like teachers accepting payments from parents, or crimes like judges accepting bribes from anyone are examples of people who disobey their workplace's ethics requirements or flat break the law. And before people get disciplined, fired, or prosecuted for behavior like this, there are little things we expect like proof.

    No one has shown that the speaking fees violated an ethics code, much less a criminal law.

    And as for the problem of politicians who accept big campaign donations and then toe the voting line for their donors, as we've discussed there is indeed an obvious implied quid pro quo.

    Personally I think we need a whole lot of good government reform -- independent commissions to draw voting districts fairly, voting reform like weekend voting to make voting easy and convenient, repeal of bad Supreme Court case law that protects big money in politics, serious campaign funding reform including full mandated disclosure of all donors, and more. Condemning lawful fee charges (for anything? Singing? Book royalties? or just speaking?) by people not in public office who don't seem to have moved on their politics at all after the fees are received isn't on my list.
    posted by bearwife at 5:17 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]




    My only real issue with speaking fees is the potential for a conflict of interest on some level, along with an overall desire for more transparency as far as money and public office are concerned. Some of that is less about a condemnation that it is about looking towards an ideal, which for me would be more of a clear separation between the worlds of business and politics. As it is, the business and political spheres are way too close for my comfort. Saying "once you've been paid by a large corporation you're forever tainted" would be cartoonish, but a candidate's corporate ties - with an understanding that those ties may be totally insignificant - remain something I want to pay attention to.
    posted by teponaztli at 5:30 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Literally nobody thinks campaigns should be so expensive, save perhaps the few who can afford them and might regard the exclusivity advantageous.

    And literally nobody's time should be worth $200,000/hr, so you'll forgive me for taking offense when that kind of a rate is shrugged off because it's what the market will bear.

    The market will not bear it. Enough is enough.
    posted by an animate objects at 5:33 PM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    No one has shown that the speaking fees violated an ethics code, much less a criminal law.

    No one has said the fees violated a criminal law, because they didn't. But many have said they violated various ethics codes, because most ethics codes for conflict of interest have the "appearance" threshold. "There are little things we expect like proof" is the threshold for criminal prosecution, where the burden of proof is on the prover. But actually, for conflict of interest, the burden is on the "defendant," once the cash transfer has been proved. So yes, you can very much be fired from your job as teacher, regulator, judge, or journalist for accepting cash, without any need for your boss to prove quid pro quo. That in fact is the standard ethics code at many if not most businesses. As it happens, since that code is so well established, what few cash transfers that do happen tend to be under the table, so it often appears that the ethical violation is the deception. But the reason they are under the table is that, even absent the proof of quid pro quo, accepting the money would still be a firing offense. Except in politics.
    posted by chortly at 5:50 PM on April 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


    And literally nobody's time should be worth $200,000/hr, so you'll forgive me for taking offense when that kind of a rate is shrugged off because it's what the market will bear.

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'shrugged off'? Lots of people earn salaries that I think are ludicrous, but I don't go around all the time talking about them. Even within what I do talk about, I have my priorities. Don't we all? I think it's a much bigger deal, for example, that coaches of unpaid college athletes make enormous salaries, than the fact that pro athletes make enormous salaries.

    In this case, I'm shrugging it off because it's not nearly as high a priority for me that that the... dozens? max hundreds maybe? of individuals in the country who can command that fee get it, than that millions of Americans can't afford basic needs of living. Also, I don't need my primary vote to serve an expression of my feelings about speaker fees. I think that would be a kind of weirdly misdirected way to give expression to those feelings.

    I see a lot of the stuff hurled at Clinton as innuendo and speculation, 'where there's smoke there must be fire (pay no attention to the 30 year old republican bonfire)' etc. I don't see the judge/party, teacher/student, journalist/source, regulator/regulatee analogies as particularly apt. If anything, a teacher benefitting from funds -directly and indirectly - that a school has raised by the volunteer work and/or money of specific known parents might be a closer analogy. That happens all the time and speaking of missing outrage, I'm not seeing a ton of outrage directed towards parent-organized school fundraising. And yeah, I think it can sometimes be a problem that the kid of an actively involved and effective booster parent may get more support and be able to get away with things. Depending on the situation it may be a huge problem or a regrettable but ultimately beneficial-to-more-students compromise. But still there should be something wrong actually happening first before we start bashing principals whose schools accept money/goods fundraised by parents.

    But I'm also not really getting the need for analogies. There's been a ton of time to gather information about the relationship between Clinton's earnings and her political positions, the data is out there, and not only has no one been able to make any specific links, there is about as good evidence for lack of that kind of corruption as 'evidence for absence' gets. (At least, I haven't seen anything compelling as a specific, evidence-based rebuttal to Aronson's article yet). In some alternate universe where all other variables were held constant but campaigns have been publicly funded for decades, would Clinton's present day positions be meaningfully different? Who the heck knows? How much can I really care? I don't see evidence of corruption and I support her positions in this universe, at this time.
    posted by Salamandrous at 6:05 PM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


    If the best we can say is that she didn't break any laws or written ethical standards, that's pretty weak. It's not just about quid pro quo, it's about whether people trust her to regulate the corporations that lined her personal coffers. She could certainly do a lot to dispel the idea that her Wall Street donations and speaking fees didn't affect her views by ... releasing the transcripts of the private paid speeches that she gave them. Why not just release the transcripts if she doesn't say anything problematic? And should we be worried that these transcripts could be leaked later in the general?
    posted by dialetheia at 6:16 PM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Charles Pierce: We Saw Bernie Sanders' Greatest Weakness Last Night. At least, that's what the Clinton camp is hoping you'll believe this morning.

    I *love* Charlie Pierce, but this: It is at the very least arguable to include Netanyahu in any group that is "trying to create the conditions for peace. ...is fucking ludicrous. Netanyahu isn't creating conditions for peace. There's a mountain of evidence (including in Wikileaks) that he and his administration aren't interested in negotiating with the Palestinians, and are engaged in a land grab in the West Bank. Nothing he's done for the last few years has been to "create conditions for peace." We would have to contort ourselves into incredibly complex knots trying to make that statement even barely seem true.
    posted by zarq at 6:16 PM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


    But I'm also not really getting the need for analogies.

    For less indirect analogy, the other industry with this sort of ethical code is of course Congress itself. Thanks to the amendments to the Gift Rule made in '07 when the Democrats took control of the House, you're not allowed to accept personal gifts even as small as $50 from anyone, and not supposed to accept anything at all from lobbyists or an "entity that retains or employs such individuals." That is, you can be ejected from Congress not just on the appearance (not proof) of conflict of interest, but the threshold for that appearance was lowered to $50 by the Democrats themselves in order to strengthen the barriers between money and policy. They haven't yet passed any laws preventing such donations prior to holding office, but they have passed multiple "revolving door" restrictions on what you can do after holding office. These restrictions have generally been considered weak and ineffectual, especially by Democrats. But that's not because there's huge amounts of proof of quid pro quo. Rather, the criterion once you hold office is that merely accepting cash or gifts creates the appearance of conflict. And again, heretofore, the Democrat position was that accepting millions from Koch, banks, etc. immediately prior to taking office was similarly an ethical violation, regardless of who did it, and regardless of proof of quid pro quo.
    posted by chortly at 6:18 PM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


    And literally nobody's time should be worth $200,000/hr,

    Wait, you don't literally think that somehow Clinton magically appears at a location with speech in hand and is just able to deliver without any issues?

    She probably has an agent that negotiates with the organization, an assistant that does accommodations and travel, a speechwriter or two that writes it up. She probably stays overnight because she doesn't want to be giving a speech red-eyed and jet lagged. It's probably more like $200k for maybe 200 hours of work split among a team, which is $1000 an hour. And yeah, that's not exactly low either, but at least that makes more sense than 200k/hr.
    posted by FJT at 6:24 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    If the best we can say is that she didn't break any laws or written ethical standards, that's pretty weak. It's not just about quid pro quo, it's about whether people trust her to regulate the corporations that lined her personal coffers. She could certainly do a lot to dispel the idea that her Wall Street donations and speaking fees didn't affect her views by ... releasing the transcripts of the private paid speeches that she gave them. Why not just release the transcripts if she doesn't say anything problematic? And should we be worried that these transcripts could be leaked later in the general?

    This seems like... nearly textbook speculation and innuendo.

    If the best we can say about her is that after 30 years or so of intense scrutiny by people with a lot of time, money, and motivation, is that no wrongdoing or meaningful link between financial incoming and political outgoing can be found, that sounds pretty great to me. If the worst we can say about her, after almost 30 years or so of intense scrutiny by people with a lot of time, money, and motivation, is that she has not released some speech transcripts, I think that's actually also pretty great.

    I mean, everybody can worry about whatever they want to worry about, and as a champion worrier myself, over many things, I should be the last person to gainsay another person's worrying.

    But if it's about people trusting her and people worrying about the transcripts, I am a people who trusts her and isn't worrying about the transcripts, and is also done worrying about the never-ending parade of alleged Clinton smoking-guns that never amount to anything. Yes, at some point, maybe Peter will actually have seen the wolf and I'll miss it. At this point, I'm prepared to stash that worry for later.
    posted by Salamandrous at 6:39 PM on April 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


    The four liberals on the Citizens United decision said in effect that the money is the gun, not the smoke. Their criterion was not "if I trust you, it's ok for you to take thousands of dollars." Their criterion -- the one shared almost universally by Democrats a few months ago, and shared by all active members of Congress, all lawyers, all journalists, all teachers, all judges, etc -- was that taking money in itself is an ethical violation, no matter how much you may trust the Representative, lawyer, journalist, teacher or judge. I certainly don't expect to change anyone's ethics, I'm just pointing out that for a large percentage of Democrats, shifting from rules to trust and from appearance to proof are huge changes, contrary to decades of policy on the left and across the spectrum.
    posted by chortly at 6:59 PM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Any time someone takes money from someone they are influenced. Whether they're consciously aware of it or not. It's still going to change the calculation on what you decide to do in the end even if in the end you do the "right" thing. That goes for everyone. Hillary may genuinely believe that none of the money she's received has influenced her. But we delude ourselves about a lot of things all the time. I, myself, don't buy it.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 7:01 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    And literally nobody's time should be worth $200,000/hr, so you'll forgive me for taking offense when that kind of a rate is shrugged off because it's what the market will bear.

    And no baseball player should be worth $325 million over 13 years, but that is what the market will bear, and given what the Marlins are worth and their annual revenue, it might actually be fair.

    If someone is willing to pay the Clintons $200K/hour to show up and give a speech, then why the hell not. Question potential quid pro quos, but as Ice-T noted, "Don't hate the playa/Hate the game."
    posted by dw at 7:11 PM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


    She probably has an agent that negotiates with the organization, an assistant that does accommodations and travel, a speechwriter or two that writes it up. She probably stays overnight because she doesn't want to be giving a speech red-eyed and jet lagged. It's probably more like $200k for maybe 200 hours of work split among a team, which is $1000 an hour. And yeah, that's not exactly low either, but at least that makes more sense than 200k/hr.

    Agent takes a cut of the whole fee. Assistant probably yes. Accommodation is on top of the fee, usually, and generally booked by the host. Ditto air. And I'd be surprised if most major speakers didn't just dust off the same speech a lot of the time, with a find/replace on some names.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:35 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Remember Romney getting raked over the coals for being in the pocket of BIG $$$? Remember the NYT using that as one reason they wouldn't endorse him? My, how things have changed.
    posted by futz at 7:40 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Remember Romney getting raked over the coals for being in the pocket of BIG $$$? Remember the NYT using that as one reason they wouldn't endorse him? My, how things have changed.

    Romney bought companies and ran them into bankruptcy in order to turn a quick profit for himself and his investors. People weren't 'raking him over the coals' for taking speaking engagements.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 7:51 PM on April 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


    And, Chortly, you keep saying taking money alone is horrid. Yes, if there is an ethics code, and there is proof a person did that. (Even in Congress there are due process requirements to ding people for ethics violations. It is also actually unlawful to fire people like teachers without notice, proof and a chance to be heard.). Or if quid pro quo is easy to infer, the problem is clear. None of this is comparable to getting paid for doing work, like speaking, where no ethics code of any kind is offended.

    Bottom line, no one has shown Clinton violated an ethics code or that there is a hint of a shift in her positions. She has her flaws but it is utter BS to tag her as corrupt. Particularly since she is about to face an R in the general who will be genuine bad news.
    posted by bearwife at 8:00 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    People weren't 'raking him over the coals' for taking speaking engagements.

    I see it like the 47% thing. He spoke very differently behind (assumed) closed doors than he did in the public campaign. Clinton might too. She also might not. At this rate we'll never know. There is one way to clear it up though...

    (As I said before, I thought nothing of this until she decided to hide them. It was improper, of course, but the rich operate under different rules. But she did hide them and then kept hiding them and then they became interesting. Why?)
    posted by downtohisturtles at 8:05 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Has Bernie released transcripts of every speech he's ever given? If not, how do we know that he doesn't speak differently behind closed doors than he does in public?
    posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:08 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]




    You're right, arbitraryandcapricious. Anything he has he should put out there. I support full transparency for both of them for everything they could possibly have. You don't get to have a private life if you want to be president. If you have the power to spy on every single American you better be transparent and forthcoming with whatever information is asked of you.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 8:13 PM on April 15, 2016


    And there is a difference between "hiding" and declining to release until the Rs lay down their undoubtedly awful transcripts. I am sure we'll all get to read the anodyne things Clinton said, not long from now, and what will stun you will be the dreadfulness of her opposition.
    posted by bearwife at 8:13 PM on April 15, 2016


    The Vatican thing is weird. Not bad, just a strange choice that I don't understand. What is the purpose of this visit?
    posted by Justinian at 8:20 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    What's the practical difference between "hiding" and "declining to release"?

    As I said when the transcripts issue came up the first time, if there's anything embarrassing in the speeches it will come out eventually, better to put them out now and dismiss them as old news in the fall.

    And if there's absolutely nothing -- if they're just completely unobjectionable fluff -- then this whole thing has just been an exercise in secrecy for secrecy's sake. We've had quite enough of that from the government, thanks.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:22 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Romney bought companies and ran them into bankruptcy in order to turn a quick profit for himself and his investors. People weren't 'raking him over the coals' for taking speaking engagements.

    Come on, sure they were: "Mitt Romney Downplays $374,000 In Speaking Fees As ‘Not Very Much’"
    posted by cobra_high_tigers at 8:25 PM on April 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Has Bernie released transcripts of every speech he's ever given? If not, how do we know that he doesn't speak differently behind closed doors than he does in public?

    Hillary Clinton hasn't been asked to release every speech she has ever given. Just those she was paid exorbitantly for by known bad actors in the banking and finance sector.

    And there is a difference between "hiding" and declining to release until the Rs lay down their undoubtedly awful transcripts.

    Not really, no. We never did find out all the details on Mitt Romney's finances. Here's some speculation: Clinton wins the Dem nomination, and neither she nor the GOP candidate release any transcripts of their paid speeches, and the public stays in the dark about the speeches and the money.
    posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:27 PM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


    The Vatican thing is weird. Not bad, just a strange choice that I don't understand. What is the purpose of this visit?

    Some sort of "see, it's ok that I'm Jewish" thing? Which would be a weird reason, considering that I've seen a surprising lack of anti-Semitism directed at Sanders in this campaign (at least, compared to what I kinda expected).
    posted by showbiz_liz at 8:28 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Pope Francis is the really popular leader of a religion that has a lot of adherents, and shares a lot of the same concerns as Sen. Sanders does. I guess it's not normal, in the sense that I don't think that a candidate has ever taken a trip to the Vatican in the middle of the election season -- but I don't think it's particularly weird in the sense of being unsettling or untoward.

    We don't bat an eye when Republican candidates go to conferences hosted by conservative Protestant leaders (except when they're grossly anti-gay or whatever), why can't candidates visit (relatively) progressive religious leaders?
    posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Come on, sure they were: "Mitt Romney Downplays $374,000 In Speaking Fees As ‘Not Very Much’"

    Well, yeah, if you already have yourself a reputation as a silver-spoon Daddy's boy and then you try to say $375K is not a lot of money then there's gonna be backlash.

    That's pretty different than "release your transcripts, you dirty Wall Street shill."
    posted by schroedinger at 8:32 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    It is weird how being potentially the first Jewish president hasn't been talked about much. Maybe because Bernie downplays it and seems more of a secular Jew than practicing (like most Jewish people I know personally, but of course that's my limited experience). Maybe no one expected him to get this far. But the concept isn't nothing. 43 in a row have been Christian. 42 of them have been Protestant.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 8:33 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Bernie feels connected to this Pope. Their messaging is strikingly similar. He wanted to go and felt that he couldn't pass up the opportunity even though the opportunity was ill timed for him. I personally don't believe that he did it for the optics although others will certainly disagree with me. Bernie has been "preaching" his own message for decades and it just so happens to align with this Pope. I think it was a dangerous decision to make so close to the NY primary but others will likely see it as calculated.
    posted by futz at 8:33 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    It is weird how being potentially the first Jewish president hasn't been talked about much. Maybe because Bernie downplays it and seems more of a secular Jew than practicing (like most Jewish people I know personally, but of course that's my limited experience). Maybe no one expected him to get this far. But the concept isn't nothing. 43 in a row have been Christian. 42 of them have been Protestant.

    Yeah - I remember in 08 people were losing their minds when it got down to Obama and Clinton, because HOLY SHIT we're gonna have the first female or the first black major-party presidential candidate! And this time, it'll be the first female or first Jewish candidate, either way a huge milestone, and people really don't seem to care all that much in comparison. (I mean, the fact that Clinton is a woman gets talked about plenty, but not so much in a "she'd be the first one" way.)
    posted by showbiz_liz at 8:39 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Pope Francis is the really popular leader of a religion that has a lot of adherents, and shares a lot of the same concerns as Sen. Sanders does.

    A lot of adherents in states like New York and Pennsylvania that have elections coming up. Not a bad way to try to appeal to them. Can't hurt.
    posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 PM on April 15, 2016


    From what I understand, Bernie was invited to speak at a conference on economic and social issues, *not by the Pope* but by some Vatican official. That by itself is not very surprising given how much the current Pope sounds like Bernie on economic issues (as futz says above). I'd like to think the Vatican gave some consideration as to whether, during an election campaign, this might appear like a sort of endorsement, but I don't know how they think. But, if you're Bernie, and you get that invitation? I'd sure go, if I could fit it into my schedule in any way whatsoever.
    posted by uosuaq at 8:42 PM on April 15, 2016


    The practical difference is timing this to point out how in the pocket Rs are compared to how bland Clinton is, versus giving Bernie and his devotees license to impart innuendo to every word. Not only would turning them over now immediately be the basis for yet another unfounded round of unfounded accusations, but it would take the Rs off the hook from ever disclosing what they've said.

    Also, speaking as a Jewish person, I fail to see much of anything about Sanders that marks him as someone who is of my tribe. It just seems to be an incidental thing for him, nothing central or important. More significant is that he seems like a candidate with no real religious affiliation except his crush on Francis.
    posted by bearwife at 8:45 PM on April 15, 2016


    Yeah, that's a big deal though. Could anyone imagine someone who wasn't proclaiming themselves to be Christian (despite their internal beliefs, practices, etc.) to even be running as a major candidate in 2008? They'd be laughed off the stage. Obama went to a Christian church and was still knocked for not being the right sort of Christian. For all the problems I have with Obama's term, I think "electing the black guy" has made every other milestone seem less interesting to the public. For good or for bad.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 8:53 PM on April 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


    yay for blandly insipid speeches to economy-wrecking plutocrats!

    You're probably right re: the Clinton campaign's calculus on this. I still think it's a weaksauce strategy but I accept that's probably their thought process.

    I'll take bitter solace in that I live in a deep blue state where I can vote my conscience.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 PM on April 15, 2016


    I still do not understand how progressives can be passionate about Hilary. I will support her when she wins the nomination but it will be begrudgingly because she is a hawkish big-business DLC Democrat.

    The Bernie bros are out of control (as young white guys always are), but Hillary's center-right positions are nothing new. It's a fine way to have a great political career (Bill is a perfect example), but I see nothing in her that would bring about passionate support from progressives.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 9:33 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I agree [Bernie] should release [his tax returns], but I'm not sure why I keep seeing this thrown out there to deflect from the Wall Street speeches. It's just silly at this point.

    Releasing tax returns has been the norm since at least 1980. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, probably the two richest candidates in all of that time (Perot?), are the only two contenders I can remember refusing to do so. Frankly, I'm sad Trump hasn't gotten more flak for this; hopefully the Democratic nominee will pick up the slack.

    Imagine if Cruz demanded their release, and Trump's response was:
    "Oh yeah? You haven't released the transcript of 3 speeches you made a few years ago."

    That's would be a bizarre non-sequitur. And that's exactly what Bernie and his defenders are saying. Hiding his personal financial situation is 1,000 times more shifty.
    posted by msalt at 9:45 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    As to why Hillary is not releasing the transcripts, as damaging as it is with a certain segment of voters, it's a pretty weak and hard to explain issue to the less partisan public.

    My personal theory is that one of the undervalued tactics that the Clintons have stumbled onto is keeping your enemies tied up discussing minor issues that tantalize but don't lead any where. Declaring "you can't see this thing" is an obvious red flag sure to draw the time and energy of any rabid politico. But that red flag may actually be a bullfighter's cape.
    posted by msalt at 9:50 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    If the speech content is a minor issue for distraction, what issues do you think she doesn't want to address? I mean that debate was pretty brutal last night. Bernie essentially bullied her into supporting a $15 minimum wage.
    posted by R.F.Simpson at 9:54 PM on April 15, 2016


    I agree [Bernie] should release [his tax returns], but I'm not sure why I keep seeing this thrown out there to deflect from the Wall Street speeches. It's just silly at this point.

    He released the 2014 returns today, to no great fanfare. His financial information is already public record because he's a member of the Senate, and they've promised to release other tax returns soon.

    As for why he's visiting the Vatican, I assume it's because he cares about poverty and is happy to have a chance to amplify his message about greed, poverty, and worship of money. The speech he gave might shed some light, or maybe his annotations of Pope Francis' fantastic speech from last year. If you need a cynical motive, nearly 30% of Californians are Catholic, and he is viewed very favorably by Catholic Latinos.
    posted by dialetheia at 10:03 PM on April 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


    what issues do you think she doesn't want to address?

    What every campaign *doesn't* want to discuss is the attack they didn't see coming. In a primary, you also don't want to see an attack that would also work for your general election candidate. Speech transcripts are a pretty safe issue for her on both counts. Any damage has already been done.

    I mean that debate was pretty brutal last night.

    It was vicious by both sides. That will generally hurt the candidate with higher positives (Bernie) though.

    Bernie essentially bullied her into supporting a $15 minimum wage.

    Just, no. She has praised the $15 minimum wage for New York specifically all along. And she did not change her position that it wouldn't work (at this point) nationwide, which is very reasonable. I do wish she would have pushed for a cost of living provision at $12, though. That's a much better counter-argument.
    posted by msalt at 10:06 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


    A few short months ago, the entire Democratic party was consistent in their beliefs about politics and about business -

    Haven't the Clintons been a widely celebrated and admired (not universally, by any means) part of the Democratic Party for several decades now? Are their speaking fees something very new?

    My own view is that the speaking fees are an ethical issue, but that's in the same vein that I think people driving Audis is unethical in a country where the per capita income is ~$400. Absent a specific ethics code or legal violation, I can see how this might still be a preference point for a voter, but I don't share the indignation that the transcripts haven't been released.
    posted by bardophile at 10:18 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I think people have different standards for "impropriety"/"corruption"/"questionable ethics". Some people look at money going to a politician and look at who that money comes from and regardless of the politician's voting records are (rightly in my opinion) unnerved by the whole idea. Especially anytime any vote related to that subject/industry comes up. Other people look at that same money given from the same A to B, but trust the B who got the money to do the right thing anyway. And neither of them are wrong necessarily, but it requires different levels of trust. Trust I've never had in any candidate. Not Bernie. Not Obama. Not Hillary. Not anyone. Because we've seen the results over and over. If the whole election system is rotten to the core how are people supposed to elect an honest candidate? And that's what money in politics is. Rot. Decay.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 10:42 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    "Phil. In Mr. Melon's Mrs. Clinton's defense, it was a really big check."
    posted by mikelieman at 11:12 PM on April 15, 2016


    If the whole election system is rotten to the core how are people supposed to elect an honest candidate?

    I think people who actually believe the whole system is rotten aren't concerned about electing an honest candidate. They're more about choosing someone like Donald Trump to burn it to the ground and start over.
    posted by FJT at 11:20 PM on April 15, 2016


    But I do think it's rotten and I don't in any way support Trump or his racist bullshit. So where does that leave me as a voter?
    posted by downtohisturtles at 11:21 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


    (Writes on a napkin)

    "downtohisturtles for America"
    posted by FJT at 11:27 PM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I'm sorry, but I'm so overbooked... Ask me again in 6 months.
    posted by downtohisturtles at 11:28 PM on April 15, 2016


    From my personal point of view, I actually don't care about the transcripts very much either. But that's because the acceptance of huge quantities of money from bad actors that you will soon regulate is the main ethical violation, not what was said to ostensibly "earn" that money.

    Also, I myself don't particularly consider this a deal-breaker for a candidate either -- it's all relative, after all, in electoral politics. I'm more interested in the larger issue, preventing liberals from abandoning one of their core principles as a result of the campaign. But I expect it will all blow over and we'll reunite against Citizens United after this is over.
    posted by chortly at 2:30 AM on April 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Bernie Sanders Campaign Suspends Jewish Outreach Coordinator for Vulgar Remarks About Netanyahu

    Who the heck chooses these "outreach directors"? Surely I'm not the only one who thinks the whole idea is a bit condescending. But if you're going to pick one, get somebody boring and uncontroversial who won't turn potential voters against your campaign.

    Also, if you're running a not-officially-linked Twitter support account, get your damn timing right:

    Jews for Bernie @jewsforbernie
    Don’t believe the smears against Bernie’s Jewish outreach director.

    1:08 AM - 15 Apr 2016
    I.e., don't draw attention to someone who has just been fired.
    posted by Joe in Australia at 2:59 AM on April 16, 2016


    Yeah, no one thinks banks and large corporations paid Clinton $9,680,000 in speaking fees last year because she's the new Cicero or her speeches are a means of conveying top secret Illuminati information. The arrangement is simply a loophole enabling a corporation to transfer large sums of money to an active politician without oversight. There's a word for that, but I won't use it here. So the content of the speeches is a complete non-issue. What I can't understand is why anyone would believe that such large sums of money come with no strings attached. To me, it smacks of either complete naivete or full consent for corporate oligarchy.
    posted by Sonny Jim at 3:28 AM on April 16, 2016 [28 favorites]


    Professional athletics are ongoing, and support a massive economy and audience. Money can be big there. False equivalence. We're talking about 1 off private events to small crowds of hyper elites.

    It's likely true that they (corps, banks) simply paid someone powerful and popular to speak for them. And that's literally the whole point of concern. They didn't hire just anybody to speak. They hired someone powerful. Because everybody wants to be a Cat.

    These entities are bad actors. We know they are. To trust our politicians in dealing with them is not enough, we need to be able to trust the system. And we need a system that protects our politicians from having positive relationships with bad actors.
    posted by an animate objects at 6:05 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


    What I can't understand is why anyone would believe that such large sums of money come with no strings attached

    Enormous sums of money for speeches are absolutely par for the course, whether one has current power or not. Search for agencies, some publish fees on their websites.

    Whether it's appropriate or not for Clinton to be doing so, w/e, not going there. The fees themselves are bog standard.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:02 AM on April 16, 2016 [9 favorites]




    [Couple of comments deleted. Do this without sarcastic "Mrs" or take a day off.]
    posted by LobsterMitten at 10:43 AM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Pope Francis calls Sanders meeting 'polite' not politics

    While some alleged Sanders lobbied for the invitation, the chancellor for the pontifical academy, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, said he invited Sanders because he was the only U.S. presidential candidate who showed strong interest in Francis' teachings.

    Sanders often drops Pope Francis’ teachings into conversation and speeches, posts his comments on social media and highlights news stories about him on his website. Sanders says he isn't "much into" organized religion but considers himself "spiritual." He disagrees with various tenets of the Catholic Church (he supports abortion rights and gay rights).

    posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 AM on April 16, 2016


    Yeah, no one thinks banks and large corporations paid Clinton $9,680,000 in speaking fees last year because she's the new Cicero or her speeches are a means of conveying top secret Illuminati information. The arrangement is simply a loophole enabling a corporation to transfer large sums of money to an active politician without oversight.

    That may be your opinion, but there is no evidence to support it. Take Goldman Sachs, for example. Their speakers program is public and extensive, and very few of the speakers are politicians. All are famous, ranging from sports stars to clergy (cardinals, the Archbishop of Canterbury), generals, movie stars, and policy wonks (Amory Lovins).

    Why do you think Goldman Sachs is funneling money to Yao Ming, Tom Brokaw and Anna Wintour?
    posted by msalt at 12:03 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]




    Well, it's a good thing they built that holding cell in the White House for when Biden goes rogue.
    posted by tonycpsu at 12:22 PM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


    How many times do they say this inexplicable stuff before we start suspecting it may be a deliberate strategy? Controversy certainly helped Trump.
    posted by Drinky Die at 12:29 PM on April 16, 2016


    Yeah, it's a deliberate strategy. It's called pivoting to the right. I thought we'd be waiting until after the convention. But nope, doesn't look like it.
    posted by Trochanter at 12:37 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Meanwhile, in Massachusetts...
    posted by Wordshore at 12:38 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Tell me where to buy. PLEASE SOMEONE TAKE MY MONEY!
    posted by Drinky Die at 12:40 PM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


    The next election megathread needs to be called "Twirling, Twirling Towards Freedom" or I want my $5 back.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 12:44 PM on April 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Let me know when Yao Ming takes a job hiring and overseeing the regulators of the places he's taking big speaker fees from and I'll get outraged about that too.
    posted by tivalasvegas at 12:47 PM on April 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


    I know I'm not the only person in the world who had a pretty cool grandmother who would occasionally impart a little folk wisdom. Like, "You don't bite the hand that feeds you."
    posted by CincyBlues at 12:53 PM on April 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


    also: "It is difficult to get a [person] to understand something, when [their] salary depends upon [their] not understanding it!"

    The question is, how do the people who make big-picture decisions on behalf of our society get compensated for their work? Do we pay them, or do the wealthy pay them (before / after they are in public office)?
    posted by tivalasvegas at 1:02 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Josh Fox, the anti-fracking activist who made Gasland (a great documentary about fracking) is campaigning for Sanders:

    “A vote for Hillary is a vote for fracking,” Fox says in his stump. “The New York fracking movement cares about the whole country. It cares about the whole world. We care about climate change. We don’t have a margin of error left if we are going to prevent two degrees Celsius of warming. We cannot afford a ‘gas bridge.’ Only Bernie Sanders is saying let’s go direct to renewables. Only he is saying climate change is our No. 1 security challenge.”

    Politifact: Does Hillary Clinton support fracking? Mostly true. They go into some of her proposed regulations, which would nominally help regulate fracking but would largely only come into effect after the damage has been done. It's been linked a bunch here before, but her efforts to support Chevron and other fossil fuel companies in overcoming fracking resistance in foreign countries (most notably Romania and Bulgaria) demonstrate her support.

    The fact that she continues to refer to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" even with what we now know about methane leaks is inexcusable. The EPA recently admitted they had underestimated methane leaks from oil and drilling operations by 34%, making it the greatest source of US methane emissions, even beyond agriculture; methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Bill McKibben covers this well in a recent piece for The Nation. Global warming's terrifying new chemistry:  Our leaders thought fracking would save our climate. They were wrong. Very wrong:

    "These leaks are big enough to wipe out a large share of the gains from the Obama administration’s work on climate change—all those closed coal mines and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, it’s even possible that America’s contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years. The methane story is utterly at odds with what we’ve been telling ourselves, not to mention what we’ve been telling the rest of the planet. It undercuts the promises we made at the climate talks in Paris. It’s a disaster—and one that seems set to spread."
    posted by dialetheia at 1:12 PM on April 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


    Let me know when Yao Ming takes a job hiring and overseeing the regulators of the places he's taking big speaker fees from and I'll get outraged about that too.

    I was responding to someone who said that GS's payments for Hillary's speeches are obviously a front for funnelling her money. So now, your theory is that they created a public speakers program over several years and paid about 200 other celebrities to speak, just to create a cover to give Hillary a $675,000 bribe?
    posted by msalt at 1:14 PM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


    They like getting their picture taken with their various trophies. Sometimes a trophy is just "Hey, we can afford to get Yao Ming to hang out with us." That doesn't mean it's the only reason they have trophies.
    posted by Etrigan at 1:16 PM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Could be. Then again, the sheer wealth of Clintons -- including her $9 million in speech income last year -- makes it unlikely that $675,000 would buy her loyalty, even were it not illegal to have a quid pro quo.
    posted by msalt at 1:20 PM on April 16, 2016


    Bill Clinton, please stop. You are not helping.

    I noticed a lesser Clinton surrogate (I wish I could remember his name, but can't) doing similar red-baiting on Chris Mathews, saying that nobody really knows what speeches Bernie may have given in Cuba or Russia, and that should be addressed before any HRC transcripts are released.

    I was responding to someone who said that GS's payments for Hillary's speeches are obviously a front for funnelling her money. So now, your theory is that they created a public speakers program over several years and paid about 200 other celebrities to speak, just to create a cover to give Hillary a $675,000 bribe?

    It's a mechanism, like a credit card. I can use my credit card to go miniature golfing. I can also use it to give money to politicians. One of those should be controlled and regulated.
    posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:20 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I still can't understand how anybody who thinks any influence bought would be visible could have any problem with just letting the candidates take unlimited money from whoever they want. Just let them take the money, and we can look for influence later as they govern and act then. Why restrain their freedom to give if the money itself is no problem?
    posted by Drinky Die at 1:22 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


    If you're referring to me, I never said I don't have a problem with candidates taking unlimited money. I've said many times I support overturning not just citizens united but also the asinine ruling that "money = speech." I have reason to think that Hillary agrees.

    However, that does not mean that unilateral disarmament is the only response to a political money battle, and I further think that Bernie is being disingenuous in the way he presents the money issue. He organized fundraisers from big Wall Street interests for the DSCC, and accepted some of that money himself. I don't think that means he is bought and sold any more than I think it means Hillary is.

    I agree that the system should be reformed to remove the temptation, indirect or otherwise, from all politicians. That is a far cry from "Hillary is corrupt" and "these speeches were obvious ways to funnel her money."

    I also have particular problems with banning public figures not in office from selling books or getting paid for speeches. That is exactly what they should be doing. It should all be reported, and if these are fronts for funnelling money, politicians can be and have been prosecuted (ask Jim Wright).

    Bernie Sanders himself will easily be able to clear $50,000 per speech or more after this election, and more power to him. If he only wants to accept that money from colleges and unions, or concert promoters, and not big business, bully for him.
    posted by msalt at 1:49 PM on April 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Bernie Sanders himself will easily be able to clear $50,000 per speech or more after this election, and more power to him. If he only wants to accept that money from colleges and unions, or concert promoters, and not big business, bully for him.

    Somehow I doubt Sanders will use his newfound fame to follow Clinton's lead and e.g. charge a school like UNLV $225,000 for a short speech about "college affordability." She also charged UCLA $300,000, informing them that this was "already the special university rate" when they tried to negotiate.
    posted by dialetheia at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Besides, as long as he remains in the Senate, he is prohibited from receiving honoraria for speeches for ethical reasons. Which is the whole point.
    posted by dialetheia at 2:03 PM on April 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


    I thought we were going to at least try to go easy on the circular "Clinton/Sanders: Who's-the-Worst Snipe-a-thon".
    posted by FJT at 2:07 PM on April 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


    The important thing is that we all recognize that it's really inexplicable that Yankees cannot make a plate of biscuits and gravy to save their fucking lives. It' s not like there's something difficult about it. So... why?
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:56 PM on April 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I thought we were going to at least try to go easy on the circular "Clinton/Sanders: Who's-the-Worst Snipe-a-thon".

    I have seen the Worst and he is us.
    posted by Justinian at 3:05 PM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Quebec has a moratorium on fracking (there was a good amount of protest and calls for an outright ban just to get that). Naturally we are being sued by some company or consortium under NAFTA for passing a law that infringes on their perceived entitlement to projected profit.
    posted by phoque at 5:10 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




    Clooney's neighbor throwing Saturday fundraiser for Sanders

    Howard Gold, whose family founded the 99 Cents Only store chain, is calling his bash the “99% Party,” with tickets selling for $27 per person.

    An email invite sent to Sanders supporters Saturday reads: “Swimming pools, Movie Stars, and merriment for all! This is happening right next door to Clooney's party for Hillary!”

    The invite also notes that "no-one (will be) turned away for a lack of funds."

    posted by Drinky Die at 5:42 PM on April 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


    as long as he remains in the Senate, he is prohibited from receiving honoraria for speeches for ethical reasons. Which is the whole point.

    I believe that members of Congress can give speeches for money, as Bernie did in 2014, as long as they donate the proceeds to charity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    That doesn't change the fact that his rate as a speaker -- where payment is allowed -- is now much higher because he is now famous and furthermore has a fiercely loyal following. Assume he retires from Congress -- do you think there's anything wrong with him getting paid to speak?
    posted by msalt at 5:48 PM on April 16, 2016




    Assume he retires from Congress -- do you think there's anything wrong with him getting paid to speak?

    It depends on who is paying him. In football terms, if a college player I follow goes pro and signs with the Cowboys, I hate them. Because I hate the Cowboys. I don't want the Cowboys to receive from him the benefits of his presence and capabilities, compensated or not. I hate the banks who destroyed our economy almost as much as I hate the Dallas Cowboys. That's why I don't like Democratic policy makers and leaders working for them.
    posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 PM on April 16, 2016


    OK, picking the Cowboys as your example is totally unfair, because they ARE evil. What if it was the Raiders though? Or Green Bay, the official socialist team?

    In reality, I support the rights of players to get paid, even if it's by the Cowboys (e.g. Cedric Thornton, who is not a shill for Big Cattle). Careers are short, the talent is rare, and more power to them.

    I could imagine an election where Bernie or a young version of him was leading a great populist campaign. Say, a pro-union campaign. I would want unions to have the ability to pay his speaking fee to come and talk.
    posted by msalt at 6:27 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I'm the real-life Gordon Gekko and I support Bernie Sanders

    wait, I thought people who made money off of Wall Street were beholden to it for life
    posted by prize bull octorok at 7:09 PM on April 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Assume he retires from Congress -- do you think there's anything wrong with him getting paid to speak?

    I can't say whether this is wrong, but here's what happens:

    Lots of people work for the DoD or for the State Department or for government regulators. And in those positions they're responsible for procurement and for setting policy and for things like that. There is no suggestion that these people receive bribes or backhanders or anything of the sort, but it's very noticeable that when they retire they join arms manufacturers or lobby firms or think tanks that are funded by the countries or businesses that they were formerly liaising with.

    Now, on the one hand this makes sense: their accumulated expertise is no doubt valuable to their new employers. On the other hand, consider the effect this has on the people who replace them: it's a pretty clear message that they have a potential retirement plan that depends on making nice with the people they are supposed to be scrutinising. I don't really believe that Qatar, for instance, makes multi-million dollar grants to the Brookings Institute out of a desire to promote public policy debate in the USA. Similarly, I don't think Gadaffi was trying to make the LSE a center of academic excellence. There's always a quid pro quo, even if it comes years later and in a roundabout fashion.
    posted by Joe in Australia at 7:17 PM on April 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


    There was some pretty interesting stuff today on the Wyoming GOP convention and also how mental the delegate selection is in West Virginia. But I see we're back in Clinton/Sanders death spiral again.
    posted by Chrysostom at 7:56 PM on April 16, 2016 [3 favorites]






    There's an interesting parallelism between Bernie and Cruz right now -- they're both making headlines for picking up delegates in conventions, and they're both looking at two very terrible weeks coming up before drawing a bunch of states that should be more friendly to them.
    posted by dw at 10:58 PM on April 16, 2016


    Cruz wins all 14 Wyoming delegates.

    Kinda interesting. Cruz flies into Wyoming in a snowstorm while Palin, supposedly with snowstorm experience, cancels. I'm impressed with Cruz's organization and persistence so far. Wonder how far the plotting and backstabbing will work in the general when much of the public finds him and his ideas fairly repulsive. Feels like as if Varys decides to make a direct run for the throne himself rather than depending on surrogates.
    posted by honestcoyote at 11:19 PM on April 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I think Cruz on some level realizes he's an inherently loathsome human being and thus makes up for it via a charismatic wife and working harder than anybody else, ever.

    There was some pretty interesting stuff today on the Wyoming GOP convention and also how mental the delegate selection is in West Virginia. But I see we're back in Clinton/Sanders death spiral again.

    please talk about these things

    please

    we are praying for sweet release from Sanders/Clinton

    I tried to get something going about Limberbutt McCubbins but nobody cared about a presidential candidate who was just TOO DARN ADORABLE

    so please distract us

    please
    posted by schroedinger at 12:09 AM on April 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


    Feels like as if Varys decides to make a direct run for the throne himself rather than depending on surrogates.

    Cruz isn't Varys. Cruz is the High Sparrow. Pretty sure Trump is the Night's King.
    posted by AdamCSnider at 2:10 AM on April 17, 2016


    wait, I thought people who made money off of Wall Street were beholden to it for life

    Perhaps this kind of thinking is why so many folks have so much difficulty in making sound judgments with respect to the proper role that finance has in a healthy economy.
    posted by CincyBlues at 3:39 AM on April 17, 2016




    As an addendum to what dialetheia was saying about methane leaks from fracking and the rest of the natural gas industry impacting climate change, believe it or not natural gas processing, storage, and transport produces radioactive waste as a result of radon gas fissioning and its decay products (which are solid rather than gaseous and still radioactive) scaling on the inside of pipes and other surfaces. (As a cite, search this book Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing by Arthur J. Kidnay and William R. Parrish for "radioactive".)

    It's low-level radioactive waste compared to the worst stuff that comes out of a nuclear reactor, but still.
    posted by XMLicious at 4:47 AM on April 17, 2016


    OMG! is it as bad as the bananas?!
    posted by andrewcooke at 5:12 AM on April 17, 2016


    You have to get well above the level of a banana equivalent dose before something is categorized as radioactive waste and must be disposed of properly, of course...

    If I understand it correctly this is more equivalent to the activated material in structural parts of a nuclear reactor that have become radioactive as a consequence of exposure to neutron radiation, rather than the intermediate-level and high-level waste that is a product of spent nuclear fuel or contact with fuel, or medical device parts as in the Goiânia accident. Low-level waste doesn't cause the same immediate health dangers but is still a problem because it is produced in much higher quantities than more dangerous waste.
    posted by XMLicious at 6:21 AM on April 17, 2016


    Well, not the end of the world but not a trivial concern either - just something to be factored in. Pipe scale in particular can be nasty for workers doing things like cutting through used pipe for repairs, due to the Ra and Th in the dust.
    posted by Dr Dracator at 6:24 AM on April 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Missed a word there, it's the Ra and Th daughters
    posted by Dr Dracator at 6:26 AM on April 17, 2016


    Ted Cruz promises 5% growth.
    Cruz says individuals should pay a 10% tax on their income and all businesses should pay 16% of their income.

    The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has analyzed all of the 2016 candidates tax plans. Most Americans would pay less in taxes under Cruz's flat tax, but government debt would also likely soar.

    "The Cruz plan would require unprecedented spending cuts to avoid adding to the federal debt," the Tax Policy Center wrote.

    Cruz and Laffer disagree. They say that the economy will grow so much that it will bring more jobs and government revenue.

    "The numbers that are estimated are, if anything, underestimating the growth," Cruz said Friday.
    You know it's great to hear the new stuff but sometimes you want to hear supply side's greatest hits. I have to be facetious because to think this is someone's serious policy in 2016 is 100% fucking insane. It will make me cry. We've done this before. It consigned large swaths of the working class to borderline poverty.

    "I think we're far better having a rules-based monetary policy, ideally with some tie to gold, so that you have a stable dollar," he [Cruz] said. "So you know when you're investing a dollar today, you know that the dollar is going to keep a consistent worth."

    We've gone full fucking moron now. This man wants to manage the American economy? He shouldn't be allowed to manage his own checkbook.
    posted by Talez at 8:27 AM on April 17, 2016 [22 favorites]


    Arthur Laffer clearly needs to be involuntarily committed because he is a) profoundly delusional and, to the extent people believe him, b) a profound danger to the rest of humanity.
    posted by Pope Guilty at 8:28 AM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Guardian: Artist threatened with lawsuits if she sells nude Donald Trump painting (NSFW, contains painting of penis)
    posted by Wordshore at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Cruz and Laffer disagree. They say that the economy will grow so much that it will bring more jobs and government revenue.

    Which, mind you, is the argument for Bernie's economic plan producing the 5.4% annual growth it promises.

    Maybe we should just agree that when politicians talk about forecast economic growth they don't know jack shit.
    posted by dw at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    This morning's OMG THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED tempest in a teapot: New York's bizarre primary poll hours.
    posted by dw at 9:04 AM on April 17, 2016


    That is such a weirdly framed article, as though the problem is NYC and surroundings getting more time (i.e. the standard amount of time) rather than most of upstate getting less time.

    In terms of potential impact though I wonder how it would play out. Besides Staten Island I think most of NYC is voting in the D primaries but I don't know whether the Hillary/Bernie numbers are significantly different. Upstate is less diverse... but maybe more establishment? Sanders has been doing a lot of electioneering in NYC. (I got 3+ glossy color mailers in 5 days).
    posted by Salamandrous at 10:00 AM on April 17, 2016




    C-SPAN is showing clips from presidents speaking at White House Correspondents' Dinners and Bill Clinton wraps his final one up by saying (at about 33:20) he expects to shortly suffer from AGDD, "Attention Getting Deficit Disorder".

    A little bit before that they were airing one of the jokey film shorts the WH makes for those dinners, which at one point shows Clinton standing in front of a mirror holding an Oscar statuette and practicing an imagined Academy Awards speech, and of all people Kevin Spacey appears out of nowhere to grab the Oscar statuette back and give him a disgusted look before walking off. Which totally rocked my world for a second because I was binge-watching the U.S. House of Cards last weekend.

    Evidently Larry Wilmore is performing this year.
    posted by XMLicious at 10:50 AM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    The last week or two, hearing more about actual Cruz policy, I'm really starting to lean harder and harder back toward Trump as not only the preferable Republican to win the nomination because it would lead to a big defeat, I think I'd prefer Trump now because I'd rather he make it to the White House.

    I've known for a couple years that Cruz was a loathesome, backwards, closet-elitist, but I didn't know he was serious enough about a flat tax to make it part of his platform, nor rely on the laffer curve to defend it. And I just found out last week that he wants to go back to the gold standard. That's not even a legitimate policy among conservative economists, for the most part. Add to that that he is worse on abortion than Trump, worse on gay rights, no better on immigration (aside from bombastic bullshit about making Mexico pay for a wall that even his supporters don't seem to believe), worse on healthcare policy. I'm not sure who would be a bigger disaster on foreign policy, to be fair.

    I can respect people who find Trump more objectionable as a potential president, he has said some disgusting things, especially regarding muslims and hispanics. But I don't see
    posted by skewed at 11:14 AM on April 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Two despised frontrunners, two dying parties and a deeply broken system: How did we get here?

    I'm sorry but the only way we got here was first past the post voting and criminal levels of under representation in Congress.
    posted by Talez at 11:31 AM on April 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


    "Which, mind you, is the argument for Bernie's economic plan producing the 5.4% annual growth it promises.

    Maybe we should just agree that when politicians talk about forecast economic growth they don't know jack shit.
    "

    … except Bernie's plan is based on stimulating growth through government spending, funded by increased taxes at the top. You know, a standard Keynesian argument that has been pretty well supported over a century, with a few caveats. Cruz's plan is based on supply-side economics, which has failed pretty much every time it's been tried.

    You could make the argument that Sanders' plan is unreasonably optimistic, but it's on a whole different plane from Cruz's — which is basically "underpants gnome"-level economics.
    posted by klangklangston at 12:56 PM on April 17, 2016 [20 favorites]




    "Two despised frontrunners, two dying parties and a deeply broken system: How did we get here?"

    That was long on facile readings of current polls shoehorned into past political paradigms, and short on "How did we get here," where he ignores what people who actually study this say in order to make some sort of self-serving "Remember the Independent!" argument.
    posted by klangklangston at 1:08 PM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Guardian: Artist threatened with lawsuits if she sells nude Donald Trump painting (NSFW, contains painting of penis)

    Wordshore you beat me to it. You failed to mention you probably would not get in Big trouble as it most definitely is not a Big penis. It is kind of like a chihuahua size penis. Would an image of a Trump head pasted on a male chihuahua with the teentsy little pee pee be NFSW? Because this kind of looks like that. Also you have to click on the guardian story, then click on the Trump image, then click to page two of the image file before you see any penis so it is pretty darn close to safe for work.
    posted by bukvich at 1:25 PM on April 17, 2016


    To be fair, he might be a grower not a shower. But yeah, his infamous hands look positively massive in relative terms.
    posted by msalt at 1:35 PM on April 17, 2016


    … except Bernie's plan is based on stimulating growth through government spending, funded by increased taxes at the top. You know, a standard Keynesian argument that has been pretty well supported over a century, with a few caveats.

    Except no economist, Keynesian or not, would say banking one's fiscal policy on a continuous 5.4% growth rate in GDP in a developed economy is sustainable or recommended. That is freaking insane. Not to mention the Freidman calculations around the effects of his policies were based in bad math. There absolutely are underpants gnomes in Bernie's plans. Which is not to say Cruz is also insane, but I'm not willing to give Bernie a pass here.
    posted by schroedinger at 1:35 PM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    In terms of potential impact though I wonder how it would play out. Besides Staten Island I think most of NYC is voting in the D primaries but I don't know whether the Hillary/Bernie numbers are significantly different. Upstate is less diverse... but maybe more establishment? Sanders has been doing a lot of electioneering in NYC. (I got 3+ glossy color mailers in 5 days).

    Upstate outside of the cities is less diverse, which demographically suggests Bernie will do well there, which is why there's complaining about the poll hours.

    The split in times is really strange. Betting there will be a move to normalize the hours for 2020.
    posted by dw at 1:39 PM on April 17, 2016


    Except no economist, Keynesian or not, would say banking one's fiscal policy on a continuous 5.4% growth rate in GDP in a developed economy is sustainable or recommended.

    Which of course is entirely not what was ever said. The 5.4 was a short term bump as the new policies were introduced.
    posted by Trochanter at 1:43 PM on April 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


    Somehow I doubt Sanders will use his newfound fame to follow Clinton's lead and e.g. charge a school like UNLV $225,000 for a short speech about "college affordability."

    She didn't charge UCLA a dime. The speech was funded by a private donor.

    In the case of UNLV, the speech was paid for by a non-profit associated with the school. The non-profit made a "profit" on the speech, collecting more in donations than the cost of the speech.

    In both cases none of the money went into Clinton's pocket. It was donated to the Clinton Foundation charity.

    So what she is doing is using her name and prominence to earn money for both the Clinton charity and the local charity.

    That is not to say that all of her speeches are for charity, but certainly the ones for public universities are.
    posted by JackFlash at 5:02 PM on April 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


    Hey JackFlash do you have any links handy so that I can learn more about this? A quick google yielded nothing concise.
    posted by futz at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2016


    do you have any links handy so that I can learn more about this?

    I'm not JackFlash, but I was curious, so: the Washington Post does note that:
    Like many major universities, UCLA regularly pays high-profile speakers to visit campus. Many of the visits are funded through a private endowment and not with tuition or public dollars. Clinton’s appearance was privately funded as part of a lecture series endowed by Meyer Luskin, an investor and president of Scope Industries, a food waste recycling company.
    ...
    UCLA Communications Director Jean-Paul Renaud said in a statement that Clinton’s speech helped “expand dialogue among scholars, leaders in government and business, and the greater Los Angeles community.” He said that the university acted “as a responsible steward of financial resources” and that ticket revenue funded the College’s Greatest Needs Fund, which includes undergraduate and graduate student support.
    That certainly sounds like the speech was a net gain for the university and for tuition support because the speakers series was privately funded , although it's hard to say whether that's actually true without having numbers in hand.

    The Post also notes that "her UCLA fee, like those at other universities, went to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s nonprofit group."

    With the speech at UNLV, it was actually the keynote for a regularly-scheduled annual fundraising dinner to support the school: per the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
    The UNLV Foundation Board of Trustees selected Clinton as the keynote speaker for its annual fundraiser and paid $225,000 to the Harry Walker Agency to secure her appearance on behalf of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, UNLV spokeswoman Afsha Bawany said. The fee is covered through private sponsorships obtained by the Foundation for the event, she said.
    More from the Las Vegas Review-Journal from after the speech:
    More than 900 people attended the sold-out UNLV dinner at the Bellagio where the top donor tables went for $3,000 to $20,000 each. The Foundation raised more than $350,000 from top donors alone, and the annual UNLV dinner was expected to make a profit, according to the university. UNLV also raised nearly $235,000 from a pledge drive held during the dinner, the university said.
    ------------

    None of which is to say that she couldn't have waived her speaking fee, or donated her speaking fee back, in whole or in part, to the schools she was speaking at; but, at least, both schools do claim to have (a) paid for the speeches from private funds, and (b) made money off her appearances that could be funneled back into general expenditures/tuition reimbursement.
    posted by cjelli at 7:54 PM on April 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Meanwhile, round 2 of the Washington caucuses -- the Legislative district ones -- are still going after 6 hours for some districts. This is what happens when neither side trusts each other and the Democrats in this state are running things like it's 1976.
    posted by dw at 7:55 PM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I can confirm that the WA legislative district caucuses were an absolute shitshow. I can't imagine a more ridiculous process. WA has mail in balloting for everything else, so why that party insists on this crap is beyond me. Very disappointing.
    posted by bepe at 8:01 PM on April 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


    The 5.4 was a short term bump as the new policies were introduced.

    It's on the first page of Friedman's analysis.

    And even if you disagree with that, it doesn't change the fact the REST of it is still based in faulty math, as detailed in the prior blog post I linked. 37% growth by 2026?!

    I have yet to see anyone provide a satisfying (I.e. math-based) explanation for how Sanders's plans are realistic and economically feasible. At least, I've seen no explanation that hasn't been torn apart by people with access to calculators.
    posted by schroedinger at 8:19 PM on April 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Latest from Washington: At least three districts are STILL in caucus. Hour 9 now. Bernie supporters are sending them Socialist Pizza.

    Apparently, it was a combination of the state tweaking a rule about seating alternates across precincts (infuriating Bernie supporters), an overload of people running for delegate, and the caucus staff being completely clueless about running a legislative caucus with any ability.

    I think we may finally have an end to the Washington caucus system in sight. The precinct caucuses weren't anywhere near this bad, but the tiered split of delegate selection (1/3 get chosen at the precinct level, 1/3 at the legislative district, and 1/3 at the state convention) is creating a lot of Bernie/Hillary people clamoring to not lose a single delegate. If they dispensed them all in the primary, today would be much smaller and less clamorous.
    posted by dw at 9:25 PM on April 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Jane Sanders

    Watch the video too.
    posted by futz at 10:43 PM on April 17, 2016


    No way. WA Republican delegates are allotted by primary, and some conventions and caucuses still took 12 hours.
    posted by corb at 11:06 PM on April 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Yup corb. If you're interested you should read up on both supporters accounts on how it went.

    How many times have we heard that caucuses etc have required 12 hours of a citizens time this election season? I couldn't hang that long. It is undemocratic and fucking wrong.
    posted by futz at 11:13 PM on April 17, 2016 [6 favorites]



    I can confirm that the WA legislative district caucuses were an absolute shitshow. I can't imagine a more ridiculous process. WA has mail in balloting for everything else, so why that party insists on this crap is beyond me. Very disappointing.
    posted by bepe


    bepe, were you there?
    posted by futz at 11:20 PM on April 17, 2016


    The Buffalo News did separate interviews with Sanders and Clinton. They're notable because they ask each candidate virtually the same question.

    The difference between the quality and depth of their answers--even their evasions--illustrate perfectly my feeling that Clinton is a more knowledgeable, competent candidate. When each is asked about NAFTA, Clinton rattles off a list of specific areas where she feels the agreement needs to be improved. Sanders says "we need to renegotiate, because it's bad" and when pressed on how exactly he plans to renegotiate with Mexico he starts talking about wages in Vietnam and reiterates what he thinks the negative effects of free trade are. No indication whatsoever that "renegotiate" contains any strategy beyond "renegotiate".

    When asked about China, Clinton again lays out policy framework, areas of attack, and existing backing for that framework that she will build her strategies off of. Bernie says he wants tariffs, and then this happens:
    Q: Have you thought about exactly what your tariff scenario would look like?

    A: No. All I will tell you is that the status quo, what exists today, is not acceptable.
    Seriously? Seriously? You are ostensibly nine months away from being POTUS and you can't even bullshit your trade policy with the largest economy in the world?!

    Even the little "hey, Buffalo is gonna start building power plants, aren't we cool" throwaway question gets this kind of disparate response.

    Sanders:
    Q: Buffalo is soon going to be home to the largest solar panel plant in the country. What is your reaction to that?

    A: Fantastic. Manufacturing solar panels? Fantastic.

    Q: Hillary Clinton has talked about expanding solar. Why would a Bernie Sanders administration be better at expanding solar?

    A: It is not just solar. It is transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. We have introduced legislation that calls for 10 million solar rooftops – 10 million. And the way to do that is to make sure that low- and moderate-income people can get the capital they need to put solar on their rooftops and pay off those loans by reduced electric bills.
    Clinton:
    Q: Buffalo soon will be home to the largest solar panel manufacturing plant in the country. You’ve promised the installation of another half-billion solar panels by the end of your first term. How do you get there?

    A: I’m thrilled that SolarCity is setting up an operation in Buffalo. … I’m going to do everything I can to encourage the construction of manufacturing facilities that are necessary (to meet her solar energy goal). I was relieved when the Congress included the investment tax credit and the production tax credit for wind and solar in the year-end budget agreement, but we have to go further. And I think the more we can get these facilities like the SolarCity plant built in New York, the more political support we can build. Because there does seem to be a connection: When you have a wind turbine assembly plant in Iowa, you’ve got the Iowa Republican members of Congress supporting the extension of the tax credit. So the more we can develop these facilities around the country, the quicker we can reach the goal that I have set.
    Bernie says "Good job", and then when asked to expand says he'll do a better job than Clinton because he's gonna give solar panels to everyone to help out low-to-moderate-income families with their energy bills. It's a big, nice-sounding, ambitious Bernie Plan. Which sounds great--until you realize that home ownership is just under 50% for families in that income group, and drops even lower for Black and Hispanic families. So unless you happen to be a fortunate renter who lives in a single-family structure and has an accommodating landlord, a plan to distribute solar panels isn't going to help you much. That's not even getting into the fact that the majority of renters aren't being crushed by energy bills, they're being crushed by increasing renting costs. Look, a number of cities have started subsidizing solar panel installation and that's a great idea. But it's the kind of initiative that disproportionately benefits high-income, White households. When he says he's doing it for low-to-moderate income families, he's either being disingenuous or he has no idea how most low-to-moderate income families live.

    Meanwhile, Clinton immediately names the actual company in charge of the facility, is able to cite existing legislation that she wants to build on, and puts the construction of the Buffalo plant into a larger national, bi-partisan context.

    I read their answers to these interviews and I am strongly reminded of this comment by zarq:

    All of his answers are accurate. But the difference between him not answering the question and Clinton not answering the question is that it becomes increasingly obvious to the reader from the way he answers that he isn't offering enough depth or knowledge.
    posted by schroedinger at 2:30 AM on April 18, 2016 [37 favorites]


    Sanders was just on the Today Show. They asked some pointed questions.
    posted by zarq at 4:18 AM on April 18, 2016


    Futz, yeah, I was a delegate at my legislative district caucus. I had a childcare issue and left after four hours though, and they still hadn't gotten to the actual voting part. The first two hours were all six hundred of us crammed into a hot, uncomfortable gym, waiting while the staff counted up how many people signed in. People were getting frustrated, partisans from both sides were giving angry speeches, people shouting at the elected officials, a physical fight almost broke out on the floor -- it was total zoo.
    posted by bepe at 6:15 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Sanders' Today Show segment.

    Sanders' interview runs a little under 5 minutes, which is about average for a network morning talk show interview. Interestingly enough, he didn't promise the show an exclusive. I'm not sure if he was interviewed on Good Morning America as well this morning, but he's been on at least once in the last 2-3 weeks.

    Also, Sanders has now (surprisingly) surpassed Trump in talk show appearances. All of this should firmly put to rest the idea that the media is either ignoring him or that he's not getting any airtime -- which may have been true earlier in the campaign season but no longer seems to be an issue.

    Clinton's interview on Today aired on April 8 and was promoted as an exclusive. Her appearance on Good Morning America was a "town hall" that was supposed to happen last Friday but was canceled. It has now been rescheduled for this Thursday, after the NY primary.

    Today aired only about 4 to 5 minutes of their interview with Clinton but did post an "extended cut" of the full interview that runs a little under 14 minutes. 30 seconds of the interview was aired on both April 7 and April 8 -- Clinton's response to Sanders' questioning her qualifications.
    posted by zarq at 7:27 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat

    Without Bernie Sanders, we would have the political spectrum above. Hillary Clinton and the conservative wing of the Democratic Party have moved rightward into a corporate centrist (neoliberal) position. This position has a certain amount of flexibility on social issues but adheres strictly to unregulated capitalism and favors international trade deals that benefit large corporations rather than domestic jobs, the environment, or fair wage or labor standards. The Republican Party has shifted to the right too, towards policies that benefit no one but the ultra-wealthy and the largest transnational corporations; they cloak their goals in racist or evangelical language to appeal to voters, but their regressive policies generally aim to restrict or even cancel laws and rights won by the working classes in earlier eras.
    posted by Drinky Die at 8:11 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Is there some data to back up the political spectrum chart that puts Clinton to the right of Obama in that opinion piece? Because both DW-NOMINATE scores and OnTheIssues VoteMatch [Clinton / Obama] put Clinton to the left of Obama, as has been discussed here previously.
    posted by casaubon at 8:23 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat

    How many times to we have to retread this same conversation? 'a certain amount of flexibility on social issues' is why she would never be welcome in the Republican party of today, yesterday, last week, last month, or the last half-century. And based on her voting record in office, she's left of Obama in aggregate, when you look at every issue rather than just a narrow slice.

    By all means, if that narrow slice includes issues where she differs with Sanders, and those issues are deeply important to you, then by all all means I would implore you to vote Sanders. It's the primary: vote for the candidate whose policies you want to see in action. But it's just utter nonsense to claim that Clinton is, in any sense, a 'moderate Republican,' or even 'a moderate.' She's a liberal with a strong left-leaning liberal record in the Senate and elsewhere. As is Sanders. The only way to frame her as a 'moderate Republican' is to ignore the vast majority of her record. That's just silly.

    It's okay to prefer Sanders! It's okay to prefer Clinton! It's not okay to dismiss either candidate as Not A True Democrat.
    posted by cjelli at 8:25 AM on April 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


    It's a piece about the shifting of the Overton Window suggesting Bernie may help it shift back. The article is very clear that she is not a modern day Republican.
    posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 AM on April 18, 2016


    24.5 hours until the polls open in rural New York (again, NY, join the 21st century already) and Clinton's lead remains double digits. A 10 point win would net Hillary 47 or so more than Bernie.

    Bernie can probably claim a moral victory by holding Hillary's MOV to under 10 points, but given how behind he is in MD and PA, he needs to net something out of tomorrow if he doesn't want California to turn into not just must-win but must-blow-out.
    posted by dw at 8:34 AM on April 18, 2016


    Drinky Die: There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat

    Drinky Die: It's a piece about the shifting of the Overton Window suggesting Bernie may help it shift back. It's very clear that she is not a modern day Republican.

    No, what it says is, "Hillary Clinton and the conservative wing of the Democratic Party have moved rightward into a corporate centrist (neoliberal) position." Which leads me to think that the author is several tacos short of a combination plate. Clinton is not now nor has she ever been a member of "the conservative wing of the Democratic Party." She's not even a centrist. She's not a free-enterpriser, either, although she's given her opinion at length about the positive effects of free trade. DW-NOMINATE rated her the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. "That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154)."

    From the link:
    "Some more numbers from the 110th Congress, to further help put things in perspective:

    Most liberal Dem         1   Sanders     -0.523                         11   CLINTON     -0.391 Median Dem              33   Biden       -0.331 Most conservative Dem   51   B. Nelson   -0.035 Most liberal Rep        52   Specter      0.061 Median Rep              76   McConnell    0.409 Most conservative Rep  101   Coburn       0.809
    Oh, and a certain junior Senator from Illinois, Obama I think his name was? At -0.367, he ranked 23rd in the 110th Congress."
    posted by zarq at 8:41 AM on April 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


    Defining the US Democratic presidential race as a choice between economic and social justice was a masterstroke from Hillary Clinton ...

    After slugging it out on live TV for two hours, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton stood up to make their closing pitches. Sanders, a Brooklyn native, focused on inequality and overwhelming power of money in US politics. He called for free healthcare, free tuition at universities, the breakup of big banks and forcing the rich to pay their taxes.

    Clinton responded: “You know, of course we have economic barriers ... But we also have racial barriers, gender barriers, homophobic barriers, disability barriers.” The subtext could not have been clearer: forget fighting Wall Street – a more liberal capitalism is all you’re going to get.
    Only Bernie Sanders Can Break the Power of Capitalism in the US—Paul Mason, Guardian.
    posted by Sonny Jim at 8:41 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    If you seriously want to argue she is not a corporate centrist we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that.
    posted by Drinky Die at 8:42 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    The New York Times just won the award for 'Most Stomach-Churning Out-Of-Context Election Coverage Sentence':
    Imagine being wooed by Mr. Trump.
    No thanks, NYT. I'm good.
    posted by cjelli at 8:45 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    My wife and I went out for dinner and a benefit show on Saturday night. I stepped away for a minute during the set break, and when I came back, a couple of guys had struck up a conversation with her. I missed the beginning of the conversation, but as I introduced myself and listened in, it became clear that they were Sanders volunteers taking her temperature to see if she was interested in helping out the campaign.

    We talked a bit about the candidates for a while, eventually telling them we were both Bernie supporters, but were going to support the Democratic nominee in the general. At that point, one of the guys starts citing the polling data saying that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie is the only candidate who can beat him, etc. As we talk some more, it becomes clear these guys are both independents and first-time volunteers who parachuted in from outside the state to help with the campaign, which is fine, but as the conversation went on, what really struck us was how divisive their sales pitch was, based primarily on the idea that only Bernie can beat Trump because so many people will stay home if he's not the nominee. Granted, these guys weren't on the clock and had both had a couple beers, but we couldn't believe some of the things they were saying. Here's just a small sampling of the TRUTH BOMBS these guys were dropping:

    * Yes, Hillary is doing better with African-American voters, but that's because they're "ignorant" and just don't know enough about Bernie's platform.
    * Spike Lee supports Bernie, and Spike Lee is "our generation's Malcolm X"
    * If Hillary does win the nomination, everyone should just stay home, because Hillary would be "just as bad" as Trump or Cruz
    * "Black Lives Matter supports Bernie Sanders." Me: "You mean specific members of BLM, right? I didn't think BLM as a whole had endorsed anyone." "No, the entire organization."

    For what it's worth, neither of them could name an issue on which Hillary would be as bad as or worse than the Republicans in the race when I challenged them. They kept going back to how much better Bernie is on the issues than Hillary, and, hey, I agree, I'm voting for the guy, but that wasn't the point they were driving at by bringing up the fact that they and a lot of people they know are going to stay home if Bernie's not the nominee. I politely suggested that they not use this "Bernie or Bust" pitch to prospective Bernie voters, and they responded that there are a lot of voters like them out there who don't care about the parties and just want the whole system to change, as if voting for a single Presidential candidate magically changes the electoral system. (Of course these guys were never involved in politics at the state or local levels trying to bring about reform of the system.)

    I'm not going to draw any sweeping conclusions from this interaction, but I sure do hope the Sanders campaign apparatus isn't pushing this kind of uninformed and divisive rhetoric when they're going door-to-door. I don't expect Bernie or his supporters to care much for the Democratic party establishment, but if you're seeking the Democratic nomination, you're going to need to appeal to people who actually cared about politics before Bernie announced his candidacy, many of whom align themselves with the Democratic party, and many of whom will in fact be voting for Hillary in the general election if she secures the nomination. Your job as a volunteer should be to get people to vote for your candidate, and if the topic of them not winning the nomination comes up, you'd better not be the one who raised it, and you should steer things back to your candidate's merits versus his opponent, not the nightmarish scenarios that would happen if he's not nominated.
    posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on April 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


    But Sanders has something that progressive America needs: the ability to build and sustain a movement. Since 2011, the huge weakness of the progressive activist generation has been their tendency to flip from heroic actions – Wisconsin, Occupy, the Black Lives Matter movement – to footsolider status in short-lived presidential campaigns.

    By contrast, the right has a grassroots movement that, aided by the dollars of the Koch brothers, will harass and sabotage the next Democratic president. It is this movement that has delivered the local counter-revolutions on abortion; that harries migrants; that passes byelaws disenfranchising black voters.


    Kind of got a point there, but it remains to be seen if Bernie can sustain a movement. For me, he's really not my first choice for that sort of thing, he just happens to be at the right time and place for someone with his views to have a serious run. The person who does sustain a movement is probably going to have to be able to do better at the social justice stuff the author doesn't seem to put as much of a priority on. We need both the economic and social justice to pull out of this mess.
    posted by Drinky Die at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


    The evidence cited by the above article is:
    • Ignoring historical record of the massive cultural shift and major events of the late-60s and '70s that fed into the rise of cultural conservatives in the Republican Party and the fall of New Deal Democrats
    • An inaccurate Twitter meme about who has praised each candidate (for example, the Pope has actively separated himself from Bernie)
    • A one-dimension, strictly-linear political scale, entirely pulled out of the author's butt
    • A citation of Clinton's work on the Goldwater campaign as a teenager over a half-century ago.
    Whereas if we use real-world metrics like "voting records", "fundraising", and "public statements" we get this:

    Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.

    I am quite tired of the same old article full of insinuations about Clinton's secret conservatism that are fundamentally based in the author's feelings about her rather than data.

    -----

    Sanders on New York: So what if I lose?

    Looks like anyone hoping that this would be decided tomorrow or after next week was kidding themselves. The math has been pretty clear: for Bernie to get to the nomination, he needs to radically outperform the polling so far in all upcoming contests. He was not even able to hit his updated targets in Wisconsin and Wyoming.

    I would not be so anxious for this to be over if his campaign wasn't responding to the bleak outcomes by doubling down on the nastiness and insinuations. The "Democratic whores" comment by a speaker at a Bernie rally would have been unthinkable before the primaries officially started. It sure would not have been met with cheers.

    There is a really long article called On Becoming Anti-Bernie that basically tracks how and why my feelings have changed over this season. I started out this primary season really excited about Bernie's presence in this election. I thought I would be casting a vote for him. At this point I really can't countenance doing it; it started with his supporters' willingness to recycle old Republican conspiracy theories, and has been cemented by Sanders's own behavior and unwillingness to engage deeply in the issues when pressed.

    I can't express how unhappy I am with the latter, by the way. The former I expected to happen eventually, though I expected it more in the general. But with a self-proclaimed socialist in the running I thought this would be the time to debate liberal policy ideas. How are disadvantaged children best served from birth? Could public, standardized early childhood education programs work in the USA, and how? How do we feel about reviving forced integration? How do we best attack Voter ID laws? What is the best strategy for regaining ground lost on abortion rights? I was looking forward to a candidate who would be offering concrete policy alternatives to Clinton's hawkishness. I was looking forward to a candidate who had specific, realistic legislative strategies for radical campaign finance reform. Last fall I surveyed the Republican Party's clown car roster and felt pretty smug about the upcoming convivial, policy-dense debates I was sure would be happening on the Democratic side.

    It's April and those dreams have been shattered, to put it lightly. Snobby Liberal Schroedinger thought liberals were better than the shit slinging. Now she has to admit that, just like our conservative brethren, we want to see it flung high and wide, and preferably dug up from the nastiest, ugliest depths of our rectums.
    posted by schroedinger at 8:57 AM on April 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


    Whereas if we use real-world metrics like "voting records", "fundraising", and "public statements" we get this:

    Iraq, being beholden to corporations, and praise for Nancy Reagan on AIDS.
    posted by Drinky Die at 9:08 AM on April 18, 2016


    This seems like a useful point in the conversation to revisit this Vox article about the rotating political axis dividing "left" from "right".

    Hillary is somewhat more liberal on what they call the "social dimension" (minority and women's rights) and Bernie is certainly more leftish on what they call the "economic dimension" (socialism vs. capitalism). (Though both are pretty clearly Not Republicans on both axes.)The fact that the line diving the parties has been rotating provides some context for these comparisons to the historical positions of the two parties. I feel like this is a more useful metaphor than the "Overton window" for comparisons across multiple issues.

    Schroedinger, yous say "With a self-proclaimed socialist in the running I thought this would be the time to debate liberal policy ideas," but then most of your examples are social rather than economic issues.

    I guess it's inevitable that there will be this kind of division among democrats, given the way the axis is oriented these days... Those who care most about social issues and those who care most about economic issues are going to have some conflicts over priorities. But ultimately we really are on the same side. Because socially disadvantaged people are also the economically disadvantaged, for the most part.
    posted by OnceUponATime at 9:09 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    Looks like anyone hoping that this would be decided tomorrow or after next week was kidding themselves.

    I've said a few times before: It's far worse than that. The only way Hillary clinches the nomination before June 7 is if she takes 80% of the remaining delegates, and even that is just moving it to Puerto Rico June 5. To end this in 4 weeks, she needs 85% of the remaining pledged delegates. There's a graphic on this NYT page you can play with.

    On the other side, if Bernie manages to pull 60% of the remaining delegates (roughly), he'll clinch... June 7.

    We're still 7 weeks away from a conclusion to this race. And even then, Bernie is still taking this to Philadelphia.

    And we're still 203 days until Election Day.

    /sigh
    posted by dw at 9:16 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    If you seriously want to argue she is not a corporate centrist we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on that.

    Feel free to disagree.

    But let's be clear. What the article said was: "corporate centrist (neoliberal)." She's not neoliberal, and her speeches and policy proposals and Senate votes don't support neoliberalism, which means free market capitalism. She's also said that "corporations do not create jobs" and "trickle down economics failed" for years.

    I mean, read her words for yourself. Clinton Outlines Economic Agenda. The speech: "Building the Growth and Fairness Economy." Her speech to launch her campaign was also about the economy.

    She's clearly not espousing neoliberalism.
    posted by zarq at 9:17 AM on April 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


    But with a self-proclaimed socialist in the running I thought this would be the time to debate liberal policy ideas ...
    I think it's that slippage and tension between "socialist" and "liberal" that's causing a lot of this talking past each other from Clinton and Sanders supporters. The two things are not commensurate or even necessarily in close alignment. A lot of Clinton supporters, who have probably always regarded themselves as left-leaning, are discovering that they are actually anti-socialists (which is fine, btw). And many Sanders supporters find themselves beating their heads against walls with Clinton supporters because they're belatedly discovering that these supposed left-liberals have a fundamentally different understanding of how the world (and the economy, and the environment) actually works, due to their pervasive individualism. We're actually dealing with two very different world views and economic epistemologies. A politics that favours egalitarian or collective solutions, when it comes down to it, is actually rather different from one that values interventions at the level of the individual or special interest group.
    posted by Sonny Jim at 9:18 AM on April 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


    She's not neoliberal

    Yeah, we're clearly living in different universes.
    posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    "I'm not going to draw any sweeping conclusions from this interaction, but I sure do hope the Sanders campaign apparatus isn't pushing this kind of uninformed and divisive rhetoric when they're going door-to-door. "

    Our experience (as both door to door targets and active local Democrats, although we've sat this primary season out) has been mixed. There are a LOT of young volunteer canvassers for Bernie, and some of them clearly took their trainings seriously and listened and learned and understand it's a game of persuasion where YOU (as the candidate advocate) have to listen to your voter and understand what matters to that voter and how to persuade that particular voter. And then there are some (almost all men) whose minds have been blown and are convinced that if they just get the voter to listen to THEM about how mind-blowing Bernie is, the voter's mind will be equally blown, and they appear totally incapable of understanding that other people have different issues and concerns than they do. (And most of them are non-local college students out canvassing residential neighborhoods, so there's a built-in town/gown issue, and when they're convinced that what's of interest to a private-college, $35,000-year tuition out-of-town male 20-year-old is OBVIOUSLY EXACTLY what interests a 45-year-old single mother of three who earns less than that a year, well, it doesn't go terribly well.) And it's kind-of an unsolvable problem because guys who are convinced they already know everything aren't really going to listen at the training and learn how to do a job better that requires empathy and tailoring of your message; they already know what message they want to preach and that's what they're going to preach.

    Anyway, we've already seen some of the former group come back and canvass for local candidates and for a big union push we're having right now, and they've shown up at local events and meetings, which are in a lull right now between the primary and the general but are still going on to prepare for the general. We have not (rather predictably) seen any of the latter group come back around for anything since the primary.

    (And that's fine, it's not a judgment on the candidate; candidates don't have a whole lot of control over who volunteers for them, and some first-timers get it and some don't, and we've seen this happen to other candidates before, some national, some local, who draw some enthusiasts who are, uh, not so good at understanding how to campaign right. That's not Bernie's fault and I'm happy to have the youthful progressives who are sticking around and pulling the local party younger and lefter. And the ones who aren't, well, I'm sure they'll all find consulting jobs and make a lot of money.)
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:22 AM on April 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


    Guys, there's an open thread about neoliberalism, and if you read the comments, it's clear that there's nothing approaching universal agreement on what the term means, so I think it's pointless to try to nail this particular bit of Jell-O to the wall.
    posted by tonycpsu at 9:23 AM on April 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


    (Also I'm sure this dynamic is different in areas where the Bernie recruitment pool is not primarily private-college students paying more than $30,000/year in tuition in a post-industrial Rust Belt city with attendant employment issues and racial issues.)
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:24 AM on April 18, 2016


    Thanks, tonycpsu. :)
    posted by zarq at 9:26 AM on April 18, 2016


    Schroedinger, yous say "With a self-proclaimed socialist in the running I thought this would be the time to debate liberal policy ideas," but then most of your examples are social rather than economic issues.

    Those were the first that came to mind--but yes, I would like to see serious debate of the economic issues as well. "I'm going to spend $1 trillion on healthcare" is not serious debate.


    Iraq, being beholden to corporations, and praise for Nancy Reagan on AIDS.

    This is not data. This is a tremendously narrow set of metrics based on your personal values. You're defining someone as liberal based on their Iraq vote, whether you feel they're corporate, and whether they made a statement about Reagan that within 24 hours they apologized for extensively and at great length, to a degree that many of their most strident public critics of the statement were placated. The latter is exceptionally specific to this single candidate.

    If nothing else, I hope you are able to admit that you are using a very individual definition of liberal, rather than one the vast majority of voters and political analysts would adhere to.
    posted by schroedinger at 9:29 AM on April 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


    Well don't worry, guys, the electability of Clinton v Trump will never matter, because your friendly republicans over here are working our tails off to ensure #nevertrump is the most successful initiative the Republican Party has ever had. I think we're doing pretty well.
    posted by corb at 9:31 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Question about DW-NOMINATE: I tried googling for what factors determine someone's DW-NOMINATE score also but didn't find a quick answer and I don't have a whole lot of time to look right now. Is it solely one's votes while in Congress? Because if so, that's probably another reason why people perceive Clinton as being more conservative than her DW-NOMINATE score indicates.

    Take foreign policy, where Clinton appears to be more conservative than Obama, at least in terms of the traditional conservatives-are-hawks, liberals-are-doves sense. For instance, it's been widely reported that as Secretary of State Clinton pushed hard for the intervention in Libya, which Obama has recently been on the record saying didn't work and was a mistake. Or a few months ago, when Clinton was publicly calling for new sanctions and saying we shouldn't thank Iran for their swift release of the American sailors whose craft entered Iranian territorial waters when Obama's nuclear deal that lifted sanctions was still pretty new. Her foreign policy generally seems to favor intervention and aggressive stances more than Obama and certainly more than Sanders, but if DW-NOMINATE only captures votes from her time as a Senator, that wouldn't really captured in her score.

    Same situation with discussions of hypothetical policy that doesn't come to a vote. For instance, when she says she'd accept a ban on late-term abortions with certain exceptions, she's to the right of Sanders, but without having voted on the issue that wouldn't affect her score.

    Please note that I'm not saying Clinton is a Republican Lite, because I acknowledge that Republicans are off in such a batshit crazy world that she's still nowhere close. It's just that whenever the issue of how-liberal-Clinton-is comes up people point at the DW-NOMINATE score that seems surprising given some of the things on her post-Senate record and I'm wondering what accounts for the discrepancy.
    posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:34 AM on April 18, 2016


    Let me prepare my surprised face for when Trump gets the nomination and all the Republicans dutifully line up and vote for him.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:35 AM on April 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


    fffm, right now I have more faith that Republicans will stay home rather than vote Trump than I do for Bernie voters to vote Clinton. Granted, the acrimony of the Democratic contest has been at the forefront of my mind for weeks now.
    posted by schroedinger at 9:38 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    The first two hours were all six hundred of us crammed into a hot, uncomfortable gym, waiting while the staff counted up how many people signed in. People were getting frustrated, partisans from both sides were giving angry speeches, people shouting at the elected officials, a physical fight almost broke out on the floor -- it was total zoo.

    The US doing its best to emulate a parliamentary style system.
    posted by Talez at 9:39 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    The only way Trump will be the nominee is if his people shoot every non-Trump delegate on the way to convention, in which case you have bigger problems.
    posted by corb at 9:41 AM on April 18, 2016


    Well don't worry, guys, the electability of Clinton v Trump will never matter, because your friendly republicans over here are working our tails off to ensure #nevertrump is the most successful initiative the Republican Party has ever had. I think we're doing pretty well.

    Yeah but you're going for Cruz instead who is arguably even worse so....

    If nothing else, I hope you are able to admit that you are using a very individual definition of liberal, rather than one the vast majority of voters and political analysts would adhere to.

    We're talking about being a conservative Democrat, not a conservative. We're talking about the Overton Window. It's a relative question. I think there will be a good amount of agreement that you are more liberal if you are less of a hawk and less beholden to corporations. The Clinton machine brand is triangulation. Triangulation drags you right in our current politics.

    fffm, right now I have more faith that Republicans will stay home rather than vote Trump than I do for Bernie voters to vote Clinton.

    I haven't seen any polling data to indicate that is a realistic prediction. Far, far more Clinton voters said they would never support Obama in '08 than Sanders supporters say they will not support Clinton this year. It was a much, much more nasty primary in '08.
    posted by Drinky Die at 9:42 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    The only way Hillary clinches the nomination before June 7 is if she takes 80% of the remaining delegates, and even that is just moving it to Puerto Rico June 5. To end this in 4 weeks, she needs 85% of the remaining pledged delegates. There's a graphic on this NYT page you can play with.

    On the other side, if Bernie manages to pull 60% of the remaining delegates (roughly), he'll clinch... June 7.


    This doesn't seem right. Playing with the slider, it seemed she needed like 43%. It doesn't make sense to me that she's winning and in the lead, yet she needs more than he does to win.
    posted by cashman at 9:43 AM on April 18, 2016


    Yeah but you're going for Cruz instead who is arguably even worse so....

    I simply cannot fathom how anyone could look at Cruz and go "yep, he's the best choice to vote for." I mean yeah I get it; it's blind adherence to Republican ideology. What boggles my mind is how many people are that blind to how truly awful Cruz is on so many levels.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    This doesn't seem right. Playing with the slider, it seemed she needed like 43%. It doesn't make sense to me that she's winning and in the lead, yet she needs more than he does to win.

    She needs 43% to clinch the pledged delegate majority in June. I was talking about what she needs to end this before we get to June.
    posted by dw at 9:46 AM on April 18, 2016


    Daily News Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders' last word to New York voters: The Democratic candidate for President lays out his affordable housing agenda

    Summary of plan:
    1) Expand the National Housing Trust Fund to construct, preserve and rehabilitate at least 3.5 million affordable apartments and homes over the next decade. Will "provide federal funding to reduce the $17 billion in unmet capital needs at the New York City Housing Authority and it will substantially reduce the unacceptable backlog of capital needs in all of our nation’s public housing facilities."
    2) Provide housing vouchers to 3 million+ lower-income Americans
    3) "Make it easier to refinance mortgages, especially in communities of color"
    4) Raise the minimum wage to reduce homelessness, poverty, crime.
    5) For first time homeowners: expand down-payment assistance programs; offer pre-purchase housing counseling; reform the way credit scores are calculated, and prevent predatory lending.
    --

    [Worth noting: Credit score reporting reform is a Congressional democratic party platform.]
    posted by zarq at 9:49 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    My stupid state and its ridiculously late primary will keep the dream of a game-changing Clinton implosion alive no matter what happens in NY.
    posted by prize bull octorok at 9:50 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I haven't seen any polling data to indicate that is a realistic prediction. Far, far more Clinton voters said they would never support Obama in '08 than Sanders supporters say they will not support Clinton this year. It was a much, much more nasty primary in '08.

    To counter your anecdata with my own, my impression from the '08 primary was that the PUMA faction was a miniscule, if very loud, contingent of Hillary supporters. I keep hearing the same said of the Bernie Or Bust movement, but likely because of the larger social media megaphone, I'm exposed to their bullshit much, much more than I ever was the PUMA garbage.
    posted by Atom Eyes at 9:50 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I simply cannot fathom how anyone could look at Cruz and go "yep, he's the best choice to vote for."

    Have you...seen our choices?
    posted by corb at 9:51 AM on April 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


    Have you... considered not voting for racist misogynists and voting Democrat instead? Like, seriously. Every Republican candidate is a right-out-there racist. Every single one wants to outlaw abortion. Every single one haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates queer people in general. One Republican nominee to SCOTUS and goodbye Roe v Wade goodbye equal marriage goodbye the last bulwarks against voter suppression goodby literally every freedom in the USA that applies to anyone who isn't white and/or cis male and heterosexual.

    Cruz is relying on regressive flat tax and trickle down economics that have been proven time and time again to simply not work.

    When the options are different flavoured bowls of shit, it's time to go to a new restaurant.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:54 AM on April 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


    Have you...seen our choices?

    Yeah, now. But Trump, Cruz and Governor Pickle-Lover (not a euphemism) weren't always your only choices. The more sane and less stupidly obstructionist ones have dropped out.
    posted by zarq at 9:55 AM on April 18, 2016


    Jokes aside about how Cruz is somebody's Vampire: The Masquerade archvillain wished to life, I have developed an appreciation for him as a human being relatable in all his deeply weird awkwardness and for the almost campy way he conducts himself as a politician. Fuck his policies forever tho
    posted by prize bull octorok at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    Question about DW-NOMINATE: I tried googling for what factors determine someone's DW-NOMINATE score also but didn't find a quick answer and I don't have a whole lot of time to look right now. Is it solely one's votes while in Congress?

    Yes, only votes. Except for presidents, whose public statements about bills are counted as votes.

    You can also estimate ideal points with other kinds of data, though. One way is to look at who you receive campaign money from and who else those donors have donated to; this is what Bonica does. Other folks have at least made initial stabs at using text streams but I forget who offhand.

    Aaaaaaanyway, the big point is that AFAICR Clinton always comes off on the liberal side of the Democrats.

    One of the differences between any ideal point estimator and an individual's perceptions is that the estimators don't apply any weighting. They don't "know" that this vote is the Iraq vote and so it's really important and that anyone on the wrong side is anathema; they only "see" a big matrix of votes (or donations or whatever).
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I'd argue there was never a truly sane Republican as an option. Jeb! maybe, but he didn't want it in the first place.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:57 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    When the options are different flavoured bowls of shit, it's time to go to a new restaurant.

    *eyes narrow* Was it you who left the needlessly grumpy review on Yelp for my favorite dining establishment?
    posted by Wordshore at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


    it's time to go to a new restaurant.

    We're still in primary season, though. It's reasonable to pick the best possible dish first, and then leave to get take-out.

    Or, non-analogy: given that primary votes can influence the future direction of the Party, having a bunch of terrible choices makes it all the more important to choose the least-worst one before jumping ship in the general election.
    posted by cjelli at 9:58 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I haven't seen any polling data to indicate that is a realistic prediction. Far, far more Clinton voters said they would never support Obama in '08 than Sanders supporters say they will not support Clinton this year.

    Well, almost. 66% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama in 2008; 64% of Sanders supporters say they will vote for Clinton. It's within the margin of error, though, so it's probably no different from 2008.

    OTOH, look at that GOP dropoff for Trump vs McCain voters in 2008. OUCH.
    posted by dw at 10:00 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I'd argue there was never a truly sane Republican as an option. Jeb! maybe, but he didn't want it in the first place.

    "more sane" ≠ truly sane.
    posted by zarq at 10:01 AM on April 18, 2016


    corb: "The only way Trump will be the nominee is if his people shoot every non-Trump delegate on the way to convention, in which case you have bigger problems."

    I still think Trump could emerge as the nominee. Guess we'll have to wait until Cleveland and see.
    posted by Chrysostom at 10:02 AM on April 18, 2016


    Governor Pickle-Lover

    Come, now.
    Kasich: Pig In the City has been a much-needed delightful diversion during the terrible slog of this late campaign season. I say let the guy eat to his heart's content.
    posted by Atom Eyes at 10:03 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    See my comment above. I truly do not believe that many Republicans will stay home instead of voting for Trump. I do believe many Democrats will, out of disgust for Clinton.
    posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:05 AM on April 18, 2016


    corb, you're so super-certain Trump won't be the GOP nominee, and I kinda can't see how the GOP gets out of its convention without nominating him, and I'm kind-of mind-boggled we're seeing such different versions of how this plays out. So let's make a bet! Let's find a mutually agreeable sort of charity, and loser donates $20 to the local version of that charity. (Like, animal rescue? DV shelter? You pick.)

    Trump is the nominee, you donate $20. Anyone else is the nominee, I donate $20. First ballot, second ballot, etc., doesn't matter.
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:06 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    At least with his mouth full the opportunities for him to screw up with Jews again are lessened.
    posted by zarq at 10:06 AM on April 18, 2016


    The GOP's rightward turn has pretty much left every Republican presidential candidate from 1996 on having to show increasingly right-wing bona fides just to get the nomination.

    Remember Bob Dole's rightward turn in '96? Bob Dole, a guy who was as moderate, bordering on liberal Republican as they come? Bob Dole, the sponsor of the Americans With Disabilities Act, one of those "government overreach" omnibus regulation laws the far right rails about?

    Bob Dole in 2016 probably wouldn't make it out of Iowa.
    posted by dw at 10:06 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    Kasich: Pig In the City

    HA! I'm really glad I wasn't in a meeting when I read that.
    posted by zutalors! at 10:11 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    So let's make a bet!

    I almost made this exact same comment in response to that post. Yours was much more charitable (literally).
    posted by cashman at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    I would not be so anxious for this to be over if his campaign wasn't responding to the bleak outcomes by doubling down on the nastiness and insinuations.

    They've both been awful lately. On the one hand, Sanders' campaign has been really frustrating to watch since he began to do better than people expected, but not well enough to actually win unless Clinton's candidacy exogenously implodes, and has done a lot more "Here, let me sour you on Clinton" stuff. Which is frustrating to watch because (a) that sort of stuff might carry over to the general, and (b) it's electorally useless -- the only circumstances where Sanders could win are if Clinton's campaign implodes, at which point Sanders' victory is inevitable even without negative-on-Clinton stuff. And at the same time Clinton's entirely-unnecessary attacks on Sanders are just as frustrating, since they're just alienating a different Democratic subconstituency. I mean, I expect that at the end of the day none of it makes any difference anyway but it's just frustrating to watch in the here and now.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:17 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I truly do not believe that many Republicans will stay home instead of voting for Trump. I do believe many Democrats will, out of disgust for Clinton.

    We'll see, I guess, although I do believe many Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, and many will vote for people like Jill Stein.
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:17 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    To counter your anecdata with my own, my impression from the '08 primary was that the PUMA faction was a miniscule, if very loud, contingent of Hillary supporters.

    I don't think you are off base. You have some people who make a lot of noise about it and that's your PUMA types, but then you have other supporters who are more quietly resistant but end up voting for the nominee anyway.

    Vox: In one poll, 33 percent of Sanders of voters say they won't vote for Clinton
    -
    In July 2008, 54 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn't support Barack Obama in a general election...
    Ultimately, however, nine in 10 Democrats ended up voting for Obama over John McCain, according to the Nation.

    posted by Drinky Die at 10:22 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    roomthreeseventeen:
    "We'll see, I guess, although I do believe many Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, and many will vote for people like Jill Stein."
    I'd love to vote for Jill Stein but I'm in Ohio. Any dedicated Democrats in a safe state wanna vote Green for me?
    posted by charred husk at 10:23 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    charred husk, I'm in New York, and am voting Stein if I have to. I'm welcome to do it in your name.
    posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:25 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    dw: "Bob Dole in 2016 probably wouldn't make it out of Iowa."

    I imagine he'd get lost trying to get back on the interstate.
    posted by Chrysostom at 10:29 AM on April 18, 2016


    Let's find a mutually agreeable sort of charity, and loser donates $20 to the local version of that charity. (Like, animal rescue? DV shelter? You pick.

    I'm in, if you don't feel it's too much like insider trading - I have a lot of confidence because I'm sitting at Cruz Central and am helping to devise strategies to block Trump. But I'd love that. If nothing else, it would give me one small positive note that would come out of a Trump nomination.
    posted by corb at 10:40 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Oh, and, I am always happy to give to DV shelters, so let's make it that if you don't mind.
    posted by corb at 10:41 AM on April 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


    "I'm in, if you don't feel it's too much like insider trading - I have a lot of confidence because I'm sitting at Cruz Central and am helping to devise strategies to block Trump. "

    I don't mind. I'm not quite as confident but I really don't see a path to AVOIDING Trump and, hey, at least a little money going to a DV shelter will help me feel slightly better no matter who the nominee is since I don't like any of them. :)

    If anyone else wants to join our Trump/not-Trump bet, you can me-mail me your bet and your pledge to donate $20 to the local domestic violence prevention charity or shelter of your choice if you lose. I'll keep a list and closer to the convention we can have a bet metatalk where I'll post the list of "Trump is GOP nominee" and "Anyone but Trump is GOP nominee" peeps, and bet winners can gloat about their superior political prediction skills and bet losers can talk about the wonderful local charities they've donated to! (I will also keep a list of who bets when so those of you betting the day before the convention get WAY LESS GLOATING POWER.)
    posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:49 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    I predict some kind of Schrödinger's cat outcome where Trump simultaneously is and is not the nominee.
    posted by Chrysostom at 10:52 AM on April 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


    If you schmooze with Cruz, you can stump the Trump, enabling you to float the gloat
    posted by prize bull octorok at 10:52 AM on April 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


    If the 21st-century Iraq War vote is too narrow of a criterion to be material in regards to liberalness or conservatism, and the Goldwater stuff is too far in the past to matter, I think the immediate subsequent switch to an anti-Vietnam-War position back then shouldn't count either. So out of the remaining public record, has Clinton ever met a war she didn't like? I see that she advocated for sufferers of Gulf War Syndrome but did she speak out in opposition to the Gulf War itself?

    I mean unless opposing U.S. wars and U.S. militarism has actually been a recurring theme with her I think it's the anti-Vietnam activism from half a century ago that should be trimmed off as an outlier, not her actual votes for wars as a member of the United States Senate during the current millenium, when people are in the process of swearing that she's a liberal through and through.
    posted by XMLicious at 10:53 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    It's so frustrating that people have to rebut the "Clinton is a moderate Republican!" canard every time. To call her a moderate Republican or even a conservative Democrat on the basis of just one or two issues (for example her corporatism) makes exactly as much sense as calling Sanders a conservative Democrat on the basis of his positions on gun control.
    posted by Justinian at 10:53 AM on April 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


    The Republican thing is just dumb. It's nonsense. And bringing up the "Goldwater girl" history is ridiculous.

    It's like "she's so bad! She's secretly a Republican!" "She's so bad! She's an establishment Democrat!"

    I feel like people try to back into a logical criticism of her from an emotional one.
    posted by zutalors! at 10:58 AM on April 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I personally base my belief on decades of watching the Clinton political machine operate.

    But the article was not talking about her actually being a moderate Republican, it was talking about her as an example of what a moderate Republican might look like if the Overton Window hadn't shifted so much that moderate Republicans are now what we used to see as extreme Republicans.
    posted by Drinky Die at 10:59 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Bob Dole in 2016 probably wouldn't make it out of Iowa.

    From some of the many happy times in my favorite US state, I suspect that visitors who find they don't want to leave have discovered the delights of something extremely large and flat.
    posted by Wordshore at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2016


    For me personally, the only reason I even know about the Goldwater stuff is from people here on MeFi bringing it up to say it doesn't matter or proposing guideline criteria for how her candidacy must be evaluated which carves that out. This might just be a consequence of not having a Facebook account, though.
    posted by XMLicious at 11:03 AM on April 18, 2016


    people are in the process of swearing that she's a liberal through and through.

    No, people are swearing that she's a liberal in aggregate, and that distinction seems to be the font of much confusion. Without engaging on the substance of her record on foreign wars, her foreign policy record is not (nor would it ever be) by itself dispositive of her liberalism, any more than Sanders' record on gun control is of his.

    If there's a set of issues that are vitally important to you, it's reasonable to base your vote on a candidate's position w/r/t those issues, and I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't look at a given candidate's record on specific votes or topics -- overall weighting necessarily ignores specifics, and specifics matter. But that's not the same thing as their position on those issues defining their political position as a whole.
    posted by cjelli at 11:04 AM on April 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


    But the article was not talking about her actually being a moderate Republican...

    The title: "There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race..." (emphasis added).

    The first sentence: "Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?" (emphasis added).

    Further: "Hillary Clinton’s stances, while fluid during this election cycle, are historically most in tune with classical Republican ideas..." (emphasis added)

    The pictures show her as literally closer to the elephant than the donkey.

    The author is talking about her actually being a moderate Republican.
    posted by Etrigan at 11:06 AM on April 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


    I feel like people try to back into a logical criticism of her from an emotional one.

    It also has the effect of minimizing the amount of blame we put on Democrats to actually be Democrats. If people who don't have the right positions on the issues aren't considered Democrats, then we will stop expecting them to be better Democrats.

    But the article was not talking about her actually being a moderate Republican

    Horseshit. From TFA:
    As a young woman, she volunteered for the conservative Barry Goldwater, and while today she’s become liberal on some social issues, she’s generally at home with moderate conservative ideas, such as a hawkish military, strict immigration laws, reduced welfare, laissez-faire rules for Wall Street, and international business treaties that favor large corporations. One group started a petition this year asking Clinton to run as a Republican, suggesting that while she is “liberal on some issues, on a wide range of important issues she lands squarely as a moderate conservative.”
    The piece is titled "There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat", and if you want to blame the copy editor for running an inaccurate headline, please explain to me what that paragraph is saying other than "Hillary is a moderate Republican."
    posted by tonycpsu at 11:06 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    has Clinton ever met a war she didn't like? I see that she advocated for sufferers of Gulf War Syndrome but did she speak out in opposition to the Gulf War itself?

    She was the wife of a candidate for president at the time of the first Gulf War, I'm pretty sure she kept her mouth shut as is appropriate. But this idea that Hillary is some kind of warmonger is absurd. She wasn't advocating the invasion of Iraq; she reluctantly voted for an ambiguous resolution that gave Pres. Bush the power to invade, for admittedly craven political reasons.

    As Secretary of State, she was under tremendous pressure to get involved in the wars in Syria and the Ukraine, among others, and didn't. Meanwhile, she and Obama essentially ended the two longest-running wars in US history (one of which Bernie Sanders voted for, too.)

    As for Overton Windows and historically what a Democrat is, are people forgetting how hawkish Democrats were before George McGovern (who was himself a war hero)? Does the name "Scoop" Jackson ring a bell? Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower on the phony "missile gap" issue in 1960. Democrats got the US involved in Vietnam, Korea, WW1 and WW2. Not to mention that before 1964, Democrats were the party of segregationists.
    posted by msalt at 11:10 AM on April 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


    But the article was not talking about her actually being a moderate Republican

    The article titled 'There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat' wasn't talking about her being a moderate Republican?

    The article that opens with asking 'Who is the real Democrat — Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?' and then goes on to argue that the 'real Democrat' is Sanders -- implying, necessarily, that Clinton is not a Real Democrat. What party does she belong to, then?

    That it frames Clinton's policies with reference to historical shifts in both parties' platforms doesn't mean it doesn't also call her a moderate Republican (in the title), imply she's a 'really' a Republican (literally in the first sentence, and then repeatedly after that), and claim that she'll pull America 'rightward' and, I quote, 'normalize a crazy cadre of right-wingers as the holders of modern American conservatism' -- it's absolutely saying she's a actually a moderate Republican. That it never uses the exact words 'Clinton is literally a moderate Republican' doesn't change that.
    posted by cjelli at 11:10 AM on April 18, 2016


    To call her a moderate Republican or even a conservative Democrat on the basis of just one or two issues (for example her corporatism)

    That's not exactly a minor fringe issue.
    posted by Pope Guilty at 11:11 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Neither is gun control. Doesn't make Sanders a conservative Democrat.
    posted by Justinian at 11:12 AM on April 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


    Sorry to try to move away from the same conversation that has been had seventeen times but tomorrow is a big day! 538 has Clinton's target at 122 delegates and Sanders at 125. I think it's pretty clear Clinton should beat that target which will make the election essentially out of reach. It will be interesting to see if Sanders doubles down on a superdelegate strategy.

    As for the Republicans, Trump's target is given as 58 delegates. He has a chance to smash past that which might go a long way towards moving him back on a trajectory for a first ballot victory. The only question to me is whether he can win all 85 delegates or not. (He has to win every district with >50% not just the state as a whole for that to happen.)
    posted by Justinian at 11:18 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Everyone ranks the importance of various issues differently, so we're probably not going to come to an agreement on which issues are important enough to say someone doesn't belong in the party. If enough voters and party insiders think someone should be their nominee, then almost by definition, they belong in the party.

    That's not to say the party itself doesn't have significant problems, or that it may have drifted from its principles, but this parlor game of declaring Democrats in good standing moderate Republicans is foolish and counterproductive.
    posted by tonycpsu at 11:19 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    That it never uses the exact words 'Clinton is literally a moderate Republican' doesn't change that.

    The author does not say she is literally a moderate Republican because the author is not arguing that she is. It is arguing that someone with her views would fit in more with the Republicans of the past before the Overton window shifted. (minus the social issues of course)

    Which is why the author says stuff like..."Hillary Clinton’s stances, while fluid during this election cycle, are historically most in tune with classical Republican ideas..."

    Instead of that she is in tune with the friggin Tea Party.
    posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 AM on April 18, 2016


    Meanwhile, in California: Are you an independent voter? You aren't if you checked this box
    With nearly half a million registered members, the American Independent Party is bigger than all of California's other minor parties combined. The ultraconservative party's platform opposes abortion rights and same sex marriage, and calls for building a fence along the entire United States border. Based in the Solano County home of one of its leaders, the AIP bills itself as “The Fastest Growing Political Party in California."

    But a Times investigation has found that a majority of its members have registered with the party in error. Nearly three in four people did not realize they had joined the party, a survey of registered AIP voters conducted for The Times found.

    That mistake could prevent people from casting votes in the June 7 presidential primary, California's most competitive in decades.

    Voters from all walks of life were confused by the use of the word “independent” in the party’s name, according to The Times analysis.

    ...

    While California's top-two primary system allows people to vote for any candidate, regardless of party, presidential primaries have different rules.

    Republicans have a closed primary this year. Democrats will allow voters registered as having “no party preference” — the state’s formal term for an unaffiliated, independent voter — to cast a ballot. But a voter registered with the American Independent Party will only be allowed to vote for presidential candidates on the AIP ballot.
    posted by cjelli at 11:25 AM on April 18, 2016


    you guys know you're arguing about a Huffington Post opinion piece right
    posted by prize bull octorok at 11:25 AM on April 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


    It is arguing that someone with her views would fit in more with the Republicans of the past before the Overton window shifted. (minus the social issues of course)

    I don't...

    Yes, if you completely ignore every issue on which Clinton is a liberal Democrat, she doesn't look like a liberal Democrat. Fine. You guys win!
    posted by Justinian at 11:25 AM on April 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


    As for Overton Windows and historically what a Democrat is, are people forgetting how hawkish Democrats were before George McGovern (Who was himself a war hero)?

    I definitely am acutely aware of that, and that it was under Democratic Presidents that open involvement in and escalation of the Vietnam War happened. That's exactly why I think distant or minor anti-militarism sentiments from Clinton during what may have been a historical anomaly for the Democratic Party or the U.S. in general anyways, rather than how she has actually wielded her power as Secretary and voted as a Senator, shouldn't be given much weighting at all as predictors of what she would do as President.

    My one serious criterion at the beginning of last year was "Can we at least elect someone who won't start a war with Iran" and I'm not even sure that Sanders wouldn't but he seems like a better bet than anyone else.
    posted by XMLicious at 11:26 AM on April 18, 2016


    I have a bunch of friends in New York who are pretty dedicated Sanders supporters, so my Facebook feed is seeing a fair uptick in excitement right now. I'm very curious to see what happens tomorrow.
    posted by bardophile at 11:27 AM on April 18, 2016


    you guys know you're arguing about a Huffington Post opinion piece right

    Not even. If the author of that piece were here, I bet they'd acknowledge they were calling her a moderate Republican.
    posted by tonycpsu at 11:27 AM on April 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


    Yes, if you completely ignore every issue on which Clinton is a liberal Democrat, she doesn't look like a liberal Democrat. Fine. You guys win!

    The author was saying he thinks she looks like a classical moderate conservative on these issues:

    hawkish military, strict immigration laws, reduced welfare, laissez-faire rules for Wall Street, and international business treaties that favor large corporations.


    But the author says directly the center still exists and it's between her and Kasich, not that she is on his side of it.
    posted by Drinky Die at 11:38 AM on April 18, 2016


    > I'd love to vote for Jill Stein but I'm in Ohio. Any dedicated Democrats in a safe state wanna vote Green for me?
    posted by charred husk


    I'm in Massachusetts. I was starting to enjoy thinking about how cool it's going to be to vote for Hillary, a woman candidate for President with a seriously good chance of winning, similar to how cool it felt to vote for the first African-American President in 2008. (I voted Sanders in the current primary but I don't think he's going to get the nomination.)

    Since I'm one of those people who's always saying people should use their vote responsibly, I'll gladly give up that small pleasure in exchange for your Hillary vote in Ohio. Heck, if you want me to vote for Jill Stein at least I'll still get to vote for a woman, and I think I already voted for her once before for Governor. You can memail for further discussion.

    /It's surprising how good it feels to find a way to make your vote matter.
    posted by benito.strauss at 11:40 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    He says, "This rightward drift has pushed the “center” to a spot between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich." There's a reason for those scare quotes.
    posted by Etrigan at 11:40 AM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Looks like I never updated my address, so I'll have to go to my old polling place a mile away. No big, but considering how often people move around here (and especially young white transplants, aka a big chunk of Sanders' base), I wonder if it'll have an effect on the ultimate outcome.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2016


    MetaFilter: you guys know you're arguing about a Huffington Post opinion piece right.

    I'm semi-seriously looking for a GreaseMonkey script that will label all links that go to HuffPo, the Gawkerverse, Slate, Salon, WaPo, and a few others.
    posted by benito.strauss at 11:42 AM on April 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


    He says, "This rightward drift has pushed the “center” to a spot between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich." There's a reason for those scare quotes.

    I don't know what you think that reason is that at all changes the meaning. I assume the quotes are there because he does not feel the center in practice reflects the true center of American politics, and he believes Bernie can shift it closer to accuracy. Right, left, center are all ever shifting.
    posted by Drinky Die at 11:47 AM on April 18, 2016


    Again, look at the spectrum pictures -- "a spot between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich" is directly under the elephant. It's almost exactly under the arrow labeled "conservative". He's using scare quotes to indicate that the "center" isn't really the center, because "Neoliberal" is clearly the "center".
    posted by Etrigan at 11:52 AM on April 18, 2016


    I would agree the center is somewhere between Hillary and Kasich. But there's a LOT of distance between Hillary and Kasich.

    It's like saying the mid-point of a 17 hour Seattle-Los Angeles drive is somewhere between Portland and Sacramento. Why yes, it is, but Sacramento and Portland are 9 hours apart, and Portland is far closer to Seattle than to the center.
    posted by dw at 11:56 AM on April 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


    I'm still pretty solidly in my 'optimistic cynic' position - I am overjoyed at how far Sanders has gotten and how ready many people, especially young people, are to hear his message. I'm also not convinced that the country as a whole is well-situated for his brand of revolution right now, and that his worst case scenario presidency would be worse for America than Clinton's worst case scenario presidency at this very particular and odd point in our political history. I'm voting for him, I don't think he'll win, and I'm pretty much fine with that. But a close Sanders loss at the convention counts as a progressive win to me, considering how this race began, and I think we'll see a stronger progressive candidate than Sanders someday very soon, because that's how the wind is blowing.
    posted by showbiz_liz at 11:58 AM on April 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


    I guess since theology isn't as big a deal anymore and we can't really write treatises on exactly how many miles up the firmament of heaven is located, precisely plotting political figures with long careers on some sort of fixed left-right spectrum is the next best thing
    posted by prize bull octorok at 12:03 PM on April 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


    He's using scare quotes to indicate that the "center" isn't really the center, because "Neoliberal" is clearly the "center".

    He's right though, isn't he? The true center of American politics does not look like a Conservative Republican, it's much more like Hillary Clinton. I mean, this is exactly what I've been trying (and obviously failing) to communicate about his argument. If he was calling her a moderate Republican in today's terms, her place on the chart would be under the conservative arrow or at least under the elephant. The least extreme Republican, with Kasich and the rest off to the right.
    posted by Drinky Die at 12:04 PM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    Buffalo Bills coach (and former New York Jets coach) Rex Ryan is introducing Donald Trump at an event tonight.
    posted by cashman at 12:06 PM on April 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


    If somebody links to an article about Clinton titled "There Is a Moderate Republican in This Race, But She’s Running as a Democrat", and then they claim the author is not callling Clinton a moderate Republican, well, I don't think there is anything anybody can say to convince them otherwise.

    -------

    Anyway here is a 538 article discussing Bernie's appeal among independents.

    -------

    Dang cjelli, that article!
    Of the 500 AIP voters surveyed by a bipartisan team of pollsters, fewer than 4% could correctly identify their own registration as a member of the American Independent