Trump will be the Republican standard-bearer
May 3, 2016 5:42 PM   Subscribe

 
Your move, Bernie.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


So it'll be Hillary versus Trump. She'll win, right? There have been enough crazy unexpected events this election already, right?
posted by Rangi at 5:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Didn't Bernie say yesterday that he would not be supporting Trump, and his supporters would not be supporting Trump, and he would do anything in his power to make sure Trump didn't get elected? Or something to that effect? I don't think you have to worry about Bernie on this one.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


The Trump train claims another victim.
posted by kzin602 at 5:46 PM on May 3, 2016


Kasichmentum!
posted by leotrotsky at 5:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [53 favorites]


I think she'll probably win, but I am not taking anything for granted, because President Trump is the apocalypse. Possibly literally.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [88 favorites]


So God didn't choose Cruz?

Who will he side with now?
posted by Max Power at 5:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


Trumpocolypse.
posted by kzin602 at 5:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


On the one hand...when it comes to Cruz: good riddance. I read The Handmaid's Tale. I know how this shit goes.

But oh my god.

Trump's the nominee. For realsies.
posted by Windigo at 5:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [82 favorites]


From the NYT comments:

"And that wild cackling you hear off in the distance? Yep, that's John Boehner, celebrating Lucifer's demise."
posted by Tarumba at 5:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [78 favorites]


so the rattlesnake did in the cobra

no, wait, wasn't it the cobra doing in the rattlesnake?

um um ... SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES!!!!
posted by pyramid termite at 5:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


Well, at least those alien lizards can remove their Ted and Heidi Cruz skins now. I'm sure they need to be steam cleaned, anyway.
posted by a halcyon day at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


Well it's official: Americans prefer cooked chicken to raw chicken.
posted by selfnoise at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Ah. Donald "Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho" Trump.
posted by uncleozzy at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [61 favorites]


Ted Cruz is pretty young. He'll be back in 2020 to run against Hillary.
posted by indubitable at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


>So it'll be Hillary versus Trump. She'll win, right?

I wouldn't plan on it.
posted by anti social order at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I just want to remind everyone of something.

One of the most loathsome people to ever fucking live on this planet, Ted Cruz, backstabbed and fucked over every person he came in contact with for the past four years, forced his party into a bunch of no-win scenarios that made them look stupid and clueless, and generally called out everyone in his entire party as a bunch of commiesymp Islamolibs who want to dress up as a gay-married woman and fuck a child in a public bathroom. He did all of these things knowingly, burning every bridge he's ever crossed, mauling every hand that's ever fed him, all in service of one dream: He would become the Republican nominee in 2016 and win the Presidency and then the trail of blood and nightmares he left behind wouldn't matter because fuck you I'm POTUS that's why.

He sacrificed everything to this goal, and he's going to lose by a small number of delegates to the political equivalent of the Fukushima meltdown. His strategy would (probably) have worked! It's pretty clear that the JEB! never stood a chance regardless of how much money he raised because he's a fucking walking Ambien who conservatives thoroughly despise, Scott Walker couldn't even figure out how to hire someone who understood things like "a budget," Ben Carson looks like an attractive candidate up until he has to speak in anything other than meaningless fortune-cookie platitudes, etc. All that work, all that planning, all that treachery, all that time.

ALL FOR FUCKING NOTHING AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

He's been reaching for this brass ring his entire life, leaning farther and farther out from his carousel horse. What would he lose first, his balance, or his nerve? But he never flinched, leaning out further and further with each turn of the carousel, and then just before, just before his fingertip brushed it an orange hand came out of nowhere and took that bitch right away from him, right in front of him, and there was never anything he could do to stop it. Now all that's left is the fall.

There aren't words in any language to describe the joy it brings me to see such a heinous, hateful motherfucker destroyed in such a gut-wrenching, miserable way. Tonight was the beginning of Ted Cruz's descent to a talk radio host saying things like, "Well, when *I* was in the United States Senate, let me tell you..."

Ted is a mess.
Ted is a waste.

- Something Awful Forum member JonathonSpectre
posted by kzin602 at 5:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [536 favorites]


Right now would be a good time for the aliens to come down and make us pets, because we surely are failing at making good decisions for ourselves.
posted by Windigo at 5:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


I WANT this to be good news. Ted Cruz dropping out of the election is, or should be, objectively good news. But I don't think I ever considered or prepared myself for a scenario where Ted Cruz dropping out of the presidential election was not 100% good news.

Curse the person who started this whole thing by saying "May you live in interesting times."
posted by mudpuppie at 5:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [95 favorites]


So God didn't choose Cruz?

God eschews Cruz.
posted by jamjam at 5:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [50 favorites]


speaking of cackling, TPM's got a photo up of a very constipated Ted Cruz.
posted by indubitable at 5:51 PM on May 3, 2016


I'm just going to be over here enjoying the epic meltdowns at Redstate.org.
posted by longdaysjourney at 5:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cruz must be having a crisis of faith right now. When does he take off his necklace while staring into a mirror as he transforms into a lizard person?
posted by Justinian at 5:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


I am so horrified right now I can't even. What is the path left to preventing Trump as the nominee? Republican back room cigar smokers, seriously, is this all you've got?
posted by corb at 5:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Poor Carly Fiorina. She'll have to find some other way to fire a few tens of thousands of people again.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [83 favorites]


Donald Trump. For me the first we've-gone-through-the-looking-glass moment was the white Bronco chase in 1994, but boy howdy are they coming faster and faster as the years pass.
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [48 favorites]


I dread the general. Primary Trump will look like an altar boy compared to the super-bully we'll see in the general election. Hillary will really have her work cut out for her.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Is this real life?
posted by asockpuppet at 5:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [48 favorites]


Poor Carly Fiorina. She'll have to find some other way to fire a few tens of thousands of people again.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:52 PM on 5/3


There's the campaign staff.
posted by kzin602 at 5:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [30 favorites]


And now things get really ugly.
posted by crossoverman at 5:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


No asock this is The Dead Zone and Greg Stillson just got the nomination.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


For the avoidance of any doubt, the world is absolutely not wide enough for both Cruz and Trump.
posted by zachlipton at 5:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Honest question: Why wouldn't you just ride this out till the convention? Why is Cruz quitting now? You can't win a contested convention without being in it, right?
posted by butterstick at 5:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


His donors turned against him yesterday.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:55 PM on May 3, 2016


There's the campaign staff.

Actually seen on one of the leftie sites after Cruz named her: If I was planning to lay off all my campaign staff Carly's certainly the person I'd get to do it.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


indubitable: "Ted Cruz is pretty young. He'll be back in 2020 to run against Hillary."

I'm sure that's what Ted Cruz thinks, but I wonder if that's possible between the extremely public flipflopping, the burning of ALL POSSIBLE bridges, and the fact that when given a national test he was a total failure.

I'm sort-of curious whether this and the growing backlash against him is enough to tank his political career in general (Rubio's done), or at least enough to marginalize him in the Senate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


asockpuppet: Is this real life?

Ted got caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.
posted by Kattullus at 5:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [125 favorites]


You need money to run a campaign (unless you're Trump I guess), and was anyone still giving money to Cruz?
posted by dilaudid at 5:57 PM on May 3, 2016


Judging by the increasingly desperate fundraising emails I got, not really.
posted by corb at 5:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Cruz's donors looked at him and realized that he was not a candidate, he was a Chicken Boo except instead of being a living chicken, he was that pink chicken slime pressed loosely into the shape of a man in a warped mockery of the Gingerbread Man fairy tale.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [35 favorites]


The only downside of Cruz dropping out is that Republicans will now spend their money on other (shitty) things and candidates between now and the convention, and those (shitty) things and candidates may actually come to pass...whereas President Cruz was never gonna happen.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


corb: "I am so horrified right now I can't even. What is the path left to preventing Trump as the nominee? Republican back room cigar smokers, seriously, is this all you've got?"

A) Kasich catches fire, winning enough of the remaining primaries to deny Trump a majority and allow the convention to ratfuck him on the second ballot.

or

B) Cleveland catches fire after Kasich fails and said ratfucking commences anyway without the fig leaf of a genuine floor fight, destroying the party and possibly the country.

Or Trump could be hit by a bus. Stranger things have happened this year.
posted by Rhaomi at 5:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Ted Cruz For Human President

100% HUMAN CANDIDATE

"I have been incubated from birth to be your overlord"
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [71 favorites]


I'm sure that's what Ted Cruz thinks, but I wonder if that's possible between the extremely public flipflopping, the burning of ALL POSSIBLE bridges, and the fact that when given a national test he was a total failure.

I mean aside from the failed presidential candidate thing, all of this was already true, and look how far it got him. I don't know how Ted Cruz holds elected office. Frankly, I don't understand how he managed to convince another human being to marry him. And yet these things happened, so I am resigned at this point to acknowledging that there are forces at work here that I do not understand.
posted by indubitable at 5:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [42 favorites]


What's it called when both choices suck? A Morton's Fork? So glad Cruz is gone, but oh my god, Trump.
posted by Windigo at 5:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


There don't seem to be any "OK, so we're doing this" GIFs on the internet, so we'll have to settle for a never gon' be president now
posted by Itaxpica at 5:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [49 favorites]


His donors turned against him yesterday.

Huh. Does he really need money anymore? I mean, just phone it in for another month and steal it in the convention. It's not like he's above that.
posted by butterstick at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I might actually die from schadenfreude before the night is over.
posted by the bricabrac man at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


There's a lot of comments behind campaign scenes about how this is "1976, not 1980" and Cruz, like Reagan, will rise again. I have no way of gauging how accurate this is.
posted by corb at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ok, found Bernie's quote about whether his supporters would back Trump:
"Trump is trying in a number of ways I think to tap into some of my support," the senator said at a press conference at the National Press Club Sunday. "If I lose the nomination, he will not get that support. If I lose the nomination, and we're here to do everything we can to win it, I will do everything I can to make sure that Donald Trump is not elected president of the United States."
Polls suggest a tiny number of Democratic Sanders voters would vote for Trump, but I'm not as clear on independent or crossover Sanders voters (or people who don't bother voting in primaries.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of down-ticket Republican candidates suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
posted by dersins at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [68 favorites]


the republican establishment is just going to have to live with what they have - if they don't, they'll see their party destroyed for sure
posted by pyramid termite at 6:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I dread the general. Primary Trump will look like an altar boy compared to the super-bully we'll see in the general election. Hillary will really have her work cut out for her.

Yeeeeep. I think it's going to be a lot closer than most people expect, a coin flip even.

Mefi mascot scott dilbert has been doing a lengthy series of blogposts casting trump as a masterful purveyor of rhetorical persuasion techniques. They're worth a read if you're still baffled by how he's managed to do so well.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Cleveland catches fire

I'm genuinely worried about what will happen in Cleveland, even without a floor fight. Protests and other assorted shenanigans may get ugly. Mostly I'm worried for all the convention center staffers, hotel workers, nearby businesses, etc. who really don't deserve to endure the shitstorm rolling in on the horizon.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [41 favorites]


The thing about Trump's ascendancy isn't Trump himself. It's the fact that so many people either agree with him, or are that easily duped by his talk.

If we were a better nation with better people, Trump wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [178 favorites]


Windigo, it's called "American Politics"
posted by joeyh at 6:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Kasich catches fire, winning enough of the remaining primaries to deny Trump a majority and allow the convention to ratfuck him on the second ballot.

At this point, I think Kasich has a much higher likelihood of literally catching fire than he does of denying Trump the first-ballot majority.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [55 favorites]


What is the path left to preventing Trump as the nominee?

im legitimately hoping for an old testament style apocalypse because really why the fuck not
posted by poffin boffin at 6:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [46 favorites]


You need money to run a campaign (unless you're Trump I guess), and was anyone still giving money to Cruz?

Correct me if I'm wrong, corb, but I'd have thought even if the campaign was flat broke, they could have just announced that they're pressing on to the convention and simply not bought a lot of (/any) ads from here on in. They could have then picked up at the convention to... do whatever rules re-jiggering they were hoping to do and nuke the nomination process.

By not doing that, I have to wonder if this is Cruz realizing that to have any hope in 2020 he has to get on board with #EventuallyTrump.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gotterdammerung?
posted by infini at 6:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


...and the fact that when given a national test he was a total failure.

Hardly a total failure. The only thing preventing Cruz from being the nom was Trump. Had Trump not run, it's pretty probable Ted would have been the R-nom.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


How quickly he's fallen. It seems like just a week ago he was picking a running mate.
posted by ckape at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [63 favorites]


just what does happen with all the delegates that supposedly were snuck in by cruz? i mean, they "have to" vote for trump the first time around, but ...

what happens if some of them don't?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


My guess is Trump will get a bump in general election polling for a little while as he basks in the nomination. But as summer hits and the ads start really rolling and the non-GOP-primary-voters start paying more attention to him, it will fall and he will lose by a fair amount. So I think it will look worse before it looks better.

Its true that he could do that "say anything no matter how horrible" approach in the GOP primary and get a plurality of votes, but I'm not convinced that will work to get him a majority in the fall.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS TERRIBLE FUTURE WHO DID THE THING

how can we potentially go from this beautiful first black family to a greasy canned ham who wants to ban immigrants and encourages actual lynch mobs in his name

where is my app to launch america into the sun
posted by poffin boffin at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [232 favorites]


On the plus side, think of how good Cruz will feel now that he doesn't have to ooze into that human skin every morning.
posted by sgranade at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Predictable yet terrifying.
posted by Artw at 6:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


One the one hand, Trump winning demonstrates the weakness of the GOP establishment (and possibly The Whole Establishment), which is encouraging for anybody who wants to change things for the better. The center cannot hold. There may not even BE a center.

On the other hand, Trump winning.
posted by notyou at 6:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Trump is a fucking nightmare, but truly, so is Cruz. I don't really have any more opinion about this new state of affairs than if a bunch of jets of fire and acid were shooting all around me and I had to figure out which to run through.
posted by threeants at 6:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm going to continue to live in my fantasyland that Trump is a sooper sekrit democratic plant and that he's going to call out republicans for being awful at the convention, quit the race, and endorse Hillary Clinton.
posted by asockpuppet at 6:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [38 favorites]


Had Trump not run, it's pretty probable Ted would have been the R-nom.

Hard to say, isn't it? So much of the dynamic of the whole race turned around Trump. He's what made the race so untraditional. What would have happened to Bush without Trump's bullying? To Rubio? Walker?
posted by saturday_morning at 6:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


I've been saying since day one that Trump had no chance. No chance at all.

I've been wrong at every turn.

I feel very strongly he has no chance to be the President. I'm actually a bit concerned now.
posted by cell divide at 6:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [94 favorites]


The problem with America is that even if you have a solid plan to escape the flaming wreckage that a possible Trump win would bring, nowhere in the world would really be safe from the (possibly literal) fallout.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


On the other hand, Trump winning.

It only has to be close enough to steal.
posted by butterstick at 6:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Its hopefully a small number of people, but my Facebook wall has a number of Bernie supporters who've written things lately like (and I'm cutting pasting here) "four years of Trump will be devastating for many people but on the other side, we'll finally be able to be to achieve something better." I think these few people are of the opinion that 4 years of Trump (and 20+ years of supreme court nominees) are a small price to pay for the paradise that will grow out of the ashes of America.

I've long given up pointing out magical thinking. Its pointless to debate it.

I'll vote for whichever Democrat is running and vote for them happily because both of them hold at least some views and value that are similar to mine. Trump is a turd monster person.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [73 favorites]


I'm going to continue to live in my fantasyland that Trump is a sooper sekrit democratic plant and that he's going to call out republicans for being awful at the convention, quit the race, and endorse Hillary Clinton.

yeah he's more likely to have a pen of latinos and black people for his disgusting subhuman followers to beat to death with their bare hands
posted by poffin boffin at 6:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


So all of the sixteen dropped out due to lack of money in the campaign coffers... perhaps there will be some reasonable compromise the next time campaign financing reform comes up? nudge nudge, wink winkaroo?
posted by sammyo at 6:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Guys, I was all on board with #keepmefiweird but this is enough, ok? Guys? Guys?
posted by nubs at 6:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [130 favorites]


Correct me if I'm wrong, corb, but I'd have thought even if the campaign was flat broke, they could have just announced that they're pressing on to the convention and simply not bought a lot of (/any) ads from here on in. They could have then picked up at the convention to... do whatever rules re-jiggering they were hoping to do and nuke the nomination process.

You're entirely correct - and he has literally an army of volunteer staff. He was under no requirements to continue with ad buys and I think he actually could have done a decent showing.

In fact, what I'm seeing from campaign channels is a TRULY BIZARRE amount of people saying to continue the campaigning and rallying to win him delegates. This is like such a weird place. Can you even win delegates after you dropped out if the ballots are already printed?
posted by corb at 6:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
posted by freakazoid at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Kasichmentum!

Gesundheit!
posted by the_blizz at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Holy shit.
posted by zarq at 6:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


pyramid termite: "the republican establishment is just going to have to live with what they have - if they don't, they'll see their party destroyed for sure"

In Illinois, downticket Republicans have been running away from Trump for almost a month, including declining to attend the convention and speaking out specifically against Trump. I imagine you'll start seeing that from Republicans in purple states as well as blue ones.

Thorzdad: "Had Trump not run, it's pretty probable Ted would have been the R-nom."

Strongly disagree; without Trump, Cruz is the craziest guy on the ballot, and I think there was a strong ceiling on his support. Without Trump, the establishment would have been running away from Cruz like WHOA. He only got as far as he did because there was a threat so terrible that he was able to convince people that crazy, unlikeable, ultraconservative, and with no allies was a better option than Trump.

EmpressCallipygos: "If we were a better nation with better people, Trump wouldn't have gotten anywhere."

I dunno, Canada's a better nation with better people and they still elected Harper twice.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [81 favorites]


There have been enough crazy unexpected events this election already, right?

Trump has been leading in the polls forever. There was nothing unexpected about this, except to people who refused to believe the GOP had descended into full-tilt xenophobia, or who held on to the fiction that the party leaders could somehow magically stop an uprising from the rank and file voters.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [48 favorites]


Its true that he could do that "say anything no matter how horrible" approach in the GOP primary and get a plurality of votes, but I'm not convinced that will work to get him a majority in the fall.

This seems the most realistic guess. However, I think that maintaining a sense of terror around the possibility of President Trump is a good idea. It is a possibility, albeit a fairly limited one, and anyone who isn't acting like it's a massive threat isn't taking it seriously. If someone told me there was a 1 in 20 chance of me contracting Ebola, I'd react more vigorously than to a 1 in 5 chance of getting a cold.
posted by howfar at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


Look on the bright side, cousins. At least wanking won't be made un-Constitutional.
posted by Devonian at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Get the jokes out of your system now, once The Donald is in the Oval Office, and the Trumstaffle are knocking on your door it won't seem so funny.
posted by kzin602 at 6:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


There was nothing unexpected about this

Hey, stop poking holes in my comfy cocoon of denial. This thing's got to last me for the next six months to eight years.
posted by sgranade at 6:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]




who held on to the fiction that the party leaders could somehow magically stop an uprising from the rank and file voters.

Let's be clear. Party leaders could have stopped this. But they waffled and wiffled and didn't see Trump as a big enough threat and screwed up any chance to stop it without making it blindingly obvious. Even now, they could stop Trump. The rules committee for the convention could make a rule specifically to prevent Trump, like they did with Ron Paul.

But they don't want it hard enough. They don't hate him hard enough.

So fuck you, party leaders. Fuck you very much.
posted by corb at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


I'm going to continue to live in my fantasyland that Trump is a sooper sekrit democratic plant and that he's going to call out republicans for being awful at the convention, quit the race, and endorse Hillary Clinton.

I would love this to be a national scale Third Wave
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


So are there any rumors of what they offered him? A guy like Cruz doesn't drop out just because the odds are stacked against him, and never just because a bunch of people told him to do it. Just look at the shutdown. There is no way he did this without some backroom deal. I wonder what it was.
posted by chortly at 6:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [59 favorites]


Get the jokes out of your system now, once The Donald is in the Oval Office, and the Trumstaffle are knocking on your door it won't seem so funny.

the real question is how many books will i be allowed to bring to my cell in the gay latino death camps
posted by poffin boffin at 6:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


Yeah, I don't understand why he wouldn't just coast to the convention rather than dropping out. Unless there was a back room deal with the party establishment or some threat of a scandal breaking (the affairs?). Or maybe he'll "unsuspend" his campaign right before the convention?
posted by melissasaurus at 6:15 PM on May 3, 2016


The rules committee for the convention could make a rule specifically to prevent Trump, like they did with Ron Paul.

I mean, they could, but Trump is going to win a majority of the delegates before the convention. Fucking over a majority of your primary voters seems like a good way to completely destroy a political party.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


They offered him soup
posted by oulipian at 6:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think the contrast between Bernie's continued (but well short of the mark) strength with the complete collapse of the Trump alternatives to be interesting. Not sure what it means, but it's interesting.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Let's be clear. Party leaders could have stopped this. But they waffled and wiffled and didn't see Trump as a big enough threat and screwed up any chance to stop it without making it blindingly obvious. Even now, they could stop Trump. The rules committee for the convention could make a rule specifically to prevent Trump, like they did with Ron Paul.

But they don't want it hard enough. They don't hate him hard enough.

So fuck you, party leaders. Fuck you very much.


Why bother having a primary at that point? Trump is the candidate that most Republicans want. Ipso facto. And now they'll have him.
posted by threeants at 6:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


[Priebus]
Ted Cruz just lost his place in the race
Sometimes that’s how it goes
Bet it was the look of his face
I’m sure he already knows

[Clinton]
Further down
[Clinton & Carly]
Further down

[Priebus]
Let’s meet the newest nominee from New York
New York
Our nominee

[Cruz]
Trump?
Since when are you a GOP Republican?

[Trump]
Since being one put me on the up and up again

[Cruz]
You're a pathological narcissist

[Trump]
They don’t need to know me
They don’t like you

[Cruz]
Excuse me?

[Trump]
Oh, my friends on Wall Street think I'm great
I'm always be adored by the steaks I create
But upstate—

[Cruz]
Wait

[Trump]
—people think you’re a liar
The nomination was up for grabs so I took it

[Cruz]
I’ve always considered you utterly immoral

[Trump]
Come on you know I'm immortal

[Cruz]
You changed parties to run against my Dominionist law

[Trump]
I changed parties to seize the opportunity I saw
I swear my pride will be the death of us all
(Beware, it goeth before the fall)
posted by zachlipton at 6:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [60 favorites]


i'm smelling a rat here, chortly - just what kind of deal is the republican establishment brewing?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Fucking over a majority of your primary voters seems like a good way to completely destroy a political party.

From your lips to St. Ronnie Reagan's ears.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 PM on May 3, 2016


Veep is such a good show
posted by edeezy at 6:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


You can't win a contested convention without being in it, right?

Claire did, on House of Cards. I assume House of Cards is entirely accurate and realistic.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [23 favorites]


If Trump becomes president y'all can find me in the streets rioting
posted by Gymnopedist at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Once again, Trump walks up to a podium as the lyric "makes a grown man cry" plays. I thought we all learned this lesson back when Microsoft used "Start Me Up" to promote Windows 95.
posted by zachlipton at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Hillary is going to rip him to shreds in the best way possible- by laughing and keeping her cool. He won't even know what to do.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [37 favorites]


corb, if it makes you feel any better, I've predicted this race pretty exactly all along so far and I think Hillary is going to annihilate him.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [36 favorites]


Can you even win delegates after you dropped out if the ballots are already printed?

Sure, why not? Isn't that one of the reasons candidates always "suspend" their campaign instead of officially withdrawing?
posted by saturday_morning at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


There is no way he did this without some backroom deal. I wonder what it was.

SCOTUS seat?
posted by Arbac at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


the republican establishment is just going to have to live with what they have - if they don't, they'll see their party destroyed for sure

The party that holds both houses of Congress, and the majority of governors and state legislatures? Destroyed? More like freed from any pretense.

This is just so depressing. Living in Indiana as I do, I fully expect to see white sheets in public very, very soon. And brownshirt-like violence. Seriously.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


I don't know much about predicting polls, other than to look at prediction markets, which aren't looking favorably on the republicans right now.
posted by pwnguin at 6:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not worried about Trump. His biggest hurdle is that some 80% of women from both parties can't stand him.

So what was his opening gambit last week? "She's only doing well because she's a woman."

He's practically self-sabotaging. And this is his "new more presidential Trump" personality.
posted by fungible at 6:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Priebus throws in the towel: .@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton
posted by Devonian at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


poffin boffin: "the real question is how many books will i be allowed to bring to my cell in the gay latino death camps"

As many as you want, but only from Tyndale House.

Arbac: "SCOTUS seat?"

You just made me literally blanch in horror.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [57 favorites]


Trying so very hard to unsee "SCOTUS seat". Nanananananana!
posted by joeyh at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Slow down, everyone! I'm running out of favorites!
posted by Salieri at 6:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


maybe he'll "unsuspend" his campaign right before the convention?

I am actually wondering this. I am a candidate on the Cruz slate locally, and I have just been - like, a minute ago - instructed privately to continue as planned and that suspending campaigns is a way to continue fundraising to pay off campaign debt.
posted by corb at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


This thread. It broke the sound barrier.
posted by infini at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm genuinely worried about what will happen in Cleveland, even without a floor fight. Protests and other assorted shenanigans may get ugly. Mostly I'm worried for all the convention center staffers, hotel workers, nearby businesses, etc. who really don't deserve to endure the shitstorm rolling in on the horizon.

Can they move the Repubs convention to, like, a large abandoned factory and just let them at each other -- in order to avoid collateral damage?
posted by allthinky at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think either Cruz was warned that a massive scandal would erupt tomorrow, or he's Trump's pick for VP. Which is just... too horrifying to contemplate.
posted by mmoncur at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


The party that holds both houses of Congress, and the majority of governors and state legislatures? Destroyed? More like freed from any pretense.


the american people want pretense - they want to be lied and dog-whistled to - to have someone straight up proclaim the real deal is very dangerous
posted by pyramid termite at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016


Drinky Die: "corb, if it makes you feel any better, I've predicted this race pretty exactly all along so far and I think Hillary is going to annihilate him."

It's true!
posted by Rhaomi at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016


[Trump]
I changed parties to seize the opportunity I saw
I swear my pride will be the death of us all
(Beware, it goeth before the fall)
posted by zachlipton at 6:16 PM on May 3


Did that come from somewhere, or did you write all that just now? That's pretty good.
posted by Jacob Knitig at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I dunno, Canada's a better nation with better people and they still elected Harper twice.

With like 30-odd percent of the actual vote. Harper's victories were a bug of the first past the post system, and not all that reflective of Canada as a whole. As a percentage of the votes cast, Harper sailed into power with less than Trump will assuredly get in November, even if he loses.

ted cruz / heidi cruz / secret service threesome

SCREAMING FOREVER
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Is it just me or is Trump giving a very boring understated speech? Cruz had his audience more riled up.
posted by zachlipton at 6:22 PM on May 3, 2016


[Folks, I know everyone's varying degrees of emotional about this, but please try to dial back the extreme hyperbole/snark or we will end up on the Godwin Express.]
posted by restless_nomad at 6:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Huh? Why was my joke about House of Cards deleted?
posted by threeants at 6:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


A series of billboards running up and down our nation’s highways sporting a picture of your nice dad’s face with the words “Here Is The Man With The Tiny Hands” written beneath it ($25,000 per month)

You know the right thing to do, Ivanka. I believe in you.
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


If a swarm of cockroaches could sigh it would. Never again will it have to don a mask of skin sewn together from the waterlogged corpse of Ronald Reagan.
posted by kzin602 at 6:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


VP is my most plausible guess as well for Cruz. Hispanic, Texas, evangelical -- helps Trump on a number of dimensions. Presumably Cruz thinks Trump is unlikely to win, but the exposure will help him in his next run. A SCOTUS seat is less appealing on that same logic though -- assuming Cruz thinks Trump will lose, the promise of a seat on the off chance Trump wins is probably worth less than an actual shot at the nomination. But who the hell knows.
posted by chortly at 6:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I guess I couldn't argue too too much if "mentioned ted cruz and threesome in the same sentence" was a new flag category
posted by threeants at 6:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump just call Cruz a tough, smart guy with an amazing future.
posted by peeedro at 6:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


[Folks, I know everyone's varying degrees of emotional about this, but please try to dial back the extreme hyperbole/snark or we will end up on the Godwin Express.]

first stop, TRUMPSVILLE!!
posted by pyramid termite at 6:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


He's practically self-sabotaging. And this is his "new more presidential Trump" personality.

Well, that does play into the conspiracy theory that Trump is a plant working for Clinton.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have just been - like, a minute ago - instructed privately to continue as planned and that suspending campaigns is a way to continue fundraising to pay off campaign debt.

Is he trying to beat Trump at his own game by declaring bankruptcy?
posted by Artw at 6:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


Polls suggest a tiny number of Democratic Sanders voters would vote for Trump

...and, if the bluster on social media is to believed, a quite significant number will just sit home (or vote third party) if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. (And I don't doubt it; the Bernie crowd hates her. Like, as much as they hate Trump. I don't understand it, but there it is.)

I do think that the general election will be closer than we'd like to believe. Trump's campaign has smashed through every obstacle so far; I'm no longer willing to dismiss his odds. Holy shit.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 6:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


first stop, TRUMPSVILLE!!

gotta say, I never really liked that episode of The Twilight Zone
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


by the way, how could cruz call trump evil and a narcissist and all that and then be his vp pick? i don't believe it
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


You know, I'm already over it. I mean, Hillary's going to be our next president, and regardless of what her term is like or whether she gets a second term, what I'm really thinking now is, what's going to happen with the Republicans?

They have to nominate Trump. They have to. And it's going to be a shitshow of epic proportions. Dude is physically incapable of toning it down. And it's going to be brilliant. Can you imagine him in a debate with Hillary? Can you think of any universe where he doesn't come off as the slimy, sexist twit that he is?

And no, there's not going to be a third-party splitoff from the Republicans. The US abhors a third party, and I think it would take like an actual nuclear war to create a viable one. And in that case, it would be Democrats vs Republicans vs the GIVE ME ALL YOUR FOOD I JUST ATE A DISEASED RAT NO SERIOUSLY I WILL KILL YOU GIVE ME FOOD NOW Party or something.

No, what I'm curious about is what happens to the Republican party on the 3rd of November. Like, party's over, people have puked all over the carpet, cigarette butts in half-empty beer bottles, dude still passed out with a lampshade on his head, full-on post-Trump hangover. What do they do? Where do you go after Trump? Can you really see a lot of Republicans being all soul-searchy and being all like, "Hey guys, you know, we really need to stop being so racist and sexist and xenophobic, that's really not the way the world is going, we really need to get with the times"? Psssssht, yeah right!

Probably more like, "A bunch of us are like REALLY ugly people, like ugly on the inside where it counts, and so no, this really doesn't look good in broad daylight on national TV where everyone can see it, so let's just keep on winning local elections and controlling the House of Representatives, because we always manage to get our evil done regardless, and even the Supreme Court doesn't matter all that much because we've done a pretty damn good job eroding reproductive rights at the state level."

But seriously, if you can find a way to get non-Republicans to vote in off-year elections, I will buy you a cookie, no seriously I'll buy you a cookie, no, fuck it, I'll buy you a box of cookies, I'll help you re-invent the cookie, I'll fund your kickstarter to help disrupt the entire fucking cookie space, because honestly, that's the only way we're ever going to fix this shit.
posted by panama joe at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [85 favorites]


Metafilter: the Godwin Express
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yep. Darkest timeline.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Emergency conference calls are erupting now, state delegates are being told under no conditions to drop out.
posted by corb at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [54 favorites]


Did that come from somewhere, or did you write all that just now? That's pretty good.

I mean I wrote it just now, but it's just "Schuyler Defeated" from Hamilton with a few new lyrics. Honestly, most of them already fit the situation unchanged.
posted by zachlipton at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm actually really worried about the emotional toll this election is going to take on people who already deal with a disproportionate amount of bullshit. Other than, you know, making sure that Trump doesn't win, does anyone have any thoughts about how we can all protect the safety and emotional well-being of people who Trump and his supporters particularly target?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


I am doing a lot of political/presidential history reading of late. I am currently dredging through Millard Fillmore, who is apparently just the most blatantly racist president of them all at this point in time (UNTIL 2017, APPARENTLY). Hates the Catholics, hates the immigrants, hates the Jews, I think he hated the Swedes while he was at it, also hates abolitionists, black people, probably unicorns too. The one ethnic group he liked were German Protestants. He also joined the "Anti-Masons" and "Know-Nothing" parties because he loved conspiracy theories about outsiders trying to take over the country.

SO THAT'S REALLY FUN TO READ ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

I wonder if this is literally the only way a woman can win for president: if the guy candidate is even more noxious than the idea of voting for a female Democrat (albeit with fun past history).

I would enjoy it if this is what finally kills the Republican party, but I fear it shall never die.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I am very excited about our mole in the Cruz campaign.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [102 favorites]


Let's be clear. Party leaders could have stopped this.

Oh, nnononononono. I'm not buying that for a minute.

No matter what the party leaders would have done, Trump's supporters would have spotted it, doubled-down and made it a rallying cry to support him. The GOP leaders had nothing to do with it.

Trump's success is because there are just that many people in the United States who:

* hate immigrants
* hate liberal social causes
* hate other countries
* hate the thought of a woman coming to power
* hate Obama
* hate Clinton (both Clintons)
* hate the thought of negotiation and compromise

The party leaders didn't do this. The PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT TRUMP did, and the fact that there are that many of them.

Unless you want to blame the party leaders for a decades-long policy of subtly casting dispersion on Obama, and Bill Clinton, and even on Jimmy Carter and JFK and all the way back to Roosevelt; casting dispersion on the idea that we are stronger as a nation when we help each other and support each other and work together, and that that working together includes ALL OF US.

Instead, going as far back as FDR, the GOP leaders have quietly and subtly been fostering the idea that it was possible for some Americans to count only partly as much as others. They gave their blessings to ideas that suggested some people were more important than others, that some people were more deserving than others, and that it was acceptable to decide that supporting those in need could only be carried partway rather than all the way. That taught people that someone like Trump must have earned his way to the top rather than sleazing his way - and it took away the means to teach them otherwise. And it taught people that it was okay to belittle those who stood up and tried to argue against him.

So yeah, party leaders could have indeed stopped this - but they needed to have started in 1935. Trying to stop this in 2016 was way too late.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [156 favorites]


Well, fuck. This just fucks the fuck out of all the fucking fucks in fuckville. Fuck.
posted by vrakatar at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


does anyone have any thoughts about how we can all protect the safety and emotional well-being of people who Trump and his supporters particularly target?

free benzos and machetes
posted by poffin boffin at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [42 favorites]


Too bad, he'll have to go back to being a cranky bridgekeeper in a Rankin Bass short.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


peeedro: Trump just call Cruz a tough, smart guy with an amazing future.

Oh, yeah, a deal has been cut. Don't know if it's VP, Supreme Court, or Secretary of State, but Cruz got something.
posted by tavella at 6:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is it just me or is Trump giving a very boring understated speech?

Deliberate choice, to sound Presidential.
posted by zarq at 6:29 PM on May 3, 2016


i mean to be clear i want free benzos and a machete, those are my demands
posted by poffin boffin at 6:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [54 favorites]


I guess the one upside if Trump has indeed offered Cruz VP will be watching Christie's eyes as he realizes the final betrayal.
posted by chortly at 6:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [68 favorites]


Re speculation about why Ted Cruz would do this, I suspect it's not a backroom deal so much as a massive fuck you of his own to the party establishment who haven't let up on shit-talking him the whole time they've also been expecting him to magically save their party.
posted by threeants at 6:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]




This was actually a brilliant three-dimensional chess move to call Trump's bluff and put him on the spot earlier than expected regarding his willingness to take on the reality of presidential duties.

...Right?
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 6:31 PM on May 3, 2016




does anyone have any thoughts about how we can all protect the safety and emotional well-being of people who Trump and his supporters particularly target?


I guess this is well meant, but it feels pretty condescending.

I don't think Trump will win, unless we're a much more conservative and white country than we were in 1964, which we are not.
posted by zutalors! at 6:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


"We are still going to send a 100% slate of Ted Cruz delegates...we have a team of principled conservatives and we are still needed. Ted will be telling us what now, what next."
posted by corb at 6:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


C'mon, Reince. Just dissolve the Republican Party and let the Free-Soilers and Whigs come back. It's your best and only move.
posted by FJT at 6:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


The party leaders didn't do this. The PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT TRUMP did, and the fact that there are that many of them.


the part where the party leaders pandered to those people for decades didn't help tho
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


Re speculation about why Ted Cruz would do this, I suspect it's not a backroom deal so much as a massive fuck you of his own to the party establishment who haven't let up on shit-talking him the whole time they've also been expecting him to magically save their party.

Yup. Perfect time to drop out for, "I fought the good fight, you should have supported me more!" purposes.

But if it is VP I bet he is orchestrating the impeachment proceedings by six months into Trump's (never happening) term.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think Trump will win, unless we're a much more conservative and white country than we were in 1964, which we are not.

Have you read a newspaper lately?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


If I'm any Republican in Arizona tonight, I am shuddering in fear.
posted by dw at 6:34 PM on May 3, 2016




Now they can cast him in that Handmaid's Tale miniseries.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


VP is my most plausible guess as well for Cruz. Hispanic, Texas, evangelical -- helps Trump on a number of dimensions.

...mainly by being knifed in an alleyway by a strangely calm Chris Christie. "I did not do what I did for you," he said to the already strangely cold and clammy corpse. The murder comes out, of course, and Trump takes credit for setting up two monsters against each other. "That's how you negotiate!" he yells, hat perched on his head like it was the first time.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [38 favorites]


Events for California and Washington have been cancelled and will not be going forward, including fundraisers.
posted by corb at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


From @bombsfall:

3am. On an Indiana highway, far from any living soul, the bus screeches to a halt. Minutes pass. The doors push open.

The Thing Wearing Ted Cruz noiselessly moves across the road and into a field, lit only by the moon, which quickly moves behind a cloud.

Grass parts as it passes. Twigs snap. It is no longer wearing Ted Cruz. It moves into the trees on the southern edge and is lost from sight.

The bus is never found
.
posted by emjaybee at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [77 favorites]


I suspect that a lot of Sanders-only voters, a lot of "let it all burn" voters are going to sneak into the voting booth and pull the lever for Hillary, unless they're in a safe state. I mean, my state is pretty darn blue, presidentially speaking - I could stay home and pretend I was pure. But I think a lot of people are going to have Supreme Court feels at the last minute, hold their noses and vote. That's my plan, and I don't know too many Sanders-only types who aren't pretty similar. A few, sure, but they're people who honestly probably would have voted for a Green or Mickey Mouse anyway (and I mean, I respect that, I would feel the same way except that I felt that way in 2000 and OMG it was so much worse than in my wildest imaginings). I wouldn't, personally, spend a lot of time worrying about people staying home over Bernie.
posted by Frowner at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [45 favorites]


conservative? white? we're a much more pissed off and near panicked people than we were in 1964 - that's enough
posted by pyramid termite at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


But if it is VP I bet he is orchestrating the impeachment proceedings by six months into Trump's (never happening) term.

Months? He'll have it ready to go before the inauguration, and hearings underway the next morning.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2016


Meanwhile the AP is calling the Democratic race for Sanders, though the actual delegate difference will be pretty minimal at best.
posted by zachlipton at 6:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump, from his speech: "I won with women, I won the women [creepy tone/look]..."
Yeah, that's gonna go over great in the primary.

Congrats, Republicans! You brung this on yourselves.
posted by TwoStride at 6:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I guess this is well meant, but it feels pretty condescending.
I apologize for sounding condescending. But I'm going out for lunch tomorrow with a friend whose husband sat their two elementary-school-aged daughters down a few months ago and told them not to tell anyone they were Muslim, and if anyone asked they should say they weren't. Someone posted a thing on Craigslist Rants and Raves a while back suggesting that people attack the local mosque. I am scared for people I care about, and this is already taking a big emotional toll. And I think it's going to get a lot worse.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [120 favorites]


This is what I've learned so far from my study of...um...similar...politicians... a few decades back:

DO NOT LET YOUR GOALPOSTS MOVE ON TRUMP. At some point you (because you are human) (and because Hillary gonna Hillary) may have a momentary thought that sneaks into your head outside your control that goes "Maybe he isn't so bad" and I want you to SNATCH THAT THOUGHT AND THROW IT AWAY. At some point you're going to confront the face of someone you love at a dinner party or the like and that face is going to say "Maybe he isn't so bad" and you have to SPEAK UP AND SNATCH THAT THOUGHT OUT OF THAT PERSON'S HEAD.

Do you love someone who came here from another country illegally? Someone who has been stereotyped or mistreated because they came here from another country? Someone who is Muslim? Someone who is a person of color? Someone who is a woman? Think of that person if that's what it takes.

The way this went before is people who weren't flagrant bigoted awful people filled with hate somehow lost their goalposts and/or failed to be brave and stand up and speak out. And before they even realized how quickly it happened it was too late.

SNATCH THAT THOUGHT.
posted by sallybrown at 6:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [165 favorites]


Yep. Darkest timeline.

Nope, the Lamest timeline.
posted by chimaera at 6:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just dissolve the Republican Party and let the Free-Soilers and Whigs come back. It's your best and only move.

As someone who's been reading about those people lately: hahahahahahahahah. Seriously, this election is making those people look sane.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:38 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Being instructed to still vote the slates for Cruz delegates and still encourage everyone to vote for him in the primaries.
posted by corb at 6:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Also, the thought of Trump/Cruz is, to borrow a glorious phrase from Damon Young, basically a dumpster fire sitting on top of another dumpster fire.
posted by TwoStride at 6:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think Bernie needs to drop now. I've posted a bunch of different times that the party that unifies first is going to have an advantage, and I think I'm right about that. Don't give Trump any advantages, Bernie. Drop after a strong win and endorse Hillary because you want to, not just because she beat you.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [38 favorites]


it's dumpster fires all the way down
posted by pyramid termite at 6:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


(though she did)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump/Cruz '16: Are You A Garbage Can Or A Garbage Can't
posted by poffin boffin at 6:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [86 favorites]


Also, the thought of Trump/Cruz is, to borrow a glorious phrase from Damon Young, basically a dumpster fire sitting on top of another dumpster fire.

Republican foot draggers are going to need SOME excuse for inexplicably declaring Trump the best thing ever in a couple of months though.
posted by Artw at 6:41 PM on May 3, 2016


What a bizarre day; just a few hours ago I was listening to conspiracy theories about Ted Cruz's father and the JFK assasination, and Cruz responding by totally going off on Trump and what a horrible pathological liar he is. I wonder if Cruz got so worked up because he knew it was his last hurrah. But I have to say, as horrible as a Trump presidency would be, Cruz would be worse. People tend to forget that he is a dominionist who would turn this country into a theocracy as best he could. Quite frankly, I think no one, including Trump, knows what he would do as president. But I look forward to voting against him this fall no matter who the democrats come up with (and I assume it will be Clinton).
posted by TedW at 6:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


it's dumpster fires all the way down

The Lord of Light guides us all.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


If the campaign goes Trump/Cruz, and I'm still on the Cruz campaign...uh, what are the laws about people who haven't signed NDAs walking into Clinton campaigns with info on strategy? Asking for a friend.
posted by corb at 6:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [101 favorites]


My grandfather was born in Dublin, Ireland. I'm going to start the process of getting my Irish citizenship.

You know. Just in case.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Apologies if someone already linked this upthread but
Ted Cruz ends campaign by accidentally hitting, elbowing his wife in the face
posted by saturday_morning at 6:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [37 favorites]


Can you think of any universe where he doesn't come off as the slimy, sexist twit that he is?

He's come off that way for years. Hasn't seemed relevant, unfortunately. People love a con man and a lot of people seemed filled with a horrible degree of hatred and ignorance.

I enjoyed watching Beavis and Butthead all those years ago. I didn't know that they'd come to represent the future of U.S. politics.
posted by juiceCake at 6:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]



I don't think Trump will win, unless we're a much more conservative and white country than we were in 1964, which we are not.

Have you read a newspaper lately?


What? Hillary has received more votes than anyone, and we are actually less white than 1964. Newspapers are full of hyperbole. Yes, I read them.
posted by zutalors! at 6:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


He ended his campaign the way he ran it: hitting women in the face
posted by saturday_morning at 6:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [42 favorites]


Having secured Trumps nomination, the nightmare seeds must be allowed to grow. Cruz now returns to R'lyeh to wait.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'll say this for Trump - he's blatantly unconcerned with anything but his own dumb ego and whatever idiocies he's concocted in the moment, so theocratic bullshit is mostly out.
posted by Artw at 6:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Ah. Donald "Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho" Trump.

DON'T SCARE ME LIKE THAT.

Sincerely, an actual, real life, Dwayne.
posted by spinifex23 at 6:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I guess this (video of statement) is open ended enough that he'll still be at the convention. Maybe nothing really changes here?
posted by butterstick at 6:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I enjoyed watching Beavis and Butthead all those years ago. I didn't know that they'd come to represent the future of U.S. politics.

Come on, they're just kids. They don't deserve that comparison.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


The real losers here are the people of California, who just lost their only chance to make a difference in a presidential primary.
posted by TedW at 6:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I need a drink.
posted by ocschwar at 6:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Lord of Light guides us all.

Trump/Melisandre '16: Feel The Burn
posted by nubs at 6:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


anyway i hope i'll be able to afford a good security system for the nation's first purge in 2018
posted by poffin boffin at 6:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


The notion that the Republican establishment has been trying to stop Trump because he's a racist boor is laughable. They've been trying to stop him because they don't think he can beat Clinton. That is the only reason.
posted by oulipian at 6:46 PM on May 3, 2016 [54 favorites]


As of this moment, Hillary is ~164 delegates -- pledged and unpledged -- from clinching the nomination, if you agree with the NYT's 520 super-delegate count.

So she COULD clinch the nomination in two weeks if she gets a 50/50 split in all the forthcoming primaries and locks up 72 superdelegates.
posted by dw at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2016


so theocratic bullshit is mostly out.

I expect Cruz would have been far more effective than Trump would be.
posted by chimaera at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


TRUMP DEFEATS SATAN, NOW IN CHARGE OF HELL.
Promises More Luxury Condos.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


Incredible.

Koch money will skip the presidential race and flood into down-ticket races. Get ready to find out whether you can buy your way around presidential coat tails.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 6:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


The notion that the Republican establishment has been trying to stop Trump because he's a racist boor is laughable. They've been trying to stop him because they don't think he can beat Clinton. That is the only reason.

Alternatively he's the loose canon oligarch other oligarchs don't really like.
posted by Artw at 6:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Doom and betrayal expert Nikolaj Coster-Waldau of Game of Thrones provides a harsh update about the Indiana primary.
"I bring dire news from the stronghold of Indiana in the Mid-Westeros. For it seems none now can stop the ascent of the mad king, a man with neither honor nor volume control, who with his infinite treasure and band of villainous advisors, threatens to take the throne.

Heed you this warning, friends. For the prophecy speaks of a fetid orange fire that consumes all it touches and burns the land itself to ash.

posted by zarq at 6:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


To me this isn't about Trump anymore. It's about our fellow citizens, including your family members and mine, and your friends and coworkers and mine, who either say they'll vote for Trump, or say they won't vote for (assuming she's the nominee) Hillary.

We know these people. We work with them. We live with them. If you're as terrified as a lot of us at the thought of Trump being president, if that idea seems like an actual disaster, then don't just say "oh Hillary will trounce him". No, learn from what has happened so far. Take action starting tomorrow. Confront people, get them to understand. Don't only sit on here talking back and forth with like-minded people. Use the information you've learned to convince someone what a bad idea it is to sit at home, or to vote for him.

Check out your local voting situation for laws and regulations meant to disenfranchise people. Don't sit here the next 6 months and then say "I didn't think it could happen, so I didn't do much". Don't do that.

Trump is the nominee. It is not a joke any more. Hillary or Bernie aren't the ones standing between the presidency and Trump, you are.
posted by cashman at 6:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [112 favorites]


Let’s all flash back to June 17 of 2015, when Fizz first posted about the Trump candidacy: “And I promise, I will never be in a bicycle race—that I can tell you.”

Second comment:
I, for one, am looking forward to an inevitable “You won't have Donald Trump to kick around anymore” moment.
posted by Going To Maine me at 7:13 AM on June 17, 2015


I am still waiting for this moment, my knuckles getting ever whiter.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


As for if Bernie should drop out, well, that's when the triangulation begins. That's going to be no fun at all.
posted by Artw at 6:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yep. Darkest Orangest timeline.
posted by jeather at 6:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I will say I appreciated the Clinton camp's quick response to the "woman card" remark by selling actual Woman Cards for donations. I bought one. Apparently so did a lot of others. Kind of excited to get it in the mail. Probably going to frame it as a valuable piece of campaign memorabilia, and also because it's hilarious.
posted by emjaybee at 6:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [51 favorites]


Yeah, no way in hell Cruz goes near the VP slot if Trump really is a shitshow in a dumpster fire in a train wreck. He hangs out and waits for 2020, where either Trump will prove himself weak or Hillary will be saddled with a poor economy.

Well, if his homeworld doesn't call him back first.
posted by dw at 6:50 PM on May 3, 2016


As for if Bernie should drop out, well, that's when the triangulation begins. That's going to be no fun at all.

I hope Clinton's campaign understands they aren't going to have to fight that hard to hold the center this time around.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah so Bernie Sanders is saying he's staying in to win. Because he can win California! Sure.
posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on May 3, 2016


Any reaction from Kaisich? Is he sticking around?
posted by TedW at 6:53 PM on May 3, 2016


Back when the space-time continuum split, what did I do to get stuck in this alternate universe?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Now I know how liberals felt 37 years ago. Holy shit I don't know anymore. This doesn't make any sense.
posted by Talez at 6:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


A Trump presidency would be tragic and embarrassing, but it's physically not possible for him to do the things he says he is, and it might even push congress to work together to keep him in check. Hell, he will probably make the CIA do some super illegal shit in the first week, real estate will crash, and then we'll have President Christie for 4 years.
posted by Brocktoon at 6:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Apparently they're playing Nessun Dorma at Trump HQ right now. That's utterly ironic when you consider the meaning of the song:

It's a song about a princess who is now set to be married to a man, but she's repulsed by him. Her only way out is to guess his name by the morning, so she forces all her subjects to stay up all night guessing the guy's name, saying she'll kill them all if they don't. Then the man starts passionately singing "vanish o night!...At dawn, I will win! I will win! I will win!" Later in the opera, she learns his name, but decides she loves him after all and they're declared lovers forever.

I mean I don't think Turandot was actually written to be an extended metaphor for the relationship between voters and the Trump campaign, but it's hard to deny the symbolism here.
posted by zachlipton at 6:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [32 favorites]


Is there any possibility that Cruz has made a deal with Rubio to give their delegates to Kasich?
posted by clawsoon at 6:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah so Bernie Sanders is saying he's staying in to win. Because he can win California! Sure.

He can win California. But he needs to win it by at least 65-35 to even have a chance at getting the crucial delegates he needs.
posted by dw at 6:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I kinda want a woman card, except I do not want the political spam for the rest of my life that will come with it--and I say that as a Hillary supporter.

Man, I do not want to have the political arguments with my mother on this. She's socially liberal but spends all day long around old white money men and thinks being anything but Republican is disloyalty to her dead parents. (As I said in another thread: you can't argue with emotion.) She hates Trump but also is all "how could you vote for her?!?!", so....I think she last said she'd vote third party or something if this happened. If I thought I could get anywhere with her in a political argument...but frankly, I don't think I can. I'd rather she waste her vote at this point because I still suspect if forced at gunpoint to pick she ain't voting Democrat for anything.

Let's all daydream about the alternate universe where Firefly got a second season and we aren't living here with this political crap.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


the thing is that they were both TERRIFYING

like when we talk about how trump might literally cause the apocalypse, i think that it cruz would do it just as easily.

cruz is a mean, hateful person with medieval ideas. he is a toxic waste dump of a person.

trump's terrifying ideas are louder and more amenable to sound bites. there's something to be said for that, because it has a big effect on climate. but as far as actual policy decisions go i am not convinced he is worse than cruz

i'm going to turn my attention this election cycle to convincing bernie supporters to vote for hillary. i'm really pissed off at the ones who say we might as well burn it to the ground by electing trump - like who are they to decide it's all right to sacrifice all the people trump targets just because it might wake people up? scuse, maybe some of us don't want to be burned down with it.

but i have to come up with a good way to say that that won't alienate them.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [29 favorites]


As someone who never thought Trump could get the nomination, does anyone have a good recipe for crow?

And now we get to watch The Great Accommodation (stealing yet another phrase from Charlie Pierce), as conservatives who made statements that they would never support Trump start to qualify, modify, and eventually abandon their previous positions.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow. Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on Twitter: "Shouldn't #TedCruz have been forced to carry his unviable campaign to term?"
posted by zarq at 6:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [258 favorites]


Oh man, I just had a fantasy where Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and George Will are getting really drunk right now, trying to write columns about how great Trump is and what a fantastic candidate he will be, while punching themselves in the nut sack repeatedly to blind themselves to their real pain which is their putrid wretched brown nosing souls.
posted by fungible at 6:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


Okay, guys, time to confess. Who sent a game of Diplomacy to the Cruz campaign?
posted by corb at 6:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


My grandfather was born in Dublin, Ireland. I'm going to start the process of getting my Irish citizenship.

My mother was born in Dublin, and I already got my passport.

So, it's my island. I call dibs.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for who they want? Why do you have to confront people about voting for Trump? You can campaign for whoever you want, even if it is a crazy loud mouth with a bad hair cut.
posted by Dick Laurent is Dead at 7:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


corb
tell us
tell us whats happening with the repub panic
corb
corb
posted by lalochezia at 7:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [71 favorites]


My grandfather was born in Dublin, Ireland. I'm going to start the process of getting my Irish citizenship.

It costs $6,865 for an Australian partner visa. I'm fucking tempted to move my wife and I to Australia.
posted by Talez at 7:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ross Douthat seems to be tweeting drunk.
posted by tavella at 7:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


In light of what just happened, a friend of mine - a Bernie supporter until now - just declared for Trump publicly on Facebook. I've been pretty neutral politically (publicly anyway, all of my friends know where I stand) - until now. I proudly asked him to reconsider. Even before reading cashman's encouragement.

Please do this. If you believe Trump is not going to be good for the people of this country, please start being vocal in a non-angry way.
posted by danapiper at 7:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


I came for the news. I stayed for the sick Ted Cruz burns. These are great!
posted by East14thTaco at 7:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Regarding Bernie... Even though I think he has zero chance at this point, I don't mind him staying in to shape the platform. I'm one of those weirdos who thinks that him staying in the race actually helps Clinton in the general, because she benefits from a platform that actually stands for something, even if it's to the left of what the average American voter might say about their own views in a poll.

For better or for worse, this is a gut-feeling election on both sides, and details seem to matter even less than usual. Wishy-washy wonkiness is not going to look good on Clinton given her reputation; I truly believe that an alliance with the left wing of the party will get her more centrist votes than a centrist platform would. So, Bernie riding hard up to the very last could help keep her triangulation instincts in check and save her from herself in that regard.

If he keeps up the character attacks, though, the above is all right out and he can go jump in a lake. But luckily he seems to have toned that down.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


It costs $6,865 for an Australian partner visa. I'm fucking tempted to move my wife and I to Australia.

Yo it's pretty easy to get into New Zealand and we have full equal marriage now and I am unmarried and have a spare room and unlimited broadband, so if anyone at all needs an out hit me up via MeMail.
posted by Pink Frost at 7:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [41 favorites]


Oh lord, I actually found things when I looked for "crow recipes."
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm sorry, Bern, but this steaming bag of shit misogynist needs a woman to take him down.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


What if Cruz dropped out because Trump offered him veep
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2016


how is Bernie shaping the platform? All they are doing at this point is complaining about superdelegates and touting poll numbers against Trump.
posted by zutalors! at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm sorry, Bern, but this steaming bag of shit misogynist needs a woman to take him down.

Sansa/Brienne 2016!
posted by Pink Frost at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


As someone who never thought Trump could get the nomination, does anyone have a good recipe for crow?

Yeah me too. In my defense this entire year is crazypants.
posted by emjaybee at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yo it's pretty easy to get into New Zealand and we have full equal marriage now and I am unmarried and have a spare room and unlimited broadband, so if anyone at all needs an out hit me up via MeMail.

But then I'd have to live in New Zealand. I already have trouble keeping a straight face talking to people with a thick Bahwstan accent.
posted by Talez at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


What does it take for Republicans to take a step back and actually *look* at their party instead of wondering how to win with this year's crop of assholes?
posted by uosuaq at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


It costs $6,865 for an Australian partner visa. I'm fucking tempted to move my wife and I to Australia.

Shocking grammar. You would not be welcome, speaking like that. It should be "I'm fucking tempted t'move me'n'a wife ter ORSTRAYA."
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [42 favorites]


As far as Bernie staying in to shift the platform left, what does that actually mean in practice? Not much, I think. It's not binding or anything. I think it was on the DecodeDC podcast that they put around the idea that Bernie can potentially have a lasting effect in trying to negotiate for rules changes such as more open primaries etc. Those kinds of changes may be stickier.
posted by Gotanda at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


The thought of Cruz on SCOTUS is actually making me cry.
posted by sallybrown at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's 3AM in the old country, and I'm going to bed - besides, we've got our own political shitstorm brewing in La Manche.

It's not much comfort,but imagine how it'd be if tonight it was The Donald throwing in his hand and y'all were staring at Cruz/Trump '16.

I think that'd be worse. Not that this is anywhere nice enough to qualify as better. And saying the election is now the Dems to lose is also not the heartwarming thought it might be, but I think it's true.

Goodnight, America.
posted by Devonian at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd offer to marry some fine liberal American lad in an effort to help him escape the possibly upcoming Trumpocalypse, but I have a feeling my selflessness would be all for naught as even Canada won't be far enough away.
posted by orange swan at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh man, I just had a fantasy where Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and George Will are getting really drunk right now, trying to write columns about how great Trump is and what a fantastic candidate he will be, while punching themselves in the nut sack repeatedly to blind themselves to their real pain which is their putrid wretched brown nosing souls.

George Will is a haughty dipshit
posted by palindromic at 7:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Cruz is truly terrible. If you had told me last year that I would be disappointed and a little afraid at the news that he suspended his campaign, I would have laughed. But here we are.
posted by Horselover Fat at 7:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Shocking grammar. You would not be welcome, speaking like that. It should be "I'm fucking tempted t'move me'n'a wife ter ORSTRAYA."

This arvo I was listening to Flume in my ute. NOW GIMME MA VISA.
posted by dw at 7:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


These Fake Australians. It's "I'm fucking tempted t'move me'n'a wife ter ORSTRAYA cunts." or did you forget the rules about ending prepositions with vulgarity.
posted by Talez at 7:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [29 favorites]


One theory being floated in Republican town is that this is a way to let Kasich get all the delegates in liberal California, thus still denying Trump 1237 and taking it to contested convention where Cruz wins. This is so surreal to me. I've never been part of a suspended campaign where people still kept fighting before.

Supposedly instructions tonight are our "interim instructions" and we will be given more permanent ones tomorrow.
posted by corb at 7:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [47 favorites]


Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for who they want? Why do you have to confront people about voting for Trump? You can campaign for whoever you want, even if it is a crazy loud mouth with a bad hair cut.

Because Trump is a racist, misogynistic, queerphobic, business-first-and-damn-the-environment, fuck the poor people, nihilistic stoat in a suit. The things that he advocates for, and the things he will sign into law with an emboldened R-dominated Congress, will hurt everyone. Women will be nailed to the wall--no more legal abortion, forget anything about pay gaps, forget anything about child care or really anything at all that helps erase the gaps that women face in the world. Queer people and especially trans people will be fucked. People of colour, especially Hispanic and Arab people, will be extra-double-fucked. Trump has openly talked about rounding Muslims into camps, for fuck's sake. The ACA? gone in a Republican-dominated Congress without someone in the Oval to wield a veto. SCOTUS? Trump's nominees will make Scalia look like a Birkenstock-shod free love hippy. Roe v Wade, gone. Equal marriage, gone. Literally every social gain achieved via SCOTUS ever, gone gone bloody gone.

I'd go on but it's bad for my heartburn. Trump is the right wing's id, and he will sign literally anything put in front of him by the ravening pack of hyenas that may well come to dominate both House and Senate. Ever read The Handmaid's Tale? Imagine that, plus the same second-class status for all people of colour.

To say fucking nothing of who he'd start lobbing bombs at because he felt like it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [105 favorites]


I'm just wondering who Trump will pick as his VP so that nobody is tempted to take a shot at him. Zombie Hitler?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious: I'm actually really worried about the emotional toll this election is going to take on people

I think this is important and not condescending. Let me 'splain:

The idea is that Trump can't win because the horrible, racist, sexist, offensive crap he's spewed so far. When it comes time to decide in November, America will know what Trump promotes, and turn away from him with great revulsion.

But we also know that the mainstream media won't do that job for us. Regardless of their biases, there's a very common and visible pattern of treating every candidate "fairly," meaning no reminders of what they said or did in the past, just reporting the current horse race and political messages. "Republicans say that ... but Democrats disagree, saying that ..."

In order to win, the Democrats have to run a negative campaign, reminding the voters of what the Republican nominee has said. Hillary Clinton ads will be pictures of Trump, and voice-overs of his finest remarks -- about beating black protesters, about Mexican illegals as rapists and thieves, about kicking out Muslims, you know the drill... And that'll be from "our" side.

It's like the race against David Duke back in the '90s -- not really firing up support for the alternative, so much as turning the election into a referendum on the bad guy's racism.

And even though I expect non-racism to win, a referendum on racism is a pretty ugly experience. Everyone's going to have opinions, broadcast and published because it's now "relevant news," about something we've so far considered unspeakable. And women will turn out to vote against Trump -- because they'll have heard the vox populi spout misogyny out loud for four months.

It's not going to be a very pleasant victory. Not like 2008 where the main topic of discussion was how cool and different this O'Bama guy was, and liberals could happily watch him snowball towards success while saying all those smart, compassionate things. This one is going to be a war.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [73 favorites]


This arvo I was listening to Flume in my ute. NOW GIMME MA VISA.

Not until you can sing our national anthem, "Your the Voice" by memory.
posted by Talez at 7:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Will the documentary that's going to be made about Trump's ride to the nomination be called "TRIUMPH OF THE WON'T"???
posted by AJaffe at 7:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]




But if it is VP I bet he is orchestrating the impeachment proceedings by six months into Trump's (never happening) term.

Yep, drinky die and fffm nailed it. I've always thought VP on the Trump ticket was a safe and easy way to get into the Oval Office. Oh, wait! So, by quitting, Cruz is practically guaranteeing he'll be Human President? Nooooooooo........
posted by Gotanda at 7:13 PM on May 3, 2016


Women went 46-42 for Trump in Indiana, according to this random guy.
posted by clawsoon at 7:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


My grandfather was born in Dublin, Ireland. I'm going to start the process of getting my Irish citizenship.

About twenty years too late. EU pressure cut that avenue off.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


like when we talk about how trump might literally cause the apocalypse, i think that it cruz would do it just as easily.

At least Trump would cause the apocalypse mostly by accident.

Cruz would start it intentionally.
posted by ymgve at 7:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


For better or for worse, this is a gut-feeling election on both sides

repeat after me

both sides are not the same
both sides are not the same
both sides are not the same
both sides are not the same
both sides are not the same
both sides are not the same
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [76 favorites]


> Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for who they want?

Yes? That right does not include your friends and loved ones not asking you why, or how, or what-the-ever-loving-fuck. It does not include the right to not be challenged in your choice. This is basic American political and cultural tradition.
posted by rtha at 7:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [61 favorites]


Eight years ago, McCain was nominated with dittoheads threatening a floor fight rather than vote for a RINO. Meanwhile, Trump e Obama/Clinton machine pulled more volunteers and more campaign donations than the Republicans for every week except for the week of the convention. PUMAs got their 15 minutes of fame and went nowhere.

So the question isn't just who stays home on election day, it's who stays home over the next four months.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think people should be very, very concerned about Clinton's emails. The stakes are too high. Now that the Republicans have none of their own to feast on, they're going to be mining that angle until it comes up with gold or their hands are stumps. I hope to god we already know the sketchiest facts about how Clinton conducted her State communications.
posted by threeants at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


i mean i guess i could move back to south america but oh what's that, the daughter of the guy who sterilized all those women just like me is running for office now? GR8
posted by poffin boffin at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for who they want? Why do you have to confront people about voting for Trump? You can campaign for whoever you want, even if it is a crazy loud mouth with a bad hair cut.
I mean, sure, they have a right to vote for anyone they want. And I have a right to explain why I think their candidate is a stinking pile of cow manure. I don't think that's typically a very effective campaigning strategy, but I have the right to do it.
I'm just wondering who Trump will pick as his VP so that nobody is tempted to take a shot at him.
I've heard speculation about Joni Ernst, who is just horrible enough to maybe want it.
About twenty years too late. EU pressure cut that avenue off.
I'm pretty sure that's not right.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not until you can sing our national anthem, "Your the Voice" by memory.

No, I have more self-respect than that. Settle for "Eagle Rock" instead?
posted by dw at 7:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Polls suggest a tiny number of Democratic Sanders voters would vote for Trump, but I'm not as clear on independent or crossover Sanders voters (or people who don't bother voting in primaries.)


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.
posted by trackofalljades at 7:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


No, I have more self-respect than that. Settle for "Eagle Rock" instead?

Nope. No Daddy Cool allowed. Maybe if you were able to sing Holy Grail and Throw Your Arms Around Me but I don't like your chances. If you don't like You're The Voice you might just not be welcome in Australia. Please note that almost every kid in that audience was born AFTER THAT SONG CAME OUT.
posted by Talez at 7:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think Cruz will be Trump's VP pick. For one, there's not enough real power as VP. The probability of succeeding to the presidency as a VP is pretty low, and serving as VP means years of attending funerals of the leaders of middle-tier countries and clapping for an odious spray tan every January.

No, he'll elect to serve out the remaining years of his Senate term, probably run for Senate re-election, then run for president or governor of Texas or something.
posted by palindromic at 7:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh hey, bone cancer dropped out so it's now full steam ahead brain embolism yaaaay.
posted by deludingmyself at 7:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


My friend who got Irish citizenship in the early 21st century got it by having her parent get citizenship via the irish-born grandfather, and then the daughter was able to get it. So if dbab's relevant parent is still alive, it's possible. Unless the laws have changed again.
posted by tavella at 7:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


threeants: I think people should be very, very concerned about Clinton's emails.

Her emails? Her Goldman Sachs speeches, I would think.
posted by clawsoon at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

No it's also the problem of every woman, person of colour, trans person, queer person, immigrant, and Muslim in the USA if Trump wins.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2016 [245 favorites]


Invest in popcorn futures, friends. This circus is just picking up steam.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


What does it take for Republicans to take a step back and actually *look* at their party instead of wondering how to win with this year's crop of assholes?

So. Let's take a look back to January of 2009, when George W. Bush had a 29% approval rating. Now, you may think to yourself, "Gee, that sounds pretty low, right?" And the answer is YES! It is low! But it also means that in January of 2009, 29% of Americans thought George W. Bush was doing a good job. What else was going on at that time? Let's see, Great Recession, check, two disastrous wars started by said Bush, check, major US city still reeling from preventable natural disaster, check. I remember seeing those poll numbers at the time and thinking, one, "Who the fuck are these people who still think he's doing a good job?" and two, "What would he actually have to do to lose their support? Is it even possible?"

Friends, those questions still haunt me today. But if you stare deeply into the abyss that is that 29%, I guarantee you'll see Trump's base. My personal theory is that those people are just ugly human beings, and they're completely irredeemable. At least on that plane. Maybe they're nice in person and will help you fix your lawnmower, but on a political plane, they're dicks. We just need to wait for them to die. Seriously, someone who thought GWB was doing a good job on his last day in office, is this someone who can be convinced of anything?
posted by panama joe at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2016 [53 favorites]


Poffin, my so and I have Peruvian and Bosnian citizenships besides USian, so our choices aren't great either!

Plus of course we love it here and we kind of want to see it through.
posted by Tarumba at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Right now there are no reliable polls that can tell us anything about the general election. The only thing we have are leading indicators, like favorability. Nobody, I mean nobody, has numbers that look good for Trump in the general.

Which is not to say that can't change, but real significant change will be required. The sky is not falling (unless you are a Republican; then it is, and my condolences).

With the primaries sewn up, people are going to start to get serious when it comes to thinking about who they want to be the next president. We're already seeing conservative commentators throw in for Trump, or, incredibly, Hillary (!!!). Both candidates are already national figures and have been for decades. Most voters already have strong feelings about both candidates that are unlikely to change, which probably means we're in for an epic mudslinging battle where the objective is to get as many of the other team's supporters to stay home in November, while getting enough of your supporters to hold their nose and pull the lever for you anyway.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.
It's also my problem. It's the problem of a whole lot of people who don't live in safe, liberal oases where they have the luxury of not caring whether the country burns. Luckily, there are a lot of us who are going to work very, very hard because we don't think that mass suffering is someone else's problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [205 favorites]


Yes yes a speech to Goldman Sachs is just as bad as being endorsed by the goddamn motherfucking KKK.
posted by emjaybee at 7:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [110 favorites]


>So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

On the one hand, I really do understand that feeling. But on the other, Bush/Gore/Nader in 2000 got us 8 years of GW and endless war.

Gods help us all.
posted by anti social order at 7:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [32 favorites]


You Yanks are fucking crazy.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [36 favorites]


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

The DNC didn't appoint Clinton to the nomination. Sanders isn't the nominee because the people decided they preferred Hillary Clinton. By a very wide margin of millions of votes.
posted by Justinian at 7:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [106 favorites]


Right now there are no reliable polls that can tell us anything about the general election.

I hate to "actually..." BUT ACTUALLY.
posted by dw at 7:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


It costs $6,865 for an Australian partner visa. I'm fucking tempted to move my wife and I to Australia.

We have our own shitshow of an election campaign about to kick off. Not as cray cray as yours, but still not good.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


panama joe: "But it also means that in January of 2009, 29% of Americans thought George W. Bush was doing a good job. I remember seeing those poll numbers at the time and thinking, one, "Who the fuck are these people who still think he's doing a good job?" and two, "What would he actually have to do to lose their support? Is it even possible?"

Friends, those questions still haunt me today. But if you stare deeply into the abyss that is that 29%, I guarantee you'll see Trump's base.
"

The Crazification Factor
posted by Rhaomi at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

No, it's really everyone's problem (in the general I'm talking about). It's certainly a problem for every Muslim, Hispanic, woman, LGBT person, or anyone concerned about being bombed, just to name a few groups off the top of my head. Defending the basic dignity and human rights of billions of people around the world is more important than virtually any other issue in this campaign.
posted by zachlipton at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [77 favorites]


Oh good lets re-litigate this
posted by phearlez at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


threeants: I think people should be very, very concerned about Clinton's emails.

Her emails? Her Goldman Sachs speeches, I would think.

Yeah, the Republicans are going to destroy her for talking to Goldman Sachs.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem

it must be nice to be a white man
posted by poffin boffin at 7:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [218 favorites]


no worries, no responsibilities, no need to pretend you care about anything other than yourself
posted by poffin boffin at 7:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [81 favorites]


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

You realize that Portland, OR is on Trump's shitlist for newly enabled jackbooted immigration thugs to come in and pillage once he's Emperor in Chief, right?
posted by Talez at 7:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Doesn't everyone have the right to vote for who they want? Why do you have to confront people about voting for Trump? You can campaign for whoever you want, even if it is a crazy loud mouth with a bad hair cut.

Because it's important to stamp out fascism wherever it appears? Merely confronting people about supporting a guy whose candidacy alone is going to result in people getting hurt and dying seems like the very least one can do. You can't let this garbage slide like it's an acceptable viewpoint.
posted by Gymnopedist at 7:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


Bush/Gore/Nader in 2000 got us 8 years of GW and endless war.

This seems like a sort of weird argument in this case, since Hillary Clinton was literally one of a few hundred people who directly participated in promulgating the "endless war". Putting that blame on citizens who voted for a progressive candidate is kind of gross.
posted by threeants at 7:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


Cruz called Trump a pathological liar and an amoral person yesterday. Can we skip the VP speculation?
posted by uosuaq at 7:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Going To Maine: Yeah, the Republicans are going to destroy her for talking to Goldman Sachs.

Heh, fair point. :-) They'll try, though, I'm sure they'll try.
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 PM on May 3, 2016


But we also know that the mainstream media won't do that job for us. Regardless of their biases, there's a very common and visible pattern of treating every candidate "fairly," meaning no reminders of what they said or did in the past, just reporting the current horse race and political messages. "Republicans say that ... but Democrats disagree, saying that ..."

This is far, far too charitable. Our media will present this as a nail-biting horse race. They will ignore and downplay any evidence of Hillary being clearly in the lead, because that won't put people in front of their televisions, and it won't sell commercials.

Fear and stress and anguish get ratings. Ratings sell commercials.

If you don't believe me, look back to 2012, where Obama absolutely had it in the bag well in advance of the general, but the media played everything up like it was a real race right to the end. And if you honestly think our media would choose responsible reporting over ratings, I have five words for you: Donald Trump, Presumptive Republican Nominee.

This is gonna be awful. And do not forget that Trump doesn't need to win to do horrible damage. He's already doing that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


In fact, if you're angry at "Democratic elites" or whatever, they will be among the least affected by a Trump presidency. The 1% on both sides can always go grab their stuff and get out of the country. Its the poor and middle class, especially women and people of color, who will suffer under Trump. Rich white people (and especially rich white men) will be fine as always.

So the "let them burn" stuff doesn't make any sense at all. The only people who won't suffer under Trump are the ones you are angry at.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [73 favorites]


To say fucking nothing of who he'd start lobbing bombs at because he felt like it.

Perhaps the most succinct argument for why you shouldn’t leave the country in the event.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


At this point everyone's mind is made up and we have been over this territory a bazillion times. Mentally flag it and move on.
posted by futz at 7:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


That redstate website recommended above is like a horror movie, I guess people are grieving about Cruz dropping out, and they are getting really hardcore fundy.

Lots of bombastic apocalyptic comments. It's entertaining but creepy af
posted by Tarumba at 7:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you don't like You're The Voice you might just not be welcome in Australia . Please note that almost every kid in that audience was born AFTER THAT SONG CAME OUT.

Right. Then I'll try my luck with Canada. I can at least hum their national anthem.

You Yanks are fucking crazy.

Haven't you changed prime ministers like you change the oil in your ute?
posted by dw at 7:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

No it's also the problem of every woman, person of colour, trans person, queer person, immigrant, and Muslim in the USA if Trump wins.


Also the problem of every straight white male who actually gives a damn about people who don't look and act just like him.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [57 favorites]


Imagine even trying to write political satire now
posted by The Whelk at 7:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [61 favorites]


"Gunna go'ta fucken Straya wimmi missus."

Of course, we're having our own bizzaro-world election here, soon, probably. Or maybe we're already having it. It's getting hard to tell.

"Yeah, nah."
posted by nickzoic at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


You Yanks are fucking crazy.

Haven't you changed prime ministers like you change the oil in your ute?


Yep. On average once a year for the last, like, four years now?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sent my daughter's New Zealand citizenship papers away yesterday. Apparently turnaround time is very quick. I didn't think I'd ever be moving back, but.
posted by gaspode at 7:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Back when the space-time continuum split, what did I do to get stuck in this alternate universe?

Sir neglected to "dress to the left" when donning the Trousers of Time.
posted by Greg_Ace at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

I don't really identify that much with Sanders, but otherwise pretty much where I am. But I'm still willing to listen to Hillary at this point. The things I need to hear from her to be able to press the button for her are not extreme left or out of the mainstream. But I'm not sure she is going to say them.






(But fine, fucking yes, I'll vote for her if it looks like PA is close and crucial. I just can't justify risking Trump. I am angry I'm being forced into this though.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


Imagine even trying to write political satire now

Stephen Colbert is dang happy that he doesn’t have to be in character right now.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I don't think Cruz was offered a deal. I think the donors pulled the plug with the provision that Teddy will run in 2020 as the ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE (pause to vomit if you must). The far right have always had this spiel about that they've never had a true believer in the race, one who would unite the country with his passion and purity. That's why Ted is still wearing his human suit. He really truly believes that he is the most precious conservative snowflake and next time around, it will be his turn.
posted by Ber at 7:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]








One theory being floated in Republican town is that this is a way to let Kasich get all the delegates in liberal California, thus still denying Trump 1237 and taking it to contested convention where Cruz wins. This is so surreal to me. I've never been part of a suspended campaign where people still kept fighting before.

This. There is absolutely no way that I can believe that Ted Cruz isn't telling himself that he's playing 14-dimensional chess, that this isn't part of the Super Secret Xanatos Gambit Master Plan designed to let him swoop in at the convention and achieve his destiny as President and Official Herald of the Second Coming of Jesus, that he isn't still _absolutely convinced_ that he will beat Trump in this particular battle of wits. Right now he's grabbing up bottles of wine and inquiring as to where he can obtain some iocane powder.

Ted Cruz is Anointed By God's Will. He's not going to let little things like VOTERS get in his way this easily.
posted by delfin at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

I guess we women and people of color will just continue doing the emotional labor so the white guys can luxuriate in the feeling of refusing to compromise their pristine principles. Must be nice.
posted by sallybrown at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [152 favorites]


If you don't like You're The Voice you might just not be welcome in Australia.

I think I might be able to get citizenship in Australia...

I actually studied in Oz for a semester when W was reelected. My Aussie friends were totally incredulous when he won the election (I found myself explaining the electoral college and voting in America... Poorly). I wonder what they are thinking with this years insanity.
posted by kellygrape at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2016


I'm a Sanders voter, a Sanders supporter, and a Sanders evangelist, and I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head. So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

I just want to say that I really, ardently took this line in 2000 and it was the wrong line to take. I was really, really shocked and surprised to see just how much worse the Bush administration turned out to be than I had anticipated - partly because they had the great opportunity of September 11, of course, but I think I'd also substantially underestimated how terrible they were.

Think about a world where we had, maybe, a bombing campaign in the Middle East instead of Iraq II. Merely bad treatment of Muslims internationally instead of Guantanamo and virtually legalized torture? Maybe half the homeland security bullshit? Maybe half the economically retrograde bullshit? Consider how much better the world would virtually certainly be if we'd elected a Democrat - sure, bad things would have happened, but the farcically terrible violence of of the 2000s would have been dialed way, way down. Think of the knock-on effects - everything would be less fucked up in the Middle East, for instance; we would have less government spying...and we would not have had eight years of open Islamophobic racism and cheerleading for torture that paved the way for Trump and our current predicament.

And then think about President Trump if we have another major terrorist attack in the US. If I were a terrorist, in fact, I'd be crossing my fingers that Trump would get elected, because a good solid Paris-style shoot-em-up here while he was president would sink this country into the sea. God knows what he'd do - battlefield nukes? Actually putting Muslim Americans in camps?

Voting for a Democrat does not implicate you in anything, any more then using a computer means that you can't complain about capitalism because after all someone paid for that computer. People of good will and principles make survival decisions under duress; there is no need to worry about compromising your ideals because you vote occasionally. (I say this only because it was something I used to worry about.)

We can still have the revolution even if we elect Clinton, you know?
posted by Frowner at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [256 favorites]


Here's how a "let 'em all burn" Republican, disappointed with tonight's result, is summing things up:
In the meantime I’m going to relax and break out the popcorn watching two rotten, despicable people tear each other to shreds. Gotta find the humor somewhere! This is going to be like a re-run of the Iran-Iraq war! Sometimes it’s a pity one side has to win...
The "two rotten, despicable people" are, of course, Trump and Clinton.
posted by clawsoon at 7:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who would have thought one day corb would persuade me to vote for Hillary Clinton?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [90 favorites]


Imagine even trying to write political satire now

im gonna write nc17 cruz/trump necrophiliac vore instead i think
posted by poffin boffin at 7:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Fiorina has also set a record by losing twice in one primary election.
posted by ymgve at 7:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [48 favorites]


>Hillary Clinton was literally one of a few hundred people who directly participated in promulgating the "endless war".

Without a doubt, but at the end of the day she is marginally less bad than trump.

>Putting that blame on citizens who voted for a progressive candidate is kind of gross.

The argument at the time from progressives was that Gore and Bush were identical so voting for an nonviable 3rd party as a protest would 'wake up' the DNC and push them left. That ended up a very bad call.

The system itself needs to be changed but until that happens, yes, you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil.
posted by anti social order at 7:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]




Is there even a remote possible that the powers that be in the Republican party will realize that the lack of real campaign finance reform and the Citizens United decision are what brought them to this state? They had 17 crazed egoists running for one spot on the ticket because the money spigot is wide open and the party could do nothing to stop the flow. And the bigger question is, if they do have the self-awareness to comprehend what they've done, what's to stop them from doubling down on the stupid to let this madness to continue?
posted by Ber at 7:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


ymgve: "Fiorina has also set a record by losing twice in one primary election."

Almost as good as Kasich being in 4th place in a two-candidate race.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]




Haven't you changed prime ministers like you change the oil in your ute?

Sure. The tree of Laidley must be refreshed from time to time with the oil of Pajeros and Toyotas.

But in our defence, we don't have the world's most well-armed military - or citizenry, for that matter.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I just want to say that I really, ardently took this [Nader] line in 2000 and it was the wrong line to take.

I will say the same thing that I said, and did, in 2000.

Do not let the sins of the top of the ticket dictate who you don't vote for further down the ticket.

Examine your state's polls carefully. There are some states in which you could vote Trump, vote Hillary, write in Bernie or write in Howard the Duck (get DOWN, America!) and not make the slightest bit of difference. I was in one of those states in 2000, I voted for Nader, and I still feel good about my choice. If your state is even slightly likely to be contested? Your conscience is but one part of your intellect; engage all parts before filling in an oval.
posted by delfin at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


The “two rotten, despicable people” are, of course, Trump and Clinton.

Is there a good book or paper cataloging how the right wing media successfully made Clinton out to be the devil? Maybe the phenomenon isn’t unique, but she really seems to be singularly hated. (And yes, it could argue that she’s made choices that haven’t helped, but this seems to be a singular kind of refined, purified hatred developed over years.)
posted by Going To Maine at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


You know, I'm so fucking tired of the Bernie or Bust crowd. They're worse than Trump supporters. At least the Trump supporters are legitimately crazy. The Bernie or Bust crowd sees common sense and just goes the other way. They will engage in wild conversational acrobatics to get around the one inarguable point, "Trump. Finger. Nuclear Button. Planet go boom."

Also, lots of them are too young to really remember the 2000 election.

Fuck 'em. They're loud, they're on Facebook, you've probably already unfollowed them (I know I have), and you know what? There aren't very many of them. Fuck 'em. Let 'em stay home.

Here's an experiment. Unfollow every loud Bernie or Bust person in your FB network. You know what you'll find? It's like 6 or 7 people making all the noise. Not very many. They won't get Trump elected. They won't hurt Hillary's chances. You know how they love to trot out the line, "blah blah blah, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Bernie supporter"? Well, if that's the case, they weren't gonna vote Democratic anyway, so fuck 'em. Let 'em stay home.

Meanwhile, I'll be off doing campaign work for a historical badass candidate who yes, will also happen to be our first woman president, who's fucking brilliant, truly operating on a higher level, who has such a masterful command of the details that she was able to run rings around Bernie on his signature issue, reform of the finance sector. I'm going to be part of something, not just hanging around Facebook rehashing the old "NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND GORE" bullshit. I'm going to be doing something.
posted by panama joe at 7:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [90 favorites]


Yes yes a speech to Goldman Sachs is just as bad as being endorsed by the goddamn motherfucking KKK.

Arguably it's worse. The KKK, though noxious, is now pretty much functionally irrelevant. Horrible terrible people and ideology, but small potatoes. Poor people in central America or Bangladesh are not really affected by the KKK.

By comparison GS (and ilk) are actively and presently destroying the world economy (after failing at their first attempt in 2008). Their actions are causing untold harm to literally millions of people every day, with no end in sight.

If Hillary is the nominee and she loses to Trump... wow, some folks will have some 'splainin to do.
posted by soylent00FF00 at 7:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


repeat after me

both sides are not the same


I know. I agree. I am not saying the Ds are just as bad as the Rs. I do not believe that, and I apologize if my comment read that way. I hate false equivalence. What I meant is that people need something to rally around, not just vote for out of resignation and/or fear, and that I think a bright side of Sanders' stubbornness might be helping Clinton improve that side of her general election campaign.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes yes a speech to Goldman Sachs is just as bad as being endorsed by the goddamn motherfucking KKK.

Arguably it's worse.

This isn’t a good philosophical game to play.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:45 PM on May 3, 2016 [40 favorites]


And yes, it could argue that she’s made choices that haven’t helped, but this seems to be a singular kind of refined, purified hatred developed over years

Yeah, I don't get it. She was in the more liberal half of the party when she was in the Senate by her voting record. Yes, she voted for Iraq. So did Joe Biden, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and 23 other Democratic Senators. But I just don't believe there would be the same vitriol towards Biden we see towards Clinton on the left, despite similar voting records and policies.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [57 favorites]


The GOP nomination is about to be handed to someone who claims his years in a military boarding school should count as military experience.

Because dressing in a polyester uniform for parade every morning is just like serving in the fucking army.

My liver will not make it to November. Pentagon: Smedley Butler was right in 1932. He would not be right today. Do what you must.
posted by ocschwar at 7:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


If Hillary is the nominee and she loses to Trump... wow, some folks will have some 'splainin to do.

:s/'splainin/running for the hills like a mad bastard/g
posted by delfin at 7:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Kind of curious how Sanders supporters will respond to Sanders campaigning for Clinton. More than promises about the content of the platform, I think Sanders' continued campaigning is valuable for pulling Clinton to the Left in exchange for more vocal support from Bernie during the general. Clinton really wants Bernie's endorsement, but to get it in any meaningful way, she'll need to let him be earnest. The broader his support, the more clout he has when he says what it would take to get him to be enthusiastic for Clinton.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 7:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Although I doubt it was a deciding factor I guess it's worth noting that Trump recently accused Cruz's dad of being pals with Lee Harvey Oswald.

What will he accuse Clinton of? There is literally no knowing. It's basically improv theater at this point.
posted by emjaybee at 7:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


What if the Maya were right and the world ended in 2012? And everything since is in some horrible off-kilter afterword... It all fits.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:49 PM on May 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


he saw goody clinton with the devil!
posted by poffin boffin at 7:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [68 favorites]


I've said this a lot in other threads: for a long time now, hating on Hillary Clinton has been that conciliatory bone people throw to their ultra-right co-worker in the office or that family member at Thanksgiving. It's the way people tried to look "reasonable" in the face of an unreasonable social setting. "Look, it's not like I like Hillary Clinton, either."

For 24 years.

The hate began when her husband ran for president and she didn't hide in the background like a properly meek, submissive housewife.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [112 favorites]


And Sanders won again tonight, right, yet another in his string of "let's gain the minimal possible advantage by winning proportional-delegate states"?
posted by clawsoon at 7:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


At least the Trump supporters are legitimately crazy.

No. A lot of Trump and Sanders supporters lost good jobs to outsourcing. For all of Trump's red meat on immigration, I think free trade is what puts the wind in his sails. He's going to go after Clinton on that issue, hard.
posted by Beholder at 7:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [23 favorites]


If Hillary is the nominee and she loses to Trump...

...then she ran a terrible campaign, or her trail of non-scandal scandals finally caught up with her.

There is a non-zero chance she will lose. Right now it's between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8. At the same time:

1. She's run one bad campaign in her life, and those people aren't running this campaign
2. A majority of women and a super-majority of people of color are already on her tally sheet
3. She has burned through so many scandals we're down to worrying about her emails

Right now, the trajectory looks good. We're six months out, though. A lot of game left to play.
posted by dw at 7:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Elizabeth Warren just issued a statement:
Donald Trump is now the leader of the Republican Party. It's real – he is one step away from the White House. Here's what else is real:

Trump has built his campaign on racism, sexism, and xenophobia. There's more enthusiasm for him among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls.

He incites supporters to violence, praises Putin, and, according to a columnist who recently interviewed him, is "cool with being called an authoritarian" and doesn't mind associations with history's worst dictators.

He attacks veterans like John McCain who were captured and puts our servicemembers at risk by cheerleading illegal torture. In a world with ISIS militants and leaders like North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un conducting nuclear tests, he surrounds himself with a foreign policy team that has been called a "collection of charlatans," and puts out contradictory and nonsensical national security ideas one expert recently called "incoherent" and "truly bizarre."

What happens next will test the character for all of us – Republican, Democrat, and Independent. It will determine whether we move forward as one nation or splinter at the hands of one man's narcissism and divisiveness. I know which side I'm on, and I’m going to fight my heart out to make sure Donald Trump’s toxic stew of hatred and insecurity never reaches the White House.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [168 favorites]


Frowner, can I quote your comment? I think it's a very clear, and it's a good perspective--from someone who was once in the same place.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


What if the Maya were right and the world ended in 2012? And everything since is in some horrible off-kilter afterword... It all fits.

Trump being the nominee has completely reaffirmed my belief in the anthroponuclear multiple worlds theory. It is also a step closer to bringing this particular uncanny world to its inevitable conclusion.
posted by palindromic at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


On the plus side, Craig Mazin’s work is done and he can now return to his home planet.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


The argument at the time from progressives was that Gore and Bush were identical so voting for an nonviable 3rd party as a protest would 'wake up' the DNC and push them left. That ended up a very bad call.

This is exactly what we all thought. This was precisely the bien pensant opinion, the party line. I said it to people myself, even though I felt a terrible doubt in my heart. Gore was as bad as Bush, it didn't really matter which we elected, Democratic elites had to realize that they could not count on us and only then would they change their ways. And it turned out that while Gore was bad, Bush was worse, a lot worse.

And then instead of rising up to smash the oppressive system, it turned out that everyone either went fascist or got beat down by circumstance.

The thing is, that election was overdetermined and corrupt anyway, and a lot of different things combined to create the Bush victory - I'm not really on the "well, Nader voters ruined everything because they are bad" side. But I'm certainly on the "Nader voters were wrong in their understanding of what a Republican presidency would look like" side.
posted by Frowner at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [40 favorites]


Refugees.
posted by infini at 7:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Although I doubt it was a deciding factor I guess it's worth noting that Trump recently accused Cruz's dad of being pals with Lee Harvey Oswald.

What will he accuse Clinton of? There is literally no knowing. It's basically improv theater at this point.


It's practically hard to even remember at this point, but Trump was one of the primary signal boosters of the Obama "birther" slander. So he even has a specific proven track record on making up outlandish lies with surprising legs about presidential candidates.
posted by threeants at 7:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


The consequences of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches may be harmful to her popularity among anti-establishment types, people who've got a justified grievance against Wall Street.

The consequences of Clinton's emails may be an FBI case, a criminal investigation, prosecution, the appearance that she may be an actual criminal. (I don't think she is, but it would be easy to stretch out the proceedings past Election Day.)

The first gets riled-up politically-aware voters against you. The second gets a lot of apolitical concerned citizens to look at a contest between your blowhard racist uncle and (what looks like) a real corrupt political crook, hold their nose and vote for the "lesser evil."

That's why I'm more concerned about the emails.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 7:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


On MSNBC Chuck Todd was saying because both Clinton and Trump are both "hated" they're both going to get down in the muck together for six months.

Here's a few things off the top of my head that Hillary won't get mucky on:

-- Penis sizes
-- Melania Trump's looks
-- Female reporters and their periods
-- inciting violence at rallies
-- saying any one is "little" or "lyin'"

I mean, let me know if I'm wrong.
posted by zutalors! at 7:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [36 favorites]


So he even has a specific proven track record on making up outlandish lies with surprising legs about presidential candidates.

seriously his mouth is just an immense braying anus and there is no telling what kind of shit is going to fly out next and splatter us all
posted by poffin boffin at 7:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


I dunno, Canada's a better nation with better people and they still elected Harper twice.

Three times. *cringe*
posted by carolr at 7:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


"You Yanks are fucking crazy."

We are literally what happens when an entire continent decides to ship its criminals and religious fanatics across the ocean to be somebody else's problem. OH SUCK IT COLONIZERS, now we're everybody's problem and we have 7100 nukes and an alarming strain of religious fundamentalism directly attributable to the nutcases you exported because they were too nutty for you to deal with domestically.

(I have to laugh or I will cry.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [61 favorites]


Frowner, can I quote your comment? I think it's a very clear, and it's a good perspective--from someone who was once in the same place.

Sure, quote away.
posted by Frowner at 7:57 PM on May 3, 2016


[Trump]

I changed parties to seize the opportunity I saw
I swear my pride will be the death of us all
(Beware, it goeth before the fall)


You've not experienced Trump until you've read him in the original Klingon.
posted by New Frontier at 7:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]




God gave Cruz a chance, just like everybody else, but once he got to know him...
posted by clawsoon at 8:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


im gonna write nc17 cruz/trump necrophiliac vore instead i think

Link please when you're done.
posted by spinifex23 at 8:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hillary won't get mucky

Hopefully she'll have proxies to do that. Personally, I'd love to see Senator Al Franken dust off his comic chops, after having played them down for the last 8 years.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 8:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


So now America has its first true pseudo-nominee. Good job, media!
posted by homunculus at 8:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


"it must be nice to be a white man no worries, no responsibilities, no need to pretend you care about anything other than yourself"

Also, the world literally revolves around you and you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT without repercussions.

Well, okay, that mostly applies to the old white men with power and money.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]




Trump's nomination is a MAJOR problem for the Republican Party, but not much of a problem for the country as a whole. I think the best thing you can do to "protect" minorities, women, etc, is to remember that and not buy into the horse race the media is gong to try to sell and maybe ignore the proud "progressive" white dudes who want to let the world burn in the name of a Trump win.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Everyone who predicts that this will be a cakewalk for the Democratic nominee forgets how masochist much of the American electorate can be.
posted by dhens at 8:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Six months of "Isn't this a great neck and neck horse race folks!" media coverage of Trump v Clinton, regardless of what the poll numbers are.

It will be a close race, though it doesn't look like it now.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:18 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, the world literally revolves around you and you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT without repercussions.

Well, okay, that mostly applies to the old white men with power and money.


I'm going to temporarily believe that this revolves around me, a 40 year old woman, watching hockey playoffs with beer and my dogs. It's pretty sweet tbh.

PS: LGB HONK HONK HONK
posted by asockpuppet at 8:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I really don't know how to feel right now. I mean, obviously I delight in Cruz's failure. But I feel sick thinking of the upcoming months of Trump's campaign.

I'm a Muslim-American naturalized citizen. I got my citizenship literally a couple weeks after 9/11. Ever since I became a citizen, I have been painfully, keenly aware that to a lot of people, my citizenship is conditional. Whatever security most of you feel in your nationality, in your American citizenship, I want you to understand that I have never had the luxury of that, because from the moment I had my political coming-of-age, I've known that I am Not American Enough thanks to the kind of dog whistle and not-so-dog whistle shit Republicans spew. And now the current Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States is someone who has suggested that people like me register in a database because of my religion, or that people like me be barred from entering the country. A plurality of Republican voters support this man.

It is real hard not to take that personally. Because in this election especially, the political is personal and the personal is political. Because it really kinda feels like my identity and my citizenship are part of what's at stake here, and I am far from the only one. I'd really appreciate it if those of you don't have quite as much on the line would remember that, and stand up for people in my position with your vote, and your voice. I'm tentatively sure Clinton will win this thing, so I'm not, like, making plans to flee the country. But it's gonna be a long and ugly election, and I'm not looking forward to that at all.
posted by yasaman at 8:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [256 favorites]


Your move, Bernie.

Bernie Sanders wins Indiana primary in an upset - CBS News "live blog"
posted by filthy light thief at 8:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm not that worried that he'll win. Ok, that's a lie, but I think it's unlikely that he'll win. I'm worried about how his supporters are going to act in the meantime. I'm worried because I live in a place where there are frequent political rallies during election years, and I'm dreading the ones where the attendees bring Confederate flags and yell slurs at passers by who look wrong. (And there's been some of that already recently.) I'm worried about the inevitable rhetoric. I'm worried that there are things that people say privately that they will now feel emboldened to say publicly.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


I dunno, Canada's a better nation with better people and they still elected Harper twice.

Granted, Harper was a steaming pile of feculent pus with a bad haircut, but I don't think he's the same kind of creature as Trump. We did, however, have a Trump of our very own. He became the mayor of our largest, richest, most diverse, most international city on a reactionary, small-ball, blue-collar-baiting, queer-bashing, hateful wave of insanity, a huge family inheritance that he somehow managed to turn into a self-made bootstrap narrative, and a larger-than-life "rules are for the small people" persona. We've been trying to warn you guys about him for a while.

I'm terrified by how similar their trajectories have been. I wish I could tell you how to beat him in an election, but, well, it never happened.

(Ford probably would have lost his re-election bid if his health hadn't gotten in the way, but that's only because of the crack scandal, and from what I can tell that's not something that applies to Trump.)
posted by saturday_morning at 8:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm terrified of Trump getting the nomination because I spent last year diving deep into the Holocaust. I take his hatred seriously and it isn't Godwin-izing to do so. Now is actually an excellent time to learn from the lessons of history.

Having said that, Clinton, now with 92% of the delegates she needs, will be the nominee for the Democratic primary and there has never in my memory been such a golden opportunity to take back the promise of this country, beginning by crushing the Rs, right down the ballot. Not even 2008 carried this kind of promise because the Rs actually had a credible candidate at the top of the ticket then. The crazy people dominate in primaries, which is why Obama calls this the silly season -- the sensible middle shows up in the general.

Also, panamajoe is rapidly becoming a favorite Mefite of mine. I wish I could give the comments s/he has posted golden favorites covered with sparkles.
posted by bearwife at 8:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


It is pretty weird that all the youngest candidates are out. It makes me worry about the future of both parties. Where are the future stars? And Elizabeth Warren is pretty old, too.
posted by zutalors! at 8:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm worried about how his supporters are going to act in the meantime. I'm worried because I live in a place where there are frequent political rallies during election years, and I'm dreading the ones where the attendees bring Confederate flags and yell slurs at passers by who look wrong. (And there's been some of that already recently.) I'm worried about the inevitable rhetoric. I'm worried that there are things that people say privately that they will now feel emboldened to say publicly.

Yah. And to add one more -- I'm worried that there's no reason any of those things would stop after he loses the election.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Paul Ryan is the Future Hope of the GOP. For the Democrats you've got guys like Julian Castro.
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cruz SCOTUS? With this Senate? Donald can float that deal, but I don't believe he can close it.
posted by box at 8:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


One positive for the Dems is that, although he's been fairly hands-off for the primary, Obama will actively campaign for whomever earns the nomination, which will hopefully help boost turnout among Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters. His campaigning would probably be especially effective for Clinton because it would cement the idea of Clinton as one who preserves and expands the policies put in place by his administration.
posted by palindromic at 8:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yeah I don't know about Ryan and Castro. Castro maybe but Ryan needs to keep from being tainted by this Trump fiasco.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sanders isn't the nominee because the people decided they preferred Hillary Clinton. By a very wide margin of millions of votes.

Let me be clear, many Bernie-or-Bust supporters that I know - many of them, in my social circle, women and POC - very genuinely seem believe that this election+the establishment is somehow rigged against Sanders. They seem to strongly believe that actual voter fraud is occurring preventing him delegates. They are very much #NeverWithHer and #NeverHillary and continuously posting about this or that Clinton Conspiracy all over social media.

I am not trying to make the argument that this tinfoil hat business is even close to the truth, but "blah blah only white males are Bernie-or-bust" is total bullshit, because that is not the world I am witnessing right now, at least in my circles. I am seeing a ton of folks vomit "Hillary Clinton = Republican" nonsense all over my facebook, it is very scary, and it is definitely not just white males.
posted by windbox at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [38 favorites]


Obama will actively campaign for whomever earns the nomination

Yeah, this is going to be huge. This plus demographics plus how popular Clinton is among Democrats, plus how much Republican establishment hates Trump...no, I'm not saying cakewalk but it's silly to act like there's really a strong case for Trump in any of this.
posted by zutalors! at 8:33 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Because it really kinda feels like my identity and my citizenship are part of what's at stake here, and I am far from the only one.

Not that I'm the one who ought to be giving you an apology and not that it makes the slightest difference, but. Fuck. I'm sorry.
posted by zachlipton at 8:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


Paul Ryan is almost certain to be come radioactive by virtue of being a Republican Speaker of the House. His job is largely fighting the Hell-No caucus so that anything can get done in Washington. Doing this will make him unacceptable to voters in those districts, and a Republican path to presidential victory is perilously thin in a good year right now.

If, by some miracle, Trump costs the GOP control if the House, maybe he could turn Minority Whip into a jumping off point for the Presidency, but...
posted by GameDesignerBen at 8:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm worried that there's no reason any of those things would stop after he loses the election.

Just said basically this on my blog - the danger is the fact that Trump has that many supporters, and that "if that's the case, it doesn't really matter who they've picked as their figurehead."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Next level!
posted by New England Cultist at 8:41 PM on May 3, 2016


Paul Ryan is the Future Hope of the GOP. For the Democrats you've got guys like Julian Castro.

You must understand why this doesn't fill Democrats with any particular fear.
posted by East14thTaco at 8:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ryan needs to keep from being tainted by this Trump fiasco.

As speaker of the house, he's the chairman of the convention. He'll be the one to gavel in the nomination, that stink won't wash off easily.
posted by peeedro at 8:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


One of the reasons I sold my last house and moved a few miles down the road to a different town, was because I had been openly Middle Eastern at the old house. And everyone loved Arabic food and belly dance music until 911, after which things became noticeably unpleasant, with the constant planting of little American flags in my yard, and the serious efforts of the HOA to get rid of us. Keep in mind that one side of my family has been in America since before it was America. I have a DAR membership, and every generation since the Revolution has served in the armed forces. I have 3 generations of names on the Vietnam memorial alone.

Did that stop neighbors from cutting us out of social groups and playdates? It did not. All that mattered was that one set of grandparents came from a region of the world that most of those morons couldn't find on a map, much less understand the shifting borders and tribal alliances in a area that has been constantly carved up by Europeans and Americans.

I'm also a woman, who is terrified of the tsunami of racism and misogyny that is going to flow from the followers of the presumptive nominee on the Insane Clown Posse Formerly Known As Republicans. I find Hillary problematic in a few ways; she's a little to the right, she's way too hawkish, and I think she represents the beliefs of the Truman era republicans more than she represents a progressive future. That said, I will still vote for her, even though I've sworn off voting 'against' candidates, even though I prefer Jill Stein, I'm going to pull the lever against Trump.

Still, glad to see the Prince of the Lizard People go away. Now we just need to mount a rescue for his poor innocent daughters. Between having him as a father, and Carly singing them into night terrors,won't somebody think of the children?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [154 favorites]


Paul Ryan is the Future Hope of the GOP.

Perhaps the Future of The GOP is some group of staffers in a back room fervently drafting out the principles of a new small-government, anti-trade party.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:48 PM on May 3, 2016


You Yanks are fucking crazy.

Indeed.
posted by juiceCake at 8:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


>The crazy people dominate in primaries, which is why Obama calls this the silly season -- the >sensible middle shows up in the general.

What does it say about the "sensible middle" if they can't even be bothered to show up and vote in the primaries? Yes, its too hard to vote and voter suppression is an evil our country faces, but its a little bizarre to me that increased political engagement is being portrayed as evidence of a lack of civic wisdom or virtue. If the "sensible middle" of the GOP electorate showed up, Kaisch or Bush would have been the Republican nominee.

Voting needs to be encouraged. The "silent majority" is against Trump and Republicans like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan.

There is just a lot of anger at the political establishment in this country. That anger is going to need to be dealt with, one way or the other.

Also, I'll be really surprised if the Democrats manage to flip the House by blowing out Trump. For one thing, its not clear that they plan to target enough races to do so; it's not even clear they managed to field candidates in every race where flipping a seat is likely. The Democrats weren't even thinking about trying to make a serious play for the House until it became clear that Trump was the nominee and therefore a potential liability for downticket Republicans. It's not like landslides at the Presidential level guarantee changes in who controls the U.S. House. After all, the Democrats retained control of congress through successive Republican landslides at the Presidential level during the Nixon and Reagan years.
posted by eagles123 at 8:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


im legitimately hoping for an old testament style apocalypse because really why the fuck not

Well, as long as it only happens inside the GOP convention hall. And frankly I'd be fine with it if only five or six plagues were visited upon them.

I'm genuinely worried about what will happen in Cleveland, even without a floor fight. Protests and other assorted shenanigans may get ugly.

Wonder if Graham Nash is ready to do a 2016 remix?

It only has to be close enough to steal.

It'd be interesting if the election decision had to go the Supreme Court again. Real interesting.
posted by fuse theorem at 8:51 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Trump nomination is so not surprising, but the entire political spectrum in this election is confusing.

On one hand, it feels like its representative that the whole entire establishment has swung to the right, as it has been for the past decades. Trump, wildly provocative and outrageous is now the Republican candidate, and Clinton, with more hawkish and conservative politics, is the likely Democrat candidate. As in, she only appears progressive in comparison to Trump and the progressive agenda would prefer the politics of Sanders over Clinton were it not that her establishment credibility makes her better with...well, the establishment.

or

Is it that Trump and Sanders are both outliers, and are both populist candidates that are appealing to widespread dissatisfaction with the political establishment and economic disparity. Trump, through scapegoats, hatred, and appeals to a "better America," Sanders with a radical and aggressive overhauls to the entire system. Both largely appealing to previously non-voting populations and younger voters. Both grassroots.

I suppose it's something of both. Regardless of how this plays out, or if as the Metafilter crystal ball consensus seems to be, Clinton glides to an easy victory, it would be unwise to discount all of the Trump and Sanders voters.

Dare I say, this is what democracy looks like?
posted by iamck at 8:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump will likely also increase voter turnout for the Dems, irrespective of whether the candidate is Sanders or Clinton. I know of plenty leftie-type folks who did not participate in the Democratic primary because they are fine with whichever candidate wins the nod but they will stand in line for hours to register a meaningful vote against Trump. With Trump, Democratic GOTV efforts have a head start. If it had been Rubio or even Cruz, there probably wouldn't have been the same palpable sense of urgency in keeping them out of the office.
posted by palindromic at 8:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm Canadian, and even I'm making sure my nephew gets his Irish citizenship.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:59 PM on May 3, 2016


Consider the case of John McCain. He's up for reelection against a reasonably tough opponent. What can he do? Embrace Trump after all of their hateful exchanges? Repudiate or ignore Trump and alienate a swath of Republicans ensuring that his opponent wins? Multiply his situation a few dozen times.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:03 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


As in, she only appears progressive in comparison to Trump

And, well, most other Democrats. Given (as pointed out all the time) she was one of the most liberal Senators.
posted by Justinian at 9:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [47 favorites]


And, well, most other Democrats.

You and your facts and your voting records.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:06 PM on May 3, 2016 [53 favorites]


I mean we've been over the "just askin' questions, but isn't Hillary a super conservative DINO" stuff a million times.
posted by zutalors! at 9:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


I would vote for a dinosaur for president, even a conservative one. Well, maybe.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Going To Maine: "I would vote for a dinosaur for president, even a conservative one. Well, maybe."

Does a lizard in a human suit count? You missed your chance.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


I am seeing a ton of folks vomit "Hillary Clinton = Republican" nonsense all over my facebook, it is very scary, and it is definitely not just white males.

She's to the right of Nixon. I don't give a fuck at this point - if the choice is between what was once a somewhat hawkish republican and watching it all burn...
posted by wotsac at 9:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I’m of the the minority opinion -first seen somewhere on this site- that Ted Cruz is a bunch of millipedes in a human suit, not a lizard in a human suit. So I’m fine with having given that a miss.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie's win (or near win) is good, as it drags attention back to Clinton/Sanders, and lets the D side of the house run the soap opera for a bit, and get the undecided middle interested in what they're saying. Trump is too busy threatening Pakistan (no, really) to interfere.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:12 PM on May 3, 2016


Maybe we should just just keep a running count of the number of ridiculous "Hillary isn't a progressive / Nixon was more liberal" comments rather than responding to each one individually.

She's to the right of Nixon. I don't give a fuck at this point - if the choice is between what was once a somewhat hawkish republican and watching it all burn...

One.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [36 favorites]


Well, it's been established previously that Trump is running to the left of Hillary, and since Hillary is to the left Trump, then surely we must have woken up in the best of all Worlds where we're having two of the most Leftist candidates competing for our votes. Right?!??!
posted by FJT at 9:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ted Cruz Dressed For Campaign Rally By Swarm Of Loyal Vermin

this was beautiful. Classic Onion

god I'm gonna miss making Ted Cruz jokes
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


god I'm gonna miss making Ted Cruz jokes

Ted Cruz is still in the Senate. And they still like him back home. And Ted Cruz knows he could be a better president than Trump. He’s not going anywhere.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


People have different definitions of what they consider progressive. The horrors.

There are going to be a lot of people holding their nose to vote for Clinton this time around. That includes both moderate Republicans repulsed at Trump, millennial voters who haven't warmed to Clinton because they don't feel like she speaks to their concerns, and liberals/progressives/leftists of all ages who want Democrats to be a more unapologetically left-wing party.

Deal with it.

At the same time, people should vote for Clinton against Trump or any Republican running against her. Bernie supporters who care about any issues that he runs on should know that a Republican victory would set back those causes by decades.

Blah.
posted by eagles123 at 9:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


Cruz elbowed his wife in the face
And ate a booger on stage
Like really so awkward

Will not be President.
posted by zutalors! at 9:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't think of anything more beautiful right now than to see Donald Trump defeated by our first woman president, through the votes of the American women he scorned.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 9:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [37 favorites]


She's to the right of Nixon. I don't give a fuck at this point - if the choice is between what was once a somewhat hawkish republican and watching it all burn...

Then have the the courage of your convictions and finish that sentence.
posted by East14thTaco at 9:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [34 favorites]


She's to the right of Nixon.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time during the two years they were in the senate together.

It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that bullshit claims like this have to be refuted, but here we are. Dislike Clinton and her politics if you like, but cut the disingenuous bullshit.
posted by biogeo at 9:17 PM on May 3, 2016 [147 favorites]


Will not be President.

That NERD.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:18 PM on May 3, 2016


My grandfather was born in Dublin, Ireland. I'm going to start the process of getting my Irish citizenship.

Just as a reminder, going in the other direction is also possible! If you've had a green card for 5 years (or 3 years and are married to an American), and blah blah days out of the US and blah blah other restrictions you can file your N-400 and apply for US citizenship. It's only $200 more than renewing your green card!

And looking at N-400 timelines it seems possible, if not at all certain, that USCIS could get it done in time to register to vote. And then, right after the ceremony, you can get in your car and put all the windows down and blare AMERICA... FUCK YEAH! at about 900 dB while you go to your local elections agency and register and then in November you can send your own special SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNIE signal.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Hillary is going to rip him to shreds in the best way possible- by laughing and keeping her cool. He won't even know what to do.

Amanda Marcotte: Let’s all laugh at the sexist pig: Hillary’s negative campaign against Donald Trump will be easy — and true
posted by palindromic at 9:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I went back to take a self-indulgent look at this comment of mine from more innocent and carefree times:
In October last year we were at a collaboration meeting in Montreal, and some of us ended up at the HamBar (yes, exactly what it says) with a vegan in tow. And even then, the 14 of us there were basically stumped by the question - if not Trump, who?
The only thing wrong about that comment is the prediction of Trump "by a narrow plurality". Instead, it's looking like a romp.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


She's to the right of Nixon. I don't give a fuck at this point - if the choice is between what was once a somewhat hawkish republican and watching it all burn...

Once again, some of the first people to "burn" under a Trump presidency are people who are not particularly high on the privilege hierarchy and can ill afford your gawking as they sit atop a metaphoric garbage fire of a country. Some of those people are your fellow MeFites--some are in this very thread in fact--and they're telling you in the clearest possible language how scared the prospect of "watching it all burn" makes them.

Hate Clinton all you want, sure, but if nothing else, I believe she at least has a basic inclusive concept of human rights and a sense of the basic results of using nuclear weapons. I believe Trump has expressed neither of those things during this campaign. That alone is reason enough to vote for her in the general even if you can't find anything else (and you really ought to be able to).
posted by zachlipton at 9:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [73 favorites]


It's important to remember that Trump is largely running on white working class anger, and he's whipping it up where it never was. A friend of mine I've been friends with for years suddenly burst out "Who's going to help my people, the white working class, if not Trump?" the other day. He had never said anything like that before - the "my people" shit. This stuff is rising. It's going to be horrible.
posted by corb at 9:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [71 favorites]


god I'm gonna miss making Ted Cruz jokes

Ted Cruz is still in the Senate. And they still like him back home. And Ted Cruz knows he could be a better president than Trump. He’s not going anywhere.


No, no no, this was his only chance, his 17-year life cycle won't line up with another presidential election for a long time
posted by saturday_morning at 9:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [80 favorites]


If a Democrat can't put together a campaign about what an ineffectual loser Ted Cruz is then Texas deserves him. Trump gave us this strategy if nothing else.
posted by East14thTaco at 9:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


No, no no, this was his only chance, his 17-year life cycle won't line up with another presidential election for a long time

Nah, he's thought ahead. He's a smart entity. His flesh bag will simply be inhabited by a different brood cohort.
posted by chimaera at 9:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


My two sentence argument to persuade Sanders voters--especially those who, like me, don't much care for Clinton or the DLCers--to defeat Trump by voting Democrat this fall:

First you put out the fire. Then you rebuild the house.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:26 PM on May 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


[We will no doubt have to say this on many more Tuesdays this year, but here's this week's reminder: do not go after the supporters of people you are not a supporter of. Thank you. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 9:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I've gone through the Australian permanent residency process. IT FUCKING SUCKS AND BRIDGING VISAS ARE THE WORST though it'll probably be millions of times easier for you if you're a White Westerner I guess

One thing that has really, really frustrated me through this campaign are the radical-activist people I know who think the Trump presidency would be a good thing because it'd inspire people to revolt. Firstly, a lot of what he's proposing isn't actually that new - Muslims are already having problems coming to (and staying in) the US. Latinos are already being deported. Planned Parenthood is already in trouble. THERE'S ALREADY A WALL. If none of those things are inspiring you to revolt already then what makes you think a Trump presidency would change your mind?!

Also, please, our lives are not collateral damage for your revolutions (not that those work anyhoo). At least I have the relative "privilege" of just never coming back to the US, I guess. I appreciate yasaman and SecretAgentSockpuppet for speaking up. I hope things work out in your favor.
posted by divabat at 9:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [51 favorites]


If any of the Republican candidates is elected, including Trump or Cruz I suspect situations like this would continue to bloom.
posted by juiceCake at 9:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


He’s not going anywhere.

idk about that, the networks cut away but if you were watching his concession speech on C-SPAN they showed the part at the end where all those weird geometric shapes limned in witchfire opened up behind him and he just floated backwards into them and vanished :(
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


And ate a booger on stage

*POUNDS FIST ON TABLE*

WHERE IS THE VINE
posted by poffin boffin at 9:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


idk about that, the networks cut away but if you were watching his concession speech on C-SPAN they showed the part at the end where all those weird geometric shapes limned in witchfire opened up behind him and he just floated backwards into them and vanished :(

What? I thought the last episode of Gravity Falls already aired back in February?
posted by zachlipton at 9:32 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


He had never said anything like that before - the "my people" shit. This stuff is rising. It's going to be horrible.

So, what are the chances that white nationalism is going to continue past this election? That we're going to get something like the National Anglo-Saxon Association (the other NASA)?
posted by FJT at 9:35 PM on May 3, 2016


It's eerie how the Republican battle this time rhymes with what happened when Bill ran in 1992, the whole Ross Perot-vs-the-Republican-establishment thing. What is it about Clintons that makes establishment white conservatives and blue-collar white conservatives argue with each other so much?
posted by clawsoon at 9:36 PM on May 3, 2016


are you kidding me? it's going to get worse and worse because every year white people in america are losing their majority race position, and they are SO ANGRY that the country they stole from PoC is being overrun with new PoC
posted by poffin boffin at 9:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [43 favorites]


Not a Vine but What Fell Out of Ted Cruz's Mouth During the GOP Debate? has video.

content advisory: gross, even if it's not a booger
posted by palindromic at 9:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Surely this.
posted by radwolf76 at 9:41 PM on May 3, 2016


I've seen a lot of antisemitism, and even so I can't believe the attached examples: Trump supporters target Jewish Journalists
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


the very worst possible injustice any member of the majority can face is one which they themselves perpetrated upon minorities.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


And my honest apologies if my earlier comment came across as a personal attack rather than an attack on the idea; I did not intend it as such, but in my frustration wasn't careful about my wording.

Thing is, that article was literally the second hit on a Google search of "hillary clinton senate voting record". The idea that Clinton is some kind of crypto-conservative is unmoored from any basis in reality, and discovering the facts is not hard. Honestly, in most of the cases where Clinton and Sanders did vote differently, I actually prefer Sanders's vote. I do happen to think Clinton would be a better president overall even though I am not looking forward to her foreign policy, but I would happily vote for Sanders in the general if he were to get the nomination. But the idea that because Clinton has favored interventionist military action and reduced market regulations in some contexts, she is therefore worse than Nixon, and presumably no different than Trump, is some bizarre political Manicheanism.
posted by biogeo at 9:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [40 favorites]


Jay Nordlinger, senior editor for the National Review, has made a couple of interesting tweets just now:

"I've never been much of a joiner. Belong to two things, basically: my church and the GOP. Now down to one! Can observe politics more coolly."

"Reagan was shocked to leave the Democratic party. Shocked. He was about the age I am now. I never wanted to be an independent. But ..."

"For many of us, today is Independence Day. Becoming-an-Independent Day. But unlike the Fourth of July, it's not happy."
posted by clawsoon at 9:42 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time during the two years they were in the senate together.

Also, both she and Sanders share like 98% of their DNA with a banana. Your point? There's a lot of post offices being renamed in that 93%. They're somewhere between strikingly and diametrically opposed on the tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter, including privacy rights, financial reforms, the minimum wage, and welfare.
posted by fifthrider at 9:43 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


Actually it's like 50% with bananas; so go Hillary - she's not a banana?
posted by fifthrider at 9:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, both she and Sanders share like 98% of their DNA with a banana. Your point? There's a lot of post offices being renamed in that 93%. They're somewhere between strikingly and diametrically opposed on the tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter, including privacy rights, financial reforms, the minimum wage, and welfare.

Yeah, this is pretty disingenuous. By that logic, wouldn't Hillary and Ted Cruz also have a strikingly similar voting record?

I mean, think of all the post offices! So many post offices!
posted by panama joe at 9:52 PM on May 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


And so you'd rather just watch it all burn?

Well, I hope your rhinoplasty works out all right. I'm pretty sure it's not gonna work out well for a lot of other people.

I'll need to get to one of the ROK consulates soon, see if I can get a visa to work there. At least when Trump starts a war, I'll probably be one of the first casualties then. A quick death. Merciful.
posted by qcubed at 9:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Derek Willis at The New York Times: “The Senate Votes That Divided Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:54 PM on May 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


The counting thing is beyond juvenile.
posted by futz at 9:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm as frustrated as anyone with Bernie Or Busting but c'mon.

1. It's totally possible that the Democratic party itself has drifted so far right that it's difficult to distinguish from Republicans past on economic issues. To say Hillary is more left than the bulk of this Democratic party means almost nothing to a progressive.

2. It's totally possible that the votes Sanders and Clinton have been offered are products of this status quo and that at any opportunity to take a bolder stance on economic or even social issues, Sanders and Clinton would diverge.

3. Records aside, one need only consider the two campaigns in tone. Hillary is strongly advocating for status quo politics, Bernie is very obviously not. Could it be that people take these two politicians at their words and have formed opinions accordingly? Surely not.
posted by an animate objects at 9:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [45 favorites]


tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter

Well, at least you're not calling me corrupt or uninformed. I just don't "matter". Thank you.
posted by FJT at 9:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think you've been paying attention to the GOP nominating process if you think that Hillary is going to be able to sit back, laugh, and dismantle Trump tearing into her. She's a Jeb Bush level target.
posted by codacorolla at 9:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also, both she and Sanders share like 98% of their DNA with a banana. Your point?

Go banana!
posted by entropicamericana at 9:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


Hard to link on my iPad, but according to this, Sanders and Cruz have voted together 24% of the time. Of all of the Senators in the running, no two voted together more often than Sanders and Clinton.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:59 PM on May 3, 2016 [29 favorites]


It costs $6,865 for an Australian partner visa. I'm fucking tempted to move my wife and I to Australia.
Isn't that rather like moving to Russia to protest an anti-LGBT politician?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


At the risk of seeming obvious, no one in this thread has stated about Hillary yet, (I don't think) is that,yesterday the DOJ declared her email and classified memos predicament a "law enforcement issue". Her compadres have been, and are currently being interviewed. So she's likely about to be interviewed herself (unless the protective Clinton- Democrat machine somehow intercedes). Obviously, if the FBI recommends to indict, this would, of course, effect the general. Then its time to say hello to President Trump.
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Those Nordlinger tweets mimic what I'm seeing from a lot of my peers. A lot of people may not have liked Cruz, but we saw him as the last chance to stop Trump. Now that hope is gone, we are all kind of disheartened and confused.
posted by corb at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Go watch all twelve hours of the Benghazi committee hearings where Republicans took turns tagging in to tell Clinton how much she sucked and then tell me again that she's a soft target. Jeb Bush would have been crying by the end of that.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [57 favorites]


so the general starts now okay /prepares vomit bucket
posted by angrycat at 10:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


If there was ever a time crying out for a triumphant return of Spy magazine, this is it. Somebody please make it happen!
posted by SisterHavana at 10:01 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well, at least you're not calling me corrupt or uninformed. I just don't "matter". Thank you.

A tremendous portion of congressional business is uncontroversial housekeeping and procedure. A figure like "93%" of votes doesn't really capture anything, since it varies wildly depending on the volume of other business going on. That's the point.
posted by fifthrider at 10:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Considering the limited power of the president in the face of an uncooperative Congress, it might be most useful for voters to the economic and foreign-policy left of Clinton (of whom I'd be one, if I were American) to put their energy into getting more Sanders-like Senators nominated and voted in.

It's not like Clinton would veto a bill breaking up the banks or bringing back Glass Steagal, right?
posted by clawsoon at 10:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


The fact remains that, as a general election candidate, Hillary will be running on the most progressive Democratic agenda in decades. I mean, it may not be everything you want, but it's a damn sight better than anything we've seen in a very long time. It's not just a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils; it's a matter of voting for a candidate who agrees with you on a lot of things and has the policy chops to actually get them done.

Refusing to vote for her because it means not getting everything you want smacks of taking your toys and going home.
posted by panama joe at 10:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [70 favorites]


Better to vote for banana person than orange person.
posted by peeedro at 10:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


The thing is, fifthrider, both Clinton and Sanders voted very differently than every Republican Senator who was ever in the race. There's no Republican whom either of them voted with over 50% of the time. It's not just post offices.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:09 PM on May 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


Can we count the number of times we've adjudicated the "Hillary isn't a liberal" question instead? Because that's at least a dozen times now, and it's so old now it's collecting Social Security and has had enough of you whippersnappers.
posted by dw at 10:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


It's not just post offices.

They were also staring down a Republican strategy that explicitly contemplated voting party line to obstruct business - any business - for as long as a Democrat is in office. There was probably a lot less daylight on a lot of those decisions between the two parties, policy-wise, than there was tactically.
posted by fifthrider at 10:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't understand people who spew such personal hate about candidates because they're not perfect. There is a job opening that must be filled. There is a limited number of applicants. You're not picking a spouse or religious leader. You pick the best of who's available.

My politics align more with Sanders than Clinton. I voted for Sanders. But only because I wanted him to do well. I prefer Clinton for the job.

1. She's more qualified and would be a better president.
2. Now is the time for a woman president. If not now, when? People who don't want Clinton don't really want a woman president, except maybe in theory. When the perfect woman runs and can win. Someday.
3. She will be more of a stabilizing force than Sanders and we're going to need that the next few years. We'll be lucky to avoid a meltdown in the coming years. People who hope for a revolution are living in a fantasy world, and somehow imagine they won't be harmed by it. They also don't seem to care or think about who would be harmed the most. Or somehow imagine a peaceful harmless revolution.
posted by bongo_x at 10:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [69 favorites]


As you watch #NeverTrump conservatives move to back Trump over the next few days ... just remember that this is what the leading left wing Democrats will do for Hillary in a few weeks, while she at the same starts to pivot right for the general election. Heck, she's going to release the Goldman transcripts not to apologize but to assure Wall Street she's no threat and they can safely backer her against Trump.
posted by MattD at 10:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


At the risk of seeming obvious, no one in this thread has stated about Hillary yet, (I don't think) is that,yesterday the DOJ declared her email and classified memos predicament a "law enforcement issue". Her compadres have been, and are currently being interviewed.

Link?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:14 PM on May 3, 2016


Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time during the two years they were in the senate together.

Also, both she and Sanders share like 98% of their DNA with a banana. Your point? There's a lot of post offices being renamed in that 93%. They're somewhere between strikingly and diametrically opposed on the tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter, including privacy rights, financial reforms, the minimum wage, and welfare.
posted by fifthrider at 9:43 PM on May 3 [4 favorites +] [!]


Like how some of that 7% also includes when they voted differently on the Brady bill? In that someone voted against it 5 times. Hint: it wasn't Clinton. But sure. Important congressional decisions that actually matter.
posted by ultranos at 10:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [32 favorites]


yesterday the DOJ declared her email and classified memos predicament a "law enforcement issue". Her compadres have been, and are currently being interviewed.

The cite here seems to be from Fox News Insider, which says that the DOJ responded yesterday to a FOIA request saying that this pertained to “a law enforcement matter.” As is, this reads more as spin on the status quo and less as any kind of substantial change in the status quo. (Certainly there was no kind of “announcement”.) But then, I’m not a lawyer.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Heck, she's going to release the Goldman transcripts not to apologize but to assure Wall Street she's no threat and they can safely backer her against Trump.

Or just, you know, don’t release them. I’m pretty sure everyone on Wall Street is aware that she’s pro-business.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


You know that endlessly criticizing Sander's supporters does nothing but alienate people, right?

There have been folks right here on mefi who have said that they have been so turned off by Sander's supporters that they'd never vote for him. It goes both ways and feelings are strong. Try cutting people some slack. You don't have to jump on every comment and tear it apart. Most Bernie folks have stopped participating in these election threads...in case "you" hadn't noticed.
posted by futz at 10:19 PM on May 3, 2016 [53 favorites]


Clinton and Sanders also voted more alike than either of them did with Jim Webb. And the Republicans didn't vote in lockstep: both Clinton and Sanders have very low crossover with Ted Cruz, who is a crazed obstructionist, and relatively high crossover with Rick Santorum (ewwwww) and Lindsay Graham. And interestingly, Sanders has higher crossover with Santorum and Graham. Maybe that's the gun thing?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


So far the best argument I've seen in this thread is that Clinton isn't as liberal as the most liberal person in the Senate who only recently is a Democrat instead of a Socialist.

It's like arguing that Kevin Garnett isn't really a professional basketball player because you just saw a Kobe Bryant highlight reel and man that guy seemed really good. Heck, you're not even sure if Garnett could sink a layup or not. Does he know what a basketball loop is? Maybe he's secretly a football player? If you put him on a basketball team he might start trying to kick the ball into a goal somewhere.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [33 favorites]


The main two news orgs that are still beating the Hillary email drum are Fox News and the Washington Times. Everyone else has moved on because there's not a lot of "there" there. What we've seen so far has just been mundane.

I'm seriously not worried about the emails. I mean, they charge her, they'll be carting not just Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell in, they'll also need to charge Cheney's office, since all of them did the exact same thing. It's just that because it's Hillary it has to be salacious.
posted by dw at 10:22 PM on May 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


both Clinton and Sanders have very low crossover with Ted Cruz, who is a crazed obstructionist, and relatively high crossover with Rick Santorum (ewwwww) and Lindsay Graham.

Yeah; it's starting to look like we need to add a third "get shit done vs. obstruct all the things" axis to those political alignment charts.
posted by fifthrider at 10:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


It'd be interesting if the election decision had to go the Supreme Court again. Real interesting.

The possession arrow is pointing toward the Democrats right now.
posted by msalt at 10:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Anyone else feel like this is just a made-up story used to sell ads on the serious news channels?

Drumpf has spent nearly nothing of his alleged billions of dollars on the free 24x7x365 exposure he's gotten for over a year now. Remember before that happened? Hillary was going to win the presidency. Pretty much everybody thought she should've just been inaugurated without any of this #clowncar bullshit that came in-between. Yeah, yeah, the haters wanted to see the process, and Bernie was really important to the message, but really, we're just back to where we were before she even announced her candidacy.

In terms of the election, nothing has really changed. What would be a complete and utter shock is if she somehow lost. I'm not so sure that narrative flies...the media created this monster because they are making hand-over-fistfuls of cash.

What I am more worried about right now is the voter fraud shenanigans and the Jim Crow 2.0 nonsense. Hillary better not go Al Gore if some shit like that happens again. At least the SCOTUS is still 4/4 this time...wait, we still haven't appointed the next SCOTUS?
posted by Chuffy at 10:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


fifthrider: "A tremendous portion of congressional business is uncontroversial housekeeping and procedure. A figure like "93%" of votes doesn't really capture anything, since it varies wildly depending on the volume of other business going on. That's the point."

National Journal has published ideological ratings based on several dozen key votes for House and Senate members for decades. According to their 2007 edition, Obama was the most liberal senator (95.5 composite score), with Sanders in 4th (93.7), Clinton 16th (82.8), most conservative Democrat Ben Nelson in 53rd (46.7), most liberal Republican Olympia Snowe a scootch above him in 50th (47.8), and the most conservative senator Jim DeMint at a measly 6.2.

So when she was in the Senate, Clinton was relatively moderate compared to Obama and Sanders but much more liberal compared to the party as a whole (and to the chamber). Granted, some of those Dems were Blue Dogs that got wiped out in later midterms, but it's hard to build a Senate (super)majority without at least a few moderate voices.

an animate objects: "3. Records aside, one need only consider the two campaigns in tone. Hillary is strongly advocating for status quo politics, Bernie is very obviously not."

Counterpoint: Clinton advocates for what's realistically achievable to avoid dashing high hopes like Obama did, whereas Sanders requires an unprecedented political revolution just to get elected, much less gain the majorities necessary to enact his policies.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [35 favorites]


None of them set up their own private server. That is the catch.
posted by futz at 10:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


The possession arrow is pointing toward the Democrats right now.

Certainly, in a 4-4 split the recounts would at least continue.
posted by fifthrider at 10:25 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, and I'm predicting historic victory margin for Clinton. Historic.
posted by bongo_x at 10:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


They're somewhere between strikingly and diametrically opposed on the tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter, including privacy rights,

Such as when Clinton and Sanders co-sponsored a bill to remove immunity for telecom companies for invasions of privacy under FISA?

financial reforms,

The big legislative vote here was TARP, which Clinton voted for and Sanders against. If you see that as diametric opposition, then I grant that. But it's worth noting that basically all economists agree TARP prevented a depression, and the financial institutions paid back the loan with interest, for a net cost to taxpayers of $0. As far as I can tell, Clinton and Sanders voted similarly to one another on less major financial legislation.

the minimum wage,

Such as when Clinton co-sponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage?

and welfare.

Such as when Clinton voted in favor of every piece of key legislation increasing entitlement programs during her time in the Senate?

It would be absurd of me to argue that Clinton and Sanders are exactly the same politically. Obviously Sanders is farther to the left on a number of issues, and farther to the right on gun control, and somewhat passive on issues specifically affecting women and minorities. But to characterize their differences as diametric opposition when we have Donald Goddamn Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee available for contrast seems myopic to me.
posted by biogeo at 10:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [100 favorites]


Try cutting people some slack. You don't have to jump on every comment and tear it apart.

Okay, well then in that spirit, I have to point out that some folks will react and defend themselves strongly when someone they're supporting or they themselves are being called corrupt, amoral, overly ambitious, and yes, occasionally, even evil.
posted by FJT at 10:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Serious question time here : how long do we have to keep having the Bernie vs. Hillary debate? Primary season is effectively over, the nominees have been chosen, and we're still, still having this asinine Bernie vs. Hillary debate. I mean, are we going to keep having this debate long after the general? 20 years from now? Will we have this debate in their obit threads?

The vast majority of Democrats will vote for Hillary. There are a few (very loud, but very few) Sanders supporters who will refuse to vote for Hillary. And probably fewer than you'd think. Remember, at the conclusion of the 2008 primary, 35% of Hillary supporters said they'd never vote for Obama in the general. I have a feeling most of them voted for Obama.

As stated, I'm happy to just let the Bernie or Busters be on the wrong side of history and stay home or vote for Trump or do whatever it is they say they're going to do. By arguing with them, all we're doing is reinforcing divisions in the party at a time when what we need is unity.

At this point, I believe it's simply a matter of ignoring the trolls. Let's do our part by refusing to compare Bernie to Hillary. That part of the political process is over. It's time to move on and beat Trump and make progress on some issues that many of us care about deeply.
posted by panama joe at 10:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [38 favorites]


You know that endlessly criticizing Sander's supporters does nothing but alienate people, right?

a few minutes later

At this point, I believe it's simply a matter of ignoring the trolls.
posted by iamck at 10:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clare Malone at 538: “Ted Cruz Stands Down: The Republican Party’s metamorphosis begins”

I must admit that that title makes me think that the party is nominating Hannibal. It’s very “witness my becoming!”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:39 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


We'll keep having the Bernie-Hillary argument probably until the conventions. At that point, The New Improved Trump will be unveiled with whomever he puts as his VP choice, then give an acceptance speech that will turn the stomachs of many on the far left. And then, Hillary will give her speech, which will be clear eyed and have a number of things in it the Bernie people asked for in exchange for their support.

In the meantime, a lot of Bernie and Cruz people are going through their Kubler-Ross stages of political grief. Denial and anger and a little bargaining. Just give them some space.

But I would love it if we've stop arguing over Hillary's liberal bona fides given EVERY political thread has descended into it at some point.
posted by dw at 10:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Clinton is far, far to the left of Trump (or Nixon!), and so few people deny that that it's really not worth arguing.

But as a more general comment, DW-Nominate is vastly over-rated as a measure of absolute ideology. It is, fundamentally, a relative measure. Clinton was more liberal than all but 11 Senate Democrats. Sanders, at least in some years, was the most liberal. But what does that tell us? Well, relative to the Senate, both are on the left wing of the left. But relative to some set of independent principles or ideology, or relative to the national population, it tells us very little. The Senate is hugely constrained in what bills are brought to the floor, so there is very little opportunity to distinguish extremists from party loyalists. By far the majority of votes are decided strictly along party lines (of those that are ideological votes at all), so the distinction between first and 11th most liberal are based on a handful of votes. But more important than the fact that this is a noisy measure, is that there are a huge number of far-left issues that never come to the floor for a vote. And even if there were, we would probably still end up with Clinton ranked as 11 and Sanders as 1 -- with no information about how big a gap there is between 11 and 1. It's all just relative. It really only tells us about where a Senator stands relative to the very mainstream agenda of the Senate. It tells us almost nothing about absolute ideology, or the size of the gaps between members, or their positions relative to the nation at large.

Much better -- and I say this as a quantitative person -- is just to stick to specific policies, bills, and past actions. There are big policy differences between these candidates, and whether those differences count as "big" or not, or whether Clinton counts as "progressive," matter much less than the actual policies. DW-Nominate scores really settle almost nothing of what actually matters. (Though we can still all agree that by any measure, both are far, far to the left of Trump.)

[Btw, I for one continue with this stuff not because I think the Democratic primary isn't effectively over, but because it brings up ideas that extend far beyond a given election. Hopefully people learn stuff here (such as what DW-Nominate does and doesn't measure) that carries over for years and into the rest of their lives. And if not, then there's neither any point, nor any harm, in any of it.]
posted by chortly at 10:44 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


People who are tired of litigating whether Democrats are more progressive than Republicans should skip this comment -- but I read this today, on the topic of "When Did the Democrats Stop Being the Party of the People?" and found it to be persuasive in arguing that it hasn't.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:48 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


how long do we have to keep having the Bernie vs. Hillary debate?

As long as the Democratic primary isn't settled? This is part of the democratic process; this is how we make decisions as a free society. FWIW I don't think the important issue here is Bernie vs. Hillary anyway. It's about the tendency for people to want to rewrite political history to fit a simple black-and-white narrative, when the reality is much more complicated. Pragmatic politicians like Clinton are easy to tar for their compromises and their decisions that aren't always ideologically consistent with the best political ideals they espouse. But they also get shit done. We can and should continue to call them out and criticize them for their missteps (because holy shit, I did not know what "CPT" meant until I saw Obama's jab at the Correspondence Dinner explained, and now that I know I can't forgive that), but we are only damaging ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge when they are effective at accomplishing what we elected them to do.
posted by biogeo at 10:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


how long do we have to keep having the Bernie vs. Hillary debate?

As long as the Democratic primary isn’t settled

If only.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I always suspected I never really came down from that acid trip a few years back. Don't worry guys, pretty soon we're gonna land this spaceship with some valium and Space Ghost.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


On the one hand I'm relieved. On the other hand, I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought. Angels and ministers of grace, defend us.

I don't have enough booze in the house for this.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:56 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


How will Bernie deal with the Republican broadsides? They will hammer him over things like his decision to stand as an elector for the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party during the Iranian hostage crisis -- when that party expressed solidarity with Iran? Or his decision to join a protest in Nicaragua when that country was under communist rule -- a protest where some death to America /Yankee slogans were chanted. And then of course there are his writings about kids and sex -- teen girls should give it up for their boyfriends, kids should go naked more and be allowed to touch each others privates, etc.

What will happen to his poll numbers vs Trump when ads based on that stuff saturate the broadcast and basic cable channels.
posted by humanfont at 10:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I read this today, on the topic of "When Did the Democrats Stop Being the Party of the People?"

I'm going to get that article tattooed on my back and rip my shirt off next time this comes up.
posted by bongo_x at 10:57 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


TRUMP DEFEATS SATAN, NOW IN CHARGE OF HELL.

In times like these I think it's important to remember that, in Christian mythology, Satan is not the ruler of Hell, but rather Hell's most notorious prisoner.
posted by straight at 10:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


Thank God for white folk.
posted by osk at 11:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


and are currently being interviewed. So she's likely about to be interviewed herself (unless the protective Clinton- Democrat machine somehow intercedes). Obviously, if the FBI recommends to indict, this would, of course, effect the general.

I'm genuinely trying not to be snarky here, but...you understand that the FBI is an executive agency headed by an Obama appointee, yes? Like Justice itself? Do you (and the other people here posting about the emails) genuinely think that an agency which answers to the current Democratic president is going to seek charges against the current Democratic front-runner to replace him? I mean, short of her emails actually being detailed nuclear plans being sent to ISIS?
posted by praemunire at 11:02 PM on May 3, 2016


Bernie would do much better against Trump than Hillary. He would get all the Democrats on his side that Hillary can and more independents than Hillary can get. Still, Hillary should easily win.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:04 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Poor Carly Fiorina. She'll have to find some other way to fire a few tens of thousands of people again.

How delicious is it that tens of thousands of Americans fired her.

Perhaps the best news is that the now-guaranteed Trump nomination poisons Republican campaigns across the country. The man is not only so fucking toxic that no one other than a bloated chump like Chris Christie wants to be his running mate, but just about every Republican candidate running for office at all levels of government is wishing there was any kind of legitimate third-party option at this point.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sanders isn't the nominee because the people decided they preferred Hillary Clinton. By a very wide margin of millions of votes.
If your definition of "the people" is "those individuals who were registered long ago to vote as Democratic party members in closed primaries, and whose registration was not altered or otherwise blocked, and who were not swayed by the years of astroturfing and pre-game performed by Clinton functionaries". Then yeah, maybe you've got a point. Ain't gonna help in November, though. That's going to be a very different definition of "the people".
posted by anarch at 11:05 PM on May 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


They're somewhere between strikingly and diametrically opposed on the tiny fraction of congressional decisions that actually matter, including privacy rights,

The details of the disagreements matter. Someone posted the NYT breakdown of each one of the 31 votes where they differed, and I wish people on both sides would just read that instead of pontificating.

There are several cases where Hillary is to Bernie's left, on cases you might not expect such as immigration reform (6 of 31 votes, Bernie opposed); ending a tax credit for adding animal fat to biodiesel, because it was being abused by big oil companies; putting a moratorium on congressional earmarks; and reauthorizing fees on medical device manufacturers.

Also some differing votes were neutral; a small state vs. big state battle of Homeland security grants where they predictably favored their home states' interest accounted for another 3 of the 31 votes. One vote pitted Big Livestock against Big Ethanol, and Bernie went with Big Livestock. The R&D program for the National Institute of Standards & Technology doesn't seem ideological (Bernie opposed it as a boondoggle).

So even on the 31 votes where they differed, (the 7% of votes), 5 were not ideological and on 10 Hillary was to Bernie's left. A lot of the rest concerned the TARP bailout.
posted by msalt at 11:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [42 favorites]


Politico reported today on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.

Why is that important? Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It's that simple.

Here's what that map would look like.

And here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I like Bernie, and I'm in a state that is going Dem no matter what, so my voting for Bernie in the primary won't hurt Hillary.

I think that one risk of Clinton getting the nomination isn't that Democrat Sanders supporters will sit out the election, it's that independents who might not normally vote dem, or vote at all, were inspired to do so by Sanders and won't be similarly inspired by Clinton.

My fear then is that a lot of not super engaged voters who would have come out for Sanders will meh out on Clinton, not as a fuck you, but just because they're not motivated by her (and not engaged enough to fear Trump).
posted by zippy at 11:10 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's all moot since Hillary is going to wipe the floor with him, but for what it's worth I would much rather endure a puppet Trump presidency where he ends up appointing a bunch of centrists to run the show rather than an actual conservative maniac like Cruz.

I'm not actually convinced that the nuts and bolts (and thus net gain/loss) of a Trump presidency would be radically different from a Clinton presidency. The optics certainly would massively differ, however.
posted by dreamlanding at 11:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


As long as the Democratic primary isn't settled?

Adjacent headlines on Politico:
It's mathematically impossible for Bernie to win with pledged delegates
Sanders: Clinton 'wrong' to think it's over
posted by kirkaracha at 11:14 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Politico reported today on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.

This raises an interesting point : will Trump be as effective as past GOP candidates at courting the senior vote? Because on the one hand, seniors often vote GOP. But on the other hand, he's such a nontraditional Republican, so undignified and disrespectful, doesn't do much to court the "value voters" -- is it possible he might underperform among seniors?
posted by panama joe at 11:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


no one other than a bloated chump like Chris Christie wants to be his running mate

Patrick Healy and Ashley Parker at The New York Times: “Run on a Ticket With Donald Trump? No, Thanks, Many Republicans Say”
“Never,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who is still running against Mr. Trump. “No chance.”
“Hahahahahahahahaha,” wrote Sally Bradshaw, a senior adviser to Jeb Bush, when asked if he would consider it.
“Scott Walker has a visceral negative reaction to Trump’s character,” said Ed Goeas, a longtime adviser to the Wisconsin governor.
Or, as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, “That’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic.”

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, as well as Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, said in interviews that they would consider joining the ticket if Mr. Trump offered. Two governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, have also told allies that they were open to being Mr. Trump’s running mate.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:20 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]




If your definition of "the people" is "those individuals who were registered long ago to vote as Democratic party members in closed primaries, and whose registration was not altered or otherwise blocked, and who were not swayed by the years of astroturfing and pre-game performed by Clinton functionaries"

Holy shit, give me a break. Yes, Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee, it's crazyfuckpants out there! The Clinton conspiracy to somehow know ahead of time who might vote for Sanders and disenfranchise them is as good as chemtrails in terms of being a plausible mechanism for her getting millions more votes.

If Sanders were being elected by the exact same voters you wouldn't make this argument. Not to mention the fact that many of the Sanders wins are in caucus states that disenfranchise people who have jobs, or kids to take care of, or parents to take care of, or can't be in a loud building with 100s of angry people for hours at a time, or any other number of reasons.

You've had years to change local voting processes. I've yet to see anyone actually active on this front.

This is not an illegitimate process. Full stop. Don't pretend like it is. What you mean is that a bunch of southern, black, non-young voters actually like a different candidate from you and you can't deal with it. Too bad.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:21 PM on May 3, 2016 [96 favorites]


I'm not actually convinced that the nuts and bolts (and thus net gain/loss) of a Trump presidency would be radically different from a Clinton presidency.

I assume that a Trump presidency would be rife with explicit corruption, similar to that of a Harding.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:23 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


If your definition of "the people" is "those individuals who were registered long ago to vote as Democratic party members in closed primaries, and whose registration was not altered or otherwise blocked, and who were not swayed by the years of astroturfing and pre-game performed by Clinton functionaries"

Why yes, what a surprise that Democratic voters are voting for the Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary. The Democratic candidate who has run as a Democrat in one prior Democratic primary, and who has served as a Democratic senator for the entirety of her Senate career. What a surprise that these Democratic voters were "swayed" by such qualifications! And wow, what a deep game she's been playing that her entire term as First Lady, her time as senator, and her service as Secretary of State were just "astroturfing" and "pre-gaming"!

And gee, isn't that Democratic primary the exact same one Bernie Sanders is running in? As a Democrat? Come on. Nothing about the Democratic primary political process was a surprise to the Sanders campaign. If they wanted to bring the independents who support Sanders into the fold, they had months to GOTV and get them involved in both open and closed primaries.
posted by yasaman at 11:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [56 favorites]


I almost feel like under a Trump presidency, heroin addiction might be a valid lifestyle choice
posted by angrycat at 11:27 PM on May 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


you understand that the FBI is an executive agency headed by an Obama appointee, yes?

Obama has been fair to a fault throughout his administration. it would be very hard to dispute the point that this is probably the most scandal-free administration in the last 50-75 years. Hillary's emails might in fact be the biggest scandal. So I think he will let the chips fall where they may. But I don't think he'll allow his staff to pursue the kind of partisan, anti-Clinton approach that Ken Starr did.

That said, Clinton's cooperation with the investigation, the fact that her two predecessors used private emails accounts (though not private servers), and the general newness of email itself in government all make it extremely unlikely that she would be prosecuted. Also, Hillary mostly received the info in question from, and in some cases forwarded it to, her aides who all had top secret clearance. This is very different than Sandy Berger smuggling out classified info or David Petraeus giving secret data to his mistress.

There seem to be only two plausible scenarious for an indictment.

1) Arguing that, though they weren't marked classified at the time, Hillary should have known that the New York Times articles about the drone program her aides emailed around were 'top secret". This seems tendentious if not ridiculous. Forwarding published newspaper articles?!?!? Ken Starr would have but not this administration.

2) If the "personal" emails Hillary deleted were recovered and some clearly contain secret government information. That is the one situation where she would legitimately face prosecution. I hope she's not that stupid. The feds REALLY don't like people lying to them or hiding evidence from them.
posted by msalt at 11:28 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]




I almost feel like under a Trump presidency, heroin addiction might be a valid lifestyle choice

Cocaine, surely? If Trump comes in, we’re bringing the eighties back with a bullet.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's too late for Trump to try to appeal to a broader base, it seems. He would have had to switch from his offensive bombast long ago in order for him to effectively play it off as not the real Trump.

Having lived through the election of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, the advantage of people knowing a candidate in non-political contexts is really hard to overvalue. The advantage is that people already tie the person to a non-political identity that can engender more trust more quickly. However, Trump has worked tirelessly to tie his celebrity to really unpalatable messages and stuck to it despite lots of controversy; he's used the controversy to embrace these general-losing messages further.

So IMHO Trump's strategy has been incredibly weak compared to these other celebrities. He understands a constituency that has been neglected by recent politicians, white lower-middle-class voters that have lost economic power, and he's pandered to them shamelessly but done it in way that alienates everybody else. Both Ventura and Schwarzenegger used their celebrity to appeal to a broad group of people. Trump wasn't as smart.

It was pretty much a given in my opinion that Trump was going to win the primary. But I thought he was also going to be competitive in the general, which he will not be. He's screwed himself. Even against another well-known personality that has super high unfavorable ratings, he somehow manages to be even more unfavorable.

Anybody who's concerned about Trump actually winning, just check out some of the poll trackers. These candidates are both well known, it's been impossible to avoid Clinton in the past few decades, and it's been impossible to get away from Trump coverage the past few months. This race is over. There will be so much collateral damage as racism/xenophobia/other fears are incited, but the race itself is done. I'll take Scott Adams' idiotic contrarianism as further proof that Trump is toast.
posted by Llama-Lime at 11:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


In February, Sanders supporters were saying things like, "the grassroots base of the Democratic party wants you to support the will of the party electorate." Now the will of the party electorate has primarily spoken for Clinton (12.4 million to 9.3 million), he's lobbying superdelegates to throw the nomination to him.

p.s. Bernie Sanders is a superdelegate.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:30 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Scott Adams is just always killing it.

Humans are visual creatures, and that old haircut probably accounted for about 10 points of his 70% unfavorable rating

I mean, I used to think I didn't like Trump because e.g. he wants to kill the families of terrorists, which is a war crime, but now that I dwell on it a bit it's definitely the haircut.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [31 favorites]


I feel like cocaine, a Trump presidency, and an internet connection would land me in jail pretty darn quick. Speaking just for myself
posted by angrycat at 11:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I am running on a deeply serious platform of making this music the Official Theme Song Of The 2016 Democratic Primary.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 11:36 PM on May 3, 2016


"You're the Voice" as the Australian "national anthem"

Never heard of it before but that is a mighty stirring song alright, as if Bon Jovi wrote a great political anthem. What issue is it actually talking about?

As I listened, I imagined it as the triumphant song at the end of a blockbuster Hollywood movie where the people unite to defeat the violence, intimidation and cheating of Trump's thugs.
We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

You're the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh-wo-wo-wo, oh-wo-wo-wo
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live with fear
Oh-wo-wo-wo, oh-wo-wo-wo

This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
posted by msalt at 11:37 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


God, even my eyes hurt tonight. Trump, get back to hell and take your devils with you.
posted by corb at 11:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's interesting to watch the feelers going out tonight among establishment conservatives about the possibility of doing something other than backing Trump. (Sit out the election? Support the Libertarian candidate? Create a third party? Stay in the party, but vocally oppose Trump? Support Hillary?) There's a bit that's happening publicly (one guy burned his Republican registration, another guy suggested he'd quit the party after the election, another said that conservativism needs a vehicle and the Republican Party isn't that vehicle anymore, another reaffirmed #NeverTrump, corb and GregNog made a terrible pact, etc.), and I imagine there's much more going on behind the scenes.

It may sputter into nothing, but it got me thinking: A lot of establishment Republicans don't like the fact that Nixon and Reagan brought so many blue-collar people into the party. The don't like that they're unsophisticated, they don't like that they're openly racist, they don't like that they're poor, small-town failures. They feel like Nixon and Reagan brought the sludge of the electorate over from the Democrats; a fine thing as long as the sludge helped them win, but now it's just an embarrassment.

(This doesn't apply to the entire Republican establishment, of course; plenty of them are already lining up behind Trump.)
posted by clawsoon at 11:40 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I shudder to think that fundamentalist-theocrat Cruz seriously positioned himself to save the country from Trump. It would have been the other way around if Cruz was in the lead and was honest and candid about his plans.
posted by Brian B. at 11:47 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is there a German word for that feeling when you're surprised by something that you shouldn't really be surprised by? Because I'm feeling that about finding out that Scott Adams is a Trump fan.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 11:53 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Metafilter's own.
posted by Artw at 11:55 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The fact that Scott Adams thinks Trump is a much stronger candidate than everyone thinks is actually helping to calm the anxious part of my brain that fears it could be true.
posted by straight at 12:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


Metafilter's own.

A joke. However, Adams' argument is pretty compelling and not idiotic at all. At every stage there's been the argument "well, Trump did really well because of this and that, but going forward people are going to wake up and he's screwed." And every single time Trump (or, rather, people who vote for Trump) have proven the naysayers wrong.

What has RealClearPolitics' track record been this time in comparison to, say, Carl Diggler?

I also feel compelled to add here that just because I think Trump might win does not mean I agree with Trump or his politics, etc.
posted by My Dad at 12:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump has a raw, basic appeal to awful people that should not be underestimated. Basically this poll is likely to become a poll on to what extent Americans are terrible people, and in really not sure about the odds.
posted by Artw at 12:05 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


(Part of a hypnotist’s skill set involves detecting “tells” for health issues. Clinton looks deeply unhealthy to me.)

Scott Adams, everybody.
posted by No-sword at 12:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [49 favorites]


Whatever else happens, it was incredibly brave of Heidi Cruz to take suspicion off her husband by admitting she is the Zodiac Killer.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:16 AM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


Warning that Trump might not be as weak or unelectable or whatever isn't assigning credit to the man. It's warning that we are living in fractious, dangerous times. The systems that once sustained us are in a flux. The parties are in disarray. We need to realize the gravity of the situation.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:26 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


The Voters Decide

To summarize: parties are not just politicians, but coalitions of actors who care intensely about certain policy outcomes. These actors work together to get politicians elected who will serve their interests; voter interests are a means, not an ends. And, according to Noel and company, such parties succeed because they control all of the apparatus necessary to win elections...

This is a big problem for the parties as described in The Party Decides. Remember, in Noel and company’s description party actors care more about their policy preferences than they do voter preferences, but in an aggregated world it is voters aka users who decide which issues get traction and which don’t. And, by extension, the most successful politicians in an aggregated world are not those who serve the party but rather those who tell voters what they most want to hear...

And so, without any of the apparatus traditionally provided by parties, much of it obsoleted by the Internet, and thanks to the ability to connect directly with voters (because of aggregation), Donald Trump is marching on in direct defiance of the Republican Party’s decision. (And yes, Trump primarily communicates via Twitter, but he is dominating Facebook.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Paddypower (betting website) has Trump at 2/1 now. Every time I check his odds are getting better and better. Last time it was 5/1 and before that 8/1 (IIRC). Although, Clinton is still the odds-on favourite.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 12:29 AM on May 4, 2016


Goodbye Cruz. Your fatal flaw was you're a Starscream without a Megatron.
posted by happyroach at 12:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [25 favorites]


No, it's really everyone's problem (in the general I'm talking about). It's certainly a problem for every Muslim, Hispanic, woman, LGBT person, or anyone concerned about being bombed, just to name a few groups off the top of my head.

wait, this was supposed to be a list of reasons you should support hillary over trump right
posted by p3on at 12:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


One reason Trump's odds are improving may be that Cruz and other Republican candidates have dropped out and their odds are now 1,000,000 to Zero.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

To paraphrase a brother from 50 years ago: "Laugh, baby, laugh."
posted by carping demon at 12:47 AM on May 4, 2016


Paddypower (betting website) has Trump at 2/1 now. Every time I check his odds are getting better and better. Last time it was 5/1 and before that 8/1 (IIRC). Although, Clinton is still the odds-on favourite.

This is expected and is the same across all the bookies. Clinton has been the as-good-as-assured Democratic candidate for a while, while it's not been so certain for Trump with contested convention talk etc. His odds were always going to shorten as candidates left.

They'll probably stabilise at around the current odds. If/when Bernie drops out there'll be a bit of shortening for Clinton and slight lengthening for Trump. Then they'll not move much for a while unless a wildcard event e.g. some health-related issue with either candidate occurs.

Ah, betting. You can't win. Well you can, but not in your mind. I had just 1 UK pound on Trump to be the GOP candidate at 100-1 way back (and at the time, a strong voice was telling me I was wasting that pound). Mixed feelings, the main one of which is that I wish I'd had 10 pounds on him to be the candidate instead.
posted by Wordshore at 12:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


(upon hearing the news this morning) *Nelson laugh*
(then)
*Deep shudder*
posted by From Bklyn at 12:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Little did I know when that when I grew up that I'd have to live through National Lampoon's Presidential Election
posted by Grangousier at 12:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


At every stage there's been the argument "well, Trump did really well because of this and that, but going forward people are going to wake up and he's screwed." And every single time Trump (or, rather, people who vote for Trump) have proven the naysayers wrong.

This thought haunts me a bit too, but one difference (as I understand it, haven't actually run the figures myself) is that the belief that Trump wouldn't win the nomination wasn't supported by the polls -- it was fingers-in-ears la la la denial -- whereas the belief that he won't win the general does in fact reflect what the polls suggest. The voters are already awake for this part, in other words. On the other hand, now Trump can blow the ancient tribal horn and command allegiances that he couldn't before ("Me, say #NeverTrump? No, that was a sideways 4! #4everTrump!"), so who knows.
posted by No-sword at 1:02 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Is there a German word for that feeling when you're surprised by something that you shouldn't really be surprised by?

"Trumpenfraude". From the old German "Drumpfenfraude".
posted by New Frontier at 1:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


You know that endlessly criticizing Sander's supporters does nothing but alienate people, right?

There have been folks right here on mefi who have said that they have been so turned off by Sander's supporters that they'd never vote for him. It goes both ways and feelings are strong. Try cutting people some slack. You don't have to jump on every comment and tear it apart. Most Bernie folks have stopped participating in these election threads...in case "you" hadn't noticed.


Bumping futz's excellent comment from earlier. I understand a lot of people who strongly support Clinton are ready for Bernie to drop out and are tired of encountering comments from his fans. But the dominant tone of conversation about Sanders and his supporters in these threads now is dripping with sarcasm if not outright contempt. I used to follow them constantly and now I check in when I see a new one, observe that they're still toxic, and remove from activity. I look around at who's posting and notice that a lot of other people who were active in the election threads a few months ago have checked out too.

Sanders is still in the race and my state hasn't voted yet. I know he isn't going to win the nomination. I'd still like to signal my support for his policies to the party. I'm not some asshole just trying to ruin your day and for fuck's sake I'm not trying to get Trump elected.

The #bernieorbust crowd, the Reddit troll bros you hate, etc. are a small fraction of Sanders's actual crowd of supporters. As a lot of you have stressed repeatedly in these threads, Clinton and Sanders agree on far more issues than they disagree on; presumably their supporters do too, so can we be a little more gracious in these threads? Usually the person you're talking to assigned one of a multitude of considerations a slightly different importance level than you did and as a result prefers the other Democratic candidate (out of a grand total of only two choices) while sharing the same general hope and vision for a more equal, more fair, more compassionate, and more environmentally responsible future.

It's possible to know that Hillary will be the nominee without shitting on anything positive anyone says about Sanders. It's possible to state a criticism or counterargument neutrally, without employing 420 layers of sarcasm or writing like you think the other person is a baby or a fucking imbecile. It'll make the blue a lot more enjoyable again and the sooner you start, the less awkward the inevitable reconciliation push coming in a few weeks will be
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [98 favorites]


Paddypower (betting website) has Trump at 2/1 now. Every time I check his odds are getting better and better. Last time it was 5/1 and before that 8/1 (IIRC). Although, Clinton is still the odds-on favourite.

This is basically the gist of Scott Adams' blog post, by the way. And if you think that just because it's Scott Adams and therefore it's rubbish, just compare Carl Diggler (a fake Twitter account)'s predictions versus Nate Silver.
posted by My Dad at 1:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think I summarized my misgivings about Hillary Clinton before, but if you missed them...
(1) Being married to Bill Clinton was the way she "broke into" Washington Politics (I had the same misgiving about Elizabeth Dole even though she and Bob Dole were the last Republicans I rather respected)
(2) Being married to Bill Clinton, (who I distrusted SO MUCH I came close to voting for Dole in '96) some of his dishonesty HAD to rub off on her (I was worried it had worn off on Al Gore, and he only worked with him for 8 years)... also, she is STILL married to him; I lose respect toward any woman who sticks with a serial philanderer
(3) I followed closely her first big job as First Lady, the Clinton Health Care Initiative that failed badly and couldn't be revived for 16 years (yeah, I went bankrupt over medical bills a few years after that, so it's kinda personal); it wasn't all her fault, she went swimming with sharks and got eaten (should've got a bigger boat); she seems to have learned a lot from her mistakes there, but still.. yeah, it's kinda personal
(4) her senatorial election in '00 seemed like she was collecting something she was "owed", then after conceding to Obama in '08 it felt like she said "okay, but I'M NEXT" and that's why she had so little competition this time around from the Democratic Party elite, just this crazy old guy from "out in left field" (in more ways than one)... there's just a little too much of an aura of entitlement there...
When I go over this "personal assessment" I realize there are elements of sexism in my judgment, but then, all that won't keep me from voting for her in November (even here in California, a "safe state"), but I will probably still send a message by giving Bernie my vote in the Cal Primary, even though it won't matter (unless he starts threatening to 'bolt the party'; THAT would be good for nobody but Trump).
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:25 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


VP is my most plausible guess as well for Cruz. Hispanic, Texas, evangelical -- helps Trump on a number of dimensions.

I don't think so.
Trump has recognized this and spelled it out clearly. To paraphrase Trump: "Nobody gives a shit who the VP candidate is. People vote for the candidate not for the VP candidate."

Can you name one single election that was decided by the VP candidate? I can't think of any.
So while it's all fun to make all sorts of speculations along the lines of "He's hispanic (Jewish, evangeilcal, from California etc. etc. whatever), so he'll help with that demographic", this is ultimately all a sideshow for pundits who make their money by spewing this nonsense.

Trump knows this, so he's not going to pick a VP candidate in order to boost his numbers with a certain demographic. Because that doesn't work.

The same thing is true is for endorsements. Who gives a shit about who Carly Fiorina, the NYT or Mike Tyson endorse? This is all just a meaningless distraction.
posted by sour cream at 1:30 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Seriously guys, about the emails being a "law enforcement matter" that is because that is an explicit exemption to FOIA. So really, the DOJ told the Fox News Insider to fuck off.

And seriously, we're quoting Judge Napolitano and the Fox News Insider? A room full of tops has less spin.
posted by susiswimmer at 1:31 AM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


And the DOJ just gave the legal citation for doing so.
posted by susiswimmer at 1:32 AM on May 4, 2016


And about Trump, there are two stages to the election, and appealing to the worst of the mostly white segment of the electorate, which in retrospect was very smart in dealing with Republicans, can't possibly be as effective with a general electorate which has a notably lower percentage of both white people and bad people. Trump is not as "persuasive" as Scott Adams claims, he just fits the template of what Adams likes. And Adams fits the profile of a Trump supporter, white and bad, just with more money than most (like Trump's pal who owns the National Enquirer).
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


just compare Carl Diggler (a fake Twitter account)'s predictions versus Nate Silver

It might indeed be enough to compare Nate Silver with Nate Silver:

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet[sic]. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

Trump was certainly — statistically, within 95% certainty — assured of not gaining the nomination, and now we are in a post-Nate-Silver world where Trump has all but statistically assured his nomination.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:40 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Somewhere back in my bamboozled mind, I'm hearing Peter Jackson's voice. "Aaand--CUT!" Like after an especially messy scene from the battle of five armies. Make-believe, fake hair, stuntmen instead of real actors, my mind is whispering. Where is Gandalf when you need him?
posted by Namlit at 1:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


With hindsight, we can all see how Trump "surprised everyone"... first, he had massive Name Recognition from outside the political realm. You could say he'd been preparing for this campaign since the first time he put his name on a building - then his TV show (I personally blame NBC and producer Mark Burnett for making this possible). We'd been sneaking into a "non-political-celebrity" era since Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Trump was uniquely positioned to take advantage of it. Menwhile the Republican Party had been slowly turning into a racist, hate-based organization ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy, but the election of Obama put that process into overdrive. (I cringed when I heard the phrase "post-racial politics"; I guessed rightly that we'd get the opposite) In fact, I suspect a more extreme, more offensive candidate might have even done better than Romney in 2012 (but probably not won either); he just postponed the inevitable. And being a shameless ego-driven megalomaniac made Trump the best vehicle for the runaway train the party had become, as much as the "party establishment" might have thought - or hoped - otherwise.

So now we shall see the long term effects of this mix of Celebrity-and-Hate-Driven Politics. This race is truly Hillary Clinton's to lose, but beyond the Presidential contest, both down-ticket this year and in elections to come, there's a lot to worry about, that is totally NOT Trump-dependent.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


You know, I'm already over it. I mean, Hillary's going to be our next president, and regardless of what her term is like or whether she gets a second term, what I'm really thinking now is, what's going to happen with the Republicans?

They have to nominate Trump. They have to. And it's going to be a shitshow of epic proportions. Dude is physically incapable of toning it down. And it's going to be brilliant. Can you imagine him in a debate with Hillary? Can you think of any universe where he doesn't come off as the slimy, sexist twit that he is?


At the moment, I think that a landslide Trump win is more likely. Here's why:

Politics is a network of obligations.
You have mentors that you owe to. You have donors that you need to keep happy. And you have a constituency that you represent.

Trump has nothing of that. Originally that was a weakness, because it is difficult to get anywhere without mentors/donors/constituency.
Nevertheless, he pulled it off, and this lack of obligations will be one of his greatest strengths.

In fact, you could argue that his greatest appeal was precisely the fact that he is not caught in this web of obligations. That's why he was able to point out what everybody knows, but noone in the GOP dared to point out: That the Iraq war was a desaster. He can speak well of Planned Parenthood without getting excommunicated. He is not bound to GOP orthodoxy in any way. Thi is an enormouse asset: Once the next big issue comes along (terrorist attack, economic woes, or something that is not on anyone's radar at the moment), he can taylor a response that will give him the biggest boost in the polls, even though it may have half the GOP roll their eyes, whereas Clinton will be caught in this web of obligations and rationality.
And the GOP will fall in line behind him. It seems that the main reason they oppose(d) him was his perceived inability to win against Clinton. Once they understand that this assumption was mistaken, they will ALL fall in line, and those who don't will become irrelevant. The GOP will change, although not in the way that the big poobahs in the GOP would like to have it.

Are his speeches contradictory and incoherent? Sure they are, but it's not like many people notice or care (outside of those who would never vote for him anyway). If anything, it just shows that those are his words and not some pre-approved platitudes written by a speechwriter.

Is he totally blank on foreign policy? One of the many things he has in common with average Americans!

Is he offensive? Hell, yeah. That's part of his appeal.


Compare that with Clinton: Can she be critical of Wall Street (China, the UN, NATO, TPP etc.)? Not really, too many obligations...

And besides, the way ahead is a minefield for Clinton: the server scandal, Bill's sexcapades, Benghazi and all those other sceletons in the closet. Not that any of that is an indication on how good a president she might be, but that is totally irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started yet with here, but there's enough material there to grind here to pulp. And frankly speaking, if the primaries are any indication, he will ruthlessly exploit every opportunity.

I should note that I don't sympathize with Trump in any way. I think he's a psychopath, but at this point it's quite likely that he'll be the next US president.
posted by sour cream at 2:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Can you name one single election that was decided by the VP candidate? I can't think of any.

2008? Sarah Palin had an enormous negative impact on McCain's prospects. Maybe it wasn't decisive in that McCain lost by more than the hit he took due to Palin. But the Palin-penalty might have been enough on its own to kill his chances.

Perhaps the moral is that while you can't win a presidential election with a good VP choice, you can probably lose one with a bad VP choice.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:51 AM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's time for Elizabeth Warren to side with Bernie, and really shake things up! (please, please)
posted by sardaukar at 2:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump's not going to pick anyone as VP who would be a sane choice as President. Otherwise, he'd risk impeachment or worse after election day. It's got to be someone who's so bad that the Republican leadership grit their teeth and support President Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think he's a psychopath, but at this point it's quite likely that he'll be the next US president.

"Quite likely"? I mean, yeah, he's now one of the two most likely people to be the next president. But that still doesn't imply his chances are 50% or greater.

Clinton is going to win Florida. How does Trump answer? You think he's going to win, what, Pennsylvania?
posted by Justinian at 3:02 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


The electoral map for Clinton victory looks like this: WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, MN, IA, WI, IL, MI, PA, NY, VT, ME, CT, RI, MA, MD, DE, FL, and DC. That's 292 electoral votes. Winning VA would put her at 305.

Note that in this scenario she could actually lose Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and still hit 270. But not both.
posted by Justinian at 3:06 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


A vision of the future: bashings for artistic expression.... or making people think about Trump naked. But I expect the former.
posted by Mezentian at 3:11 AM on May 4, 2016


Dear Bernie Supporters: I know you hate Hillary & neoliberals. But try this phrase on for size in the coming months: Veto. Proof. Majority.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


I will take any bet for any amount straight up that Trump will not be the president. Memail to book.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


>So it'll be Hillary versus Trump. She'll win, right?

One of my liberal-with-libertarian-tendencies friends polled all his libertarian Facebook friends recently and every single one of us said that we'd hold our noses and vote for Clinton over Trump, except for one hardcore anarchist who said he'd vote for Trump because it would collapse the whole system faster.

So yeah I think you'll see a lot of people who would normally vote third party or even Republican jump ship and vote Democrat this year just to keep Trump out of the White House. Regardless of ideology, anyone with a modicum of political awareness can see how dangerous he is.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


I lose respect toward any woman who sticks with a serial philanderer

Seriously? Would you feel the same way about a male politician whose wife cheated on him, and he stayed? Maybe you would, but I think a lot of people would talk about how sweet he was, how forgiving, how generous. There are lots of reasons people stay together. It's a personal decision, not at all related to her qualifications. You might as well say you lose respect for anyone who eats ice cream in the winter, or gets their hair highlighted.

This kind of thing drives me up a wall. I have a sort of middle-of-the-road position on Hillary - she's done some things I disagree with, and I am personally way, WAY to the left of her on most issues, but I respect her greatly and will vote for her if I sense the slightest whiff that my state might need it.

If you disagree with her politics, with her voting record, with her actions, that's fine. But I'm sick of people talking about her clothing, her audacity to look over-35, her hairstyle, her love life, her wife-and-mother-ing, and anything else that they would probably not bother with if she happened to have been born with a different set of chromosomes. Along the same lines I'm tired of hearing about her "shrieking" or "nagging" - when Bernie (who I love) shouts, he's passionate. When she does, she's a shrew.

I just wish people would stop being sexist toward her so that I could mildly dislike her in peace. I actually defend her harder and support her more than I otherwise would because of this stuff.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 3:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [168 favorites]


Holy shit so I have a really hardcore Republican Party hack friend -- like, he's so involved in GOP politics that he even made it into Game Change as a minor character -- and in the past whenever I've posted anything about the Libertarian Party on Facebook he's always teased me by commenting "LARP."

His response to Cruz dropping out is to state that he's now voting for Gary Johnson. (Yes, I commented "LARP ;P" in response.)

My friend is one of the last people I would ever expect to back away from the "my party, right or wrong" mentality so I think we're going to see a lot of states flip blue this year simply from disaffected Republicans not voting or voting third party instead.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:49 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Would you feel the same way about a male politician whose wife cheated on him, and he stayed?
Absolutely. But a woman with a cheating husband is on the cultural weak side of an unequal relationship. And I can't help but think she felt she couldn't cut off Bill without cutting off most of her political future. But then, that's why I felt it would have been courageous for her to do so and my respect for her would rise significantly, but Bill Clinton I have ZERO respect for. He's one of the rare Democrats I feel is scummier than most Republicans.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:49 AM on May 4, 2016


Hear hear gloriouslyincandescent!

I love Bernie, but hating Hillary is like hating Obamacare because it's not 100% universal Healthcare: totally destructive logic.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, we can't afford a possible Trump presidency, and it's really unfair to even put Clinton and Trump in the same category. She has several gray areas, but she is light years away from him in the morality scale.
posted by Tarumba at 3:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Could a third-party Real Conservative Alternative candidate even happen, technically? Is it already too late to get on States' ballots, for example?
posted by thelonius at 3:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


corb, your insider reports are the absolute best. Please keep them coming!!!
posted by Jacqueline at 4:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Later, maybe tomorrow, I'll consider the possibility of Trump making it to the White House.

But today, just for one day, it's going to be a good day. Because, rather than immediately go into "War On Trump" mode, am going to savor the one good, really good, thing that in their panic/fear many people have overlooked or already forgotten.

Ted Cruz will not be President of the United States of America.

Before today, with varying probabilities, he may have been. Now, as he has bailed, and the demographics of the USA continue to change against the possibility of an evangelical/fundamentalist flagbearer making it all the way, he won't be.

Over your morning cup of coffee, or here in England your lunchtime cup of tea, consider this. Just for a brief moment, don't do the "Yes, but Trump is yadda yadda yadda" comparison thing. Instead, think of Cruz, what he's done, what he's said, how even his own party and closest colleagues do not trust him and often openly hate him, and think how bad he would have been as POTUS.

I'll repeat:

Ted Cruz will not be President of the United States of America.

Allow yourself the space and time to savor that.
posted by Wordshore at 4:04 AM on May 4, 2016 [54 favorites]


You know you want it: Trump Against Humanity
posted by daveje at 4:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The clintons very well may have had a completely open relationship for decades for all we know. I'd be more surprised if they didn't.
posted by museum of fire ants at 4:20 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Other peoples' marriages are none of my business. For a political leader I'd be more concerned about them lying about the existence of WMDs or climate change. You know political stuff not Kardashian level personal drama.
posted by rdr at 4:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm glad some of you are so confident of the outcome because I am flat-out terrified.
posted by kyrademon at 4:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Hillary Clinton didn't ride into DC as the wife of Bill Clinton. She went to DC out of laws school and worked for Walter Mondale's senate committee investigating migratory labor abuse. Then she was part of the staff assigned to the Watergate committee. She also worked for the Children's Defense fund. She was on track to seek elected office in her own right, but decided instead to marry Bill.
posted by humanfont at 4:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [81 favorites]


Well let's hope nothing unpredictable happens and everything in the world stays exactly the same as it is right now, so Trump has no room to maneuver. I mean, when has stuff in the world ever happened?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ted Cruz will not be President of the United States of America.

But he was never going to be elected.

The real issue has always been the timing. Since Sanders rightly isn't going to give up before August, Donald Trump now has three and a half months to run against Hillary Clinton, while she has to fight on both sides.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:04 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Where is Gandalf when you need him?

On top of Trump Tower, trying to get the message out by moth.
posted by Grangousier at 5:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [30 favorites]


I'm cautiously optimistic of Clinton's chances but I'm sure that the news media will do their best to pump up Trump's campaign with BS narratives about how serious he is now and how he's acting more presidential.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


At every stage there's been the argument "well, Trump did really well because of this and that, but going forward people are going to wake up and he's screwed." And every single time Trump (or, rather, people who vote for Trump) have proven the naysayers wrong.

Here is a variation of that argument that is more accurate.

At every stage Trump has polled well - he led polling from essentially a month after declaring his candidacy with the exception of a couple weeks in August when Ben Carson briefly had a flash of popularity - and throughout the primary election pundits tried to come up with reasons as to why, despite his polling, Trump would lose. Every single time, the pundits were wrong, because Trump was consistently in the lead in polls.

Now, Trump faces the general election, where the polls show he is staggeringly unpopular and will lose in a landslide to even Hillary Clinton, who is intensely disliked by the right wing. And now the pundits are all arguing that polling doesn't matter and Trump is a magical candidate who defies all logic. But the truth is this: Donald Trump is a known quantity and polarizing candidate whose success has almost entirely been consistent with polling data. And now the data says he will get stomped.
posted by mightygodking at 5:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [48 favorites]


She was on track to seek elected office in her own right,

For real? What office? Cite?
posted by IndigoJones at 5:25 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm cautiously optimistic of Clinton's chances but I'm sure that the news media will do their best to pump up Trump's campaign with BS narratives about how serious he is now and how he's acting more presidential.

That is starting already. Also, I would guess that he could insulate himself from the sexism charges and provide cover for intense attacks on Clinton by choosing a woman running mate; I think it will be a dirty and undignified campaign.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:27 AM on May 4, 2016


I hear Carly Fiorina wants to be VP!
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


@DickPolman1: Now I get it. Cruz hired Fiorina to lay off his campaign staff.
posted by Wordshore at 5:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


At the moment, I think that a landslide Trump win is more likely.

Trump could win almost every single swing state, but if he doesn't win Florida, where he's apparently behind by 13 points in a GOP-leaning poll, and where both Trump and the GOP brand are toxic as hell, he'd still lose pretty easily.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:51 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


By the way there's an antidote to Bernie or Bust. Just spend a few minutes on /r/The_Donald. See for yourself what unabashed racists they all are. Read all the "I'm a woman and I think women are stupid!" posts and the "Bernie is a cuck!" memes and the self-aggrandizing "We don't donate! We don't have to!" reflections on political involvement. I could go on and on. 4chan has entered the political discourse.

At least for me, it got me angry and scared enough to fall in line with the #AtLeastVoteAgainstTrump wagon.

But if you actually want someone like me to remain participative in threads on the blue, you gotta stop telling me that people just aren't voting for Bernie. Has he won the popular vote among those able to vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses? No, he hasn't. But his trajectory has been very, very clear. The more people know about him, and the more they know, they more they vote for him.

Lots and lots of politically active people decided that the DNC was doing fuckall to earn their loyalty so they registered as independents. They got locked out. Lots of other people are young and have never voted before. Many of them got locked out. Some times it was their fault, because they're busy as hell with 4 part time jobs and they're inexperienced and it's complicated and archaic to register to vote and vote.

Every single time you beat the raw vote drum, you marginalize people who we will very badly need to either stay home or show up for Hillary. If you've got to play it, at least play softly and throw in some flute or something.
posted by an animate objects at 5:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm sure that the news media will do their best to pump up Trump's campaign with BS narratives about how serious he is now and how he's acting more presidential.

I think it will be really hard for Trump to maintain the presidential demeanor for long, and I have never known the media to ignore the sort of clickbatey outrage anything that comes from normal!Trump would generate.

Besides, just like with Romney vs. Obama, the media will make it look like both candidates are so unbelievably close that people will freak out and rush to vote for Hillary, who will win by a landslide.

So this is my prediction: the media will pay disproportionate attention to Trump supporters and their antisocial behavior, as well as Trump's inflammatory and hateful lapses. The silent majority will be disgusted and either vote for Hillary or not vote for Trump (if they are Republicans).
posted by Tarumba at 5:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


In the grim darkness of next year, there is only war.
posted by aramaic at 5:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


I, for one, am going to bet some money on Trump. Not because I think he’ll win – I don’t – but because if he does, at least I’ll have one eensy thing to be happy about.
posted by R a c h e l at 6:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Basically this poll is likely to become a poll on to what extent Americans are terrible people, and in really not sure about the odds.

I am trying so hard to keep from Godwining, so just please imagine the appropriate comparisons where they would belong.

The danger of Trump is the danger of other terrible politicians. It's not just 'Trump's gonna capture all the racists.' I believe - maybe I have to believe - that the American electorate, on the whole, is not made up of racists who actually want to be awful. I believe, as I believe even now about a lot of those who voted/are voting him into the nomination, that the real danger is from those people who are not having enough of their needs met to be able to look to other people with compassion.

It cannot be said enough, nearly the entirety of my Latin family is voting for Trump. Incomprehensible! Why? Why! HE HATES US. But they see his tax policy offering relief. He's promising that no family making under 50K has to pay taxes. He's promising to eliminate the estate tax. He's promising to "Make America Great Again." And they want that so badly. They want the prosperity an old America promised so badly.

That is the real danger. That he can appeal to people that are either poor, or just not as well off as they think they might have been. And he can swing to the left when he needs to fake like he's not an awful human being. He can praise Planned Parenthood, attack the Iraq War, say what he needs to. And I fear that people who feel the pinch - which is so many of us right now - will think "well, he's bombastic, but he'll be better for me."
posted by corb at 6:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [52 favorites]


As a (liberal left) outsider who likes Bernie but thinks Clinton has a stronger chance both to get the candidacy and the Presidency, here's how it looks.

1. The general election has started.

2. Trump has no contenders and can concentrate on winning back the GOP elements he's alienated. Hard job, but he'll try and he's have help.

3. The Bernie-Clinton arguments are a dangerous distraction. Nobody's going to be convinced who isn't convinced already, but many might be put off voting altogether.

4. Every day 3 above continues, 2 above will gain traction in 1 above. Every day.

Today, as in not tomorrow, is absolutely the time the Dems need to start holding Trump's feet to the fire. Because if they allow themselves the luxury of throwing rocks at each other instead, he will gain traction and put distance between President Trump and Primary Trump.

The left, in the UK as well as in the US, has always had a fatal tendency to fight itself instead of the enemry. Those 2 percent differences in DNA make for the fiercest disputes. But go fight the frikking lizards instead.

Please.

Really, pretty please with all the bells and all the sugar.
posted by Devonian at 6:05 AM on May 4, 2016 [39 favorites]


But as a more general comment, DW-Nominate is vastly over-rated as a measure of absolute ideology.

I hear you, and certainly it's not the magic liberalism-thermometer that people sometimes treat it as. But:

(a) It's hard for me to think that cherry-picking a few things would ever give a more meaningfully accurate picture than using all the available information, and just using everything seems preferable me to me over the realistic alternative of arguing about whether Iraq or firearms are the One True Issue That Defines Progressivism.

(b) You actually can get the mass public into the nominate hyperspace, sort of. The CCES includes enough roll-call positions to bridge the rest of the CCES and nominate. Likewise, you can get elected officials and the mass public into an NPAT-based hyperspace using the CCES or Annenberg.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:14 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's going to hammer her on trade. It's not just working class folks, it's professionals who are seeing their careers outsourced to overseas contractors and cut-rate H1B guest workers.

He's going to hammer her on foreign policy, pointing to the horrible shit-show Syria and Libya turned into under her watch, and her inability to see nevermind stop Russia and China's increasing bellicosity to their neighbors.

The third-rail stuff, he'll simply ignore. No opinions on abortion, gay marriage, trans-rights, death penalty, etc. etc. etc. He's going to swing to the center now, and you will be shocked at how at home he'll be there. He's a New York Republican - all he really cares about are populist trade policies, strongarm foreign policy and nativism and he hopes to ride these to the White House. Bernie's message was really the only one that had any chance of derailing it, so we have to hope that Clinton runs a mistake-free campaign, that Trump does not, and that she comes across as more presidential during the debates and he comes across as a whiny big-city blow-hard.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


You know who has never been Bernie or Bust? Bernie.
posted by srboisvert at 6:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


You know who has never been Bernie or Bust? Bernie.

I would have agreed with this until his pivot toward "we're going to try to flip the superdelegates" strategery. Now I just don't know what he's trying to accomplish.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:20 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Just remember that Trump will have to win like five or six States that went to Obama twice in order to win the general election. I'm not willing to chicken little about that happening just yet. Especially when polls - which at this point in the cycle are pretty predictive - have it as a Clinton landslide.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I lose respect toward any woman who sticks with a serial philanderer

Your wording is inaccurate and passive. You know exactly where your respect is. What you are really saying is that you choose to deny respect to women who stick with serial philanderers. Once you put the agency for your own behavior in the right place you can probably see what that makes you.
posted by srboisvert at 6:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [90 favorites]


He's going to hammer her on trade. It's not just working class folks, it's professionals who are seeing their careers outsourced to overseas contractors and cut-rate H1B guest workers.

This matches with what I've been seeing from inside the Republican house, at least - I don't know what the appeal is on the Dem side, but I suspect it's there too. It's one of the reasons, honestly, that Cruz failed - he kept talking about the cultural stuff as though Trump were handing him gotcha after gotcha, and he failed to see that the cultural stuff really only matters to a large part of the Republican voters in good times. Undecided voters talked more about the TPPP than about abortion.

Now, we may well see, as a result of that, big business flee to Clinton's side, because she's more friendly to them - but that in and of itself, like the Cruz-Kasich deal, could hurt her, if people believe that she is willing to sell them out.
posted by corb at 6:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


He's going to hammer her on trade.

And how many of Hillary's ties are made in China, exactly?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm happy if Bernie keeps fighting. And if a few Bernie supporters being unwilling to support Clinton make Trump sound more threatening. I won't vote for Clinton myself. There is always going to be some new horror from the Republican side, so sense endorsing current USTR policy like ISDS, IP insanity, etc. just because they manage to barf up someone worse than last time. And Clinton will easily defeat Trump anyways especially with the Koch brothers' big money machine not backing Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:29 AM on May 4, 2016


Okay, I'll actually add to that:

If Trump thinks his killing blow against Clinton is going to be trade and financial policy, there's decades of his actual history that hasn't even been started yet. Evicting people to build parking lots. Shady deals on labor and construction. Bankrupt housing projects.

And that doesn't even get into Trump University, which may very likely go to trial and put Trump on a witness stand in the middle of a presidential campaign. Either that or the story will be how Trump tried to delay/prevent said testimony.

The guy who went bankrupt four times is going to attack Clinton on fiscal policy. Alrighty then.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:30 AM on May 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


Seen on Twitter: Not usually a big fan of God, but I have admit telling Cruz to run for president then making him lose to a reality TV clown was an A+ prank.

I don't even believe in God, but I'm getting a mental vision of him cackling and the angels telling him, "A++++ prank, Big Guy! Please prank again!"
posted by orange swan at 6:30 AM on May 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


I understand where the people who don't think Clinton is going to do a damn thing to save their jobs are coming from, I just don't understand the people who think Trump has the answer. But I guess if you're desperate any option that deviates from the status quo might start to look appealing. Of course, if that's Trump's appeal to you, you still have to choose to overlook the racism, sexism, homophobia, etc..

This is shaping up to be one of the worst predictions I ever made, but I still feel pretty good about this one.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:32 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, I'm firmly against the asinine trade policy/priorities of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Clinton, but it's incorrect that Trump will "hammer her on trade". Trump is going to be equally bad on trade, if not worse. It's true that he can talk shit during the election, mobilizing the ignorant vote, but that's all he'll get from trade. Anyone whose opposition to current USTR objective stems from actually understanding them will oppose Trump's policies.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think one thing people are ignoring is that Trump is notoriously thin skinned, has demonstrated that he tends to go into sputter and incomprehension mode when encountering women who disagree with him and won't just meekly submit, and that Hillary Clinton is a master at the sort of quiet mockery that drives men like Trump straight into a frothing rage fit.

She got Bernie Sanders to look like a total sexist pig, red faced and finger wagging, just by arching an eyebrow and chuckling at him.

When polled, most women say that what they fear from men is that men will kill them. When polled most men say that what they fear from women is that women will laugh at them. That's a horrible reflection of how deep patriarchy is ingrained, but it's also a powerful weapon in Clinton's arsenal. Trump is clearly one of the men who is pathologically terrified of women not taking him seriously, and Clinton is a proven master of exploiting that to get her opponents to make themselves look like fools.

I think Clinton, even before the debates and just through ads, can probably get Trump into at least one televised screaming, frothing, rage fit. And I don't think many American voters will find that attractive.

It is true that Trump has trade as a hammer, but I think Clinton can pivot on trade and portray herself as a protector of the little guy and Trump as an exploiter. She can say that her past support for TPP was based on earlier drafts that did more for America, that neither it nor TIPP have her support, hell she can say she'll veto them if she has to. And then she can point to Trump shipping jobs overseas to China, to Trump firing Americans to hire H1B workers, and deflate him there. And if done right, again, she may be able to goad him into a screaming rage.

Trump is famous for being possessed of some of the thinnest skin on the planet, while Clinton has proven herself to be calm and collected in the face of asinine bullshit attacks like the whole Benghazi scolding, er, "hearing" farce. She's a master at keeping her cool and making her opponents look like fools.

I've been wrong about everything I predicted regarding Trump, but I'll predict again: I don't think he'll win in November.

Oddly enough, I'm a Sanders supporter and I'm saying that, but this morning my partner, who is a Clinton supporter, was saying she was certain Trump would win.

@corb, I'm curious because you specifically mentioned the estate tax as one of the reasons your Trump supporting family likes him. Are they not aware that the estate tax only affects estates with a value greater than $5 million? Or do they have the fantasy that somehow they'll get ultra rich and then it'll be bad for them, or what?
posted by sotonohito at 6:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [50 favorites]


Everyone all thinking Hillary is going to slamdunk the general election because she uses facts and appeals to Americans' higher ideals, well, I'm just wondering which America you've been living in the last 15 years.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


Bernie has been a plus for Clinton and her chances for the presidency. Bernie got a lot of people to register in a time when registration is difficult and increased the voting. They sure as hell are not going to stay on the sidelines if Trump makes a real race of this.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


They were also staring down a Republican strategy that explicitly contemplated voting party line to obstruct business - any business - for as long as a Democrat is in office.

The voting record issue has been pretty well covered, but it's worth noting that this is wrong. Clinton and Sanders were in the Senate together during the last two years of Bush's second term.
posted by stopgap at 6:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, I'd agree with sotonohito that Trump will not do well if his people cannot "control the ground" during the general. Ain't just that Clinton will trick him into a few rage fits. It's that he'll come off like a moron during any sort of situation where sense is expected.

If I were working for Clinton's campaign, then I'd stock up on radio jamming gear tuned to frequencies used by miniature radio receivers one can wear in one's ear. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 6:40 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hello fellow Bernie supporters! Speaking as one of you, let me just issue a gentle reminder that there is another way to support your unwavering support for an actual leftist, on a ballot where your two choices are "Hilary" and "hungry ghosts who have tasted human flesh." (And make no mistake, there are exactly two options, and those are the two)

Vote swapping! Find yourself a like-minded compatriot in an overwhelmingly blue state, and get them to agree to write in Bernie for the general. Then you cast your ballot for Hilary, your state doesn't vote for hurling itself into the abyss, and everyone goes home happy. I live in a liberal blue oasis, and will happily cast a vote for any third-party, name-withdrawn, or otherwise nonviable candidate that you want; just promise me that you'll vote for whoever's name has a D next to it.

(In 2012, I arranged something like this via MeMail. With cortex's blessing, I'd like to start a MetaTalk thread about it a few days before the general election)
posted by Mayor West at 6:40 AM on May 4, 2016 [43 favorites]


Everyone all thinking Hillary is going to slamdunk the general election because she uses facts and appeals to Americans' higher ideals, well...

Nah, I'm more on board with what sonohito said -- she'll slamdunk the general election because she can push Trump's buttons and make him look like a clown. Josh Marshall at TPM has had a series of posts about Trump's "dominance politics" which I think is a pretty good lens through which to see his appeal. It's nasty politics and it's bad for the country, in all the ways we've talked about already. But it's also a dangerous game to play from his perspective, because it's a bubble that can pop as soon as he starts to be seen as being dominated. (And by a WOMAN no less.)
posted by saturday_morning at 6:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


jeffburdges Anyone whose opposition to current USTR objective stems from actually understanding them will oppose Trump.

So that's what, five or ten people tops? I'll be honest, most of my objection to the trade deals stems not from any actual in depth reading and understanding of the deals as a whole, but rather from a few hot button issues I have (secret tribunals to overturn laws that harm corporate profits, the internet killing measures, the American infinite copyright with massive penalties and prison time everywhere provisions, and the way the enshrine a race to the bottom WRT worker and environmental protections).

I'm opposed to Trump, but I'll admit that I'm also convinced that Clinton will manage to get TPP and TIPP and any other utterly ruinous trade deals she can passed. She's a Wall Street person through and through, they don't need to buy her because she's already on their side. You don't give someone half a million bucks for a speech in hopes that the half mil will buy them off, you do that as a reward for someone who is firmly on your side and who shares and fights for your interests.
posted by sotonohito at 6:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


So, the endless lizard-person jokes were funny the first million times they were made -- not so much any more.

The scary and saddening thing about Cruz is not that he's an alien, or an animal, or a devil; it's that he's a person, that he grew up in the same nation and under the same political system as the rest of us who are Americans, and yet turned out to be such a shallow, phony, untrustworthy, unpleasant, and thoroughly despicable person.
posted by aught at 6:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [26 favorites]


> I think Clinton, even before the debates and just through ads, can probably get Trump into at least one televised screaming, frothing, rage fit. And I don't think many American voters will find that attractive.

Is there anything that would stop him from just skipping the debates? I could see him saying "Folks, we've had plenty of debates. Clinton *loves* to talk, but the time for talk is over, etc., etc."
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm a Bernie supporter, but I donno if it makes sense to write in Bernie in the general. Just protest vote for a third party instead. It's possible that vote swapping might let you vote for a third party that does not even make the ballot in your state, I guess.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:44 AM on May 4, 2016


When SNL had that bit about 2008 Hilary being visited by 2016 Hilary, and 2016 Hilary told 2008 Hilary to sit down, because she wouldn't believe who the Republican nominee was going to be, and 2008 Hilary wouldn't sit down, and 2016 Hilary told her "Donald Trump", and 2008 Hilary was "I'M GONNA BE PRESIDENT!"

I had a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad feeling about that. Like I was being visited from the future myself, and being told "This clip, you're going to be so fucking sick of seeing this over and over and over. This is your Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper, right here."
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:45 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


@corb, I'm curious because you specifically mentioned the estate tax as one of the reasons your Trump supporting family likes him. Are they not aware that the estate tax only affects estates with a value greater than $5 million? Or do they have the fantasy that somehow they'll get ultra rich and then it'll be bad for them, or what?

Mostly it's concerns about land and movables valuation. Nobody has cash that even vaguely kind of approaches that sort of thing. But everyone in my family who could bought land, often shitty multi-occupant houses (for big families) on land that turned out to eventually be worth something. Like, one family member has a house that's worth like 700K on Zillow. It is crumbling. It is falling apart. No one in their right mind would pay that or live there. But technically it's valued that high.

I think there would be a lot less support if the estate tax only hit cash - but there's a lot of fear/sympathy for people who inherit land 'valued' at 5 million, but who have no way of obtaining that cash short of selling the land.
posted by corb at 6:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


The Card Cheat Fear of endless "Trump is to cowardly to even debate me" ads?
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Hillary and Monica" by Virginia Heffernan: "The secret women’s Facebook boards for Hillary Clinton are emerging as the great medium of this election cycle." Also:
I hit middle age. Now I identify with both Hillary and Monica. Like them, I was dependent for stability and identity on tornado-like men of certain male virtues but also deep selfishness and indifference to female experience — and only after internal radicalization was I able to hit my stride.
There are secret women's Facebook boards for Clinton, Heffernan says -- anyone have a sense of whether this is a particularly widespread phenomenon, the kind of thing that should affect our assessment of the amount and depth of support she really has among voters?
posted by brainwane at 6:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump is a skilled, intelligent demagogue. Underestimate him at your own peril. That said, it doesn't matter if he's really good at mobilizing 49% of the electoral votes. Second place is first loser.

Clinton is stronger, plus she's not fucking nuts. It won't be a "slam dunk", necessarily, but she'll win.
...

Goodbye Cruz. Your fatal flaw was you're a Starscream without a Megatron.

underrated comment
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


A Trump presidency would be tragic and embarrassing, but it's physically not possible for him to do the things he says he is, and it might even push congress to work together to keep him in check.

This thinking seems entirely backwards. I've predicted before that a Trump presidency will also mean a Republican Congress, one that feels itself entirely beholden to the reactionary, so-called Tea Party wing. There's no reason at all to believe that Trump won't sign whatever harebrained legislation Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan feel like passing, starting with the repeal of Obamacare.
posted by Gelatin at 6:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Card Cheat Fear of endless "Trump is to cowardly to even debate me" ads?

Yeah. Trump has to come up with tactics that will play well to a majority of voters, not a a plurality of Republicans. If he wants to do that, he needs to debate. And he's going to struggle. It's not impossible for him to win, but it's very hard, given the demographic problems he has.
posted by howfar at 6:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speaking about protest votes... For those of you in red states, please consider voting for Clinton. Your vote for Jill Stein or a write-in for Bernie will probably get ignored at the local level. But if more people than expected vote for the Democrat, you'll put some fear into the Republicans. Who will either overreact, and look terrible doing so, or who will moderate their godawful policies. We're already seeing both here in Kansas in anticipation of a voter revolt.
posted by honestcoyote at 6:57 AM on May 4, 2016 [26 favorites]


If you're mentioning "secret tribunals to overturn laws that harm corporate profits" and "internet killing measures" then you count as someone "whose opposition to current USTR objective stems from actually understanding them", sotonohito. Trump might change USTR policy, maybe even in ways that create jobs, but he'll firmly back ISDSs, environmental destruction, etc. simply because other rich friends tell him to. If anything, he'll do more of that to keep those friends while he pisses off Walmart or whoever.

There is imho only one positive development on trade that Trump presidency buys us : It's possible he'd replace the current USTR negotiators and make them start over on TTIP and TPP just to have it done "his way". Actually I doubt this because folks like the USTR's Michael Froman sound close to Trump's social circles so they can probably manage him.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just don't understand the people who think Trump has the answer.

Once they hear his forceful yet vague promises to "Bring Jobs Back!" they stop listening, so they never get to the part where he actually kinda lays out his plan for doing this, which at this point is: 1) *mumble* "Don't worry about it I gotta fantastic plan" *mumble* and 2) standard Republican economics which pretty much screws everyone but the wealthy (i.e. not them).
posted by soundguy99 at 6:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump is a skilled, intelligent demagogue. Underestimate him at your own peril.

I agree with this. I think the election is already going to be close, but I think Trump is probably going to cheat/Voting Rights IDs his way into the White House.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The guy who went bankrupt four times is going to attack Clinton on fiscal policy. Alrighty then.

"Every time one of my companies was in financial trouble, it was the fault of the banks, of Wall Street. We really need to clean up Wall Street. Millions of Americans have lost their job because of Wall Street. I know what it's like. I've been failed by Wall Street myself! Don't expect Hillary Clinton to clean up Wall Street. She's received millions of dollars for her speeches from them. What has she promised them in return? She's so corrupt!"
posted by sour cream at 7:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


@poniewozik: Thing to remember for next 6 months: a lot of media will be incentivized for drama to make the election seem close, whether it is or not.
posted by Wordshore at 7:01 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh, and as many people have pointed out, a piece from The Onion - published on November 7th 2012.
posted by Wordshore at 7:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


Another thing to remember for the next six months: whether it seems close or not, please vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [37 favorites]


via the Sanders campaign on Facebook:

The Clinton campaign thinks this campaign is over, sisters and brothers. They are wrong.
Maybe it's over for the insiders and the party establishment, but the voters in Indiana had a different idea. The campaign wasn't over for them. It isn't over for the voters in West Virginia. It isn't over for Democrats in Oregon, New Jersey and Kentucky. It isn't over for voters in California and all the other states with contests still to come.
Last night Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Poll after poll shows we are the best campaign to take him on, and by a wide margin. There is nothing more I would like than to take on defeat Donald Trump, someone who can never become president of this country. And that is why we must continue to fight for the values we share, and to win this primary.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Somewhere back in my bamboozled mind, I'm hearing Peter Jackson's voice. "Aaand--CUT!" Like after an especially messy scene from the battle of five armies. Make-believe, fake hair, stuntmen instead of real actors, my mind is whispering. Where is Gandalf when you need him?"

Dangling over an unimaginable precipice, hanging on by his fingertips, and saying, "Fly, you fools!"?
posted by komara at 7:07 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Poll after poll shows we are the best campaign to take him on, and by a wide margin.

Except for the polls that were taken of primary voters in 40-some states, yeah.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:09 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


I definitely have a morbid curiosity about who Trump will pick for his VP. Will he double down on the crazy? Or will he try to pick someone who seems level-headed?
posted by C'est la D.C. at 7:09 AM on May 4, 2016


As an aside, I still wonder if the Republicans best shot might be running both Trump and Cruz in the general. After this election, Republican are clearly going to continue to hold the house, and probably senate, but both Trump or Cruz are so bad that Democrats should pick up seats. If otoh both Trump and Cruz are running, then Republicans would bring out even more voters, allowing them to pick up seats instead, even as they handed the presidency to Clinton.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


RedState today: Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP (twitter)

WELL HOW INTERESTING
posted by saturday_morning at 7:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [45 favorites]


C'est la D.C. Well, that's the real question, isn't it? I think that will tell us more about what's actually happening behind the scenes at the RNC than anything else.

If the VP is a Dick Cheney type, one of those soulless Party functionaries who has never held an elected position but often been appointed to important but unglamorous positions because he's a party man through and through, then clearly the RNC has some sort of leverage over Trump and they're hoping to use him like they did Junior. The RNC, I think, really likes the idea of a bombastic figurehead President to draw all the attention while the real work is being done quietly and in the shadows.

If the VP is anything else, I think that would indicate that Trump really is at least partially the free agent he pretends to be, and the Party is unable to really do much with him but hope to weather the storm.
posted by sotonohito at 7:16 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is there anything that would stop him from just skipping the debates? I could see him saying "Folks, we've had plenty of debates. Clinton *loves* to talk, but the time for talk is over, etc., etc."

Literally all Hillary would have to do would be to imply or straight up say that he's a whiny baby fraidy cat and he will LOSE HIS SHIT. Count me as yet another person who's fairly certain that Trump will have an ugly temper tantrum at some point while Clinton smiles coolly and/or laughs in his actual face.
posted by yasaman at 7:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Because Trump is ... queerphobic...

Do you have any evidence for that? All indications are he has no real problem with gay people, and his nominal positions on gay rights were purely pragmatic. He was just doing the minimum he had to do to win the Republican nomination, not expressing genuine homophobia. He didn't seem at all passionate about those issues; I never heard him bring them up of his own volition. He might have been the least anti-gay Republican candidate other than Pataki.
posted by John Cohen at 7:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


RedState today: Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP (twitter)

nelsonmuntz.wav
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Republican are clearly going to continue to hold the house, and probably senate
With you on the House, the Dems have a 30-seat deficit to dig themselves out of.

But the Senate? it's totally in play. Dems need to win the presidency and four seats. The GOP is defending 24 seats, including a number in blue states that they took in their 2010 wave. Weakest links in the GOP Senate map: IL, WI, FL, PA, OH. And with Trump, even some long-time GOP senators like Grassley in IA and McCain in AZ are looking vulnerable.
posted by fitnr at 7:21 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


You know who has never been Bernie or Bust? Bernie.
I would have agreed with this until his pivot toward "we're going to try to flip the superdelegates" strategery. Now I just don't know what he's trying to accomplish.


Yes. Speaking as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary, I am disturbed by the shift in tone in his campaign in the last week or two.
posted by aught at 7:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [20 favorites]


How is Trump planning to pay for his General Election campaign?

So far he's largely been funded by media generosity, plus a small amount of donations. Another small amount has come from him sloshing tax-deductible amounts around his network of companies.

Trump is going to need a metric boatload of cash. Orders of magnitude more than his nebulous business empire could spare.

The Koch brothers have made it clear they won't turn on the hose. His hardcore support don't look able to supply it. Other traditional republican donors have been spending hard *against* him.

Clinton can easily raise a colossal amount.

Where is Trump going to get his money?

Without the cash, how does he win?
posted by Combat Wombat at 7:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes. Speaking as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary, I am disturbed by the shift in tone in his campaign in the last week or two.

If other people feel like that, they will stop voting for him. Clearly, the Democrats of Indiana want him to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thorzdad: "the republican establishment is just going to have to live with what they have - if they don't, they'll see their party destroyed for sure

The party that holds both houses of Congress, and the majority of governors and state legislatures? Destroyed? More like freed from any pretense.

This is just so depressing. Living in Indiana as I do, I fully expect to see white sheets in public very, very soon. And brownshirt-like violence. Seriously.
"

You will know them by the cut down pool cues in their back pockets.
posted by Splunge at 7:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


How is Trump planning to pay for his General Election campaign?

Why would he need money?

Why would the free media bonanza ever end? There's always something more outrageous he can say, and bam, free 24-hour cycle.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:26 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Serious question time here : how long do we have to keep having the Bernie vs. Hillary debate?

I know some people think that the Hillary vs Bernie thing is going to end after the convention, or after Bernie concedes and endorses Hillary, but I don't think it will. This debate is less about the candidates themselves and more about sharp divisions about political strategy, ideals and goals within the American left-of-center. It's going to emerge in the next Democratic primary, etc. in somewhat altered forms, but the divisions are going to remain. This column that I posted in an earlier election thread from two months ago (Stop laughing, Democrats! As the GOP goes down in flames, your post-Bernie civil war is almost here) explains things pretty well, I think.

The divisions will only be exacerbated if there is a major setback to the Democratic election strategy like, just off the top of my head:

1) Hillary is indicted over the email scandal
2) Hillary loses to Trump
3) Bernie decides to go back on his promise and run as an independent in the general election

If any of those things (or a myriad of other catastrophic outcomes for the Democrats) happens, there will be no end to the told-you-sos and associated bitterness. To phrase in a more rhetorical way: how long do we have to keep having the Nader debate? Or the Obamacare debate? Or the Iraq War debate? Etc.

But even if none of those scenarios happens and Hillary's master plan succeeds, the reality is that Bernie is the avatar of a large and growing population of relatively disenfranchised, and increasingly politically mobilized lefties. The fight for control of the Democratic party, and American left-of-center politics will inevitably continue beyond this election.

Sorry, mods.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [40 favorites]


Where is Trump going to get his money?

From untold numbers of donors who want to see Hillary crash and burn forever more than they want anything in the world?

Where else?
posted by blucevalo at 7:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


She was on track to seek elected office in her own right,

For real? What office? Cite?


I don't think this refers to any specific office so much as the fact that she has always been more than Bill Clinton's wife. Before Hillary marrying Bill Clinton, she:
- Helped canvass the South Side of Chicago after the 1960 presidential election at age 13
- Volunteered for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater (age 16-17)
- Organized a two-day student strike at Wellesley following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. who she met at age 12
- Interned with the House Republican Conference
- Attended the 1968 Republican National Convention (leading to her decision to leave the Republican Party for good)
- Served as president of the Wellesley College Government Association
- Was chosen by her classmates at Wellesley to become the first student to speak on their behalf at commencement, receiving a seven minute standing ovation and coverage in Life magazine
- Started at Yale Law where she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action
- Worked at the Yale Child Study Center where she learned about early childhood development and where she would return for post-graduate study after law school, publishing a scholarly article in the Harvard Educational Review that has been frequently cited
- Volunteered at New Haven Legal Services on behalf of indigent clients
- Advocated for victims of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital
- Worked at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, serving on Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor
- Worked on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey
- Worked on child custody cases at during a legal internship in Oakland, California
- Campaigned for presidential candidate George McGovern

I think it's important to push back against the implication that the only reason Hillary is who she is is because of her husband. I think they make a great team but I also think that if she had married a pair of gym socks, she'd still be a badass.
posted by kat518 at 7:28 AM on May 4, 2016 [155 favorites]


Noisy Pink Bubbles, I wish I could favorite that comment many times. There are many, many of us who feel disenfranchised within our own party by Hillary Clinton supporters, who are already looking at 2020 as our best option.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Why would he need money?

Why would the free media bonanza ever end? There's always something more outrageous he can say, and bam, free 24-hour cycle.


Because a strong ground game is what wins you elections, not what we see on the TV. If that wasn't the case, then how do you explain Obama winning re-election in 2012?
posted by NoMich at 7:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


CNN says Kasich is going to address the media soon. Dropping out?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:34 AM on May 4, 2016


"The clintons very well may have had a completely open relationship for decades for all we know. I'd be more surprised if they didn't."

Well, I just finished reading a book called The Residence, which is about the people that work at the White House. Given the reports in that book of Hillary actually throwing things at Bill on occasion during the scandal (I can't blame her a bit), I highly doubt they had a consensual open relationship at that point in time, unless they did and "don't get caught" was a stipulation of that.

I would, however, assume at this point they have a Florrick-style agreement where it's all "fine, you can fuck around, just make sure nobody else ever hears about it, including me." Because how else would you deal with that?
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


One of the most loathsome people to ever fucking live on this planet, Ted Cruz, backstabbed and fucked over every person he came in contact with for the past four years, forced his party into a bunch of no-win scenarios that made them look stupid and clueless, and generally called out everyone in his entire party as a bunch of commiesymp Islamolibs who want to dress up as a gay-married woman and fuck a child in a public bathroom. He did all of these things knowingly, burning every bridge he's ever crossed, mauling every hand that's ever fed him, all in service of one dream: He would become the Republican nominee in 2016 and win the Presidency and then the trail of blood and nightmares he left behind wouldn't matter because fuck you I'm POTUS that's why.

He sacrificed everything to this goal, and he's going to lose by a small number of delegates to the political equivalent of the Fukushima meltdown.


So you're saying he's the Stannis Baratheon of politics.
posted by prepmonkey at 7:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


Goodbye Cruz. Your fatal flaw was you're a Starscream without a Megatron.
underrated comment


Needs workshopping. Starscream's fatal flaw is thinking he can ever escape Megatron's shadow. So Cruz's fatal flaw was that he's Starscream without Starscream's fatal flaw?

I think the joke is that Cruz's fatal flaw was that he's merely Starscream to Trump's Megatron.
posted by straight at 7:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, and for those of you wondering how Trump feels about gay people, googling "Trump gay people" should clear that right up, but I thought this article was pretty telling.

I keep wondering about that kid in the This American Life episode that was specifically into Trump because he didn't hate gay people.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:38 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Combat Wombat I expect Trump will get plenty of money from the standard Republican sources, including the Koch brothers. Today there's a lot of sour grapes and complaints from the Republicans who don't like Trump. But mostly they'll settle down and support Trump because ultimately politics is tribal, and because they have reasons why they think literally any Republican would be better than Clinton. That's why they're Republicans instead of Democrats. Actual political independence in the USA is all but nonexistent.

I expect most of the former #neverTrump types will spend today and tomorrow insisting that they'll never, not ever, vote for or support Trump, and in a couple of weeks they'll be chanting his name in unison and saying that he's totally a better candidate than Clinton.

Unless this really is the breakup of the Republican party and the formation of a new political balance. That does happen every now and then. But I think that would have been more likely if Trump had lost the Republican nom and started his own third party or joined an existing third party.
posted by sotonohito at 7:40 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think it's important to push back against the implication that the only reason Hillary is who she is is because of her husband

What? But she is, clearly. You can still believe she's qualified and a good candidate with understanding that her candidacy is a hairs breadth away from our Bush cabal.
posted by iamck at 7:42 AM on May 4, 2016


Democracies end when they are too democratic: Andrew Sullivan
posted by leotrotsky at 7:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Every single time one of these threads comes up, I immediatly head over to oddschecker.com to look at the odds on the general election.

Hilary is getting around 3:1 in favor of her winning,
Trump is getting a solid 3:1 against.

I know it's not infallible and I'll feel a lot better about Trump's nomination when I start seeing articles on fivethirtyeight.com telling me that he doesn't have a chance but until then, those odds help me sleep at night.

I am, however, more hopeful than ever that we're seeing the implosion of the Republican party that could clear the way for the democratic party to split and become our new two political parties. The new "conservative" party would align with Clinton while the new left sides with Sanders.

I'm also guardedly optimistic about the debates. Hillary is certainly smart and I think she is a LOT tougher than Trump will be prepared for. I think she'll be able to let him dig his own hole and I'm not sure what will happen if he tries to bully her but I think I'll enjoy it. I'd love to see her give a smart, nuanced, well thought out response to some question, get interrupted for the umpteenth time by Trump, then calmly walk over to his podium and crack him in the jaw to hard his legs turn to jelly. Then go back and finish her response.
posted by VTX at 7:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


The fight for control of the Democratic party, and American left-of-center politics will inevitably continue beyond this election.

And as someone who is finally publicly coming out as a Hillary supporter, I think this is a good thing. This is a fight we need to have inside of a party, not outside of one.

I hate the two-party system as much as anyone, but we live in a system where having more than two parties is extremely disadvantageous. Moment a party splits, the other party immediately gains a huge structural advantage.

I'd rather a bigger tent in the Democratic party -- one where the New Left can fight with the old school Internationalists and Cold War liberals while they both fight with the neo-liberals and the centrists -- than watch Bernie and company break off and hand a broken, raving GOP an even greater structural advantage than they already have.

There's a lot that can be done with a Hillary election for the Bernie folk, starting with getting the Senate back and confirming left-leaning SCOTUS judges that will be more likely to deal harshly with Citizens United and gerrymandering. And then I'd look towards Congress. You want a more center-left or left America? Start electing them.

Bernie's revolution was never going to arrive in the way this campaign is talking about it. There are serious structural problems that prevent that from happening. You're going to have to knock down some walls from the inside. Obama's first term should have taught us all that revolution doesn't magically happen when you elect a president. There are 537 elected officials in Washington, not to mention the thousands of state officials. One executive can't just wave a magic wand and boom, everything is exactly the way you want it.

What to change the system? Gotta learn the system. Then you got to exploit it. And then you can open the door to bring your revolution in. It's what the GOP did, and it's why they control so many state legislatures and Congress.
posted by dw at 7:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [37 favorites]


CNN says Kasich is going to address the media soon. Dropping out?

"I'd like to introduce my running mate: Carly Fiorina."
posted by tonycpsu at 7:45 AM on May 4, 2016 [62 favorites]


The Onion - published on November 7th 2012.

It's scary amazing how prescient The Onion often is.

Meanwhile, Borowitz is on it: Senate Officially Mourns Return of Ted Cruz
posted by fuse theorem at 7:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


So far the only thing I have read in this thread which really gives me any hope for the future is Scott Adams' analysis of why Trump will win, because that is the goddamn stupidest thing I have ever seen.
posted by kyrademon at 7:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Excerpted from an op-ed by my local newspaper's shrillest right-wing commentator:
"... on the national level, Republicans are a laughingstock, having validated every liberal stereotype of xenophobia, racism and sexism that has been hurled at conservatives for decades. Donald Trump is a political vampire; he sucked all the life from the Republican Party, leaving it animate but devoid of a heartbeat.

When a party meets at its quadrennial national convention, it is typically a celebration to show the nation's voters what the party has to offer them in the future. This year, Republicans can only crow about their past conservative accomplishments, not the incomprehensible ramblings of their presumptive nominee. In that sense, Cleveland will be less like a party and more like a funeral."
HIS TEARS, THEY ARE SO DELICIOUS
posted by amnesia and magnets at 7:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [32 favorites]


I'm still uneasy enough that last night I seriously looked into exactly what it would entail for me to emigrate to Canada, and I'm also seriously going to look into whether the fact that my grandmother was born there would qualify me for something. Just in case.

....I also sent a jokey email asking a guy I met in Paris in December whether I could move in with him if Trump became president, but I'll admit to having a very different motivation in that instance...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


she'll slamdunk the general election because she can push Trump's buttons and make him look like a clown.

To quote Ellen Ripley, "I hope you're right, I really do."
posted by entropicamericana at 7:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


This thread sure has a lot of comments in it.
posted by goatdog at 7:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


To quote Gandalf, "So do I."
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]



I think there would be a lot less support if the estate tax only hit cash - but there's a lot of fear/sympathy for people who inherit land 'valued' at 5 million, but who have no way of obtaining that cash short of selling the land.


And now we have officially entered the part of the election cycle where people start stating the "truth" that they're sure they know about taxes that is just dead wrong.

Here are some basics that people always get wrong. (And this before you even get into complicated stuff.)

1. The current estate/gift tax exclusion is $5.45M per individual. (The increase alone over what was being cited above almost covers the 700k house mentioned in the example above.)
2. Direct transfers to a spouse are deductions from the taxable amount. (Folks, this is what Windsor was all about!) They are not taxed. So a 6M house transferred to a spouse? Not taxed. In a community property state like California, only half of a community property asset is taxable in the first place.
3. "Per individual" is hugely important. Some pretty straight forward planning preserves each spouses estate tax exemption, for a total of 10.9M!

Yeah, the middle class folks who happen to have property that skyrocketed in value?

They don't pay estate tax.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:04 AM on May 4, 2016 [60 favorites]


Are they not aware that the estate tax only affects estates with a value greater than $5 million? Or do they have the fantasy that somehow they'll get ultra rich and then it'll be bad for them, or what?

It's all aspirational. Lower and middle class Republicans have repeatedly voted against their own economic interests, because they've all been promised that if they just Worked A Little Harder, they'd be among the ruling aristocracy too. This is a central tenet of what the GOP leadership has been preaching for decades: it doesn't matter if you're a roofer with a GED, you could still be elected chairman of the board/win the lottery and become a millionaire TOMORROW, and then won't you feel silly for voting for higher taxes on the wealthy?
posted by Mayor West at 8:06 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I wouldn't anything Andrew "Power button for the authoritarians" Sullivan says seriously. Dude never met a boot he didn't want to lick.
posted by The Whelk at 8:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


She's to the right of Nixon. I don't give a fuck at this point - if the choice is between what was once a somewhat hawkish republican and watching it all burn...

I know this is from way back in the thread, but I have to chime in. Here's the deal: I'm a nihilist and an anti-natalist. My foundational philosophy is that happiness does not exist in any true sense, and can only be perceived as the absence of suffering. Suffering is intrinsically evil, so the highest good that could be done for humanity is the extinction of all beings capable of experiencing suffering. Call me an omnicidal maniac if you like; it's what I believe.

But I also believe that (*sigh*) the perfect is the enemy of the good. While total human extinction is the greatest possible good, it should never be pursued at the expense of generating more suffering, and certainly not at the expense of those who already suffer. So while I see the appeal of supporting Trump's campaign out of a desire to "watch it all burn," remember that the burn will not be evenly distributed. Poor people, racial and religious minorities, LGBTQ people, women: a Trump presidency will burn them much more fiercely, and they are the ones who are already burning.

A Sanders presidency could have reduced some of the suffering. A Clinton presidency may do the same; it's hard to say. But a Trump presidency will increase it, and will force the weakest among us to suffer more, and this is evil. So all of you "let it burn" types: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, vote for her. It's the most benevolent course of action we can take until we have the opportunity to swiftly, painlessly, put an end to all of this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [33 favorites]


CNN says Kasich is going to address the media soon. Dropping out?

"I'd like to introduce my running mate: Carly Fiorina."
Can we just talk for a minute about how fantastic it would be if Carly Fiorina became synonymous with the Angel of Death? Like, if you want to imply that a candidate or a business or a coalition government is about to have the roof cave in, you don't make jokes about hearing a banshee wail, you just allude to the fact that they're going to hire Carly Fiorina?

We might not be able to stop the slow march of Trump-branded fascism, but we can make this happen, guys.
posted by Mayor West at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


It's all aspirational.

I know this in my bones, but I still feel like there is a call to fight that sort of ridiculousness with basic facts about how the estate tax actually works.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


We Are No Longer in Political Economy Land Here; We Are in Moral Economy Land Now...

Business Insider The crisis in the Republican Party is even worse than it looks - "Trump is the candidate who finally figured out how to exploit the fact that much of the Republican voter base does not share the policy preferences of the Republican donor class, and that it is therefore possible to win the nomination without being saddled with their unpopular policy preferences.

He will not be the last candidate to understand this."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


Emperor Turhan: How will this end?
Kosh: In fire.
posted by Archelaus at 8:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


How far back do you have to go to find another major party candidate with no government experience whatsoever?

Eisenhower was Army Chief of Staff, which I think should count. So maybe Wendell Wilkie, in 1940?
posted by kyrademon at 8:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


> we live in a system where having more than two parties is extremely disadvantageous.

In name, absolutely, but large single-issue voting blocks can push their particular issues. The NRA's "I like guns, and I vote" push solidified private gun ownership as a tenet of the Republican party. More recently, the Tea Party established itself as a solid faction within the Republican party. The Tea Party definitely opened the way for a wildcard candidate like Trump, even if he's not their candidate.

The "Bern-or-bust" faction is particularly vocal, and the results of "or-bust", combined with Trump energizing non-voters to vote for "finally, someone who gets it" is very worrisome indeed.
posted by fragmede at 8:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


3. "Per individual" is hugely important. Some pretty straight forward planning preserves each spouses estate tax exemption, for a total of 10.9M!

The magic word is 'portability'

Get a democratic congress to drop the estate tax exclusion amount back down to a reasonable level, please.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm still uneasy enough that last night I seriously looked into exactly what it would entail for me to emigrate to Canada, and I'm also seriously going to look into whether the fact that my grandmother was born there would qualify me for something. Just in case.

Sigh. AFAIK--and I am a permanent resident of Canada which took at least two years back when I applied in 2009--it doesn't matter if your grandma was born here. You have to prove why you want to move here and be eligible like everyone else. I get that we Americans think we are welcome to move anywhere we please, but it just irritates the hell out of me when people are like, "I don't like this! I will move to another country because it is easy to do so!" It isn't. It is expensive, time-consuming, and it doesn't even matter if you marry a Canadian.

Back to the topic, in the unlikely event of a Trump win, I will be happy to stay here in Ontario and hope to god no one in my family gets ill so I have to go back.
posted by Kitteh at 8:26 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm a bit biased because environmental policy is my bread and butter, but the main reason I can't imagine going with "let it all burn," no matter how little I actively want a Hillary Clinton presidency (and believe me, it's very little), is climate change. The next president is going to have tremendous influence on how the United States deals with carbon emissions in the brief window remaining where we could mitigate the damage we're doing to the planet. Obama has put some relatively major climate policies in place, but it's all executive action, and so early along that the steps industry and states are taking to comply can easily by stopped or reversed. Clinton or Trump could easily squash them before they have real effects, and which one do you think is more likely to do that?

(The Supreme Court will also have a major say on this, and again, just by virtue of wanting to appeal to Democratic constituencies in a visible way Clinton is far far far far far more likely to appoint somebody who doesn't think the Clean Air Act is an abomination)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [30 favorites]


20 years ago a guy named Ross Perot ran for president.

His platform was almost entirely about his opposition to trade liberalization. The critique he offered at the time matched Trump's critique of free trade item by item.

EXCEPT:

Perot made his case without once casting aspersions against the dignity of the Mexican or Chinese people. He made his case without any saber rattling.

Angry about trade policy? Okay. But that is no excuse for supporting Trump.
posted by ocschwar at 8:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


20 years ago a guy named Ross Perot ran for president.

Ross Perot also wanted the elderly to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.
posted by Talez at 8:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


"Ross Perot also wanted the elderly to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use."

FINALLY someone who GETS IT!
posted by Tevin at 8:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


.He made his case without any saber rattling.

He did shake that voodoo stick.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


How far back do you have to go to find another major party candidate with no government experience whatsoever?


I don't know if I agree with this line of argument because being a casino operator seems like particularly relevant experience for the current economic situation. FML.
posted by srboisvert at 8:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


not to mention trump's had plenty of experience with bankruptcy
posted by pyramid termite at 8:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know this in my bones, but I still feel like there is a call to fight that sort of ridiculousness with basic facts about how the estate tax actually works.

I think you should keep on doing so. If I'm the sort of person that doesn't want to raise taxes on the "rich" so that my taxes are low when I finally become a rich person, you don't really know what my definition of "rich" is.

If I had a $2million dropped in my lap right now, I would consider myself to be rich, full stop. I'd be looking for a house in Edina (the wealthy suburb where I am) though probably among the cheapest houses in that particular city and while I wouldn't quit my job, I'd know that I'm pretty much done worrying about money.

So when you come along and tell me that I could inherit over TEN MILLION DOLLARS and still not have to pay any tax on it, I'm pretty confident that I'll never have to worry about being THAT rich. Even if I did inherit that much wealth, I'm not really worried about the taxes at that point. I'll figure out how to pay them, banks exist, I'll find one that will help my finance the collection of my inheritance. In any case, my perception of who exactly the "rich" are that are paying such high taxes was WAY off. That won't be true for everyone, but it will be true for a lot of people.
posted by VTX at 8:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


I don't know if I agree with this line of argument because being a casino operator seems like particularly relevant experience for the current economic situation. FML.

But doesn't Trump also have the rare distinction of being a casino operator who actually LOST MONEY on the venture?
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


But doesn't Trump also have the rare distinction of being a casino operator who actually LOST MONEY on the venture?

To be fair, nobody could really predict that people, who would go to the seediest of crack dens to gamble, wouldn't go to Atlantic City.
posted by Talez at 8:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know this in my bones, but I still feel like there is a call to fight that sort of ridiculousness with basic facts about how the estate tax actually works.

Not to mention, even if you get to the end of this and have a transfer that means you have to pay some taxes on your 5M+ newly acquired property we have a solution with a colloquial term to describe a solution for that: mortgage.

Economic issues have been one of the reasons I've never embraced one party or the other, but as economic inequality has so greatly widened in my lifetime I've become a lot less sympathetic to grumping about inheritance taxes. You can Austin Powers joke about what a million is worth now versus a generation ago, but the idea that it's some huge imposition when you keep people from hoarding huge valuations in a single family - a single person, as is pointed out above, given the per-inheritor limit - is hard to stomach.

So dad left you the farm his great-great-grandfather bought and now you're going to have to have a mortgage on 5% of its valuation in order to keep it. Well, and? This is complaining that you're being asked to run the last 3 yards of the 100 yard footrace before being declared the winner. I totally get the sense that we should be able to pass some of our advantages on to our children that we worked hard for, but even with my kiddo at only 3 I don't understand a desire to relieve him of any participation in the world of work forever.

If I could unsure he'd always have money sufficient to keep a roof over his head and food in his belly, sure, I'd hand you a kidney in exchange for that right now. But if I could only pass him this three bedroom home with a caveat that he'd have to come up with rent sufficient to cover a local studio apartment? I'm okay with that. And in reality I could leave him twelve of these homes before we'd start to have that concern.

Yes, there's a certain set of conditions that can amount up to a perfect storm in this sort of thing with certain lines of work like farming. And I feel for the perhaps half-dozen folks a year who are legitimately pinched by this in a way that hurts their sentiment. But they are the "would have died if they HAD been wearing their seatbelt" folks. They are not a reason to punish almost every other person who has to share the country and society and provide lives of luxury based on nothing but parental good luck to a much larger group of folks.
posted by phearlez at 8:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


But doesn't Trump also have the rare distinction of being a casino operator who actually LOST MONEY on the venture?


Not just lost money. GONE BANKRUPT.

The joke used to be that he was the only man in recorded history to go bankrupt operating a casino. Then it happened to another Atlantic City bigwig. So now he's the first man in recorded history to go bankrupt running a casino.
posted by ocschwar at 8:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


He's a pioneer!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


If I had a $2million dropped in my lap right now, I would consider myself to be rich, full stop.

I wish we could drop "rich" from our discourse. IMNSHO, if democrats seeking more equitable tax brackets had any damned sense they'd purge it from their vocabulary and say millionaire. It is a word with a concrete meaning, rather than an opening to haggle about where the goal post is set.
posted by phearlez at 9:04 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
Trump voters’ median income exceeded the overall statewide median in all 23 states, sometimes narrowly (as in New Hampshire or Missouri) but sometimes substantially. In Florida, for instance, the median household income for Trump voters was about $70,000, compared with $48,000 for the state as a whole. The differences are usually larger in states with substantial non-white populations, as black and Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly Democratic and tend to have lower incomes. In South Carolina, for example, the median Trump supporter had a household income of $72,000, while the median for Clinton supporters was $39,000.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:05 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm a Bernie supporter, but I donno if it makes sense to write in Bernie in the general. Just protest vote for a third party instead.

I'm fond of Bernie myself, but please do not do this. Hillary has problems yes, and it would be grand to get out of this whole political dynasty thing where the same names keep turning up over and over. But this does not seem to be the year for it. When fucking Morgoth shows up headlining the opposite ticket, you fight him.

And Hillary Clinton's been the focus of so much derision and carping that, at this point, you have to start wondering what percentage of it is really just hate-bile. She didn't leave Bill after the Lewinsky thing came up; so what? Doesn't every family, especially those in a high-profile position with a daughter, deserve to figure out what to do in these cases for themselves? Her courting of Wall Street is a problem, but I think that's more a symptom of politics in the current era in general; she's not the only Democrat to do it by far. The one thing I think she's truly awful on is domestic surveillance and the reach of the NSA and other secret agencies. It is possible that the next election there will be a reckoning on that. This doesn't seem to be the time for it.

Sanders himself has said, if he drops out, he hopes his supporters will do the sane thing and vote against the Avatar of Nyarlathotep. Because he's an Avatar of Nyarlathotep.
posted by JHarris at 9:08 AM on May 4, 2016 [45 favorites]


I can think of probably half a dozen times when the politically expedient choice would've been to cut Bill loose like so much political flotsam. For all that I despise the Clinton era policies of welfare and prison "reform", and for all I wish Hillary had risen above the smear campaigns on Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, I've never understood the notion that their marriage is one of pure political convenience. It just doesn't track.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm fond of Bernie myself, but please do not do this. Hillary has problems yes, and it would be grand to get out of this whole political dynasty thing where the same names keep turning up over and over. But this does not seem to be the year for it. When fucking Morgoth shows up headlining the opposite ticket, you fight him.

This is wholly dependent on what state you live in. If you live in a state that hasn't voted red (or blue) in the past thirty years, please, please vote however you wish.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Commiesymp Islamolibs" is absolutely the best thing ever, and fun to teach your toddlers to yell out loud.

I think the most interesting part about this thread is Corb, who sometimes gets a lot of grief for his/her conservative comments on here. I haven't read all the comments yet, so maybe by now it's degenerated into an "I'm going to unfriend you on Facebook"-fest, but I surely do appreciate Corb's differing point of view (regardless of how much I may disagree with it).
posted by staggering termagant at 9:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Trump VP requirements, keeping in mind that Trump is a paranoid narcissist who values loyalty and enjoys "proving" critics "wrong" -

1. Full obedience to Trump - willing to support whatever comes out of Trump's mouth and willing to attack on Trump's command
2. Will not overshadow Trump (can't be more exciting or better liked)
3. Will not be more attractive a candidate than Trump (no incentive to get rid of Trump)
4. Not part of "the establishment"
5. Has a quality that allows Trump to say "you criticize me for X, but you're wrong!" An example of this would be a VP who is a woman and/or a person of color.

Who fits these descriptions? A businesswoman loyal to Trump who is not especially well-liked.

This is Omarosa's time to shine.
posted by sallybrown at 9:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [20 favorites]


The Republican party has become a transhuman, semi-sentient pile of self-replicating money, that feeds off a huge base of easily manipulated believers, in either money, illusions of safety, or religion, with healthy side dishes of bigotry, misogyny, racism, and class illusions. There is no real human management in that party. I used to be a Republican, back when it was different, and sort of closer to what the Democratic Party is now. When the semi-sentient money started standing up puppets like Reagan, and Bush then it became too obvious.

Now here is Trump full of raw passion and misanthropy of all sorts. At least he is frighteningly real, and human, and full of foibles, willing and able to play dirty. Cruz's wife's face said it all, in the Guardian photo op. Maybe Trump will use Cruz's wife in the cabinet. That is the devil's bargain. I really never wanted to see Bolton, the evil walrus, ever again, or a lot of the people Trump will have to employ because his personality type, will require überbullies to forward his policies. In closing I would like to quote Natasha, from Rocky and Bullwinkle, "Kill moose and squirrell!"

A Cruise missile costs about 1.6 million dollars, not including the delivery system, or transport to the area of use. These kind of self-replicating monies attached to bad behavior, drive the American political system. Whomever serves the semi-sentient monies will be out front in the presidential race, better choose the more clever of the two evils.
posted by Oyéah at 9:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


I am not a good political prognosticator.

I was absolutely, 100% beyond a shadow of any doubt certain that Bush would not win in 2004. It's not even right to call it certainty because that implies that there was something to be potentially uncertain about in the first place. The possibility of a Bush victory in '04 was something my mind just couldn't process. And then it happened.

It's twelve years later and it's happening again. I can't do it. I am trying to think of President Donald Trump and I am incapable of doing it. I try to get my brain to think it and it just won't happen and I think that’s a huge fucking Times Square stories-tall neon flashing sign of a huge fucking problem because it means I’m ​not nearly scared enough.
posted by davidjmcgee at 9:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


(or blue)

Point of order but a few white people staying home and a few more black people showing up puts GA and MS in play. If you're not in the blue wall please for the love of god vote.
posted by Talez at 9:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


That being said, you think Mitch McConnell called Merrick Garland last night, or did he wait for a reasonable hour after sunrise this morning?
posted by davidjmcgee at 9:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


BBC reporting Kasich suspending campaign.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:20 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


BBC reporting Kasich suspending campaign.

Now it has come.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:21 AM on May 4, 2016


Beyond Schadenfreude, the Spectacular Pundit Failure on Trump is Worth Remembering
Nonetheless, it becomes a much different type of error when one invokes one’s own claimed authority and expertise when issuing such embarrassingly wrong pronouncements, and, worse still, when the tone used is one of certainty and hubris as though the decrees are being passed down from Mount Sinai. At the very least, when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error – or casting blame on others – before quickly moving on, in the hope that it’s all forgotten. Some collective, introspective soul-searching is in order.
posted by kyp at 9:21 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump VP requirements, keeping in mind that Trump is a paranoid narcissist who values loyalty and enjoys "proving" critics "wrong"

Eddie Calvo.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:22 AM on May 4, 2016


On top of everything from yesterday, I now see that Kasich is out, several friends of friends on Facebook are talking about Hillary getting indicted like that's something to hope for, and I see that #DropOutHillary is trending on Twitter.

I woke up 20 minutes ago, and I think I'm already done with the internet today.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:22 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]




.@realDonaldTrump tells the NYTimes that @RealBenCarson will head up his VP selection committee.— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) May 4, 2016

posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


BBC scare-quote troll level: Expert.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


The 5$ bet I made with a friend whether the GOP would implode before the Dems calved off another New-Newer-Left?

I just got paid.

Though my friend said it was close, and there was a moment when he thought that Bernie would win the bet for him.
posted by eclectist at 9:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


BBC: Last Republican Trump rival 'quits race'

Fuck, I just went out last week and bought a pallet of popcorn in anticipation of the contested convention, too.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


> "Some collective, introspective soul-searching is in order."

You know ... much as I think the punditocracy is largely full of hot air and nonsense, I am actually inclined to give them a pass for taking the position, "We honestly didn't expect that anyone would vote for Bozo McCrazypants."
posted by kyrademon at 9:28 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


when a profession that touts its expertise, collectively, is this wildly wrong about something so significant, more needs to be done than a cursory, superficial acknowledgment of error – or casting blame on others – before quickly moving on, in the hope that it’s all forgotten. Some collective, introspective soul-searching is in order.

We barely got this after Iraq!
And now Andrew "blood on my hands" Sullivan is at it again!

Watching the bloggers take on David Brooks and guys like Douthat finally realizing what everyone else has been saying for decades is not as fun as I hoped, it's frustrating.

They learn nothing and they forget nothing.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:28 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


Is there anything that would stop him from just skipping the debates?

That would be an easy lay-up for Clinton: "How can he stand up to ISIS when he won't even stand up to me?"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Kasichmentum!

dammit, leotrotsky, look what you did.
posted by numaner at 9:29 AM on May 4, 2016


Wow. Ben "the pyramids were Joseph's grain silos" Carson to head up his VP selection committee? I keep forgetting that there are people even more bonkers than Trump out there, and that he can enlist them to help keep his campaign totally unmoored from any semblance of reality.

Also, given the precedent of Dick Cheney, anyone want to bet that Carson picks himself for Trump's running mate?
posted by sotonohito at 9:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


When does the season end for this Nightmare from Reality show?
posted by infini at 9:30 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm sort of loving the bizarre prescience of Chris Christie. He got this over with months ago.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:31 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm shocked all the authoritarian goons are linking up behind the strong man

Shocked.
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


You know ... much as I think the punditocracy is largely full of hot air and nonsense, I am actually inclined to give them a pass for taking the position, "We honestly didn't expect that anyone would vote for Bozo McCrazypants."

Likewise the big-data nerds. All models are based on past events, which makes them bad at predicting unprecedented things. I mean, it's not impossible, but it's harder than predicting when a thing that's happened before will happen again, and there's lots of pressure from within the system and without not to make the call.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:31 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm relieved that Cruz dropped out and Trump is the nominee, because up until now I'd think "Oh my god, no, Trump can't be the nominee, but then, if he isn't, there's...TED CRUZ," at which point I'd completely stop thinking, put on Led Zepplin II real loud, and run around in circles. At least now I can go all in. "Trump IS the nominee, but he can't be the president."
posted by staggering termagant at 9:32 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


As someone who thinks that big data folks ignore the power of ordinary statistics sometimes, I'm happy that the actual boring old voter surveys predicted Trump's success very well, even if people ignored it in favor of their fancy computer models.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:32 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


All models are based on past events, which makes them bad at predicting unprecedented things

Perot. Buchanan. Wallace.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm sort of loving the bizarre prescience of Chris Christie. He got this over with months ago.

Hasn't he basically been living out the scene in Barton Fink when Michael Lerner forces Jon Polito to kiss Fink's shoes?
posted by maxsparber at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


For all that's holy, do not write in a third party candidate. We're getting in to some serious "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." shit here.
posted by Sphinx at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Perot. Buchanan. Wallace.

Major-party nominees none.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, given the precedent of Dick Cheney, anyone want to bet that Carson picks himself for Trump's running mate?

skillful hands...
posted by sallybrown at 9:35 AM on May 4, 2016


Is this what they'd technically refer to as a Black Swan event?
posted by infini at 9:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a hard timing thinking Carson would EVER pick Christie for VP (not that Donald would either).
posted by sallybrown at 9:36 AM on May 4, 2016


For all that's holy, do not write in a third party candidate. We're getting in to some serious "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." shit here.

THE KING IN ORANGE WEARS NO MASK
NO MASK
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:37 AM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


You know ... much as I think the punditocracy is largely full of hot air and nonsense, I am actually inclined to give them a pass for taking the position, "We honestly didn't expect that anyone would vote for Bozo McCrazypants."

The question though is whether the hot air and nonsense greatly contributed to Trump's rise to begin with (for me it is a resounding yes):
First, ponder the vast amount of journalistic energies and resources devoted to trying to predict election outcomes. What value does that serve anyone? The elections are going to be held and the outcome will be known once the votes are counted. Why would journalists decide that it’s important for the public to hear their guesses about who will win and lose? One can, I suppose, recognize the value of having a couple of outlets with actual statistical experts offering empirical-based analysis of polling data (although Nate Silver’s 538 fared no better when it came to Trump, putting his chances in August of winning the nomination at between 2% and -10%), but why do so many political pundits feel a need to spend so much time pronouncing which candidates will or won’t win?
posted by kyp at 9:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's all aspirational.

I think it's more directly about property, depending on it, and fear of losing it. That's quite enough to mindfuck a person and make one identify with property ownership in general. And the less you own, the more precarious and fearful you are.
posted by nom de poop at 9:40 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


How many months has this bullshit election cycle been going on and it all circles back to "fuck you for supporting this person, what is wrong with you?!" Shockingly, this tact is not changing anyone's minds. Maybe venting some building pressure on your insides, but snidely telling someone how they must vote—for the greater good—just tells me to ignore the speaker and their hysterics. And at a deeper level, it's devaluing the other person—your thoughts are irrelevant, only your vote is important.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


so the rattlesnake did in the cobra

no, wait, wasn't it the cobra doing in the rattlesnake?

um um ... SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES SNAKES!!!!


The centipede beat the tarantula?
posted by theorique at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Two things I'd like to reiterate:

1. If you have the privilege of living in a "solid state", especially if your district is unanimous in the way it swings, then you should vote for your conscience. By the quirk of geography you've received the blessing of being able to vote symbolically, not strategically, and you shouldn't let anyone dissuade you from it. Of course, do your research in case this year's madcap election suddenly turns your area into a swing state.

2. I don't really think there's anyone on MeFi who is truly "Bernie or bust", or "burn/Bern it down." That said, in case there are, have you considered that if Hillary really is bad as her critics on the left say she is, she herself is the perfect candidate to vote for, if the endgame is to burn it all down? Consider the scenario where she governs as a centrist-ish neoliberal New Democrat, like Obama with more of a hawk foreign policy. She'll get in some reforms and bandaids in while allowing corporations and the 1% to continue to flourish without sacrifice to the general good. Think then at the outrage that will be generated when inequality continues to increase. It might not happen at this election, but think 2020 or the one after- we are overdue for a grassroots populist movement within the Democratic Party. A progressive equivalent to the Tea Party, an OWS/BLM movement that operates within the party itself, that causes the party elite to tremble. If her administration doesn't address the systemic economic of inequality at play, Clinton and her allies would make the perfect figureheads to rally against. It'll be a face off between the economically disenfranchised youth vote against the Boomers who direct the Democrats. You may get the conflagration you want- except this time instead of a raging inferno that consumes the entire nation (as with Trump), it'll be a controlled burn of directed outrage that's safely limited to cleansing the Democratic Party.

The important thing is to continue organizing, protesting, and agitating after this race is over. If the fire continues to rise, then you may yet get the chance to put forth credible, visionary candidates to primary Clinton in 2020 (assuming, of course, that her administration merits such a challenge). Use this advantage of the infighting in the Republican Party to put forth proper populists in local and state elections. Let the fire not signify the death of a system, but the rebirth, phoenix-like, of a better one.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


I am quite literally terrified at the upcoming general election. Trump has proven himself to be so incredibly adept at tapping into stereotypes some people already have in their heads that the attack on women, all women is going to be diabolical. My only consolation at this point is that Hillary Clinton has been attacked in every way possible and she is still standing in a way that I find absolutely astounding - I admire her so so much.

But this is going to be so so painful to watch - it'll be like the Benghazi hearing stretching on for months.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sigh. AFAIK--and I am a permanent resident of Canada which took at least two years back when I applied in 2009--it doesn't matter if your grandma was born here. You have to prove why you want to move here and be eligible like everyone else. I get that we Americans think we are welcome to move anywhere we please, but it just irritates the hell out of me when people are like, "I don't like this! I will move to another country because it is easy to do so!" It isn't. It is expensive, time-consuming, and it doesn't even matter if you marry a Canadian.

You will note that I said I would "look into whether" this was a possibility, not that I was actually going to do it. And I based my query not on the assumption that it would be like changing brands of underwear, but on the knowledge that there are other countries who do offer this.

I am fully aware that the decision to emigrate is one that requires careful thought and a lot of work. that was precisely my point - that I am at the point where I am frightened enough to begin considering the possibility of undertaking that work.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Kasich is out? Helllllll. I think the only possibility is stopping Trump in the rules committee and letting the party burn.
posted by corb at 9:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Now that I no longer have to pay attention to the primary race, I can focus on my screenplay for National Treasure 3: The Legend of Cheney's Gold.

See, there was this Vice President who goaded the country into an expensive, pointless war. This VP then skimmed off the war budget and hid it in an undisclosed location. Well, perhaps skimmed is the wrong word, considering a war that was supposed to pay for itself ended up costing trillions of dollars. Years later, the secret has slipped out and an unprecedented number of candidates enter the presidential primary race, purposely giving lackluster performances in hopes of getting the VP nod when they inevitably drop out so they have access to the secrets hidden in Number One Observatory Circle.

Unlike previous entries in the National Treasure franchise, this one is pure fiction.
posted by ckape at 9:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


He was just doing the minimum he had to do to win the Republican nomination, not expressing genuine homophobia.

ahahaaahahaaahaha

I don't care if his homophobia is 'genuine' or not (is that like 'legitimate rape'?), the fact that he acts on those thoughts by expressing them out loud is the damn problem here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


Out of all the things to worry about in this election, "Bern or bust" ain't one of 'em. These people are vocal, but few. Maybe a *tiny* number of people will actually do this. Whoop de doo.

The real thing to worry about are the center/center-right voters who will either stay home or vote Trump.

All that said, however, take Trump seriously as an enemy, but don't believe the hype. Clinton is heavily favored, and she has the ground game like whoa. Plus, the smarter and/or more established Republican politicos are going to know that Clinton is the better bet for them.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:54 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


We'll have plenty of time to debate the merits of Hillary v. Bernie and plan out 2020 as we sit back and enjoy our nutritionally complete pina colada slurry in the tremendous and classy state-of-the-art Donald J. Trump "Peace, Diversity, and all that PC-Stuff" Resort (and holding facility)!
posted by FJT at 9:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Holy shit, you guys. Jay Nordlinger is blowing up the National Review.
There was a song: “You Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me, Lucille.” The Republican party picked a fine time to commit suicide.
posted by corb at 9:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


If the prospect of a Trump presidency has you genuinely thinking about leaving the country, I would urge you to consider moving before the election, not after it. And, rather than moving to a different country, move to Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Ohio or Virginia or or or or or, and spend the next six months registering voters, knocking on doors, and working your ass off to ensure that there is, in fact, not a Trump presidency.

Please note that I am not saying "Everybody should move to a battleground state!" Rather, I am suggesting that, if you think you are going to move because of an event, perhaps instead you could time your move in order to prevent that event from occurring in the first place.
posted by dersins at 9:56 AM on May 4, 2016 [30 favorites]


I think the only possibility is stopping Trump in the rules committee and letting the party burn.

As an insider, corb, do you really think that's possible? Watching the senior party figures (Priebus, Ryan) start to fall in line with Trump, it's difficult to imagine the party apparatus going that far off book...
posted by saturday_morning at 9:57 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


the "moving to Canada" meme kind of bums me out because even if it was an option for me (and it might be, just because of places I've been looking at working at for a few years now), it's not like I'm going to be able to cut out the chunk of earth where everyone I care about lives and just airlift them to safety. my mother, my best friend, and my partner are all visibly non-white, I have other friends and family who are poor, LGBTQ, POC, etc. even if I could leave, I couldn't leave them behind.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I have a hard timing thinking Carson would EVER pick Christie for VP (not that Donald would either).

He's not going to. This is so that Trump doesn't have to wear the blame of fucking Christie after Christie kissed his ring.
posted by Talez at 10:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Which isn't all surprising at all. Trump's campaign is all about shifting the blame off the white guy onto the minority.
posted by Talez at 10:00 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump has proven himself to be so incredibly adept at tapping into stereotypes some people already have in their heads that the attack on women, all women is going to be diabolical.

If fear is the great motivator, is women's fear of life under Trump greater than (some) men's fear of President Hilary?

I feel like for lots of women, that survival mechanism is going to kick in; Trump is exactly like that boss you never want to be alone in the conference room with. I'm hoping that the Keep Women Down types are small and disaffected enough to not put Trump over the top. But who knows, really.

Kasich can definitely go jump in a lake though.
posted by emjaybee at 10:01 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm sort of loving the bizarre prescience of Chris Christie. He got this over with months ago.

So all these years he's been eating spice melange? It makes sense now. Oh, but heads up, fascists...

There exists a limit to the force even the most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengeance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences -Muad'dib on Law from the Stilgar Commentary
posted by leotrotsky at 10:01 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


(and, I mean, I know that people joking about Canada are often doing it because of their own real worries, and I'm not trying to minimize that.)
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:02 AM on May 4, 2016


Kasich is out? Helllllll. I think the only possibility is stopping Trump in the rules committee and letting the party burn.

If the party were going to take effective action to stop Trump, they'd have done it a long, long time ago. He's not the cause of the GOP's problems, he's a symptom.
posted by howfar at 10:05 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Interesting poll data here.

Clinton leads with double digits. Trump is more actively disliked than Clinton. About 10% of Sanders supporters say they would vote for Trump over Clinton - the same percentage as Clinton voters who would vote for Trump over Sanders. Trump is more trusted on the economy than Clinton, but that's his only lead.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:05 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


@majorlyp tweets:Only way the world will accept & love a bigoted, authoritarian & misogynist leader like Trump, is if he becomes King of Saudi Arabia
posted by bardophile at 10:07 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Climate change is not an immediate and radical catastrophe. No one sprays an aerosol can one too many times and WHAMMO a tsunami strikes Indonesia three hours later. Instead, it is a process of gradual deterioration of the known systems and increasing instability as the systems unravel; higher highs, deeper snows, wilder winds, unpredictable fronts, and while you deal with all of the above, the baseline gets worse. And just as you get accustomed to the New Normal, the chaos baked into the system reveals itself a little more.

And so it goes with politics and economies as well. We're dealing with an America where the bills for rampant discrimination, deregulation, anti-tax crusading, degeneration and oversaturation of the media, and catering to the wishes of the ultra-rich keep coming due, and every two/four/six years we put them on a credit card and pretend like the word 'interest' is irrelevant. The status quo is creeping doom and populist uprisings are a symptom, not the cause.

Meanwhile, as we prepare for a summer from hell, do keep in mind that while the populist TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY THAT'S RIGHTFULLY YOURS FROM *THEM* brand that the right-wing nurtured for decades and that Trump is gleefully co-opting is not the easiest sale for the Presidency nationwide, it _does_ win seats in the Senate and seats in the House and governorships and state congress seats and local elections and school board seats and shit THAT AFFECTS YOU as an American.

If you're not happy with modern America and feel like Hillary and other establishment Dems are literally that dog and pulling the lever for Hillary sickens you to the core, I can empathize. But come out to vote anyway and even if you write in Spongebob for President, make good choices on all the other offices and resolutions on the ballot. Try to find crazy sonsofbitches that are progressive and are liberal and will say so openly, and get them elected where they can make a difference.
posted by delfin at 10:09 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


RedState today: Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP (twitter)

Everybody knew the whole "the people should decide" thing was horse shit evasion wrapped up in faux-democratic platitudes, but the way they don't even pretend to care about pretense anymore is fucking staggering.
posted by echocollate at 10:09 AM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


"Can you name one single election that was decided by the VP candidate?"

Nope! Though on the other hand, having a shitty VP candidate has definitely burned people if the president died. We're probably lucky that some of those people in our time never made it into office.

As for moving to Canada: you probably can't unless you marry a Canadian (I don't know any and I'm sure that's not easy even if you can swing it) or have a skill that is so unique that nobody in Canada can do it. You're stuck here.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:11 AM on May 4, 2016


Trump Has Won and the Republican Party Is Broken
Virtually the entire Republican apparatus will follow Trump sooner or later, because without the voters, they have no power. And those voters have revealed things about the nature of the party that many Republicans prefer to deny. Whatever abstract arguments for conservative policy — and these arguments exist, and a great many people subscribe to them earnestly — on the ground, Republican politics boils down to ethno-nationalistic passions ungoverned by reason. Once a figure has been accepted as a friendly member of their tribe, there is no level of absurdity to which he can stoop that would discredit him. And since reason cannot penetrate the crude tribalism that animates Republicans, it follows that nothing President Obama could have proposed on economic stimulus, health care, or deficits could have avoided the paroxysms of rage that faced him.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [25 favorites]


Everybody knew the whole "the people should decide" thing was horse shit evasion wrapped up in faux-democratic platitudes, but the way they don't even pretend to care about pretense anymore is fucking staggering.

They don't have to. Liberals who give a shit will never vote for them and conservatives that want the senate Rs to play ball as hard as possible think it's a good thing.
posted by Talez at 10:12 AM on May 4, 2016


> ... telling someone how they must vote—for the greater good—just tells me to ignore the speaker and their hysterics. And at a deeper level, it's devaluing the other person—your thoughts are irrelevant, only your vote is important.

Yeah, there's something to this. It really is each individuals vote and no one but them decides how it is used in the end. And when you own this decision, along with that 100% control you also assume 100% responsibility for the results that flow from that decision.

It's hard to predict the future but I can tell my experience in the past: I've cast third-party/write-in votes of protest in previous presidentials. Basically, nobody but me gave a shit. Feeling better about my actions wasn't nothing, but it wasn't a lot. And when I look back I'm unhappy that my vote didn't support the Democratic candidate opposing Reagan or GWBush.

I haven't gone back and researched how much my individual vote would have mattered. (We all know the state you're voting in determines a lot and I don't vote in Florida.) But I'm certain there's a minimum of 75,000 extra dead people in Iraq because GW Bush was in office instead of Al Gore, and I'd swap the feeling better about myself for their lives. So, I'm voting for Hillary and encouraging others to do the same.

(P.S. If it plays a role in how seriously you take what I say, I voted for Bernie in primary. I'm also totally available for vote swapping, as I live in deep blue Massachusetts.)
posted by benito.strauss at 10:13 AM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


As for moving to Canada: you probably can't unless you marry a Canadian (I don't know any and I'm sure that's not easy even if you can swing it) or have a skill that is so unique that nobody in Canada can do it. You're stuck here.

I married a Canadian. It conferred no privileges for me to apply for residency.
posted by Kitteh at 10:14 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


As for moving to Canada: you probably can't unless you marry a Canadian (I don't know any and I'm sure that's not easy even if you can swing it) or have a skill that is so unique that nobody in Canada can do it. You're stuck here.

You can't. One of my best friends married a lovely Australian dude and he is stuck in immigration hell. Didja know that one typo on the approximately seven million pages of forms means you have to go back to the bottom of the pile when it's corrected? Yup.

Immigrating here is not easy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


The important thing is to continue organizing, protesting, and agitating after this race is over. If the fire continues to rise, then you may yet get the chance to put forth credible, visionary candidates to primary Clinton in 2020 (assuming, of course, that her administration merits such a challenge).

Screw 2020. There will be elections in 2018 for national and local legislatures, governorships, and the like. Don't want your state to become Wisconsin? Don't act like your principles can take a four-year nap between presidential elections.
posted by praemunire at 10:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [61 favorites]


I'm not joking about emigrating. My spouse and I happen to be in a position where it's a real possibility for us, and we just now had a serious "if Trump wins ..." talk.
posted by kyrademon at 10:19 AM on May 4, 2016


As an insider, corb, do you really think that's possible? Watching the senior party figures (Priebus, Ryan) start to fall in line with Trump, it's difficult to imagine the party apparatus going that far off book...

I will know more on the specifics of how things will or may shake out in a few hours. But here's what I'm talking about (warning: seriously boring inside baseball ahead).

So everybody knows about the delegates, and how the assignment of the delegates doesn't always match the selection of the delegates. So thus, you can theoretically (and perhaps, in reality) have, say, a states' delegates going, say - 40 Trump, 20 Cruz - and in reality, 40 of them could be Cruz loyalists to only 20 of Trump's loyalists. States have many, many, selection processes for delegates, but very few of them are actually designed to ensure that the delegates are heart-committed to the person they will actually be representing.

What's important to remember is the the rules committee is selected from among the existing national delegates, usually by the existing delegates, that there are no bindings on how they vote in the rules committee, and that in particular the Cruz campaign, but also other campaigns, has been vocally and with some discipline, promoting slates.

So let's take this hypothetical Ostensibly Trump state. 40 delegates bound to Trump, 20 to Cruz. Let's say they get to send 6 delegates to the Rules Committee. It would be natural - but entirely incorrect - to assume that 4 Trump, 2 Cruz will go to Rules Committee. But because of the way slates work, if 4/6 are True Cruz'ers, then they likely will select - and in many states, have already selected - a 6/6 True Cruz delegation to the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee has an ungodly amount of power. I'm not an RC wonk, so I don't know precisely the most likely use of that, but off the top of my head from things I'm hearing around the water cooler: they could unbind the delegates, they could create a rule that winds up barring Trump, they could literally completely upend the convention, and the only thing stopping them from doing so is their loyalty to the Party and desire to not have it look a fool.

The fact that the top two candidates were Trump and Cruz, both despised by party leadership, should give you an idea of exactly how many fucks the Republican Party insiders give about Loyalty To The Party right now. If Loyalty To The Party were winning, we'd have nominee Rubio. Look at Nordlinger. Look at Shapiro. People have assumed that Republicans didn't really hate Trump thaaaat much, but a lot of that was stiff-upper-lip thin-GOP-line silence-loyalty. That time is done and masks are cracking. I promise you the hatred of Trump goes deep. And that's just among the rank and file - not the fanatical Cruz'ers who have been selected by other Cruz'ers as the most hardline supporters in the state, who are largely evangelical and believe God wants this.

I think it's a distinct possibility. In fact, it's already being talked about. The only thing that I think might be able to stop it from at least being attempted is if Cruz himself tells the faithful not to. Which is why I say I'll know more soon.
posted by corb at 10:26 AM on May 4, 2016 [107 favorites]


I don't think Trump will win, unless we're a much more conservative and white country than we were in 1964, which we are not.

Conservative white men in 1964 were happily paying union dues while working 40 hours a week at a factory in Toledo for a wage that supported their entire family while paying a mortgage and still having money left over for a couple beers on Friday night at the Moose Lodge.

Conservative white women in 1964 were day drinking while popping valium as they tried desperately to find out how to get a back alley abortion.

Both of those demographics are long gone.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


(warning: seriously boring

false
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2016 [61 favorites]


Shorter corb: it's Calvinball -- get ya popcorn ready.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


So dad left you the farm his great-great-grandfather bought and now you're going to have to have a mortgage on 5% of its valuation in order to keep it.

Since folks were apparently getting something out of this (YAY!) let us now turn in our IRC hymnals to Section 2032A, wherein the value of a farm or family business that is included in an estate is not the fair market value, but the value if it continues to be used for that qualified use. So the farm that was inherited from great grandpa that would be valued much higher as condos (or heaven knows what) and "oh noes the heirs won't be able to keep the family farm!!!!" ? Agree to keep farming it for 10 years, and the extra value of condos>farm is not taxed.

With all of these there are of course restrictions that are actually designed to prevent abuse by folks who are not the types the R's use as the poster children for these issues.

Later we will have a session on Joe the Plumber, who apparently as a "small business person" had never actually seen a schedule C.

And to anticipate the protest that humble folks shouldn't have to hire a big city slicker lawyer to understand this, take a spin through the IRS website. Or just google it. Or Wikipedia!
posted by susiswimmer at 10:29 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


The joke used to be that he was the only man in recorded history to go bankrupt operating a casino. Then it happened to another Atlantic City bigwig.

It also happened to Steve Wynn, who would make a fine running mate IMO, and it happened the same way; both men went in with infinite bluster demanding the best of everything screw the cost, and overinvested in stupidly unnecessary ways when the market that was much more limited than they realized.

And this is exactly the kind of judgement failure that should make anyone's hair stand on end at the thought of such a man becoming President. They jumped blind into a bad situation and had no idea what they had done until it was far too late.
posted by Bringer Tom at 10:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


I promise you the hatred of Trump goes deep. And that's just among the rank and file - not the fanatical Cruz'ers who have been selected by other Cruz'ers as the most hardline supporters in the state, who are largely evangelical and believe God wants this.

corb, I know you said this was boring for some reason, but you could not be singing my song any harder right there if you had actually set my username to music. This is spellbinding.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:33 AM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


And to anticipate the protest that humble folks shouldn't have to hire a big city slicker lawyer to understand this, take a spin through the IRS website. Or just google it. Or Wikipedia!

Nice try bucko, I'm not getting my info from the LIEberal SINternet
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


Screw 2020. There will be elections in 2018 for national and local legislatures, governorships, and the like. Don't want your state to become Wisconsin? Don't act like your principles can take a four-year nap between presidential elections.

Right, my mistake. Elect good, solid progressives to Congress to either help if Clinton turns out to be a true reformist, or, if she turns to be an obstructionist Andy Johnson type, call her out and make her administration accountable.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


showbiz_liz, perhaps you could tell us how to access this LIEberal SINternet? You know, just so that we don't accidentally go there and SIN.
posted by frimble at 10:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Kasich to end GOP presidential bid (USA Today, 12:51 EDT May 4, 2016)
Ohio Gov. John Kasich will end his Republican presidential bid, according to a source close to the decision. Earlier Wednesday, Kasich cancelled a scheduled press conference in Washington, D.C., with the campaign saying he would make a statement at 5 p.m. in Columbus.
No one has told his official website, which still has COUNTDOWN TO THE CONVENTION actively ticking off the seconds. "Chip in to help us continue winning delegates and head into the convention with momentum!"
posted by filthy light thief at 10:36 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


OK, in all seriousness, what's my economic hedge vs. a Trump win? I'd been saving up for a house, but now I'm thinking I might need the emergency funds if he wins.
posted by aramaic at 10:36 AM on May 4, 2016


Purestrain gold ingots, Jim Bakker's food buckets, three Bibles and a lot of guns and ammo.
posted by delfin at 10:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]



OK, in all seriousness, what's my economic hedge vs. a Trump win?


Campbell's soup.

The product, not the shares.

Also: iodine pills, peroxide, canned chickpeas, well packed rice, a grill, some charcoal, first aid, spare inner tubes for every bike wheel you have, (you do have at least one for each adult in the house, right?)
posted by ocschwar at 10:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well right now the betting websites all have him favored to lose so you could bet he wins and make 3:1.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 10:39 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


What extra costs will arise in the event of a Trump presidency, that would require emergency funds?
posted by theorique at 10:40 AM on May 4, 2016


I tell you what, thank God the price of gas is low going into this summer, and the economic recovery, while still anemic, hasn't collapsed. The argument that "the Democrats have had the White House for 8 years and look at the priceofagallonwillya? Time to give someone else a chance" probably seems totally legit to millions of "centrist" voters.
posted by thelonius at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


One candidate enters... One nominee leaves! (But maybe it's a different guy, because democracy or something.)
posted by tonycpsu at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


corb, if the Party really does that, I sincerely hope that you aren't at the convention; we disagree on a lot but I don't want to see you dead. I honestly believe the Trump supporters will not merely riot, but specifically seek to murder delegates who rig things that way.

I doubt the scenario you describe will happen simply because it would mean the complete and total collapse of the Republican party, and I'm doubtful that the #neverTrump people are ready to scuttle the whole party just to thumb their noses at Trump one last time as the ship goes down.

I could be wrong, but for the sake of not seeing Cleveland literally burn, I hope I'm not. There are a lot of Trump supporters already promising violence, and that's when he's winning. If the nomination is genuinely stolen from him, which is what you're proposing may happen, than I'm sure there would be serious riots, arson, and murder. Those people are crazy, and heavily armed, and Ohio allows for open carry so they'll be toting around all manner of hardware.
posted by sotonohito at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


As for moving to Canada: you probably can't unless you marry a Canadian (I don't know any and I'm sure that's not easy even if you can swing it)

*ahem*

I'm open to offers, ladies. And gentlemen, too, if the number's right.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


corb, if the Party really does that, I sincerely hope that you aren't at the convention; we disagree on a lot but I don't want to see you dead. I honestly believe the Trump supporters will not merely riot, but specifically seek to murder delegates who rig things that way.

That seems a BIT hyperbolic
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


If I were Hilary Clinton (and I am not), I would run an ad that would feature clips of Donald Trump talking about putting up a wall. Trump can get people to ignore many of the things he has said or done, but people really identify him with the wall idea. So I would run some clips of him talking about building a wall. Then I would show a clip of Ronald Reagan saying, "Tear down this wall." Then I would go back to Trump talking about building a wall. Then I would go back to Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall." Then I might splice together some mixtures of "Mr. Trump/Mr. Gorbachev." I would finish with Reagan saying in a close-up, "Tear down this wall." Then I might have a narrator or graphic say something like, "Dictators build walls. Americans tear them down."
posted by flarbuse at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [75 favorites]


What extra costs will arise in the event of a Trump presidency, that would require emergency funds?

Fleeing the country? Suddenly having to pay exorbitant prices for healthcare again? The very first thing a Republican-dominated Congress is going to do with Trump sitting at the Resolute Desk is repeal the ACA.

Second: outlawing abortion.

Seriously, those things will happen the day after inauguration.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


That seems a BIT hyperbolic

... have you seen the Trump supporters before any convention-rigging shenanigans?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


OK, in all seriousness, what's my economic hedge vs. a Trump win?

Powerball tickets.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:46 AM on May 4, 2016


What extra costs will arise in the event of a Trump presidency, that would require emergency funds?

Apocalypse Insurance.
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on May 4, 2016


I'm open to offers, ladies. And gentlemen, too, if the number's right.

42! Is that the right number? I keep throwing that number out, it's gotta be right some time.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


The #1 reason, of course, that the RNC isn't going to take it away from Trump is they know he will shrug and run as an independent, which means Clinton gets to walk into the White House without lifting a finger.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


showbiz_liz, Roger Stone specifically stated that in the event of Trump losing he knew the hotel room numbers of the delegates and intended to direct violence their way. Other Trump supporters on Twitter are declaring that if they meet any anti-Trump protesters they intend to "stand their ground" and "defend themselves".

Trump has been ratcheting up the violence since his first announcement, and if the Party does legitimately steal the nomination from him I don't think it is at all hyperbolic to think that there will be violence up to and including murder.
posted by sotonohito at 10:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


... have you seen the Trump supporters before any convention-rigging shenanigans?

Ok but you're talking about mass premeditated murder squads, which have yet to materialize. Yes, it's hyperbole to just assume that this will happen.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:47 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


God, I wish people would just calm down and keep their wits about them. This is not the worst thing that has happened to America.

It is the third worst thing, after the Kennedy/King assassinations and 9/11.
posted by Chitownfats at 10:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


At this point Trump is going to go into the convention with a clear majority of pledged delegates. Not close, not over-the-top with some unpledged support, but the majority. Indiana pretty much showed this was going to happen whether Cruz withdrew or not, which I'm pretty sure is why he withdrew.

(Call me ... dubious that a VP or similar deal has been made. There have been president/vice-president pairings that famously didn't get along, but I can't offhand think of any which got to the level of one calling the other a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," or "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen", and going the other way one calling the other's wife ugly and accusing his father of ASSASSINATING KENNEDY.)

Anyway, that means the rules committee pulling an end-run would be them flipping over the table and declaring, "the voters don't decide, WE DO." I cannot see any outcome other than whoever they select crashing and burning HARD, very probably with a third-party candidacy from Trump which will probably still get more votes than the selected candidate even if he isn't on the ballot in many states.

I can't see it happening. I can't see even the most die-hard Cruz faithful not realizing this and pushing their chips to the 2020 table. Trump is going to be the Republican nominee.
posted by kyrademon at 10:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Call me optimistic, but I think Trump and his campaign will moderate some of the excesses, now that he's indisputably the nominee. That's the price of being the winner- he has to act more establishmentarian and responsible-looking. I don't think he's going to continue to turn a blind eye, have a "go wild!" sort of attitude towards the behavior at his rallies. The problem is that he's let loose the flood- even if he tries to rein the mob in, there are going to be times when they'll act without his prompting. He can't control them.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:49 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


If I were Hilary Clinton (and I am not), I would run an ad that would feature clips of Donald Trump talking about putting up a wall. Trump can get people to ignore many of the things he has said or done, but people really identify him with the wall idea. So I would run some clips of him talking about building a wall. Then I would show a clip of Ronald Reagan saying, "Tear down this wall." Then I would go back to Trump talking about building a wall. Then I would go back to Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall." Then I might splice together some mixtures of "Mr. Trump/Mr. Gorbachev." I would finish with Reagan saying in a close-up, “Tear down this wall.” Then I might have a narrator or graphic say something like, “Dictators build walls. Americans tear them down.”

I’d be concerned that asking people to think of the US/Mexico split as the same as the one between East and West Berlin would backfire.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


The very first thing a Republican-dominated Congress is going to do with Trump sitting at the Resolute Desk is repeal the ACA.

Trump himself will be busy having the Resolute Desk covered in gold leaf.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]



Trump has been ratcheting up the violence since his first announcement, and if the Party does legitimately steal the nomination from him I don't think it is at all hyperbolic to think that there will be violence up to and including murder.


Still better than him being president.

The guy makes Kim Jong Un look like a mature adult. We cannot give him The Football.
posted by ocschwar at 10:50 AM on May 4, 2016


Suddenly, those rural northwest preppers aren't sounding so crazy.

Also -- Apocalypse Chow: We Tried Televangelist Jim Bakker's 'Survival Food' -- with the option to buy 31,000 servings of food for $4,500, you'd want to know how it tastes. One chef's review: it's awful. But remember, it's supposed to survive the apocalypse, so you might find it more appealing than alternatives at that time.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:51 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


corb, if the Party really does that, I sincerely hope that you aren't at the convention; we disagree on a lot but I don't want to see you dead. I honestly believe the Trump supporters will not merely riot, but specifically seek to murder delegates who rig things that way.
That seems a BIT hyperbolic

Roger Stone Threatens To Sic Trump Voters On Delegates Who 'Steal' Nom
posted by indubitable at 10:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't want to tell people how they should vote, but i roll my eyes hard at these people who say they have these progressive priorities who think their next best chance for political action is 2020, as opposed to 2018 or heck, 2016 in a lot of places where you can make a difference in local races. But really it's like people have no idea we have elections for people other than President.
posted by zutalors! at 10:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [42 favorites]


feckless fecal fear mongering Yup. Trump can't really end the country, but he can and will sign virtually any legislation the Republican congress throws his way. They've tried over 50 times to repeal Obamacare, you can bet your ass that if he wins they'll have a bill set up to be not just at his desk on Jan 20, but I'd be surprised if they didn't make it part of his inauguration. Trump takes the oath of office, says "the first thing to make America great again is getting rid of Obamacare, and I've got the bill to do that right here!" And then he signs it before he even gives his acceptance speech.

Abortion they'd need to wait a moment on, so they could vote no on Garland and let Trump pick a random Liberty U jackass to be on the Supreme Court.

But basically find the Republican Party wish list and they'll pass all of it. Privatizing Social Security, a nationwide bathroom bill, repealing same sex marriage, repealing the Voting Rights Act entirely, probably even repealing the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it's an evil anti-business big government overreach (totes not because they hate black people), abolishing the EPA and DOE, you name it, if the Republicans can get it through Congress, Trump will sign it.
posted by sotonohito at 10:54 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


So if the country burns because of that, well, that's the DNC's problem.

No. No it's not. It's my daughter's problem, it's my son's problem, it's my retiree parents' problem. It's ALL OUR PROBLEM.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [50 favorites]


Call me optimistic, but I think Trump and his campaign will moderate some of the excesses, now that he's indisputably the nominee. That's the price of being the winner- he has to act more establishmentarian and responsible-looking.

Literally today: Trump stands by call to ban Muslims from entering US: "I don’t care if it hurts me"
posted by mightygodking at 10:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


If I were Hilary Clinton (and I am not), I would run an ad that would feature clips of Donald Trump talking about putting up a wall. Trump can get people to ignore many of the things he has said or done, but people really identify him with the wall idea. So I would run some clips of him talking about building a wall. Then I would show a clip of Ronald Reagan saying, "Tear down this wall." Then I would go back to Trump talking about building a wall. Then I would go back to Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall." Then I might splice together some mixtures of "Mr. Trump/Mr. Gorbachev." I would finish with Reagan saying in a close-up, “Tear down this wall.” Then I might have a narrator or graphic say something like, “Dictators build walls. Americans tear them down.”

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

"A fence would do the job just as well."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


On preview, fffm said it much better than I.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's the point of talking about electoral politics if you don't try to persuade people how to vote? I'm flummoxed by the idea that that's somehow improper in and of itself.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Flee to Canada and enjoy it for a year or so until it gets annexed as part of Great(er) America.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I’d be concerned that asking people to think of the US/Mexico split as the same as the one between East and West Berlin would backfire.

I think you're overestimating the likelihood that the typical 2016 Republican voter even remembers what the Berlin Wall was for.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head.

Do you live in a solid blue state or at least at least a solidly liberal enclave in a red state? Because this action is totally fine if you are. Just make sure you mention that so people who don't live in such areas get confused.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Build That Wall, written in 2011. I think the Bastion music writers may have been psychic.
posted by sotonohito at 11:00 AM on May 4, 2016


corb, if the Party really does that, I sincerely hope that you aren't at the convention; we disagree on a lot but I don't want to see you dead. I honestly believe the Trump supporters will not merely riot, but specifically seek to murder delegates who rig things that way.

I'm actually having a lot of feels back and forth about this possibility - If it looks like it's a real possibility and there are enough delegates already elected to the Rules Committee to make it happen, I think I may have a moral obligation. I truly, sincerely, believe that Trump would be an epic disaster for our nation, and I just am not seeing enough that Clinton will actually destroy him. One in four chance of becoming our President is too much. Far too much. And I can't look myself in the mirror on Day 1 of President Trump and say "well, there was a chance, but you thought it was too rules-lawyery and dangerous. Enjoy the camps!"

At the same time, this is terrible for my mental health, ruinously expensive, and actually likely to end in violence even if it's just attempted. Like, even if people show up and there's only like 5 delegates that wind up proposing this stuff to the Rules Committee, I would not put it past Trump supporters to erupt in violence. Everyone is already getting death threats. They are literally - like this is no exaggeration - making plans to go to the houses of delegates while delegates are in Cleveland and surround their fucking families. With a lot of "As long as the delegates vote what the people want, no need for violence, har har! After that, well, I wouldn't tell anyone what to do!"

On the other hand, this handwringing may not be necessary - what I proposed is one possible condition that depends on a lot of other things - how many states have already elected their Rules Committee delegates, and whether or not the Cruz slates are able to hold in the remaining states that haven't selected.
posted by corb at 11:01 AM on May 4, 2016 [55 favorites]


I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head.

Yep, this is me, too. I live in New York, which hasn't voted Republican since 1984. And honestly, if it votes Republican this time, it would be because something so bizarre happened that my vote didn't matter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:02 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't want to tell people how they should vote, but i roll my eyes hard at these people who say they have these progressive priorities who think their next best chance for political action is 2020, as opposed to 2018 or heck, 2016 in a lot of places where you can make a difference in local races.

Indeed. A lot of congressional primaries haven't even happened yet. For example, Tim Canova is challenging DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the left, and that vote doesn't happen until August 30th. Unseating her would go a long way to move the party in a more progressive direction.
posted by indubitable at 11:03 AM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


And honestly, if it votes Republican this time, it would be because something so bizarre happened that my vote didn't matter.

The GOP candidate being from NY is pretty bizarre. But then so is the Dem candidate also being from NY, so that bizarre kinda cancels out the first bizarre. I guess feel free to vote your conscience unless you're upstate?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:06 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


corb, if you do go to the convention and anyone -- and I do mean ANYONE -- starts playing The Rains of Castamere, run like you've never run before.
posted by delfin at 11:08 AM on May 4, 2016 [49 favorites]


Apocryphon, I vote at the same polling place as Al Sharpton on the Upper West Side. Not upstate, unless you live in Brooklyn.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:08 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


OK, in all seriousness, what's my economic hedge vs. a Trump win?

Finding out which central american nations offer citizenship after 3-5 years of legal residency. For example, Panama allows pensionado residency to those who can prove that they have an income guaranteeing them $1,000 a month for the rest of their lives, or a $60,000 cash deposit in a panamanian bank annually. Costa Rica offers similar programs (iirc theirs is $2,000/mo or 60k annually) and you are eligible for full voting rights citizenship after 5 years.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:09 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


I'm trying to be all cavalier here, but really, this truly is a terrifying moment. A man who would only let me and my children into the US because the constitution wouldn't permit him to forbid it, and who would bar entry to my husband, has become the candidate for the party my father used to vote for.
posted by bardophile at 11:10 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?
posted by Phyltre at 11:10 AM on May 4, 2016


> "Everyone is already getting death threats."

Right now I hate the the internet has cried Hitler so many times that it has made actual Hitler comparisons lose all meaning.
posted by kyrademon at 11:11 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


>Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?


The first step is getting gerrymandered to hell. Still workshopping a second step.
posted by avalonian at 11:14 AM on May 4, 2016


Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?

I'd maybe look for opportunities to help with voter registration to counteract suppression through voter id laws etc?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]



Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?


The polling places in the blacker parts of SC will experience very, very long lines. Get ready to bring food and drink to the people standing in line, along with wheelchairs or office chairs so they can sit in line. Hell, bring a portable privacy canopy and some buckets.
posted by ocschwar at 11:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?

Phone bank. I phone bank'd for Obama from the Mission in San Francisco, calling Florida and Ohio.

Unless by "strong leftist" you mean you won't even support Clinton in the general, in which case I don't know what to tell you. Find some acceptable down-ticket candidate and see if they take remote phone bankers, I guess.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:15 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Call me optimistic, but I think Trump and his campaign will moderate some of the excesses, now that he's indisputably the nominee. That's the price of being the winner- he has to act more establishmentarian and responsible-looking.

Literally today: Trump stands by call to ban Muslims from entering US: "I don’t care if it hurts me"

My favorite op-ed on Trump remain Dan Drezner’s “The Trouble With Writing About Trump”:
No matter how much one tries to develop an alternative perspective, the inescapable conclusion is that Trump is a narcissistic, ignorant, misogynistic gasbag. Which means that, at this point, the entire commentariat winds up sounding pretty much the same when it comes to him.

He’s basic and bad. There’s really nothing else of substance to say.
That is to say, Trump will do whatever and say whatever. He’ll moderate his tone if everyone starts to yell at him about it, but a large enough “everyone” hasn't yet arrived, and probably won’t.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:16 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Helluva job, Jim DeMint. Keep those Republican presidential candidates coming.
posted by Public Corruption? at 11:16 AM on May 4, 2016


I posted something pretty much like this in the previous thread, but I think it bears repeating because it makes ME feel better...

There are only ten states that haven't voted consistently Republican or Democrat in the past four presidential elections - the other 40 plus DC are basically irrelevant.

They are (with # of electoral votes):

Florida 29
Ohio 18
North Carolina 15
Virginia 13
Indiana 11
Colorado 9
Iowa 6
Nevada 6
New Mexico 5
New Hampshire 4

Without these states, if we assume that the trends hold, Clinton is sitting at 242 EVs already, to Trump's 180 EVs.

No fucking way Clinton loses Colorado or Virginia to Trump, so give her another 22.

She is now at 264, meaning she only needs another 6 EVs to win.

Out of eight states with a total of 94 EVs between them.

Of those 8 states, Obama won 8 of them in 2008 and 6 of them in 2012.


So. Yeah. Trump is fucked.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [25 favorites]


Oh yeah plus, donate to and get involved with the local democratic party. In a state like SC, I'm sure they are unacceptably conservative with some interesting views (hi Jim Webb, ugh), but they are literally your only hope the next time redistricting comes around.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:17 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I will never vote for Donald Trump...but I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head.

If you live in an always blue state that overwhelmingly voted Hilary over Bernie, like I do, sure, knock yourself out. But please do show up to the polls and vote for the local elections. (Unless that too, is a sure bet then I guess stay home and make some popcorn for the circus.)
posted by numaner at 11:18 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Something telling about this "let's move to Canada! Wait! The Canadian gov't has built a wall of immigration laws! No go!" talk. Illegal immigration, have you not heard of it?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?

Volunteer to be a poll worker, if you can. Be helpful and competent and make voting as easy and pleasant as possible for the people you assist.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


>Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?

I'm planning on voting green since why not. Other than that, start building a secret room for Underground Railroad 2.0.
posted by anti social order at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


No. Cavalier would be pointing out that in the case of a successful non-domestic terrorist attack against the US during a Trump presidency, the safest place to be after that attack, is actually going to be in a remote corner inside the US when the bombs, nuclear or conventional, start flying.
posted by fragmede at 11:22 AM on May 4, 2016


I also won't vote for Hillary Clinton if someone puts a gun to my head.

Look guys. I think I've been clear in a lot of threads about how much I hate Hillary Clinton and think she's a danger to me, mine, and really a whole lot of other things. I could rant for ages about how much I hate her, there's no reason to retread. I am a registered Republican and about to find out in an hour or two if I'm still likely going to be attending the Republican National Convention. I am not a Clinton supporter.

If I can't pull off helping to change the Republican nominee, I've made a terrible pact and will be volunteering for her.

When you talk about guns to heads, it is important to remember that at least a violent minority of Trump's supporters may literally put guns to the heads of people they disagree with. That a Trump win would empower the KKK and similar organizations, who are already endorsing him.

It is seriously bizarroland that I am even saying this, but if you are in a state where the outcome is in doubt, and the nominee for the Republican Party is Donald Trump, I not just beg but implore you to consider at least voting for Clinton.
posted by corb at 11:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [219 favorites]


Is there a good resource for strong leftists to find out what good they can do if they live in strongly Conservative states, like say just randomly picking a state, South Carolina?

Some good ideas for stuff to do on the local level above, but you could also strategically donate to the most flippable Senate and House races nationwide.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Something telling about this "let's move to Canada! Wait! The Canadian gov't has built a wall of immigration laws! No go!" talk. Illegal immigration, have you not heard of it?

BELIEVE IT OR NOT we have our own laws and SHOCKINGLY we take a very dim view of people who flout those!
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


If I can't pull off helping to change the Republican nominee, I've made a terrible pact and will be volunteering for her.

I want this podcast so bad I can taste it corb
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [39 favorites]


what a time to be alive
posted by poffin boffin at 11:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [45 favorites]


corb, if you find yourself needing to skedaddle the hell out of the convention in Cleveland in a hurry, I've got a spare room in Cincinnati with your name on it, some cats who purr and a dog who cuddles, and I'll cook you the best goddamned meal of your life.

Four-hour drive. I'll even come get you.
posted by cooker girl at 11:27 AM on May 4, 2016 [49 favorites]


> "I think I've been clear in a lot of threads about how much I hate Hillary Clinton ... If I can't pull off helping to change the Republican nominee, I've made a terrible pact and will be volunteering for her."

corb --

Thank you for taking a stand in a frightening time.

Respect.
posted by kyrademon at 11:30 AM on May 4, 2016 [92 favorites]


So. Yeah. Trump is fucked.

Not if his opponent gets indicted. No one is 100% certain of the future outcome of that still ongoing process, which could change the election considerably.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Something telling about this "let's move to Canada! Wait! The Canadian gov't has built a wall of immigration laws! No go!" talk. Illegal immigration, have you not heard of it?

Yes please, try to cross the Canadian border illegally. You will soon find out that border guards here will rival ours for assholery and not fucking around.
posted by Kitteh at 11:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


> One in four chance of becoming our President is too much. Far too much. And I can't look myself in the mirror on Day 1 of President Trump and say "well, there was a chance, but you thought it was too rules-lawyery and dangerous. Enjoy the camps!"

I absolutely admire this position, corb, but I'm a little skeptical that this opinion is widely shared among Republicans. Leaving aside the chance of violence, taking the nomination away from Trump at the convention will fracture the party. Even if it's only a temporary fracture, it'd be fatal for 2016: Trump wouldn't be president, but neither would any other Republican. Even if only 10% of Trump die-hards stayed home on Election Day in protest, it'd be ruinous to down-ticket races.

So the only people who'd want to pull off that sort of convention trick are the one's who'd genuinely rather have Hillary Clinton in office than Donald Trump. I honestly don't expect that sentiment from Cruz's delegates. I suspect them to be more like Sean Hannity than Ross Douthat.
posted by savetheclocktower at 11:35 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes please, try to cross the Canadian border illegally. You will soon find out that border guards here will rival ours for assholery and not fucking around.

That's why you enter legally and just overstay your visa, like the vast majority of people without status in the United States.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:37 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm considering leaving my non-battleground state to do GOTV in Cleveland, OH in November.

Or in SC.

My vote's not needed in MA anyway.
posted by ocschwar at 11:37 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


So the only people who'd want to pull off that sort of convention trick are the one's who'd genuinely rather have Hillary Clinton in office than Donald Trump. I honestly don't expect that sentiment from Cruz's delegates. I suspect them to be more like Sean Hannity than Ross Douthat.

Or they think it's more important to keep religious conservatives in control of the party than to bolster the chances of a candidate who's not one of them to begin with. There are clearly a lot of people in the party who don't give two shits about long-term consequences of backing Trump for the party as an institution, but the sine qua non faithful types who get elected to the rules committee may not be among them -- especially when the consequences in question apply directly to them.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:40 AM on May 4, 2016


That's why you enter legally and just overstay your visa

Or, y'know, don't. We are in fact a sovereign country (no really, we have our own money and flag and everything) and therefore we do in fact get to decide who comes here and who doesn't and how long they can stay. While I sympathize with the desire to flee a Trumpocalypse, you don't get to do so by breaking our laws, ok? Thanks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [25 favorites]


Not if his opponent gets indicted. No one is 100% certain of the future outcome of that still ongoing process, which could change the election considerably.

I literally cannot fathom a situation in which this happens. Unless the FBI is stuffed full of Republican partisan sleeper agents. Because if it isn't, and if they were ever going to indict Clinton, they sure as hell would have done it long before the election was wrapped up, in order to not destroy America, which I think the FBI is pretty invested in
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Poor Carly Fiorina.

Nah, she'll be fine. She's a woman with experience as a tech CEO and a fondness for sitting at the controls of planes with at least two engines on fire. I predict there will shortly be a set of shoes at Theranos that fit her perfectly.
posted by jackbishop at 11:42 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


While I sympathize with the desire to flee a Trumpocalypse, you don't get to do so by breaking our laws, ok?

Not okay, I don't think. The same way that we have organizations trying to care for people fleeing the gangs in Central America, I hope that Canadians would be understanding of people overstaying their visas if they felt like their lives were in danger if Trump is president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


fffm is gonna be at the border Nov 9th building that wall!
posted by numaner at 11:43 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


i'm holding out for a Day After Tomorrow scenario where hundreds of thousands of white people are cutting fences and sloshing through the rio grande to flee south
posted by poffin boffin at 11:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


> ... Of those 8 states, Obama won 8 of them in 2008 and 6 of them in 2012.
> So. Yeah. Trump is fucked.


So I'm not actually against analyses like this one, but feel like they're a bit incomplete until we remember that the work of fucking Trump and making sure he stays fucked still needs to be done, and won't necessarily be easy, and let's not forget about the people who will be doing it, and maybe be one of them ourselves.

It's like I'm very sure that my garbage will get collected next week, and can provide a lot of evidence to support it, but it's not the inevitable laws of the universe that make it happen, but lots of tax dollars and the work of the sanitation folk.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:44 AM on May 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


It's May 4th and one party finally has only one nominee standing. And it's not the Democrats! Didn't see that one coming. Feeling very frustrated about it, too.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:45 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


She would have been indicted by now. Those emails were made available long ago.
posted by zutalors! at 11:45 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not if his opponent gets indicted. No one is 100% certain of the future outcome of that still ongoing process, which could change the election considerably.


So the Dems nominate Sanders, or even O'Malley. So what? They're both not Trump.
posted by ocschwar at 11:45 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


i'm holding out for a Day After Tomorrow scenario where hundreds of thousands of white people are cutting fences and sloshing through the rio grande to flee south

Advanced degree in tropical disease epidemiology, I could kiss you now!
posted by palindromic at 11:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


at which point i will of course cackle like ursula the sea witch
posted by poffin boffin at 11:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Not okay, I don't think. The same way that we have organizations trying to care for people fleeing the gangs in Central America, I hope that Canadians would be understanding of people overstaying their visas if they felt like their lives were in danger if Trump is president.

We have a legal process for claiming refugee status. Don't come here and break our laws because half your country decided to shit the bed.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:46 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


sotonohito: Trump can't really end the country, but he can and will sign virtually any legislation the Republican congress throws his way.

Will this really happen? He's campaigned on being an outsider, a man of his own thoughts ("I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff"), unfettered by politics.

If 1) he wins, and 2) wants to run again in 4 years, could he really be a conveyor belt for the GOP policies? The reason Ted Cruz and others fell aside is because they were too much of the same-old politics (right? Isn't that the general consensus?). So if he becomes Just Another Republican, he's sold out to the very system he campaigned against.

That's not saying he'd tear down everything and build it back, but I can't see him rubber-stamping the GOP agenda items.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:46 AM on May 4, 2016


half your country decided to shit the bed.

Yeah, again, there is no way half the country is voting for Donald Trump. Like I get nightmare scenarios but this just isn't happening.
posted by zutalors! at 11:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, again, there is no way half the country is voting for Donald Trump. Like I get nightmare scenarios but this just isn't happening.


It only takes 26% of voters.
posted by ocschwar at 11:48 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


This argument over the moral and legal ramifications of moving to Canada is getting weird. I'm not complaining.
posted by avalonian at 11:49 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's worth noting: Illma Gore, the artist who did the unflattering nude of Trump got jumped and assaulted by some of his supporters... in freaking Los Angels, which I think could normally be thought of as a heavily blue city.

So yeah, violence in his name is a real, actual, really real problem.
posted by Archelaus at 11:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


I hope that Canadians would be understanding of people overstaying their visas if they felt like their lives were in danger if Trump is president.

Speaking as a Canadian, this is exactly why we can't become a destination for enraged white liberals. When Trump-maggedon comes, we will probably end up with a moral and legal obligation to take in American Muslims. This will not be people ignoring our laws, but people who legitimately qualify for refugee status because they are being persecuted in their home country. There are a lot of American muslims and we are a small country by population. If we are to absorb them, we just won't have the capacity to also take every educated, white, middle-class liberal who can safely stay home and wait it out 8 years (or however long Trump's declaration of Emperor-ship lasts),
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:50 AM on May 4, 2016 [46 favorites]


They come first, not white Americans.

I never mentioned white people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Okay, I feel bad for introducing the "move to Canada" spectre in here, so let me just state:

1. I am aware that it is a very serious step, and that is the only reason I mentioned it - that it is a step that I am scared enough to actually seriously contemplate. The odds still are balanced against my deciding that, and choosing to stay here, precisely because it is such a step, but "exactly what is involved when one decides one wants to move to Canada" is information I have decided I need to know how to get to as a just-in-case measure.

2. Part of the information in question I was seeking is "what are the legal ways to do this" because come on.

3. Again, the odds are much more in favor of my not doing that, so everyone chill already.

I mean, i also work with an NGO that assists refugees, so if the shit absolutely hit the fan there probably would be a means in place for the company to help a whole lot of us get somewhere safe because that's what they do. I was googling "legal requirements for Canadian visa" last night for the same reason that I've Googled "how to perform CPR" - because I have come to the conclusion that it is information I may decide I need someday, not because I'm expecting "oh hey I'm going to do this tomorrow."

Honestly, I would lay greater odds on us seeing something like the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention, where delegates and protesters mix it up and the tension blows and everyone loses their minds.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Most of the people who have declared that they are moving that I know are white upper middle class people. It's the same every election.
posted by zutalors! at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


[A few comments removed. This is me still managing for now to refrain from lapsing into angry shouting. Please help me keep that streak up, and cool it a bit.]
posted by cortex at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


There will be no white mass exodus to Canada. Please end this derail.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also statistically no one ever moves, so. This conversation is a little silly.
posted by zutalors! at 11:53 AM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, again, there is no way half the country is voting for Donald Trump. Like I get nightmare scenarios but this just isn't happening.

Even a trained statistician like Nate Silver couldn't accurately predict where we are today, without basically throwing up his arms and tossing a coin at each stage. That was guesswork from someone trained in the field to do better than guessing.

There is a lot of time until Election Day for the landscape to change—I'd be wary of any predictions that claim certainty of outcomes at this point.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:54 AM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Or, y'know, don't. We are in fact a sovereign country (no really, we have our own money and flag and everything) and therefore we do in fact get to decide who comes here and who doesn't and how long they can stay. While I sympathize with the desire to flee a Trumpocalypse, you don't get to do so by breaking our laws, ok? Thanks.

Maybe you should think about building a wall, FFFM, and getting the US to pay for it.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


if you really want to fight about canadian immigration derails maybe you could all manifest your destiny over in metatalk
posted by poffin boffin at 11:55 AM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Literally the first result for "immigrate canada from us". The Canadians make this information remarkably friendly and easy to parse.
posted by rtha at 11:57 AM on May 4, 2016


Then I might have a narrator or graphic say something like, "Dictators build walls. Americans tear them down."

It's cool rhetoric and juxtaposition, but the big difference is that the Berlin wall was meant to confine people inside their country against their will - it was used by East Germans against East Germans.

The hypothetical US-Mexico border wall is meant to protect Americans from illegal immigration and all the things that come along with it - infiltration of criminals, depressed wages for laborers, increased consumption of social services, anchor babies, and so forth.

The Berlin wall was the East German government acting against their people; the American wall would represent an action by the American government in support of the American people and the American nation.
posted by theorique at 11:57 AM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm a registered democrat and will vote for whomever is the democratic nominee.

May I just say that it just....bothers me...that we will have two Bush family presidents and two Clinton family presidents? I know it might not be rational or something but it just smacks a little of dynasty or something.

Anyway. I voted for Bernie in the PA primary and I would prefer it if he were the nominee, but of course it's a no brainer come the general, and I'm sure HRC will be a fine president.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:58 AM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


It is seriously bizarroland that I am even saying this, but if you are in a state where the outcome is in doubt, and the nominee for the Republican Party is Donald Trump, I not just beg but implore you to consider at least voting for Clinton.

There are lots of non-partisan reasons to hate the Clintons. They are callow, cynical, short-sighted and totally corrupt. But, they've remade the Democratic party into something safe for the Rockefellers, a party that sees Wall Street as essential to the US economy, is friendly to big business, has increasingly little dependence on organized labor, is tough on crime, and willing to use military force to advance the US internationally.

So, even if you are personally affronted by Hillary Clinton, there's little reason for a Republican not to support the Democratic party led by her, unless you hate queers and blacks and Mexicans. Which is why if/when Hillary is elected, it will cement the realignment of US politics. There will be two parties: a party of big business and the banks and the professional educated classes and Trump's party.

The problem is that the economy is going to slide either shortly before the election or shortly after. President Hillary Clinton, as Obama's successor *will* be held accountable for the state of the economy. But, she will have a Republican congress that has nothing to lose by destroying her presidency. She is cynical, short-sighted, lives in a huge bubble, is eager to use military force and she is buddies with people who want to go to war with Iran.

Trump is a racist and is running on racism (among other things), but big business in the US is committed to "diversity" across gender/sex/race lines. Remember that it's the Charlotte banks which are pushing the hardest against the NC bathroom law. Wall Street has been one of the strongest supporters of marriage equality. The political climate is going to be terrible under Trump, but it's going to be worse under Clinton and I think she's more likely to start a war. I honestly think she is the scarier one, in particular because people are deluded about just how cynical and short-sighted she is.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Even a trained statistician like Nate Silver couldn't accurately predict where we are today, without basically throwing up his arms and tossing a coin at each stage. That was guesswork from someone trained in the field to do better than guessing.

Didn't Silver's analysis point to Trump as the nominee as of over six months ago, which he then discounted because it seemed like it shouldn't be possible?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Guys, guys, don't fight about Canada! It's what Trump wants you to do!
posted by cooker girl at 11:59 AM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]




May I just say that it just....bothers me...that we will have two Bush family presidents and two Clinton family presidents? I know it might not be rational or something but it just smacks a little of dynasty or something.

Two politically ambitious people meeting as adults and deciding to marry is not on the same level as a man grooming his kids from birth to be president.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:00 PM on May 4, 2016 [56 favorites]


Two politically ambitious people meeting as adults and deciding to marry is not on the same level as a man grooming his kids from birth to be president.

It's not the same thing, but Secretary Clinton has already spent eight years living in the White House, and was involved in policy decisions of her husband's administration.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:02 PM on May 4, 2016


'specially because Barbara Bush grooms like a cat
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:03 PM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


There are lots of non-partisan reasons to hate the Clintons.

Well, then we shouldn't elect "the Clintons". First of all, what a weird first name "the" is, and if I didn't know any better, they picked their last name just to cause confusion between them and Hillary.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:03 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Most of the people who have declared that they are moving that I know are white upper middle class people. It's the same every election.

It's a very SWPL-ish, moral signaling thing to do - kind of a humblebrag. People who do this are publicly declaring that they are so sensitive and so profoundly offended by the thought of President X (for some value of X) that they will quit their homeland in protest, rather than be governed by such a person.

In the realm of dramatic gestures, it's similar to a Bernie voter who declares that he's going to vote for Trump if Hillary gets the Democrat nomination, to accelerate the progress toward the revolution. In each case, the sentiment is essentially "eff-it, I'm out".

It would be interesting to see the percentage of people who declared "I'm leaving the country", who actually follow through and emigrate. I suspect it would be very, very small.
posted by theorique at 12:03 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Guys, guys, don't fight about Canada! It's what Trump wants you to do!

In a surprise twist, Trump is revealed to be the true secret Canadian (or at least majority shareholder of the Canadian economy) who was banking on the white liberal American exodus in order to strengthen the loonie.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:04 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, then we shouldn't elect "the Clintons". First of all, what a weird first name "the" is, and if I didn't know any better, they picked their last name just to cause confusion between them and Hillary.

This is pretty naive. If and when Hillary Clinton is elected, we're going to hear about Bill Clinton's exploits and speeches constantly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:08 PM on May 4, 2016


OK - so in my very mixed (white/Latino/Asian/black -- in that order) neighborhood in the Los Angeles suburbs, there is a creepy guy at the end of my street with radio antennae sticking out of every corner of his house and security cameras and fairly ramshackle for the neighborhood. There is an NRA sticker in his window. He has recently put up a hand made Trump for President sign. I am actually considering the risk of putting up a Hillary sign on my lawn. Seriously.
posted by Sophie1 at 12:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Berlin wall was the East German government acting against their people; the American wall would represent an action by the American government in support of the American people and the American nation.

There is the phenomenon of brain drain affecting the US, which also affected East Germany and was one reason it closed its borders. Leaving that aside, it is interesting that, in a sense, we already effectively have created "walls" externally and internally that discourage going outside the country. Two of every three Americans do not have passports, and for the third that does, we have a security apparatus that makes it more and more difficult and expensive to leave and return. A physical wall may be intended to keep out foreigners from the South, but I kind of wonder if there is incentive for the powers that be to use all the tools in the toolbox to keep more Americans locked into the American economic "ecosystem", before they can decide to uproot and leave for greener pastures.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:11 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


May I just say that it just....bothers me...that we will have two Bush family presidents and two Clinton family presidents? I know it might not be rational or something but it just smacks a little of dynasty or something.
--------------------------------------
Two politically ambitious people meeting as adults and deciding to marry is not on the same level as a man grooming his kids from birth to be president.


What about the Adamsses? Nobody ever wants to talk about the Adamsses. Poor fellas.
posted by NoMich at 12:12 PM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


People who do this are publicly declaring that they are so sensitive and so profoundly offended by the thought of President X (for some value of X) that they will quit their homeland in protest, rather than be governed by such a person.

i mean literally if trump or any other republican is elected then i will really truly honestly not be able to physically survive in the united states for more than a handful of years because i won't be able to afford the healthcare that i need. it's not a smug superior "oh look how my precious liberal sensibilities won't allow me to put up with this bigoted nonsense" schtick, it's me saying i need affordable healthcare to remain alive.

so, you know. panama, i'm okay with the zika, call me.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:12 PM on May 4, 2016 [34 favorites]


This is pretty naive. If and when Hillary Clinton is elected, we're going to hear about Bill Clinton's exploits and speeches constantly.

I won't. I make a point of not reading any article about Michelle Obama or daughters and changing the channel if they are featured on TV. I did the same with Hillary when Bill was president (and Laura and Barbara Bush). These people all need to get their own jobs. Being married to someone with a job is not a job and not a reason why I should care what you are doing, so I don't care what you're doing.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:12 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Okay, it looks like the Cruz campaign is trying to push back against any kind of Machiavellian tactics, and there is a lot of talk about a 2020 run and just "influencing the platform". My suspicion is that he has been offered full or partial support for 2020 if he dials down his supporters now. Not sure how this is going to go - loyalists are angry.
posted by corb at 12:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


What about the Adamsses? Nobody ever wants to talk about the Adamsses. Poor fellas.

Or Grover Cleveland! Not only were presidents 22 and 24 from the same family, they were the same person!
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


I won't. I make a point of not reading any article about Michelle Obama or daughters and changing the channel if they are featured on TV.

I guess you could do that, but Michelle Obama is an outstanding person, and I love reading articles about what she's doing to make our country better.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [23 favorites]


Or the Roosevelts!
posted by orrnyereg at 12:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ah -- full party support in 2020 makes much more sense than VP or any other offer from Trump I could imagine. Though that will mean a lot of party leaders who hate Cruz with all their hearts standing next to him with zombie smiles and Christie eyes.

And machiavellian tactics in Cleveland will never work if Trump is over 1237, just lead to violence. So hopefully Cruz can calm his people down in the ensuing months.
posted by chortly at 12:18 PM on May 4, 2016


These people all need to get their own jobs. Being married to someone with a job is not a job and not a reason why I should care what you are doing, so I don't care what you're doing.

This is seriously one of the grossest most misogynist things I've seen in a long time.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [41 favorites]


(Too bad there was just a MeFi podcast: I would love to hear corb talk more about what's she seeing and hearing, and how the internal communications match or diverge from the more-public face of the party. Same for the Dems, too, but corn's been sharing a lot of interesting stuff lately.)
posted by wenestvedt at 12:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I guess you could do that, but Michelle Obama is an outstanding person, and I love reading articles about what she's doing to make our country better.

When she goes back to lawyering, I would imagine I might find an article about that interesting. If she were still lawyering while her husband were president, I'd be happy to read an article about her lawyering, just like i"d be interested in any other lawyer. But I think there's something toxic about pretending that "married to the president" is a job. We wouldn't tolerate it in any other job (imagine if your partner's employers had expectations for things you should do to promote the company and help make it better!). The problem with having people do this is it creates the expectation that people will do this. Why didn't Michelle Obama (or Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush) keep their jobs after their husbands elections? It seems like there's an expectation that they shouldn't or wouldn't and paying attention to someone because they're married to the president just reinforces that expectation.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:19 PM on May 4, 2016


Being married to someone with a job is not a job and not a reason why I should care what you are doing, so I don't care what you're doing.

Being First Lady is absolutely a full-time job.
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:20 PM on May 4, 2016 [35 favorites]


But I think there's something toxic about pretending that "married to the president" is a job

No, there isn't. Many, many First Ladies have done incredible things with the job of being first lady.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:20 PM on May 4, 2016 [27 favorites]


There are lots of non-partisan reasons to hate the Clintons. They are callow, cynical, short-sighted and totally corrupt.

I've heard and read about the corruption of the Clintons quite a bit, but is it really 100% true? Yeah, I know, 99.9% of all politicians are corrupt to a certain point, but are the Clintons more egregious about it than the normal amount? I ask because of this report on the Clinton Foundation on the Charity Watch web site. Seems pretty good to me, but then again, I really don't know what the average cost-to-raise moneys is.
posted by NoMich at 12:21 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


There are secret women's Facebook boards for Clinton, Heffernan says -- anyone have a sense of whether this is a particularly widespread phenomenon, the kind of thing that should affect our assessment of the amount and depth of support she really has among voters?

Heh. I sorta kinda created one. And I'm a dude.

It wasn't intended to be a womens' group; it's just that all the people who were interested were women. Plus one of their husbands. And myself.

It started as a Friend List on FB. I was sick of people using every one of my posts as an opportunity to harass me into voting for Sanders -- even posts that had nothing to do with the election! Every conversation turned into Six Degrees of Bernie Sanders. And god forbid I post something positive about Hillary! Prepare for the onslaught! And it was the Same. People. Every. Fucking. Time. The most "passionate" of my Bernie-supporting friends; the most likely to attack Hillary, and the least likely to change their minds. Look, I love talking politics. But how much of my life do I really want to spend arguing with Troy and Cliff? I think they've done used up their quota.

So I made a Friend List called Hillary Clinton's Dank Meme Stash. I made a public post, asking which of my friends wanted to opt in. After that, whenever I wanted to post anything political -- or anything that could possibly, in any twisted sense, be taken as political -- I'd post it to my new list. And it worked! It was so nice being able to discuss current events again without being harassed about my candidate choice. Only problem, some of my Clinton-supporting friends wanted to add to the conversation by posting to my public wall, and once it was on my wall, BOOM! The "passionate" Bernie supporters would jump on it.

Finally, something put me over the edge. One of my "passionate" Bernie-supporting friends made this post (and I'm quoting him verbatim) : "If someone gave you the option of going to lunch with a person who has spent his life caring for mistreated puppies and a person who has spent her life mistreating puppies for personal gain, who would you pick? You'd pick the fucking guy who has spent his life helping the goddamn puppies. Bernie > Hillary". Mind you, he wasn't being ironic. He wasn't joking around. He was being dead serious. When I called him on it, he defended his viewpoint passionately, as "passionate" Bernie supporters are wont to do. So yeah folks, you heard it here. Hillary Clinton kicks puppies. I always thought "so and so kicks puppies" was a known cliche about badmouthing people, but here someone was, using it without any hint of humor or irony.

So I created a FB group called Berners Behaving Badly. It's a place to vent about Bernie supporters just being completely over the top. It started out with a few friends of mine, but people have been inviting their friends, and it's grown steadily from there!

Have these groups been influential? No idea! All I know is it's been nice to have a conversation and not have the same 6 or 7 people ruin it with disingenuous arguments and ad-hominem (ad-feminem?) attacks on Hillary. I've always objected to the term "Berniebro"; I think a more apt term is "Berniebully", because honestly, I really felt like people were trying to bully me into supporting Sanders. When you accept "passion" as a substitute for intellectual rigor, you're operating on pure pitchforks-and-torches energy; the same kind of energy that fuels Trump and his supporters.

So I'd say Berners Behaving Badly has provided some amount emotional support. And I think the NY primary really spoke to the existence of these hidden Clinton communities. If you were to base a prediction on the Facebook chatter within my network, you'd think Bernie would have swept the NY primary, or at very least NYC. Turns out, not so much. So while my little FB group has fewer than 100 members, I can only imagine how many other similar FB groups must be out there.
posted by panama joe at 12:23 PM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


"Rather, I am suggesting that, if you think you are going to move because of an event, perhaps instead you could time your move in order to prevent that event from occurring in the first place."

In this vein, it will be the most just of all possible desserts if, after years of foot-dragging on the Puerto Rico financial crisis by the Republican Congress who are catering to their Wall Street donors and just don't give a shit about the island, leading to fully 2% of Puerto Rico's population leaving for the mainland, mostly Florida, where their votes as American citizens for president suddenly count because now they have electoral college representation and who vote overwhelmingly Democratic, it turns out to be all those Puerto Rican migrants to Florida who flip Florida blue this cycle and give Hillary the JUST ONE MORE blue state she needs.

"Let's economically destroy a super-Democratic territory full of American citizens such that they feel compelled to migrate to a swing state in search of jobs, so that all those Democratic votes we've been trying so hard to keep from counting for so many years are suddenly and all at once on the table!"

I think a lot of people don't realize that Puerto Ricans are already citizens and can already vote, they just don't have electoral college representation in Puerto Rico, and that problem is solved as soon as they're on the mainland (excluding DC, taxation w/o etc.). People mentally categorize them as "immigrants" but no dude, already citizens.

The NYTimes also reports that citizenship applications are up 11%, driven by people either trying to get their citizenship ahead of any proposed Trumpian restrictions, or (more importantly) trying to get their citizenship in time to vote this year. I have a couple of friends who are legal permanent residents, citizens of European countries, who feel like, "Uh, yeah, maybe it's time to finish my citizenship because I probably actually need to vote in this one."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:24 PM on May 4, 2016 [38 favorites]


I've heard and read about the corruption of the Clintons quite a bit

Apparently Trump's epithet for Clinton is going to be "Crooked Hillary" which is clever. He doesn't have to level any actual allegations -- it's vague, he'll never give her anything to go out and disprove, and "straightness" is impossible to actually display or evidence.

Whereas people who just kind of vaguely dislike her will always be able to say "well.. they can't prove anything, but where there's smoke there's fire..." so the allegations become the proof.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:26 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is seriously one of the grossest most misogynist things I've seen in a long time.

Really? I think it's misogynistic to expect women to drop everything and be "first lady" just because her husband was elected president. I think it's misogynistic (and 1950sish) for people to think that it's a woman's obligation to do hostess-y things to support her husband's job. Expecting the president's wife (or some substitute related woman 1, 2, 3 there are more.) to be the white house hostess is no different than expecting that it's the wife's job to throw dinner parties for her husband's business associates where she laughs at his jokes and doesn't contradict him in front of people. I think if your husband gets a new job you should get to carry on with your own career and your own life and not suddenly be obligated to drop your career and take on a job that amounts to promoting your husband and making him look good.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:27 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, hopefully Lindsay Graham's idea of divorcing (heh) the role of all-in-one host, goodwill ambassador, social activist, and proxy to the President from having to be the President's spouse will catch on, but that doesn't mean that role isn't a lot of hard work.
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:30 PM on May 4, 2016


I think if your husband gets a new job you should get to carry on with your own career and your own life and not suddenly be obligated to drop your career and take on a job that amounts to promoting your husband and making him look good.

The First Lady has an astonishing amount of personal influence, way more than almost any other job. It's not "laughing at the President's jokes." I don't think forgoing that power and influence as a statement is The Only True Feminist Option.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:30 PM on May 4, 2016 [26 favorites]


Michelle Obama has never received the vilification in the mainstream media that HRC has (AR mefites, was this happening when Bill was governor?) since her husband became president. When a teabagger hypocrite tried to slam Sasha and Malia she was driven out of her Capitol Hill job.
posted by brujita at 12:31 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


filthy light thief If 1) he wins, and 2) wants to run again in 4 years, could he really be a conveyor belt for the GOP policies? The reason Ted Cruz and others fell aside is because they were too much of the same-old politics (right? Isn't that the general consensus?). So if he becomes Just Another Republican, he's sold out to the very system he campaigned against.

That presupposes that there are any significant differences in policy between Trump and the Republican Party in general. The only possible major conflict is in trade policy.

Everything else is exactly what his voters want.

Do you think the average Trump voter doesn't want to see Obamacare repealed?

Do you think the average Trump voter doesn't want to see Social Security privatized?

Or the EPA abolished? Or whatever?

You really think Trump is going to get a bill to cut taxes for the rich (and a few bones tossed out to everyone else so he can say that he cut everyone's taxes) and he'll veto it?

Nope. His supporters mostly want him because he yells about trade and says the quiet parts loud. The mainstream Republican agenda is perfectly fine with them for the most part. The trade deal thing not so much, but everything else, yeah.
posted by sotonohito at 12:31 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]



The First Lady has an astonishing amount of personal influence, way more than almost any other job. It's not "laughing at the President's jokes." I don't think forgoing that power and influence as a statement is The Only True Feminist Option.


She has a whole wing of the White House
And a staff

This is silly.
posted by zutalors! at 12:32 PM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


they just don't have electoral college representation in Puerto Rico, and that problem is solved as soon as they're on the mainland (excluding DC

We do have electoral college representation! DC has three whole votes! Nothing else though, no voting members of congress or basic control over much of anything, but there are those three electoral college votes!
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:33 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]



Michelle Obama has never received the vilification in the mainstream media that HRC has


Not quite the same but she did get a lot of criticism for "Taking Away Our Oreos" for her healthy food initiatives.
posted by zutalors! at 12:33 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


DC: Taxation with minimal representation.
posted by biogeo at 12:35 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Why didn't Michelle Obama (or Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush) keep their jobs after their husbands elections? It seems like there's an expectation that they shouldn't or wouldn't and paying attention to someone because they're married to the president just reinforces that expectation."

For one thing, it would be hellaciously expensive because of the Secret Service protection necessary for the First Lady to go to a regular workplace. Secondly, in the cases of Obama and Clinton, who are lawyers, it is virtually impossible to comply with ethical restrictions on the practice of law when one is married to the president -- or even a governor, at this point. (The Good Wife notwithstanding.) It would also rule out their company from enormous swaths of contracts, cases, and clients, because of the appearance of impropriety, and it would be a ceaseless source of scandalmongering as every single contract/client/payment taken by the First Lady's employer was scoured for improprieties.

For First Ladies to keep working, it'd have to be at very isolated show-pony type jobs (of the sorts that Kate Middleton and Princess Di and Sophie Wessex worked at), and it would cost both taxpayers AND their employers quite a bit of money to keep them safe.

Even as a local elected official, because I had control over assigning contracts, I had to report to the state a great deal about my husband's employment so that I could be vetted for improprieties in contract assignment, and he was prohibited from working on cases that involved my elected body, and I was prohibited from voting on any contracts where his firm was bidding. In a town of 120,000 people, working for a school district with a $150 million budget that's the town's third-largest employer, that's a significant amount of work he's conflicted out of. (Later on, he became a government bureaucratic official, and my district had to do some routine business with his agency, and GOOD LORD the disclosure paperwork.)

Basically we can have an Office of the First Lady/Gent that pursues quasi-charitable initiatives, or we can make them go sit in a corner for four years or be a socialite.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [73 favorites]


Being First Lady is absolutely a full-time job.

I know. My point is that it shouldn't be. If you have a full-time job that you need done, hire (or elect) someone. Don't just shove the work onto someone's spouse and act like they're obligated to do it. It's the expectation/obligation that I have a problem with.

The First Lady has an astonishing amount of personal influence,

Yes, people have personal influence over the spouses. That's to be expected and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the expectation that they now suddenly have to do all this work that I think is wrong. Yeah, you ask your spouse what they think, you talk before bed. Whatever. But "ok, now start a non-profit and run around promoting it." is a whole other thing. What if she doesn't WANT to start a non-profit? What if she likes being a school librarian or a lawyer or banker or whatever? What if she doesn't want to be interviewed on TV. What if state dinners aren't her thing? Why should she be expected to do those things?

This is nothing about Michelle Obama or any other first lady, who I don't know much about because like I said, I don't follow. I have nothing against her. I don't want to create the expectation that spouses should be obligated to do these things so I don't reward people who are creating the expectation by reading or watching.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel bad for Joe Biden. I bet he's really stuck in a rut, thinking over and over, "If only I ran, I could have run against that guy." Poor Joe Biden.
posted by peeedro at 12:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


Yes. Speaking as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary, I am disturbed by the shift in tone in his campaign in the last week or two.

Clinton and surrogates like Barney Frank were portraying Sanders as practically having Alzheimers in the NY primary, while simultaneously playing the "tone" card.
posted by zippy at 12:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Or the Roosevelts!

Jeez, has everyone forgotten the Harrisons?
posted by McCoy Pauley at 12:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Okay, in more 'News From The Cruz Front':

Delegates who were candidates for Cleveland are being asked to continue on. Supposedly, there is no rules committee grab, but something was said which I find very interesting from higher, which is that 'some people' are investigating their "legal rights" in the event that a majority of delegates are bound to vote for someone that they do not actually support. I actually have no idea what this could mean!

Importantly: there is ZERO talk of 'come together and vote for Trump', and in fact, people are talking about giving interviews about not supporting Trump - so if a deal was cut, Trump had no part in said deal, and the deal did not include delivering his supporters, who are still strongly #nevertrump. Definitely no VP deal. My strong guess is party leadership don't want their party to disintegrate.
posted by corb at 12:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [34 favorites]


Michelle Obama has never received the vilification in the mainstream media that HRC has

There's no benefit to weighing relative vilification, but, on an absolute level, Michelle Obama has been attacked, repeatedly, since Obama took office in 2008, including her push for new nutrition standards, and for daring to talk about race in America.
posted by cjelli at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


I've heard and read about the corruption of the Clintons quite a bit, but is it really 100% true? Yeah, I know, 99.9% of all politicians are corrupt to a certain point, but are the Clintons more egregious about it than the normal amount?

I don't want to even dig into the foundation, but you can look at the controversy over the Kazakh uranium mines as a model for how the foundation operates. The problem with influence peddling is that, unless you are totally careless, there is never a quid pro quo. It's all about "relationships."

But, for me, the fact that Hillary Clinton made $3 million dollars in *personal* income giving half-hour speeches to Wall Street, made $12 million giving "speeches" to business groups in just one year is just totally corrupt. Again, there is no quid pro quo because there doesn't have to be. It's all about relationships and she is taking huge sums of money, essentially as gifts, from some of the richest, most powerful institutions in the US.

But the real corruption is that all of this has happened in plain sight and everyone makes excuses for it. No one is given millions of dollars for nothing. No one.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [31 favorites]


Being married to the president, or having the president as your parent, means you lose your private life for 4-8 years, so that your family can be kept safe. It's part of the deal.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


People with spouses should be disqualified from the Presidency.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Basically we can have an Office of the First Lady/Gent that pursues quasi-charitable initiatives, or we can make them go sit in a corner for four years or be a socialite.

I've thought about thiis, except children of presidents (who also get secret service protection) get to go out and live lives and have jobs. I think there's a social justice issue here that says "yeah, you pay for the secret service to go stand around the office if that's what it takes." She's entitled to keep her life.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm hesitant to post something behind a pay wall but for those who don't subscribe Trump gave what is supposed to be a reassuring interview to the NY times today about his plans for his first hundred days, which include a Scalia like nominee, repeal of the ACA, plans in place for the wall, repealing Obama's immigration measures, banning Muslims, and wining and dining Ryan and McConnell.

So like what HRC would do, right?
posted by bearwife at 12:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [34 favorites]




It's a very SWPL-ish, moral signaling thing to do - kind of a humblebrag. People who do this are publicly declaring that they are so sensitive and so profoundly offended by the thought of President X (for some value of X) that they will quit their homeland in protest, rather than be governed by such a person.

Or, you know, they're just making a joke...
posted by mach at 12:42 PM on May 4, 2016


Can we quit the First Lady derail?
posted by all about eevee at 12:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


She's entitled to keep her life.

Sure, but maybe she's evaluated her preferences and wants and needs and made an educated informed choice that reflects her vision of what "her life" should be.

There's more to life than paid employment.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


There's no benefit to weighing relative vilification, but, on an absolute level, Michelle Obama has been attacked, repeatedly, since Obama took office in 2008

Even before then.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:43 PM on May 4, 2016


'some people' are investigating their "legal rights" in the event that a majority of delegates are bound to vote for someone that they do not actually support. I actually have no idea what this could mean!

It means that some people have temporarily forgotten that they're participants in a private organization that can set its own rules or ignore any rules previously set based on the whims of the people who actually control the organization.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Interesting podcast tackling the issue of American dynasties.

The special guest who actually wrote the book on it.
posted by Tevin at 12:44 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


But, for me, the fact that Hillary Clinton made $3 million dollars in *personal* income giving half-hour speeches to Wall Street, made $12 million giving "speeches" to business groups in just one year is just totally corrupt

Said it before, saying it again: someone if her stature making a couple hundred thousand dollars per speech is bog bloody standard and has been for a long time. The Dalai Lama makes those fees, too. Ok maybe bad example. Craig Kielburger makes not that level, because he's not of the same stature, but a lot. Ditto e.g. Romeo Dallaire. It's not unusual.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:45 PM on May 4, 2016 [46 favorites]


I came here to point to the same NYT article that bearwife refers to. It's absolutely terrifying. I actually started having a mild anxiety attack after reading it, and I'm not being even slightly facetious. If I hadn't already been determined to GOTV for this election cycle, I sure would be now. I'm actually pretty sure that if Trump somehow wins the election, that's the end of the Great American Experiment.
posted by holborne at 12:46 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


So much for all that handwringing over Trump pivoting to the center after he won the nomination! Seriously that article, disgusting as it is, soothes me like fucking chamomile. This is not a winning strategy for the general election.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:47 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


The NYTimes also reports that citizenship applications are up 11%, driven by people either trying to get their citizenship ahead of any proposed Trumpian restrictions, or (more importantly) trying to get their citizenship in time to vote this year.

What if, this is Trump's secret plan to end illegal immigration, by scaring people into becoming citizens
posted by Apocryphon at 12:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump couldn't pivot to the center to save his life. He wasn't putting on an act, what you saw was what was really there: a racist blowhard with a simple easy and wrong answer for every problem.
posted by sotonohito at 12:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


Slight correction -- the NY times article that went up today is based on 3 months of interviews, most recent on Saturday.
posted by bearwife at 12:49 PM on May 4, 2016


I googled (death threats potential defecting trump delegates) and the best source was a UPI story that sourced Alex Jones. Secret Service is doing the convention security. Don't they lock people up for that shit if they have any evidence?
posted by bukvich at 12:52 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also I hope everyone caught Streisand 's tweet about the speeches for fees. Daily Kos recently started highlighting it.
posted by bearwife at 12:54 PM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


No one is given millions of dollars for nothing. No one.

I like to think that I would be the first. At least give it a try.
posted by NoMich at 12:56 PM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


the fact that Hillary Clinton made $3 million dollars in *personal* income giving half-hour speeches to Wall Street, made $12 million giving "speeches" to business groups in just one year is just totally corrupt...

Said it before, saying it again: someone if her stature making a couple hundred thousand dollars per speech is bog bloody standard and has been for a long time.


Also, it's tough to make a value judgment, as we've not actually seen or heard any of the speeches. It's quite possible she delivered a solid half-hour of hilarious and trenchantly observant standup material. Or maybe thirty straight minutes of killer celebrity impressions. Perhaps she juggled.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:58 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


ah yes clearly the solution any capable, smart, modern woman would choose is to live in a bubble working at a job that vaguely resembles her normal work, only she's given only the busywork that is impossible to generate controversy in a grotesque parody of "independence"
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:59 PM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


Also I hope everyone caught Streisand 's tweet about the speeches for fees. Daily Kos recently started highlighting it.

Oh, Babs. We've been over this. The reason we're not flipping our lids over Trump and Bush getting millions of dollars for Wall Street speeches is because we already know they're the bad guys. We expect this kind of terrible behavior from them. Is it wrong to hold Clinton, who claims to be on our side, to a higher standard?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:00 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


It is of the utmost importance that we continue to fight the battle between Good and Perfect.
posted by aramaic at 1:02 PM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


It's been going around for a while but I think my go-to slogan for this campaign will be "Hillary has beliefs. Trump has none."

And if somebody asks for clarification I get to talk in detail about two of my favorite things: Hamilton and politics!
posted by Tevin at 1:02 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sigh. High-profile public speakers cost a lot of money. Al Gore's fees jumped north of $300K after An Inconvenient Truth blew up, for example, and his only topic was climate change.

High stature speaker = high fees. This is not new, and it's surprising only to people who've never had to hire speakers/celebrities for events.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:03 PM on May 4, 2016 [35 favorites]


The Rules Committee has an ungodly amount of power. I'm not an RC wonk, so I don't know precisely the most likely use of that, but off the top of my head from things I'm hearing around the water cooler: they could unbind the delegates, they could create a rule that winds up barring Trump, they could literally completely upend the convention, and the only thing stopping them from doing so is their loyalty to the Party and desire to not have it look a fool.

Um, so.... this is literally what's going to happen. Obviously. They don't give a shit, as evidenced by everything that's already happened.
posted by odinsdream at 1:04 PM on May 4, 2016


I don't think it's HRC's speeches that are at issue, it's to whom she delivered them, and who signed the checks.
posted by Clustercuss at 1:06 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


corb, sheesh, whatever happens I hope it happens without any violence. Be well and safe. We seldom agree but you are a remarkably good sport in your dissents. Keep us in the loop when you do go to the convention, we're all going to be worrying about you.
posted by emjaybee at 1:07 PM on May 4, 2016 [33 favorites]


The RNC isn't going to do jack shit to stop Trump at this point.
.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton— Reince Priebus (@Reince) 4 May 2016

posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:07 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Her point is that speakers in demand make high fees. Only, women get less.

I do not think anyone could reasonably would label all the well compensated speakers bad guys.
posted by bearwife at 1:08 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


We're doing speakers' fees AGAIN? Didn't we do that two or three weeks ago?

I didn't pay my $5 to get MetaReruns, people.
posted by dw at 1:11 PM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


I mean, at least the RNC is doing the right thing? If Trump has the delegates, he's the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Her point is that speakers in demand make high fees. Only, women get less.

She was plainly trying to claim that people had been "cool" with Bush and Trump earning (more) doing the same, which is a bizarre place to take the argument. Why compare her to two of the people whom Sanders supporters would like the very least - playing RIGHT INTO the argument that she's not so different from them?

Either way, I'm voting Clinton, I ruly and truly don't care, but Barbara Streisand needs to stop "helping" on that issue.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are his speeches contradictory and incoherent?

I'm not sure what the formula is for getting to the point where you can do this and not be nailed to the wall for inconsistency and "flip-flopping". But once you're there, it's quite literally the golden spot for a politician. And, I'm convinced, a huge part of Trump's success up to this point.

Almost anyone listening to Trump hears things they are odiously opposed to and also other things (completely contradictory to the first) that they agree with. So if you are disposed to "Like Trump" you hear the odious parts as, "Oh, well, that's just Trump pandering to X audience." Everybody knows that Trump is a pro at the pandering thing; it's his whole shtick. But when you hear the contradiction of the odious thing you jump on board with it wholeheartedly--"That's exactly what I believe. That's the REAL Trump talking now. That's what he will really do when he actually becomes president and gets serious about things."

It's a way of communicating that allows him to put out basically all messages to all different audiences and have everyone believe that he is "their guy" at the "real" level while discounting all the other contradictory messages as "Ah, well, that's just Trump."

Here is no less that Josh Marshall "that's just Trump"-ing the dumb stuff and "look--he's OUR guy"-ing the potentially more reasonable stuff. If Marshall can make him look like a stealth progressive Democrat--yeah, he's got a formula for appealing to just about everybody.

All politicians do this to some degree--it's why we have "dog-whistle politics", why Hilary doesn't want to release her Wall Street speeches (she wants to tell them one message and other audiences a different message), why "Hope and Change" was such a great campaign theme for Obama (it allows everyone to project their own personal hopes for change onto him), etc.

But Trump is a master of this, with a very particular communication style that is closely tied with his persona--both the communication style and persona required to make it work successfully--and I am quite convinced this is one of the primary reasons he is winning the presidential nomination today.

Folks who oppose Trump need to look a little beyond the easy dismissals that he is a blowhard who is contradictory, incoherent, pandering, and so on.* What he is doing is quite clever and powerful. It reaches a large block of the American public--hopefully not 50%, but still a large block. I think we have to be pretty careful about being overly dismissive of it.

*BTW I've used Sour Cream's comment as a jumping off point for my little rant, but I'm not really arguing with Sour Cream here at all. In fact Sour Cream is arguing, like I am, that we darn well better take Trump seriously. Part of his appeal and his danger is that people are inclined to dismiss him early on as a clown and an easy target. The "clown" persona is part of his secret sauce . . .
posted by flug at 1:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


The RNC isn't going to do jack shit to stop Trump at this point.

It might be a good time to start a betting pool about which of the prominent Republicans who have spoken out against Trump will stick to their guns in the coming months, and which will end up caving and cravenly endorsing him. My money's on Lindsey Graham to remain the lone hold-out. (And possibly the Bush, Sr.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:20 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


This is not new, and it's surprising only to people who've never had to hire speakers/celebrities for events.

That's almost everyone, in my experience, but maybe I live a sheltered life.

I don't have a problem with her (or anyone else) charging what their time is worth. The bigger issue is who she's taking the money from and the fact that she is trying to get elected to the very position that directly or indirectly regulates the companies cutting the checks. It is not the same as a generically famous person getting paid to speak at a corporate retreat.

Speaking fees represent a way for rich corporations and interest groups to directly enrich a candidate in a way that they ordinarily can't. It's an end-run around campaign finance laws, all the worse because the money goes directly into the candidate's pocket, in exchange for a comparatively minimal amount of work.

Not a reason not to vote for her over Trump (or any Republican), but I think it's a hard practice to defend unequivocally.
posted by jedicus at 1:24 PM on May 4, 2016 [30 favorites]


flug: Here is no less that Josh Marshall "that's just Trump"-ing the dumb stuff and "look--he's OUR guy"-ing the potentially more reasonable stuff.

Is that the link you intended to share? It does what you say it does, but it is written by John Judis, not Josh Marshall.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:34 PM on May 4, 2016


Atom Eyes: This is a totally uneducated guess, but I suspect a reasonable number of retired politicians and officials (people like Bush Sr. and Romney) will not endorse him, and a handful will probably openly support Hillary. But most current elected officials and RNC bigwigs will endorse Trump.

Basically, if you don't have much to lose, you'll stick to your guns; otherwise, you'll fall in line.
posted by breakin' the law at 1:34 PM on May 4, 2016


How Donald Trump Won the GOP NOmination. from the New Yorker. This is the closest I've seen to some understanding of what Trump saw in the Republican electorate that the GOP establishment missed (hint, he listens to talk radio?!?)
posted by bluesky43 at 1:34 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Judis is a pretty recent addition to the TPM posting-in-the-editor's-column mix and I think people are still getting used to having to check what comes after "—Jo" in the byline. But has, yeah, seemed to be taking his own approach on that stuff; I've gotten pretty used to Marshall's take and style over the years and I always do sort of a double-take when reading Judis' stuff so far.
posted by cortex at 1:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speaking fees represent a way for rich corporations and interest groups to directly enrich a candidate in a way that they ordinarily can't. It's an end-run around campaign finance laws, all the worse because the money goes directly into the candidate's pocket, in exchange for a comparatively minimal amount of work.


Sincere question here, and it's the same one Sanders couldn't answer when it was posed to him in the CNN debate: where's the evidence that Clinton has supported or blocked legislation based on her supposed indebtedness to big banks?
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


This is from 2 days ago, but ugh.

Speculation about Gov. Rick Scott as running mate increases

"Trump himself encouraged the rumors when, in an interview with The New York Times for a story published this weekend about a possible vice presidential selection, “he briefly praised three governors as possible contenders,” including Scott. The other two names Trump listed were New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of the first major Republicans to endorse Trump, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who’s still running for president."

A National Review blog about Scott being a likely candidate

"Rick Scott might be the most intriguing choice. Scott endorsed Trump — although after Florida’s primary — and he’s now calling upon #NeverTrump to give up the fight."
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, if October rolls around and Trump is getting clobbered, I suspect the anti-Trump voices in the GOP will get a lot louder. Will that happen? I sure hope so.
posted by breakin' the law at 1:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Said it before, saying it again: someone if her stature making a couple hundred thousand dollars per speech is bog bloody standard and has been for a long time. The Dalai Lama makes those fees, too. Ok maybe bad example. Craig Kielburger makes not that level, because he's not of the same stature, but a lot. Ditto e.g. Romeo Dallaire. It's not unusual.

That's exactly my point. We live in a society where the American dream has become: getting famous will make me rich. It's why there's such a steady supply of "reality TV" contestants and why Donald Trump will be our first reality TV president.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:40 PM on May 4, 2016


OH JESUS FUCK THIS ELECTION.

I...don't even know how to type this because if this takes place it will be such a nervous-making clownshow.

We have been reminded that delegates bound to vote for Trump are not bound (though traditionally do) to vote for Trump's vice-presidential pick, and can vote him down "until Trump chooses a true conservative."

So it is an entirely serious possibility that Trump will be the nominee, and the Cruz folks will choose the veep, who I can't imagine being Cruz, but can't imagine anything not resulting in insanity either.
posted by corb at 1:41 PM on May 4, 2016 [37 favorites]


Wanted Bernie, will vote for Clinton, staying in the U.S. and signing up for the underground if Trump somehow wins the general, 'cause I figure we're four years away from naked facism if that happens, and somebody's got to fight for the country, right?
posted by Mooski at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2016 [20 favorites]


>"Is it wrong to hold Clinton, who claims to be on our side, to a higher standard?"

Yes.

If Clinton's the only one anyone complains about, Clinton will be the only one that gets the blowback and Trump will skate by untouched.
posted by kyrademon at 1:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Sincere question here, and it's the same one Sanders couldn't answer when it was posed to him in the CNN debate: where's the evidence that Clinton has supported or blocked legislation based on her supposed indebtedness to big banks?

I too would like to see this evidence.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:49 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


What I want to know is what caused the GOP convention officials to yield like this over the last 24 hours.

What kind of satanic pact was involved?
posted by ocschwar at 2:00 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also exactly what made Cruz quit last night? it seemed like everyone was surprised by that.
posted by zutalors! at 2:01 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just wanted to drop by and reassure you all with the following information.

Vladimir Putin and his military advisers are doing well enough on there own to, in time, trigger potential actions from NATO partner nations due to the annexation of the Crimean peninsula and possible future intrusion into one of the former Baltic SSR's.

As such, President Trump will not be alone in ensuring that our nuclear arsenals will be "tested" as to their viability.

Betwixt the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia; a total ~4,000 warheads are ready to be spooled up. You will not find any safety in the Northern Hemisphere.

If you really DO want to try to make it through that long, dark night... go south. Way south.

Tasmania. Falklands. New Zealand. Madagascar. South Africa.

But I don't *really* recommend it.

Anyway... for a helpful breakdown of just what might be detonating above a city near you, I provided this handy breakdown while Russian tanks were rolling west...
posted by PROD_TPSL at 2:03 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


where's the evidence that Clinton has supported or blocked legislation based on her supposed indebtedness to big banks?

I'm not sure what evidence you're looking for. She gave those speeches after she retired from the Senate and as Secretary of State. At this point, any influence exerted would have been indirect and likely not part of any public record. The possibility exists that it would affect her future decision making as President, but of course that's unknowable.

One could argue that she is somehow immune from being influenced by being given large sums of money, but I'm not sure how that doesn't become an argument for repealing all campaign finance limitations. Or rules against doctors accepting gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Or any number of other conflict of interest rules.

Maybe she has / will be influenced by the money, maybe she hasn't been and won't be. But I'm not sure why it's worth the risk to allow such things (systemically; she's not a special case).
posted by jedicus at 2:04 PM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


If you really DO want to try to make it through that long, dark night... go south. Way south.


It would only delay the inevitable. Neville Shute wrote the novel
posted by ocschwar at 2:06 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


I gather from our past iterations of this discussion that it is somehow wrong to ask for evidence of actual influence or quid pro quo. Because, it is known.
posted by bearwife at 2:08 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Re: Merrick Garland:

This morning I had the news on while the coffee machine was warming up. I was actually surprised by a scary political ad brought to me by the "Judicial Crisis Network" about how Merrick Garland was a "Dangerous Liberal" and how his nomination "Must Be Stopped" at all costs.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 2:08 PM on May 4, 2016




"Also exactly what made Cruz quit last night? it seemed like everyone was surprised by that."

A lot of the more sober reporting is saying that he realized he couldn't force a contested convention after losing Indiana, and that the damage Trump was doing to Cruz's brand by Cruz staying in was significant (polling and focus grouping showed), and Cruz thought taking further reputational damage that would impair his political future was foolish when he couldn't at least force a contested convention.

IOW, Cruz continues to look out for Cruz's own future presidential ambitions, and isn't willing to take a strong moral stance when it isn't personally rewarding. Dude can't stand bad PR. And this is why I thought it was a mistake for the establishment wing of the party to turn to Cruz for salvation (not that they had a lot of choices! especially after putting off making a decision for so long!) -- he's not a good soldier for the party and he will never, ever take a bullet for the party when he can save Ted Cruz instead.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [24 favorites]


Ocschwar, I do greatly miss the beaches back home of north Florida...

If things start to look dire... I'll catch a final flight home... or drive like a deamon.

That ocean... and that river calls.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 2:12 PM on May 4, 2016


I honestly don't feel like reading any thinkpieces about the rise of Trump or the failure of the GOP because prior to two days ago we've been reading through with it anyway. Nothing has changed, other than the inevitable is more apparent, and the incompetence of Cruz and Kasich to weaken him more apparent as well. I was curious as to why they folded right now, but it would seem that the post right above mine has answered it, and there we go.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:12 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I'd like to interrupt the 85th rerun of the typical Clinton-Sanders argument to ask for more Dem VP predictions. Tim Kaine keeps getting floated and... he doesn't seem super exciting. Does Bernie staying in the race longer pressure Clinton to pick a VP more appealing to the Bernie base? Or am I wrong and need to be sold on how actually good Kaine would be?
posted by TwoStride at 2:13 PM on May 4, 2016


To which a Trump staffer awkwardly tweeted "That's cool, Governor Haley, but nobody was asking you. #awkward"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


IOOW, the shadows of dawn may linger while you pursue a tempting prize, but sooner or later you've got to realize that the rising of a massive bright orange accretion of gases is inexorable and you've just got to turn back into a swarm of bats and make for your crypt while you still can.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I would put a fairly large bet on Secretary Julián Castro of HUD being the VP pick on the Dem. side.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump can't really end the country, but he can and will sign virtually any legislation the Republican congress throws his way. They've tried over 50 times to repeal Obamacare, you can bet your ass that if he wins they'll have a bill set up to be not just at his desk on Jan 20, but I'd be surprised if they didn't make it part of his inauguration. Trump takes the oath of office, says "the first thing to make America great again is getting rid of Obamacare, and I've got the bill to do that right here!" And then he signs it before he even gives his acceptance speech.

But why on earth would he repeal Obamacare?
If your reasoning is that, once there's a Republican in the White House, he must bow to Republican orthodoxy, then think again. You've got to learn to think more like a psychopath. What's in it for him?

So I find your scenario extremely unlikely. In fact, I think that it's more likely that after the convention, he'll do something surprising, such as suddently embrace Obamacare. Think about it all. The Republicans are stuck with him, no matter what. Not a single Republican is going to vote Hillary, just because Trump suddenly embraces Obamacare. That wouldn't make any sense. But I could imagine that a few undecideds or Dem voters could be swung his way by such a move, especially if the spin is right:

"Obamacare is flawed. But it has given health insurance to a lot of people. People who would be dying out in the streets. So we are not going to abolish it. We are going to change our nation's health care and make it great. It will be the greatest health care on earth. You are going to be so healthy like you wouldn't believe it. And we are going to make the big insurance companies pay for it. Just wait. They'll be finally doing their job: make our great nation healthier. Listen to me:
I promise. - That when I'm in office. - Every American. - Will have free health care.
Don't wait for Hillary Clinton to do anything for your health. She's received millions of dollars from insurance companies. All she cares about is the insurance companies and her speaking engagements, OK? And she doesn't look very healthy to me herself, I'mjustsayin'."

Like I said above, having no obligations at all is a huge advantage.
posted by sour cream at 2:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


BREAKING: South Carolina's Governor Nikki Haley says she is not interested in VP bid, but will support Trump.

Now I get to smugly (yet sadly) point back to my prediction on this matter.
posted by dhens at 2:16 PM on May 4, 2016


Because, it is known.

Indeed, this is a real and empirically-known-to-exist phenomenon. If quid pro quo wasn't real, modernized societies that devalue corruption would not have developed laws, rules, guidelines, etc. that try to constrain it in all walks of life that intersect with financial compensation — and politics is only one arena where this occurs.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


What's in it for him?

I'd be astonished if his investment portfolio didn't include health insurance companies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:22 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I predict Laura Bush comes out and endorses Clinton. Maybe the entire Bush family with her, maybe not. But she's been dropping hints.
posted by sallybrown at 2:23 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "But why on earth would he repeal Obamacare?"

Because he ... said he would repeal Obamacare?

Is this a trick question?
posted by kyrademon at 2:25 PM on May 4, 2016 [32 favorites]


Maybe if all goes well we'll finally have a 1 party system.
posted by kyp at 2:25 PM on May 4, 2016


Because, it is known.

Indeed, this is a real and empirically-known-to-exist phenomenon. If quid pro quo wasn't real, modernized societies that devalue corruption would not have developed laws, rules, guidelines, etc. that try to constrain it in all walks of life that intersect with financial compensation — and politics is only one arena where this occurs.

I’m actually a bit confused by your point here. If the point is that societies limit the impact of quid pro quo corruption via the use of laws, then shouldn’t the case be that Clinton, who at the time was out of power (I think) and hasn’t done anything overtly illegal or corrupt, wasn’t corrupt? Not trying to be glib, just trying to parse the sentence.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is this a trick question?

Who are you going to believe, Trump right now or Trump whenever he said something before now?
posted by Going To Maine at 2:26 PM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


more Dem VP predictions

Castro
Warren
Perez
Kaine (zzzz)
McAuliffe (zzzz)
posted by sallybrown at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Holy cats, just watched the anti-Trump ad with quotes from all the other Republican candidates that the Clinton campaign released today and its a thing of beauty.

I think it was linked earlier in this discussion but I couldn't find it
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:27 PM on May 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


sour cream: But why on earth would he repeal Obamacare?

Because he has repeatedly said he will, including in an interview with the New York Times today? Exactly why do you think he would *not*? He's a guy who likes to have terrified peons, and the more insecure and desperate people are the better for him.
posted by tavella at 2:28 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]




Because he has repeatedly said he will, including in an interview with the New York Times today? Exactly why do you think he would *not*?

I think I mentioned this in another Trump discussion, but my few friends who do support Trump always tell me that they don't believe any of the racist stuff he says. "He's just saying that to get elected but once he's elected he'll not pretend to be racist anymore."

Its like Trump's stated policy points are so obviously false that he's a cypher onto whom you can project whatever you'd like. The dog whistle here, perhaps, is "I don't really believe any of this bullshit I'm selling you, I actually believe what you believe no matter who you are."

So its possible he's Schrodinger's candidate - both for and against any given issue depending on the audience and the circumstance.

I don't know, I'm of the Vonnegutian "be careful what you pretend to be for you are what you pretend to be" belief. If Trump wants to present himself as a Conservative, racist, misogynist pissquake, I'm comfortable accepting that that is exactly who he is and acting accordingly.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:34 PM on May 4, 2016 [31 favorites]


> "Who are you going to believe, Trump right now or Trump whenever he said something before now?"

But I mean, yeah, he's sometimes contradicted himself (or flat-out clearly had no idea what he was talking about), but repealing Obamacare has been a major plank of his policy platform, such as it is.

"Trump thinks Obamacare is 'a big, fat, horrible lie' and 'a total catastrophe,' which he's promised 'is going to be a disaster.'" - June 2015

"'I want to get rid of Obamacare and get you something great.'" - Trump, February 2016

“'We're going to repeal and replace the horror known as Obamacare, it is a horror.'” - Trump, February 2016

"'Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act--Obamacare.'" - Trump, March 2016

"'We are going to repeal Obamacare. We are going to repeal Obamacare.'" - Trump, March 2016

"'I would end Obamacare ...'" - Trump, April 2016

I mean, how much clearer does he need to be, here?
posted by kyrademon at 2:34 PM on May 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


Dude likes wrecking shit. It'll be his "you're fired!" move. Then he can lean back and feel all businessy while everything goes to hell.
posted by Artw at 2:36 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Because he ... said he would repeal Obamacare?

That was when he needed Republicans to vote for him.
The next step will be to get Republicans AND Undecided/Democrats to vote for him. That's a completely different situation.

Anyway, this is all just wild speculation, but the main point is this: Any predictions along the lines of "once he's in the White House, he'll do this" are based on the false premise that Trump has obligations and/or convictions. He has neither.

Exactly why do you think he would *not*? He's a guy who likes to have terrified peons, ...

Maybe. I think that's a better reason than "because he said so", which is based on the false premise that he is a man who stands by his word. But then again, he may recognize that not repealing Obamacare will earn him some popularity points, which may or may not be just as important to him as having terrified peons at some point...
posted by sour cream at 2:36 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


This video is a good summary of some of Trump's promises.

I mean, could he reverse all of those positions? Sure. But could he do that without losing his passionate base? I doubt it. He needs turnout. Its not true that every Republican will go to the ballot for him regardless. Maybe they won't vote for Clinton (although a few will), but elections are also about getting your supporters to actually go vote, and he has to think about that. If he suddenly ran as Bernie Sanders (to use the most extreme example), there is no way Republicans are going to go to the polls en masse to vote for him.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure what evidence you're looking for.

The problem with the lack of evidence but still believing it happened is I can see it as a gateway to believing everything bad about someone just based on a hunch or their "trust-iness". If someone believes that the speeches means Clinton is corrupt, then who's to say she didn't rig a couple of the primary elections? Or maybe she did leave people to die in Benghazi? Or worse?

There's no evidence of that either, but—maybe she did, maybe she didn't. And that's pretty much the basic formula for every right-wing attack that's been built against her and every other Democrat for the last 20 years.
posted by FJT at 2:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


TBH I don't really think he has it in him to have a secret agenda. That'd be a plus if all his public ones weren't horrible, I guess.
posted by Artw at 2:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


The more interesting question is, what would a filibuster-proof republican senate do if they have a president who they know would sign an ACA repeal? Because any of them who want to get re-elected would know that the smart move is "don't pass your half." People losing their awful won't-actually-pay cheap plans was a shitshow for democrats, so what happens when way more people get dumped off the exchanges?

House nutters can get away with this crap because they have tiny little clusters of an electorate. Their impact is diffuse. Senators don't get that luxury.

I won't under-estimate the ability of the republican party to shoot itself in the foot - not in 2016 that's for sure - but I suspect about half the R senators know that actually passing an ACA repeal at this point would be political suicide.
posted by phearlez at 2:37 PM on May 4, 2016




People basically ascribe superhuman pandering and position-shifting powers to Trump based on the fact that he was able to defeat a phenomenally awful field of terrible and uninspiring Republican contenders

Trump is not magic. He has expertly captured and turned out the talk radio listening, god-I-wish-I-could-be-racist-in-public-again demographic, but there is no evidence that he has any good tricks up his sleeve beyond that
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]




just trying to parse the sentence

Not sure there is much that needs parsing, really. Corruption exists and (royal) we have had to learn the hard way that (royal) we need mechanisms to try to deal with it, before it happens. Just because (royal) we have those mechanisms doesn't mean royal people don't get around them, let alone keep trying. If anything, corruption's continued corrosion of ordered society affirms why (royal) we always need skeptical eyes pointed at what is exchanged between two parties who exercise power over all of (royal) us. This really, absolutely should not be a controversial notion for a citizen living in a democracy in 2016 — Romney's infamous fundraiser speech in 2012 is a recent example of why — and if it still is, then (royal) we have more problems than just the potential for a Trump presidency.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:44 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also exactly what made Cruz quit last night? it seemed like everyone was surprised by that.

Cruz has to have seen indication that getting whupped this was was hurting his brand. He's got a sweet deal with where he is on the election cycle, being able to run for president without risking what Rubio did. He won the 2012 election pretty handily and would like to keep getting re-upped. I'd bet someone showed him an indication that dragging this out was hurting his favorables. Combine that with the fact that it was a super-long-shot after Indiana and his money issues and I imagine he decided to walk on the hope of taking another bite in 4 years.

If you want a more conspiratorial/bigger picture reason it's not impossible some players in the party decided it was better to just get this over with and start trying to make Trump into a winnable candidate. Or they started to realize that the brand damage from subverting the primary voters would be worse than just letting Trump run. So they used a carrot or stick or both. On the stick front he could be primaried. He got that slot by a decent margin but maybe a lot of those endorsements wouldn't be coming again?

tl;dr: Cruz dropped because it was better for Cruz to drop at this point.
posted by phearlez at 2:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Imagine the speech that such a non-subtle braggart would give after the first post-election National Security briefing. He can't resist rubbing his superiority in people's faces, so it might just take the right question from a reporter who he wanted to smack down for him to blurt out something that wasn't supposed to be public knowledge. Hopefully it doesn't result in lives being lost.
posted by soelo at 2:50 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump and the Mob: The budding mogul had a soft spot (but a short memory) for wiseguys.

The Marshall Project is the best, but I can only take it in small doses or all I’ll do is cry.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Intercept: "Democratic Senator Urges Business Elites to Get More Involved in Politics"

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., called on an audience of business and political elites earlier this week to respond to populist anger by lobbying harder for a deficit-reduction package that would reduce corporate tax rates and cut public retirement programs such as Social Security.

Although a dominant populist sentiment is that the system is already rigged in favor of the rich, Warner suggested that the “business community” needs to get more involved in politics or face unpleasant repercussions.


This, this is the long game. After Trump is safely trounced, this is the sort of corruption that must be confronted and uprooted from the Democratic Party. The Clintons are neither the start, nor the end, nor the worst, of this manifestation.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:52 PM on May 4, 2016 [23 favorites]


reduce corporate tax rates and cut public retirement programs such as Social Security
How would that quell populist anger?
posted by soelo at 2:56 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


more Dem VP predictions

Castro
Warren
Perez
Kaine (zzzz)
McAuliffe (zzzz)


The main reason why I think Cruz would never be Trump's VP is why I hope Warren will not be Clinton's. Cruz wouldn't want to be VP even if Trump had a good chance of winning, because the VP has almost no influence on national-level policy. Warren, meanwhile, is doing excellent and important work as a Senator, work that I would like to see continued under a Democratic Presidency/Senate majority. Add to that the fact that VP selection has little impact on general election results, and Warren as VP appears all downside from the perspective of advancing progressive policy.

More broadly, I don't think Clinton will draw from the pool of serving Democratic Senators because that might complicate the path to a Democratic Senate majority. I suspect it will be Castro because he's being pulled from the Executive (so no impact on state or legislative numbers), and would contribute to the narrative of Clinton as the preserver/expander of Obama's policy legacy, in addition to the demographic benefit of having a Latino on the ticket while running against Trump.
posted by palindromic at 2:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hate to say it, but I think some people are being a little too optimistic. They're noticing that Trump clearly doesn't give a shit about some of the things he says, and thinking that means he won't rubberstamp legislation related to it.

First, some of the things people think he doesn't give a shit about, he does. He's been complaining about Obamacare since at least 2011, I think. He'll be thrilled to get a chance to repeal it.

But there are things he probably doesn't really care about, like abortion, where he was basically, "Um, yeah, abortion ... bad. Punish women who get abortions. Oh, was that not what I was supposed to say? Um, something else, then, whatever. Abortion bad."

But that doesn't mean he'll veto an "end all abortion forever" bill if it trots across his desk. The veto comes out for issues someone *does* give a shit about, in the opposite direction. For abortion, he'll shrug and say, "whatever, if that's what you want", or maybe at best say, "Well, I'll let your abortion bill go through if you vote for my signature 'yell at Mexico until they agree to pay for a wall' bill", which will almost certainly then proceed to happen.

This is what has happened over and over again when an executive gets elected on some particular platform and has a rabid legislative body of the same party. We've seen it a lot in "businessman style" republican governors with tea-party ruled state congresses. As long as they get their pet projects passed, they do not give a shit about the rest. And not giving a shit means they just rubberstamp the bills.
posted by kyrademon at 2:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [30 favorites]




The Intercept: “Democratic Senator Urges Business Elites to Get More Involved in Politics”

Mark Warner is one of the best things to come out of VA politics, and someone I could easily see as a future candidate, so it’ll be interesting to see how he fares in a new kind of democratic party.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:02 PM on May 4, 2016


Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., called on an audience of business and political elites earlier this week to respond to populist anger by lobbying harder for a deficit-reduction package that would reduce corporate tax rates and cut public retirement programs such as Social Security.

How would that quell populist anger?


It's respond, not quell. I think he literally means "we need to pass these shitty bills (and more!) before the people wake up and have a chance to do anything about it."
posted by kyp at 3:02 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Mark Warner (emphasis mine):
“This is a room where now about ten percent of you…raised your hands as saying you have any political involvement. You, if you’re here, have done pretty damn well,” the senator told the audience. “You have an outsized ability to affect what happens in Washington, because you’re successful.”

“I get a little tired of the business community bitching about Washington but then never wanting to get their hands dirty,” he continued.
*shiver*
posted by kyp at 3:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I get what Warner is saying -- Silicon Valley, among other places, has lacked any desire to get involved with government policy, mainly working around it or against it. And their withdrawal from politics just means more time and money given to the Adelsons and Koches and so on.

Tone-deaf way to deliver that message, though.
posted by dw at 3:17 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Coming from my Warner-biased corner, that Intercept piece seems like a kind of garbage hot take. It’s pretty empty of any content beyond mentioning the corporate tax and social security factoids. (Totally without substantiation I’d be willing to believe that Warner would be willing to up taxes on the rich instead.) The video is basically just the quotes included in the piece, which have been excerpted from a long panel discussion. That’s some shoddy journalism right there.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:23 PM on May 4, 2016


Warner is part of the business community - he made his money in telecom in the 80s/90s and is one of the wealthiest Senators. He's talking to people like him right there.
posted by sallybrown at 3:25 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


And I'm not saying that means he's a bad guy, or a bad politician. He's a very rich businessman who is also very involved in politics, and I think he's urging people to follow his example. Whether that's good or bad on the whole, people differ (personally I think Warner is the exception to the rule with that cohort).
posted by sallybrown at 3:28 PM on May 4, 2016




Deficit hawkery is just plain economic warfare, and that's what Warner is pushing. I honestly don't see where ya'all are getting some rosy vision of what he's doing on that stage.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:31 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


I get what Warner is saying -- Silicon Valley, among other places, has lacked any desire to get involved with government policy, mainly working around it or against it. And their withdrawal from politics just means more time and money given to the Adelsons and Koches and so on.

I think it's dangerous to assume that the Silicon Valley elite aren't already deeply involved in politics.

The ordinary SV workers on the other hand are only starting to get more involved (at least with their dollars), especially during this election cycle, and superficially they seem to support progressive values, which gives me hope.
posted by kyp at 3:32 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Deficit hawkery is just plain economic warfare, and that's what Warner is pushing. I honestly don't see where ya'all are getting some rosy vision of what he's doing on that stage.

I wouldn’t say I’m getting a rosy vision of what he’s doing on that stage so much as no vision of what he’s doing, and I have something of a bias towards him. If there’s a more thorough piece out there than that bit of nothing from The Intercept I’d be happy to read it.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:33 PM on May 4, 2016


(That said, it doesn’t take more than few minutes on Warner’s site to get the idea that he’s at least a bit concerned about the size of the debt and the deficit, so I’m not trying to make out like he’s covering up his goals here.)
posted by Going To Maine at 3:37 PM on May 4, 2016


I think Julian Castro is the odds-on for the VP choice. Kaine would be a milquetoast choice. Klobuchar or Franken would be interesting. I'll still offer Patty Murray even if this is a re-election year. No way Warren accepts given the Senate has a good chance at flipping.
posted by dw at 3:37 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


the American electorate, on the whole, is not made up of racists who actually want to be awful. I believe, as I believe even now about a lot of those who voted/are voting him into the nomination, that the real danger is from those people who are not having enough of their needs met to be able to look to other people with compassion.

Actually, yes, they are awful people. These are people who are mean-spirited and of flawed character. Their present circumstances are no excuse. No matter current circumstances, rich or poor, they will always seek comfort in blaming and attacking those poorer and weaker than themselves. It is a core belief in their character. The notion that they are lacking in compassion only because of their present circumstances is false. Mean people will always find an excuse for being mean.
posted by JackFlash at 3:39 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'd be surprised at Castro. I think Clinton goes for somebody like Biden to shore up white working class people in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
posted by Justinian at 3:39 PM on May 4, 2016


The House is in play.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:42 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think Clinton goes for somebody like Biden to shore up white working class people in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Biden could be made some sort of permanent Vice President. I'd support that.

Or, heck, Obama as VP.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Has anyone been VP for two different presidents before?
posted by msalt at 3:46 PM on May 4, 2016


NBC News confirming that neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 will endorse a candidate this cycle - they are sitting out.
posted by sallybrown at 3:46 PM on May 4, 2016 [29 favorites]


Man I'd love to see Franken as VP pick. I mean, he shouldn't be the pick, for the same reasons as Warren, but if it did happen I'd love every minute watching it.
posted by rifflesby at 3:46 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Endorsing Clinton would kind of be a poison pill for her among certain progressive types, so good on the Bushes for taking the best possible approach here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


If anyone had told me a year ago that Dubya would be a part of literally the only thing keeping me from despair right now, I would have laughed and laughed.

THIS YEAR.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


Has anyone been VP for two different presidents before?

George Clinton and John C. Calhoun.
posted by peeedro at 3:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Said it before, saying it again: someone if her stature making a couple hundred thousand dollars per speech is bog bloody standard and has been for a long time.

High stature speaker = high fees. This is not new, and it's surprising only to people who've never had to hire speakers/celebrities for events.


I don't think anyone thinks this is new, or is surprised by it. Quite the opposite. But the reason it's still worth discussing is not because it affects the primary -- Clinton is the clear winner there -- but because the general issue and the principles underlying it extend far beyond this primary or Clinton herself: into Citizens United, campaigns, party organization, lobbying, Congress, etc. As I've written before, we've created this vast ethical edifice in business, law, academia, journalism, and politics, that severely restricts monetary gifts even absent any quid pro quo. See Eyebrows McGee's post upthread for a good example: there are huge restrictions on the money politicians can receive while in office, and that extends to spouses and family. And for Congress, there are restrictions on what politicians can do shortly after office, because the "revolving door" of lobbying is known to corrupt politicians even if they are not taking money while in office. What has not been regulated very much is taking money shortly before holding office, but the logic is similar. Taking money from a regulatee (or legal client or student) shortly before holding office is just as potentially corrupting as taking money during or shortly afterwards. The fact that non-office-holders or other celebrities receive large gifts from third parties is fairly irrelevant to the reason regulations exist: to prevent the appearance of corruption of office holders (or judges, teachers, journalists, etc). The foundational idea is that no quid pro quo is necessary -- receiving the money is enough. It's true, current systems mostly regulate what happens while holding office (where a $200,000 personal gift from Goldman would be inconceivable), and to some degree after holding office, but rarely before holding office. But that doesn't change the general ethical problem posed by the idea of taking large quantities of money from people you will soon have great power over, which is at the heart of our entire ethical system of gift restrictions.

Anyway, tl;dr: this stuff matters far beyond Clinton. I'll enthusiastically vote for her in November, but that doesn't mean we should consider the monetary gifts anything other than an ethical lapse.
posted by chortly at 3:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


Yeah... certain progressive types who... don't... like... the Bushes...

????

YEP THAT WOULD BE BAD IF GEORGE FUCKING BUSH WERE WILLING TO ENDORSE YOU AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT
posted by eyesontheroad at 3:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


But not that George Clinton.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:53 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wouldn’t say I’m getting a rosy vision of what he’s doing on that stage so much as no vision of what he’s doing, and I have something of a bias towards him. If there’s a more thorough piece out there than that bit of nothing from The Intercept I’d be happy to read it.

if you are not understanding what is upsetting people about The commission put together a plan that called for corporate tax reform focused on cutting the corporate tax rate and entitlement reform based on policies such as raising the Social Security retirement age. and saying things like “The walls that are gonna have to be built, may not be at borders, they may be around neighborhoods the way they are in many Third World countries around the world,” and “You have an outsized ability to affect what happens in Washington, because you’re successful.” then I'm not sure there's another link that's going to paint a clearer picture for you.
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:53 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


But not that George Clinton.

I appreciate you going there, but I reckon this might be more appropriate...
posted by Pink Frost at 3:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh, well played Pink Frost.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on May 4, 2016


The House is in play.

Ironmouth, you tease.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:59 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unless McCain endorses a guy who called him a coward for being a POW, that means it's very likely not one living former President or former Presidential candidate will endorse the GOP's nominee this year.
posted by sallybrown at 3:59 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


Why are people down on Kaine as a VP pick? Sure he's not super-exciting but it's not the VPs job to be exciting. The VPs job is to stand around and wait for the President to die.
posted by Justinian at 3:59 PM on May 4, 2016


YEP THAT WOULD BE BAD IF GEORGE FUCKING BUSH WERE WILLING TO ENDORSE YOU AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Eh, its not surprising that the Kochs or Bushes or whoever might want Clinton to win. They are focused on business, and Trump will almost certainly be an economic disaster. If he has his way, the US will basically screw up every trade relationship we have. The result will be a recession/depression of legendary proportions.

They may not like lots of things about Clinton, but she's basically "status quo" from the Obama years. Markets like predictability and stability. Trump is chaos and probable disaster.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:01 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think she should pick a woman VP and go full Sand Snakes on Trump
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:01 PM on May 4, 2016 [23 favorites]


i mean I'm already going to wear pink on Election Day but I'd up it to hot pink in that case.
posted by sallybrown at 4:04 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Walls around neighborhoods? Christ why is this guy even kind of still viable.
posted by corb at 4:05 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


YEP THAT WOULD BE BAD IF GEORGE FUCKING BUSH WERE WILLING TO ENDORSE YOU AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT

George W. Bush did not put Muslims in camps, or imply that it might be reasonable to do so, or that it was perhaps reasonable to intern the Japanese during World War II. He did not forbid Muslims from entering the US on the basis of religion. Or deport people in huge numbers at a destructive pace, breaking up families. Or build a two thousand mile wall.

He did not threaten to personally ensure the execution of criminals who have committed no federal crimes, or to change the laws to silence journalists.

He did not hint at riots if he didn't win the nomination/presidency, in spite of the closeness of his race. He did not encourage violence at his rallies. He did not reminisce fondly about the days when protesters were carried out of political rallies "on stretchers."


As bad as Bush was (and he was very, very bad), he was not Donald Trump bad. He has no love for Clinton, believe me. If he were willing to hypothetically endorse her, it would be out of desperation, because he, like many Republicans, understands that Trump is potentially an existential threat to our democratic system, which relies on people not resorting to actual violence. And while you may not agree with him on a lot of things (I certaintly don't), he does not actually want to destroy America, or he would've done a better job of it when he had the chance. If George W. Bush were to endorse Clinton, it would not say anything about Clinton's progressiveness. It would simply indicate that George W. Bush has been paying attention to what Donald Trump says, and is as scared as the rest of us.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:06 PM on May 4, 2016 [53 favorites]


The House is in play.

Downticket, downticket, downticket.

I just like saying downticket.
posted by eclectist at 4:06 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


The House isn't in play. There are structural reasons for that which won't change any time soon.
posted by Justinian at 4:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's one of Hillary's keynote addresses, paid for and released by Goldman Sachs.

I read today that Hillary voluntarily released her list of payed speeches made as a private citizen. Has any other candidate done that? It seems to me like Clinton is being punished for the crime of coming out of political retirement.
posted by muddgirl at 4:12 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


Don't care.

Downticket, downticket, downticket!
posted by eclectist at 4:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Why are people down on Kaine as a VP pick? Sure he's not super-exciting but it's not the VPs job to be exciting. The VPs job is to stand around and wait for the President to die.

VPs have regularly been chosen with an eye towards shoring up elements of the voting public who are unenthusiastic towards the Presidential candidate, or more occasionally as a nod towards an individual's power within the party or historical significance. LBJ, for example, was someone that the Kennedy's didn't want to leave outside the tent pissing in, as well as a candidate who could bring portions of the South not particularly enthralled by the northern, East Coast Kennedy. Humphrey, in turn, was a progressive northerner who could bring in voters that weren't particularly attracted by LBJ.

As you say, a large part of the VP's job these days is to just be there in case the President dies, so given the absence of special qualifications, why not pick someone who excites progressives, or someone with regional influence, or something else useful during the campaign? In this case, I imagine the main question is whether it is more important to pull in progressives disenchanted with Clinton or to appeal to mainstream, moderate voters who have been turned off by years of blaring hatred of Clinton from the Right. Given that Trump is now the Republican candidate, I suspect that the moderates are hers already, so revving up the progressive base will be more important.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


The House isn't in play. There are structural reasons for that which won't change any time soon.

...though this is a perfect thought to inspire my regular reminder that everyone should educate themselves on their local elections and make sure to vote for candidates locally that reflect the sort of government you want. And do that every off-year, too. And encourage other people to vote on off-years.

Also, everyone who is a crazy socialist like myself should spend some time trying to encourage qualified people to run for office for local and state offices (or, heck, consider running for office yourself, as awful as that process is) because we're going to effect more positive change from the street level than from the White House.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


The House isn't in play. There are structural reasons for that which won't change any time soon.

Can you elaborate?
posted by kyp at 4:14 PM on May 4, 2016


Eh, its not surprising that the Kochs or Bushes or whoever might want Clinton to win.

Oh totally. I meant only that it was odd to suggest that it would be a problem for "certain progressive types."

s bad as Bush was (and he was very, very bad), he was not Donald Trump bad.
If George W. Bush were to endorse Clinton, it would not say anything about Clinton's progressiveness.

I don't agree with this, though... It's charitable, and I agree with much of what you've said, but I think it's evidence instead of the relative palatability of centrist Dem policies to mainstream non-Trumpian Republicans.

But right now we are arguing about what an endorsement that did not happen would or would not have meant... The Trump card has me freaked out, I'll admit.
posted by eyesontheroad at 4:15 PM on May 4, 2016


If he has his way, the US will basically screw up every trade relationship we have. The result will be a recession/depression of legendary proportions

Oh great. Another five Internet Leftists just jumped ship to Trump. :'/

In all seriousness, I was discussing this issue to a Canadian progressive last night, and she just couldn't see that it would make any difference. "We already have Great Depression levels of inequality and economic disruption" was what she wrote.

Now, why she was campaigning so hard for Sanders, to the point where she was the most prolific poster in the group, they was a mystery...
posted by happyroach at 4:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obama is constitutionally unable to be the VP pick. Michelle, on the other hand...
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:19 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't agree with this, though... It's charitable, and I agree with much of what you've said, but I think it's evidence instead of the relative palatability of centrist Dem policies to mainstream non-Trumpian Republicans.

and this is why I made the comment that you found odd
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:19 PM on May 4, 2016


Walls around neighborhoods? Christ why is this guy even kind of still viable.

Given that one party is all het up about class differences in a pretty solid eat-the-rich kind of way and on the other side you came down to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the idea that a politician might use inter-neighborhood warfare as a point of hyperbole doesn’t seem particularly garish.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:19 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Last week, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced that voting rights will be restored for convicted felons who are no longer in prison. If his executive order is upheld, this will enfranchise more than 200,000 citizens of the state who have paid their debt to society and deserve a voice in their state government. It’s a bold, progressive action, exactly the kind of policy core Democratic voters are coming to expect from their leaders.
Before assuming office, McAuliffe seemed like the ultimate political hack.
This major progressive reform didn’t come out entirely of the blue, either. On his first day in office, McAuliffe signed an executive order banning discrimination against state employees based on sexual orientation. In an action that foreshadowed his enfranchisement of felons, McAuliffe removed questions about criminal history from government job applications. He has been limited by a Republican-controlled legislature—his valiant fight to accept the Medicaid expansion ultimately failed—but he’s been a solidly progressive governor.
Why Hillary Will Govern More Like Bernie Than People Think
posted by y2karl at 4:20 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


The trick was getting Dems to vote for Trvmp.

It's blowback time.
posted by clavdivs at 4:30 PM on May 4, 2016


sour cream: But why on earth would he repeal Obamacare?

Congress has passed bills to repeal Obamacare like a hundred times in the last five years. They'd have a bill on Trump's desk about fifteen minutes after he gave the oath of office. All he has to do is sign and his supporters would be furious if he didn't.
posted by octothorpe at 4:41 PM on May 4, 2016


NBC Makes Curious Decision to Let Lester Holt Anchor Nightly News from Trump Tower. "Fun experiment: imagine how people would react if, say, a nightly network newscast anchored live from, say, Chappaqua."
posted by peeedro at 4:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


mene mene tekel upharsin
posted by y2karl at 4:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


The House isn't as much in play as you think.

Democrats need 30 seats to get a majority. 15 GOP seats that are open or toss-up, another 14 in the lean. The Democrats have to hold their toss-ups and leans as well, and then find one more out of the likelies.

And mind you, these are mostly gerrymandered seats.
posted by dw at 4:43 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


They couldn't get a bill to his desk because it wouldn't pass the Senate. I agree they would try, though.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on May 4, 2016


But why on earth would he repeal Obamacare?

I think the better question is: why wouldn't he repeal it? As octothorpe notes, it would require no effort at all on his part other than to sign his name, and it would send out a strong message on Day One that this guy is a take-charge president who gets shit done! A real winner, not like that previous chump—what was his name? Osama something?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:47 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Guys, Obamacare repeals have passed the House many times. It has never passed the Senate and it never will so long as the Democrats don't suffer some sort of cataclysm.
posted by Justinian at 4:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


one party is all het up about class differences in a pretty solid eat-the-rich kind of way

Which party is that? I would love a party that recognizes class conflict, but the mainstream Ds (ie not Bernie and co.) certainly do not.
posted by dhens at 4:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Not okay, I don't think. The same way that we have organizations trying to care for people fleeing the gangs in Central America, I hope that Canadians would be understanding of people overstaying their visas if they felt like their lives were in danger if Trump is president. "

I volunteer to smuggle you all to Peru and start my own refugee resettlement program there!
posted by Tarumba at 4:49 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


In the same way that the Bush II dynasty made the fortunes of FOX News, I wonder if a Trump presidency would make the National Enquirer a similarly "legitimate" news source.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Guys, Obamacare repeals have passed the House many times. It has never passed the Senate and it never will so long as the Democrats don't suffer some sort of cataclysm.

In the scenario we're discussing, Trump has won the White House. The cataclysm has already happened.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Actually asylees. If I smuggle you first you would be asylees, not refugees.
posted by Tarumba at 4:53 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


In the scenario we're discussing, Trump has won the White House. The cataclysm has already happened.

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
posted by Justinian at 4:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Which party is that? I would love a party that recognizes class conflict, but the mainstream Ds (ie not Bernie and co.) certainly do not.

Mainstream Ds might not believe the rhetoric, but they can certainly hear the language and see the primary votes.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:08 PM on May 4, 2016


They did get an Obamacare repeal through the Senate. Obama had to veto it.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]


Under centrists Bill Clinton and Obama, Dem's raised taxes on the rich, passed the Family Leave Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Act and oh yeah, Obamacare while Republicans screamed bloodly murder and class warfare. Republicans cut taxes by billions (a trillion IIRC) on the rich, pushed Social Security cuts and estate tax cuts and nominated Supreme Court justices responsible for Citizens United and a million pro business decisions.

I get that it might not be the full agenda you favor, but pretending that that there's no difference on issues of class is disingenuous.
posted by msalt at 5:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [40 favorites]


there's a pretty huge difference between that and "eat-the-rich", which is what dhens was responding to
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:17 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


(and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise)
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:24 PM on May 4, 2016


Trump's ego is so large he's probably pondering if he even NEEDS a Vice President. I say he picks Kasich. Then it gets real.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:38 PM on May 4, 2016


I could imagine a Fallin pick complicating things; unfortunately, it’s harder to accuse a misogynist of their actions when they get a woman as a voluntary, high-profile shield.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Romanian hacker who first exposed Hillary Clinton’s private email address is making a bombshell new claim – that he also gained access to the former Secretary of State’s “completely unsecured” server.

“It was like an open orchid on the Internet,” Marcel Lehel Lazar, who uses the devilish handle Guccifer, told NBC News in an exclusive interview from a prison in Bucharest. “There were hundreds of folders.”

...When pressed by NBC News, Lazar, 44, could provide no documentation to back up his claims, nor did he ever release anything on-line supporting his allegations, as he had frequently done with past hacks. The FBI’s review of the Clinton server logs showed no sign of hacking, according to a source familiar with the case.

posted by futz at 6:00 PM on May 4, 2016


Mac Stipanovich writes to his fellow Republicans in the Tallahassee Democrat
On a personal level, Trump is a boor, a bully, a carnival barker, and an embarrassment. Politically, by intent or instinct, he is a neo-fascist — a nativist, an ultranationalist, a racist, a misogynist, an anti-intellectual, a demagogue, and a palingenetic (sorry) authoritarian to whom clings the odor of the political violence he encourages.
With fellow party members like that....
posted by vac2003 at 6:01 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Fallin would come with her own baggage, e.g. Oklahoma's horrific public education situation, but I'm not sure that would hurt her with anyone already willing to vote Trump.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:01 PM on May 4, 2016


I'm not totally convinced the House would continue to work to repeal Obamacare given united GOP control of the House, Senate, and presidency. It's super-easy for the House GOP to waste time repealing Obamacare over and over again because they know the Senate will ignore them and/or Obama will veto them. It's a zero-consequence way to whip up the base. But Obamacare is too popular and too relied-on already; enough of the House GOP isn't Freedom Caucus that they'd think two or three times before actually putting through an Obamacare repeal that would pass the Senate and get signed because of the clear enormous backlash they'd face. Paul Ryan or his non-Freedom-Caucus successor would give a handful of Reps political cover to vote against it (like they did here!) by "deferring to the will of their home state voters" or talking about how much money it brings to their state or doing a Kasich and talking about Jesus requiring them to support Obamacare. Or you stick in some riders that allow a handful of specific reps political cover to vote against it because they disagree with the riders. And then they'll come up with a reason to bottle up future attempts in committee so that they don't constantly expose their more centrist members to attacks for blocking the repeal.

Congresses (and state legislatures) that can actually pass their agendas do a lot less grandstanding. (It gets even more entertaining when the opposition party realizes that by not voting, or defecting just a handful of votes, they can force the majority party to vote down its own grandstanding bill.) I totally believe that the House Freedom Caucus is willing to light the country on fire with little regard for their own political futures, and are stupid enough to engage in all the foot-shooting, but that's 42 members out of 246 Republicans. An awful lot of those other 200 are wary of shooting themselves in the foot and while they consider whipping up the base politically useful, aren't actually all that interested in its goals. (Which, really, is how we got Trump anyway -- years and years of base-whipping with no follow through, because those other 200 never had any intention of following through on the ultra-right base's desires; they're there for Wall Street or Main Street or establishment conservatism.)

Anyway a Trump presidency would still be a dumpster fire of terrible legislation, but I don't think the radical right agenda will get quite as far as some are predicting, because Congress's interests don't really align with Trump's, and it's not like Trump has the experience coalition-building or horse-trading to get shit done. Honestly the greater danger is probably a do-nothing Congress falling completely apart with dithering and refusal to actually DO anything, while the rest of us drive on rutted Mad-Max roads because of a lack of federal budget and the economy falls off a cliff because Congress can't get its shit together.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I just want to show June 2015 zutalors! this thread and just...step back and watch.
posted by zutalors! at 6:25 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump lays out his first 100 days in office:

"On Inauguration Day, he would go to a “beautiful” gala ball or two, but focus mostly on rescinding Obama executive orders on immigration and calling up corporate executives to threaten punitive measures if they shift jobs out of the United States.

And by the end of his first 100 days as the nation’s 45th leader, the wall with Mexico would be designed, the immigration ban on Muslims would be in place, the audit of the Federal Reserve would be underway and plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act would be in motion."
(I bolded that)
posted by FJT at 6:26 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


In the photo accompanying that article, you can see where Trump’s hair folds over.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:33 PM on May 4, 2016


If I can't pull off helping to change the Republican nominee, I've made a terrible pact and will be volunteering for her.

As a Libertarian Party hack, I just can't stomach volunteering directly for Clinton's campaign but I *can* get enthused about volunteering for a nonpartisan voter registration drive targeting the 200,000+ recently re-enfranchised felons in Virginia. If the majority of those new voters are statistically likely to vote Democrat, so be it.

And as far as my actual vote goes, given that I'm in a swing state I expect that I'll be vote-swapping with a certain MeFite in Massachusetts again (you know who you are ;)) because the national vote percentage is what matters most to the Libertarian Party so it doesn't really matter which state "my" vote is cast in.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:34 PM on May 4, 2016 [10 favorites]


"I read today that Hillary voluntarily released her list of payed speeches made as a private citizen. Has any other candidate done that? It seems to me like Clinton is being punished for the crime of coming out of political retirement."

Do you recall where you read it? I'm not seeing news of it anywhere.
posted by Selena777 at 6:34 PM on May 4, 2016


So by the end of his first 100 days, there'd be some corporate executives randomly scolded, a bunch of blueprints for a wall (why wait until you're in office to draw those up), a federal court order stating that you can't ban an entire religion from visiting the country, we'd know that the Fed already gets audited, and there'd be plans "in motion" to repeal the ACA, whatever that even means. Call me unimpressed with the ambition of that agenda from a man who professes to know how to get stuff done.

Oh, and rescinding executive orders on immigration. That one would actually do something, something pretty awful to a lot of people.
posted by zachlipton at 6:34 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Who fits these descriptions? A businesswoman loyal to Trump who is not especially well-liked.

This is Omarosa's time to shine.
posted by sallybrown at 11:15 AM on May 4


I'm going with Condoleezza Rice.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 6:45 PM on May 4, 2016


Hillary, Obama and Sanders are some of the best retail politicians of our time. They will absolutely get out the vote downticket.

Meanwhile, the kinds of Republicans who care about who's going to be dogcatcher will be sitting this one out. People they like and admire in the party, and have been hearing about with some pleasure and anticipation for years, were bulled off the stage by a New Yorker who hasn't spent a moment in public service. Trump can motivate the vote, many of them first time voters, but can he motivate his voters to pull the "R" handle rather than tick off Trump and leave the rest blank? Or worse, vote for whoever's not an incumbent?

This is the one and only situation where gerrymandering may be helpless to stop the forces in play.

Because, meanwhile, the Dems will beat feet up and down and all around. Sanders still believes he can win, but look at the dude. He was already bitter and angry his side lost, and that was before he decided to run for president. Of course he will bring his terrible machine to bear upon revanchists, totalitarians, neo-feudalists, dominionists, mugwumps, pinkertons and unreconstructed confederates of all stripes, and since he's Bernie, and will make the case clearly and passionately, his machine will goddamn do it in Hillary Clinton's service.

If Obama wants any damn kind of legacy (apart from being the first African American president, the first Hawaiian president, the man who found and killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader who prevented Great Depression II - Electric Boogaloo, the president who appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court, the man who saved the US Auto Industry, besides that, and believe it or not, there's a lot, beginning with Iran and Cuba) - he had better be revving up his machine.

My only concern is that Hillary likes overkill. She will spend too much time, money, manpower and attention on states where she's sort-of winning and nowhere near enough on states where she's sort-of losing. Her team needs to trust the numbers, and try to flip some places, even unlikely ones, just to take back the House and Senate and to break up GOP control at the state level.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:49 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


Fallin would come with her own baggage, e.g. Oklahoma's horrific public education situation, but I'm not sure that would hurt her with anyone already willing to vote Trump.

On the one hand, it does nothing to help Trump since Oklahoma has been consistently in the GOP column. On the other hand, she's the sort of southern Christian far right sort that could bring some of the Religious Right back into the fold.

And Oklahoma would love to be rid of her... but a heartbeat away from the presidency might be too much.
posted by dw at 6:52 PM on May 4, 2016




Compared to the threat of a thuggish, chickenshit-hearted loudmouth blundering us into a major war with China, fought along the Mexican fucking border, with a cast of other actors sized for a Cecil De Mille production, nothing else fazes me.

Hillary Clinton's corrupt? Cynical? Compromised by Goldman Sachs? Okay. Call it a shit sandwich. I'll still eat it with a grin.

Bernie Sanders is too left wing to be able to do basic math? He's certainly more left wing than I am, and has a long slate of ideas I do not support. Don't care. If he's on the ballot, he has my vote.

Pentagon organizes a palace coup? Ok. I can live with that.

I'm just amazed at people who think it's worthwhile arguing about the identity politics that may or may not be behind the aspersions cast at Hillary Clinton, or at whether those aspersions are true. War with China trigged by chickenshit stupidity, people. Some things just pale in comparison.
posted by ocschwar at 7:00 PM on May 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


Maybe all of this election season has been viral marketing for a new Marvel Comics' Civil War series.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:02 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary Clinton's new ad against Trump (Mother Jones), made of quotes from Republicans.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


I could imagine a Fallin pick complicating things; unfortunately, it’s harder to accuse a misogynist of their actions when they get a woman as a voluntary, high-profile shield.

Not necessarily. Preferring that a woman be in a powerless, second-fiddle position is a pretty good symbol for Trump's misogyny.
posted by msalt at 7:24 PM on May 4, 2016


So: Hillary Advertisement: "Establishment Republicans Hate Him!"
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:26 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just want to reiterate this part of OnceUponATime's comment here, which is really the only thing to remember in this election: Trump is potentially an existential threat to our democratic system, which relies on people not resorting to actual violence.

I kind of can't believe we're at the point where you can actually say "George W. Bush wasn't as bad as this new guy, at least he believed in democracy!," but it's true, and here we are.
posted by breakin' the law at 7:27 PM on May 4, 2016 [28 favorites]


palindromic: "Cruz wouldn't want to be VP even if Trump had a good chance of winning, because the VP has almost no influence on national-level policy."

The W presidency would seem to argue otherwise.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:48 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm just amazed at people who think it's worthwhile arguing about the identity politics that may or may not be behind the aspersions cast at Hillary Clinton, or at whether those aspersions are true.

You're amazed that people want to talk about the election in an election thread?
posted by Krom Tatman at 7:51 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton's new ad against Trump (Mother Jones), made of quotes from Republicans.

Really she could remake this ad every single day from now till November and not run out of material.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:54 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


So: Hillary Advertisement: "Establishment Republicans Hate Him!"

The second one takes a different, and much more satisfying, approach.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:05 PM on May 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


Or, heck, Obama as VP.

I don't think he can, since he's already had two terms as POTUS.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


The first one is much more effective with general election voters.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:15 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Debbie Wasserman Scultz was on MSNBC on Monday 5/2. There is no transcript or video posted yet. She talks about how she'd like to see closed primaries with no Independents voting.

Meanwhile, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DNC, said on MSNBC on Monday that if anything, she would prefer to change all 50 primaries to be closed, not open.
“I believe that the party’s nominee should be chosen — this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opinion — that the party’s nominee should be chosen by members of the party,” she said.


Video here.
posted by futz at 8:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, is there anyone still hanging on to the hope that Trump doesn't actually want to be president and he's only running at this point because he's compelled to and he's actually looking for a worthy adversary to finally defeat him so he can retire to a quiet life of luxury real estate development?
posted by FJT at 8:18 PM on May 4, 2016


Today I learned that my grade-school recollection of David Duke and Michael Dukakis being one and the same is very, very incorrect.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:22 PM on May 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos I love how in that Facebook conversation two people (a Trump supporter and a Hillary supporter) are having a super serious argument but both of them have doggy avatars and I can't help thinking wow these doggies are like really into politics.
posted by Tarumba at 8:26 PM on May 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


"Obama as VP."

"I don't think he can, since he's already had two terms as POTUS."


According to this it might be possible, but the resulting inevitable distraction of a Supreme Court-sized headache isn't worth it to any presidential candidate.
posted by komara at 8:28 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: there are exactly two options
posted by sneebler at 8:35 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DNC, said on MSNBC on Monday that if anything, she would prefer to change all 50 primaries to be closed, not open.

Both political parties have unsurprisingly been pretty consistent about this desire. In California (iirc) they banded together in the 90s to undo the open primary initiative that had been passed by voters.

I don't know of another country that has the equivalent of an open primary, but there are also few other democracies where two political parties are so structurally entrenched that there's no hope of creating a viable third party. (Sorry Greens! Sorry Libertarians!)
posted by Slothrup at 8:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I like those two Hilary for America ads. Everybody seems to comment on them saying "so what? We all know he said those things" but I don't think they realize there are lots of people who don't bother watching election news until the general starts, and people and the media have a short memory, and Trump will be acting more "presidential"-- maybe. So just keep showing those ads.
posted by mmoncur at 9:13 PM on May 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton— Reince Priebus (@Reince) 4 May 2016

Reince Priebus forced to accept Trump nomination. So much schadenfreude. GOP voters have worked themselves up into a lather, Reince. Reap! Eat!
posted by panama joe at 9:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


California is actually a little weird (shocker). Statewide office primaries are everyone votes for whoever they want, regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters go on to the general. Sometimes that's a Democrat and a Republican and sometimes that's two Democrats duking it out.

But for President, each party gets to decide whether their primary will be open. For the last few elections, the Democrats have had an open primary in CA while the Republicans have not (the GOP switched to a closed primary a few cycles ago). The American Independent Party (a weird old racist party that trips people up when they try to register as actual independents) and Libertarian parties are also open, while the Green and Peace & Freedom parties run closed primaries.

We do let you re-register and change your party up to a couple weeks before the primary though.
posted by zachlipton at 9:20 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't help thinking wow these doggies are like really into politics.

Just a little something to lighten the mood, y'all.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 9:29 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


While insomnia strikes and the BBC Radio warbles about "generational change", did some calculations.

On election day, the three remaining main party candidates - Bernie, Donald and Hillary - will have an average age of 71.
On their day of (first) election, the last three presidents - Bill, Dubya and Barack - averaged 49.

Huh. Not making any profound or deep or meaningful (or ageist, in either direction) point, but I was a bit surprised to see the gap be as large as 22 years.
posted by Wordshore at 9:35 PM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Earlier today I blamed NBC and their (un-)reality show "The Apprentice" for much of Trump's credibility; today, NBC News is under fire from having Lester Holt anchor the entire Nightly News from Trump Tower when he went there to interview The Donald. Then there was Larry Wilmore during his badly-received Correspondents Dinner monologue: "Morning Joe is so far up Trump's ass, they bumped into Chris Christie", which was less a joke than an accurate observation.

Now why are so many parts of NBC seemingly so pro-Trump? It probably has to do with their parent company KabletownComcast. After having the relevant regulators reject their attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable (then allowing Charter to do do), they want a President who will replace those regulators with someone who will let them swallow Charter/TimeWarner whole, and buttering up the Trumpster now and reminding him later that "you owe us" is a logical strategy. And that is how a major corporation (and one in the so-called "liberal" entertainment industry) lands in Trump's pocket.

As I've conjectured before, Trump's major economic policies will be based on (1) enriching himself, regardless of any firewalls and blind trusts (the most inevitable of his impeachable offenses) and (2) hurting any business entity he considers his 'enemy'. If his winning the election enters the realm of possibility, every billionaire with a SuperPac is going to want to be on his good side.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:45 PM on May 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think she should pick a woman VP and go full Sand Snakes on Trump

michelle for VP and barack for SCOTUS

make it happen o wondrous 5,000 year old pot i beseech u
posted by poffin boffin at 9:46 PM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


Regarding Worshare's observation on the current "reverse generational change", it's just a sign of both parties' failure to develop a new generation of viable candidates.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:52 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sadly, the obstacle to poffin boffin's scenario is having a SCOTUS Justice married to a Vice-President would result in the need for the Justice to be recused so often as to make him effectively moot.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


“13 Things to Consider About Donald Trump Right Now,” Jeff Sharlet, Esquire, 04 May 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 10:15 PM on May 4, 2016


Speaking as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary, I am disturbed by the shift in tone in his campaign in the last week or two.

Have no fears. I attended the Bernie rally tonight here in Lexington and while he did a great job of getting folks excited, he's also clearly beginning to do a little sheep-dogging. Still wants to be competitive, still wants to win, but he could have gone hard against Clinton tonight and refrained from doing so. You can watch it if you wish.

Lots of young folks scooting around made me happy. Talked to a number of college age folks and young professionals and I feel refreshed by their enthusiasm. Also had a kind of weird moment. At first I couldn't tell if it was a compliment or some kind of troll, but a free-lance photog came up to me and asked me if he could take a few pictures of my beard. After I finished wtf-ing I said "Yes" and he proceeded to take a few close ups. It's not an epic beard but it is kinda bushy and gray.

The Democratic party will be fine this cycle I believe. And I'm pretty certain it'll be even better in the future once these young folks get a few more heaping helpings of life experience.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:16 PM on May 4, 2016 [19 favorites]


> GOP voters have worked themselves up into a lather, Reince

.... in the bathtub installed and filled by you and yours!
posted by rtha at 10:18 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


I still contend, Cruz is the lovechild of Joseph McCarthy and Ayan Rand, hell just look at the pictures of those two.

Regarding Texas and how anyone could deliver a Ted Cruz, my new catch phrase for Texas is "Don't Mess With The Texas Mess Texas Is In, Mess That It Is." Reconfigure to your heart's content. Put that on a bumper sticker. Texas is a Mess notwithstanding their cute little slogan.

All the conjecture about Cruz, really, back in 2020? With that winning personality of his, the radically unpalatable Xtian ideology he practices (exploits), his proclivity to shit too close to the house (Senate), forget it. He has a ceiling with that Xtian Soldiers Marching crap that he will never break through.

The one thing I think the punditocracy has forgotten about Republicanism is, they got so used to Reagan as the ultra-conservative (talk about projection and wanting to see what you want to see), they conveniently dismissed how much of a centrist he was when push came to shove, and instead knighted him Chief Conservative Jefe, purveyor of the word. Who died and made him the sole arbiter of the Republican Party for all time? He deposed the Rockefeller wing for the most part for a time, though revived to a degree with Bush the 1st but bastardized by the Bush dynasty in their infinite wisdom by those monsters Lee Atwater and then Turd Blossom Rove who made a calculated effort to sell the soul of the party to Lucifer ("ideologically pure conservatism" what ever in the hell that is) for victory. Worked well enough to get close enough to fix two elections for George "The Clod" Bush II, with catastrophic results for the country, but good luck going forward with the coalition that emerged.

With Trump, all I'm seeing is a return to a shadow of the the George Romney, Dirkson, Nixon, Rockefeller iteration of the Republican Party back in the 60s-70s. After the Bushes, people have generally caught on to how bankrupt that vision was/is (good if you have military, industrial complex stock). Why the hell is everyone so shocked the knuckle dragging far right nut jobs like Cruz are going down in flames? None of those nitwits got any sustained traction in the primaries. And the Jeb! Bush Cadillac? The wheels came off that jalopy on some shoulder of the road to Baghdad.

And regarding the ugly election to come, I'm going to have to put adult controls on Morning Joe before I claw my eyes out having to watch Joe slobbering over Trump for another six months, for the love of God?
posted by WinstonJulia at 10:28 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


That Esquire article is a little over the top, but it does raise one very good point that I personally don't remember seeing elsewhere - the idea that Trump's hair is the equivalent of stage magic misdirection, making him look more ridiculous and therefore less threatening than he ought to.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:33 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Guardian: Neither George HW nor George W Bush, the only two living former Republican presidents of the United States, will endorse Donald Trump.
posted by Wordshore at 10:41 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't buy it. We can laugh at the hair and worry about Trump. Indeed, we're worried about Trump partly because of the hair -- that such a ludicrously vain and shallow man could go this far. It says less about Trump than about the people who somehow think he's a solution to their problems.
posted by JHarris at 10:42 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's an interesting point because I've seen basically the same argument made before about Boris Johnson's hair over in the UK (there have been a lot of Trump v. Johnson comparisons lately). Basically that he looks bafoonish and so people ignore the fact that he's a narcissist who's been plotting his rise to power ever since Eton and Oxford and that he's actually quite dangerous.
posted by zachlipton at 10:45 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


.@newtgingrich: "If you're not for Trump you functionally are for @HillaryClinton, & she's going to create the most radical Supreme Ct..."

And now we've descended to "he may destroy the country but we'll have a conservative majority on the SCOTUS amirite"
posted by dw at 10:50 PM on May 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


they got so used to Reagan as the ultra-conservative (talk about projection and wanting to see what you want to see), they conveniently dismissed how much of a centrist he was when push came to shove

My take on Reagan was, he talked a huge extremist game and freaked everybody out because he seemed to not give af. And his "just a dumb actor" schtick unnerved people because he could pretend to not know the conventional wisdom. Trump is playing the same game.

But Reagan would actually compromise quite a bit -- still getting a lot more than more conventional Republicans would have in the same situation. It was like when I was in India, and a guy would try to charge me 300 rupees for something that should have cost 50. And when I said "NO! Way too much! He would smiles and laugh and say "You're right, my friend. I am ashamed. OK, for you, 150 rupees."

I don't know if Trump has that same knack, or really any desire to compromise (despite his claims to deal-making expertise). He is clearly a bully in a way Reagan never was, and I'm not sure he can let go of the power that using force instead of compromise would give him.
posted by msalt at 10:55 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


“13 Things to Consider About Donald Trump Right Now,” Jeff Sharlet, Esquire, 04 May 2016

That piece is almost completely incoherent.
posted by dersins at 11:02 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


.@newtgingrich: "If you're not for Trump you functionally are for @HillaryClinton, & she's going to create the most radical Supreme Ct..."
For many of us, that's the most enthusiastic endorsement any politician could accidentally make.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:14 PM on May 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


“13 Things to Consider About Donald Trump Right Now,” Jeff Sharlet, Esquire, 04 May 2016

We now live in a world where this sentence:
His curdled but relentless imagination expands beyond his own being.
...is from a political column in Esquire instead of from the Gothic category of the Lyttle Lytton contest.

Don't mind me, I'm digging a deep hole that I can hide in.
posted by mmoncur at 11:22 PM on May 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


Okay - so word from the front is, there is a rebellion and attempt to stop Trump with rules. I don't know yet how big this is, so we may all go down in flames/get pulled from the Cleveland ballot before making a difference. But right now it's the only Hail Mary pass I see on the field, so I'm going for it.
posted by corb at 11:30 PM on May 4, 2016 [41 favorites]


Let me add to the chorus of "be careful", corb. Trump's fervent followers have shown that fists beat rules (I always considered that whole "paper covers rock" thing to be totally inapplicable to the real world).
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


The problem is that you can do as much damage with a rock wrapped in paper as you can a plain rock.
posted by Grangousier at 12:12 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


The question is, can you do as much damage with a piece of paper alone if you master the rules?
posted by msalt at 1:15 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


“13 Things to Consider About Donald Trump Right Now,” Jeff Sharlet, Esquire,

Sharlet should work for Buzzfeed.
posted by lampshade at 1:20 AM on May 5, 2016


I think people who doubt Trump's commitment to repealing the Affordable Care Act are overlooking that it is the centerpiece of the Obama legacy. There is no way he would turn down an opportunity to take away something as meaningful as Obamacare from the man who ripped him to shreds, to his face, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Because he appears to be exactly that vain and exactly that petty.
posted by bardophile at 1:36 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]




The question is, can you do as much damage with a piece of paper alone if you master the rules?

As with Tai Chi, people don't realise that Origami was originally developed as a martial art.
posted by Grangousier at 2:05 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


You guys can write in the president, right?

Why not just write in Michelle Obama?

She's basically apprenticed for 8 years (so, more political experience than Trump), she pretty much has all the infrastructure in place, folks seem to like her (most folks), and it means she doesn't have to move house (because we all hate that, right?) ... and if she doesn't want the job she just be the face, and y'all can have a Shadow President and Barack can continue in the job (but only if he promises to be less creepy about all the spying), or her VP (Sanders, Warren, whoever) can sweat the day to day stuff.

It'll be like a constitutional monarchy, just not quite consitutional and not a monarchy.
posted by Mezentian at 2:48 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


For starters, Michelle has been clear since Barack's first run for Senate that she is totally uninterested in running for office. And the First Family has been clear this cycle that they are ready to be done and let the girls go to college without the whole world up in their business. And we have this conversation every thread that Michelle is just NOT INTERESTED.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:56 AM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]


The other morning CBC radio did a small piece on what kids know about the US election. Trump was the dominant known commodity and much was negative. A 7 year old girl was asked for her thoughts. She stated "Trump calls women dogs and pigs". The the CBC host cut in and said "We sent this statement to our fact checking department and the little girl is correct, Donald Trump has indeed called women dogs and pigs".

I often wish the US would chose to have public funded broadcasting like the CBC or BBC.
posted by phoque at 4:01 AM on May 5, 2016 [51 favorites]


And we have this conversation every thread that Michelle is just NOT INTERESTED.

Well, way to shoot down my bright idea.
We have a few ex-Prime Ministers hanging around. I suppose we could slap a coat of paint on one and send it across.
posted by Mezentian at 4:08 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I often wish the U.S. would choose to have public funded broadcasting like the CBC or BBC.

We do. I am literally listening to NPR, our publically funded radio network, as I type this.

The problem is that we do not choose to be EXCLUSIVELY publically funded. There is call for publically funded news and broadcasting, but the perception is that it's only eggheads and nerds and effete, aging white liberals who listen, simply because it is a higher calibre of content.

So what I often wish is that the U.S. would choose to value intellectual high standards.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:13 AM on May 5, 2016 [32 favorites]


So what I often wish is that the U.S. would choose to value intellectual high standards.

One of our two leading candidates gave a speech where he said "We're going to win bigly."

Intellectual high standards have not only gone out the window, they've fallen 30 stories and shattered, injuring Moral high standards and Common Courtesy in the process.
posted by mmoncur at 4:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [13 favorites]


"We're going to win bigly."

Why did I fact check that link? Why.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised.
posted by Mezentian at 4:29 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]




From the WaPo's Sad But True files:
1. Concerns about bigotry aren’t the vote-mover you might think
2. Trump is much better at dictating the terms of engagement
3. Clinton will be forced to defend the status quo

posted by Mezentian at 4:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]



Concerns about bigotry aren’t the vote-mover you might think


I'm really hoping that the vast majority of American voters don't consider his proposed faith-based immigration ban, registration database, or southern wall to be mere "careless remarks."
posted by bardophile at 4:43 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


We have a few ex-Prime Ministers hanging around. I suppose we could slap a coat of paint on one and send it across.

You keep your Tony Blairs to yourself, mister!
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:48 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites</