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

Ted Cruz ends his campaign, handing the nomination to Donald Trump
posted by Jacob Knitig (2361 comments total) 53 users marked this as a favorite

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 [6 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 [89 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 [25 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 [81 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 [18 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 [60 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 [14 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 [20 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 [529 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 [93 favorites]

So God didn't choose Cruz?

God eschews Cruz.
posted by jamjam at 5:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [49 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 [81 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 [123 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 [4 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 [69 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 [41 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 [2 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 [1 favorite]

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 [40 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 [173 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 [54 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 [62 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 [231 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]

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 [91 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 [70 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 [128 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 [79 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 [45 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]

Ted Cruz 2016, a somber Onion retrospective:

Ted Cruz Provides Detailed Response To Moderator’s Question About Why His Face So Fucking Infuriating

Ted Cruz Skyrockets In Polls After Head Permanently Sealed Within Iron Mask

Brutal Anti-Cruz Attack Ad Just 30 Seconds Of Candidate’s Photo Displayed Without Any Text, Voiceover, Music

Mysterious Necrotic Skin Disease Continues To Eat Away At Baby’s Face Weeks After Being Kissed By Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Opens Up To Town Hall Audience About Early Days As Larva Feeding On Porcupine Carcass

Cow Ted Cruz Milking In Wisconsin Photo Op Only Giving Curdled, Foul Liquid

Ted Cruz Asks Central Park Hansom Cab Driver How Much It Costs To Whip Horse For An Hour

‘Run! Run And Never Look Back!’ Whispers Heidi Cruz While Hugging Carly Fiorina On Rally Stage

Ted Cruz Dressed For Campaign Rally By Swarm Of Loyal Vermin

Thousands Of Cheering Americans Packed Into Park For Ted Cruz Concession Speech
posted by Rhaomi at 6:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [153 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 [28 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 [58 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 [30 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 [8 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 [59 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

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 [36 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 [35 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 [18 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 [56 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 [29 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 [1 favorite]

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 (staff) 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 [6 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 [81 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 [53 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 [25 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 [152 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 [40 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 [67 favorites]

It seems like only yesterday that:

"Donald Trump has won a primary election. The Republican Party of New Hampshire has said they want Donald Trump to be President of the United States."

We've come so far!

(sobs quietly)
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 6:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 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 [11 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 [18 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 [27 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

The End of Bernie Sanders: The system was designed to stop a campaign like his. This should be the last election where it's in place.
posted by homunculus at 6:34 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

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 [36 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 [76 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 [44 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 [115 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 [161 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 [15 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 [37 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 [27 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 [96 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 [36 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 [53 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 [109 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 [17 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 [49 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 [10 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 [253 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]

corb
tell us
tell us whats happening with the repub panic
corb
corb
posted by lalochezia at 7:00 PM on May 3, 2016 [70 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 [10 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 [40 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]

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]

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 [101 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 [71 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]

Looking Backward on the Presidency of Donald Trump
posted by TedW at 7:12 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

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 [11 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 [73 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 [58 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 [239 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 [52 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 [199 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 [106 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 [31 favorites]

You Yanks are fucking crazy.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:24 PM on May 3, 2016 [35 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 [101 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 [2 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 [74 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 [212 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 [80 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 [24 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 [27 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 [72 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 [56 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]

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]

Lindsey Graham on Twitter: If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

Fiorina has just set a personal record
posted by numaner at 7:35 PM on May 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

Romney right now.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:35 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 [8 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 [148 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 [251 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 [87 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 [47 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]

Scalia died for nothing.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:38 PM on May 3, 2016 [8 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]

I lied to myself for years about who my allies were. No more.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:41 PM on May 3, 2016 [11 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 [87 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 [37 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 [54 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]

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 [32 favorites]

he saw goody clinton with the devil!
posted by poffin boffin at 7:50 PM on May 3, 2016 [67 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 [108 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 [22 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 [14 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 [164 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 [38 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 [35 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]

Craig Mazin's take on the evening:

Ted Cruz kept saying God wanted him to be President, and this is what happened. So either there is no God, or he reeeeally doesn't like Ted.

posted by palindromic at 7:58 PM on May 3, 2016 [25 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]

What conservatives are now afraid of: When does Trump begin to transition to: 'I'm pro-life personally, but what women do with their own body is their decision.'
posted by clawsoon at 8:11 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 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 [250 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 [25 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 [35 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 [26 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 [149 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 [44 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 [52 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 [13 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 [34 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 [36 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 [33 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 [142 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 [71 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 [69 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 [77 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 [8 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 (staff) 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 [49 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 [40 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 [4 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 [38 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]

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 [28 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 [7 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 [54 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 [67 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 [24 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 [67 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]

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]

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 [32 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 [9 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 [34 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 [96 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 [10 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 [35 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.

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]

The six days of Carly Fiorina’s vice presidential campaign, ranked.
posted by peeedro 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 [94 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 [54 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]

MetaFilter's own Scott Adams explains why Trump's 'unfavorability' is an illusion.
posted by My Dad 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 [30 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 [28 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]

Goodbye Cruz. Your fatal flaw was you're a Starscream without a Megatron.
posted by happyroach at 12:34 AM on May 4, 2016 [23 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]

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 [164 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 [15 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 [33 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 [80 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 [29 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 [38 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 [2 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 [20 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 [87 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]

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

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 [49 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.

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 [18 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 [41 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 [150 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 [14 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 [59 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 [16 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 [8 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]

BBC: Last Republican Trump rival 'quits race'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:23 AM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

.@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 [26 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 [10 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 [106 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 [11 favorites]

(warning: seriously boring

false
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2016 [60 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]

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]

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]

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 [17 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 [48 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 [9 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 [20 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 [213 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 [36 favorites]

what a time to be alive
posted by poffin boffin at 11:24 AM on May 4, 2016 [42 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 [47 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 [89 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 [24 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 [3 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 [45 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 [4 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 (staff) 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 [8 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 [9 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 [20 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 [16 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]

Donald Trump Isn't Going To Be President
posted by overglow at 12:00 PM on May 4, 2016

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 [54 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 [8 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]

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 [22 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 [40 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 [5 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 [34 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 [26 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 [27 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 [37 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 [25 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 [14 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 [72 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 [11 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]

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 [10 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 [33 favorites]

Look at this glorious new anti-Trump attack ad composed entirely of quotes from other Republicans
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:41 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 [44 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 [16 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 [27 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 [33 favorites]

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 [5 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 [30 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 [18 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 [19 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 [19 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 [10 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

BREAKING: South Carolina's Governor Nikki Haley says she is not interested in VP bid, but will support Trump.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:10 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 [23 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 [31 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]

Charles Pierce: The Reckoning Has Come, and It Is Dark and Painful for Many. The same forces that produced Donald Trump produced Ted Cruz.

That John Kasich Was Considered a 'Moderate' in This Election Tells You All You Need to Know. He was just another Potemkin candidate, defeated by a more recent model.
posted by homunculus at 2:32 PM on May 4, 2016 [9 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 [30 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

Trump and the Mob: The budding mogul had a soft spot (but a short memory) for wiseguys.

"Slickest Con Man Out of NYC": Donald Trump Set to Be GOP Nominee Despite Links to Organized Crime
posted by homunculus at 2:38 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

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]

I looked at National Review, Ray.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:40 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

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 [29 favorites]

If Donald Trump is the George McGovern of the GOP, what does that make Hillary Clinton?, Corey Robin

Donald Trump, Presumptive Nominee, Scott McConnell
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:01 PM on May 4, 2016

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]

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

Oklahoma Gov. Fallin endorses Donald Trump's presidential bid, welcomes VP talk
posted by dw at 3:31 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 [7 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 [28 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 [21 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]

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 [51 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 [10 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 [1 favorite]

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 [39 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 [9 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

Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [12 favorites]

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 [27 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 [5 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 [15 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 ~~Kabletown~~Comcast. 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 [18 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 [10 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 [39 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]

"CNN reporter asked me about Trump VP vetting. I told him I thought Oprah would add more to the ticket than Snooki."
posted by Jacqueline at 1:41 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?

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 [14 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 [50 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]

Well, Jeff Bezos' newspaper has now expressed its desire for, if not a Trump win, at least a hard-fought campaign that will help it sell papers.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:29 AM on May 5, 2016

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]

3. Clinton will be forced to defend the status quo
She will if the media refuses to spotlight the FACT that this hereditary billionaire with his name on big buildings is the very face of the "status quo", the .01% who have screwed over the rest of us.

"We're going to win bigly."
To Donald Trump, there is no "we", only "ME ME ME" and hitching your wagon to his gold-plated limo is most likely to leave you in a ditch as he zig-zags widly for his own amusement and his own profit. The Presidency is just another way for him to make himself richer. And that is the message that MUST become public knowledge to defeat this greedy egomaniacal con man and discourage others like him from ever trying this again (and there ARE others).
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

And we need to keep pushing the message that Trump's "business history" essentially makes him a White Color Criminal who was successful in getting away with fraud decades before the Bad Bankers of the last crash.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:53 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

So, is there anyone still hanging on to the hope that Trump doesn't actually want to be president

Not the rest of what you said, but yes, I don't think Trump wants to be President. He wants to WIN, sure. But not BE President.
posted by agregoli at 4:54 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

You keep your Tony Blairs to yourself, mister!

You wish.
We have Kevin Rudd (who helped save us from the GFC, but went mad), Julia Gillard (who, let's not speak about, but she gave a speech about misogyny that was popular, and she got legislation though a hung parliament, which I guess will be a useful skill in the US) and we have Tony Abbott (he lies a lot, and surfs).

And we have John Howard. He STOPPED THE BOATS, and the guns.

So, they're all better than Trump.
posted by Mezentian at 4:54 AM on May 5, 2016

We do. I am literally listening to NPR, our publically funded radio network, as I type this.

Eh, not really? I mean, yes, technically it is a publicly funded radio network, but it is for only a handful of hours out of the day, whereas BBC and CBC are dedicated 24/7 coverage. I wish the US had something like the BBC/CBC but I think it's less a matter of money and a matter that we are such a fragmented country, it would be impossible to implement like those other publicly funded broadcasters do.
posted by Kitteh at 4:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump will be the GOP nominee. Nothing is on fire. This is fine.

Birds start falling spontaneously from the sky, miss Bernie Sanders’s podium, and strike the earth.
posted by schmod at 4:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Is...Trump drunk in that "Bigly" video?
posted by Mezentian at 4:56 AM on May 5, 2016

I wish the US had something like the BBC/CBC but I think it's less a matter of money and a matter that we are such a fragmented country,

I refer the honourable member to the case of the BBC vs ITV, in which the UK government (and Murdoch) want the BBC to not be allowed to schedule its most popular shows when commercial networks have popular shows on.

If you guys haven't gotten a federal broadcaster by now... it ain't happening. Sorry.

Our ABC is awesome.
posted by Mezentian at 4:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

A horseshoe falls off the doorframe. A wolf howls mournfully in the distance.

Okay, now the Washington Post is writing Gothic Fiction too.

I'm scared.
posted by mmoncur at 5:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh shit, Mezentian, I forgot you were Australian. Does the scent of brimstone and urine follow John Howard, and linger for days in his wake, like I always imagined?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:35 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Mezentian: "We have a few ex-Prime Ministers hanging around. I suppose we could slap a coat of paint on one and send it across."

Pfft. We'll take our ex-Prime Ministers from countries that aren't careless enough to lose one in the ocean, thank you.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

If you guys haven't gotten a federal broadcaster by now... it ain't happening. Sorry.

Oh, I have one! The CBC! I do love that they exist so I'd take them over a US news network any day, for all their faults. I haven't turned on the radio yet this morning so I'd be interested to hear what they're saying currently about this shitshow of an election.
posted by Kitteh at 5:42 AM on May 5, 2016

You know, I never heard the word "bigly" before I moved to Springfield.
posted by No-sword at 5:54 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

You know, I never heard the word "bigly" before I moved to Springfield.

Bigly=big+ugly. Which would certainly describe a Trump victory.
posted by TedW at 5:56 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

GOP on twitter: "Thank you to the entire Republican field for a hard fought race. The Party is better for your efforts."

Some of the replies are pretty funny.
posted by Tarumba at 6:07 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Particularly the one from Senator Ben Sasse [R - NE].
posted by Chrysostom at 6:13 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 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.

Cruz already has a profoundly negative reputation in the party as someone who is not a team player. If his supporters plunge the Republican convention into chaos with his blessing, -- even over Donald Trump -- I wonder if that could be the end of his political career within the party.
posted by zarq at 6:20 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh shit, Mezentian, I forgot you were Australian. Does the scent of brimstone and urine follow John Howard, and linger for days in his wake, like I always imagined?

20 years on, and I think J.Ho stands up well. Compared to Bush, Trump and Cameron.
posted by Mezentian at 6:27 AM on May 5, 2016

Bigly, bigly, bigly, can't you see? Sometimes these words just hypnotize me.
posted by theorique at 6:35 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

The Great Trump Reshuffle
posted by Artw at 6:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

It would definitely be without his blessing - the campaign is trying to hold discipline, but I don't think they can. Folks may not all hate Trump for the reasons I am, but you can't declare a man anathema and then expect true believers to just forget about it.

This piece is written from a very, very right piece of view, expressing some of the mindset that Trump will destroy the Republican Party because his secret Dem leanings cannot coexist with Cruz loyalists writing the platform (which I will have nothing to do with). Thought it might be reassuring for the "let it burn" cohort. TW: presenting retrograde thoughts as natural and right without vitriol, but could still be disconcerting.
posted by corb at 6:41 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Great Trump Reshuffle

This is very interesting, but ignores what I think the main issue of this election will be, which is what I will assume to be the lowest turnout in many decades.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:49 AM on May 5, 2016

We're assuming low turnout? Or just on one side?
posted by Artw at 6:58 AM on May 5, 2016

We're assuming low turnout? Or just on one side?

I'm assuming both sides. Many people I know my age (mid-30s) hate both candidates (assuming this is HRC versus Trump) and aren't going to vote for either.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:00 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Both campaigns will seek to boost the negatives of the other, which will drive down non-loyalist turnout (a pox on both their houses!). It's not great for Democrats, in general (GOP voters are more reliable), and not great for Democrats keen on flipping both the Senate and possibly the House.

Should be entertaining to watch, though.
posted by notyou at 7:08 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I just read this entire thread, every comment, for the last five hours. I ran out of favorites. It's been very interesting and funny (at first). I especially appreciate corb's reporting from within sausage factory.

At this point, I'm inclined to think that Trump will not perform as badly as the current polling indicates, that he will overperform among a few demographics, but otherwise will still badly lose. I think there's a decent chance that he could just completely lose his shit during the campaign and end up losing the election by an even worse margin than polling currently indicates -- the analysis of dominance politics thing and his vanity is right on the money and he could easily flub a dominance attempt and suddenly look ridiculous, and then double-down. And I think this is more likely than people expect at this point (even though many people do sort of expect it) because the general election is very different territory from the GOP primaries and the instincts that have proven to work in Trump's favor could easily lead him astray in the general. But, barring that sort of a thing, I think that he will do somewhat better than the pessimistic analysis predict, but not much.

I also agree with both sides of the "what are his real policies?" discussion. I mean, I think it's fairly safe to assume that he means what he's been saying and that even if he doesn't mean it, he will go along with it because it matters to his supporters (and where it doesn't cost him anything). But on the other hand, I think that the only thing he really cares about is himself, his power, and how he feels admired, and that ultimately means that almost the only thing we can be sure of is that he's an authoritarian and self-interested. He could, in the end, do almost anything. Which could be choosing a bunch of centrist establishment technocrats to run things while he basks in the glory of being the President. Or it could mean bombing Crimea or one of China's artificial islands. Or establishing a Muslim registry. Who knows? He'd almost certainly repeal Obamacare if Congress passed a bill (though I find Eyebrows McGee's analysis of the Congressional politics involved very persuasive). I don't think we can be certain that Trump would be the worst possible President, but, unfortunately, we can't know that he wouldn't be the worst possible President. You can make a credible case either way. Which is itself very frightening. He has all the hallmarks of a fascist. I think we can count on authoritarianism, cronyism and corruption, jingoism, and cult of personality were he to be elected. I don't see how that doesn't go bad, excepting that slim chance that he just appoints centrist technocrats and then ends up being on TV and playing golf a lot. It could happen. I wouldn't count on it.

Josh Marshall at TPM had a post yesterday talking about how this is really bad news for the GOP, aside from any convention shenanigans, because there's a battle being fought within the GOP between the tea party base and the establishment and donor class and this election would have partly decided some of this, absent Trump. But with Trump, who will almost certainly lose, both sides will be able to credibly blame the other for the loss. The tea partiers will say that Cruz would have won because the nation cries out for a true conservative, which emphatically wasn't Trump, the establishment will say that Trump lost because of his extremism, and so all the sides in the internecine battle will have more ammunition.

So I think that Trump's going to damage the party badly no matter what happens -- even if, or perhaps especially if, he wins the election. Cruz would have very badly lost the election, too, but it would have been a loss the party could have moved forward from. A Trump loss will be poison. And if there are shenanigans at the convention, it's much worse, regardless of the outcome.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:09 AM on May 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

If you look at it as party, turnout will be lower. Demographics may be very different. If Hillary wins women and people of color, and Hispanics turn out in higher numbers, she will win. Most of her unfavorability is with white men, who will vote Trump. But can Trump get enough white men to the polls to get to 270?

I think in the end the #BernieOrBust people may not matter. Voting restrictions will matter far more.
posted by dw at 7:13 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I can't see this being an election people don't care very strongly about, even with Hillary on the dem side.
posted by Artw at 7:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I mean this with no animosity or negative implication whatsover, but by any chance are you and/or these many people you know white?

I would say about 60% of the people I'm talking about are white. Almost all are LGBTQ.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:18 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

if nothing else record breaking primary turnouts followed by a low general turnout would be weird.
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

But can Trump get enough white men to the polls to get to 270?

Trump is currently doing worse with white men than Romney was in 2012.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:22 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

I mean, if we're going anecdotally, I barely know anyone who is planning to stay home on election day, and not one of those people is planning to vote for anyone but Clinton, including my hardcore Sanders supporter friends. But anecdotes don't mean much! Like in last thread, where corb was worried that Hispanic voters wouldn't really reject Trump because most of the Hispanic voters she personally knows are voting for him - but corb is an outlier because most of her friends are way more conservative than average, just as I'd guess that roomthreeseventeen's friends (and my friends!) are way more liberal than average.

None of our anecdotes actually mean all that much. But the national-level polling does, and it will only get more accurate from here, and right now it shows Trump getting curbstomped.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:28 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Everyone, we need to be very worried. Not only has Trump won the Republican nomination, the CUBS may be the best team in baseball this year and possibly one of the best baseball teams in the history of the game. They are unlikely to fade this year.

The apocalypse is upon us.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:29 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Yes, but this year they are far whiter per capita. Maybe the whitest white men ever recorded.
posted by nom de poop at 7:29 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ah, my first instance of "two acquaintances who I haven't spoken to in over six months, and who have never met each other, having a lengthy argument in the comments of one of my Facebook posts re: whether Clinton is as bad as Trump or not"! Do I level up now?
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:33 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Yea I'm sort of tired of "All the people I know really hate HRC, so she'll probably lose!" and similar. All the Sanders supporters I know dislike Trump much more than they hate Hillary. Most of them don't even hate her, they just think Sanders is their choice for the primary. This is a reasonable position and probably why they are my friends.
posted by zutalors! at 7:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [21 favorites]

From Slate: "In his surly, failed campaign, Cruz turned into a cartoon version of the blowhard I knew on the college debate circuit."

Good article describing Cruz's personality as a young student who was hardcore into debating. Plus an interesting comment by someone who judged one of Cruz's debates, confirming.

Spoiler: he was a fanatical asshole for all of his life, apparently.
posted by Tarumba at 7:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

This is a reasonable position and probably why they are my friends.

It's also reasonable to dislike Clinton and want to vote third party, or not vote at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Everything that helps Trump, in other words.
posted by y2karl at 7:41 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, most of the people I know who voted for Bernie in Richmond, VA will vote for Hillary in the presidential.

I know literally no one IRL who is going from Bernie to not voting, or Bernie to Trump.
posted by Tarumba at 7:41 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

At least in the event of a Trump victory it will be the literal apocalypse and so all the third party voters won't get to moan on for years about how they did the right thing, like with Nader.
posted by Artw at 7:46 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

For perspective, I read lots of vows not to vote for Obama in 2008, mostly from people who felt he wasn't left enough, but also Hillary supporters. And it was a convincing win. The polls didn't lie about the strength of Trump candidacy for the nomination and I don't think they are lying about the weakness of his candidacy for the general. And the demographics are overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Now is the time to start to zero in on every faintly winnable down ticket race.
posted by bearwife at 7:46 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 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.

This stage is called bargaining so you want to have the tissues ready for when everyone enters stage 4.
posted by phearlez at 7:56 AM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

Yes, and in case you've forgotten, the steps go like this:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Global Thermonuclear War
posted by mmoncur at 8:03 AM on May 5, 2016 [46 favorites]

But right now it's the only Hail Mary pass I see on the field, so I'm going for it.

Hail Mary all you like but don't flatter yourself that you are doing the world any favors by replacing Donald Trump with Ted Cruz.
posted by JackFlash at 8:04 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Er, it's:

FALKEN'S MAZE
BLACK JACK
GIN RUMMY
HEARTS
BRIDGE
CHECKERS
CHESS
POKER
FIGHTER COMBAT
GUERILLA ENGAGEMENT
DESERT WARFARE
AIR-TO-GROUND ACTIONS
THEATERWIDE TACTICAL WARFARE
THEATERWIDE BIOTOXIC AND CHEMICAL WARFARE

GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR
posted by Chrysostom at 8:05 AM on May 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

Dispatch from Colorado: Boulder County GOP is apparently telling their crew to vote for Trump regardless because "it's important to support Republicans" and because he'll select conservative justices.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:06 AM on May 5, 2016

It's also reasonable to dislike Clinton and want to vote third party, or not vote at all

With what's at stake in this election for everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, Christian, cis male who was born in the USA, only one of those things is reasonable.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:06 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump will be the GOP nominee. Nothing is on fire. This is fine.

This is possibly the most astonishing thing I have ever read in a mainstream newspaper, like, ever.

I know literally no one IRL who is going from Bernie to not voting, or Bernie to Trump.

I have at least two (formerly three, but I blocked one) strong Sanders supporters who are now complaining loudly that they're being encouraged to vote for Clinton in the general. All three, interestingly, are white male "libertarian" (for certain values of the word) dudebro types.
posted by anastasiav at 8:07 AM on May 5, 2016

Something tells me the folks behind the Bernie Bro bullshit weren't really a solid vote to begin with.
posted by Artw at 8:10 AM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

"Encouraged to vote" for someone? HOW DASTARDLY
posted by Chrysostom at 8:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [26 favorites]

It's also reasonable to dislike Clinton and want to vote third party, or not vote at all.

Not voting at all is only reasonable if you feel that way about every race on the ballot.*

*I mean, yes, I know, safe states, but I live in Maryland and we have a republican governor right now.
posted by amarynth at 8:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

> are now complaining loudly that they're being encouraged to vote for Clinton in the general

Oh no you mean their free speech is being violated by other people using free speech to tell them stuff? MADNESS.
posted by rtha at 8:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [27 favorites]

I mean, if we're going anecdotally, I barely know anyone who is planning to stay home on election day, and not one of those people is planning to vote for anyone but Clinton, including my hardcore Sanders supporter friends. But anecdotes don't mean much!

My elderly, only-Fox-News-watching father-in-law, who is the walking embodiment of all those "Fox News turned my dad into an angry bigot" thinkpieces that are going around, who was brought up with very sexist and racist ideas, who left the Democratic Party in large part because of his hatred of the Clintons and who once asked me if he could block Yahoo News from his email sidebar because it's "slanted", actually voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary and has turned his nose up at Trump.

And like you, I take this as evidence of nothing, because I am hearing progressives say they will do nothing to help stop Trump if their special snowflake doesn't get the nomination. I am hearing of LGBTQ Trump supporters. I heard a Bernie supporter say they would vote for Bloomberg if he ran. Christ, Trump has the nomination despite the fact that he's a wife-beating conspiracy theorist clown whose entire party and half the conservotainment industry is against.

Nothing is evidence of anything anymore, not with this election. This is the most insane national event I have ever witnessed. And anything short of a humiliating, emasculating defeat by Clinton, which probably won't happen, does not bode well for the future here.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:20 AM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

Eh....

1. Concerns about bigotry aren’t the vote-mover you might think

In the Republican primary, sure. But in the general? Look, Hillary is going to be MUCH MUCH more effective at fighting against this shit than any Republican candidate ever was, or ever could be. Why? Two reasons:

a) Republicans long ago made a deal with the devil wherein the relied on dog whistles to get out the racist vote while maintaining plausible deniability about actual racism. So when a guy comes along just says, point-blank, actual racist shit, they can't denounce it in the strongest possible terms because then they lose the racist voters they've come to rely on to win elections. Hillary Clinton will not have this concern.

b) Hillary's denunciations of Trump's racism, sexism, and misogyny will not be aimed at the Republican primary electorate - or, at least, most of them. It certainly will not be aimed at Trump supporters, or on-the-fence Trump voters. It will be primarily aimed at getting women, Hispanics and other groups who are actually personally offended by Trump to the polls, and perhaps secondarily at whatever remains of the #NeverTrump crowd on the right (they're not going to stop him, but I don't think they'll disappear entirely). These people hate Trump, they understand how dangerous he is, and they will be receptive to Clinton's message.

2. Trump is much better at dictating the terms of engagement

Trump was much better at dictating the terms of engagement in a Republican primary election against a remarkably weak set of opponents. In a general election, against a savvy, well-funded, demographically advantaged rival? He might be able to do it, but this is far from a foregone conclusion.

3. Clinton will be forced to defend the status quo

Even though it doesn't really make sense considering Trump's status as a billionaire plutocrat with inherited wealth, this could be a problem for Clinton. She is pretty much status-quo personified.
posted by breakin' the law at 8:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's also reasonable to dislike Clinton and want to vote third party, or not vote at all.

Only if you don't care about the political process to begin with. And it would be supremely hypocritical to claim that as a supporter of any candidate (whether Sanders or someone else) that you have passion, but have no passion to actually to participate afterwards when your candidate doesn't win the nomination. The way I see it, I'm mostly okay if one chooses not to vote for Clinton (of course, if you're a safe state that fine, if it's a swing state it's more concerning). But you can still participate in the process by donating or volunteering (and not only for Clinton either). Or you could do some kitchen table campaigning and try to convince friends and relatives who are Trump voters to perhaps vote or help somebody else, anybody else, except Trump. I mean, it's big race with a lot of moving parts, so you can be creative in how to contribute.
posted by FJT at 8:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

Just as a reminder, FiveThirtyEight points out: "Americans’ Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking"

Specifically, "Clinton’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating in probability sample polls from late March to late April, 37 percent, is about 5 percentage points higher than the previous high between 19803 and 2012. Trump, though, is on another planet. Trump’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating, 53 percent, is 20 percentage points higher than every candidate’s rating besides Clinton’s. Trump is less disliked than David Duke was when Duke ran for the presidency in 1992, but Duke never came close to winning the nomination."

And just in case, pundits want to hand-wave this away by claiming partisanship and polarization, "No major party nominee before Clinton or Trump had a double-digit net negative “strong favorability” rating. Clinton’s would be the lowest ever, except for Trump."

Then again, when it comes to trying to mix math and politics, this is what Nate Silver was saying on Twitter a month ago about the Trump campaign's nomination timetable...
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:26 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

All three, interestingly, are white male "libertarian" (for certain values of the word) dudebro types.

The label "libertarian" has been blurring a lot lately. There exist "left-libertarians" who seem to focus more on the freedom/liberty aspect (pro-marijuana, pro-alternative-lifestyles) and don't actually like the economic or freedom-of-association aspects very much. Almost certainly they aren't what Rothbard or Mises would recognize as libertarians.
posted by theorique at 8:27 AM on May 5, 2016

Nate Silver's numbers may be useful, but his analysis has been as worthless as that of his competition of late.

Even though it doesn't really make sense considering Trump's status as a billionaire plutocrat with inherited wealth, this could be a problem for Clinton. She is pretty much status-quo personified.

This should be the thing that worries everyone.
posted by Artw at 8:29 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's also reasonable to dislike Clinton and want to vote third party, or not vote at all.

For me, sitting around with people who are in the middle of a Clinton hatefest would be a bummer and we wouldn't be likely to be friends, which is what "reasonable" means to me in that context. That I have Sanders voting friends who just want, like, their guy to be President, not shout about how much they hate other candidates.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

"He goes around back and comes back and says 'I can't tow you.' My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car," McWade told News 13 on Wednesday. "And he says, 'No, you're a Bernie supporter.' And I was like wait, really? And he says, 'Yes ma'am,' and just walks away."

Shupe , who supports presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, said his decision on the side of the interstate this week was more about business than politics.

McWade, 25, has psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and early-stage Crohns, which she said made sitting on the side of the road without a restroom nearby"terrifying". She is legally disabled and says the handicapped placard was hanging on her mirror when Shupe arrived.

This is 2016, right? Right now we're actually in two thousand and fucking sixteen, right?
posted by Talez at 8:38 AM on May 5, 2016 [53 favorites]

Oh no you mean their free speech is being violated by other people using free speech to tell them stuff? MADNESS.

One of them made a public FB post today, and since it was public I don't feel badly about quoting it here: "Sorry, while I am disgusted by Trump, I am not buying the Hillary supporters call to vote Democrat or Blue, no matter what. Simply put, Bullshit. We are watching as the voice of the people is being manipulated, primaries are being rigged and many being disenfranchised. What is being said is essentially "I know you don't want me, and I am stealing the nomination through fraud and deceit, but hey better me who is winning through dishonesty than him, Right?""

As near as I can tell, this seems to mean "Yes, I'm disgusted by Trump but I hate Clinton SO MUCH that I'm willing to watch it burn."
posted by anastasiav at 8:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

The label "libertarian" has been blurring a lot lately. There exist "left-libertarians" who seem to focus more on the freedom/liberty aspect (pro-marijuana, pro-alternative-lifestyles) and don't actually like the economic or freedom-of-association aspects very much. Almost certainly they aren't what Rothbard or Mises would recognize as libertarians.

The original meaning of "libertarian", and the one used outside the US, is anti-authoritarian socialism. The word was gleefully stolen by Rothbard, et al because they like to pretend that the correct name for their politics isn't proprietarianism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:40 AM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

Even though I think the GOP deserves Trump, full stop, I actually feel sorry for my reasonable Republican friends, who had a hard enough time choosing from among the painfully weak field in the primary. They don't know what to do now, but I live in a swing state and I think a lot of them will vote for Hillary, particularly the women. The GOP friends living in states that haven't voted yet are especially bereft.
posted by carmicha at 8:43 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

As near as I can tell, this seems to mean "Yes, I'm disgusted by Trump but I hate Clinton SO MUCH that I'm willing to watch it burn."

It also means "waah not everyone agrees with me about Sanders so OBVIOUSLY there is a CONSPIRACY to steal all the votes" and holy God is it annoying.

The word was gleefully stolen by Rothbard, et al because they like to pretend that the correct name for their politics isn't proprietarianism.

You misspelled "fuck you, got mine." Which is astoundingly similar to the never-Clinton mantra of "fuck you, didn't get mine."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:45 AM on May 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

"Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and he just said get in the truck and leave," said Ken Shupe of Shupee Max Towing in Traveler's Rest, S.C.. "And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed."

Jesus goddamn Christ on a crutch!?!?

Maybe than imagine the Lord came over to him and told him to be a dick, he can reread his Bible. This scenario is right there in the New Testament, practically the exact details: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"

Spoiler: "And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

Maybe this guy needs to found a new religion based on a Libertarian Lord that tells people, "Pull up the ladder, I'm all right."
posted by Doktor Zed at 8:47 AM on May 5, 2016 [48 favorites]

Well, sure, but the Good Samaritan was a Samaritan, after all: a hated outsider. And I am sure that the Righteous Tow Driver doesn't consider himself an outsider or a minority or a foreigner, so how could that story apply to him?!
posted by wenestvedt at 8:51 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

You misspelled "fuck you, got mine." Which is astoundingly similar to the never-Clinton mantra of "fuck you, didn't get mine."

I call it "proprietarianism" because the core proposition of Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etc, is that a maximalist interpretation of liberal property rights is utterly sacred, and that all rights flow from the property relation, including human rights. The use of "libertarian" is meant to suggest that property = liberty and to suggest that what they really want is liberty (which just sort of quietly not bringing up that property is their real obsession unless necessary), but it's a gross lie and the "liberties" the Libertarians like to pat themselves on the back for supporting- drugs, abortion, etc- aren't anything they actually value but simply elaborations on the principle that you are the property of yourself and nobody has the right to tell you what to do with your property.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:52 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Donald Trump's latest comments on his earlier "Women should be punished for having abortions" comment:

He was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking me a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer. But of course not, and I said that afterwards. Everybody understands that.

Sarah Palin, I apologize for ever calling you stupid and incomprehensible. I didn't realize exactly where the ends of the bell curve were.
posted by mmoncur at 8:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [47 favorites]

Meanwhile: The Obama administration has been quietly undertaking a series of tough, obscure, progressive economic policy measures that seriously threaten the bottom lines of America's once untouchable banks.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

You know what I think? I think people aren't reading all the comments before commenting. That's what I think.
posted by goatdog at 8:57 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I call it "proprietarianism" because

Oh sure, I get that, and I understood what you meant. I was just trying to draw a parallel in end results, not in initial thinking.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:58 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ah, sorry, that's a topic that's kind of a sore spot for me so I tend to launch into, well. Sorry about that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

But we've just had eight years of a black president, and all historically oppressed groups are the same!

I mean, it's partly based on truth, since she was a member of his cabinet, but it's seriously astonishing. The only time it comes up is in discussions of Trump's sexism and whether more women will vote for her because of her gender. Meanwhile, it seems likely that the president of the United States on the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment's ratification will be a woman and....crickets.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

Catching up with the rest of the world and being able to have extremely status quo leaders of both genders will be good, I guess, but people only being excited about Obama because he was a black candidate is something that only existed in conservatives fantasies.
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hail Mary all you like but don't flatter yourself that you are doing the world any favors by replacing Donald Trump with Ted Cruz.

You know, this stuff isn't just "do you like a root canal or waiting in the DMV" for a lot of people. Trump is literally encouraging violence against his opponents. His staff are encouraging a campaign of intimidation. His supporters are groping and beating people and yelling racial slurs. He has the endorsement of the KKK, for Christ's sake.

There is a clear choice here, where the choice is between "anyone not willing to use violence" and "someone who embraces violence in democracy."

And let's be clear. If I can work it so the nominee is Kasich, or Ryan, or Colin Powell, or literally just any breathing Republican over the age of 35, I will, because anyone would be better for America. Anyone.

This kind of tired "they're all just as bad" ignores the real violence real people are facing right now.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on May 5, 2016 [49 favorites]

This kind of tired "they're all just as bad" ignores the real violence real people are facing right now.

They are all unrepentantly evil. Literally any Democrat would be better than any Republican.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

It shows you how different people's priorities are. Some people don't mind some violence against minorities, probably more than you think.
posted by zutalors! at 9:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

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.

Everyone always forgets Bob Dole. I say this because I forgot Bob Dole until this morning. In any event, Dole already endorsed Rubio in February and while I suppose it is possible to change your endorsement when your preferred candidate drops out, Dole giving the thumbs-up to Trump seems unlikely for several reasons.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Why bother voting? Trump and Hillary are identical, just like my two favorite shows — Gilmore Girls and footage of a pig getting dissected." — Daniel Kibblesmith
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:15 AM on May 5, 2016 [46 favorites]

I don't often agree with corb on political stuff, and I definitely think Cruz would be an awful president, but his very nomination would not be a disaster the way Trump's is/will be. He stands for shit the Republican Party has already stood for, turned up to 11; Trump stands for many of those things, but he also stands for strongman fascism of a sort that America has never flirted with to this degree, and which would have deeply toxic effects on our governmental structure just by being a continuing part of the national conversation, never mind if he actually got elected.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:16 AM on May 5, 2016 [29 favorites]

Hail Mary all you like but don't flatter yourself that you are doing the world any favors by replacing Donald Trump with Ted Cruz

Trump is a buffoon, but Cruz is a seriously unhappy and unstable evangelical politician whose followers, given power, would have tried to remake the US into Atwood's Gilead and the rest of the world into a steaming nuclear wasteland for not being Christian. We're not out of the woods by Cruz stepping away, but by God did we ever dodge a huge bullet.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [26 favorites]

They're differently awful, not better or worse.

As for countering racism, well, don't be a republican, racism is their core tenet.
posted by Artw at 9:20 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I do think there is a huge difference between Kasich brand racism and Trump brand. The degrees do actually matter.
posted by zutalors! at 9:21 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Literally any Democrat would be better than any Republican.

The person you're talking past is trying to discuss options for who will be the Republican nominee. There's a slight possibility it might not be Trump, but it won't be a Democrat.
posted by straight at 9:22 AM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

It won't be anyone better than Trump, abandon ship.
posted by Artw at 9:24 AM on May 5, 2016

And I don't want Cruz elected, but I think having him at the top of the Republican ticket would empower and legitimate fewer scary violent fascists than Trump will. Trump will lose, but his candidacy is doing more lasting damage to the country that Cruz would have.
posted by straight at 9:25 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Hmm, if another Republican candidate at this point were to wrench away the nomination from Trump, Trump supporters would say they cheated and either vote for Trump as an independent or stay out of the race completely. Whoever is the Republican nominee would be sawed off at the knees and be basically handing over the election to Hillary Clinton.

Of course, the problem with this possibility is the unpredictability of Trump and his supporters. They may resort to violence.
posted by FJT at 9:29 AM on May 5, 2016

The Best of New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’s Incorrect Predictions That Trump Would Lose the GOP Nomination
posted by Chrysostom at 9:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

And it would be supremely hypocritical to claim that as a supporter of any candidate (whether Sanders or someone else) that you have passion, but have no passion to actually to participate afterwards when your candidate doesn't win the nomination.

I dunno... Ever meet a Manchester United supporter?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Said it before, saying it again. If the nomination is taken away from Trump, especially via rules trickery, two things will happen:

1) Trump's supporters will go batshit, probably violently
2) Trump will run as an independent/write in about 0.00003 seconds later, which guarantees Clinton in the White House
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:31 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Fffm, if you have a better plan of how I, as a potential delegate to the RNC, can stop Trump and his supporters from doing more national damage, I am all ears.
posted by corb at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

ya but like not voting Republican is actually an option

But having nobody at the top of the Republican ticket isn't.
posted by straight at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

As for countering racism, well, don't be a republican, racism is their core tenet.

This is the only answer, of course. The Republican Party is no longer a viable home for non-racist, non-theocratic, non-authoritarian small-c conservatives. It's too late to fix it from the inside. The only path forward for any reasonable folks still trapped within the GOP nightmare is to run screaming for the exits.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:34 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Honestly, if any Republican wins this election, I am afraid for what the supreme court will look like for the next 20 years.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:34 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Fffm, if you have a better plan of how I, as a potential delegate to the RNC, can stop Trump and his supporters from doing more national damage, I am all ears.

Skip the convention. Seriously. Stop voting for Republicans. Seriously. The first because as I said, Trump's followers are rabid and unpredictable and already provably violent. That is not going to get better if you (and people believing the same things as you) scheme to take it away from him.

The second because racism is a core tenet of the Republican party. The only difference between what Trump says and what Cruz says is that Trump says it out loud and Cruz uses dog whistles.

Fact is, Trump has the nomination. Nothing's going to change that, anything that changes that is dangerous unless it's his actual death (NB to Secret Service: I am not advocating for a Presidential candidate's death). Don't want Trump in the White House? Don't support Republicans.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

As for countering racism, well, don't be a republican, racism is their core tenet.

I was going to point out Susan Collins, but now she's apparently sort of supporting Trump, so that's out.
posted by anastasiav at 9:38 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Fffm, if you have a better plan of how I, as a potential delegate to the RNC, can stop Trump and his supporters from doing more national damage, I am all ears.

Write an article about your perspective on Trump as a Hispanic Christian Republican and pitch it to national news organizations.

Not joking, I think it could be a valuable contribution.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:38 AM on May 5, 2016 [66 favorites]

Associated Press: “Democrats will have female Senate candidates on the ballot in nine states in November, a near-record, and these contenders will likely be sharing the ticket with the first major-party female presidential nominee in history in Hillary Clinton.”
posted by Chrysostom at 9:40 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Fffm, if you have a better plan of how I, as a potential delegate to the RNC, can stop Trump and his supporters from doing more national damage, I am all ears.

Corb, I loathe the idea of a Cruz presidency, but I am with you that it would still be better than Trump. I would do all you can.

(and please report back because Rules Committee inside baseball is my jam)
posted by Anonymous at 9:40 AM on May 5, 2016

But having nobody at the top of the Republican ticket isn't.

It worked in 2000.
posted by Etrigan at 9:41 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

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.

OH HAI I WORK FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES. I ushered at a ceremony yesterday to naturalize 900 new citizens from 96 countries (which is not unusual for us; we're a big district).* There is an immense surge of filings - one of our local Field Offices is looking at a 30% rise in applications for naturalization over what we saw last year. Our management is panicking over how we are going to be able to process all those applications in a timely manner (we have been in a hiring blitz for a while now, but my district is in an area with a high cost of living and Federal wages are not always competitive). But it's exciting! We want to do well! I've talked about it in quite a bit of detail before!

*The thing about this is that amid all the talk of U.S. citizens talking about decamping for elsewhere; there are still an enormous number of people who want to come here. We don't have an emigration service (or if we do, it's probably a very unpleasant office under the IRS). The Hatch Act discourages me from saying all too much about the election, but I teared up at that ceremony yesterday and I want people to still want to come here.

What if, this is Trump's secret plan to end illegal immigration, by scaring people into becoming citizens

I know I know I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but there are very very few ways for "illegal immigrants" to become citizens of the U.S., generally on the order of "you have to prove you are a victim of human trafficking and/or work with the police to help them build a case against a criminal syndicate that abused you," and even that is torturously long.
posted by psoas at 9:42 AM on May 5, 2016 [53 favorites]

You know what, where the hell is the Libertarian Party in all this?

Atlas shrugged.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:42 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

tl;dr version the only way to prevent Trump from gaining the WH is to vote for Clinton and persuade everyone else to vote for Clinton
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:42 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

You know what, where the hell is the Libertarian Party in all this? I'm no fan of libertarianism, but isn't this their best chance in history to break 5% of the national vote? Shouldn't they currently be screaming from the rooftops that conservative voters should be flocking to them?

The Libertarian party is hoping the RNC does something enormously stupid and self-destructive so Trump suddenly needs a party to run for. Bam. Minimum 27% of the vote right there. (And Clinton doesn't even need to reach 50% at that point, she'll win on a plurality.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:44 AM on May 5, 2016

Let's be careful with words. Trump and his followers are embarrassing themselves and the United States on the world stage. But Trump and his followers are not "damaging" anything but the Republican Party brand.

As sad as that might be for some Republicans who prefer a different and more dangerous brand of embarrassing, those who don't like Trump can choose to sit this one out. That's on them and no one else.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:45 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

(Ok actually Clinton's path to victory there is slightly more convoluted bc electoral college, but what I see happening in that hypothetical where the RNC prefers to burn itself down is she gets the 260-odd EVs that have been solidly Dem for multiple elections now and just needs to pick up one more while the red and reddish-purple states split themselves between Indietarian Trump and, whoever, Cruz or Romney or something)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:47 AM on May 5, 2016

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.

You know there used to be a point when a lot of us thought "no way someone who was actually tortured would vote to allow our own country to torture," right? McCain would endorse the devil if he thought it would get him reelected in this current tough slog. He's shown himself to be completely without integrity. He'll respond to Trump however he decides is best for his own results. Not only is that his traditional behavior but he's actually managed to be in trouble in this coming election in Arizona. Where he won 2:1 in his last race.

And where Trump took half the primary voters. 250,000 people came out to the primaries to vote Trump. McCain's entire vote capture in 2010 was 1M. He'll get as cozy with Trump as he needs to in order to pick up those voters.
posted by phearlez at 9:48 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

It's the Daily Caller, so, ya know, but apparently there has been increasing interest in the Libertarian Party.

No effing way they'd run Trump, they are positioning themselves as the alternative to the GOP. Gary Johnson sets sights on #NeverTrump voters after Ted Cruz drops out
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:50 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't understand this whole shocked, shocked, thing at the violence and threats of violence that are attached to Trump.

Do people not remember the Brooks Brothers riot? Or the kinds of things people shouted at McCain rallies (Kill him! Off with his head!) and Palin's crosshairs campaign and Republicans love of appearing with guns in their ads? (I hear tell this one guy associated with some random website or another did some amusing photoshops of those ads.)

Violence and threats of the same in reaction to election results or in order to influence elections have been part of the GOP playbook for years.

ANd like fffm and others are saying, how is denying the will of Trump supporters supposed to reduce the chances that they'll be violent? I would bet that there's a large overlap between Trump supporters and people who feel like Obama cheated his way into the WH via Acorn and Black Panthers intimidating people at polling stations: we think these folks will calmly sit on the sidelines when Cruz backers pull some rules-lawyering sleight of hand on them? Really?
posted by lord_wolf at 9:51 AM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

Trump and his followers are not "damaging" anything but the Republican Party brand.

That's quite a claim to make given how much they are a) normalizing the presence of white nationalism in mainstream politics, b) normalizing the concept of banning an ethnic group from the United states, c) normalizing the presence of violence at political gatherings, and so on through the alphabet.

They are not just damaging the GOP. They are damaging American civil society in ways that will take a long time to fully appreciate and even longer to (hopefully) heal.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:52 AM on May 5, 2016 [31 favorites]

> "Trump and his followers are not 'damaging' anything but the Republican Party brand."

I do not consider myself a hysterical doomsayer, and I am legit wondering how long it will be before an "unofficial" paramilitary force loyal to Trump forms and murders some people in cold blood.
posted by kyrademon at 9:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I promise to stop with weed and porn jokes for the remainder of the year if the Libertarian Party will be working to peel off reluctant GOP voters.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

You know what I think? I think people aren't reading all the comments before commenting. That's what I think.
posted by fullerine at 9:56 AM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

Violence and threats of the same in reaction to election results or in order to influence elections have been part of the GOP playbook for years.

I don't have the time to verify this - so I could be mistaken here - but I seem to recall McCain specifically denouncing the people who said violent-type stuff at his rallies. Which is the exact opposite of what Trump does.

I mean, it's true that the GOP has been playing with fire on this stuff for a long time, and that is absolutely to the party's shame. But there's still a difference when it is coming straight, unfiltered, uncoded, from the guy at the podium.
posted by breakin' the law at 9:57 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Trump and his followers are embarrassing themselves and the United States on the world stage. But Trump and his followers are not "damaging" anything but the Republican Party brand.

Total anecdata, but this is not the impression I got when I was in Turkey in early March. Everyone I met of every nationality was wholly horrified by Trump and even more horrified that he's gotten as far as he did. They were wondering what was wrong with the USA and saying they had no idea things were that bad there. Confusion over how our primary process works did not help matters, because many people were under the impression he was actually winning the election, period. In the USA we can draw those distinctions between parties, but elsewhere the lines are not so sharp and the front-runner for the Republican Party reflects on all of us.
posted by Anonymous at 9:58 AM on May 5, 2016

He's open about it where the others are just slightly less than open.

Yeah, I'm giving them zero points for that.
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

OH HAI I WORK FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Thanks for your work! I would sometimes kinda like to be a USCIS agent so that I could sit someone down for their citizenship test, push my glasses down my nose a bit, and look at them sternly while I ask "Who run Bartertown?" or "You're in a desert, walking along in the sand..."

Probably it is for the best that I don't switch careers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

Romney is skipping the GOP convention.

corb I agree that you should try to pitch an article! Or write something on Medium (I think you can just publish directly through that...)
posted by sallybrown at 10:00 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

McCain specifically denouncing the people who said violent-type stuff at his rallies

After John Lewis shamed him into it. (McCain still has a conscience buried somewhere in there.)
posted by sallybrown at 10:02 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I'm giving them zero points for that.

It's not about giving points, it's about respecting the norms of civil society. Trump, very clearly, doesn't - for someone who has gotten as far as he is, that's new, and it's very scary.

I certainly do not give mainstream Republicans brownie points for not advocating, say, mass deportations, even as they stoke fear about undocumented immigrants. They get no extra credit; they helped create this monster. But there is still a difference between what they do and what Trump does, and that difference actually does matter.
posted by breakin' the law at 10:05 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I don't think normalization and actualization are the same thing. Normalization is what happens when all of us accept what is happening. Actualization is internal — what happens when unspoken ideals are carried out in real form.

Trump gets criticized for actualizing racism and violence in his campaign, but if it is normalization, we would have seen the same behaviors at events by other campaigners, and the media would either apologize for negative coverage or couch coverage in positive terms, in some surreptitious way. Neither is the case here. So normalization is perhaps not the right way to describe what is happening.

Actualization is perhaps healthier than the unspoken Atwater policy we had before. The verbal and physical violence of Republicans is forcing everyone in the country to have long-overdue discussions about civil rights for minorities and women, to a degree which we were probably unlikely to have with other candidates.

In the case of Ted Cruz, for instance, we would have been forced as a country to apologize for his followers' racism, bigotry and sexism by couching those behaviors in terms of "religious tolerance". That's not been so easy with Trump, because he is fairly transparent. He's not religious, he's not poor, so it is tougher to come up with ways to normalize his followers' aberrant behavior.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:06 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Actualization is perhaps healthier than the unspoken Atwater policy we had before. The verbal and physical violence of Republicans is forcing everyone in the country to have long-overdue discussions about civil rights for minorities and women, to a degree which we were probably unlikely to have with other candidates.

This is how I feel, too. It's not like this shit hasn't been going on the entire time, but now it's out in the open, where it can be addressed without the Republicans accusing people of reading too much into [racist policy #7496]
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:12 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Am I wrong to assume that we're going to see a concerted effort to float a moderate Republican as a 3rd-party candidate?

The Republican establishment wouldn't just completely cede control of the Republican Party that way.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:12 AM on May 5, 2016

> "... this is what Nate Silver was saying on Twitter a month ago about the Trump campaign's nomination timetable..."

And he was and is entirely correct. Trump doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates at the moment, and won't for a while yet. He's now guaranteed to get them, but that doesn't make Silver's timetable incorrect. Numbers are still numbers.

Silver's error is confusing statistics with politics. Yes, he's correct in saying the math does not work, but that's not what Trump's convention manager promised. Manafort said that their "goal is in the middle of May to be the presumptive nominee". He did not say that Trump would have the necessary delegate count for this. Becoming the presumptive nominee only requires that he eliminate his competition from the race and then head off the possibility of a brokered convention. Trump's accomplished the former and well on his way to achieving the latter.

If Trump had promised he would literally deliver 1,000 tons of steaming bullshit to the GOP convention to secure the nomination, that's something Silver's statistics could quantify easily. Instead, Trump's done this by delivering on bullshit, well, metaphorically.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:13 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The verbal and physical violence of Republicans is forcing everyone in the country to have long-overdue discussions about civil rights for minorities and women, to a degree which we were probably unlikely to have with other candidates.

You'll forgive me for having zero interest in my family being the lab rats for the US electorate's course in the importance of civil rights, I hope. Trump's candidacy legitimises the ugliest aspects of American society.
posted by bardophile at 10:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [21 favorites]

Perhaps for those of us who would never consider being Trump voters, you could draw that distinction, a lungful of dragon, but I do think that your definition of 'normalization' is exactly what's going on within the GOP. Watch over the next several days as senior establishment figures handwave away Trump's overt racism and violence and treat the entire Trump package as a legitimate candidacy. Watch as they "couch things in positive terms", as you said.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

> "Manafort said that their 'goal is in the middle of May to be the presumptive nominee'. He did not say that Trump would have the necessary delegate count for this."

Fair enough, Doktor Zed.
posted by kyrademon at 10:14 AM on May 5, 2016

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.

And that's only assuming Florida. I think she's likely to win with a Reaganesque landslide, which bodes very, very well for downticket races too.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:17 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump's candidacy legitimises the ugliest aspects of American society.

I don't think they are any more legitimized now than they were before. They're simply being said openly, whereas before it was behind closed doors, but it's not like we're seeing a wave of new people believing this stuff. They have always believed it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:18 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump: "people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer."

I laughed out loud and then for real felt like crying a little.
posted by Tarumba at 10:19 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I guess it's kind of like internet discourse. Seeing it out in the open is might be better for the long run, but the immediate affects of women, minorities, and LGBTQ people getting harassed, threatened, or worse takes a toll and has costs.
posted by FJT at 10:21 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Am I wrong to assume that we're going to see a concerted effort to float a moderate Republican as a 3rd-party candidate? Even if they can't win, it seems like they'd only need a few electoral votes to throw the election to the House.

Aside from the party shitshow it would generate, it would be incredibly difficult because you need to collect signatures but you also need to not throw the state.

Ever wonder how Harper won Toronto ridings despite being in a bastion of liberals? Liberals and NDP split the 65% liberal vote two ways, Harper skated in on a 35% plurality.

If you're a Republican trying to throw the election to the house you don't want to hand Clinton a red state because you split the vote with Trump. Sadly, there's not many states where you can play spoiler and not hand it to the Ds. Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho are probably the only three you could really risk and that's only 13 EVs. Add in maybe Oklahoma and you get 20. Everywhere else is Trump country (Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky) or is too close to the line to risk throwing (Texas).
posted by Talez at 10:21 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

They're simply being said openly, whereas before it was behind closed doors,

And that represents a difference in what one can say "in polite company." Who would have thought it would be reasonable to poll voters on whether they supported banning the entry of Muslims into the US? That it has been ok to ask that question is absolutely a legitimation.
posted by bardophile at 10:21 AM on May 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

but it's not like we're seeing a wave of new people believing this stuff

But like, that's exactly the danger. That's the whole concept of the Overton Window. The farther from the fringes of society an idea appears to be (being advocated by a major presidential candidate surely counts) -- the more people will be exposed to it, the more people will consider it, and the more people will get on board with it.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

NBC literally hosted Nightly News from Trump Tower just to get an interview with Trump- their studio is blocks away from there.

It was such a transparent act that (royal) we (within and outside of Metafilter) almost immediately had open discussions about the business relationship between Trump and NBC's parent company Comcast.

I am not sure that kind of public discussion about the media would have happened as broadly and as quickly in past elections.

Watch as they "couch things in positive terms", as you said.

As a sexual minority in a legally-novel relationship under a shaky Supreme Court, I have no interest in a Trump presidency. I agree that being watchful, cynical and circumspect is vital. I just think that we are arguably not quite at the level of normalization that we would be at, had another Republican candidate been (presumably) nominated.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I guess the Overton Window concept also works in favor of Bernie Sanders, since "socialism" is far from the dirty word it once was.
posted by Tarumba at 10:26 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I don't think they are any more legitimized now than they were before. They're simply being said openly, whereas before it was behind closed doors, but it's not like we're seeing a wave of new people believing this stuff.

Not in the short term, perhaps. But the fact that overt racism is being put out there in the media and treated as just another idea on the spectrum of legitimate political opinion is going to have ripple effects 10, 20 years down the line. (The same way that, say, the overt anti-racist messaging of All in the Family in the 1970s helped usher in changes in the culture that weren't fully felt until the 80s and 90s.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:27 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I guess the Overton Window concept also works in favor of Bernie Sanders, since "socialism" is far from the dirty word it once was.

Even if socialism isn't a dirty word, they'll just straight up say "black people are getting shit they didn't earn" and the white electorate will sit up straight and at attention.
posted by Talez at 10:28 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Just to be clear, a lungful of dragon, my "those of us who would never consider being Trump voters" did include you -- I know you're not on the Dark Side here.

I don't think I understand what you mean by saying a different Republican candidate would have led to higher levels of normalization of racism/nationalism/violence. But I'm happy to let it go at "down with Trump".
posted by saturday_morning at 10:29 AM on May 5, 2016

Yes, I guess I was just trying to find a silver lining. The opinions I have heard on television, seen online, I never dreamt I would see such blatant hate speech say, one year ago.

We are getting used to regularly dealing with all that garbage, I can't believe it.
posted by Tarumba at 10:31 AM on May 5, 2016

Let's be careful with words. Trump and his followers are embarrassing themselves and the United States on the world stage. But Trump and his followers are not "damaging" anything but the Republican Party brand.

This is a bit inaccurate, what with his supporters are committing actual violence in the real world. People and things are, in fact, being damaged.
posted by Archelaus at 10:31 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

People here do realize that hate crimes against Muslims have risen significantly in the US? That there is an emotional violence being done every time the right of Muslims or Mexicans or women or trans folk or blacks or members of any other group than cis white males to be treated as full and equal human beings is called into question in public forums?
posted by bardophile at 10:32 AM on May 5, 2016 [32 favorites]

I don't think we can - or anyone here would - argue that Trump isn't providing a space for people to publicly embrace these awful behaviors and ideas. Clearly it is emboldening some people to do things publicly that they otherwise wouldn't, presumably because for a lot of years we've been making it less socially acceptable to look like that kind of asshole in public. Obviously this bottled a number of people up and they're fizzing over.

I think a lot of us who are not republicans are taking issue with the idea that, to extend the metaphor, Trump is the one primarily shaking the can. From my perspective this is the tea party/freedom caucus upset version 2.0: the republican party itself has worked this angle for years with oh they are voting to get their free phone and seekret muzlim and reverse racism in hiring etc.

I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it would be better short-term if Trump wasn't the nominee, but I am not convinced that this toothpaste can be put back in the tube. These nuts have been emboldened by discovering that they're not alone and that they can get away with this talk.

Is there more possible harm that will come from the party publicly embracing this monster and waving away his crap? I'm sort of on the fence about that. I'm not sure that there's more to unearth here.

But here's the thing: magic procedural kookyness isn't the only way to keep the party from plopping Trump up on the top chair and saying his action is okay.

Party member can say "I will not be a republican if this is what it means to be republican."
Party leaders can condemn Trump's racist behavior and statements even if he's the primary winner.
The party can, as I understand it, create a slate condemning any number of things Trump does, promotes, or says.

Trump isn't normalizing anything in a vacuum. Trump got to be at the top here because of decades of the party normalizing anti-minority missions and dog whistles. It might be that there's going to be more awful that results from Trump getting this far and from the party not condemning this shit. But that's entirely in the party's control both as an organization and as individuals.

tl;dr: I believe that the lid is off the can that the R party has been cramming full of this bile for well over a decade and it's not going to do anything but postpone dealing with it to simply lid it back up with something as toxic as a Cruz.
posted by phearlez at 10:33 AM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

"Is this a yay? I'm so conflicted. Ted Cruz lost, but because Donald Trump won. It's like finding out your herpes is gone but it's because your dick fell off." - Trevor Noah last night on The Daily Show
posted by numaner at 10:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

Oh, I fully agree that he's well and truly the product of several bad actors that came before him. I just think he and his are taking it to bold new extremes.
posted by Archelaus at 10:38 AM on May 5, 2016

Further "it ain't just Trump": 40% think Obama is hiding things about his past. 29% think global warming is a scientist-created hoax. 50% think Clinton knew Benghazi was going to happen beforehand. 21% think Newtown was faked.

Every single one of those things came from the party, not Trump, and Trump didn't give them permission to think them. The party told them that these things are true, that they should care, that they should live lives that push back on those thoughts.

I fear for people near gatherings of these clowns when they get frothed up, sure. But how new are these extremes, really?
posted by phearlez at 10:40 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Trump isn't normalizing anything in a vacuum. Trump got to be at the top here because of decades of the party normalizing anti-minority missions and dog whistles. It might be that there's going to be more awful that results from Trump getting this far and from the party not condemning this shit. But that's entirely in the party's control both as an organization and as individuals.

Yes. This, exactly. Trump is the logical conclusion of the past couple decades (at least) of Republican know-nothingism and other-blaming. The Republicans have literally nobody but themselves to blame for his rise.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:42 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't think I understand what you mean by saying a different Republican candidate would have led to higher levels of normalization of racism/nationalism/violence.

Going back to Ted Cruz for a moment, a smaller-scale demonstration of actual, real normalization of the Cruz worldview is what we are seeing in North Carolina and other states, which continue to use phrases like "states rights" and "religious tolerance" as coded language for "let us conduct violence against sexual minorities under color of law". I'm just not sure that the country, let alone the media, is as uniformly disparaging of that kind of "quieter" violence, as it is of Trump's more open actions — we as a country seem more comfortable with the "under-the-table" stuff if there is a religious justification. If Cruz ended up as the nominee pick, I am certain that the media would be somewhat more accepting of a broader expansion of that kind of policy, or would be more subservient in its critical role when Cruz and those policymakers and executors use that kind of "family values" language to defend and dispense his own preferred brand of violence.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:44 AM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

I think in the end the #BernieOrBust people may not matter. Voting restrictions will matter far more.

And maybe this is the best approach to #BernieOrBust and anti-Hillary types. Focus on voting access, and voting as a defiant act against those would who block it. That means:

1) Verify your ability to vote WAY before the general election date, and get it cleaned up if there is any problem.

2) Make sure you vote so you can elect progressives down ballot. I would much rather see a progressive vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson than no vote at all.

3) Remind people that you can leave any individual race (such as president) blank, and your ballot still counts. I do this all the time on smaller offices where I don't know the candidates.

You can pitch this all as anti-Hillary if it helps. Just make sure people vote.
posted by msalt at 10:47 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I wish I could remember where that article got posted talking about the effect the Trump candidacy was having on children, particularly elementary school children.
posted by corb at 10:48 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The only thing more sickening than Trump and his shitty followers and their shitty, ignorant opinions is all the Republican elite hand-wringing going on about how this terrible state of affairs just *happened* somehow, like a storm that blew in and it's certainly not *their* fault, nor the fault of the Republican Party.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:50 AM on May 5, 2016 [30 favorites]

Many people I know my age (mid-30s) hate both candidates (assuming this is HRC versus Trump) and aren't going to vote for either.

If you read Facebook -- and almost all of us do -- you cannot accept this kind of anecdata as evidence. Facebook (and now Twitter) literally hides people who disagree on stuff like this from your sight.

I know you all know this. But it's one of those things that still affects your perception even if you think you know better, like advertising. Whoever you like, there are millions of people who disagree that you never see. I would love to figure out how to create a melting pot social media app that does the opposite and exposes you to everyone who differs the most. Call it "Mosh Pit" maybe.
posted by msalt at 10:53 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

I wish I could remember where that article got posted talking about the effect the Trump candidacy was having on children, particularly elementary school children.

Washington Post.

“I just got a call from my son’s teacher giving me a heads up that two of his classmates decided to point out the ‘immigrants’ in the class who would be sent ‘home’ when Trump becomes president. They singled him out and were pointing and laughing at him as one who would have to leave because of the color of his skin. In third grade . . . in Fairfax County . . . in 2016!”

posted by Talez at 11:04 AM on May 5, 2016 [20 favorites]

Many people I know my age (mid-30s) hate both candidates (assuming this is HRC versus Trump) and aren't going to vote for either.

If you read Facebook -- and almost all of us do -- you cannot accept this kind of anecdata as evidence. Facebook (and now Twitter) literally hides people who disagree on stuff like this from your sight.

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” —Pauline Kael
posted by Going To Maine at 11:05 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

They singled him out and were pointing and laughing at him as one who would have to leave because of the color of his skin.

This recently happened in my son's 4th grade peer group as well. One boy in his class says lots of very pro-Trump things, and my son has told me about having to stand up for another kid in his class who the pro-Trump kid says will be deported. Its disheartening.
posted by anastasiav at 11:06 AM on May 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

Talez, not that it matters much, but that article is a few months old, when Trump's rallies were really in the news all the time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:06 AM on May 5, 2016

Going back to Ted Cruz for a moment, a smaller-scale demonstration of actual, real normalization of the Cruz worldview is what we are seeing in North Carolina and other states, which continue to use phrases like "states rights" and "religious tolerance" as coded language for "let us conduct violence against sexual minorities under color of law".

That's fair -- I definitely agree that anti-LGBT attitudes and conduct are more normalized in our society than Trumpian violence. Perhaps where we're differing is that my focus has been on the things that haven't really been normalized to an explicit degree in prior recent elections (white nationalism via Trump) and yours has been on those that have been normalized successfully, and continue to worsen (oppressive sexual politics via Cruz). Personally I find Trump's more alarming because of its relative novelty and unpredictability. He's also (I feel) more dangerous on the international stage, and as someone not living in the USA my spidey-sense focuses on him for that reason. If I were a sexual minority living in the US, being affected by Cruzites on a daily basis, I might well feel differently.

On another note, to echo a lot of other people, this definitely ain't just about Trump, it's a flock of racist pigeons coming home to roost, and I'm encouraging every right-leaning American with a soul to take a good hard look at how we ended up here.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:08 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wish I could remember where that article got posted talking about the effect the Trump candidacy was having on children, particularly elementary school children.

I saw some coverage of that in WaPo. Shit, take your pick of things in that vein.

But to be real frank here, it chaps my ass severely to act like that represents a level of 100 and that the level was 0 before Trump's candidacy. It wasn't, and the reason it wasn't was because of the actions and ideology of people who directly contributed to Trump's rise. The kids who were, say, emboldened to punch a muslim kid in the face now were already being fed a diet of hate talk and rhetoric. They were already tripping that kid or writing nasty things on their locker and ostraciing them. This is not a surge of anything new. It's a surfacing and emboldening.
posted by phearlez at 11:08 AM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

> "I only know one person who voted for Nixon."

What the "lamestream" media will never tell you, however, is that Pauline Kael was absolutely right. Turnout was so low that year that Nixon won with exactly one vote. Read a history book, people!
posted by kyrademon at 11:11 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump is the wretched apotheosis of That Asshole Kid From Middle School.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:14 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

I suspect that Cruz' political career will last longer if it doesn't need Senate confirmation. Even Trump & Clinton & Sanders can read a room once in a while.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:22 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Regarding the effect on kids: my sister teaches elementary school in Orange County, CA. She's had Latino kids in tears because they're afraid their families will be deported--regardless of the fact that yes, they're citizens. I substitute in Seattle (mostly high schools), and while I'm not doing as much of it this year I can easily tell you that this is a stress on kids here, too. Even kids who don't mean to tease or mock anyone can easily do harm just by repeating things they've heard on the news...and unlike so many other matters, they aren't even repeating something they've misunderstood. They're accurately quoting a monster running for president.

This election is absolutely traumatic on a lot of kids.

As an aside regarding my sister: she & my mother live within a very short walk of the Orange County Fairgrounds where Trump had that rally last week. His staff must have damn well wanted a protest, because that end of OC is not the lily-white area people think of when they hear "OC." If he wanted a better reception, he'd have found a venue on the south end of the county. Honestly, I was damn proud to see my family's neighborhood turn out to protest, and I wished I could've been there.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:22 AM on May 5, 2016 [32 favorites]

The surfacing and emboldening actually matters. Look, I've been here a while and i know that some of the people expressing concern over the rhetoric coming from Trump events are visible minorities of exactly the type that Trump has condemned the most. I am also one of them.

All the white people who are like "welp Republicans" you are just really not getting it and I can't even imagine how bad it must be for those children.

I grew up with a lot of hush hush covert racism but didn't feel physically threatened the way I might now. No, none of the racism is good and Cruz would be a bad President, but having White nationalism, protectionism, anti -Islam, walls with Mexico, etc, brings a level of fear to a lot of minority people in a way that white people cannot understand.
posted by zutalors! at 11:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [31 favorites]

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” —Pauline Kael

Tangentially: If this is the actual quote, then Kael's intent has been completely misconstrued over the years through inexact paraphrasing. It's usually presented as an example of clueless ignorance caused by living in an echo chamber, whereas Kael expressly acknowledges the narrowness of political opinion within her social circle and admits that multitudes do in fact exist outside of said circle.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:23 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

She's had Latino kids in tears because they're afraid their families will be deported--regardless of the fact that yes, they're citizens.

This too. I'm a born citizen of the US, am not hispanic but 'look it' according to some people, and am worried people will start asking for my passport or something. I mean, even if you're a citizen how will they "really" know? You're brown aren't you?

I just increasingly have less and less faith that white liberals will help in those situations, because they have no skin in that game and are too busy saying all Republicans are bad, you're just worried because it's suddenly about YOU. Sorry you're tired and all.
posted by zutalors! at 11:26 AM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

This is not a surge of anything new. It's a surfacing and emboldening.

Sure. But the impact is really obvious on the receiving end. If I have to take my pick between quiet racists I never interact with and loud racists who might beat me up or shout me down, I'll definitely go with the former.
posted by bardophile at 11:27 AM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

The way I see it, the zit that is the Republican Party is currently being popped, and all kinds of, well, horrible white shit is coming out
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [33 favorites]

I'm encouraging every right-leaning American with a soul to take a good hard look at how we ended up here.

The conservatives that I work with are blaming Obama. Seriously.

And man, they really don't like Trump, but they are starting to fall in line behind him anyway. It's getting worrisome.
posted by malocchio at 11:30 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

That is entirely what I would expect.
posted by Artw at 11:32 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

To extend the zit metaphor to, perhaps, past its breaking point, but maybe not - they say you shouldn't usually pop a zit because it can spread the infection around or drive it in deeper, and most often they will go away on their own, without being popped. But once a zit becomes sufficiently impacted, it's the best course of action, because it does clear out a lot of the infected material and relieves the pressure, and leaving it alone past that point could result in it turning into a massive cyst that could even require surgery and stitches.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:32 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, and we're the ones being sprayed with the goop.
posted by bardophile at 11:35 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

This whole mess IS affecting regular citizens, including children. Kids parrot what they hear at home from their parents. My 13 year old has lost a close friend because that child (who's mother is a teacher in our public school system) is a super rabid Trump supporter that went after 2 other friends because 1 was a Jewish immigrant from Russia and the other is from a Muslim family. He has said it's his duty to bring his gun to school to protect everyone from these kids. They were his friends too, until a few months ago. This is insane, when I was 13 politics and elections were adult things, nothing for us to pay attention to. Now my son in all seriousness asks me "what will happen to US if Trump wins?". I'm super fortunate to be able to tell him that likely nothing will happen, other than we might actually financially be better off due to our demographics. That's reassuring for us, but what about his classmates?

I have a good friend who is mixed race, her father is Lebanese and her mother is white. She was born here and given an Arabic name at birth, but unofficially changed it to an American sounding name in middle school. She looks white and her 3 children look white, but she changed their Arabic names to American names last month. Legally. She stopped wearing hijab and dresses in a western style. SHE IS SCARED. These aren't just blurbs on HuffPo, they are real people, American born citizens who are terrified on one side and on the other side you have true believers that fellow citizens should be beaten, killed or deported because they are Muslim.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:36 AM on May 5, 2016 [58 favorites]

And man, they really don't like Trump, but they are starting to fall in line behind him anyway.

Predictably, tribal identification as a Republican trumps (ahem) any conception of reality. This is exactly what fueled his rise in the first place.

Plus it gives them cover to say "I'm not really misogynist/racist/transphobic/etc, that's those loudmouths over there."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:37 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

He has said it's his duty to bring his gun to school to protect everyone from these kids.

jfc
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:38 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

"Relieving the pressure by bursting it" has not, historically, gone well for various groups being targeted. Kristallnacht didn't 'clear the air'.
posted by corb at 11:38 AM on May 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

She looks white and her 3 children look white, but she changed their Arabic names to American names last month. Legally. She stopped wearing hijab and dresses in a western style. SHE IS SCARED.

That breaks my heart. Also, Arabic names are American names.
posted by zutalors! at 11:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [39 favorites]

I get you, zutalors!

I am brown (Latin American), and It really doesn't help that my husband is a refugee who already escaped from one genocide when he was 13. He isn't a Muslim anymore, but I feel like this is bringing all sorts of memories back.
posted by Tarumba at 11:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is not a surge of anything new. It's a surfacing and emboldening.

Yes, and it's being legitimized in our society by the fact that one of the two candidates for leader of the free world shares those hateful extremist views openly and without shame. He stands by while minorities are physically assaulted in his presence by his supporters who are screaming racial slurs, and openly and unashamedly blames the assaulted parties for being uppity.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:40 AM on May 5, 2016 [33 favorites]

I mean he's literally fucking Homer Stokes yelling IS YOU IS OR IS YOU AIN'T MY CONSTITUENCY, except his followers are ready and eager to drag people back to that burning cross instead of riding him out of town on a rail.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:42 AM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

i can't figure out who would be the soggy bottom boys in this scenario
posted by poffin boffin at 11:43 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Damn, we're in a tight spot!
posted by Tarumba at 11:43 AM on May 5, 2016 [24 favorites]

It's very difficult to hear these things being discussed as if they are abstract and distant. Some of the people whose lives are being directly affected are right here in this thread. Some of them are posting, others are lurking, and still others have walked away from the conversation because it's too hard to have their lives be treated as merely a subject for discussion. I'll be back when I can handle it again.
posted by bardophile at 11:45 AM on May 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

corb: I wish I could remember where that article got posted talking about the effect the Trump candidacy was having on children, particularly elementary school children.

If you can't find the one you were thinking of, just ask anyone who's walked past my window of an evening and heard me crying myself to sleep since I started being a merit badge counselor for "Citizenship in the Nation" in the local Boy Scout troop last fall. Oy.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:45 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean there are all these white thinkpieces about exposing the dark underbelly of racists and "wow look all these racists uncovered thanks Trump I had no idea" but meanwhile minorities, we knew all about it so no need to thank Trump.
posted by zutalors! at 11:45 AM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

zutalors! I agree, Arabic names are American names, but in my area for all practical purposes having a different sounding name is putting a target on your back. If it makes you feel any better (about your comment that white liberals won't be quick to defend brown people), my son (who's typically 13, so not a superstar perfect paragon of anything), does vocally and once physically stand up for his friends. He knows this type of behavior is nuts and scary and he feels like he has an obligation to stand up to it. So, maybe it seems that theres a level of indifference, but at least in our home, there's not.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:46 AM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

i can't figure out who would be the soggy bottom boys in this scenario

The male sex workers who are going to be very busy at the convention?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:46 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

It's more of a general trend than an individual thing. As a culture, white liberals have other priorities when it comes down to it. As do white feminists. Speak up about race instead of class or gender and the wind blows very cold.

"American name" meaning "Anglo name" means a very specific exclusionary thing so people should be careful with that language.
posted by zutalors! at 11:48 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

And man, they really don't like Trump, but they are starting to fall in line behind him anyway.

They're doing it for exactly the same reason that folks here are being encourage to fall in line behind Hillary.

"I think the pattern is the same in just about all elections. On the night you lose you don’t want to even think about supporting the other guy. In the end you end up being united by the nature of the opposition."

There isn't a moral equivalence, and I'm not suggesting one, but the political reasoning is the same on both sides in the US. Y'all just aren't okay with parties who maintain enough support for decades to be a moral voice but never get enough support to be government. (E.g. the NDP here in Canada.)
posted by clawsoon at 11:49 AM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

The male sex workers who are going to be very busy at the convention?

"Say, any of you boys smithies? Or if not smithies, trained in the metallurgic arts before circumstances forced you into a life of politickin'?"
posted by zarq at 11:50 AM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

The male sex workers who are going to be very busy at the convention?

I feel like this year it's gonna be one of those situations where the sex workers are doing a lot more holding and listening than actual sex
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:50 AM on May 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

Sorry-maybe I should've said "southern white sounding name".
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:53 AM on May 5, 2016

I'm encouraging every right-leaning American with a soul to take a good hard look at how we ended up here.

The conservatives that I work with are blaming Obama. Seriously.

I didn't say I was doing a good job
posted by saturday_morning at 11:53 AM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Write an article about your perspective on Trump as a Hispanic Christian Republican and pitch it to national news organizations.

I just want to say: corb, PLEASE do this. You're a good, thoughtful writer, and I'd read it.
posted by dw at 11:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

The Magic of Donald Trump: Mark Danner cites a prescient remark by the philosopher Richard Rorty in 1997.

... members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots….

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion…. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Danner:

Rorty’s words prophesy not only the strongman’s rise but his blithe refusal to let “political correctness” prevent him making sexist and bigoted remarks, and his fans’ euphoric enjoyment of their hero’s reveling in the pleasures of free speech. He says what he wants: he is rich enough, strong enough, to do what he pleases. Strength: though he has had no experience whatever in foreign affairs, polls consistently show he inspires the most confidence among Republicans when it comes to protecting the country.

posted by russilwvong at 11:59 AM on May 5, 2016 [44 favorites]

Argentinian tv ad for the Copa America Centenario w/ narration by Trump.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:59 AM on May 5, 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.

Given that if there were anything to either the email situation or Benghazi!!! the Republicans would have come out with it by now, I hope it'd at least give them more sympathy for the disabled.
posted by Gelatin at 12:02 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

There's a tendency for a certain type of liberal (I don't exclude myself) to respond to any kind of revelation about bad actions committed by conservatives with a dismissive "Yeah, no shit! Tell me something I didn't already know." You see it often on MetaFilter whenever someone posts a breaking story about a fresh right wing atrocity that's come to light: "Republican does X. Film at eleven." During the Bush years, it was often referred to as outrage fatigue.

I think some of the jaded response to Trump's particular brand of awfulness can be attributed to this type of knee-jerkism. It's not healthy or constructive, however, and thanks to comments like bardophile's, hollygoheavy's, and zutalors!'s, it's now pretty obvious that it's also a product of privilege. Which I never even considered previously.

So, keep those great comments coming, y'all.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:04 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

I just want to say: corb, PLEASE do this. You're a good, thoughtful writer, and I'd read it.

Seriously, corb. You and I have a lot that we disagree on but yours is a valuable perspective and one that I think needs expression and exposure right now.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:04 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

Yeah, but sweeping it under the rug doesn't help much either.

For decades the Repubican party has fanned the flames of racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and all the other ways they could think of to get straight white men to vote Republican.

The officials did it through dogwhistled and yammer about "state's rights" rather than openly saying that they wanted to hurt other groups to further the cause of white supremacy, but that's always been the subtext and it has openly been the text in the even slightly less official channels forever. Rush Limbaugh and the other mavens of hate radio have worked to make sure that America never forgot that the dogwhistles were just there because the dire forces of "political correctness" were conspiring to keep the true conservative politicians from saying what they really thought.

It is true that Trump is saying the quiet parts loud and is openly calling for violence. But Ted Cruz and the others were saying **EXACTLY THE SAME THING** as Trump, just through a veil of bullshit and dogwhistles to make the naked racism and other bigotry seem more palatable.

Yes, there is something disturbing about the calls for violence from Trump and how widely those calls have been accepted, but this is not something that did, or can, simply appear out of nowhere. It can appear only because the supposedly mainstream Republicans have been encouraging them for, literally, decades. It happened only because Ted Cruz, and John McCain, and all the others have profited from quiet, subtextual, calls for violence for decades.

How can I say that Trump is worse than Cruz merely because Trump is honest and loud in the call for violence, while Cruz is dishonest and quiet in his own benefit from calls for violence?

That is why I don't really see all that much difference between Cruz and Trump. We generally count an accomplice as being guilty of the same crime as the actual triggerman, and literally literally, not metaphorically literally, every single Republican in the USA has been an accomplice here.

Any Republican who simply sat and said nothing while the agents of hate laid the foundation for Trump's violence is as guilty as Trump, and that's all of them. Every. Single. One. There's no such thing as an innocent Republican, especially now. Until they are able to admit their collective guilt, and actually address the Southern Strategy and the other ways they have helped spread the call for violence and bigotry and benefited thereby, there can be no getting rid of the guilt they bear.

Trump is the true face of the Republican party, the mask removed at last and the ugliness finally in the open and admitted. He is not an anomaly, his rise is not a mysterious happening that just appeared one day from a party that is otherwise totally normal and not been urging bigotry and violence daily for years.

There are exactly two choices for the modern American Republican: acknowledge that Republicanism is Trumpism, that he is the truth of the Party, that the Party is him, and that to be a Republican is to side with him. Or to leave.

That last may be hard. Especially since the only viable alternative at the moment is the Democrats and I'll acknowledge that it is at least theoretically possible for a principled Republican who has genuine policy differences with Democrats and is not driven by mere bigotry to exist. But such a theoretical principled Republican must stop being a Republican, or abandon their principles. Maybe they can form a new party instead of joining the Democrats. I don't know.

But I do know this: in November the choice will be between the party that isn't driven by violence and bigotry, and the party of Donald Trump.

So there's the choices facing the theoretical reasonable Republican: stay home and don't vote, vote straight ticket Democrat (regardless of how much you may disagree with them on tax policy or whatever), or acknowledge that you are Trump and he is you, and that you intend to sign on for his violence, his racism, his bigotry, and his other awful qualities.

Because the point is that there is no separation between the Republican party and Donald Trump. You can't pretend that the racism, the violence, the lynchings, aren't true Republican values anymore. They are. The party is lost and all decent people must leave it or admit that they aren't really decent people.
posted by sotonohito at 12:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

The last bit says something like: "not letting us in is their best option!"

It's fantastic.
posted by Tarumba at 12:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

(the Argentinian video, I mean)
posted by Tarumba at 12:06 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

(E.g. the NDP here in Canada.)

The NDP survives because it represents a certain kind of leftist in Canada and once upon a time held power in government. We have no equivalents in the US -- generally, when a new party emerged it came from the implosion of a previous party.

Also, American parties were, until the last 40 years or so, big tent parties. You had liberal Republicans like Wendell Willkie being frenemies with FDR. You had racists in both parties. The Democrats had internationalists, anti-Communists, pro-military, anti-war, and everything in between. The Republicans were mostly about business and the rich, but in the West there was a long tradition of Republicanism that stemmed from their Lincoln-esque history and their generally positive farm policies.

All that changed in the 1960s and 70s, as the anti-war movement locked into the Democratic party and the Religious Right rose to prominence.

American political parties now look more like Canadian (or British) parties. It's inevitable that there will be a far-left or far-right third party emerge soon. It really comes down to whether the Democrats will hold their centrist and leftist parts together and who of the GOP or the Dems are the inheritors of the center-right independents and exiled Republicans.
posted by dw at 12:09 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!
posted by Artw at 12:10 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm past the point where I can take much pleasure in the crackup (however long-coming and well-deserved) of the Republican Party, because it looks like it's going to lead to blood being spilled. When I hear people say "Get the popcorn ready!" it makes me think of this. It's not going to be a pleasant or enjoyable experience for anyone.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:11 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, there is something disturbing about the calls for violence from Trump and how widely those calls have been accepted, but this is not something that did, or can, simply appear out of nowhere.

no one said it came out of nowhere. There is a lot of dismissal here about people's real concerns though.
posted by zutalors! at 12:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Why the media will lift Trump up and tear Clinton down - We find ourselves at the tail end of a brief period of clarity. For the past few months, virtually everyone outside of the 40 percent of Republican primary voters who carried him to victory has agreed that Trump is not fit to be president.
posted by Artw at 12:13 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
posted by Sophie1 at 12:13 PM on May 5, 2016 [27 favorites]

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.

And today we call those folks "the Tea Party."

(Though that figure is obviously two points too high, as someone pointed out.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:13 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are exactly two choices for the modern American Republican: acknowledge that Republicanism is Trumpism, that he is the truth of the Party, that the Party is him, and that to be a Republican is to side with him. Or to leave.

QFmotherfuckingT
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Donald Trump declaring that the world's best taco bowls - literally THE BEST TACO BOWLS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD - are made in Trump Tower Grill should be enough on its own to lose him 100% of the Hispanic vote.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Grotesque.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

All that changed in the 1960s and 70s, as the anti-war movement locked into the Democratic party and the Religious Right rose to prominence.

Let's be plain about what actually happened- the liberal Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, the racist Dems abandoned the party, and the Republicans went all in on white supremacy to pick up the Dixicrats. It didn't just happen- it was the result of one group of people doing the right thing, one group of people doing an ugly thing, and a third group doing something even worse.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:16 PM on May 5, 2016 [31 favorites]

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!

Come on. This is what you tweet if you are a tonedeaf-racist fictional character from a TV show. It is not what you tweet when you are a real person, and especially not a real person who might-could-maybe be president of the United States.

Holy fucking shit.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:16 PM on May 5, 2016 [38 favorites]

@realDonaldTrump C'mon man, even your Mexican food has a wall.
Danny O'Dwyer
posted by zutalors! at 12:17 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

When I read "I love Hispanics" it made me feel like shit for some reason, I don't know why.

because it's a pathetic pandering statement made by a disgusting hateful human being who is obviously lying? obviously it could also be because you had to look at his repugnant visage while reading it.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:17 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

Lest you think the taco bowl thing doesn't get any worse

Buzzfeed: Just got off phone with Trump Grill, says they don't serve taco bowls. It's not on the menu online.

He is not capable of not lying
posted by saturday_morning at 12:19 PM on May 5, 2016 [39 favorites]

Even Clinton being my abuela was not as much of a pander as that, and that's saying something.
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

And man, they really don't like Trump, but they are starting to fall in line behind him anyway.

They're doing it for exactly the same reason that folks here are being encourage to fall in line behind Hillary.

No. They really aren't. Not remotely.

Republicans are falling in line behind Trump to salvage their own political careers.

Democrats are being urged to get behind Hillary if she wins the primary to salvage the country and the fucking planet.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:21 PM on May 5, 2016 [32 favorites]

So was the point of that tweet merely to demonstrate to his supporters his commitment to insulting Latin@ people?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:21 PM on May 5, 2016

Re: the Republican break-up. I was actually sort of rooting for Cruz to get the nomination for this reason. He's a terrible enough candidate that he's highly unlikely to win the general, and could easily lose in a landslide; he's personally odious enough to really hammer home to the public how toxic the GOP has become; he's disliked enough on the right that he could conceivably prompt some soul searching and dissent within the party. But he doesn't come with Trump's uniquely-disturbing side dish of "possible fascist dictator." His campaign manager never physically threatened anyone. He does not advocate banning Muslims or beating up political opponents.

So, if you just wanted the Republican Party to finally have its' richly-deserved day of reckoning, I think Cruz was your guy. Trump? We're in uncharted waters, here.
posted by breakin' the law at 12:21 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

he's personally odious enough to really hammer home to the public how toxic the GOP has become; he's disliked enough on the right that he could conceivably prompt some soul searching and dissent within the party.

Anybody capable of that level of introspection either already left or is cynically riding the wave.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:23 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Looks like they sell it at the Trump Cafe, not the Trump Grill:

Taco fiesta!

Ground sautéed beef with jalapeños, onions, tomatoes, and chili spices,

Served in a taco shell topped with lettuce and cheddar cheese

$13.50 Full
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 12:24 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

"I'm not racist, I like [ethnic group] food" is that you say when you can't even plausibly muster an "I'm not racist, I have an [ethnic group] friend"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:24 PM on May 5, 2016 [46 favorites]

honestly every time i see his face or hear his whining bloviating voice i feel physically ill, not (just) because he is physically repulsive to me but because every aspect of his inner self that he has chosen voluntarily to reveal is unbearably disgusting, loathsome, vile, gross, and appalling. i feel old testament levels of horror towards him, like god is dropping massive stone tablets nearby saying LOOK YE UPON THE ABOMINATION and we're all like oh fuck please don't set us on fire again, dude, we promise to cast him out ok
posted by poffin boffin at 12:25 PM on May 5, 2016 [26 favorites]

Looks like they sell it at the Trump Cafe, not the Trump Grill

oh well in that case
posted by saturday_morning at 12:26 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Anybody capable of that level of introspection either already left or is cynically riding the wave.

Yup. Anyone on that side complaining about it now, no matter how loudly, will be back in November telling us it's Obama's fault that Trump is the only candidate to vote for.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Republicans are falling in line behind Trump to salvage their own political careers.

Republicans are also refusing to fall in line behind Trump to salvage their own political careers.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:29 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

So was the point of that tweet merely to demonstrate to his supporters his commitment to insulting Latin@ people?

I don't know, for the first time I actually felt like maybe he was right, and I was being presumptuous in thinking I could live in the US. For a second there I actually felt racist against myself.

I know I shouldn't be reading this at work so that part is my fault but I just had a little cry in the office bathroom.
posted by Tarumba at 12:29 PM on May 5, 2016

Yup. Anyone on that side complaining about it now, no matter how loudly, will be back in November telling us it's Obama's fault that Trump is the only candidate to vote for.

"Get ready to hear this a lot over six months: "Of course I said never Trump, but that was before Hillary Clinton's shocking comment today.""
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:29 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

God Trump would probably federally recognize Steak & Blowjob Day, it's a branding opportunity
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:30 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I'm not racist, I like [ethnic group] food" is that you say when you can't even plausibly muster an "I'm not racist, I have an [ethnic group] friend"

And he happens to make the best [ethnic group] food, right at his hotel!
posted by Going To Maine at 12:30 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

"I'm not racist, I like [ethnic group] food" is that you say when you can't even plausibly muster an "I'm not racist, I have an [ethnic group] friend"

And about a "taco bowl". I mean, he could have just gone with a bag of taco-flavored Doritos^†. "Taco Doritos! I ❤️ Hispanics!"

† Don't get me wrong -- taco-flavored Doritos are the original and best flavor of Doritos.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:30 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

One deleted. Please don't make up hypothetical offensive comments just to emphasize how offensive they would be.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:32 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

On the same pass I also ordered "beef tacos" ($13.50) which turned out to be a fried tortilla bowl heaped with romaine lettuce, grated yellow cheese, and plain ground beef that was so devoid of flavor, it rendered an insult to Mexicans every bit as profound as Trump’s previous pronouncements. Trump food is bland food.
posted by frimble at 12:32 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Also, minorities only exist to make the food of their people, etc, etc that tweet is a bucket of garbage.

At least Kasich would really be biting into it.
posted by zutalors! at 12:32 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!

What the hell I thought it was satire.

When I read "I love Hispanics" it made me feel like shit for some reason, I don't know why.

Beyond the yuge level of pandering (really huge, you know. Just the most pandering ever!), my immediate reaction was to wonder if the man realizes that taco bowls aren't made from Hispanics.
posted by nubs at 12:32 PM on May 5, 2016 [13 favorites]

i'm actually really surprised he didn't tweet any blood libel on passover.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

There is a lot of dismissal here about people's real concerns though.

If that's happened I missed it. I think what there is here is disagreement about to what extent you can stop this uprising of emboldened racist shitbags once it's already started. It is unquestionably scary, but Trump has happened and given a voice to these jerks. They have seen each other and what they can do. At this point, with him as the nominee, it is my belief that the whole structure around him needs to be pointed out - not just his overt parts of it.

Beyond the yuge level of pandering (really huge, you know. Just the most pandering ever!), my immediate reaction was to wonder if the man realizes that taco bowls aren't made from Hispanics.

His might be. Wouldn't put it past him.
posted by phearlez at 12:35 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Los mejores tacos cuencos se hacen en la Torre Trump Grill! Amo a los Hispanics!
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2016

Review of the restaurant America at the Trump Tower in Toronto (spoiler: all the bullshit you would expect from something with Trump's name on it)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2016

I love Hispanics!

He's also always had a great relationship with "the blacks" don't you know!
posted by juiceCake at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

There is a lot of dismissal here about people's real concerns though.

If that's happened I missed it.

it looks like some of it got deleted. But yeah, on the whole you missed it or don't feel like seeing it.
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have reached a point of rage so strong at him and all his bullshit that I need to like, go play with my dog and weep bitterly for an hour right now.
posted by corb at 12:38 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

Corb - I really do hope you put some of that rage into an article. I'm happy to proofread if you want.
posted by Sophie1 at 12:41 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

NYT: In Donald Trump’s Rise, Allies See New American Approach

... Even if he never makes it to the Oval Office, some officials and analysts say, the strain of public opinion [Trump] represents could fundamentally reshape the way the United States views trade, the value of alliances and the wisdom of basing troops around the world.
... From Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul to the headquarters of NATO in Brussels and the vulnerable Baltic nations along Russia’s western border, officials and analysts said in interviews that they were trying to figure out whether Mr. Trump’s “America first” platform was an election slogan or additional evidence of an emerging American approach in which countries pay up or make trade concessions in return for protection.

This is going to be the death of global American influence. And the general election hasn't even formally kicked off yet.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:42 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

That sounds like a good idea, corb. I guarantee you we will all be in some election thread from now until November when you're done playing with dogs.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 12:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Also, aren't taco bowls USian, pseudo-mexican dishes? I always assumed they weren't "authentic" in any sense.

(I may be totally wrong here.)
posted by brundlefly at 12:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

The pundits and boffins who are primarily panicking about Trump's potential affect on trade and American global military reach reveal a great deal about themselves, all of it bad. It's a good litmus test for identifying the folk from both parties who are lizard people, but usually manage to pass as human.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

There's no need to make a personal callout, Ivan.
posted by Etrigan at 12:49 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Taco bowls are about as Mexican as Trump is.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:53 PM on May 5, 2016

im oppressed!
posted by poffin boffin at 12:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [19 favorites]

brundlefly, the preformed taco shell was invented by the Taco Bell founder. Not sure who came up with the bowl shape, but I'm pretty sure they were also on this side of the Rio Grande
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I almost thought this user was back for a minute there.
posted by yhbc at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2016

"Also, aren't taco bowls USian, pseudo-mexican dishes? I always assumed they weren't 'authentic' in any sense."

Yes, taco bowls are what poor villagers in Tamaulipas traditionally eat, sometimes with a Meximelt or a Steak Doubledilla. Totally authentic.

"There's no need to make a personal callout, Ivan."

That wasn't intended to target RedorGreen, which is why I specified "pundits and boffins". (Although RedorGreen certainly qualifies as a boffin, though in an unrelated field. I like RedorGreen.) I think ordinary people can be excused for thinking that those things are a concern -- it's the Beltway and editorial board freakout about it that is most telling.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:58 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is going to be the death of global American influence. And the general election hasn't even formally kicked off yet.

What I find interesting is the way in which Trump's blatant attacks on this front are demolishing one of the most prominent (and, hitherto, most bipartisan) national shibboleths: that the American global system is or at least should be run, for the universal greater good of all humanity. Since the end of WWII, the status of the US as disinterested "leader of the free world" has been touted by those defending that system, and critics of it have traditionally attacked it for not living up to that ideal.

Trump seems to be explicitly walking away from that notion. His question is, bluntly, "what's in it for us?" Implicit is the idea that the global order should be run for the benefit of America and Americans (or real Americans, however he and his supporters decide to define that), without any appeal to broader notions of the good of the global order or of humanity, whether genuine or hypocritically maintained.

I think this is a major contributing factor in the unease which he is stirring in the business community, among traditional Republican donor blocks, among military analysts and neoconservative think-tanks. They're well aware of just how vulnerable our global influence is in a world which is confronted with the notion that a sizable chunk of Americans genuinely and unambiguously view them as subjects. And that's what Trump is straight up saying to the rest of the world: we own you. You belong to us. Even those who might agree privately with that notion are terrified of what might happen if the traditional ideological camouflage is stripped away and trampled underfoot.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:59 PM on May 5, 2016 [32 favorites]

Some staff at the RNC were told Wed if they were unable to get behind Trump they shoulld leave by end of the week
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:00 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

2,000 doctors say Bernie Sanders has the right approach to health care

"Given the current state of medicine, especially factoring in the patchwork attempt of Obamacare and big pharma's death grip on drugs, Senator Sanders' approach is the only viable long-term solution. Everything else is just a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound," he said.
posted by futz at 1:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

i'm so angry that none of the DNC promotional material i've seen so far incorporates in any way the phrase IT'S HOT AS HELL IN PHILADELPHIA
posted by poffin boffin at 1:08 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

The pundits and boffins who are primarily panicking about Trump's potential affect on trade and American global military reach reveal a great deal about themselves, all of it bad.

As people like to say here, you can be upset about more than one thing. If that's the reason people are against Trump I'm fine with that. If it's just because they don't like his hair I'm fine with that too. If they need any more suggestions for things to hold against him I can be of help there as well.
posted by bongo_x at 1:10 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Interesting. Paul Ryan saying (for the moment anyway) that he is "not ready to" endorse Trump.

Which is interesting in the context of your comment, roomthreeseventeen.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:14 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I think ordinary people can be excused for thinking that those things are a concern -- it's the Beltway and editorial board freakout about it that is most telling.

We have people in this thread who are happy to argue that Cruz is saying the same thing as Trump, just dressed in nicer language. (Ditto Clinton, Sanders, or any of the candidates, depending on the day of the week.) By that standard -that Trump is peeling back the surface on a bunch of deplorable views- all of this pundits who judge candidates based on their facility with policy & such should always be dismissed for missing the bigger picture. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here, but it seems useful to be able to take candidates apart based on how their individual policies are gibberish that would blow everything apart.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:15 PM on May 5, 2016

AdamCSnider: ...Trump's blatant attacks on this front are demolishing one of the most prominent (and, hitherto, most bipartisan) national shibboleths: that the American global system is or at least should be run, for the universal greater good of all humanity.

I guess noblesse oblige doesn't apply if you aren't noble. (And now I has a sad about my country, which once made me proud with things like the Marshall Plan.)
posted by wenestvedt at 1:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I just made the mistake of engaging on Facebook with one of the Bernie or Bust bros. My comment that anyone who thought Trump and Clinton were equivalent was either not paying attention to the issues or very privileged was followed immediately by another of this person's friends saying that Trump is a better choice compared to Clinton. I honestly feel like my head is going to explode. I'm just extremely disappointed in my so-called liberal friends.
posted by peacheater at 1:17 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

peacheater, probably something you know already but you can just remove them from your FB timeline.
posted by kyp at 1:20 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

The pundits and boffins who are primarily panicking about Trump's potential affect on trade and American global military reach reveal a great deal about themselves, all of it bad.

And really, destroying the economy and killing people in other countries has got to be as serious as a restaurant he owns serving inauthentic bland food, or at least close.

I'm looking to build a coalition of people who don't want Trump to be president, not people who don't want it for the right reasons. I'm not prepared to call those people who bring up additional concerns sub human.
posted by bongo_x at 1:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump is eating a taco salad on top of a bikini-clad photo of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.
posted by neroli at 1:33 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

Politico: We originally published this item on April 17 and rated it Mostly True. Since then, readers have contacted us to consider other evidence about the Democratic Party’s fundraising processes, especially state parties sending money back to the Democratic National Committee. We have updated and rerated this fact-check based on new information, changing the rating from Mostly True to Half True.

(me: if you read the article they should have changed it to mostly false)

The Clinton campaign gets the lion's share of the money collected by the Victory Fund, said Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin, because most of the donors give much smaller amounts, and everything up to $2,700 per person is earmarked to go to Hillary for America first.

It's when a donor exceeds that limit that the excess spills over to benefit the national and state Democratic committees.

Or — in the case of the state parties — that's how it appears on paper.

Federal Election Commission records show that in most cases, the money given to the state parties has been immediately redirected to the DNC. The money isn't staying with the states at all.

On May 2, Politico published a story reporting that 88 percent of the state money was immediately passed along to the DNC. In some cases, the state parties didn't even know the money had gone in and out of their accounts until after the fact.

The Hillary Victory Fund sent $214,100 to Minnesota, for example, and that state party didn't keep a dime. It was routed to the DNC, which otherwise wouldn’t have been able to accept the money "since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee," Politico reported.
posted by futz at 1:33 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

(Looks at insincere tweet from flossie-haired buffoon) That is a taco? Seriously? Possibly the best meal I've had in 2.5 years wandering around the USA was this in Marshalltown, Iowa. I still, literally, dream about it and my picture does not do it justice.

Oh, also, that Donald Tweet. The partially-open drawer, center right, appears to have packets of meds in it? Thought he (or his doctor) claimed he was super-healthy?
posted by Wordshore at 1:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's not that I don't want to vote for Hillary, it's that I'm being forced to by the nature of our two-party system. As long we have this 1st-past-the-goal-post voting, there will only ever be two relevant parties, they might not always be Dems/Repubs but there will be two and only two.

Since everyone knows it's going to come down to two and all a 3rd party can do is steal votes from a candidate with an actual shot, it's not about getting people to for you but against the other guy. If I want to prevent a Trump presidency my only real option is to vote for Hillary.

Hillary knows this so that's how her message is tailored. Free of a two party system along with the need for so much money and the constraints it puts on most candidates, Hillary might very well have been a candidate you'd actually want to vote for.

So short-term, prevent a Trump presidency and vote for Hillary. Hitler comparisons may have lost their punch and I don't think Trump would be as bad as Hitler but I'm VERY afraid that he would make solid run at it.

Long-term, support things like instant run-off voting or anything else that will allow candidates from more than just two parties get elected.
posted by VTX at 1:44 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Donald Trump is eating a taco salad on top of a bikini-clad photo of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.

I missed the "photo" part of that description. I have to admit some disappointment. But I did believe it for a second.
posted by bongo_x at 1:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

"And really, destroying the economy and killing people in other countries has got to be as serious as a restaurant he owns serving inauthentic bland food, or at least close."

Some protectionism wouldn't destroy any economies, here or there, or result in a significant loss of jobs, here or there, and a reduction in American military imperialism would -- recent experience as a guide -- mean killing fewer people in other countries, not more.

I'm not really a fan of protectionism nor isolationism -- not that I actually think that Trump is an isolationist, truly -- but the degree of expressed concern about this one particular aspect of Trump's stated policies reflects the very distorted, dishonest, and mistaken Beltway consensus that is, in itself, a different version of much of what's wrong with large portions of both parties. The preoccupation with free-trade and accompanying doomsaying of economic collapse from protectionism is the foreign trade equivalent of doomsaying about the national debt and balancing the budget. That this is what gets a certain sort all atwitter, and not so much Trump's fascist nativism, tells us a lot.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's not that I don't want to vote for Hillary, it's that I'm being forced to by the nature of our two-party system. As long we have this 1st-past-the-goal-post voting, there will only ever be two relevant parties, they might not always be Dems/Repubs but there will be two and only two.

Have you heard of primaries? It's this little known process where the two eventual nominees, one for each party, are picked from a much larger group potential nominees.
posted by srboisvert at 1:51 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Donald Trump is eating a taco salad on top of a bikini-clad photo of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.

I missed the "photo" part of that description. I have to admit some disappointment. But I did believe it for a second.

Not me, I know you can't get bikinis for photos.
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Dear Democrats: Don't Fuck This Up
posted by homunculus at 1:52 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Have you heard of primaries? It's this little known process where the two eventual nominees, one for each party, are picked from a much larger group potential nominees.

Saying this doesn't help the conversation here go better.
posted by futz at 1:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

Please, when have the Dems ever snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:55 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

>> "There's no need to make a personal callout, Ivan."
> That wasn't intended to target RedorGreen [...]
Pretty sure that was a joke, especially since the linked boffin already replied. ("im oppressed!")
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:55 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

One thing that conservatives are reminding themselves of right now is that there are a whole lot of other races to fight, races which they've mostly won over the past decade:

Right now, the Left’s weakest points lie outside of Washington. Politically, there are thousands of state and local offices on the ballot this year and in 2018. Intellectually, there are at least as many opportunities to make our case to the public and to enact public policies that advance our agenda.

And they know what might stop them in those races:

The Left is also trying to expand and perfect its own state-based networks of organizations and activists as a counterweight. Do such networks really make a difference? Absolutely.

The column then goes on to outline which kind of conservative organizations have proven to make the biggest difference in preventing states from expanding Medicaid. Democrats may win the air war this year, but the grinding ground war needs troops. Hopefully Sanders' supporters listen to that part of his message long after his candidacy ends.
posted by clawsoon at 1:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, I figured that all out after it was far too late.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:57 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

His staff must have damn well wanted a protest, because that end of OC is not the lily-white area people think of when they hear "OC."

This week's OC Weekly Cover (crude cartoon warning).
posted by FJT at 1:57 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I feel guilty that it's Taco Night in the angrycat household, for no other reason than Taco Night usually follows Pasta Night. With the little packet of taco seasoning and everything.
posted by angrycat at 2:03 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Have you heard of primaries? It's this little known process where the two eventual nominees, one for each party, are picked from a much larger group potential nominees.

It turns out I have, in fact, heard of primaries. I vote in them as a matter of fact. The same rules apply, you vote for the nominee that will win the general election and that is, and always has been, Clinton. I like Bernie's stances on a lot of things and I Hillary probably does too but Hillary is the candidate with the best chance of winning and that means that voting for Hillary is the ONLY chance at getting anything remotely CLOSE to what Bernie wants in place.

The only difference between the primary and the general is that in the general I say stuff like, "I don't want to vote for Hillary as much as I'm voting against Trump" instead of, "I'd really like to vote for Bernie but I don't think he can win in the general."

The two party system colors the whole process from start to finish
posted by VTX at 2:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

Long-term, support things like instant run-off voting or anything else that will allow candidates from more than just two parties get elected.

Multiparty democracies don't usually do presidential systems, I don't think. How do you get multiple parties in congress to form coalitions which can actually govern, if some specific tiny party holds the presidency? That would lead to weird power imbalances. A tiny party (and it's possible for a multi-party democracy to consist of nothing but a whole bunch of tiny parties) could end up way disproportionately powerful if they held the presidency, as opposed to being proportionally represented in a parliament.

We would need a constitutional amendment to implement IRV, but I think we'd be better off just scrapping the current constitution and going to a parliamentary system if we really want to be able to balance power across a bunch of different small constituencies like that. Which might be a good idea! But the thought of what it would take to make that happen makes me a little scared and very tired.

And if you get a multi-party democracy, you'll be able to vote your conscience more accurately (which would feel nice) but your elected officials will still end up in coalition governments with people from other parties who don't represent your own views so accurately (or sometimes at all). The centrists usually end up with pluralities, and therefore as leaders of the coalitions... Which is basically what happens in the existing system, except the coalitions are within parties instead of between parties.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:16 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

VTX - I hear you on the complaints, but I also hear others on the primaries' importance. I would posit that the two-party system is only part of the problem - another part is the total piss-poor turnout that the primaries tend to habitually get. Those of us who vote in the primaries are rare, actually; and the fact that some states have closed primaries is also an issue. A friend of mine who is a staunch Green Party member was grumbling that he actually would have voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary, if New York had had open primaries. Alas, though, they are closed primaries in this state.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:19 PM on May 5, 2016

We would need a constitutional amendment to implement IRV, but I think we'd be better off just scrapping the current constitution and going to a parliamentary system if we really want to be able to balance power across a bunch of different small constituencies like that.

Unless I'm missing some nuance of your argument here, I think you're conflating electoral reform with much larger changes to our system of government. Preferential voting systems like IRV need not be coupled with any particular system of government, and I think it would be much easier (though still pretty far-fetched, I'll admit) to change how we do elections than it would to change the entire structure of the government.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Since we're talking about preferential voting (like!), I'd encourage everyone to check out FairVote, and maybe send a couple of bucks their way if you like what they're doing.

One of their big proponents is Senator Raskin, a former FairVote board member who just won the MD primary.
posted by kyp at 2:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm thinking more about the "allow candidates from more than just two parties get elected" part rather than just the "IRV" part. I'm not sure IRV all by itself actually gives you "candidates from more than just two parties get elected." Is there data for that?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:34 PM on May 5, 2016

A friend of mine who is a staunch Green Party member was grumbling that he actually would have voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary, if New York had had open primaries.

I honestly do not understand this sort of grumbling. The rules determining who can vote in the primary in New York may suck, but they have been in place for decades, quite publicly. Someone who is politically aware enough to describe themselves as a "staunch" member of a non-major political party must surely have some understanding of this. I know I did when I lived in New York; I had to weigh the value of registering as a Dem in order to vote in primaries against my preference to not associate myself with a party. I made my choice knowingly, and I would expect anyone who considers themselves politically aware to do the same.
posted by dersins at 2:39 PM on May 5, 2016 [26 favorites]

I'm not sure IRV all by itself actually gives you "candidates from more than just two parties get elected." Is there data for that?

I didn't make that claim. What I do think it could do would be to obviate the need for primaries by letting any number of qualified candidates (via petitions or whatever) run in the general election from whatever party (or no party at all.) This may lower the barriers for third-party candidates, who would just need to qualify for one ballot and deal with the usual entrenched nature of fundraising and what-not, but no, I wouldn't say anything about IRV in particular would automatically lead to the erosion of the two-party system.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

No-sword:(Part of a hypnotist’s skill set involves detecting “tells” for health issues. Clinton looks deeply unhealthy to me.)
Scott Adams, everybody.

I wonder if this will become A Thing. Paglia, as part of a Clinton sucks rant, also suggested that Clinton might be unhealthy:

A side note in the Andrea Mitchell interview was the inadvertent revelation about Hillary’s health. She was wearing a conveniently high mandarin collar, but check out the moment when she mentions Vladimir Putin: one can clearly see an unmistakable lump bulging from the left side of her neck. Whether it is a goiter or some other growth should surely be of legitimate public concern in a presidential candidate.

A third, unconsidered possibility: Necks have tendons and muscles that bulge out now and then.
posted by clawsoon at 2:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

If only some brave eagle-eyed asshole had been around to save us from FDR
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [27 favorites]

The Clinton health thing has been a right-wing meme for some time.

I wonder if, at some point, I'll see dubious memes mining that attack from Bernie-or-busters on my FB feed. I get a distinct "GOOGLE RON PAUL" vibe from some of them (like a friend of a friend who was going on about 9/11 truther shit regarding Hillary Clinton... no joke).
posted by defenestration at 2:50 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

And while Clinton likes rocking the mandarin collar look from time to time, it's not like there aren't thousands of pictures a day taken of her wearing outfits that reveal her entire neck, so we really don't need to stoop to trying to use x-ray vision through fabric.
posted by zachlipton at 2:50 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump’s repeated lies about his record on Iraq go unchallenged on TV news
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:51 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

OnceUponATime, FairVote summarizes research done on other countries that have proportional systems.

You can compare the makeup of the Australian Parliament versus the United States Congress to get a good sense of the difference in result each system produces.

Of course, Australia also has mandatory voting, so that plays a large part in a more representational government.
posted by kyp at 2:52 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also, Scott Adams is deeply an abhorrent piece of shit.
posted by defenestration at 2:52 PM on May 5, 2016 [30 favorites]

Huh.
posted by Artw at 2:53 PM on May 5, 2016

A friend of mine who is a staunch Green Party member was grumbling that he actually would have voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary, if New York had had open primaries.

That's why you have a closed primary. To prevent persons allied with other political parties from hijacking the primary to interfere with the party's selection. Remember when Rush Limbaugh did it? or the time that the Dems in Illinois were ambushed by LaRouche, causing them to lose the 1986 election?
posted by Ironmouth at 2:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

A friend of mine who is a staunch Green Party member was grumbling that he actually would have voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary, if New York had had open primaries.

I honestly do not understand this sort of grumbling.

Relevant in general: In NY, third parties can cross-endorse via Fusion Voting. The Working Families party has gained some traction that way, including some folks elected as WFP candidates, rather than merely cross-endorsed Dem candidates.

More germane to the grumbling in question, though, the NY Greens put out this statement in opposition to the lawsuit that would open NY Primaries

In it, they articulate their opposition to the open primaries (in favor of more substantial electoral reform) AND a desire to change a part of the Fusion Voting system...
posted by eyesontheroad at 2:55 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Also, Scott Adams is deeply an abhorrent piece of shit.

A+++++++++ COMMENT. WOULD FAVORITE AGAIN.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

To follow up @bennyjohnson Trump is specifically eating lunch while reading a People magazine article about himself
posted by zachlipton at 3:00 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

"Why Does Our Joyless President Never Dance?"

Hah! Right?? I propose that every general election debate should contain a dance-off, in which each candidate must caper merrily to prove they are not too dour to hold our nation's highest office!
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:02 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Paul Ryan: 'I'm just not ready' to back Donald Trump

"The bulk of the burden on unifying the party will have to come from our presumptive nominee," Ryan said. "I don't want to underplay what he accomplished. ... But he also inherits something very special, that's very special to a lot of us. This is the party of Lincoln and Reagan and Jack Kemp. And we don't always nominate a Lincoln or a Reagan every four years, but we hope that our nominee aspires to be Lincoln- or Reagan-esque -- that that person advances the principles of our party and appeals to a wide, vast majority of Americans."

My response: When the Republicans Really Were the Party of Lincoln

While Democrats struggled with their party’s internal contradictions on the issue—deferring far too frequently to the demands of Southern segregationists who held powerful committee chairs in the House and Senate, and who commanded machines that delivered needed electoral votes—Republicans demanded action. “When President John F. Kennedy failed to submit a promised civil rights bill, three Republicans (Representatives William McCulloch of Ohio, John Lindsay of New York and Charles Mathias of Maryland) introduced one of their own,” noted The New York Times in recalling the great struggles of the era. “This inspired Mr. Kennedy to deliver on his promise, and it built Republican support for what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

In short: the 1960s, in the era of Civil Rights. Leave Lincoln (and Dr. MLK Jr.) out of this.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:14 PM on May 5, 2016

A third, unconsidered possibility: Necks have tendons and muscles that bulge out now and then.

I mean really why don't they just say it, just outright say that they think it's a Witch's Teat where her infernal master suckles upon her flesh for unholy sustenance
posted by poffin boffin at 3:17 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

from Twitter: Mary Matalin just announced on @bpolitics that she officially left the GOP today, enrolled as a Libertarian.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:22 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

"Cajun style!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:29 PM on May 5, 2016

I can hear James Carville cackling from here...
posted by sallybrown at 3:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

i'm thinking this would be a great summer to finally learn how to meditate
posted by sallybrown at 3:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

i'm thinking this would be a great summer to finally learn how to meditate

I recommend starting with this.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:53 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

i'm thinking this would be a great summer to finally learn how to meditate

If you want an ACTUAL suggestion, I recommend Headspace.
posted by dw at 4:09 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

It cannot be said enough, nearly the entirety of my Latin family is voting for Trump. Incomprehensible! Why? Why! HE HATES US.

I'm not so sure ...

From the horse's mouth: "I love Hispanics!"
posted by theorique at 4:11 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Mary Matalin just announced on @bpolitics that she officially left the GOP today, enrolled as a Libertarian.

For those of us who came of political age in the Clinton era, this is about as incomprehensible as it comes.
posted by dw at 4:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

She was on MSNBC saying that it wasn't a rejection of Trump as the nominee. The hosts were incredulous.
posted by Justinian at 4:17 PM on May 5, 2016

She was on MSNBC saying that it wasn't a rejection of Trump as the nominee.

Reagan's Eleventh Commandment lives on.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:20 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

"I love Hispanics!"

Are you reading the thread? That has been quoted 10 times already.
posted by futz at 4:20 PM on May 5, 2016

It cannot be said enough, nearly the entirety of my Latin family is voting for Trump. Incomprehensible! Why? Why! HE HATES US

It’s important to remember that even one’s own family (especially one’s own family?) remains anecdata as a measure of the mass of sentiment. (Or as evidence that the polls are systematically biased, I suppose.)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:22 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well today I learned that it's possible to get so enraged that your shaking fingers can no longer type well enough on an iphone to properly argue on Facebook
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:25 PM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

Are you reading the thread? That has been quoted 10 times already.

Missed that patch before. The comments are flying fast and furious!
posted by theorique at 4:34 PM on May 5, 2016

Shocker. MSNBC goes fullscreen to Trump's rally.
posted by johnpowell at 4:35 PM on May 5, 2016

showbiz_liz, this is what the voice-to-text feature was made for.

seriously, it still autocorrects "fucking" to "ducking" when I type but VTT never fails to render my cusses accurately. <3 u VTT
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:36 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

The NeverClinton movement
posted by angrycat at 4:37 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

“She would cement in place everything we are fighting against.”

As opposed to Trump, who's totally on board with Bernie's platform? Idiots.
posted by dersins at 4:52 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

“Just pack up your revolution and go home? Really? That’s not going to happen,” said Tara Margolin, a 50-year-old Sanders supporter and self-described Democrat who lives in Los Angeles. She dismissed the idea that Sanders voters might coalesce behind Clinton. “She would cement in place everything we are fighting against. I could never in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.”

I am so glad you're in California so your fuck up won't doom the country.
posted by Talez at 4:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

Throwing their weight behind her White House bid would feel like a betrayal of everything they believe.

Remember: when it's election time, people either agree with you 100%, or they don't. 95% agreement is for traitors.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [23 favorites]

Well, Sanders and Clinton only had 93% voting agreement, so clearly not good enough. We expect at least 3 9's in our progressive SLA.
posted by dw at 5:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

I'm reading a book set in Maoist China and all the stuff about different Red Guard factions descending into petty disagreements over orthodoxy and eventually killing each other in pitched battles while abandoning every principle that led them to become revolutionaries in the first place is hitting uncomfortably close to home. Obviously Clinton and Sanders partisans aren't killing each other in the streets or even close, but the emotional truths of that book are kinda rough to read right now.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

This election, remember to vote only in the world you wish you lived in, not the one you're actually presented with. Denial is a totally reasonable strategy.

FDR/KENNEDY 2016 OR BUST
posted by middleclasstool at 5:03 PM on May 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

I am so glad you're in California so your fuck up won't doom the country.

That's actually a good point. For those that are worried about the Bernie-or-Watch-it-Bern faction, aren't those people statistically more likely to be from solidly blue states?

She would cement in place everything we are fighting against.

I guess she wasn't fighting against racism or sexism or xenophobia or anti-religious sentiment or sheer, unbridled stupidity. That's OK, I guess someone else will do that.
posted by mmoncur at 5:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

showbiz_liz: May I ask which book would that be? I've got a small interest in learning about that era of China.
posted by FJT at 5:06 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm running into these people on Reddit a lot. It's all I can do to not argue with them. Made an innocuous comment yesterday: "If you're in a swing state, please hold your nose and vote for Clinton. Even if you believe she is taking orders directly from Goldman Sachs, she's still worth it for the Supreme Court and someone who will take global warming seriously." At least it was upvoted but the responses were all the line of: "Voting for Clinton is reinforcing a corrupt system. Viva la Revolucion!" (well, not literally the last bit but close enough in spirit)

I just hope there's not very many of these people in purple states. Much more frustrating than the "MAGA!CUCK!HIGHENERGY!" Trump brutes.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:06 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have made my peace with the parts of Clinton's platform I don't agree with, but I don't think sneering at people who find parts of her platform unacceptable is fair.
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:07 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Mother Jones analyses the controversial Trump taco bowl tweet.
posted by theorique at 5:07 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

but I don't think sneering at people who find parts of her platform unacceptable is fair.

There's a lot of sneering and nose thumbing going on in that article too. If it were the other way around, I would wager a lot of Sanders' supporters would not be so kind to a NeverSanders movement.
posted by FJT at 5:08 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, there were the PUMAS... Those guys were assholes.
posted by Artw at 5:10 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

FJT - it's The Three Body Problem. It's half set in the modern era and is also, y'know, about first contact with aliens, but it's a fascinating read and gives a sober and sad perspective on how that era swept people up into increasingly crazy actions, and how those same impulses might manifest after first contact.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:11 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I mean who knows, maybe Tara Margolin of Los Angeles feels very strongly about late term abortion laws, or climate change or single payer. Nah, it must just be that she's dumb and doesn't see how neoliberalism is our only option, forever.
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

If it were the other way around, I would wager a lot of Sanders' supporters would not be so kind to a NeverSanders movement.

yeah that's kind of inherent to the meaning of words like "supporter" and "never"
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:13 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Mother Jones analyses the controversial Trump taco bowl tweet.

This is not an awkward and embarrassing outreach to Hispanics. It's not aimed at Hispanics at all. It's aimed at white people.
…
Does everyone understand now? Trump is playing this game at a higher level than most of his critics.

Trump continuing to whip up the sentiment of the same people whose sentiment he has already whipped up is fine, but doubling down on the voters you know you’re going to get by alienating voters that you need (even if in denial about the fact) isn’t exactly next level. However, it did successfully grab everyone’s attention, so kudos for that.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:14 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I mean who knows, maybe Tara Margolin of Los Angeles is feels very strongly about late term abortion laws, or climate change or single payer.

Trump is on the right side on those things? I had no idea.
posted by bongo_x at 5:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

But is there any argument/universe where Trump doesn't make all three of those issues worse? Trump is anti-abortion (despite his one comment on PP that one time, all his other rhetoric has been anti-abortion and he has mentioned defunding PP and so on repeatedly). He is antagonistic on climate change (and given that his international policy is to bully our allies and super-bully everyone else, the chance of working internationally on climate change is 0 even if he wanted to). And he wants to repeal Obamacare in his first 100 days.

I can understand someone disagreeing with Clinton. But she is fundamentally mostly a status-quo candidate. Trump would make all three of those issues significantly worse.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:16 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

and doesn't see how neoliberalism is our only option, forever

It's not. There is, however, no universe where Trump is better for everyone than Clinton. And in the zero-sum game that is US electoral politics, any vote not for Clinton may as well be one for Trump.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:18 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

@ddale8
Donald Trump: "I'm going to stop the gravy train." #topoli
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:18 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

There is, however, no universe where Trump is better for ~~everyone~~ anyone than Clinton
posted by Going To Maine at 5:19 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

I have made my peace with the parts of Clinton's platform I don't agree with, but I don't think sneering at people who find parts of her platform unacceptable is fair.

There's no sneering. We're deadly serious. If you're in a purple place a vote for not-Hillary is a vote for Trump. There's no such thing as a protest vote or not endorsing a corrupt system. If someone stays home they're voting for Trump no matter how much they try to disclaim responsibility.
posted by Talez at 5:19 PM on May 5, 2016 [34 favorites]

The Bernie or Bust rhetoric makes me think of the people who go to Taco Bell and insist they want a hamburger. I'm sure they think they have point and the Taco Bell people are just too stupid to see it. Dammit, why can't they have a hamburger?!?
posted by bongo_x at 5:20 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

And in the zero-sum game that is US electoral politics, any vote not for Clinton may as well be one for Trump.

Again: any electoral college vote not for Clinton. This rule does not apply to solid states or solid areas in such states.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:20 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

You could probably find quotes from Trump on most issues that go one way or the other. That is the man's appeal: he is a chameleon who yells loudly enough for supporters to mistake volume for conviction.
posted by Anonymous at 5:20 PM on May 5, 2016

...but the emotional truths of that book are kinda rough to read right now.

Sure, but I mean remember the PUMAs? It seems like anytime there's a sharply divided primary season, the losing faction has to spend a few weeks crowing about NEVER THE OPPONENT before they eventually see reason and move on.

Even if there is a small minority of Bernie supporters who truly will end up not falling in line behind Clinton, A) it's such a small number of people that they will have virtually no impact whatsoever, and B) they're far more likely to be the armchair slacktivist types who were always at risk of not voting.

It's always sad when things are politically divisive, but the NEVER CLINTON faction are much more likely to throw a pitched battle they don't even show up to.
posted by Sara C. at 5:23 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

He's been pretty consistent on climate change:

2012: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

2014: "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."

2015: "It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"

2015: "I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems"

2016: "I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I'm not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes—if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don't know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things"

On the Paris accord: "One of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in politics — in the history of politics as I know it."

Clinton's campaign position on climate change: "Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time—and Hillary Clinton has a plan to tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy. "
posted by thefoxgod at 5:26 PM on May 5, 2016 [29 favorites]

I am so glad you're in California so your fuck up won't doom the country.

That's actually a good point. For those that are worried about the Bernie-or-Watch-it-Bern faction, aren't those people statistically more likely to be from solidly blue states?

Don't forget Barbara Boxer is retiring so we really need some help on the down ticket races, even here in CA, to retake the Senate.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

It just fucking blows my mind.

I was comfortable with either Obama or Clinton in '08, and people threw fits. I didn't get it. Can't you see they're BOTH good, and BOTH flawed? That neither are perfect? That both will inevitably disappoint you?

And now we're here again. Two good candidates. Both with really great qualities. Both genuinely flawed (yes, Sanders is flawed, holy fuck he's problematic just like Clinton--shock, he's a politician). Yet we're going through the same shit, despite what's waiting on the other side of the race. WTF.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [54 favorites]

i hope to god that the clinton campaign is smarter than those of her supporters that post on mefi and remember the lessons of john kerry's campaign: running as "not the worst option" never did shit for anyone, no matter how bad that worst option was.

U wot m8? I'm 100% Bernie over Hillary. I can also do intermediate math and I'm pragmatic.
posted by Talez at 5:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

i hope to god that the clinton campaign is smarter than those of her supporters that post on mefi

We're not campaigning here. We're just responding to arguments.

Also, I hope to god her campaign is smarter than me. For all of our sakes.
posted by mmoncur at 5:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I just don't understand how Trump supporters can genuinely think, "He's lying about all the stuff I hate, and telling the truth about what I love" without exploding.
posted by corb at 5:29 PM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

i hope to god that the clinton campaign is smarter than those of her supporters that post on mefi and that they remember the lessons of john kerry's campaign: running as "not the worst option" never did shit for anyone, no matter how bad that worst option was.

I mean, I hope she’ll run on the platform of being the goddamned best policy wonk out there at the moment whose competition is clown shoes, but that’s me.

That said, the Kerry campaign was pretty different from right now: it’s one thing to unseat an incumbent during wartime, and it’s another to be pledging to build on the legacy of a popular President.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:30 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Don't forget Barbara Boxer is retiring so we really need some help on the down ticket races, even here in CA, to retake the Senate.

Well, its looking like it might be Harris vs Sanchez on the Senate ballot in the fall, given that the Republicans have no credible candidate.

But still, there may be other races where it could matter.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:30 PM on May 5, 2016

Two good candidates. Both with really great qualities.

No shit. The last two elections we've had to choose between two great candidates and some are up in arms. The Republicans had to choose between Cruz and Trump, and many are quitting the party over it. I don't get it either.
posted by bongo_x at 5:31 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

corb: they're victims of a con. A massive con. When that happens to people, they don't want to face the truth, because it's a crushing disappointment, and because they have to admit they were conned.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:31 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

And now we're here again. Two good candidates. Both with really great qualities. Both genuinely flawed (yes, Sanders is flawed, holy fuck he's problematic just like Clinton--shock, he's a politician). Yet we're going through the same shit, despite what's waiting on the other side of the race. WTF.

I think the general sentiment is a mixture between disappointment at the actual results of Obama's presidency, and an underlying feeling of malaise and decline- despite the economic stats, "most" Americans are feeling very disgruntled. This isn't the same level as things were in 2008- Sanders isn't Kucinich or Mike Gravel, or even a Democratic equivalent to Ron Paul. He's the manifestation of peoples' frustrations against the system.

Clinton, for all of her merits, represent the continuity of the system as it is. And her detractors are people sick of the system.

I just don't understand how Trump supporters can genuinely think, "He's lying about all the stuff I hate, and telling the truth about what I love" without exploding.

Desperate people with perceptions of persecution and disenfranchisement are willing to believe anything that fits their deepest wishes. Sugar Candy Mountain, anyone? It's the oldest trick in the book. It's little different from swallowing the promises of the Tea Party that drastically scaling down the federal government and cutting taxes won't somehow hurt their entitlements.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:33 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I hope to god the Bernie or Busters get smarter than they're showing now because thinking Trump and Clinton are equivalent evils is some next level stupidity, willful ignorance or blind ideology. Or worse it's vindictiveness to get back at Clinton or the DNC when in reality the only people they'll punish are millions of women, PoC, and LGBT. Or perhaps they just like being at the center of attention with people pleading for their support.
posted by chris24 at 5:35 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

What evidence is there that there are a lot of Bernie of Busters, other than heated online rhetoric? Where's the polls? I think there's a lot of angry and scared sentiment out there right now that's premature. We can scream and fight all we want after the conventions are over. It's too early to tell either way how the final round will go down.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:37 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Krom Tatman, if you are going to participate here you need to tone the snark and hostility *way way down*. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:37 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I just don't understand how Trump supporters can genuinely think, "He's lying about all the stuff I hate, and telling the truth about what I love" without exploding.

This sort of a thing happens on a small scale every election: people in all parties downplay the parts of a platform they dislike. Some Trump supporters are simply cranking it up to an extreme.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:39 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clinton, for all of her merits, represent the continuity of the system as it is

I get confused by this because the system is necessarily continuous, barring violent revolution. Electing Sanders or Ron Paul or Vermin Supreme is not going to result in large-scale change. Electing Barack Obama did not result in large-scale change. It just doesn't really happen.

We're held back by the other two branches of government far more than we are by the executive. There are 535 other people's worth of inertia in the way of drastic systemic reform. Is there some agenda that Reid / Pelosi could pass under Sanders, but not under Clinton?

It's like arguing that if we upgrade the plumbing in the bathroom, the refrigerator and oven will get twice as large automatically.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:41 PM on May 5, 2016 [30 favorites]

I just don't understand how Trump supporters can genuinely think, "He's lying about all the stuff I hate, and telling the truth about what I love" without exploding.

Well, there was that big explosion in Houston, so maybe they can't do that without eventually exploding?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:42 PM on May 5, 2016

On another note, this has got to be one of the most exhausting electoral cycles ever, and it's not just because the stakes are so high, the risks are so great, and the sentiment is so fierce. Why is there so much content this election? Yes, I understand that people are anxious at the possibility of the unthinkable actually happening. But we've gotten dozens of MeFi threads of people spinning hypotheticals, worrying, fighting, when a lot of things haven't even happened yet. We've gotten hundreds of micro-think pieces, quick takes, analyses of angels dancing on a pin, and rumors of Tweets that just act as fuel for the fire. I feel like this is the most realtime election we've had, and sure, with good reason, but also for a lot of bad. The media machine, both offline and on, have not helped at all. They share a lot of the responsibility not only for the rise of Trump, but for the anxiety and anger that's sprung up around this race.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:42 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

There's no sneering.

Remember: when it's election time, people either agree with you 100%, or they don't. 95% agreement is for traitors.

"Voting for Clinton is reinforcing a corrupt system. Viva la Revolucion!" (well, not literally the last bit but close enough in spirit)

"No" seems a little strong to me, "m8". And like I said before everyone decided to use me as their hippy-punching proxy, I'm voting for Clinton. But I'm also pragmatic enough to know that hippy-punching has never been a viable election strategy.
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:43 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

But I'm also pragmatic enough to know that hippy-punching has never been a viable election strategy.

You tell that to Mayor Daley…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hippy punching? Nobody here is doing that. Please stop being so uncharitable.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:46 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Circular firing squad indeed.
posted by zutalors! at 5:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

excuse me pardon me can we please focus our rage on the greasy turd-smeared ham man who wants to kill the mexicans

thank
posted by poffin boffin at 5:49 PM on May 5, 2016 [67 favorites]

Seriously people poffin boffin and I are agreeing, that means it is apocalypse and time to get on board.
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on May 5, 2016 [65 favorites]

A Republican (but not Trumpian) friend of mine shared this 1990 Playboy interview with me.

I think it gives you some sense of the man really believes, separate from his poses. He doesn't care about abortion. He does hate foreigners in general and believes they are beating us in some kind of contest. He does believe strongly in the death penalty. He is disturbingly fascinated by the idea of nuclear war. He says he thinks he'd succeed better in a presidential run if he ran as a Democrat, because blue collar guys like him, but calls himself a conservative.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:53 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

that means it is apocalypse and time to get on board.

Nice day for it.
posted by chimaera at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think Apocryphon is right, though. The media wants NeverClinton to be a thing. They can write articles, it fits the general "balance" narrative they love, etc.

But there is nothing even remotely like NeverTrump on the Democratic side. NeverTrump had two major candidates openly plotting to take down the third. NeverTrump has the Speaker of the House wavering on supporting his own party's nominee. It has the two most recent Presidents from that party openly NOT supporting the nominee.

There is a real anti-Trump sentiment/movement on the GOP side. On the Democratic side, its a handful of people on blogs/social media saying they won't vote for Clinton. The media wants to trick us into thinking these are in any way comparable.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [34 favorites]

There is, however, no universe where Trump is better for ~~everyone~~ anyone than Clinton

This is objectively untrue. Trump is much better for Trump.
posted by dersins at 5:57 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Yes, right now, in the actual Presidential race we're talking about today, the only options are neoliberalism (at least Hillary Clinton's variant) and someone who has, more than once, called for all Muslims in America to line up and register on some kind of special list. Those are the actual options right now for President.

See, this is what annoys me.

On one side we have a long term supporter of women's rights. On the other we have someone who wants to defund Planned Parenthood and whose views on abortion are so squishy he wants to prosecute women who have abortions -- hypothetically.

On one side we have a strong believer in climate change. On the other we have a long term denier.

On one side we have a supporter of raising wages and supporting the working class. On the other we have someone who wants to gut the federal budget with an insane tax cut.

On one side we have someone we expect to act rationally in the face of global conflict. On the other we have someone who wants to commit war crimes and gleefully.

But here's the thing: On one side is Hillary OR Sanders. Our arguments over Bernie and Hillary come down to two things: Methods and personality.

Hillary is intersectional. Bernie has a Marxist framing of problems. Trump thinks it's all simple and the Fifties are back once we deal with all the politically correct losers.

But Hillary is some sort of neo-liberal, and if she loses it's all on the Democratic Party. That's the rationalization. I just can't with that foolishness. Bless their hearts.
posted by dw at 6:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [36 favorites]

And Trump is better for Comcast.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

There is, however, no universe where Trump is better for everyone anyone than Clinton

This is objectively untrue. Trump is much better for Trump.

I am reasonably convinced that before the first hundred days are up, Trump will absolutely loathe his job.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

Among other things, I have faith in HRC's lifelong commitment to women's rights. I think she will be a champion for women unlike any President we've ever seen.

I honestly feel like the "terrible choice" people have her wrong, though they seem so sure about it.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

the only options are neoliberalism (at least Hillary Clinton's variant) and someone who has, more than once, called for all Muslims in America to line up and register on some kind of special list. Those are the actual options right now for President.

Time for my daily, No those are not the only options now. At least on the Dem side.

Yes, it'll be a difficult slog. And I don't blame HRC for pivoting to the general. (Hell, I encourage it.) But don't get condescending to voters who still have a dog in this race. You'll need them later, because this is a very anti-establishment year.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:10 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Oh hell yes, someone made this historical parallel: "Donald Trump & General Boulanger"

I'm struck by some similarities with the brief rise and fall of General Georges Boulanger in France of the 1880s. Boulanger was a popular, charismatic French General promoted to the Cabinet where he served as War Minister. His popularity derived from his hostility to Germany; in a France still reeling from their humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, his call for 'revanche' [revenge] struck a nerve and led to his popular nickname Général Revanche. His popularity (and his arrogant individualist manner) started to cause tensions in the Cabinet who were shocked when at an election for the prefecture of the Seine he gained 100,000 votes without even being on the ballot paper. [...]

Boulanger initially had the support of leftists and republicans, but soon started to gather Bonapartists and monarchists around him. Expelled from the army for political activities he ran in a number of seats in 1888. In the event, while his group were successful they were still a tiny minority in parliament and the Boulangistes made little impact - and Boulanger himself was revealed to be an orator of very limited appeal. So he resigned his seat in a sort of protest and stood again, this time as Deputy for Paris, which he won in January 1889 with a huge majority. His supporters were divided: the militarists urged him to mount a coup d'état, which concerned the monarchists who wanted him to restore the King. [...] Fearing arrest - and to the horror of his supporters - Boulanger fled to Brussels and then to London where he held court at the Hotel Bristol on Burlington Gardens in Piccadilly.

His candidates continued to rally and campaign, but the absence of the charismatic general pulled their punches and they were strongly defeated at the election of July 1889. support dwindled and his remaining supporters were subject to prosecutions for conspiracy. Two years later, in September 1891, Boulanger went to the Ixelles cemetery in Brussels and shot himself on the grave of his mistress. [...]

But Boulanger messed with the alchemy of French politics. He killed off the monarchist groups by abandoning them just at the moment that they signed up to him. He whipped up enthusiasms that he was incapable of satisfying, fostering a contempt for the political establishment that outlasted him. Most particularly, he turned a blind eye, at the very least, to the anti-semitism of his allies (like Henri Rochefort), and Boulangisme was a gateway to overt far-right, anti-semitism for many others (like Maurice Barrès). Boulanger left the French royalist right in tatters, with a new cause in anti-semitism on the rise. The Boulanger Affair was, then, a stepping-stone on the way to the horrors of the Dreyfus Affair, in which the anti-semitism bubbling up in the late 1880s was given full expression.

This is why Donald Trump is not just a joke. The crude, narcissistic path that he is cutting through American political culture and discourse is absurd but, in the process, this stupid, ugly-hearted man is stirring up racial hatreds that will overshadow the small stain he otherwise will leave on history. The things he is saying about Muslims are ignorant lies but they are resonating in a scared culture and there are numerous examples of the vilest expressions of anti-Muslim hatred to be seen every day. Anyone with the slightest sense of responsibility would caution wisdom and intelligence and evidence, but Donald Trump doesn't care about these things. Wisdom and intelligence and evidence aren't going to get him talked about.

And so he continues to whip up blind hatred, hatred that will outlast him, even if, some time soon the news arrives that, on a golf course somewhere, clutching a picture of Ivana, he has taken his own miserable life.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:11 PM on May 5, 2016 [31 favorites]

The media machine, both offline and on, have not helped at all. They share a lot of the responsibility not only for the rise of Trump, but for the anxiety and anger that's sprung up around this race.

yes and no - there's been growing anxiety and anger in this country for decades - a significant proportion of the population is "prepping" for armageddon - other, more mainstream and sane people, are beginning to feel that something is very wrong

we've been having an economic "recovery" that doesn't actually seem like it's recovered anything at all

we've been exiting a couple of wars in the middle east for years now - meanwhile, the middle east is having a near catastrophic meltdown that is creating a refugee crisis for europe

sections of our population are becoming dangerously alienated and disgusted with our government and our society, often with good reason

more and more, it seems like the status quo is simply a prelude to disintegration - but that's what one side in this election is giving us - the other side seems to be promising a return to 50s america by means of fascism and racial cleansing

i don't have any faith left in this process even as i go through the motions of voting for the least disastrous choice - this system is failing us and too many people are aware of it - unfortunately, many seem bound and determined to choose things that will make it even worse
posted by pyramid termite at 6:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Well, anybody can be against Trump, that's easy and obvious. That's like hating Nickelback. My favorite candidate you've probably never heard of.
posted by bongo_x at 6:13 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

yes and no - there's been growing anxiety and anger in this country for decades - a significant proportion of the population is "prepping" for armageddon - other, more mainstream and sane people, are beginning to feel that something is very wrong

Oh, I definitely agree that much of this sentiment is real- in fact, that's why I understand why there's such seemingly irrational love for Trump, and seemingly irrational hatred for Clinton from those who love Sanders.

I just feel that in addition to the stakes, this particular election isn't just divisive, it seems even more ubiquitous and invasive than previous ones. There's just too much content, too much news, too many rumors and too many polls based on incomplete or inaccurate models. It's just plain exhausting.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:15 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

He does hate foreigners in general and believes they are beating us in some kind of contest.

This times a million. I recently had to watch and read a bunch of Trump interviews going back to 1980 or so, for work. I suppose it isn't too surprising that in all the interviews from the 80's he talks nonstop about "Turning Japanese" type problems -- which turned out to be nothing -- but my main takeaway was that Donald Trump fucking hates foreigners. He almost exclusively called out Asians and Middle Easterners in these interviews, too. His anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim stuff from nowadays really just feels like a 2016 version of the same song from approximately 1988.

Oh an another thing, in one of the interviews he extolled the virtues of Dan Quayle. Fun.
posted by Sara C. at 6:18 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

He hates women more than foreigners though. Except maybe the foreign woman he's married to.
posted by zutalors! at 6:21 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Oh an another thing, in one of the interviews he extolled the virtues of Dan Quayle.

Well, there's another attack ad that just writes itself.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:22 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

there's been growing anxiety and anger in this country for decades

And Trump has been making money with dicey deals, using daddy's money and screwing over his financial partners (and screwing swimsuit models) his entire adult life... Scrooge McDuck is a more realistic challenger to the "status quo".
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:23 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

and seemingly irrational hatred for Clinton from those who love Sanders.

It isn't irrational. They have specific reasons. Are there edge cases? Sure. Are they legion? No. And it isn't just Sanders supporters. People have despised her/the clintons for decades. She has a historically low approval rating. And yes, some of it is misogyny but it encompasses much more than just that.

When was the last time she had a favorable rating? I don't usually pay attention to that so I don't know.
posted by futz at 6:29 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

trump is a con artist - it's impossible to really be sure if he means what he says - but only an asshole would say what he says on a lot of things
posted by pyramid termite at 6:30 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

people had a very favorable opinion of her work as SoS
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:32 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

When was the last time she had a favorable rating?

Late April 2015.
posted by dw at 6:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

People like her more when she has a job than when she's trying to get a job.
posted by zutalors! at 6:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

which all imo means that any holdover of negativity from Bill's years in office is not really going to be what drives opinion--even now, Republican attacks on her revolve around more recent talking points like Benghazi or her emails (or bog standard misogyny)
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:38 PM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

People like her more when she has a job than when she’s trying to get a job.

I’ve seen it argued that this is attributable to sexism, and am inclined to agree.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:42 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

And yes, some of it is misogyny but it encompasses much more than just that.

I disagree, depending on what is meant by "irrational" hatred. It's like saying only some of the seething hate for Obama is racism, but it's more than that. I think misogyny and racism act as lenses and magnifiers for every single perceived bad action for Clinton and Obama respectively. So, while I can see where folks can dislike Clinton and feel passionate about policy disagreements and being disappointed in her for her positions, but this really forceful, constant, and sometimes obsessive hatred is sexism full stop.
posted by FJT at 6:43 PM on May 5, 2016 [22 favorites]

Apocryphon: "Again: any electoral college vote not for Clinton. This rule does not apply to solid states or solid areas in such states."

Unless you live in Maine or Nebraska, your state does not apportion electoral votes by CD. So whether you are in a solid red or solid blue AREA does not matter, only the state balance as a whole.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

She has a historically low approval rating. And yes, some of it is misogyny but it encompasses much more than just that.

What more does it encompass? So much of the hate aimed at Clinton seems to be the long-term work of a Republican hate machine over the entire course of Bill Clinton’s presidency and the run-up to it. That is, my impression is that it’s a number of ginned-up scandals that have resulted in no long-term impacts. Policy differences certainly drive folks to the left, but I find it hard to think of any other explanation for why people would credit her bonafides in the light of a Trump presidency. What is the existential threat that she’s believed to provide? If someone can lay that out, I’d be grateful.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

But I'm also pragmatic enough to know that hippy-punching has never been a viable election strategy.

I wasn't personally hippie punching. I should have posted my usual disclaimer: I've donated, volunteered and voted for Bernie. Just have a fear, probably an irrational one, of a repeat of 2000. Led by enough people who dismiss Clinton as being the same as Trump, and who aren't old enough to remember 2000.

But that fear is probably unfounded. In 2000, a year of peace and prosperity for the US, it was easy to pretend the Republicans weren't that scary. 2016 is very, very different. Even the most diehard Bernie supporter will suddenly be a bit pragmatic by November.
posted by honestcoyote at 6:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I just wanted to say that I ate a taco salad for dinner. It was a big taco salad. Really great. Bigger than Trump's taco salad. Do they make taco salads that good in Trump Tower? I don't know. But my taco salad was really, really great, and bigger than Donald Trump's.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:54 PM on May 5, 2016 [38 favorites]

So, while I can see where folks can dislike Clinton and feel passionate about policy disagreements and being disappointed in her for her positions, but this really forceful, constant, and sometimes obsessive hatred is sexism full stop.

Yeah, when I see the difference between the perceptions of say, Biden and Clinton, I'm hard pressed to see what else it could be. They have very similar voting records, policies, etc. He has spoken to Goldman and done tons of fundraisers and all that. They are both close to Obama.

But I have never seen the level of hate for him that I see for Clinton.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:55 PM on May 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

oneswellfoop: And Trump has been making money with dicey deals, using daddy's money and screwing over his financial partners (and screwing swimsuit models) his entire adult life... Scrooge McDuck is a more realistic challenger to the "status quo".

I've been reading up on Scott Adams, learning about why he's disliked so much, and it's interesting that he mirrors Trump in this way. They both say, "Here's something that's screwed up about the economy!" in a way that makes the casual observer think, "Yep, he's right about that."

But the solution, for both of them, involves everybody becoming Dogbert. They have trouble seeing that the "I'm happy as a rich asshole" solution doesn't scale.
posted by clawsoon at 6:55 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

This theory seems to imply that any Cruz shenanigans in the rules committee may just need to hold the line and push for a literal interpretation of Rule 40(b).

to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention

posted by corb at 6:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Much of Clinton's unfavorability originates in two groups: Men, and whites. This is only one poll, but at least it has publicly accessible cross-tabs. And here you can see -- Hillary's favorability is mostly centered with women and PoC. (I'd love to see the breakdown by race AND gender, since I bet most of the hate is white men.)

Trump is -32 with women in this poll. That ain't good.
posted by dw at 6:57 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

and it's interesting that he mirrors Trump in this way

Also they're both giant, raging misogynists.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

People like her more when she has a job than when she's trying to get a job.

There's something to that. A large part of it is her public persona, which strikes many people as very disingenuous. (I hear she's utterly charming in close situations, but I can't judge that.)

But she's a trooper when she has a portfolio. Nobody can honestly argue against that.

Then there's straight up misogyny. But few people people would admit that to themselves, regardless of the truth. So, no argument will win you ground there.

But there's also a LOT of questionable decisions, like the whole private email server fiasco. Which, to skip a lot of technical crap, was almost certainly done to keep shit off the record.

People who were burned (heh) by "the most transparent administration" prosecuting whistle blowers in historic numbers while dragging its feet at FOIA requests are understandably concerned about the status quo in general, and her in particular.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2016 [10 favorites]

zutalors!: "People like her more when she has a job than when she's trying to get a job."

I was looking for a job, and then I found a job. And Heaven knows I'm miserable now.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:01 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

According to the Confirmation movie Biden was not very sympathetic to Anita Hill. He's also had several racial oopsies. If Clinton had done any of that she would catch a pile of Hell. Double standards, yeah.
posted by zutalors! at 7:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

I'd love to see the breakdown by race AND gender, since I bet most of the hate is white men.

The NY Times published an article about how much White men disliked her back in March.

And then there was that extremely depressing study that demonstrated if men were primed to think about gender roles before being asked about candidate preferences they swung from 49-42 Clinton-Trump to 33-50 Clinton-Trump.

which is all kinds of terrible
posted by Anonymous at 7:06 PM on May 5, 2016

and it's interesting that he mirrors Trump in this way
Scott Adams sounds like a perfect running mate for Trump (a sycophant).
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:10 PM on May 5, 2016

i honestly don't care one way or another which dem candidate gets the nom, not even a little bit; it makes absolutely no difference to me which one of them wins as long as they win over a republican. i didn't get to vote in the ny primary due to having both explosive noro and just enough basic human decency not to subject my neighbors to my spurting infectious effluvia, but every time i hear another bernie fan proclaim that they would never lower themselves to vote for the vile hillary, never soil themselves even with a gun to their heads, it just really makes me wish i'd gotten the chance to vote for her, shit geysers be damned.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [40 favorites]

It might make him NORMAL.
posted by Artw at 7:56 PM on May 5, 2016

...or it might make him a kwisatz haderach or a scanner.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I am reasonably convinced that before the first hundred days are up, Trump will absolutely loathe his job.

I feel like this would happen before the first ten days are up. It's kind of a shitty and stressful job! I keep retreating into the fantasy that Trump will (a) realize/admit that POTUS is not a job he'd actually want, and (b) that he will now use his formidable low cunning to avoid becoming president while still being able to claim a win for himself, for his ego, for his brand. I'm still pinning my hopes on the GOP giving him some kind of out so he can exit the GOP with a flounce like the troll that he is.

If I have to listen to an "I won, but the rules committee stole it from me" whine round the clock for the next 4 years, that'd be a tiny price to pay compared to the alternative.
posted by miles per flower at 8:18 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

The NY Times published an article about how much White men disliked her back in March.

Yeah it just doesn't seem coincidental to me that among white male Democrats, the white woman was more popular than the black man in 2008 -- but you run that same white woman against a white man and suddenly he's more popular.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 8:19 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

A Republican (but not Trumpian) friend of mine shared this 1990 Playboy interview with me.

Reading that, you feel a little sorry for Trump: he clearly knows he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in, and he exercises extraordinary patience in laying out his ideas to everyone else, who are as dull children to him.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:19 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I’ve seen it argued that this is attributable to sexism, and am inclined to agree.

Trump's "woman card" quote was "Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she would get 5% of the vote." It's the opposite. She has a political science degree with honors from Wellesley and a law degree from Yale. She was on the staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary. She's a two-term senator and served as Secretary of State for four years. If she were a man her approval ratings would be higher.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:21 PM on May 5, 2016 [34 favorites]

From the Ryan interview: This is the party of Lincoln and Reagan and Jack Kemp.

I actually sputtered so hard I began to cough and while I was coughing I accidentally farted. The which, I suppose, adequately expresses my opinion of Ryan. Kemp was an okay quarterback, but also one of the major purveyors of Supply-Side voodoo economics. If you smile and are personable while your beliefs are wreaking havoc, you are still wreaking havoc.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:27 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

I'm seeing a lot of chatter about Trump picking Ann Coulter for VP. I'm pretty sure the internet would literally blow up if that happened.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:38 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

I'm seeing a lot of chatter about Trump picking Ann Coulter for VP

God, please let it be true.
posted by bongo_x at 8:40 PM on May 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

So it has come to this:

Metafilter: I actually sputtered so hard I began to cough and while I was coughing I accidentally farted.

I'm so, so sorry.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:40 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

If she were a man her approval ratings would be higher.

If Hillary Clinton were a man, we would currently be waiting for Clinton to officially endorse Senator Barack Obama's campaign to succeed President H. Clinton after 8 years in the oval office.
posted by dersins at 8:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [44 favorites]

Kemp was an okay quarterback, but also one of the major purveyors of Supply-Side voodoo economics. If you smile and are personable while your beliefs are wreaking havoc, you are still wreaking havoc.

If you smile while conflating a man whose ideas might not have been the best for the nation's economy, with a man whose incivility has caused physical violence...
posted by ocschwar at 8:48 PM on May 5, 2016

Kemp was an okay quarterback

I was hoping he'd turn out to have been a shite quarterback, but he was actually quite good. A seven-time AFL All Star that led the Buffalo Bills to back-to-back AFL championships.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:54 PM on May 5, 2016

Plus Phil Hartman did a pretty good Kemp.

God, that '88 campaign was just the best SNL skits ever.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:56 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

I just spent some time with a Republican friend this afternoon; someone whose support had gone from Bush to Carson to Rubio to, desperately and frantically, Cruz, and who was already miserable two weeks ago. I gave her a hug and said "I'm so, so sorry. I'm so sorry your party is a dumpster fire. I'm sorry. I'm the furthest thing from a Republican there is, but I'm an American, and I'm so sorry it's come to this."

She sniffled and said "Thank you. Maybe I'll just write in the Pope. I'm so glad our state is reliably blue so I don't feel compelled to vote for Clinton. Because I would, over that guy."
posted by KathrynT at 9:08 PM on May 5, 2016 [23 favorites]

Plus Phil Hartman did a pretty good Kemp.

God, that '88 campaign was just the best SNL skits ever.

But surely the Perot-Stockdale joyride
posted by Going To Maine at 9:11 PM on May 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

Lol. If I had been chewing gum at the time I might have exploded.

Here is an outline of what I'm telling fellow Sanders supporters folks who are having some difficulty making accommodation with a probable primary defeat.

1) If your opposition to Clinton is legitimate (i.e. based on policy views and not emotion or sexist bullshit) then you still have to vote for the party which will respond best to any crises which might arise during the next term.

2) That way, if a Clinton admin does not respond in a way you think best during a crisis, or even during the normal course of legislative initiatives, then you have a seat at the table--or at least can argue that you have a seat at the table.

3) If, and this has been making the circuit, Dem centrists do what they have done in the past by marginalizing/freezing out the most progressive parts of the party, then you'll be in a position to fight back by trying to accrue some power within the party. And, eventually, make moves to become the new establishment.

4) None of this is remotely possible if you remove yourself from the system and marginalize yourself.

5) Lastly, stop reacting to a couple of decades of Republican dictation of the narrative and also dammit, keep the Republicans from legislating another decade or two of bad policy, especially on the economic front. Take the offensive and get enough power to implement a few good ideas. Those folks who are only interested in politics every few years would then have a few tangible examples of why x policy is good for them and the country as a whole.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

You know what the effect of Paul Ryan's declaration of "not ready to endorse" is?

It's millions of dollars of free media focus on Donald Trump.

Same with the Bush family not endorsing, but being very public about it.
posted by yesster at 9:18 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

I mean, come on. Trump effectively won one of the first Republican debates by not even showing up.
posted by yesster at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

The media would give Trump millions of additional dollars of coverage regardless of an endorsement. He’s the most entertaining thing in the race.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:22 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

If you subscribe to the "no such thing as bad publicity" viewpoint sure. The political effect, though, is that Ryan is providing cover and tacit approval for those Republican members of Congress who feel either as a matter of conscience or as a matter of political survival in a close race that they can not support the Republican nominee for President.

He's trying to hold the Senate and limit losses in the House.
posted by Justinian at 9:23 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

If you smile while conflating a man whose ideas might not have been the best for the nation's economy, with a man whose incivility has caused physical violence...

Not precisely sure of your intent here, but to suggest that the influence of supply-side economics has not been an incredibly violent disruption to millions of families over the past few decades is kind of short-sighted. Comparing that to a couple of fist-fights here and there is a little hyperbolic. But, of course, that's the hyperbole du jour. It's not really all that different from the moaning and groaning fears of a Reagan election in 1979/80. And then, of course, the ensuing and very real evisceration of our society came from Reaganite bad policy and not imaginary brownshirts.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:23 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

People who were burned (heh) by "the most transparent administration" prosecuting whistle blowers in historic numbers while dragging its feet at FOIA requests are understandably concerned about the status quo in general, and her in particular.

I agree that there is honest concern from people on the left who felt let down by the current administration, but I posit that the sheer level of vitriol leveled at HRC from the left is far above and beyond anything I've seen directed at Obama from the left. The only equivalent to the amount of vituperation aimed at Hillary from fellow progressives is the effluvium of hate that's been spewed at Obama by right wing Tea Party types for the past eight years. And we all know that was primarily about racism. I don't see why it's unreasonable to conclude that the Clinton hate fest is primarily about misogyny.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:28 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

I don't see why it's unreasonable to conclude that the Clinton hate fest is primarily about misogyny.

Except what you seem to be arguing is that misogyny is a big element of the leftist thought you posit. And while I agree that there is a lot of misogyny in the air in our society, I'm not so sure that I believe that there is a lot of it among committed quasi-socialists and other varieties of leftism. Many of whom, as you know, have been in the forefront of trying to tear down some of the barriers that women face over the years.

I think that a lot of the non-misogynistic criticism of Clinton is based on her place as the standard bearer for the establishment/status quo/neoliberal views/foreign policy hawkishness. All legitimate areas for discussion. It's a bit reductionist to conflate a lot of that with misogyny.
posted by CincyBlues at 9:43 PM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

Atom Eyes - Christ no. Clinton absolutely had some terrible problems as a candidate, and being shitty and dismissive about anyone who points them out is profoundly unhelpful.

At this point I think we have to acknowledge that Clinton's strongest defenders are actually not an asset but a liability, and they need to shut up for the rest of the election. Clinton herself should probably distance herself from them and work on bridge building instead, working on particular on distancing herself from her hawkish attitude past, former association with banks and dismissive attitude towards those who don't already have a foot on the ladder. If she's thinking now is the time to double down on those things then we're all in for a lot of trouble.
posted by Artw at 9:44 PM on May 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

And while I agree that there is a lot of misogyny in the air in our society, I'm not so sure that I believe that there is a lot of it among committed quasi-socialists and other varieties of leftism.

I've met plenty of lefty guys who are horrible misogynists, precisely because they believe they can't possibly be misogynists because look how progressive they are! and so they never bother to question their own biases or to hear criticisms of those biases.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:44 PM on May 5, 2016 [69 favorites]

I'm not so sure that I believe that there is a lot of it among committed quasi-socialists and other varieties of leftism.

Socialism and the left-wing are descriptions of economic positions. There's plenty of misogyny to be found, there. Perhaps less than on the right, but also perhaps just not worn on someone's sleeve.
posted by chimaera at 9:47 PM on May 5, 2016 [18 favorites]

> I'm not so sure that I believe that there is a lot of it among committed quasi-socialists and other varieties of leftism

These political/economic positions are not so special as to escape the effects of misogyny nor to deny its benefits. There are so.many educated and committed leftists who are also so.fucking.sexist. I wish it were rare, but it's not.
posted by rtha at 9:59 PM on May 5, 2016 [20 favorites]

I'm not so sure that I believe that there is a lot of it among committed quasi-socialists and other varieties of leftism.

Just think about all of the misogyny problems the Atheism movement has had. I don't think all of that came from conservative right-wing atheists.
posted by mmoncur at 10:00 PM on May 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

At this point I think we have to acknowledge that Clinton's strongest defenders are actually not an asset but a liability, and they need to shut up for the rest of the election.

Truly, people who actually believe in their candidate are the candidate’s worst enemies.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:03 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Also: in 20 years, after President Hilary Clinton has had her term followed by President Palin, the Great War with Canada, and finally President Warren, we might be able to analyze the performance of a female candidate and be 100% sure nobody's perspective is warped by misogyny.

We're not there yet.
posted by mmoncur at 10:04 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

Phew -- it's going to be a tough 8 years to be Clinton critic from the left.
posted by chortly at 10:05 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

> I just spent some time with a Republican friend this afternoon; someone ... who was already miserable two weeks ago. I gave her a hug and said "I'm so, so sorry. I'm so sorry your party is a dumpster fire. I'm sorry. I'm the furthest thing from a Republican there is, but I'm an American, and I'm so sorry it's come to this."

I have an idea for something useful Democrats can do at this point: declare themselves "Democrats For Republicans Against Trump", or DFRAT for short. It would mean "I'm not going to change my political beliefs, but I can understand how bad you are feeling, I appreciate that you aren't going to vote for Trump, and I'm not going to give you any shit over the situation." — basically exactly what KathrynT did.

I know I'm stubborn enough that the prospect of getting razzed by people I disagree with can hold me back from things I know I should do. I'm hoping that DFRAT could create a lot more room for Republicans to not vote Trump. The DFRAT bargain is "you're going to do what's right for America by not voting Trump, and I'm going to make it easier for you to do so."

I don't tweet, so I can't get it rolling, but I'd love to see what would happen if #DFRAT started trending. Anyone should feel free to take it and run with it.

(If this works, all credit to KathrynT, and Rachel Maddow for reading tweets from distressed Republicans tonight.)
posted by benito.strauss at 10:09 PM on May 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

so Trump is getting CIA briefings
somebody on my twitter feed suggested that Trump be trolled thusly at pressers: "Mr. Trump! Mr. Trump! Have you been briefed on Area 51 yet?"
posted by angrycat at 10:10 PM on May 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Okay, let me clarify because you all have good points. Misogyny, like racism, exists everywhere--it's like a ever-present virus lurking in our systems. And if I reflect on a lot of retail leftism, or maybe better said faddish-leftism, then there is a lot of misogyny. And it is absolutely right to attack it wherever you find it. Back when I was a kid--the tail end of the "Sixties" which extended into the 70s some--a lot of guys were, like some crappy musicians, in it for the sex. And that's wrong.

And, I think it's very true that some serious lefties, including myself, have had moments where we did not do justice to our sisters and their rightful and important contributions they make. Speaking only for myself, I'm sure there have been some less than perfect moments in that regard. And for those moments I am abashed at myself.

Nonetheless, I do think that it's important to note that a lot of genuine criticism of Clinton gets washed away under the guise of misogyny. Likewise criticism of Obama and charges of racism. Is it true? Yes, some of it. But it's not a blanket smothering everything.

So, what's the solution? For me, it's simply trying to be self-aware and sensitive of the fact that we all have the racism "virus" within us. We all have the sexism "virus" within us. And we all have within ourselves the capacity to be angelic or demonic. And we all ought to know which aspect of our soul to nourish. Even if one isn't successful all of the time.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:17 PM on May 5, 2016 [24 favorites]

Well said, CincyBlues.
posted by mmoncur at 10:18 PM on May 5, 2016

Just about the only argument I might find compelling that we are living in a simulation is that we are living in ridiculously interesting times. Just being alive at the dawn of the internet means every one of us will be fodder for research until there's no more science left.

But! To also be alive during the rise of the first American Empire, what was that like? Not just the nuts and bolts of which privateers extracted which loot from which protectorate. But to experience it happening, to see that giant wall built by slave labor; where one day picking off those attempting to climb over with a good rifle becomes a hobby to argue over on the internet, like paintball or knitting. The brutality, so casual and so pervasive. To be among the first to hear plain citizens spilling from SUVs, armed, aiming, shouting "CARD OR GUN" and know that the right-to-work card would not in fact protect that one from a life of debt slavery anyway. Not the way an honest gun could have. God have mercy on those with neither.

And, as it seems we are in a particularly religious kurt -- whether through careful planning or just seeing what the little sea monkeys will get up to -- we get to live the answers to some questions that have been kicking around for awhile. Who really IS the Antichrist? Pre-trib, or Post? What's it really like when you fire off ALL the missiles? Literal horsemen, or distended pustulent agglomerations of pure rage and greed, expelled right from the Emperor's great gaping maw?

The "inexplicable" evangelical willingness to vote for someone who doesn't share their values comes from familiarity with the territory. Evangelical preachers love discoursing on history of the Biblical era, and explain lessons from the Bible with expositions on the daily life of the people there at the time. The New Testament takes place in the Roman Empire. What did "I am a Roman citizen!" mean to Paul? It meant he was more human than non-citizens within the bounds of the empire. That there are multiple classes of citizenship and humanity going right down to slavery. (Even the slavery is OK because in the Roman empire the slaves wrote books, and loved their masters and mostly weren't even black. They were non-citizens.)

Trump sounds like an emperor when he talks. He describes a world flush with American power, where unlimited riches and resources flow from the farthest reaches of the empire to line the pockets of people like Trump. You don't hear about protests in empires. You do hear about insurrections being put down, brutally. And the Roman empire was great for Christianity, once the Emperor got on board. You will not stay long betting against Americans' love for power, celebrity, brutality, religion and money. The Roman empire had all that, and people love the tingle of "what if it was like that today?"

What Trump realizes is what the first emperor in any dynasty realizes: Nothing really exists except for power. It does not matter what is written on paper if people will ignore that paper and obey. Power is fundamental, moreso than money, and all it boils down to is, "I say these things and people do things." The things you say do not have to be true. You do not have to pay for things you can take by force. You do not have to be explicit when you need bloody work done. Once a thing has been done once, it can be done a thousand times.

(That's not to say that the empire starts without proper paperwork. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents an emperor from requiring a loyalty oath during a presidential swearing-in. I know you think there is, but there isn't. Not really.)

More directly on-topic: Cruz makes a worse president than Ferris F. Fremont, which is saying something. He'll be back.
posted by bigbigdog at 10:34 PM on May 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

Just being alive at the dawn of the internet means every one of us will be fodder for research until there's no more science left.

Oh god this never occurred to me. Hello in advance to the grad student 250 years from now who has to read my fanfiction for her thesis.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:37 PM on May 5, 2016 [25 favorites]

At this point I think we have to acknowledge that Clinton's strongest defenders are actually not an asset but a liability, and they need to shut up for the rest of the election.

. . . Wow. So, Clinton's strongest defenders tend to be POC and women. You drop something like that in the middle of a discussion about misogyny in the left and, well, I am not sure what you're trying to do here but I suggest you rethink your position.

If you've got questions about the influence of misogyny on criticisms of Clinton, I suggest you read The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock. It's a piece that was published in The American Spectator in August 1992. It is basically a perfect prototype for every attack made on Clinton ever. It's striking how so many of her critics from the left have now picked up exactly the same arguments, down to her being an ice queen and a schemer and power-hungry. If you say something often enough, it becomes true, I guess.

The difference between the attacks then and the attacks now is that then you could be much more obvious about the sexism behind them, whereas now people like to pretend their visceral dislike couldn't possibly be based in the misogynistic smear campaign that's been assailing our brains for 25 years, oh no.
posted by Anonymous at 10:39 PM on May 5, 2016

One of my most contentious statements is "Remember when it was being said that electing Barack Obama would make things so much better for blacks? If electing Hillary Clinton has the same effect for women... ladies, you'd better stock up on mace and stun guns."

A little less contentious... following even the 'best' political cartoonists has been a daily cringefest lately, but Matt Davies really hit a home run here.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:40 PM on May 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

The difference between the attacks then and the attacks now is that then you could be much more obvious about the sexism behind them

Another difference is that in 1992 her attackers suspected her of hiding a secret radical left-wing agenda.
posted by dersins at 10:42 PM on May 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

this is a message from 1996 fanfic, Donald Trump must NOT be president.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:43 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'd like to point out that xenophobic, right wing populist authoritarianism isn't a uniquely American phenomenon, it's gaining ground all over Europe as well --in the UK, Scandinavia, France, Germany, Greece, etc.

Why? Because bad economic conditions are a breeding ground for fringe right wing movements: its leaders tell voters to blame minorities and foreign countries for their falling living standards.

We can and should point fingers at Fox News and Republican primary voters, but this is part of a larger trend outside Fox's broadcasting range and Republican voting districts.

Except for corb and a few others who participate in Republican political institutions, most mefi-ers should consider what role the Democratic party has played in creating the conditions for Trump. A lot of things had to go wrong in America for an openly bigoted, misogynistic, violent strong man to be nominated for the office of the presidency.

I'm sorry to report this, but Obama just published an op-ed this week in the Washington Post arguing in favor of the TPP, a jobs-killing trade deal that will reduce living standards for the majority of Americans if passed. Trump is running on opposing precisely these kinds of "centrist" corporate-friendly economic policies.

Instead of gawking at and condemning the GOP, most of us should be asking ourselves -- what are we doing to prevent the Democratic Party from helping to create favorable conditions for xenophobic right wing authoritarianism?
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 10:45 PM on May 5, 2016 [34 favorites]

Thanks, mmoncur. And while I'm thinking about it, let me mention two events for which I am personally culpable.

Back in the dark ages when I was a suit, a supervisory position came up that was within my area of responsibility. It was the kind of job where one automatically thinks: "man-job." After interviewing a bunch of candidates, I promoted a woman who was the best fit. And during the course of deliberation for the promotion, I had to argue to my boss that she was the best fit. And the implications of breaking that stereotype were part of the discussion. So far, so good, eh. But then, I got sort of puffed up and crowed a little bit about breaking barriers. The gal I was dating at the time, who was an accomplished reporter, set me straight. I think the clincher of that discussion was: "Stop crowing, asshole." Lol, I really liked her for her straight-shooting abilities. And she was definitely correct. So, in this instance, I was both right and wrong. And I learned from it.

Some years later, and perhaps this doesn't map exactly to what we are talking about here, but it was a decision informed by the previous event. When I transitioned from the newspaper world to a start-up ISP in the mid 90s, we had to build a company from almost scratch. One of my responsibilities was to create and build the customer service department. Business was booming and we were expanding rapidly, but at the same time we had to be very cognizant of our cash flow and how we used our resources. (Those of you who were in the business then might remember how crazy it was to get a person a computer configured for the internet. It was a step by step manual process for a while there until things got a little more automated. Toss in the newness of Windows 95 which many folks didn't have a clue about, and you had a perfect recipe for very long call times in support.)

Anyhow, we had a meeting of execs one day and when it was my turn to speak, I said: " I made a good hire for the call center. BTW, he's functionally deaf." Mini-shit storm ensues. Nonetheless, it was an effective hire as he provided a lot of administrative support and pretty quickly became a go-to person for a number of things. Last I heard he had become a network engineer. And I didn't crow about it then. (Although maybe I am now, just a little bit!)

My point being this: I want to be in a world where we live and learn. And one of the best ways to learn is to stumble occasionally.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:48 PM on May 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

"Remember when it was being said that electing Barack Obama would make things so much better for blacks? If electing Hillary Clinton has the same effect for women... ladies, you'd better stock up on mace and stun guns."

We're in the midst of a second Civil Rights movement. There are more people in the mainstream media talking about issues of race and taking it seriously than there have ever been in my three decades. Obama didn't fix things, but his election brought up an awareness of racial issues and forced a conversation into the mainstream. Black people were always being killed and disenfranchised--but nobody outside their community knew their names and nobody outside their community cared. My White parents now use the term "white privilege", and that's without me ever teaching them it. The fact that this conversation is happening is a hell of a lot better than what was going on before--that roiling mess of non-White pain under the surface of our society that many White people did everything in their power to ignore.

Here's the thing: I am 99.999999% sure Clinton is interested in equal pay, in preserving my rights over my body, in promoting women as equal members of society. Meanwhile, her opponent runs the Miss Universe contest and calls women ugly and on their periods when they disagree with him. This is a no-brainer.
posted by Anonymous at 10:50 PM on May 5, 2016

2) That way, if a Clinton admin does not respond in a way you think best during a crisis, or even during the normal course of legislative initiatives, then you have a seat at the table--or at least can argue that you have a seat at the table.

uh no, this is not something one "earns" by voting for the eventual victor. This is something we get by default. Even those who don't vote Clinton. Even die-hard Trump supporters, though their response will probably be to take a (proverbial) big steaming dump on the table. That's what makes it a democracy.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:02 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

I agree that a good amount of sentiment against Hillary Clinton is partially motivated by attacks on her personality, and her gender. It's also a wrong-headed thing to do because it allows others to escape their own culpability. Bill Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Dean, etc. they're all different politicians but ultimately they've all ended up serving the same center-ish consensus that the Democratic party has been operating under for decades. Their policies are economic bandaids at best, free trade without limits, international intervention without multilateralism, the continuation of the surveillance state, and so on. Yes, a great deal of this is because of Republican opposition at every turn. But regardless, they've allowed that opposition- and the threat of opposition- cow the party into accepting a centrist-ish platform.

And that's the thing- we love and laugh at Biden because he's an office that's "not worth a bucket of warm piss", so he's less able to do damage there. Obama's getting mad accolades because finally, at last, he's spending political capital and talking real talk. But you know what? In the grand scheme of things, how much better are they really than Hillary Clinton? Looking back at 2008, yes Mike Gravel is a rambling kook and far from the mainstream, but look at the others- Obama, Hillary, Biden, and the rest- laughing at his message for peace. Look at Biden laughing away. Absolutely despicable. (It's kind of amazing that in some ways, Sanders in 2016 is essentially Gravel in 2008, except with a much broader base, because his issue is economic inequality instead of the War in Iraq, which affects more Americans.)

As a side note, if anything, this election has been helpful in reminding Americans that beyond the economic boom and the stability brought upon Fukuyama's ballyhooed- and false- end of history- Bill Clinton's administration wasn't really all that great. His policies were definitely made to look better due to adjacency to the Bush era. But on their own? Not so much.

Sanders is a breath of fresh air, he dreams bigger and wants to get down to brass tacks and do away with the institutional inertia that's kept the Democrats from dreaming and doing bigger. But he can't be all there is to the progressive opposition. There needs to be others, others who will fill the gap on issues of civil rights and social inequality, while continuing his torch for economic equality. Others who can propose ways to dismantle the panopticon, to scale back American interventionism abroad, or at least inspire great cooperation with both our allies and other great powers. And the thing about Sanders is that unlike Kucinich, Gravel, Dean, or others, he comes at a time with severe enough systemic issues. By his success in this race, he demonstrates that others of his progressivism can stand a chance against the mainstream of the party. Perhaps there is a chance to save the Democrats.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:07 PM on May 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

God help me, today was the day I looked at Paul Ryan and George Bush I and II and said, "Well, those men have some principles"
posted by angrycat at 12:17 AM on May 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

his staff must have damn well wanted a protest, because that end of OC is not the lily-white area people think of when they hear "OC."

Costa Mesa isn't Newport Beach, but it's not exactly Westminster or Santa Ana either. The 2010 Census has it as ~68% White, which is is actually 8 points higher than the OC average of ~60%.

And to be honest, Costa Mesa is exactly what I think of when I hear "Lilly White OC", It has Vanguard University, the world HQ of the Trinity Broadcast Network, and South Coast Plaza, the most mall-iest mall that ever malled.
posted by sideshow at 12:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Hello in advance to the grad student 250 years from now who has to read my fanfiction for her thesis.

what about the poor beleaguered NSA intern who is reading it right now though
posted by poffin boffin at 12:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [28 favorites]

One of the things I like about "Hamilton" (which I'm just getting around to listening to now) is that its about a politician who (among other things) has extremely strong opinions but still manages to compromise with (and respect) people with opposing views in order to get some of the things that he thinks are in the best interest of the nation. This "never compromise with others" thing that is infecting our nation right now is diametrically opposed to what the founders practiced. You can have strong, principled beliefs and still recognize that the "making the sausage" aspect of politics is a messy business that involves compromises.

The right has forgotten that and the left is starting to reject that idea too. If nobody budges, nothing is going to happen and nihilists win.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:53 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

I thought Hamilton's whole deal was that he had an extremely singular vision and had a lot of trouble compromising. Like, that was one of the reasons he pissed so many people off, because he was hardheaded and unrelenting and supercilious. Heck, isn't there a bit of one of the songs where Washington basically has to force him to find a compromise?
posted by Anonymous at 1:01 AM on May 6, 2016

"Remember when it was being said that electing Barack Obama would make things so much better for blacks? If electing Hillary Clinton has the same effect for women... ladies, you'd better stock up on mace and stun guns."

That's just what happens when you elect a minority as president. All they care about is the majority once they're in office.

(Please turn your sarcasm / offensive joke meter on before pointing out the obvious...)
posted by sour cream at 1:07 AM on May 6, 2016

I have to admit that my current view has been very much influenced by the New Republic article, "What Democrats Still Don't Get About George McGovern." But it does create a pretty compelling narrative about weakness and ideological compromise in the party leadership that caused the American left to creep ever rightwards towards the center, to what we get now.

Sanders is no purist, he worked within the system, worked with Republicans. Compromise is all well and good in day-to-day legislation, it's necessary. But to compromise one's ideals, one's visions- well, that article presents a pretty damning picture of who sold out the New Deal and the Great Society, and all the other Big Ideas that used to make Democrats more than "the sane alternative." It's not that the individuals, not the DLC, not DWS, not even the neoliberals are villains who want to destroy progressivism. But it's that they've all accepted a paradigm where "this is whole things work." And as the ruling faction within the party, they've directed the party towards that pragmatic incrementalism at the expense of new strategies to win the support of the American public and to serve them better.

Avenge McGovern. Reconstruct the Democratic Party.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

@Faint of butt
I just wanted to say that I ate a taco salad for dinner......But my taco salad was really, really great, and bigger than Donald Trump's.
Yeah, but was it really that biglyier?
posted by vac2003 at 1:19 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

. . . You could also take away from that article that even a qualified candidate can become hamstrung by aggressive and hypercritical challenges from within their party.

It's very nice to advocate for ideological purity, but the candidate doing so better have the policy chops and legislative strategy to back it up. Without that it's all talk.
posted by Anonymous at 1:32 AM on May 6, 2016

I thought Hamilton's whole deal was that he had an extremely singular vision and had a lot of trouble compromising.

But he does compromise because it helps him achieve some of his goals. Having trouble doing it but actually doing it is one his of dramatic struggles in the show. I read the point as being that you can have strong views and still work with (and ultimately endorse in the case of Jefferson) principled people with different views.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I read the point as being that he kept me out of the room where it happens.
posted by kyrademon at 3:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Instead of gawking at and condemning the GOP, most of us should be asking ourselves -- what are we doing to prevent the Democratic Party from helping to create favorable conditions for xenophobic right wing authoritarianism?

Even worse, the next Trump (the Trump Next Time) will be even more radical, and in order to prevent societal chaos, the (correct) argument will be that everyone should vote for the corporate friendly, moderate lesser evil on the Democratic side (Joe Manchin's day in the sun), and we keep moving toward the right, and things keep getting worse.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:14 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

You know the user name Donald Trump hasn't been snapped up by anyone.
Just sayin'
posted by Mezentian at 4:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Who would want it?
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm seeing a lot of chatter about Trump picking Ann Coulter for VP

Which is why this VP Generator, though fun to play around with, only seems useful on the D side—apparently it only considers people who have actual experience in ~~reality~~ governing.

Seriously, though, I am curious as to once Hillary announces her pick, whether it could have been predicted by this thing.
posted by Rykey at 4:40 AM on May 6, 2016

Who would want it?

Presumably enough people to make him the Republican nominee and potentially the next president.
And all those people at his rallies.
He's Huuuuge in popularity.
posted by Mezentian at 4:52 AM on May 6, 2016

You know the user name Donald Trump hasn't been snapped up by anyone.
Just sayin'

It has now! :)
posted by Donald Trump at 5:07 AM on May 6, 2016 [33 favorites]

George Mason ASSOL professor and libertarian commentator Ilya Somin makes a case for Clinton-hating Republicans to vote Clinton.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: I actually sputtered so hard I began to cough and while I was coughing I accidentally farted.

RedOrGreen, I think you're on to something: I mean, if the flag icon replaces the exclamation mark, this could maybe be the new t-shirt. (Or at least go in the footer of every page.)
posted by wenestvedt at 5:35 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

It has now! :)

*dumps taco bowl on donald's head*
posted by pyramid termite at 6:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Joey Michaels: "But he does compromise because it helps him achieve some of his goals. Having trouble doing it but actually doing it is one his of dramatic struggles in the show."

If you read Chernow's biography - which I believe is generally regarded as fairly even-handed - it's Madison and (especially) Jefferson who come off as intransigent assholes.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Ugh, for real. I've never wanted to punch a book as hard as when Jefferson keeps hammering on for DECADES about Hamilton's sooper seekrit plan to re-install the British monarchy.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:23 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Also, Hamilton opposed slavery, thought perhaps not hard enough. Madison and Jefferson were big slave owners. (Can we take Jefferson off of our currency now?)
posted by haiku warrior at 6:26 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

Good to know Trump's plan for the debt is to default. Once a shitty bankrupt businessman, always a shitty bankrupt businessman.
posted by chris24 at 6:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [34 favorites]

Hey, it got him where he is today.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Is the Alt-Right for Real?
posted by Chrysostom at 6:43 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Is the Alt-Right for Real?

Don't care. If you say it, and you do it, then you are it--even if you say you're just kidding.

Hell, even if you believe you're just kidding.
posted by dersins at 6:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Several hundred Latinos protest Hillary Clinton appearance in Los Angeles
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

We are the creditors!

Donald Trump’s Greatest Self-Contradictions
The many, many, MANY sides of the likely Republican nominee, in his own words.

Why the media will lift Trump up and tear Clinton down

Why is clarity passing? Because it appears Trump is actually going to be the Republican nominee. It's really happening. And the US political ecosystem — media, consultants, power brokers, think tanks, foundations, officeholders, the whole thick network of institutions and individuals involved in national politics — cannot deal with a presidential election in which one candidate is obviously and uncontroversially the superior (if not sole acceptable) choice. The machine is simply not built to handle a race that's over before it's begun.
There are entire classes of professionals whose jobs are premised on the model of two roughly equal sides, clashing endlessly.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

You know what the effect of Paul Ryan's declaration of "not ready to endorse" is?

It's millions of dollars of free media focus on Donald Trump.

Amy Goodman would agree.
posted by Rykey at 7:11 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

RE: Debt default: At what point do we ask if Trump intentionally aims to panic markets because he knows crisis is his only way to win?
posted by chris24 at 7:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Get Creditors to Accept Less: Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

To be honest, it was a trick question. Namely, a question about a topic which Trump knows nothing about. That just goes to show that there is no limit to how low the liberal lamestream media will stoop to embarrass themselves.
posted by sour cream at 7:22 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Rachel Maddow Reads GOP Grievances About Trump… as Spoken Word Poetry
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I wish all these people asking republicans if they will support Trump would ask the obvious followup: Why do you support Trump? What policies and values that he is promoting do you seek to see in your president?

It seems like any declaration of "Will support the X party candidate whoever that is." is basically a statement that one cares more about attaining power for one's own group than about policy and values. You started party X or joined party X because you wanted to promote values Y. Great. Good for you, pushing for what you believe will make the world better. But continuing to support that party when it no longer represents Y, (or changing the policies of Party X because Y is not popular with voters and you can't win with a platform of Y) is just a sign of corrupt desire for power.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hey, it got him where he is today.

So what you're saying is the United States of America could become the presumptive nominee of the GOP for president?
posted by Talez at 7:26 AM on May 6, 2016

Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

I hope that someone will run an ad explaining that if you own a savings bond, or any mutual fund that holds bonds, it's YOU he's talking about not paying.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:26 AM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

Several hundred Latinos protest Hillary Clinton appearance in Los Angeles According to KTLA, hundreds of protesters, who appeared to be supporters of Bernie Sanders, showed up outside the rally. Several Latino groups reportedly organized demonstrations of the event, which fell on Cinco de Mayo.
The "Let it all Bern" crowd would appear to be larger than people here are anticipating.
posted by zarq at 7:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

If only I had a penguin...: I wish all these people asking republicans if they will support Trump would ask the obvious followup: Why do you support Trump? What policies and values that he is promoting do you seek to see in your president?

They've answered already: "In the end you end up being united by the nature of the opposition." - Charles Krauthammer on Trump, just the other day.

IOW, Clinton is so bad and dangerous that Trump is the only choice.
posted by clawsoon at 7:30 AM on May 6, 2016

Sanders voters in new CNN poll favor Clinton over Trump 86-10.
posted by chris24 at 7:30 AM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

The US enjoys a special position as the de facto reserve currency of the world. It gets to swing a very negative balance of payments without having to raise its interest rates or watch its currency sink like a stone and cause massive inflation.

If we were to do anything to fuck with the full faith and credit of the US treasury you would see the world flip so fast to the Euro it would make your head spin. Then the real fun starts.
posted by Talez at 7:30 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Sanders voters in new CNN poll favor Clinton over Trump 86-10.

That 10% must have been supporting Sanders by accident.
posted by dersins at 7:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

IOW, Clinton is so bad and dangerous that Trump is the only choice.

That's not an answer. There are probably at least 150 million non-Trump people eligible to be president. The overwhelming majority of those are not Hillary Clinton.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sanders voters in new CNN poll favor Clinton over Trump 86-10.

That 10% must have been supporting Sanders by accident.

Remember all that "Who would you rather have a beer with?" shit from 2000? Lot of people out there who really do vote for the person more than the policies, and a lot of them are white dudes who are just vaguely unsettled by the thought of someone who isn't white and/or a dude in the Oval.
posted by Etrigan at 7:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

The strange thing is, Trump isn't really wrong -- creditors do often have to write own losses to borrowers who can't pay, even when the creditor and borrower are both nation states. The thing he might not be aware of is that there's a finite limit on good will between nation states, and when you lose that, it takes a very long time to rebuild. He's probably never had to confront this because he's always been able to find new suckers who will lend him money.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:38 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Honestly, 10% of Bernie supporters being on his side more because they want to upend the political status quo more than because they want a liberal doing the table-flipping feels surprisingly (thankfully) low.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:38 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

That's not an answer. There are probably at least 150 million non-Trump people eligible to be president. The overwhelming majority of those are not Hillary Clinton.

Yes and I can solve milk supply problems with spherical cows in vacuums. Those people (I'm assuming) had their voice. The process does its best(?) to distill the will of millions of people into one candidate. Trump is the candidate the process has spit out and at this point the people who don't agree with either have to decide who is the lesser of two evils.
posted by Talez at 7:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hey Let's Try Not To Turn This Thread Into A Proxy Fight About Opposing Candidate Supporters We Don't Like, Part LXXVIII
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:45 AM on May 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

If only I had a penguin...: That's not an answer. There are probably at least 150 million non-Trump people eligible to be president. The overwhelming majority of those are not Hillary Clinton.

Aye, it's a non-answer answer. It's an answer if you take a pragmatic view: You're stuck with a two-party system, only one of two people can win at this point, you have to pick one of those two, and Clinton is LuciferHitlerMedusa.

Coincidentally, both Kristol and Sowell say they'd support an independent candidate. It'll be interesting to see if it goes anywhere. The first response I'm seeing is, "Sure, if you can find someone who has a chance of beating both Clinton and Trump, but otherwise I'm voting for Trump."
posted by clawsoon at 7:45 AM on May 6, 2016

Staying home rather than voting for Trump? If that's their choice, I can't say that I'm broken up about it.
posted by amarynth at 7:46 AM on May 6, 2016

Staying home rather than voting for Trump? If that's their choice, I can't say that I'm broken up about it.

I'm just saying that it's probably more productive to try and figure out how to get these people to see that Trump is a terrible candidate rather than labeling them "bros", when many of them are queer, women of color.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

The "Let it all Bern" crowd would appear to be larger than people here are anticipating

If you look at the pictures, you'll see just as many signs protesting Trump as you do protesting Hillary. Furthermore, I think it's patronizing to insist that everyone is obligated to play rally-round-the-Democrat at this point and forget Hillary's (many!) flaws. There are real grievances to be leveled at Hillary that don't just disappear just because Trump is lurking. The signs highlighting Hillary's role in the death of Berta Cáceres in Honduras are a case in point.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Yes and I can solve milk supply problems with spherical cows in vacuums. Those people (I'm assuming) had their voice. The process does its best(?) to distill the will of millions of people into one candidate. Trump is the candidate the process has spit out and at this point the people who don't agree with either have to decide who is the lesser of two evils.

They actually don't. The process chose a candidate for each of two parties. Presumably other processes chose candidates for other parties (I don't quite get while some parties are allowed in this process and some aren't). The traditional solution, all over the world, including the US, to a situation where a group of people don't find that any of the parties align with their values is to start a new party. Like an actual new party, not just a faction within an exisitng party and try to take it over. That's where the republicans came from. That's where the democrats came from. that's where the other parties came from. That's where the New Republicans or Conservative Party or American or whatever they decide to call themselves could come from if people didn't have this weird idea that the democrats and republicans were given to Moses by God or something.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I hope that someone will run an ad explaining that if you own a savings bond, or any mutual fund that holds bonds, it's YOU he's talking about not paying.

Me? I don't have any bonds.
And I suspect that comparatively few people have bonds. Most people are glad if they can pay their bills these days, you know?
So, it's probably safe to assume that most bonds are in the hands of rich people. Which means that what Trump really is proposing is to take money from rich people and distribute it to everybody. A massive redistribution of wealth, so to say.

If only there was a word to describe such behavior.... Ideally something that you can use as an epithet to hurl at your political opponents.
posted by sour cream at 7:51 AM on May 6, 2016

You're stuck with a two-party system,

Because...? I mean I assume trump will make it illegal to start new parties, once he names the republicans after himself and declares the democrats a terrorist group, but until then, I'm pretty sure you're not.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:53 AM on May 6, 2016

Hillary forces target Bush donors

Hillary Clinton’s supporters in recent days have been making a furious round of calls to top Bush family donors to try to convince them that she represents their values better than Donald Trump, multiple sources in both parties told POLITICO.

posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Personally I wonder why Sanders supporters aren't needing to ask themselves why they didn't get more support, especially among minorities? Like if they wanted to create a progressive movement, why did they not even consider addressing minorities until late, and in a perfunctory way?

Clinton was the only candidate who went to yesterday's Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies awards gala, along with Obama. That's how she gets support from various communities. She has worked hard at it for a long time. She's had an Asian American affairs chair since 2007. Is the Sanders Revolution studying this stuff?

I realize they started late and got to the game late, but you can't blame people for not jumping on your half baked bandwagon that you're calling a revolution.

Also this near complete lack of minority outreach is why people feel the Sanders campaign has a white focus. I realize actual minorities did vote for him, but not in the same numbers and not with the same community support.
posted by zutalors! at 7:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [27 favorites]

You mean like saying she's unqualified and basically corrupt which Trump is now quoting? All after Bernie had for all intents and purposes lost the nomination? While Bernie has definitely added value to the conversation and race, since March 15th he's also been as damaging to the chance of a Democratic president as helpful.
posted by chris24 at 7:55 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

In re protesting Clinton:

It is perfectly possible to vote for Clinton because you don't want Trump, and also think she's a lousy human who helped dismantle our welfare system (such as it was) in a grossly immoral, socially violent act of political pandering. All those people who were instrumental in that, as far as I'm concerned they belong in the ice at the core of hell, but that doesn't mean that I would prefer Mr. "Camps for Muslims" instead. I'd pick Thatcher over Pinochet, too, if it were a forced choice.
posted by Frowner at 7:55 AM on May 6, 2016 [35 favorites]

So it turns out that all the Republicans I know (both the super religious ones and the Ayn Rand fans) are already on board the "Trump is awful" train.

I thought I was this Democrat who was also in touch with what the "other side" believed and wanted, who had friends and family on both sides of the aisle and could understand where the other side was coming from, even if I didn't agree... But even the Sam Brownback supporters in my family hate Trump ("He's not a conservative!"). So it turns out I'm Pauline Kael after all. In spite of my feeling like I had a foot in both US political cultures, I don't actually know anyone who supports Trump.

On the one hand, this is great news, because finding out that any of them supported Trump would have made it hard for me to keep a good relationship those friends or family.

On the other hand, it makes Trump supporters even scarier to me. There are millions of people out there voting for him ("...and some of them... I assume... are good people") ... But who the hell are they? The best I can think is that they haven't actually been paying attention to what he actually says. He claims to be a Christian, but his "favorite Bible verse" is "an eye for an eye", and he think's it's pronounced "Two Corinthians"? He praises Putin? He says going to boarding school is the same as actually serving the military? And then he wins the Republican nomination? These are not the Republicans I know.

So anyway, my family does not support Trump, but they also think Clinton is LuciferHitlerMedusa. So for them Trump may be the "lesser of two evils."

Is there anything I, as a known Democrat, can say to my True Conservative friends to make them feel a little better about Clinton..? At least enough better so that they don't feel obligated to do whatever they can to keep her out of office, even to the point of voting for this Trump guy they hate? Or am I better off keeping silent -- does any kind of campaigning for Clinton actually put them on the defensive and motivate them to do more to keep her out of office?

The best part is that most of them think Trump is doing well because he is more moderate (!) and acceptable to Democrats. They tar him with the "Liberal" epithet, and don't see any real difference between him and Clinton.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:55 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

I'm just saying that it's probably more productive to try and figure out how to get these people to see that Trump is a terrible candidate rather than labeling them "bros", when many of them are queer, women of color.

If a queer woman of color is willing to support Trump over anyone this side of the Human Embodiment of the Waterbury Tire Fire of 1981, I suspect she may not be someone who can be reasoned with.
posted by dersins at 7:57 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

In my experience, older folks give savings bonds as gifts to little kids for events like Baptism, etc. *shrug* We've got some, and I'm hardly the Rich Monopoly Gamepiece Guy.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:00 AM on May 6, 2016

I just cashed about $5000 worth of savings bonds that were given to me by great-grandparents 30 years ago. It's very helpful to keep those around.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on May 6, 2016

"God help me, today was the day I looked at Paul Ryan and George Bush I and II and said, "Well, those men have some principles"

With the definition of "some" being relative.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Regardless of who owns bonds, defaulting will cost everyone. The minute a President Trump tries to renegotiate paying back our debts, the interest rate on new bonds skyrockets, along with every other interest rate that affects peoples daily lives; home loans, car loans, credit cards, etc. Not to mention crashing the stock market and starting a recession.
posted by chris24 at 8:06 AM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

I wish I had a sad republican to comfort, but my dad is the only republican I know well enough and he's on a provisional time out until at least November because he's being a total asshole about this election and he's probably going to vote for the greasy orange ham.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:07 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Lots of bonds are held by you, just indirectly in the form of your retirement savings.

For example, CALPERS, NY State pensions and the Federal Employees’ Retirement System all own substantially nontrivial amounts of treasuries and similar federal government-backed securities.
posted by Skorgu at 8:08 AM on May 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

Can I just say, apropos of nothing, that I still have no idea why Hillary is hated with such extreme vehemence by the righty-people of my acquaintance? It's really hard for me to believe it's about her basement email server - I feel like that is just a vehicle for their already-existing anger. I feel the same way about Benghazi.

Can somebody (and maybe this is the wrong thread to do this in, I admit) just discretely point me to a link or something that would act as a primer (assume I'm a space alien or something) and explain what the real cause of the HRC hatred is? Because I don't get it. l know what I don't like about her (I voted Bernie) but I doubt my reasons coincide with conservatives'.
posted by newdaddy at 8:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

If only I had a penguin...: The traditional solution, all over the world, including the US, to a situation where a group of people don't find that any of the parties align with their values is to start a new party. Like an actual new party, not just a faction within an exisitng party and try to take it over.

Yep. But in order to do that, you generally have to be willing to see your enemies win for a few election cycles, and see both yourself and your ideologically similar frenemies in the party you've left wandering in the wilderness while you build support for your new party.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have gotten so good at beating the drum of "the other guys will destroy the world!!!" that this has become pretty much impossible in the US. (Four years is a long time...) It'll be interesting if the conservatives who are too committed to their values to vote for Trump do this first, before progressives who are against an aggressive foreign policy and neoliberal economics leave the Democrats for their own party.
posted by clawsoon at 8:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Is there anything I, as a known Democrat, can say to my True Conservative friends to make them feel a little better about Clinton..?

Maybe a bunch of quotes from the Sanders camp about all the ways she's no different from a Republican?
posted by straight at 8:12 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

explain what the real cause of the HRC hatred is?

She's a woman who has the temerity to disagree with them. Seriously, that's it. Misogyny, nothing else.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Don't forget that the largest single U.S. bond holder is the Social Security Administration, with over $2 trillion in holdings. The long-term viability of Social Security is tied to the sell-off of those bonds over the next couple of decades to keep the checks going.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 8:17 AM on May 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

it's really insane.
posted by zutalors! at 8:17 AM on May 6, 2016

Reload the thread, please, and make sure you are not carrying on an argument on the tail end of previously deleted comments. More generally speaking: if you are in the habit of arguing a bunch about how much Candidate X is bad/good/overrated/underrated with anybody and everybody to the point where even when a mod drops a note you don't manage to cut it out, we are very likely to cut it out for you going forward.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [24 favorites]

Both the Democrats and Republicans have gotten so good at beating the drum of "the other guys will destroy the world!!!" that this has become pretty much impossible in the US. (Four years is a long time...

The thing is, this is the ideal momen to do it because it's a moment where, if you're some conservatives, you think both sides will destroy the world. There's nothing to lose by starting now. I propose the Bush family as the ideal party founders (not because I like them or would vote for them but because they have credibility as conservatives). I mean they're not voting for Trump anyway. So why not pull all those hate-Trump-so-much-they'll-vote-for-Hillary conservatives and the won't-vote-at-all-conservatives and pull them into something. Even if they don't win this year, they've lost nothing, and they've gotten started for next time, which is a whole 2 years from now, so it's not like it's a long wait.<
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

If you look at the pictures, you'll see just as many signs protesting Trump as you do protesting Hillary.

This was a story that included pictures of an anti-Hillary protest in East Los Angeles. It appears that one tweet included two photos from the Burlingame protest over in San Mateo against Donald Trump along with pictures from the East Los Angeles anti-Hillary protest. You can tell at least one or two are from the Burlingame protest because the building where the CAGOP convention was being held is pictured in the background. Why would protestors be waving anti-Trump signs at a Hillary campaign stop?

Also, the first (quoted) graph describes hundreds of Sanders-supporting anti-Hillary protestors. Some of whom were interviewed for the story.

Furthermore, I think it's patronizing to insist that everyone is obligated to play rally-round-the-Democrat at this point and forget Hillary's (many!) flaws.

If you are having difficulty understand something I've said, please feel free to ask me to clarify, rather than making assumptions.

Virtually all of my Sanders-supporting friends on facebook now refer to themselves as members of either a "Bernie or Bust" or "Bern it all down" movement. Almost none of them (probably about 30-40 people) will be voting for Hillary. Some will indeed be voting for Trump. I don't bother arguing with them anymore. Some of them belong to and share posts from these groups and others: https://www.facebook.com/BernieOrElse/ or https://www.facebook.com/CitizensAgainstPlutocracy which is run by https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/. I keep seeing comments on news stories expressing similar sentiments from Sanders supporters.

I don't trust polls. I also don't believe polls which say those voters are going to suddenly vote for Hillary.

They're not representative of all Sanders supporters, obviously. And they are absolutely entitled to vote for whom they want. I'm also entitled to think that some of them who live in swing states and are voting for Trump are being deeply, stupidly short-sighted. But it appears to me that "Bernie or bust" and "Bern it all down" is how many of them are describing their own political positions. It's only respectful to refer to them the way refer to themselves.
posted by zarq at 8:21 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

If only I had a penguin...: The thing is, this is the ideal momen to do it because it's a moment where, if you're some conservatives, you think both sides will destroy the world.

Great point.
posted by clawsoon at 8:21 AM on May 6, 2016

Having protesters is a good sign. People usually protest against someone who they think has power or is going to win. Unfortunately, this also applies to Donald Trump.
posted by FJT at 8:25 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm also entitled to think that some of them who live in swing states and voting for Trump are being deeply, stupidly short-sighted. But it appears to me that "Bernie or bust" and "Bern it all down" is how many of them are describing their own political positions.

It's essentially accelerationism: they probably believe (1) that Trump will make things worse, faster and (2) that this rapid decline will convert more people to the cause of Bernie / socialism / revolution. It's an unproven, but interesting hypothesis. Unfortunately, it's a high risk test - and it may not get the results they hope for.
posted by theorique at 8:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ignoring the millions who would be collateral damage for their "revolution" is more than high risk.
posted by chris24 at 8:29 AM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

It also ignores the huge number of times bad results from the greater of two evils winning election weren't bad enough to burn it all down and just created a miasma of shittiness we had to slowly climb out of.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

It's an unproven, but interesting hypothesis.

It's only 'interesting' if you're privileged enough to ride it out. Everyone else is fucked.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]

(or think you're privileged enough)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

More evidence to support Samantha Bee's thesis that 2010, not 2008, was the most important election in recent memory:

Had the GOP not been standing in the way — both from 2008, when it was in the minority everywhere, and from 2010, when it regained the House — the United States would look dramatically different than it does today. Without the GOP manning the barricades, Obamacare could well have been single payer, and, at the very least, the law would have included a “public option.” Without the GOP manning the barricades, we’d have seen a carbon tax or cap-and-trade — or both. Without the GOP manning the barricades, we’d have got union card check, and possibly an amendment to Taft-Hartley that removed from the states their power to pass “right to work” exemptions. Without the GOP standing in the way, we’d now have an “assault weapons” ban, magazine limits, background checks on all private sales, and a de facto national gun registry. And without the GOP standing in the way in the House, we’d have got the very amnesty that the Trump people so fear (it’s fine to oppose Marco Rubio for his support for the “Gang of 8″ bill, but it’s not fine to pretend that it didn’t matter that the Republicans ran the House when the reform bill left the Senate; it did). A similar truth obtains at the state level. Had the GOP not taken over the vast majority of the country’s local offices since 2010, we’d have seen significantly less progress on right to work, the protection of life, school choice, and the right to keep and bear arms; we’d have seen a whole host of new sanctuary cities; we’d have had considerably fewer attorneys general rising up against Obama’s executive overreach; and, perhaps most importantly, we’d have seen Obamacare entrenched almost everywhere as state after state chose to expand Medicaid.

Reading that list makes me sad for what could've been.

Something to keep in mind for 2018.
posted by clawsoon at 8:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [31 favorites]

It also ignores the huge number of times bad results from the greater of two evils winning election weren't bad enough to burn it all down and just created a miasma of shittiness we had to slowly climb out of.

What do you mean slowly climb out of? Wages still haven't broken even with inflation since Reagan fucked us and Bush II fucked us again.
posted by Talez at 8:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Well, yeah. I mean "interesting" as an abstraction; for lots of people, it's no abstraction.

I wonder how many Bernie Bros are actually willing to "strategically" pull the lever for Trump in service of accelerationism. I suspect it's relatively few, but they are probably the noisier ones on social media.
posted by theorique at 8:42 AM on May 6, 2016

Without the GOP manning the barricades, Obamacare could well have been single payer, and, at the very least, the law would have included a “public option.”

What? Huh? Obamacare's single payer and public option was sunk because of blue dog Democrats not Republicans taking the house in 2010.
posted by Talez at 8:43 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

that this rapid decline will convert more people to the cause of Bernie / socialism / revolution. It's an unproven, but interesting hypothesis.

That's a frightening thought. What if this year is different from 2008? I mean, in 2008 there were the PUMAs, but eventually they voted for Barack Obama because they were Democrats and not revolutionaries. But what if this year is different? What if enough Bernie supporters actually literally thought like a fucking table flipping revolution was going to happen, but somehow Hillary Clinton blocked it or cheated them out of it? I would acknowledge and maybe understand a little bit their anger and resentment at being denied something that they absolutely believed was going to happen.
posted by FJT at 8:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I know a white guy who's been agitating for years for a revolution. He's a labor lawyer, so feels like that will keep him off the wall when it happens. He considers himself well to the left of Bernie.

He just had a daughter, so I wonder how committed to accellerationism he is now.
posted by zutalors! at 8:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Agitating for revolution != accelerationism
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:46 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

It's an unproven, but interesting hypothesis

It's not an interesting hypothesis. It's magical thinking. People didn't take to the streets, at least not in enough numbers to change anything, when the Supreme Court literally subverted the results of a legal Presidential election to install George W. Bush as President. Why on earth would there be a revolution if Trump won the Presidency and incrementally started dismantling the Republic? Which he will do.

This whole "bring on the Revolution" bullshit you hear from Sanders supporters makes me so deeply furious I can barely think straight. What sort of insane fantasy land do these people live in? They really do believe that after the GOP takes all three branches of government, everyone will get so mad that they'll storm the barricades and the Left will emerge triumphant to usher in some sort of democratic socialist paradise. They're out of reality. Things will get burned down all right, but guess who will emerge unscathed from a complete meltdown of the Republic? Yes, that's right: the 1%. The wealthy will just pack themselves off to Denmark or Belize or Costa Rica to continue living in luxury because they have the means. The rest of us will be left here in Mad Max land, and I promise you it won't be any democratic socialist paradise.
posted by holborne at 8:46 AM on May 6, 2016 [34 favorites]

It's essentially accelerationism: they probably believe (1) that Trump will make things worse, faster and (2) that this rapid decline will convert more people to the cause of Bernie / socialism / revolution. It's an unproven, but interesting hypothesis. Unfortunately, it's a high risk test - and it may not get the results they hope for.

I was at a party last weekend where someone was advancing this idea. I didn't know her and was kind of eavesdropping, so I didn't jump in, but:

Let's leave aside the whole "lots of vulnerable people will suffer" piece - we'll grant the "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" part, and we'll even grant "it's okay to advocate for other people to suffer and die without asking them first on the theory that you know best".

Has there been a historical example where this has worked? Because honestly, there's been lots of historical moments when things got a lot fucking worse very fast. Surely some of those have produced revolutionary movements that were, on balance, net improvements? Let's not even argue about situations like China or Russia, where there was a long-term shitty situation that produced a hotly debated revolutionary society; let's look for something where there was a "drop off the cliff" change in society.

I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I do remember that we all believed something very similar in 2000, and we were wrong.

You don't get dramatic social change without mass movements; when you get a fascist leader absent a large, various and well-organized left, you just get fascism.

And while I feel like Bernie supporters (and Black Lives Matter, and the campaign for $15 and other new movements) are totally, absolutely, 100% the closest to strong enough that I have seen in my lifetime, I do not think they are close enough right now. I think a Trump presidency would just be fascism and disaster. Give these movements another five or ten years and who can say - but I think this is a bad miscalculation of the historical moment.
posted by Frowner at 8:48 AM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

the real cause of the HRC hatred?

She's seen as "crooked," like Trump says. And it's not that different from what Sanders has implied either... Look up the list of Clinton scandals. Now imagine you believed all of them were real. And that she had gotten away with it all completely, never punished for any of it. You'd see her as some kind of masterful blonde Machiavelli who was skating above the law on her connections and conspiracies.

I can still remember buying into this image myself, in the late 1990s. And it tainted her 2008 candidacy for me, though I was a Democrat by then. Ironically, it was the e-mail release which really started to humanize her for me... Those e-mails (and Ann Marie Slaughter's article about her own career at the State Dept) paint a picture of a hard-working nerdy policy wonk, and the more I read of what she actually said, as opposed to what other people said about her, the more real that image became for me, replacing the Lady McBeth image.

Well, that stuff, plus the way she worked with Barack Obama, for whom I've always had huge respect. Seeing his clear respect for her in turn, and her willingness to work with the man who beat her (not an easy thing to do for anyone, and not especially consistent with the kind of toxic ambition that I'd imagined in her) made me see her in a new light.

But yeah, that's where the hatred comes from, those years of "scandals" (which made the right wing hate Bill Clinton just as much.) Now, where did the "scandals" come from? Some are based in real mistakes and flaws. Some are ginned up out of nothing, just lies as attacks from political foes. Some arise from her apparently natural inclination to operate behind closed doors, whether she's doing anything that needs to be hidden or not. She apparently has an aversion (somewhat understandable at this point) to public scrutiny and judgment.

But with my new impression of her character, with my new habit of reading more things written by her and less things written about her, I see all of those "scandals" as the scars of a life lived in the public eye, and a hazard of being married to Bill Clinton, whom I still see as kind of a slick political operator (even though I also admire a lot of his accomplishments) besides being kind of creep in the sexual sense.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, nor do I agree with her on everything (especially in foreign policy.) But as I look back at her career I see everywhere evidence of a fierce intelligence and a real compassion. I hear someone who cares about the things that I care about and who is willing to listen, and learn, and even admit she is wrong. And I see a toughness that I have come to deeply admire.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:48 AM on May 6, 2016 [65 favorites]

Agitating for revolution != accelerationism

Um...I don't know what you mean. My point is that people who want bloody revolutions or complete destruction of the social order to achieve some measure of class equality seem to change their minds once they have a four month old to consider.
posted by zutalors! at 8:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Frowner: Has there been a historical example where this has worked?

Would the Wall Street crash of 1929 and FDR's election in 1932 count?
posted by clawsoon at 8:50 AM on May 6, 2016

>somehow Hillary Clinton blocked it or cheated them out of it

There's been this talk that Bernie's supporters are crazy for thinking that the Dems/Clinton cheated or used voter suppression tactics. But that was a real thing that happened. Heads are now rolling for it.
posted by anti social order at 8:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Bernie Bros

Just want to note that a number of Sanders supporters have asked in previous election threads and in metatalk that people not use this term.
posted by zarq at 8:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

Surely some of those have produced revolutionary movements that were, on balance, net improvements?

France, 1789?

Yeah, that only took about 50 years to shake out, and then the Franco-Prussian War happened and France was hosed again for almost 100 more years. But that wasn't *really* the fault of the revolution, I think.
posted by chimaera at 8:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Has there been a historical example where this has worked? Because honestly, there's been lots of historical moments when things got a lot fucking worse very fast. Surely some of those have produced revolutionary movements that were, on balance, net improvements?

France, 1789?
posted by Faint of Butt

You've got to take a generations-long timescale to make that work, unless you think Napoleon sinking Europe knee-deep in blood was some kind of improvement
posted by the phlegmatic king at 8:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

jinx
posted by the phlegmatic king at 8:56 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Um...I don't know what you mean.

Ensuring a better world for the next generation seems as good as a reason as any to produce a revolution, if one did think that producing a revolution would succeed in the desired outcome. What you seem to be advancing sounds too much like "grown-ups don't have revolutionary politics" for my taste. Perhaps the person you referred to's politics have changed as a result of his kid, perhaps they haven't. In any event, irresponsibly immiserating the masses in the quixotic hope of some positive, rapid break with the existing order (accelerationism) is quite different from hoping for a revolution that doesn't rely on having a hand in dragging everyone down to start with.

Has there been a historical example where this has worked?

I'm not aware of any historical event in which either 1) a group of conspirators / movement actively tried to make things worse for the masses nor 2) those people succeeded nor 3) the net result was positive for society. To me, the accelerationism comes off as the liminal despairing of the frustrated and powerless desperate for some strategy out of their present situation, and coming up pitifully theoretically short. Hopefully these people find a way to harness their passion in a way that is politically productive.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, that only took about 50 years to shake out, and then the Franco-Prussian War happened and France was hosed again for almost 100 more years. But that wasn't *really* the fault of the revolution, I think.

Hey, you can't always get what you want right away. Sometimes you have to wait a while. It's called incrementalism.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

What you seem to be advancing sounds too much like "grown-ups don't have revolutionary politics" for my taste.

Yeah, that's words in my mouth and please don't. White guys who advocate revolution don't consider the effect it has on the less privileged, and sometimes having more skin in the game can change that perspective.

Effectively, a white male telling me they know better than I do about what creates a more equal society is offensive and demoralizing.

I'm not "advancing" anything, I'm sharing an opinion/observation.
posted by zutalors! at 9:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

Ensuring a better world for the next generation seems as good as a reason as any to produce a revolution, if one did think that producing a revolution would succeed in the desired outcome

Except for the massive pain and suffering it'll cause for the people who are already right here. It's morally wrong to inflict suffering, yeah? Therefore these kinds of 'revolutions' are morally wrong, because they inflict enormous suffering on people who haven't consented.

IOW, you can sacrifice yourself, you cannot require sacrifice of others.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

What happens if, sometime between the Republican Convention and the General Election, Trump resigns or is forced to quit as the nominee because of some scandal or outrage? I've seen that, if the nominee dies that the RNC can appoint a new nominee subject to ratification, but not if the nominee resigns or is forced to quit. Like, in a Trump/Doe ticket, does Doe take over?

This seems like circumstances that are not unlikely to arise.
posted by Rumple at 9:07 AM on May 6, 2016

Sometimes you have to wait a while. It's called incrementalism.

I'm not saying the French Revolution was a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination, but some countries are in the right place to have a revolution that doesn't devolve to internecine bloodbaths (the UK, actually is an example where it got ugly but not horrific), and some that turn into things like the Reign of Terror, the Whites vs Reds, and the Cultural Revolution.
posted by chimaera at 9:08 AM on May 6, 2016

Would the Wall Street crash of 1929 and FDR's election in 1932 count?

I'm willing to grant the France 1789 one, sort of, on the theory that the launch of a bunch of big democratic ideas outweighs the horrible period of reaction that follows, and also outweighs the deterioration of the revolution itself, and the horror that everyone including Marx felt at that deterioration. (Like, Lenin and them were all "how can we not have things end in blood like France".)

But FDR? Nah, FDR would be like electing a more powerful but somewhat less radical Bernie, not a table-flipping revolution.

"Let's seek to make things worse because then the people will defs rise up, absent organizing or social channels to do so, and make a revolution" is just....I dunno, I hear it most often from people who have read a lot of critical theory but not much history. Not stupid people by any means, but at least one of them with whom I have had this conversation was pretty much totally blown away when I dropped some exciting information about the eighties, like the escalation of nuclear tensions. Smart people who are self-educated but know very little concrete modern history, IME. Anyone I can wow with my incredible grasp of world events is someone who has not read enough history to be proposing grand theories.
posted by Frowner at 9:08 AM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

The point is, you can absolutely believe in having revolutions that are based on sustained mass organizing. "Many people from many different organizations and tendencies are broadly supporting revolutionary change, we have people with skills and knowledge making proposals about how to run society, the roots of our uprising run very deep, and even though some bad stuff is going to happen, on balance it's not just going to be chaos and old night" seems totally legit to me.

There have been a number of Mexican and South American revolutionary movements that were pretty good, IMO, and a lot of that had to do with deep organizing.
posted by Frowner at 9:12 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

he clearly knows he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in

Forgive me if this has been heavily discussed before, but I've seen it said a few times and I have to say -- I do not understand how people are taking away "smart" from him at all. I would *somewhat* buy that his public persona is somewhat of a put-on to curry favor with anti-intellectual types (something also claimed of Dubya which I think has turned out not to really be the case), but he just... doesn't actually seem smart? I mean, he is SHOCKINGLY inarticulate for someone whose job is to talk to audiences and on camera all the time as basically his main career at this point. His business ventures fail. His main brand seems to be MY NAME ON IT AND ALSO EVERYTHING IS GOLD. He's a reality TV huckster and likely con man.

I get that he's positioning himself for Joe Sixpack who likes all of those things, and that there's a certain intelligence to realizing that you can get people to pay you to put your name on their building, but even in his pre-reality TV business tycoon persona (and again I just watched and read a ton of interviews with him), he doesn't come off as particularly intelligent. In fact he comes off as the same inarticulate blow-hard completely lacking in nuance or any real knowledge of how the world works.

He doesn't come off like the smartest guy in any room. He comes off like a mid-level entrepreneur who went to a couple semesters of college and knows just enough to basically break even on the massive piles of money he inherited. Which, again, I see is exactly the type of people he's trying to appeal to, but either he's the world's best actor or he appeals to those people precisely because they have a lot in common besides the whole mega-wealthy thing.
posted by Sara C. at 9:12 AM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]

I'm not aware of any historical event in which either 1) a group of conspirators / movement actively tried to make things worse for the masses nor 2) those people succeeded nor 3) the net result was positive for society.

I'm also drawing a blank.
posted by zarq at 9:12 AM on May 6, 2016

According to KTLA, hundreds of protesters, who appeared to be supporters of Bernie Sanders, showed up outside the rally. Several Latino groups reportedly organized demonstrations of the event, which fell on Cinco de Mayo.

If “several Latino groups” only got “hundreds” of protestors to show up to protest Clinton–for Sanders, before the end of the primary– when you’re located in East Los Angeles, you don’t actually seem to be doing that well. Make it thousands, and we’re talking.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:13 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Sara C., I think the point is more that he thinks he is TSGITR, when that's clearly not the case.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

White guys who advocate revolution don't consider the effect it has on the less privileged

First of all, there have been plenty of revolutionaries throughout history, and many exist today, who are neither white nor male, so it's certainly not a position exclusive to that demographic. Second, I'm not sure who a revolution is purportedly aiming to benefit, if not the "less privileged."

Arise ye pris’ners of starvation
Arise ye wretched of the earth
etc.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Next you'll tell me he's not really classy.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:19 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

he clearly knows he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in

Donald Drumpf the smartest guy in the room? I assume that's supposed to be ironic or something, right? Serious question -- this whole election cycle has broken my irony meter, probably irreparably .
posted by holborne at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Second, I'm not sure who a revolution is purportedly aiming to benefit, if not the "less privileged."

Plenty white guys advocate revolution for who they decide is "less privileged" and assume that they are right.
posted by zutalors! at 9:27 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Agitating for revolution != accelerationism

Um...I don't know what you mean. My point is that people who want bloody revolutions or complete destruction of the social order to achieve some measure of class equality seem to change their minds once they have a four month old to consider.

"Revolution" is a big word and not everyone (I would wager not even a majority) who advocates for it 1. is advocating violence, 2. is advocating "complete destruction of the social order", or 3. believes that consciously pushing things into a worse situation to cause collapse is an ethical or viable strategy.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

From today's WaPo email dispatch "The Daily 202":

--Trump told West Virginia Republicans they didn’t have to vote in Tuesday’s primary contest – even with a number of contested local race on the ballot: "What I want you to do is save your vote — you know, you don't have to vote anymore,” said Trump. “Save your vote for the general election, okay? Forget this one. The primary is gone.” The presumptive Republican nominee told the crowd he debated on whether to even show up at all, but said he “didn’t have the heart” to stand them up. (Jenna Johnson)

*giggle*
posted by phearlez at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Also Trump-related from the same dispatch but more an indicator that at least one journalist needs a refresher on their geometry:

Former Texas governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry, who called Trump a "cancer on conservatism" while he was in the race, did a full 360 degree flip-flop yesterday, telling CNN he not only supports Trump but is “open to being his running-mate.” "He is not a perfect man. But what I do believe is that he loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people …" Perry told Dana Bash.

posted by phearlez at 9:39 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't have strenuous enough words to describe how dangerous and stupid his economic policy proposal about negotiating US debt is.

dangerous, yes - stupid?

well, there's a lot of people who actually believe our country is broke right now - and when you're broke, the best thing to do is to get it over with as soon as possible - so, if one were to assume that, then it might not be stupid at all
posted by pyramid termite at 9:40 AM on May 6, 2016

"Revolution" is a big word

Hmm, I guess in that case we could start calling it The Trump Revolution.
posted by FJT at 9:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump is using racial and class based resentment to try to get elected. If he should get elected I think the dominant theme of his administration will be financial corruption at a massive scale. Like selling it as "You know how people want government contracts? Well, we're going to make them pay to get them. Oh yes we will." to the public, while demanding extra under-the-table payments to the people controlling the budgets. And I don't actually know anyone corrupt enough to qualify to be his Attorney General. Yuge corruption. Yuuuge.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

if one were to assume something blatantly false to justify something that does not make sense in reaility it might not be stupid at all?

...o....k....??
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Because the Internationale and Marxism were invoked:

I am reminded of a friend's observation about Marxism, that there is a little-known part of Marx's plan for revolution - he claimed that Marx argued that the final act of the revolutionary leaders should be that they should all kill themselves, because even though they shook off the old system, they had still been raised under it, and shouldn't be trusted.

My friend had no problem with this policy in theory. But I still find it interesting that it's something that rarely gets mentioned.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

Hmm, I guess in that case we could start calling it The Trump Revolution.

I guess you could! He is running on a platform of dramatic, system-altering changes after all. Words, they are versatile.
posted by Krom Tatman at 9:42 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think Trump's wanting to renegotiate US debt is primarily to stick it to the Chinese. He's continuing to run his campaign persona as if he's a wrestler and needs a bad guy to be up against. Internally our enemy is Mexico, Internationally it's China on economic issues and ISIS to war against.

Here's who currently owns US Debt as of the current figures..
posted by readery at 9:42 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

On the topic of why conservatives hate HRC, someone earlier in this thread linked to a piece in the American Spectator on her from 1992. It includes this paragraph:

"There are those who would say of Hillary’s involvement in radical politics, “Aw, she was just a kid.” But she wasn’t just a kid. She was a middle-aged woman of 40 when sponsoring the hard left from her perch at the New World Foundation. Moreover, she has not, as far as I know, publicly repudiated or even distanced herself from the views or activism described in this article, and her husband’s presidential campaign was the perfect occasion to do so. There is no reason she ought to be forgiven, when she hasn’t repented. Especially since she is right now doing her utmost to drive her husband’s campaign into her own corner of the Democratic party, where the liberal left and the radical left meet."

She really did do a bunch of stuff -- in this case distributing a bunch of money -- to causes seen as far left, pretty late in her career. Which is why it's particularly galling that she's held up as some convictionless DINO now: she got a lot more shit for being on the left than Sanders ever has.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

And yet his "idea" seems to make sense if you're already inclined to think of government debt as operating under the same rules as credit card debt or a business loan, which is of course what GOP leaders have explicitly said we should do, for years and years.

Yes, sure, they have been bullshitting about this for years in various ways that sort of resemble what Trump is saying, but Trump's proposal - coming, as it is, from a guy with what you could see as a 50/50 chance to be the next President in less than a year's time - is truly frightening. This would destroy our economy. It wouldn't even take that long. Imagine how quickly people would start trying to cash in their bonds, how much Social Security would lose. People talked a lot early on about how right now can't be comparable to the rise of Hitler because we don't have the scale of economic problem Germany faced - here it is, coming down the pike.
posted by sallybrown at 9:45 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

The real difference with France isn't whether or not it was a good thing or it ultimately worked or was "worth it" (I happen to think it was, it did, and it was, and that most of what's in the popular consciousness about the French Revolution comes from British anti-republican propaganda), but that France is a case like China or Russia of things being unlivably terrible for a lot of people for a very, very long time. It's not an example of what (what passes for) the revolutionary Left is thinking of when they suggest that electing Trump will force a socialist revolution.

Life in the USA is pretty damn good. Even when the economy sucks. Even when gas prices are high. Even without single payer healthcare or free universities. There's a lot to complain about, but we're nowhere near popular uprising levels of discontent. People aren't starving or being banished to Siberia or being forced to pay cripplingly high taxes while literally the entire structure of elites pays zero. We're just pissed off that George R. R. Martin won't goddamn finish the A Song Of Ice And Fire series fast enough.

Also, most of the changes that the so-called revolutionaries want are reforms, anyway, and not things that would require a fundamental change of the nature of the state. The $15 minimum wage is a law you get congress to pass and a president to sign and SCOTUS to defend. A revolution is unnecessary.
posted by Sara C. at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]

France, 1789?

Up until people finally stopped sticking their fingers in their ears over Pol Pot, the French Revolution was pretty much the poster boy for "failed revolution". I mean, when your democratic revolution kills enough small merchants and other members of the middle class that you need an emperor to fix things, well...
posted by happyroach at 9:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

well, there's a lot of people who actually believe our country is broke right now - and when you're broke, the best thing to do is to get it over with as soon as possible - so, if one were to assume that, then it might not be stupid at all

This is not how U.S. Government debt functions. Viewing it in such terms--I wouldn't call that "stupid" because it's not something you're born knowing and clearly many people aren't educated about how it works--but it's a deeply incorrect and ignorant view.
posted by sallybrown at 9:52 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

--Trump told West Virginia Republicans they didn’t have to vote in Tuesday’s primary contest

I still have hope that this is a long con. He hated Jeb so much he decided to wreck his party.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

She really did do a bunch of stuff -- in this case distributing a bunch of money -- to causes seen as far left, pretty late in her career. Which is why it's particularly galling that she's held up as some convictionless DINO now: she got a lot more shit for being on the left than Sanders ever has.

Yeah, one of the many terrible/hilarious/hillarible things about attacks on Clinton is that frequently the same scandals and assumed personality traits are used by the Left to prove she's a secret Republican and by the Right to prove she's a secret feminazi Marxist. One of the many things that makes it very difficult for me to believe people who claim they came to her opinion of her completely separate from the decades of storytelling about her.
posted by Anonymous at 9:57 AM on May 6, 2016

also I am extremely OK with not kicking off a century-long bloodbath in hopes that somebody will come up with a better system down the line
posted by Anonymous at 9:59 AM on May 6, 2016

I am reminded of a friend's observation about Marxism, that there is a little-known part of Marx's plan for revolution - he claimed that Marx argued that the final act of the revolutionary leaders should be that they should all kill themselves, because even though they shook off the old system, they had still been raised under it, and shouldn't be trusted.

Your friend was putting you on.
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's not an interesting hypothesis. It's magical thinking. People didn't take to the streets, at least not in enough numbers to change anything, when the Supreme Court literally subverted the results of a legal Presidential election to install George W. Bush as President.

And more than that, when things FINALLY crashed, we ended up with a bank bailout they curse and a center-left president that's not liberal and revolutionary enough for them.

No one should ever wish for a revolution. Look at the results of the Arab Spring -- a military junta in Egypt, a borderline failed state in Libya, little change in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and maybe signs of hope in Tunisia if they can recover their tourist economy from last summer's bombing.

I don't want a revolution. I want reform. People shouldn't have to be "martyred" to get reform. I shouldn't have to re-read First They Came worrying that my time to speak might be less than a year away. I shouldn't have to sacrifice Muslims, Hispanics, transgendered people, or "political enemies" in the name of "single payer health care" or "breaking up the banks."

I'm honestly scared about the next 4-20 years of this nation (laying aside my ongoing worries of global warming). I don't know what world my daughter is coming into as she approaches age of majority. I don't want these revolutionaries playing chicken with my future or hers.

And I'm a mostly white American male. I'm inoculated by my white privilege. I can't imagine how it is for someone who is Muslim, or Hispanic, or trans.
posted by dw at 10:02 AM on May 6, 2016 [47 favorites]

"He is not a perfect man. But what I do believe is that he loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people …" Perry told Dana Bash.

Translation: "One of my senior staff has pointed out to me that while this is a historic, shameful clusterfuck, it's a historic, shameful clusterfuck that I may be able to get on the inside track of and gain power and wealth exploiting -- and that in the end we can probably somehow blame any long-term effects of our mistakes on the Democrats and a lot of the rubes will believe it."
posted by aught at 10:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

(House of Cards feels like a scarily effective primer for this year's election.)
posted by aught at 10:04 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

As for the revolution talk, I highly recommend Mike Duncan's podcast on the French Revolution.
posted by dw at 10:08 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

No one should ever wish for a revolution.

maybe you should give the Haiti season of Duncan's podcast a whirl
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

This would destroy our economy. It wouldn't even take that long. Imagine how quickly people would start trying to cash in their bonds, how much Social Security would lose.

Oh, definitely. I'm just noting that there's a reason that, despite its insane stupidity as an economic policy, it's going to get treated as a serious proposal by some on the right, including people who really should know better.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:10 AM on May 6, 2016

People aren't starving

uh

or being banished to Siberia

um

or being forced to pay cripplingly high taxes while literally the entire structure of elites pays zero

er, eh

We're just pissed off that George R. R. Martin won't goddamn finish the A Song Of Ice And Fire series fast enough.

there is an astounding level of privilege in that statement and also ignores the panem et circenses that the Republican party has been instrumental in keeping going (admittedly more circenses than panem, and the mainstream media is entirely complicit)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:10 AM on May 6, 2016 [26 favorites]

I think a lot of folks who talk about revolutions should read some case studies - not because oooohhh, revolutions are bad events made by terrible people, etc etc, but because actual revolutions are extremely varied and extremely complicated and require a lot of boring planning. It's not just that everyone wakes up one morning, goes out in the street and topples the regime and then elects the new leaders from the protesters and government is established ex nihilo. And the kinds of revolution that have a chance in hell of working, merely on the "let's get the fields planted and keep the hospitals open and continue to have an economy" level also have a lot of people with expertise and experience and long-term plans. You see this in every modern revolution, from revolutionary situations that are hotly debated (USSR, China) to revolutions that everyone forgets or ignores (Mexican revolution, Zapatistas). What is more, whether in the USSR or in Chiapas, there was always a lot of debate, boring programmatic stuff, planning, horsetrading, getting different people together to try to figure out ordinary problems, etc.

This is why there's a world of difference between random white twentysomethings talking up an abstract idea of revolution (even if those random white twentysomethings are good people who do good things for society, which many of the ones I have heard in this situation are) and, say, Comandanta Ramona. It's not so much a moral difference as a knowledge difference - someone can be a good person who does good on-the-ground work but not know what they're talking about about large-scale social change, and indeed, given how few of us deal directly with large-scale-social-changing processes, this pretty normal.

I don't like the "you're talking about revolutions, you suck" line, because that too isn't specific enough about who is talking and what they are talking about. I mean, none of us would sit down with the Zapatistas and be like "your uprising should never have happened, don't you know that people die in revolutions", right?
posted by Frowner at 10:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]

well, there's a lot of people who actually believe our country is broke right now - and when you're broke, the best thing to do is to get it over with as soon as possible - so, if one were to assume that, then it might not be stupid at all

No, it would even more stupid under that belief, as defaulting on the debt would irreparably damage US credit and make it far harder to simply finance the day-to-day operation of the country, let alone service the debt. If you believe the US is "broke" (whatever that could even mean for a sovereign which prints the world's reserve currency), defaulting on the debt would make us more broke.
posted by multics at 10:16 AM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

he claimed that Marx argued that the final act of the revolutionary leaders should be that they should all kill themselves

[citation needed]

I've read quite a bit of Marx(ism) -- though certainly not all -- and have never come across this
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm really curious if there is a history of politicians publicly declaring that they're open to a VP nod. It seems so gauche and rather I dunno, grasping, in some way-there's a whole teacher's pet suck up dynamic going on with the Republicans that I don't really remember happening before.

At least it shows the rest of the country who might not be as familiar with some of these governors/senators exactly what people have to deal with (y'all already know what we put up with in Rick Scott).
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:19 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Democracy Now today: #BernieOrBust: Sanders Fans Debate Whether to Vote for Clinton If She is Democratic Nominee (features Kshama Sawant and Michael McGinn)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:20 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

and make it far harder to simply finance the day-to-day operation of the country

you say that as though the Republicans haven't already forced the government to shut down because they refused to authorize a budget
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:22 AM on May 6, 2016

"He is not a perfect man. But what I do believe is that he loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people …" Perry told Dana Bash.

Rick Perry, proving once again that he is actually worse than his predecessor in every possible way. (And from what I hear from friends still living in Texas, the current guy is even worse than Perry.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:22 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

No love lost between Trump and Republican national security experts: GOP national security leaders alarmed by Trump’s ‘incoherent’ policies
posted by homunculus at 10:26 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Democracy Now today: #BernieOrBust: Sanders Fans Debate Whether to Vote for Clinton If She is Democratic Nominee (features Kshama Sawant and Michael McGinn)

Thank for this. Lots of arguments made there have been made in these election threads. It's good to see them laid out like this, with additional discussion.
posted by zarq at 10:31 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

you say that as though the Republicans haven't already forced the government to shut down because they refused to authorize a budget

... But even they (barely) avoided even the near occasion of default when they (far too late, and far too reluctantly) took the debt ceiling off the table. The effect of a failure to raise the debt ceiling would look like a biblical jubilee compared to the global economic apocalypse that would result from a full-scale US default of the type Trump is advocating.
posted by multics at 10:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

he will surround himself with capable, experienced people

That's what they said about George W. Bush. They just left out the "evil" between "experienced" and "people."
posted by kirkaracha at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]

Democracy Now today: #BernieOrBust: Sanders Fans Debate Whether to Vote for Clinton If She is Democratic Nominee (features Kshama Sawant and Michael McGinn)

1. Sawant really twists herself into knots.
2. I miss McGinn. I hope he decides to run again in 2017, given he was right about the tunnel boondoggle that Murray shoved through the Legislature.
posted by dw at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

actual revolutions are extremely varied and extremely complicated and require a lot of boring planning.

This is probably the thing I learned the most from the Revolutions podcast, and the French Revolution section specifically. Storming the Bastille was somewhere in the middle, following a lot of political crises and smoke filled rooms and brokered deals and setting gears in motion. And, again, way way way infinitely more worser things than what the American standard of living includes in 2016. It wasn't a few disgruntled dudes who are mad that they don't have an electric car yet.
posted by Sara C. at 10:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Since Tuesday, when Trump sealed the nomination, almost everything the Democrats have said about him has reinforced his own message. "
posted by neroli at 10:35 AM on May 6, 2016

I only know one Bernie-or-Bust person, and she's female and queer. The rest of the Bernie supporters in my circle will probably hold their noses and vote for Hillary if it comes to that. I think a lot of the anger you're hearing is from people who haven't voted yet and are being told their votes won't count and they should just get on board with Hillary. Until she absolutely clinches the nomination, without assuming any superdelegate numbers, I think Bernie people, who tend towards optimism, want to believe there is a chance.
posted by bink at 10:36 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

"he will surround himself with capable, experienced people

That's what they said about George W. Bush. They just left out the "evil" between "experienced" and "people."

I think that's the crux of it. What capable, experienced person would touch a Trump administration with a 10 foot pole? One who knew there was something in it for them, and didn't care what they were tying themselves to as long as they could get the bump, or control from within. Cheney clone inc.
posted by avalonian at 10:40 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I propose a Pascal's Wager solution for Bernie or Bust partisans:

1. If Clinton proves to be a typical establishment Democrat, then you will prevent the outside context problem that is a Trump presidency.

2. If she isn't, and she's somehow Republican-lite (not Trump-lite since what the man in power is truly like is, again, a complete howling unknown), a Nixon for the other side of the aisle, then this will mean the end of the current Democratic Party leadership as disgruntled grassroots mass movements mobilize to overthrow the centrist-technocratic elements of the party elite. You will get the revolution you so want, but within a party, instead of having to build a new one from scratch. And other people won't have to suffer through a hypothetical national revolution.

If she's nominated, vote for Hillary. Whether her presidency is good or bad, you'll be in a stronger position to make effective change. A president can be primaried. It's a win-win choice.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:40 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

I have a hard time imagining that anything cataclysmic enough to flip the Democratic race at this point would bode anything but ill for the general election, but we all have different values for "optimism"
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:41 AM on May 6, 2016

Trump's clinching the nomination may have a big impact on other California races, due to the "jungle primary."
posted by Chrysostom at 10:42 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Since Tuesday, when Trump sealed the nomination, almost everything the Democrats have said about him has reinforced his own message. "

Possibly true, as far as it goes, but it misses crucial context -- namely, that Trump's message isn't working for the overall electorate. Clinton is kicking his ass in nationwide general-election polls, and it's not because people haven't seen enough of Trump to know what his message is. If there's a four-dimensional chess move here on Clinton's part, it's to stop Trump from pivoting to whatever his version of the center is now that the GOP nomination is all but locked up. If he keeps running a Republican primary campaign into November, he'll lose.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't like the "you're talking about revolutions, you suck" line, because that too isn't specific enough about who is talking and what they are talking about. I mean, none of us would sit down with the Zapatistas and be like "your uprising should never have happened, don't you know that people die in revolutions", right?

No, but you would ask them if they're willing to accept the consequences of their revolution -- that innocent people will die at the hands of both sides (and may well have to die), that winning a revolution is by far the easiest part, and that unity only exists as long as there is a singular cause.

That's the problem I have. No one on the side of "we need a new American Revolution" really sits down and does the calculus. They rationalize the economic and human cost of violent revolution. There's a reason both Gandhi and MLK talked of self-purification -- you better damn well be ready to accept the consequences of the events to come.

We still have other routes, through protest, through reform, through reworking the system from within. We do not face the injustices of South Africa, of Burma, of the Zapatistas. We face a broken system. We should try to fix it before we set it on fire, knowing that once it starts burning, there's no going back and no way to stop the events that come after.

It's not just Bernie-ites. It's the Christian revolutionaries. It's the White Supremacists. The militias. Hell, you saw what happened in Burns earlier this year -- the "revolutionaries" took over that BLM site and proceeded to complain about not having enough smokes and jerky.

Trying to force a revolution is a dangerous thing. It must be taken with the consequences in mind, and an understanding that once you cross the threshold, you have zero control over what happens beyond what you can personally control yourself.
posted by dw at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

Ouch!
Meghan McCain: "I hope history remembers those who gave up their conservative principles for the cult of personality and celebrity. And those who didn't."

Vagina Avenger^TM: "Your dad picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..."
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:50 AM on May 6, 2016 [32 favorites]

Has there been a historical example where this has worked?

dinosaurs: wiped out by meteor, paved the way for human civilization

don't worry it'll only take a few million years for things to right themselves
posted by poffin boffin at 10:51 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

I think Bernie people, who tend towards optimism, want to believe there is a chance.

It has nothing to do with 'tending toward optimism.' There isn't a chance. The single minded ness of Bernie or Bust is breathtaking. Like we're at the point where commentators on MSNBC just reference the hate emails they know they'll receive when they talk about his not having a chance. That isn't optimism or hope and change, it's actually vile negativity to me.
posted by zutalors! at 10:51 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Regarding Bernie-Or-Busters (from the Democracy now article) I have a hunch that this demographic:

A recent McClatchy-Marist poll found one out of four Sanders supporters say they would not back Clinton in a general election

has a strong overlap with this demographic:

just under 10 percent of Sanders voters [in Wisconsin] cast a ballot for Bradley, while 11.5 percent did not vote in the judicial election at all. Among Clinton voters, just under 4 percent went for Bradley, while just over 4 percent did not vote for either judge at all.
posted by avalonian at 10:52 AM on May 6, 2016

The political scientist who saw Trump's rise coming - "Norm Ornstein on why the Republican Party was ripe for a takeover, what the media missed, and whether Trump could win the presidency."

Norm Ornstein: I think if we’re laying the odds here, I still think it is more like 80/20 that he loses. There are a lot of reasons to think that he is not gonna be able to expand this message to a much larger group of people once you move beyond trying to impress a Republican Party audience.

Andrew Prokop:The story you’ve told to explain Trump's rise is basically a Republican Party-specific story.

Norm Ornstein: It is. Having said that, I would not discount entirely the possibility that he could win, for the following set of reasons.

I'm making a Jamelle-Bouie-exception: How Trump Happened - "It’s not just anger over jobs and immigration. White voters hope Trump will restore the racial hierarchy upended by Barack Obama."

For millions of white Americans who weren’t attuned to growing diversity and cosmopolitanism, however, Obama was a shock, a figure who appeared out of nowhere to dominate the country’s political life. And with talk of an “emerging Democratic majority,” he presaged a time when their votes—which had elected George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan—would no longer matter. More than simply “change,” Obama’s election felt like an inversion. When coupled with the broad decline in incomes and living standards caused by the Great Recession, it seemed to signal the end of a hierarchy that had always placed white Americans at the top, delivering status even when it couldn’t give material benefits.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

It has nothing to do with 'tending toward optimism.' There isn't a chance. The singlemindedness of Bernie or Bust is breathtaking.

It might be very mathematically unlikely, but there is a chance. And a campaign pretty much has to turn the rhetoric of “there’s a slight chance” into “if we get everyone mobilized, we’re going to make this happen!” If you like that campaign, you’ll be happy to believe.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sara C.: "
This is probably the thing I learned the most from the Revolutions podcast, and the French Revolution section specifically. Storming the Bastille was somewhere in the middle, following a lot of political crises and smoke filled rooms and brokered deals and setting gears in motion."

Very true, there were numerous crisis points. It all could have gone down quite differently if, say, Louis had been more effective.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2016

It might be very mathematically unlikely, but there is a chance. And a campaign pretty much has to turn the rhetoric of “there’s a slight chance” into “if we get everyone mobilized, we’re going to make this happen!” If you like that campaign, you’ll be happy to believe.

They are not doing that. They are trying to influence super delegates based on some national polls against Trump.
posted by zutalors! at 11:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

You want a revolution? I want a revelation!

I had to say it.

How likely is it that the Republican party is actually going to end over this? Just wondering.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

There's a chance if you completely ignore demographic trends in remaining states with large delegate counts, sure.
posted by zutalors! at 11:03 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I’m sure people have mentioned this before, but I also imagine that the fact that in 2008 it was the “optimistic” rhetoric that beat out the “realist” rhetoric gave things a different tone (regardless of substantial policy similarities); realists are always going to be a bit bitter. This year, with “realist” rhetoric stomping on optimistic rhetoric - well, that seems kind of vicious, and can make people angry.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:04 AM on May 6, 2016

I think Hillary was more aggressively anti optimism in 2008 than she is now. i find her campaign more positive than Sanders' is, especially at this point.
posted by zutalors! at 11:07 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I don't read Reddit or Facebook, and this is the only place I consistently come across anything about Bernie Bros or Bernie Or Busters.

I think, like the PUMAs of 2008, it's a fractionally small group of people who make a lot of noise, and who it is easy to rail against.

I don't personally care who the Dem candidate ends up being, I just want them to have the most progressive platform possible, because a leftist policy is the strongest historical antidote to fascist policy. And the only way to get that for us is to have an active, contested primary process. If Clinton had gotten the coronation the party was angling for, she'd have virtually no platform at all, and be even weaker against nativist populism.

If Trump goes hard on economic populism and Clinton ends up on a stage in the Rust Belt, explaining to a bunch of laid off steelworkers how no, no, globalization actually is the best thing, and the rising tide will float all boats, and America just needs to be leaner and more competitive, I'm going to shit a brick. Because we're probably fucked.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:08 AM on May 6, 2016 [21 favorites]

We still have other routes, through protest, through reform, through reworking the system from within.

Exactly. Literally every single plank in the Bernie Sanders platform is a reform, not a call to revolution. When you throw a revolution you don't get a bunch of nice new orderly laws about what a living wage should be, and how to balance the federal budget such that a single payer healthcare system is workable, and fixing student debt, and stronger gun laws, and making things a little more equitable for the middle class vis a vis the wealthy.

The only progressive issue that I can even remotely see as structural rather than incremental is Black Lives Matter and other social justice/identity oriented problems which are rooted in long-standing social issues you can't legislate away. Except that the main thing that has worked over the last fifty years to improve this stuff actually IS legislation and other instruments of the government. The reason far-right doomsday prepper types hate The Gubmit is precisely because the government has the nerve to tell you that if you murder a black person, it's definitely a crime.
posted by Sara C. at 11:08 AM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

I think a lot of the anger you're hearing is from people who haven't voted yet and are being told their votes won't count

That's part of the process, especially if you live in California. If the voting isn't close enough in the beginning then late voting states don't have much say, if it's really close then they get to be the deciders. I don't know how you'd change this except to have everyone vote at the same time.

But really, it's like lottery tickets. You either have a winning ticket or you don't. It doesn't make any difference which part you scratch off first.

Those people are angry because they feel their votes don't count, but the reality is just not enough people agree with them. You don't get more vote power because you care more. I would have been glad to see Sanders win. But not enough people agree.
posted by bongo_x at 11:09 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

I will say again that I have no problem with Sanders fighting to the end of the primary season, with all his impassioned supporters doing all they can for him. He has touched some important nerves and will move the Democratic platform in some good directions. He's also likely to win a bunch more primaries -- W. Virginia, Oregon, the Dakotas, and Montana all have Sanders demographics. I don't expect him to win any of those (except N. Dakota caucus) by much of a margin, and Clinton will clinch with California, but it is good that Sanders people will get the chance to cast their vote as they wish.

After that, I expect people who are currently saying Bernie or bust will shrink in numbers, particularly once Sanders endorses Clinton. And he really has to -- it is political suicide to not do so, and it is far too dangerous this year with Trump as the R nominee.

I think Sander's talk of revolution is very appealing to young people and people who feel disenfranchised, because it expresses lots of anger that is genuinely felt, because it suggests that the mere act of showing up and waving signs will alone achieve the results wished for, and because it is darned exciting. But with all due respect to Senator Sanders, I don't think it is a carefully considered, thought through position, just as I don't believe he has truly thought through all his other goals, in the sense of knowing how he would get from a to b. He is no Vladimir Lenin.

I further think that there are a couple of reasons why Clinton doesn't draw liking and the level of respect she should. First, though she is clearly a compassionate person -- for example, she sent out an email to those of us on her supporter list apologizing for the pain of enduring the hateful Trump related rhetoric circulating this season -- she does not come across as warm. That's just not her nature. Biden, who has a history of really biased statements and behaviors, by contrast seems like a genuinely cuddly guy. Second, she is indeed a woman and sexism is alive and well in the U.S. I told my caucus that if she were a man, we wouldn't even be arguing whether she should be the nominee, and I do believe that is true. The Ds haven't had such a qualified candidate for a long, long time.

Lastly, I think a lot of people judge HRC on what others say about her, rather than watching her speak and reading what she has said. It doesn't help that unlike the Donald, she doesn't like talking to the press. She'd do worlds better if, like Teddy Roosevelt, she had a bevy of journalist friends, but that's not who she is.

Really, when you look at her closely, it is clear the woman is a brilliant, policy oriented, results oriented liberal Democrat. Her toughness on foreign policy is reminiscent of some beloved democrats like JFK and FDR, and also of Angela Merkel, another woman I think was gravely underestimated. I realize she is to the right on foreign affairs of lots of MeFis, but not so much of Obama and the foreign leaders who esteem her.

Lastly, Trump is an existential threat to this republic and all the revolutionary and admirable principles on which it is actually based. If you want a return to those, no matter who your are supporting this primary season, it is time to begin to figure out how in November to restore power to the Democrats, up and down the ballot, and then demand that they take action accordingly -- which includes planning to stick around for the elections in 2018.
posted by bearwife at 11:15 AM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]

Is people who haven't voted yet feeling like their votes don't count really a thing among likely primary voters? The nominee has been decided on or around Super Tuesday for almost every presidential campaign in my lifetime. 2008 was an oddity, but (most) people were relieved when someone emerged as a frontrunner well before the convention.

People who have participated in elections in California in the past have always known that their late primary makes them not a very decisive state for presidential primaries. It's not really a surprise to people who actually vote.

For what it's worth, I've never lived in a state that had much impact in deciding the Democratic candidate, and it has never bothered me in the least. I'd love a national primary election day, but that's not the system, which means somebody has to go first, somebody has to go last, and it's the states somewhere in the middle which are the real deciders.
posted by Sara C. at 11:18 AM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

> The Magic of Donald Trump: Mark Danner cites a prescient remark by the philosopher Richard Rorty in 1997.

Chris Hedges also wrote about Rorty's prediction: The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism
posted by homunculus at 11:19 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ryan will meet with Trump next week
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:24 AM on May 6, 2016

Is people who haven't voted yet feeling like their votes don't count really a thing among likely primary voters?

I'm wondering how many voters feeling this way haven't really voted or paid attention to primaries before. You can find a lot of articles with human interest blurbs about people who are voting in the primaries (or voting, period) for the first time ever to cast one for Trump or Sanders, but I don't know what the actual percentage is.
posted by Anonymous at 11:26 AM on May 6, 2016

I'd be worried about Ryan persuading Trump to moderate his rhetoric, or teaching him ways to look less like a moron, but Trump has to be one of the most resistant-to-advice-or-criticism people to ever walk the earth.
posted by sallybrown at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Yea the media gave him all that praise for acting vaguely non shitty (ie "Presidential") in his speech after Indiana, and then two days later we got the taco bowl and "I love Hispanics!"

This man makes Ryan look like one of the good guys. Crazy.
posted by zutalors! at 11:30 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

If Trump goes hard on economic populism and Clinton ends up on a stage in the Rust Belt, explaining to a bunch of laid off steelworkers how no, no, globalization actually is the best thing, and the rising tide will float all boats, and America just needs to be leaner and more competitive, I'm going to shit a brick. Because we're probably fucked.

What do you mean, "if"? What alternative is possible?
posted by Perplexity at 11:32 AM on May 6, 2016

Ryan will meet with Trump next week

Prediction: "Donald and I had a great discussion about American values, conservative principles, and the future of the Republican Party. I asked some very tough questions and I was surprised by the thoughtful answers he gave. I am now satisfied that Mr. Trump is the strong leader our party and, more importantly, our country needs right now. It is with no reservations that I offer my full endorsement to Donald Trump as the GOP nominee and next president of the United States of America."
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:32 AM on May 6, 2016 [29 favorites]

The taco bowl and "I love Hispanics" are garden variety offensive nonsense. Serious talk about defaulting on the national debt is terrifying.
posted by zachlipton at 11:34 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I don't have strenuous enough words to describe how dangerous and stupid his economic policy proposal about negotiating US debt is. I...I can't even...what the fuck. The businessmen and women who are willing to overlook his racism and misogyny and xenophobia cannot possibly overlook the deep stupidity of a proposal like that.

Yes. The thing about renegotiating debt may be the most important thing he's said so far. Not from a moral perspective of course, but as a matter of strategy / tactics. Whether he knows it or not, that was essentially a threat to discard the entire world economic order, which has since WWII essentially been based on the absolute rock-solid safety of US debt. Unless he walks that back in like 2 hours, even the suggestion of it might be enough to get OPEC or some Russia-China coalition to get working on an alternative reserve currency.

Likewise it could well whip the bankers and CEOs to fall in line behind Hillary. To be clear there is no amount of tax cut he could offer that would make up for the economic damage he would cause to them by defaulting on US debt.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

The taco bowl and "I love Hispanics" are garden variety offensive nonsense. Serious talk about defaulting on the national debt is terrifying.

Is this where we are supposed to ignore identity politics because More Serious Things are Happening? Let me know when we're allowed to talk about identity politics in regard to this election.
posted by zutalors! at 11:37 AM on May 6, 2016 [16 favorites]

What do you mean, "if"? What alternative is possible?

Trump probably will use economic populism to appeal to the disaffected white working class, yes. Clinton will likely pivot leftwards, similar as she have when facing off against Sanders, but given how prone her campaign has been to missteps, she could potentially do such a tone-deaf thing as patronize those same workers by assuring them that "multinationals will help you out, friend!"
posted by Apocryphon at 11:37 AM on May 6, 2016

Thanks for those upthread links to the Rorty and Hedges pieces.

"I like when Hedges tells it like it is," as someone once said.
posted by eyesontheroad at 11:38 AM on May 6, 2016

In 2008, California's primary was moved up to Super Tuesday. (I looked this up because I remembered really thinking hard about who to vote for that year and feeling that my vote mattered, and I wondered if my memory was playing tricks on me.) That was the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in (I'm 29), so for people my age or younger, the sting of our votes not really counting in the primary is a new feeling this time around, even for those who knew the facts about our generally late primary (and I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't).
posted by sunset in snow country at 11:38 AM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'd forgotten about that! Do you know why CA didn't stick with Super Tuesday for subsequent primaries?
posted by saturday_morning at 11:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

The taco bowl and this default threat are of a piece -- to somebody who's not in the target audience, they're offensively stupid, but there are quite a lot of people who actually buy into their respective premises. I read somewhere yesterday that the Cinco de Mayo tweet was (of course) never going to appeal to actual Hispanics -- it's for white people who really think "I'm not racist, I like Tex-Mex" is a coherent thought, to shore Trump up against accusations that his immigration plans are racist. Likewise, there's a pretty big audience who think it's not complete gibberish for the United States of America to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy (even if they wouldn't think of it in those terms), and this idea shows them that Trump really is putting forth no-nonsense, Experienced Businessman plans for the economy, despite what those bought-and-paid-for politicians have been saying.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:44 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

I think he was just being tongue-in-cheek and shitty. "I'm racist! Fuck you!"
posted by eyesontheroad at 11:46 AM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

Cinco de Mayo tweet was (of course) never going to appeal to actual Hispanics

I mean, clearly. All Hispanics are not Mexicans, for one thing, and some people take offense to that conflation. The whole thing was a huge troll. It wasn't even meant for white people to see as a peace offering for Mexicans. It was troll all the way down.
posted by zutalors! at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

I think he was just being tongue-in-cheek and shitty. "I'm racist! Fuck you!"

Yea this exactly.
posted by zutalors! at 11:48 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's the Chewbacca defense applied to politics.
posted by Etrigan at 11:49 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Went to a Donald Trump speech on acid SUPER BAD VIBES has appeared on the r/Psychonaut section on Reddit. No word on how r/TheDonald's members have reacted to this account: "You know how sometimes YOU have 'moments of eternity' on LSD. Yeah well that was happening all night, the speech felt like it kept looping over and over and over and over and over. Muslims this, guns this, illegals that, something about Hilary Clinton being disgusting by using the restroom. Then every 5 minutes after a bold statement, the crowd erupts into mindless cheers and applause. Endless time loop."

If you want a picture of the Trump campaign's future, imagine a him shouting in your face — forever.
posted by Doktor Zed at 11:51 AM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

a state does get more delegates if it waits. though i don't know if that's specifically what drove the decision for California this year
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:52 AM on May 6, 2016

I'd forgotten about that! Do you know why CA didn't stick with Super Tuesday for subsequent primaries?

According to this, the presidential primary was in Feb while the state primary was in June, and it cost so much to do two (and the length between the early primary and the Nov election would have cost state campaigns so much more) that they did away with the idea.

Didn't know about the extra delegates.
posted by sunset in snow country at 11:55 AM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump wants to default on the national debt. He wants to run the government literally like he ran his shitty businesses except, the government is not a 3rd rate golf course that's had the lobby splashed with gold paint.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:57 AM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Let's all just take a deep breath and remember that women are the majority of the electorate.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:58 AM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Is this where we are supposed to ignore identity politics because More Serious Things are Happening? Let me know when we're allowed to talk about identity politics in regard to this election.

I didn't mean it in that sense. Identity politics are important and the fact that the nominee equates crappy taco bowls from one of his misidentified restaurants with respect for a group of Americans he has done nothing but slander matters (not to mention conflating "Hispanics" with Mexicans). That tweet also pretty much just confirmed what we already knew about the guy rather than telling us anything particularly new about Trump.

But threatening to default on the national debt is literally terrifying and ranks up there with "ban all Muslims and put the ones who are here on a list" on the "that's so far beyond how anything is supposed to work" scale. Just the slightest prospect of it costs all of us billions in increased borrowing costs. It's unconstitutional. The ridiculousness of what he said should have been obvious to anyone with the most rudimentary notion of world economics. The United States is not a failing casino trying to work out a deal with their liquor wholesaler to keep the deliveries coming. Literally printing more money to pay off more debt, while inflationary, would do far less harm than what he's talking about.
posted by zachlipton at 11:59 AM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

shit, going to a Trump rally tripping? That is some next level drug use.
posted by angrycat at 12:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Let's be calm, yes, but let's not be complacent either. I wish this wasn't on Gawker or by its editor-in-chief, but this is good: Don't Blow This

And it is apparently the line the Democrats have decided to take. They’re going to build Trump up as a reckless and virile force of nature—and a true outsider—rather than expose him as a pitiful clown and an obvious fraud. This is completely backwards. As any writer who’s ever received an angry personal response from Trump can tell you, you get under his skin by mocking and emasculating him, not by feeding the myth of his power and strength, the precise qualities his authoritarian followers adore.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

I'd be worried about Ryan persuading Trump to moderate his rhetoric, or teaching him ways to look less like a moron

Given Ryan's debate performance against Biden in 2012, I wouldn't worry.
posted by Gelatin at 12:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let's all just take a deep breath and remember that women are the majority of the electorate.

Let's not assume that all those women will be voting as a monolithic entity.

Unfortunately.

(My aunt has said that she doesn't like Trump, but she'll be DAMNED if she's voting for Hilary, so...)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

I don't think women will allow a President Trump. For a variety of reasons. His only understanding of women are as hot pieces he'd like to bang, or paranoid suburban moms who want Daddy to keep them safe.

Most women fall outside those parameters.
posted by zutalors! at 12:09 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I want one journalist per day to randomly ask Trump a question from the US naturalization test
posted by theodolite at 12:10 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

Let's be calm, yes, but let's not be complacent either. I wish this wasn't on Gawker or by its editor-in-chief, but this is good: Don't Blow This

Eh. There are going to be a million hot takes about how to campaign against Trump, and how the Clinton campaign will have been doing it wrong. Let’s give it a bit of time.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:11 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

A FEW DAYS BEFORE the Georgia primary, influential Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed published a column on CNN.com praising Hillary Clinton and ripping her opponent, Bernie Sanders. Reed attacked Sanders as being out of step with Democrats on gun policy, and accused him of elevating a “one-issue platform” that ignores the plight of the “single mother riding two buses to her second job.”

But emails released from Reed’s office indicate that the column, which pilloried Sanders as out of touch with the poor, was primarily written by a corporate lobbyist, and was edited by Correct the Record, one of several pro-Clinton Super PACs.

(CNN even helped fact check the column before it was posted)

“Attached is a slightly modified version after CNN ran a fact check,” Wessel wrote back. The attached Word document shows a number of revisions through track changes, with multiple Correct the Record staffers providing edits. (The metadata of the document shows that Wessel created the document.)

Wessel emailed Torres and Johnson again later that day, after the piece was posted, to indicate that he was in touch with CNN to make a post-publication “fix” to an error in the piece. “Thank you for all your help, turned out great,” Wessel wrote. “We’ll promote throughout the day.”
posted by futz at 12:17 PM on May 6, 2016 [14 favorites]

Chris Hedges also wrote about Rorty's prediction: The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism

The solution presented of fighting corporate power and trying to integrate the "losers" back into the economic and political life of the country should be done, but it feels like again class solutions to a problem that also involves culture and race. The beginning of the article does a good job of pointing out what "The Establishment" is to Trump supporters, and this includes not only political and economic elites, but also people advocating social justice and inclusivity, the "PC police" to put it in their words.

For me, it just feels like that Trump voters would only want to be helped if they knew they were the first ones being helped (cause in their view they deserve it) and y'know, those other people can wait in line behind them.
posted by FJT at 12:23 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

White voters have shown time and time again they will accept worse outcomes if it means whiteness remains a protected class.
posted by The Whelk at 12:27 PM on May 6, 2016 [29 favorites]

Apparently ideological conservatives in the GOP are calling their Trump-supporting cohorts "Vichy Republicans" (as in, they're collaborating with the fascists). I ... kind of love that phrase.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [34 favorites]

Is this where we are supposed to ignore identity politics because More Serious Things are Happening?

I think "garden variety" makes it sound like it's not wrapped up with awfulness that creates an immediate and real physical threat to PoC and that's not cool. And I think it's fair to say we're going to have a hard time focusing on that scale of danger if a destabilized world economy turns sections of entire countries into radioactive dust.
posted by phearlez at 12:32 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

White voters have shown time and time again they will accept worse outcomes if it means whiteness remains a protected class.

Or as a commenter on Balloon Juice once wrote,

The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.

posted by Gelatin at 12:33 PM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]

Apparently ideological conservatives in the GOP are calling their Trump-supporting cohorts "Vichy Republicans" (as in, they're collaborating with the fascists). I ... kind of love that phrase.

That sounds great until you realize that it makes the Democrats the Americans in this equation.
posted by dw at 12:33 PM on May 6, 2016

I think "garden variety" makes it sound like it's not wrapped up with awfulness that creates an immediate and real physical threat to PoC and that's not cool. And I think it's fair to say we're going to have a hard time focusing on that scale of danger if a destabilized world economy turns sections of entire countries into radioactive dust.

Maybe we can care about several things at once.
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

(CNN even helped fact check the column before it was posted)

Is this a terrible thing? Surely it’s good if news sites fact-check the op-eds they publish.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:40 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

If there was anything I would not have predicted about this election, it would have been that there'd be a Republican nominee in early May and a floor fight for the DNC.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:41 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Charles Pierce: How Paul Ryan Is Really Going to Let This Trump Thing Play Out. Let me translate his CNN interview for you.
posted by homunculus at 12:43 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders: DNC Stacked Convention Committees With Clinton Supporters

Or, framed more realistically, the Democratic Party appointed loyal, longtime members of the party to convention committees--as one does--and loyal, longtime members of the party are substantially more likely to be supportive of a loyal, longtime member of the party than of someone who joined the party, like, eight minutes ago, and who keeps hammering them with accusations of being "corrupt."

This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
posted by dersins at 12:45 PM on May 6, 2016 [28 favorites]

CNN published an opinion piece in the name of someone who they knew didn't write it? They actually fact checked for a Hillary PAC and that is ok? ok.
posted by futz at 12:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

A White Church No More by Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention:

When many secular Americans think of evangelicals, they think of old, white precinct captains in Iowa or old, white television evangelists and their media empires. But that’s not what evangelical Christianity is [...] The vital core of American evangelicalism today can be found in churches that are multiethnic and increasingly dominated by immigrant communities [...]

The Bible calls on Christians to bear one another’s burdens. White American Christians who respond to cultural tumult with nostalgia fail to do this. They are blinding themselves to the injustices faced by their black and brown brothers and sisters in the supposedly idyllic Mayberry of white Christian America. That world was murder, sometimes literally, for minority evangelicals.

This has gospel implications not only for minorities and immigrants but for the so-called silent majority. A vast majority of Christians, on earth and in heaven, are not white and have never spoken English. A white American Christian who disregards nativist language is in for a shock. The man on the throne in heaven is a dark-skinned, Aramaic-speaking “foreigner” who is probably not all that impressed by chants of “Make America great again.”
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

I'm not sure how ghostwriters or publications doing their own fact-checking of op-ed pieces is a new or troubling thing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:48 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Apparently ideological conservatives in the GOP are calling their Trump-supporting cohorts "Vichy Republicans"

And by ideological conservatives who know enough history to reference Vichy France, and haven't been driven out of the party for being too intellectual, I'm not sure you need to use the plural. I swear there's probably only 1 or 2 left.
posted by chimaera at 12:50 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Apparently ideological conservatives in the GOP are calling their Trump-supporting cohorts "Vichy Republicans" (as in, they're collaborating with the fascists). I ... kind of love that phrase.

These people didn't just show up - they were in the Republican party the entire time. The inability of the party elites to realize this - or, having realized it, using ressentiment* to stoke hostilities and gain votes and win elections, not understanding as Ornstein outlines here, that delegitimizing governance and normalizing various stupid ideas would lead to their expulsion . But if they admit these were our voters all along, and Republicans deliberately created policies and structures based on white supremacy, cloaking them in the language of "liberty" and "private property," they will have validated the longest-running critique of their political opponents.
That can't happen.
Anyway, Trump isn't new. The vigor, the volume, is new.
Death of the Republican Brand
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:51 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Maybe we can care about several things at once.

Or maybe you could have just initially interpreted the original statement that way, which called it garden variety offensive, and not okay, rather than you yourself implying it was a call to not care about two things at once? You don't have to, obvs, but it's disingenuous to reject that approach initially then lobby in favor of it just so you can keep getting your fighty on.
posted by phearlez at 12:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Former editor-in-chief of RedState Erick Erickson: Republicans, Apologize to Bill Clinton

Republicans owe Bill Clinton an apology for impeaching him over lies and affairs while now embracing a pathological liar and womanizer. That apology will not be forthcoming. In fact, for years Republicans have accused the Democrats of gutter politics and shamelessness. Now the Republicans themselves have lost their sense of shame.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:55 PM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]

I'm not sure what you're talking about but I'm not getting any fighty on. It's literally possible to be concerned about two things at once. I'm really tired of the idea that we need to shelve identity politics because it's an election cycle that people think is more about class or banks or something.
posted by zutalors! at 12:55 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

This is the part that bothers me. It was done in coordination with Hillary's super PAC:

was primarily written by a corporate lobbyist, and was edited by Correct the Record, one of several pro-Clinton Super PACs.
posted by futz at 12:55 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

If there was anything I would not have predicted about this election, it would have been that there'd be a Republican nominee in early May and a floor fight for the DNC.

Sanders needs a miracle for there to be a floor fight at the DNC. I don't know why Sanders is making such a big deal about the Rules Committee and all that--he can't possibly believe any vote would move past the first ballot. That sort of thing is very important if the convention is contested, but this is not going to be a contested convention.
posted by Anonymous at 12:56 PM on May 6, 2016

And by ideological conservatives who know enough history to reference Vichy France, and haven't been driven out of the party for being too intellectual, I'm not sure you need to use the plural. I swear there's probably only 1 or 2 left.

This made me wonder what Victor Davis Hanson thinks about Trump, so I looked up his latest column. tl;dr hit in after about a paragraph, so it'll have to remain a mystery.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:57 PM on May 6, 2016

RedState Erick Erickson: Republicans, Apologize to Bill Clinton

wow I did never *ever* expect to read that sentence
posted by sallybrown at 12:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [22 favorites]

There really needs to be a PIN reset type of mechanism on these threads where you only get to try to make your point three times and after that you're done.
posted by yhbc at 12:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [22 favorites]

You don't have to, obvs, but it's disingenuous to reject that approach initially then lobby in favor of it just so you can keep getting your fighty on.

Um perhaps telling a person of colour to be less fighty when they are pointing out some racist shit is not okay?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:00 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Former editor-in-chief of RedState Erick Erickson: Republicans, Apologize to Bill Clinton

Did Erickson suddenly discover LSD?
posted by zarq at 1:00 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I would respect Sanders a hell of a lot right now if he told the Bern it Down people to knock off that vein of garbage. Even if it's only like two dudes, the idea is out there and he should say fuck that noise.

Not calling all supporters BernieBros or nothing
posted by angrycat at 1:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

futz, you realize that major campaigns like Clinton's know when endorsements are coming in and work with the endorser to get it on the record, as necessary? Right?

This is not a new thing, and to the extent that important political types are endorsing Sanders, his campaign is working with them to get those endorsements into the press as well.

If every mayor who wanted to endorse your campaign had to hire their own publicist to do it, nobody would ever endorse anybody because they simply couldn't afford to.
posted by Sara C. at 1:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

The dark lord himself says he'll support Trump (Dick Cheney)
posted by zachlipton at 1:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Don't kid yourself. Properly translated that headline is

Former editor-in-chief of RedState Erick Erickson: I don't like this monkey's paw, can I have my money back?

of

Former editor-in-chief of RedState Erick Erickson: I need to keep collecting my wingnut welfare so here's my first repositioning
posted by phearlez at 1:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is the part that bothers me. It was done in coordination with Hillary's super PAC:

I presume that's how most editorials and endorsements from high-level figures for any candidate are written. It's like speechwriting, you know?

Clinton has Correct The Record. Sanders has Revolution Messaging. Focus-group messaging, manufactured social media campaigns, that's how it's done these days.
posted by Anonymous at 1:02 PM on May 6, 2016

they do have to hang out in hell for eternity so it makes sense Dick would be friendly
posted by angrycat at 1:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

wow I did never *ever* expect to read that sentence

I know right?

Here's another interesting article (note that I am mostly just snagging these off the SA forums' political threads): I lied to myself for years about who my allies were. No more by Ben Howe, also of RedState. I've been asking myself for years where all the (relative) non-nutjobs in the GOP were; turns out the answer was 'hiding their heads in the sand'.

People would say outlandish things and I would find myself nodding my head and awkwardly walking away, not calling them out for their silliness.

After all, there were more pressing matters.

And so, as I said, I kept quiet about these allies in new media and in Washington. People who I thought I agreed with only 70% of the time. Which normally is a great reason to consider someone an ally, but not when the other 30% is cringe-inducing paranoia and vapid stupidity.

I chose peace over principle. I chose to go along with those I disagreed with on core matters because I believed we were jointly fighting for other things that were more important. I ignored my gut and my moral compass [...]

I’m done with it and I’m done with all of them. They are in this for money and power and influence and they think Donald Trump is their ticket. Hell, they may be right. And I’ll go down in flames with my principles before I join them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

OK, I have not been shy that I don't like Clinton, but damn, this is awesome. Great job from her people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [26 favorites]

Don't kid yourself.

The fact that shamelessly tacking into the political winds involves publicly decrying Trump is fucking awesome. Sincere or not, who cares?
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:05 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Former editor-in-chief of RedState Erick Erickson: Republicans, Apologize to Bill Clinton

Homer: At least we know there'll never be a president worse than Bill Clinton. Imagine, lying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit. That's the worst sin a president could commit.
Marge: There'll never be a worse president. Never.
Homer: Never.

Right?
posted by Talez at 1:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

I mean, I do not understand how you can go from 'reflect the relative support' to 'exactly equal representation,' given that Clinton has had more support, currently has more support, and will have more support (barring something incredibly improbable happening), but that would appear to be his push -- try to get the DNC to give him enough representation on committees that he can push through a change for the rules on the floor.

Wow. WOW. That letter. Takes some real balls for a candidate to say "superdelegates are overriding the will of the people" out of one side of his mouth while saying "can I shove in some rules-lawyering in order to wrangle the nomination away from the person who got the most pledged delegates" out of the other.

Respect for Sanders. I would not have though he'd go that far. A politician's politician.
posted by Anonymous at 1:07 PM on May 6, 2016

prize bull octorok: "This made me wonder what Victor Davis Hanson thinks about Trump, so I looked up his latest column. tl;dr hit in after about a paragraph, so it'll have to remain a mystery."

Ah, now THERE'S a name from past. Next tell me what Glenn Reynolds thinks!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:07 PM on May 6, 2016

Sincere or not, who cares?

Because both Ericsson and Howe have found framings for their epiphany-lites that absolve them of their own ideologies and the role it played into the rise of Trump. Oh, those are the not-true-conservatives - you know, like Trump - who said those outlandish things and I just silly-billy didn't say anything. Tee hee! Oh well!

The reality is more like shit he's running our plays better than we did.
posted by phearlez at 1:07 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am having a really hard time getting past this idea of Trump's to negotiate the debt. Pretty much everything we have created as a society over a period of generations spanning living memory and beyond is at stake if "the full faith and credit of the United States" is no longer a bankable concept. I can't even believe it. It beggars belief so completely that if it weren't in the NYT and right there for the world to see in a live quote, I wouldn't believe it. Every time someone asks what I mean when I say that the government shouldn't be run like a business because it's not a business, this is the example I'll use to make the point. I am genuinely afraid of Trump's election now even though I believe this election will turn out like the last one, with a manufactured horse race and huge margins of victory for Clinton. But damn, really? The old school republicans must be having total meltdowns.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:09 PM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]

Newt Gingrich has begun openly speculating that he would consider a vice presidential offer from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

TRUMP'RICH2016
posted by zarq at 1:10 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Because both Ericsson and Howe have found framings for their epiphany-lites that absolve them of their own ideologies and the role it played into the rise of Trump. Oh, those are the not-true-conservatives - you know, like Trump - who said those outlandish things and I just silly-billy didn't say anything. Tee hee! Oh well!

Makes since - and I'm not like "oh joy, finally some Republicans I can really get behind!" or anything, but this does represent massive fractures in the fragile GOP coalition that we've been waiting for for years. Which is rad.

Yes, rats, flee the sinking ship. FLEE.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:10 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

TRUMP'RICH2016

What's better than one dumpster fire? Two dumpster fires!
posted by Anonymous at 1:11 PM on May 6, 2016

TRUMP'RICH2016

Tringrich or Gingrump?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:11 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

I forgot about how much Gingrich loves the moon, that was one of the more surreal aspects of the 2012 primary
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:12 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

Trump would be too afraid Gingrich would steal attention away from him and would appear too attractive as a replacement, I think.

I did read the other day that Chris Christie was the US Attorney who put Jared Kushner's father in jail for white collar crimes, so that further explains Trump's efforts to completely humiliate Christie.
posted by sallybrown at 1:13 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Jeb Bush: In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life. For Republicans, there is no greater priority than ensuring we keep control of both chambers of Congress. I look forward to working hard for great conservatives in the Senate and House in the coming months.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Newt Gingrich has begun openly speculating that he would consider a vice presidential offer from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

This is so fucking weird. In the Bush the Lesser administration, all these hacks and flacks who'd been around for Nixon/Watergate/Iran-Contra suddenly showed up again in positions of actual power. And now it's starting to happen again, the old assholes jockeying for position in case of a Trump White House, only it's the next generation of the assholes.

And yeah, this "oh sure I'd be VP if he asked" thing is downright weird. I don't recall it happening before.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:19 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

The weirdest thing about all this is that if Trump loses, I am going to have to respect and admire, on some level, the massive damage he did to the Republican Party. Like, if this really was just his Ultimate Grudge-Settling Vengeance Tour, boo to the racism and everything, but damn. Nobody on my side of the aisle could have wrecked shop as thoroughly as he did. Well done.

But only if he loses.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

And yeah, this "oh sure I'd be VP if he asked" thing is downright weird. I don't recall it happening before.

It happens every cycle, after someone becomes the presumptive nominee. There's all these political reporters who lost the "Are you supporting Candidate X or Candidate Y?" sound bite, so they pivot to "Would you like to be Candidate X's vice president?"

And there's always yobs who just can't stand not being on the news and make sure to drop it into conversation even if no one asked.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump eating his own taco
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:24 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

But only if he loses.

Yeah, let's wait for the terror to pass on that one.
posted by Artw at 1:26 PM on May 6, 2016

Now the Republicans themselves have lost their sense of shame.

More than a decade ago, and since, in order to deflect criticism of their team and the glory boy who led them, the Republican Party proudly embraced torture for which Americans had previously condemened others as war criminals. Ericson's a bit late in his realization.
posted by Gelatin at 1:26 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

“Trump eating his own taco”

It’s like you have a taco, and I have a loooong tortilla and I reach across and I scoop out all of your taco meat and I EAT IT UP. I EAT YOUR TACO.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

From good ol' Jeb: "Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama."

Hillary couldn't have asked for a better needle-threading than that, right there.
posted by sallybrown at 1:29 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

I'm really curious if there is a history of politicians publicly declaring that they're open to a VP nod.

And yeah, this "oh sure I'd be VP if he asked" thing is downright weird. I don't recall it happening before.

Hillary Clinton 2008, to the point that there was speculation that it was part of the reason she delayed her concession even after it was mathematically impossible for her to unseat Obama.

On the other hand, though, this was during a period where there was heavy speculation about whether she'd be offered the job, and so her opinion on it was about a thousand times more relevant than Gingrich's is now.
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:29 PM on May 6, 2016

Trump eating his own taco

flagged as "going to haunt my nightmares for years to come"
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:30 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

“Trump eating his own taco”

Sounds like an old underground VHS that you wish you'd never watched.
posted by bongo_x at 1:31 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

*bows*

(stolen from FB, I have no photoshop or gifmaking skills)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:35 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Erickson only gives a shit about one thing: keeping his own welfare coming after Trump goes down in flames. He's been a kept man for so long he knows he could never compete in any other context other than the subsidized house of mirrors of the rightwing media, and he can apparently read poll numbers better now than he could in 2012. When (knock on wood) Trump loses, he's going to split the wingnut-welfare world into the supporters and detractors, and Erickson wants to make sure he's one of the rats who made it to shore instead of staying behind on the burning garbage barge.

Don't give him the smallest amount of credit for anything approaching decency, all he cares about is maintaining his platform for ratfucking yet to come.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:38 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Jeb: "Hillary Clinton has proven to be an untrustworthy liberal politician who, if elected, would present a third term of the disastrous foreign and economic policy agenda of Barack Obama."

Can I just say, a thing that really drives me up the wall is the conservatives reinforce via echo-chamber this entirely hysterical (and dishonest) view of whatever just happened? Like, Trump is in the news threatening to reneg on paying off US bonds, but somehow Obama's economic policy agenda was "disastrous"? At some point don't you have to look yourself in the mirror and say "I'm lying"?
posted by newdaddy at 1:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [16 favorites]

Y'all. C'mon.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:48 PM on May 6, 2016 [20 favorites]

So this is fun:

Since 2008, the Texas Politics Project has also engaged in three to four statewide public opinion polls each year to assess the opinions of registered voters on upcoming elections, public policy, and attitudes towards politics, politicians, and government. Beginning in 2009, we partnered with the Texas Tribune, and continue to regularly measure public opinion in Texas, making the data freely available to students, researchers, and the general public in our data archive.

DONALD TRUMP FAVORABILITY (FEBRUARY 2016) - 44% 'very unfavorable', 15% 'somewhat unfavorable'
FUTURE PERFORMANCE AS PRESIDENT - DONALD TRUMP (FEBRUARY 2016) - 11% 'great president, 45% 'terrible president'

HILLARY CLINTON FAVORABILITY (FEBRUARY 2016) - 46% 'very unfavorable', 7% 'somewhat unfavorable'
FUTURE PERFORMANCE AS PRESIDENT - HILLARY CLINTON (FEBRUARY 2016) - 13% 'great president, 42% 'terrible president'

Compare this to the February 2012 data (before they asked the 'future performance' question):

Mitt Romney was only at 25% 'very unfavorable', 23% 'somewhat unfavorable' to Obama's 49% 'very unfavorable', 6% 'somewhat unfavorable'.

Then, back in July 2008 (when they only asked 'positive/negative/neutral'):

McCain was 37.1% 'negative' to Obama's 45.6% 'negative'.

Obviously none of this means "omg Texas is purple now" but still, christ almighty.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:49 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Obviously none of this means "omg Texas is purple now" but still, christ almighty.

If Latinos show up in greater numbers, vote for Clinton in greater numbers and white people stay home Texas is purple.
posted by Talez at 1:53 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I read somewhere that Clinton would have the highest nationwide unfavorability rating of any presidential candidate in history, except for the fact that Trump knocks her to second place.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:54 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Is there anything I, as a known Democrat, can say to my True Conservative friends to make them feel a little better about Clinton..?

Yes, but you're not going to like it.

Talk about the things and ideas Clinton shares in common with historical Republicans. Talk about how she's not actually going to bring about a revolution, how it will just be business as usual in many respects.

Stop pivoting for Sanderistas, and capture a big part of the Republican Party who just want to know the world won't burn.
posted by corb at 1:55 PM on May 6, 2016 [16 favorites]

Can we please stop with the Sanders' supporters name calling, okay. Thanks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [22 favorites]

I'm sort of amused at watching the GOP flailing. Though I'd be more amused if I didn't know that 90 percent of the Republicans dragging their feet or doing Never Trump will have pivoted to "Trump is the authentic voice of the American people and we all have to get behind him" by summer.
posted by tavella at 1:58 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

he clearly knows he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in

Forgive me if this has been heavily discussed before, but I've seen it said a few times and I have to say -- I do not understand how people are taking away "smart" from him at all.

I was the one who wrote the line you quoted. I was being heavily ironic. It was bits like this in the interview:

How large a role does pure ego play in your deal making and enjoyment of publicity?

Every successful person has a very large ego.

Every successful person? Mother Teresa? Jesus Christ?

Far greater egos than you will ever understand.

Clearly The Donald is here to set all us losers straight in whatever we have falsely believed for however long, because, as we have learned, he has the best words.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I like the #DFRAT strategy of assuming good faith on the part of Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:00 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Mother Teresa should come down and bitchslap him for that
posted by angrycat at 2:01 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's response to Lindsey Graham. And no, dear reader, "single handily" is not an accepted phrase in the English language.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Another strong vote here for no-more-cute-sobriquets for the Sanders supporters (or any supporters, really). Unless you're talking only about a group of self-described Bernie Bros/Sanderistas/Berners/whatever, it's just obnoxious and adds nothing to the conversation. Please stop.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

Jesus Christ was definitely like the most thirsty, egotistical guy ever.
posted by sallybrown at 2:02 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

How Republican mandarins will try to civilize Trump the barbarian
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:14 PM on May 6, 2016

I don't care about the platform committee. I care about the Rules Committee. If you want further explanation you'll have to MeMail me, because my explanations of the part the Rules Committee plays in convention proceedings keeps getting deleted.
posted by Anonymous at 2:16 PM on May 6, 2016

2008: At DNC Meeting, Obama Rules

The rule-breaking Florida and Michigan primaries will count, but not as much, and not how Hillary Clinton wanted them to, the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee decided Saturday in D.C. The Clinton campaign had asked that both states' delegations be seated in full, with full votes, according to the results of the states' January primaries. Instead, the 30-member RBC, citing party rules and the possibility of setting bad precedent for next primary season, voted to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates with a half-vote each. [...]

Not even the Clinton campaign's best-case scenario would have netted her enough delegates to catch Barack Obama in the delegate race. Still, today's decision, which netted Clinton just 24 delegates, was clearly a disappointment to the New York Senator's camp. But the Clinton campaign still had a choice. They could calmly but strongly express their disagreement with the decision, as Clinton adviser and rules committee member Harold Ickes did after the vote on the Florida delegation didn't go his way. Or they could cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the decision and accuse the rules committee of "hijacking" the will of the voters. That's what Harold Ickes did after his side lost the vote on the allocation of the Michigan delegates:

"I am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters," Ickes said. "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path to party unity," he added. Then came the kicker: "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee."

posted by melissasaurus at 2:17 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

How Republican mandarins will try to civilize Trump the barbarian

Doomed to fail without Teen Angels
posted by zarq at 2:19 PM on May 6, 2016

Seriously, the Rules Committee-as-basis-for-intercandidate-sniping thing needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Discussion of the Rules Committee stuff is in theory an okay and even interesting thing; the endless fucking back-and-forth griping and candidate jockeying that comes with it is not and is of a piece with months of this kind of thing on the site, and it needs to stop. Not stop for five minutes, not stop after you toss out three more comments about how yeah but. Just stop. Act like you like it here and like sharing conversation with your fellow mefites, or find somewhere else to do your politics venting.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [44 favorites]

What is the point of Donald telling West Virginians not to turn out and vote, now that everyone else has dropped out? The only reason I can think of he's trying to harm turnout for the downballot races. But why?
posted by sallybrown at 2:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump's response to Lindsey Graham. And no, dear reader, "single handily" is not an accepted phrase in the English language.

“We can’t even beat ISIS!” feels like a very funky note somehow. It won’t matter to anyone voting for him, but it just vexes me that ISIS is allowed to be treated as both a terrifying threat and pathetic at the same time.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:37 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

But why?

Maybe he just doesn't understand how primaries work because he doesn't pay much attention to that stuff?
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:38 PM on May 6, 2016

What is the point of Donald telling West Virginians not to turn out and vote, now that everyone else has dropped out?

Dominance politics again? "Look how mighty I am -- I don't even need to go through the motions at this point, you losers are going to nominate me anyway."
posted by saturday_morning at 2:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Trump’s Long Game - "Consideration of the long arc of Trump’s thinking makes it less surprising that the reality television star and wealthy businessman is a nominee for the presidency. The same characteristics that have made Trump a celebrity—the outsized personality, the ability to read and play to the public’s mood—made him a successful candidate for the nomination. On his long-running television show, The Apprentice, the hero was a decisive man (“You’re fired!”) who brooked no nonsense. Millions of people believe those traits could produce an effective president. "
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:41 PM on May 6, 2016

what you do is you take your primary vote home, put it in a little terrarium with some leaves, maybe a little dish of water, and you wait and watch and in about 6 months or so it'll emerge from its chrysalis as a beautiful general vote

oh no wait I got voting confused with butterflies again
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:41 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

I want one journalist per day to randomly ask Trump a question from the US naturalization test

ok but i myself can't answer like 1/3 of those and for an additional 1/3 i need to sing a song to remember the answer
posted by poffin boffin at 2:44 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Sara C., Cruz is definitely still on the ballot in OR, since our mail-in ballots (i.e. pretty much all of the ballots) were mailed out before Cruz and Kasich suspended their campaigns. I'm not sure what's done with votes for either of them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Cruz still accruing delegates for whatever plan he's up to at any given moment.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:46 PM on May 6, 2016

I just got my WA primary ballots and never mind Cruz, *Carson* was still on 'em.

ok but i myself can't answer like 1/3 of those and for an additional 1/3 i need to sing a song to remember the answer

Me too, but I kinda want the President to know more about the country than I do. (Plus, I would legit pay money to hear Trump have to sing those songs.)
posted by mordax at 2:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Is Cruz still on the ballot in some states, maybe? Is there a possibility that Cruz could still set in motion some kind of floor fight based on delegates gained by people voting for him despite the fact that he has "suspended his campaign"?

That would make it an even odder choice for Trump to tell his supporters to stay home, I think. The people at his rally are probably not those who would change their vote to Cruz if they saw he was on the ballot.
posted by Krom Tatman at 2:53 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

We Latinos are simple people. It does not matter whether you call us rapists or deport our family members, we will vote for you if you have a photo in front of a Taco Bell-like meal.
Taco Bell (in our land Santo Taco), is the nurturing teat from which all of our culture flows, including fine Corinthian leather, the Cucaracha song and Speedy Gonzalez. We are yours, Senor Trumpo.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:56 PM on May 6, 2016 [62 favorites]

I think it varies by jurisdiction, but if you formally withdraw but your name remains on the ballot because of printing deadlines, those votes are tossed out in most cases. (So like if candidate B for dogcatcher formally withdrew, and the votes went A - 40%, B - 50%, C - 10%, that 50% would be thrown out and A would win. But if B only suspended their campaign but didn't file to formally withdraw, B wins and is elected and typically resigns the seat and then there's either a special election or an appointment procedure.)

In general candidates for president suspend their campaigns, rather than formally withdrawing, so they can continue to raise money to pay down debts. That means if you vote for them, it still counts, and their delegates remain bound. If they formally withdraw, their delegates are unbound and free to vote their conscience. If they withdraw and endorse another candidate, those delegates aren't obligated to vote for that candidate but are strongly expected to.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:56 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

i need to sing a song to remember the answer

Singing songs is American please see Hamilton.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:56 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

We are yours, Senor Trumpo.

Please, call him “Donaldo”
posted by Going To Maine at 2:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump eating his own taco

whoa...that's bigly.
posted by lampshade at 3:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Is Cruz still on the ballot in some states, maybe? Is there a possibility that Cruz could still set in motion some kind of floor fight based on delegates gained by people voting for him despite the fact that he has "suspended his campaign"?

Yes, yes, and yes. I've talked about it a bit upthread, but essentially: Cruz could set in motion a floor fight trivially easily, but his national level campaign staff are giving instructions not to - what he wants is clearly for his supporters to show that they like him, and then try to sweep 2020 when Clinton is in office and everyone remembers they hate her more than they hate non-candidate Trump.

That doesn't mean that his supporters at the national convention may not - people are certainly trying to fight the floor and the rules committee. But the national organization is pushing back, and may win the fight.
posted by corb at 3:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Cruz, Kasich, and Carson are on the ballot in Washington. There's a note in the voter's guide that says Carson didn't withdraw before the deadline. For everyone else, the ballots were printed in late April.
posted by dw at 3:22 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just a reminder for those fearful of Trump in the general because he was so underestimated in the primaries. For those who actually respect the numbers -- ie, what Nate Silver used to do before this year -- Trump always looked good in the primary. He was top of the polls in September, and top in November, and top in January. Pundits may have had their reasons, but for those who respected the numbers, Trump was never a surprise.

And if you respect the numbers now, Trump has virtually no chance. Please bear that in mind. Just because idiotic pundits got it wrong the first time doesn't mean that they will get it wrong, or right, this time. And of course the numbers can always be wrong too. But only trust your gut over the numbers if your gut is really, really certain. Otherwise, take some comfort from the numbers (polls, models, etc) that say Trump is going to be a huge loser.

I don't mean to urge complacency, of course. But it does matter for what kind of strategy Clinton pursues. There seems to be this logic that if she were running against a centrist (eg, Jeb), she should of course run to the center to avoid losing the swing voter. But if she's running against an extremist (such as Trump), she should also run to the center just to make sure, because the downside of losing is so extreme. But by that logic we always get centrist Democrats, and in fact more so the farther right the opponent is. But if you believe the numbers, Trump is way to the right of the center. Clinton could run far to the left and still win it easily. Alternatively, you might argue she should run to the center to achieve a sweep in the House and Senate. The numbers, alas, suggest this is quite unlikely: while a 50% majority in the Senate is in reach, 60% is impossible, and winning the House is almost as unlikely. So a supermajority is largely out of reach. So failing that, I wish the freedom Trump grants us would allow our side to finally exploit the breathing room to the left, both on the presidential level, and down-ballot. I doubt it will happen though, both out of fearful precaution among Democrats, and because of Clinton's own preferences.
posted by chortly at 3:32 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

corb, do you (and/or current Cruz supporters in general) actually see Cruz as a viable candidate against an incumbent HRC in 2020? That seems a bit far-fetched, but I guess the chosen-by-God true believers are gonna keep believing.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:33 PM on May 6, 2016

Trump was supposed to fade. That's what we all thought. Nate Silver, too. But he didn't. He kept getting stronger as he went.

The one positive right now is he's 7-13 points behind Hillary depending on the polls, and even more than that with Bernie (tho with the caveat that he's been untested by the GOP machine). He has a much, much harder hill to climb.

As I said before, Hillary and the Democrats cannot be complacent. But at the moment, the wind is at her back.
posted by dw at 3:42 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Bunch of comments deleted. 24 hr ban for the person who started that round (of making fun of the other candidate's supporters). Stop it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:43 PM on May 6, 2016 [13 favorites]

ie, what Nate Silver used to do before this year

He doesn’t need my defense, but I do think that Nate Silver et al. provided some pretty decent reasons for why they didn’t stick “respect” the numbers for the primaries (largely that primary polling is garbage).
posted by Going To Maine at 3:45 PM on May 6, 2016

Trump was supposed to fade. That's what we all thought. Nate Silver, too. But he didn't. He kept getting stronger as he went.

He thought that based on conventional wisdom, not based on the actual numbers. He was "supposed" to fade because he's a ridiculous idiot, not because anything in the polling suggested he would fade.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:55 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

538's logic was largely based on "The Party Decides" and related literature, which itself is based on a very small n, and in fact most of that n is cases where the winner both led in the polls and was the party pick. There are very few cases where party outsiders held a commanding lead and then were ousted by the party. One of those cases was 2012, of course, where multiple outsiders led but were eventually replaced with an insider. Silver et al over-generalized from that case with the aid of "The Party Decides"-type arguments. Which are fine, and reasonably well motivated. But as folks like Tetlock show, one often does much better in the prediction game by disregarding these low-n studies, anecdotes, and gut instincts, and at most using them to temper what the numbers are saying rather than replacing them. And by November, the numbers were saying clearly that Trump was the dominant front-runner. Primary (and general, at this stage) polling may be noisy, but unless one has a strong, solid reason to think it is biased, it's better to take it as the default rather than replacing it with punditry. Silver's reputation has taken a huge hit this year because his "polls-plus" model did so much worse than polls alone. And that's a lesson we've learned over and over in the last couple decades, and a lesson he himself taught others in past elections.
posted by chortly at 3:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Well, I don't - but the more starry eyes are talking a lot about Reagan in 1976 and 1980.
posted by corb at 3:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Silver's Harry Enten just put up an explanation of why he predicted wrong on Trump. Very interesting.
posted by bearwife at 3:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Heh -- hadn't seen Enten's post when I wrote the above. Well, at least they seem to be learning the right lessons.
posted by chortly at 4:00 PM on May 6, 2016

He doesn’t need my defense, but I do think that Nate Silver et al. provided some pretty decent reasons for why they didn’t stick “respect” the numbers for the primaries (largely that primary polling is garbage).

This is true. But in theorising beyond the data, he made a crucial wrong assumption about how the GOP would respond to the Trump campaign. But he's been open and clear about his mistakes and that's pretty much all you can expect someone who predicts things to do. A good proportion of the time, the best predictions will be wrong. Nate Silver is only better than a traditional pundit to the extent that he accepts and accounts for his own fallibility.

Fallibility of prediction is precisely why neither panic nor complacency is an appropriate response right now. It looks unlikely that Trump will win, but we don't know enough to say he won't.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the polling numbers now that the two candidates are pretty much locked in. It seems to me like the key to this election, for both parties, is accessing certain portions of their usual base who may be motivated to abstain. It's going to make for a very ugly fight, I suspect.
posted by howfar at 4:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

A little bit of convention theory for y'all.

The Credentials Committee and the Rules Committee are probably the most underappreciated groups at the party conventions. On their face, these committees are deadly boring. 99.99% of the time they are deadly boring. It is their natural state. Imagine a bunch of perfunctory Robert's Rules nonsense whose decisions appear to carry little relevance or weight to the larger convention proceedings.

But don't be fooled by the wonkery--given the right conditions these are mighty seats of power. Holding them is tantamount to holding the power to invalidate the votes of another candidate's delegates. The actual votes are happening on the convention floor, but the decisions about who gets to vote in the first place can be made in these committees. The article linked by melissasaurus indicates the power of the Rules Committee. This article discusses the Credentials Committee mentioned in the Ickes quote in that article.

As you might imagine, this means seats on them (especially the RC) are crucial in contested conventions. As was mentioned in a past politics thread, the Trump campaign's outrage over Cruz's dominance of the Rules Committee was basically for this reason. At the time of the brouhaha it looked like things would be contested, and in a contested convention you battle for as many RC seats as you can to ensure you basically "win" at the rules-lawyering. This article covers some of the tactics you could use, but there are so many more.

Note this debate isn't happening any more. The reason is Trump's prospective majority. Once a candidate looks set to cross the majority threshold, those committees basically sink back into irrelevance. Delegate approval and counts become pro forma again.

This is not because those committees don't still have their power. In theory, if your opponent held a majority but you've got the RC then it doesn't have to be over yet. For example, you could try to whittle away at their total until they slip under that majority threshold and thus force a contested convention. Indeed, if the #NeverTrumps decide to keep fighting (as corb has suggested they might), then their Hail Mary to get around Trump's nomination will likely be through these committees.

But this basically never happens, and that's because if a guy has the popular vote and the majority of delegates, then going after him with the Sword Of Technically Correct Legalese stops looking like "clever strategy" and starts looking like "pooping on democracy". The "Texas Steal" amounted to a committee battle and reflected badly on the GOP when it seemed the more popular candidate might lose due to committee shenanigans.

I am sympathetic to anybody weighing those options, because they're basically caught between having their party look terrible because Trump's the nominee, and having their party look terrible because they picked anybody else.
posted by Anonymous at 4:20 PM on May 6, 2016

Ran this down after I heard Jill Lepore quote the last sentence on the latest edition of the New Yorker politics podcast.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. —John Adams

Goodreads has more context.
posted by kingless at 4:50 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Frank Leone is a member of the DNC rules and bylaws committee and has a website (demrulz.org), where he has numerous blog posts about things that have been discussed and decided in rules committee meetings since 2008. He's also on Twitter (@demrulz).

Imagine a bunch of perfunctory Robert's Rules nonsense whose decisions appear to carry little relevance or weight to the larger convention proceedings.

[opens resume for editing] Go on...
posted by melissasaurus at 4:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Barack Obama weighed in today. In his usual thoughtful way, when asked if Sanders should drop out, President Obama said, among other things:
“I think on the Democratic side, just let the process play itself out. You mentioned the delegate math. I think everybody knows what that math is." He commended Sanders for doing “an extraordinary job raising a whole range of issues” that are important to Democratic voters. He pointed out that while “everybody starts getting a little chippy” in the course of primaries, “the good news is that there is a pretty strong consensus within the Democratic Party on the vast majority of issues,” and he discussed just what many of those details are. As to the "chippy" tone that has sometimes snuck in, he said, “You know, I've been through this. It's natural,” he continued. “Sometimes, even more with the staffs and supporters than with the candidates themselves.”

The President's remarks about Trump were pretty darned sharp in tone, by contrast.
posted by bearwife at 5:38 PM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

"So HRC will run as the candidate of both parties' establishments, on the message that America's already great & at least she's not Trump."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:41 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am unsurprised that this is n+1’s opinion.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:44 PM on May 6, 2016

Green party voter sees Clinton as too establishment, film at eleven!
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Green party voter is not alone in their assessment!
posted by futz at 5:49 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Well, sure, perhaps that was too roundabout a way to say what I meant, which is: I'm not sure every predictable tweet on the tweeterthing is particularly worthy of being reposted here just because someone might agree with it.
posted by Justinian at 5:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Eight years ago, Democrats saved the economy. Now, we're gonna save democracy itself. You're welcome again, America.
posted by FJT at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [23 favorites]

It is perhaps more worth noting that Kunkel’s tweet is responding< to an advertisement asking voters to “Tell Donald Trump That America Is Already Great!” This is a kinda ehhh slogan, but it hardly epitomizes “running as both party’s establishment.” (If anything, that would be better embodied by the up-thread note that Clinton is actually doing outreach to high-ranking Republicans to try and flip them. I assume this would be a coup, since she needs to get edge-case R’s and I’s more than win hard-left D’s.)

Besides, Clinton is the establishment. I mean, literally. She can position herself variously left-or-right within the establishment, but she’s not going to shed that label.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2016

Is some Twitter linking ok? Because Elizabeth Warren is gloriously blowing up my feed right now in response to Trump:

If you think recycling Scott Brown's hate-filled attacks on my family is going to shut me up, @realDonaldTrump, think again buddy. Weak.

I called out @realDonaldTrump on Tuesday. 45 million saw it. He's so confident about his "counter punch" he waited until Friday night. Lame.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:59 PM on May 6, 2016 [34 favorites]

Warren has the tone exactly right.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [17 favorites]

he clearly knows he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in

Necessary correction: he clearly BELIEVES ERRONEOUSLY he is the smartest guy in every room he has ever been in
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:07 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

Aw man, those were good tweets but all the replies are castigating her for not endorsing Sanders. :/
posted by Anonymous at 6:10 PM on May 6, 2016

Two major reasons Republicans have hated Hillary Clinton since 1992...

(1) They hated Bill Clinton from day one for not being one of them (their argument: he would've made an awesome Republican candidate, but he chose the OTHER TEAM, weakening THEIR team)
(2) They blamed Hillary's Left-Wing Influence for him NOT being one of them

My conjecture of other people's thinking who I'm not close enough to to get anywhere near inside their heads, so yeah, I could be wrong.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:13 PM on May 6, 2016

uh, no, I don't think Republicans in 1992 were thinking "if only we had the philandering draft-dodger who's running on a pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform platform and whose major policy achievement as governor was putting more money into public schools."
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

"But he wouldn't have HAD most of those policy stands if it weren't for his leftist harpy wife". Without her, he'd have been no worse than philandering GOP star Newt Gingrich.

(And the philandering is another reason Gingrich would be a perfect running mate for Drumph)
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:44 PM on May 6, 2016

I'm pretty sure the Republican hatred of Clinton is that he was a young and charismatic Democratic counterpart to Reagan. The Republicans thought they had the country sewed up after Reagan led to Bush I, and then to see an incumbent president lose to someone new and vital like Clinton must have been a huge blow.

My prediction for 2020, in fact, is that some charismatic young hotshot Republican (who I had pegged as Rubio, but who knows at this point) ousts Clinton in exactly the same way. And we are going to HATE THAT GUY SO MUCH. Like way beyond the level of partisan vitriol that person would normally deserve.
posted by Sara C. at 6:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

Bob Dole should be very disappointed in Bob Dole. Honestly, Bob Dole shouldn't stand for this from Bob Dole.

“The voters of our country have turned out in record numbers to support Mr. Trump. It is important that their votes be honored and it is time that we support the party's presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump," Dole said in the Trump statement. "I plan to attend the RNC convention in Cleveland to show my support for our party and our ticket, as I have done my entire life. We must unite as a party to defeat Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is our party’s presumptive nominee and our best chance at taking back the White House this November.”

posted by maudlin at 6:47 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

no one in the history of time has ever wished that they had more newt gingriches
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:48 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

newts gingrich
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:48 PM on May 6, 2016 [45 favorites]

conjecture is one thing and just straight pulling shit outta yr ass is another, and "republicans wanted bill to be their senpai" is the latter
posted by Krom Tatman at 6:50 PM on May 6, 2016

Seven Newts-a-Gingriching
posted by tonycpsu at 6:51 PM on May 6, 2016 [12 favorites]

uh, no, I don't think Republicans in 1992 were thinking "if only we had the philandering draft-dodger..."

"...because our bench is stacked with those already."
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:51 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

ok but i myself can't answer like 1/3 of those and for an additional 1/3 i need to sing a song to remember the answer

Isn't it time for greg nog to post a new Lil Friendys yet?
posted by mochapickle at 7:20 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump said it is a "great honor" to have Dole's support and called him a "wonderful man."

Passive aggressive scare quotes?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:21 PM on May 6, 2016

Shrunken Apple doll deviled into life Bob Dole supports Trump
posted by The Whelk at 7:34 PM on May 6, 2016

My prediction for 2020, in fact, is that some charismatic young hotshot Republican (who I had pegged as Rubio, but who knows at this point) ousts Clinton in exactly the same way. And we are going to HATE THAT GUY SO MUCH. Like way beyond the level of partisan vitriol that person would normally deserve.

I think it'll be Paul Ryan.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Looking at which Republicans are folding and which are refusing to endorse Trump shows these are the times that try men's souls.

When the Beast is locked up in Abbadon, some of them will regret accepting his Mark.
posted by ocschwar at 7:36 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Mostly because he only serves well-done steak.
posted by phearlez at 7:39 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I hope these cravens embracing Trump call me for money or volunteer time. I'll be happy to explain just how they lost my money, time, and even vote forever. I boycotted Exxon for 20 years. I promise I can outlast you assholes.
posted by corb at 7:42 PM on May 6, 2016 [59 favorites]

I boycotted Exxon for 20 years. I promise I can outlast you assholes.

Ha! I don't hold a grudge against people for 5 minutes, but I think I've still only gone to an Exxon station once or twice since '89 and only when I had no other choice. Oh, they're feeling it alright. They're pacing the floor and shaking their fist right now. Feel my wrath fuckers.
posted by bongo_x at 7:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [8 favorites]

no one in the history of time has ever wished that they had more newt gingriches

Back in 1996, my then-boyfriend proposed that we use "Gingrich" as our safe word in bed because there was no way in hell either of us would conceivably say that name under any circumstances, much less erotic ones.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:53 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

Safe word or kill switch?
posted by bongo_x at 7:54 PM on May 6, 2016 [11 favorites]

20 years ago, Bob Dole was the Last Republican I Respected as he ran against Bill Clinton. I actually considered voting for him (that's how much this Liberal disrespected Bubba Bill) but came to my senses when I realized how old he was (73 then) and how he couldn't hold the line of reasonable-ness against Newt Gingrich's congress and he had picked as VP Jack Kemp, who I did NOT want to be come POTUS if the old man died. Now, Dole is 92, going on 93, and I'm just going to chalk this up to senility.

But I was a voting Liberal in 1992, when I was a Jerry Brown supporter and I remember the big argument for Clinton was he was "electable", being a Southern Governor and "more moderate". Of course, if he were a Republican, he wouldn't have gotten into the Presidential hunt until '96, after either Bush Sr.'s 2nd term or Jerry Brown's 1st and would be campaigning on his support of Arkansas' Own WalMart. But that's where my Alternative Universe speculation morphs into an episode of Gravity Falls (with Bill Cipher Clinton?) So I'll shut up now and try to shove this train back onto SOME rail.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm really into Bernie. So into Bernie. So so so. So much that I thought and said I probably couldn't stomach a vote for Clinton. I really didn't think I'd come around.

But this glorious and terrifying implosion of blood and guts as the sleaze balls throw themselves naked upon the cold steel of the Grinder of Steaks to be turned into canned Winning Product makes a vote for Clinton look like clean water in the desert of forsaken dreams.

Money in politics is so bad. The establishment, Obama's one of them, Clinton's one of them, they're whack. They don't even know how bad they are. But for fuck's sake if Trump isn't making the best argument I ever heard to postpone the revolution at least until we've re-eradicated the nazis and burned the police state to the ground.

Corruption bad; fear worse; willfully ignorant xenophobic subjective intimidation worse, worse, worse. Maybe worst.

I'm gonna drag all of my dejected Bernie-loving friends to the polls and we're gonna wipe the floor with Trump. Then Clinton can lead the way reifying the safety women and people of color and we can hold her feet the fire until she does better than merely mentioning Dodd-Frank, waffling on fracking and cozying up to war. She ought to make a decent president. Maybe we can find a lefty to tag her out in a term or two.

This is a beginning, remember. No turning back. Please let there be no doubts about where the young lefties stand on this. We just need to see Sanders through. Then god help anyone who stands between us and the forthright cultural-critical-mass all-vector onslaught of Donald and everyone who stands behind him. Right now the opposition to his clown show is divided because we've got more important things to do. Give us a couple months and watch the tide turn. It's mentioned upthread how the numbers say he's got no chance; given the time I think it will become obvious why.

(Please trust young people. We are amazing and someday we're gonna have to take care of your diapers anyway so might as well be nice to us now.)
posted by an animate objects at 8:15 PM on May 6, 2016 [53 favorites]

Safe word or kill switch?

*if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours, simply say "Gingrich" into a mirror three times and burn all your VHS tapes and stick figures
posted by middleclasstool at 8:17 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Please stop the Clinton/Sanders bickering.

The soon to be Republican nominee just suggested that the United States should default on it's debt. Trump's not even at the convention yet and he's trying to turn a smelly dumpster fire into a nuclear conflagration.
posted by rdr at 8:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Safe word or kill switch?

or TMI?
posted by futz at 8:24 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

Speaking as someone with an inside view of the Sanders campaign, I have to say, I've been seriously disappointed with the direction that his staff has taken things, and his willingness to go along with that. It's like they it occurred to them to play dirty, but didn't really have it in them, and so now we have these weird statements about Superdelegates, when really what had excited people about him in the first place was that he wasn't playing into that stuff.

It's not, like, gasp he's a politician, and a real human, and not some savior, and I'm finally being freed from a shell of Bro ignorance. I'm not an idiot or naive. It's just that a big part of the appeal of his campaign was how differently it was being run, and how it brought national attention to so many issues in a substantial way. Now it seems like they've changed the focus. I was never a huge McCain fan, but at least his image was of the "maverick" who didn't play into GOP rules. Then in 2008 he started doing all of that negative campaigning, and it was a weak imitation of what McCain meant to the people who had respected him. I don't mean that to be a 1:1 comparison with Sanders, but it's disheartening to see how he's modified his campaign as it's grown more serious, and I don't think his top campaign staff get that.

The silver lining is that he's been drawing more on his strengths lately. He's been giving speeches in economically hard-hit areas and delivering lines about how "poverty should not be a death sentence." That's what he's good at. And at this point, that's what he should be playing to. He does have a solid group of people working with him on policy levels, and he's given a voice to groups like Black Lives Matter in a substantial way. That Bernie Sanders is the one I want to stay in the race, because that's the one who can still bring something to the table and keep those important issues in the race. I think that can still have a strong effect, and I don't want that to be overshadowed by last-minute electoral maneuvering.

I'm super excited to vote for him in the CA primary, and after that I'll be happy to cast my vote for Clinton. I still have my reservations about her, but I've voted for worse (John Kerry comes to mind). In other words, I love and respect Bernie Sanders, but that doesn't mean I can't find a reason to vote for Clinton, and not just against Trump. That gives me a better feeling about the election than if it were just a vote in opposition (ahem, Kerry). In the meantime, I hope Sanders can get back to focusing on the inequality and economic misery imposed on this country, instead of on his primary opponent. That time has passed, and frankly, it makes far less exciting discourse.
posted by teponaztli at 8:28 PM on May 6, 2016 [44 favorites]

I made a devil's wager to volunteer for clinton with a leftwing jackass on metafilter dot com

Next up, on Fox News: "What is Metafilter, and how is it corrupting young conservative leaders?"
posted by corb at 8:33 PM on May 6, 2016 [49 favorites]

Trump is also making the best argument EVER against allowing self-financing political campaigns. Having a Bunch of Billionaires pay for our political system is bad, yes, but if the only billionaires allowed were paying for their own election? Talk about the worst possible kind of self-selection. (before that, the best argument was the self-financed Senate campaign of Michael Huffington, which while itself a failure, put his future-ex-wife Ariana into the public eye... who could ever forgive him for that?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:50 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

Money in politics is so bad. The establishment, Obama's one of them, Clinton's one of them, they're whack.

It's rather ironic that the candidate making the biggest noise about money in politics is the one who has raised more money and spent more money in this campaign that any other candidate -- more than Clinton, Trump, Cruz, Rubio or Bush. Kind of contradicts the notion that money can buy you an election.
posted by JackFlash at 8:51 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Kind of contradicts the notion that money can buy you an election

The "$27 avg donation" slogan isn't just a gimmick. The difference between 40 entities spending a few million each on a campaign and a few million spending $40 each is eventually the difference between oligarchy and democracy. "Money in politics" isn't really the problem so much as "Whose money," "How much," etc...

As for Sanders being unable to buy this election: When you look at the kind of head start Clinton had in every possible way, I don't know who wouldn't be impressed with his delegate haul. He's made a hell of a showing and if he were younger, a woman, a person of color, anti-gun, I bet he'd have run away with this one the way Obama did.
posted by an animate objects at 9:06 PM on May 6, 2016 [15 favorites]

(I really believe that Sanders only lost this because he had a poor hand in the identity politics game, too little time, and because Clinton has been campaigning and forming alliances to this end for 16-30 years)
posted by an animate objects at 9:10 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I really believe that Sanders only lost this because he had a poor hand in the identity politics game, too little time,

I totally get what you're saying but, god help us if the takeaway from this election winds up being "if only it had taken even longer"
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:15 PM on May 6, 2016 [19 favorites]

"Money in politics" isn't really the problem so much as "Whose money," "How much," etc...

I mean you're right about oligarchy and democracy, but I think money in campaigns actually is a problem, or at least so long as it is the equivalent of speech. It's certainly proven corrosive to our system, even if every now and then someone like Sanders tries to do it ethically.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I mean you're right about oligarchy and democracy, but I think money in campaigns actually is a problem, or at least so long as it is the equivalent of speech. It's certainly proven corrosive to our system, even if every now and then someone like Sanders tries to do it ethically.

I think I agree -- huge fan of enabling candidacies for people who aren't jesus or billionares -- but what does it entail?

I guess if the news gave as much free coverage to every candidate as they've given to the Orange one we'd be in a different place with this conversation.
posted by an animate objects at 9:24 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I think I agree -- huge fan of enabling candidacies for people who aren't jesus or billionares -- but what does it entail?

Publicly-financed campaigns.
posted by dersins at 9:38 PM on May 6, 2016 [5 favorites]

I'm having trouble with the various suggestions that Clinton worked harder and longer for this means Sanders was slighted somehow.
posted by bongo_x at 9:44 PM on May 6, 2016 [18 favorites]

because Clinton has been campaigning and forming alliances to this end for 16-30 years

Yes. Clinton has been a better politician than Sanders. This is true.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:45 PM on May 6, 2016 [7 favorites]

Sanders has been the most outstanding "true outsider" candidate in the Democratic Party in memory... we've never seen someone with a long political history AWAY from the party have as much success. If this had been a "crowded field" like 2008, he would have stood out and been in position to win the nomination with less raw votes than he has gotten. But the way Clinton succeeded in discouraging any other "A-list insiders" from going against her made Sanders' campaign not just less likely, but practically impossible.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:52 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Sanders has done way better than I ever dreamed, has been great for the race, and done a service by being there and changing the conversation. He just needs to know when he's still helping and where the line is. It's hard for someone on the inside to keep perspective.

I'm convinced that the people who work on political campaigns are the devils, not the politicians in many cases. I knew someone who explored running for a small public office and they were so immediately repulsed by the people they interacted with and their campaign suggestions that they abandoned the whole idea.
posted by bongo_x at 10:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

if he were younger, a woman, a person of color, anti-gun, I bet he'd have run away with this one the way Obama did

Um. Wow.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:04 PM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

Yes. Clinton has been a better politician than Sanders. This is true.

Come on, please?
posted by teponaztli at 10:08 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump is also making the best argument EVER against allowing self-financing political campaigns.

True, at the same time I was thinking if it would be possible for future candidates to copy the Sanders crowdfunding model whether Left, Right, or Other. Depending on the candidate, the Iowa Caucus this year cost anywhere $3.3 to $14.9 million. In 2012, Rick Santorum spent a little over $1.9 million to win Iowa. If you were doing a Sanders crowdfunding campaign on a Santorum budget, you just need to to have a core of less than 100,000 supporters donating to be able to compete (I'm simplifying a little, because you need money to even get to Iowa, but the essential idea holds). In the end it is more democratic, but it's also a little scary because the Trump phenomenon proves there's plenty of terrible people that could probably find 100,000 supporters to give to them no matter what. I think the only thing that could mitigate this would be how effective the parties could function as gatekeepers.
posted by FJT at 10:09 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

He's made a hell of a showing and if he were younger, a woman, a person of color, anti-gun, I bet he'd have run away with this one the way Obama did.

Seriously?

Could you think about the implications of what you're saying here?
posted by Anonymous at 10:16 PM on May 6, 2016

Yeah, that's a weird way to look at the campaign. I agree that Clinton had an advantage because she started preparing for a serious campaign way before Bernie did, since literally no one expected him to be so successful. But saying identity politics played to her advantage is not something I can get behind.
posted by teponaztli at 10:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm pretty solidly in the tank for Sanders, but yeah, geez, identity politics is a tough case to make against Hilary Clinton. The white working class was her base in 2008. She's a solidly establishment politician of the center-left who knows how to play the game. This time around she locked up the key Democratic endorsements and etc early on and has been on cruise control. It's how the game is played and won (unless you are Trump).

Meanwhile, Sanders' refusal to concede until he gets whatever deal he thinks he needs is also how the game is played (to wit: Hilary Clinton holding out for the State Department in 08). He's worked hard for this negotiating position.

Any ideas what Sanders' terms might be?
posted by notyou at 10:56 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Labor? The treasury?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:00 PM on May 6, 2016

Can you imagine Sanders as Treasury Secretary?!!!

The only bigger shock to the markets would be Trump in the White House.

I hope that's what he's asking for.
posted by notyou at 11:03 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Let's stop the sniping right now. I support Clinton and have from the get go this election cycle (though Obama has had my undying support since he announced for 2008) but Sanders has been a very worthy foe and deserves plenty of respect. So do his often impressive suporters. We all need to pull together against a massive threat very soon. And we're also looking at a historic, perhaps unrepeatable, opportunity to tip the scales back to equal opportunity, cleanly funded campaigns, and full legal protection for the franchise, not to mention the chance to stay on the path toward social justice.
posted by bearwife at 11:08 PM on May 6, 2016 [25 favorites]

You know what's been nice about this Spring of Trump? Watching the GOP establishment get a taste of precarity. All that is solid melts into air. That's Capitalism fer ya!
posted by notyou at 11:10 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure why primary competitors never become running mates, or rarely. It seems to me if Sanders and Clinton got together right now and said that he would be the vice president they would be unstoppable, the nail in the coffin for Republicans. Why not? Who would hate this?
posted by bongo_x at 11:20 PM on May 6, 2016

I'm sure that has been discussed, but I missed it.
posted by bongo_x at 11:21 PM on May 6, 2016

The conventional wisdom dictates a VP pick who appeals to a key demographic and/or delivers a swing state.

I think Sanders could be Clinton's Biden. Obama used Biden (it seems) to float certain trial balloons which Obama then publicly came around to. Sanders could do exactly the same for Clinton while delivering a lot of people.

Then in four years he taps out, says it's time to pass the torch, and we get Clinton/Warren 2020 (A Clear Vision For America).
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:26 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I wouldn't hate it but I don't think Clinton should pick Sanders. A 69 year old woman should not pick a 73 year old man to be her running mate. She needs somebody younger. Sorry Bernie, I like you but you old as fuck.
posted by Justinian at 11:27 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Hell, Warren's Senate term is up in 2018. Set up someone to run for her seat then....
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:29 PM on May 6, 2016

It seems to me if Sanders and Clinton got together right now and said that he would be the vice president they would be unstoppable, the nail in the coffin for Republicans. Why not? Who would hate this?

Maybe because 50 years ago Bernie Sanders would have been a FDR-style Democrat, and Hillary Clinton would have been an Eisenhower-style Republican?

They clearly have different goals: Clinton's goal is quite obviously to play President while following the script of DLC-style "Democrat", i.e. a slightly more Republican version of Obama's Republican-lite. This is an unbroken part of her record, apart from meaningless rhetoric. Sanders' goal has little do with with Mr. Bernie Sanders as President, but rather the policy push that a Sanders-style administration could effect.
posted by anarch at 11:32 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

and Hillary Clinton would have been an Eisenhower-style Republican

Justinian dies, exeunt stage left.
posted by Justinian at 11:34 PM on May 6, 2016 [10 favorites]

Hell, Warren's Senate term is up in 2018. Set up someone to run for her seat then....

No, let her get reelected, but Charlie Baker's up in 2018, too. Get him out, and a Dem governor can name Warren's replacement in 2020.
posted by dersins at 11:34 PM on May 6, 2016

Still hoping for Corey Booker as VP. On the merits, as he is a charming and articulate and damned appealing politician, and 4 years would get him foreign policy chops and tee him up as a next President. I do think it needs to be someone younger than HRC, with genuine Presidential potential, and I want someone who is a woman or of color or otherwise has minority credentials.
posted by bearwife at 11:35 PM on May 6, 2016 [3 favorites]

I don't think Clinton would be anything like as uninspired a president as Bush Sr. And while I can see Paul Ryan being viewed as the GOP's Great White Hope, I don't think he's anywhere near in Bill Clinton's league, despite how problematic *he* was.
posted by bardophile at 11:36 PM on May 6, 2016

> I'm not sure why primary competitors never become running mates, or rarely.

I don't think its _that_ rare, Obama/Biden and Reagan/Bush come to mind immediately. I think JFK/LBJ were similar.
posted by lkc at 11:37 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

No one who actually knows HRC's background and has listened to her and read her writing would ever call her anything like Republican. She's a liberal D, whose voting record is almost identical to Sanders and at times to the left of him, and I also think the canard she's anything else needs to stop along with the sniping against Sanders.
posted by bearwife at 11:40 PM on May 6, 2016 [30 favorites]

Yeah, you gotta pick your VP from somewhere. Biden, Bush, et la were visible players with constituents and connections. Sanders really doesn't bring anything to the ticket Clinton can't get elsewhere, for cheaper.

PS: We need a new election thread. This one is killing my (brand new!) phone.
posted by notyou at 11:45 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think Cory Booker torpedoed his VP chances when he and Christie destroyed the education system in Newark.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 PM on May 6, 2016 [6 favorites]

Yeah, Cory Booker lost my admiration pretty quickly with that gutting.
posted by bardophile at 11:48 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

The state controls Newark schools. I blame Christie, period.
posted by bearwife at 11:53 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

I feel like Sanders would attract those on the left who don't warm to Clinton, and the unknowable mystery people who lean Sanders or Trump, and everyone else who is looking for permission to vote for Clinton but seem to be hung up on her. Much more than introducing a lesser known, no matter how qualified. You can't forget how many people in this country can only name 2 or 3 politicians in total.

That's what's happening on both sides in this election that's different (among a million other things) both candidates have baggage and a higher than usual unfavorable rating and many people are going to be looking for permission/excuse to vote for one of them.
posted by bongo_x at 11:57 PM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]

Comment deleted, and 24-hour ban for pooping the thread with personal attacks. If it happens again, the ban will be permanent.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:06 AM on May 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

To be clear; they say people don't vote for vice president, but I think in this election the vice picks are going to play a big part, because of the baggage the candidates have.
posted by bongo_x at 12:06 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Much more than introducing a lesser known, no matter how qualified. You can't forget how many people in this country can only name 2 or 3 politicians in total.

A lot of times a VP pick is someone with deep regional ties and name recognition, from areas where the presidential candidate is weak or viewed unfavorably. How many people knew Biden nationally before the 2008 election? I certainly didn't. Sanders would be an odd pick because - and this is true of Warren as well - I really think that Clinton would rather not weaken the progressive wing of the Senate Democrats* in an election year where it looks as though control of the Senate might swing the Democrats' way and in which, if it doesn't, she's going to need every hand on deck.

*Yeah, he's not officially a Democrat, but Sanders votes with them more often than not.
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:15 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Sanders would really help Clinton sew up Vermonters and Sanders voters who are amenable to Clinton.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:28 AM on May 7, 2016

But for fuck's sake if Trump isn't making the best argument I ever heard to postpone the revolution at least until we've re-eradicated the nazis and burned the police state to the ground.

This is a very important perspective and I'm glad to hear one of these young people I hear so much about these days espousing it. You may make use of my lawn for Ultimate Frisbee or whatever it is that is popular nowadays.
posted by howfar at 12:31 AM on May 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

I know people keep bringing Warren up, but keep in mind she's got far more power in the Senate than she would as VP. She's also nearly as old as Clinton.

An older VP would be a poor choice for Clinton or Bernie. Clinton would be the second-oldest president to assume office. Bernie would by the oldest by five years. Heck, even Trump would be the oldest by a year! All three of them--Bernie and Trump especially--would do well to pick a younger, vigorous candidate that they are damn sure could succeed them should something happen. Or, you know, you're looking at President Ryan (or whatever Republican ends up being his successor). I mean, Trump wouldn't give a shit but it would be bad for Democrats. And the country.
posted by Anonymous at 1:02 AM on May 7, 2016

I hope Clinton doesn't pick someone like Terry McAuliffe
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:04 AM on May 7, 2016

ha ha ha Trump is all (tries to void diarrhea on Warren) and Warren is like (uncorks some wine FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME) and then when Donald is all (look I upset the crazy lady) Warren is all you don't make me crazy you make me fucking sick to my stomach.
posted by angrycat at 5:22 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

really believe that Sanders only lost this because he had a poor hand in the identity politics game, too little time, and because Clinton has been campaigning and forming alliances to this end for 16-30 years

I kind of agree, but the things he'd have had to do to actually cement those alliances and to raise the resources to start campaigningin 2013 might also have made him less attractive to his current constituency.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:31 AM on May 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

CORY BOOKER IS ALL WE HAVE IN NJ, you cannot have him. Not yet, not while Christie gets to appoint his successor. Wait until we elect a non-bozo governor and then we will talk.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:50 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

A couple of comments deleted: a) see again, b) the repeated, repeated, repeated pleas of mods to drop the "Sanders/Clinton Supporters Suck" commentary. I am repeating this. Soon we will be topic-banning.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:51 AM on May 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

In other news, I'm beginning to wonder if Cruz high-level leadership has their eye on some of the people Most Likely To Rebel. They're starting to exaggeratedly sing the praises of some key True Believers on our campaign conference and prayer calls and emails to try to get everyone in line.

In other other news, watching the disintegration of a campaign from this perspective is really kind of sad and enlightening. As the Official Campaign throttled expenditures, a lot of people bought signs personally from printers, in advance, with the idea that they would make the initial buy (we're talking $2K-4K in many cases) and then either the campaign would reimburse them, or individuals would contribute small amounts to make it up - which most people expressed a willingness to do. It had a lot of similarities to how people ask for church contributions. But now with zero need for 'Cruz/Fiorina 2016' signs, a lot of people are left holding a very expensive bag.
posted by corb at 7:23 AM on May 7, 2016 [17 favorites]

I still think Tammy Duckworth would be a solid VP pick, for Clinton or Sanders. Leave Warren in the Senate (unless you want to make her Secretary of the Treasury. I could get behind that).
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:40 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Except Duckworth is running for the Senate and has a good chance at taking the seat from Mark Kirk.
posted by dw at 7:44 AM on May 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

I didn't know that. Good for her.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:48 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, Duckworth has a real shot at unseating an entrenched Republican incumbent Senator. I can't imagine they'd pull her off that race; she has the best chance of picking off a GOP incumbent of all the Senate seats up for grabs. (There are a couple where the GOP Senator is not running for reelection that may be easier pickups for Dems, but she's got the best shot at an incumbent.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:55 AM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Did Donald Trump Just Hand the Senate to Elizabeth Warren?

"In a normal year, the Senate would be likely to stay in Republican hands. But now that Trump has secured the nomination, the prospect of a powerful anti-Trump turnout puts as many as a dozen Republican-held seats in play—with the possibility of electing as many as eight new female senators to join the 12 Democratic women who will return in 2017. That would give us a new Senate with a Democratic majority, a historically large bloc of women—as many as 20 on the Democratic side—and one person ready to lead them. In short, Trump could end up making Warren one of the most powerful people in the Capitol."
posted by bunderful at 7:56 AM on May 7, 2016 [20 favorites]

Yeah, I mean, I like what I know about senator Warren, but I'd much rather have her in the Senate, where she can actually accomplish things, rather than as the figurehead gig that is the veep job.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:18 AM on May 7, 2016 [10 favorites]

[a single tear runs down diamond joe's cheek]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:27 AM on May 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Did Donald Trump Just Hand the Senate to Elizabeth Warren?

The article does explain, indirectly, why Warren has been generally steering clear of the presidential battle -- so long as she stays neutral, she maintains her power, and she can wield it to push through her progressive agenda while keeping the party happy.
posted by dw at 8:51 AM on May 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

prayer calls

What is this? You call supporters and ask them to say prayers for Ted? There is a conference call and somebody leads the people on the call in a prayer for Ted?

Is there a measure of how much time is allocated for this?

I googled (cruz prayer calls) and the results were interesting but ambiguous.
posted by bukvich at 8:57 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would love to be VP. You get an in on all the dirt and secrets and politicking, but with way less of the work or responsibility that normally requires. Presumptive nominees, I would totally be happy just doing speeches as directed in exchange for a life where my duties are puttering around the White House, checking on some nuke codes, getting a sandwich, and then watching Netflix for the rest of the day. I will be such a good VP, I promise!
posted by Anonymous at 9:06 AM on May 7, 2016

It'll be wonderful if more senators who agree with Warren get elected, but no the Democrats will not hand the Senate to Warren. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 9:21 AM on May 7, 2016

I, uh, am not the best Cruz supporter and often skip the prayer calls because it seems bizarre, but the basic format is: Important Person gets on and says a prayer for Ted Cruz and his supporters, everyone listens and prays and says Amen at the right places. I think Ted Cruz's mother was on one once?
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on May 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

You get an in on all the dirt and secrets and politicking

don't forget the aliens
posted by sallybrown at 9:56 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

You get an in on all the dirt and secrets and politicking......

and you get a really cool company car.
posted by lampshade at 10:00 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

you get really good seats at the world cup and no one complains that you're skiving off work
posted by poffin boffin at 10:20 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

I really think that Clinton would rather not weaken the progressive wing of the Senate Democrats* in an election year where it looks as though control of the Senate might swing the Democrats' way and in which, if it doesn't, she's going to need every hand on deck.

I agree with that fully, for some reason I had it in my head that Sanders wasn't going to serve as Senator any more.
posted by bongo_x at 10:57 AM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

In today's' #gopnomore roundup, Matt Walsh has some thoughts:

It’s true that Hillary is worse than almost every human in America, but Republicans went rifling through a a flaming dumpster and managed to dig up the one guy who could rival her in general contemptibleness. This will be yet another reason why I’ll cringe with shame when I tell my grandkids that I was once a member of the GOP. Of course, by that time the GOP will be a question in a Trivial Pursuit game, not an actual functioning political party. (Question: “Which American political party actually wasn’t joking when it made the guy from The Apprentice its nominee for president?

posted by corb at 11:08 AM on May 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

In today's' #gopnomore roundup, Matt Walsh has some thoughts:

Love how he keeps insisting throughout this article that Trump is a liberal, as if he convince himself that his own personal reprehensible views have noooooothing at all to do with what's happening to the GOP.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:42 AM on May 7, 2016 [26 favorites]

On preview, what sb_liz said. A Mexican wall, ban on Muslim immigration, incarceration for abortion and default on US debt aren't exactly parts of any Democratic platform I'm aware of.
posted by klarck at 11:44 AM on May 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

I was actually talking to my husband about this, and kind of how scary the possibilities are on this one. He's deeply worried about the Democratic and Republican parties breaking up and reforming into more European style models, which he sees as "one socialist, one fascist-nationalist." Trump, I think, in particular, models this - he's really neither one nor the other. He's a populist nationalist with somewhat liberal social views on /some things/ - he opposed HB2 before walking it back, etc.

In part, the Dems have been kind of fortunate the GOP hasn't fractured before now - having a monolithic enemy enforces party discipline. But I think after this one, we may see some lines reform - and while the Dems on the whole may not endorse xenophobia, that's not to say all Dems prioritize it. What if the mouthpiece of these views on building a wall weren't as personally repulsive as Trump?
posted by corb at 11:53 AM on May 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

Oh my god, Matt Walsh. That dude is hilarious- he ought to love virtually everything about Trump except Walsh is basically a guy who hates everybody but straight white Christians because he thinks God wants him to and he's having to deal with the fact that all the people who share his hates weren't doing it out of devotion to God but just because they're awful people who rolled their eyes at his faith the moment somebody played to their hates without jerking off the religious right. His rage has been a shining bit of schadenfreude over the past few months.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:54 AM on May 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

If I could talk to Walsh, I'd ask at what point do Republicans step back, stop blaming people other than themselves and political ideals other than their own, and begin to put the country above their party? What would that take, I wonder? Clearly, having Trump as their standard-bearer is not doing it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:00 PM on May 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Wait, you want them to take some personal responsibility? What a crazy idea!
posted by rtha at 12:07 PM on May 7, 2016 [16 favorites]

I am really torn between glee at hearing Republican/Newly Not Republicans talk about Trump and the Vichy Republicans, and anger at 'where the hell were you six months ago when you could have made a difference?" of it all. These guys holding their hate in let him win.

Kevin Williamson, at the National Review,blows up the "You don't want Clinton to win" spot.

The problem with Trump isn’t that he is less fit to serve in comparison to Mrs. Clinton, but that he is unfit to serve, period.

Unite the Party” talk ignores the question: “Unite with what?” The answer, in this case, is a coddled, petulant, celebrity megalomaniac leading a small movement of cable-news-inspired populist drama queens whose motto is “Eek! A Mexican!”

posted by corb at 12:11 PM on May 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

About those real effects that some of us are facing? Read this and then imagine if the man had been writing something perfectly innocuous in Arabic (or Urdu or Persian).
posted by bardophile at 12:15 PM on May 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

The American political system can't take European-style parties. It isn't designed to handle that kind of situation. (That is, the one we're in now...)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:25 PM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Well we're going to get them, so it'll be "fun" to see how that works.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 12:35 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

If I could talk to Walsh, I'd ask at what point do Republicans step back, stop blaming people other than themselves and political ideals other than their own, and begin to put the country above their party? What would that take, I wonder?

Radical surgery? As a party, the Republicans of the past couple of decades have fundamentally stood for hypocrisy. Examples:

- trumpeting moral rectitude while covering up for a child abuser (Hastert) and a serial adulterer (Gingrich is probably the most famous, there are many more)

- hating us queer folks while covering up their own (Foley, and too many more to count) (yes obviously being queer is NOT A BAD THING; their hypocrisy is)

- economic improvement and budget balancing while shutting down the federal government, driving federal and many state budgets into ruinous debt

- going on and on about personal responsibility while avoiding same (see above)

- actually this is making me physically ill so let's just go with those for now

The echo chamber of the right wing is set up, borrowing a lot from fundamentalist/evangelical Christian theology, to completely and totally ignore the effects their own actions have, to disclaim any personal responsibility (the liberals made that happen/the devil made me do it), and to ignore that what they say and what they do are at odds. It's an ideology predicated on ignoring facts, on refusing to question, and on doubling down when challenged. At a more basic level, it's an ideology based entirely on "I have decided this is true, therefore it is reality that is in error."

And everything they've done for, well basically my entire lifetime, is built towards buttressing that idea. "Standing athwart history and yelling STOP!!" sure, but it's more like panto politics: if you believe really hard then the fairy will come back to life.

I suspect the only way to get through is with cult deprogramming techniques; there's a lot of overlap: epistemological closure, rigid adherence to a single worldview, punishment of outsiders. I'm sure he's probably fallen out of favour, but Isaac Bonewits' old Cult Danger Evaluation Frame still seems pretty applicable. And once you apply it to the Republican edifice (including the right wing noise machine of Fox/Breitbart/RedState/LGF/etc) it becomes really frighteningly clear what we are dealing with.

Which, frankly, is the problem. Deprogramming from cults can really only be done 1-on-1.

What to do? the tldr answer is "elect people further left than Republicans." The much more difficult answer is to do that at the local and state levels, and to an extent become single issue voters on one thing: education. Reality-based quote-unquote liberal education is the only long term solution here. The Republicans have known exactly what they've been doing by constantly starving education of the dollars needed to properly educate the citizenry. The less able people are to think for themselves, the easier it is to terrify them with an Other and then do whatever you want in legislatures. Long term, reversing that is the only way to shrink this cancer.

Short term, the single-issue is "vote for whoever isn't a fermented rectum with the apprehension of reality of an emu on acid," which 99 times out of 100 (at least) maps onto voting D. A handy primer follows.

- Anti-abortion? Fermented rectum
- Denies climate change? Fermented rectum
- Believes in trickle-down economics/tax breaks for wealthy and corporations increases wealth for everyone/minimum wage is bad/raising minimum wage is bad? Fermented rectum
- Believes that laws in a secular society need to be modeled on a religious text? Fermented rectum
- Racist, even the dogwhistle kind like Cruz? Fermented rectum
- Creationist? Fermented rectum
- Promulgates 'religious freedom' laws to allow discrimination against marginalized groups? Fermented rectum

Take it from me, folks. Do not vote for the fermented rectum. I am a subject matter expert here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:46 PM on May 7, 2016 [36 favorites]

The link bardophile posted is a must-read. That prof looks strikingly similar to my husband, who's gotten the TSA side-eye more than once for his apparently indeterminate "ethnic" appearance (his father's side are Sephardic Jews). He's usually just eye-rolled it away and we are privileged enough that I've never felt a sense of "Oh damn, are we going to face violence or some dumbass in some random place?" but I'm starting to get very, very worried.
posted by mostly vowels at 12:50 PM on May 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

Is there anything I, as a known Democrat, can say to my True Conservative friends to make them feel a little better about Clinton..?

Here's a serious answer. I would show this video clip to any businessperson of either party. (She's talking about "quarterly capitalism," the legal obligation to maximize short term stock prices and profits no matter how much it hurts the company much less the economy in the long run.)

Not only is Hillary's comment informed and smart, but she's tackling a fundamental problem of capitalism in a way that I think every businessperson can recognize and agree with her on.

It's a truly bipartisan issue, and solving it would have huge, positive effects.
posted by msalt at 1:25 PM on May 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

The problem isn't where they were six months ago, but where these supposedly principled Republicans have been for the past 50 years.

Temp didn't just appear out of nowhere, he is the result of a full half century of the Republican party drumming up hate for the Other as their main strategy. And for fifty years these "principled" Republicans have been fine with that because they could pretend it was just nasty lies from liberals while it was kept quiet and in coded language.

Now they want to pretend that somehow all the hate took them totally by surprise.

Feh. They aren't principled, they just can't stand the bigotry they held build coming into the open. They are Trump, they built Trump, they don't get to suddenly declare that they are innocent. For fifty years they took tax cuts and so on bought with hate and blood, and they were happy to let black people, gay people, women, the Other, pay the price for their tax cuts and limited regulations.

For fifty years they let Limbaugh and his ilk spread hate so they could benefit and they were content because the hate was kept off national television.

The do not get to pretend they have no responsibility. They made Trump. They made Trump's followers.

For my entire life it has never really been possible to be both a Republican and a good person, they all share a collective guilt for the hate they depended on and the violence that hate created. But they pretended it was, and they imagined that as long as it was kept quiet the price they made their victims pay want real.

Now if it's open, the festering pool of hate at the core of the Republican party is over and they wine because now they can't even pretend it is possible to be good and be a Republican.

Until they are willing to truly repent and excise the hate, the violence, that the modern Republican party was built on all they can truly do is drive the hate back underground.
posted by sotonohito at 1:58 PM on May 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

Trump today: "All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women any more... The women, they get it better than we do folks."

I love that Republicans have nominated a MRA against a woman. Nobody tell him that white men are only 31% of the electorate.
posted by chris24 at 2:13 PM on May 7, 2016 [41 favorites]

Love how he keeps insisting throughout this article that Trump is a liberal, as if he convince himself that his own personal reprehensible views have noooooothing at all to do with what's happening to the GOP.

Let’s remember that Trump has also said that Planned Parenthood does great work, that the Bushes were responsible for 9/11 and the Iraq debacle, and (briefly) that women should be punished for getting abortions; those aren’t standard Republican talking points. (We might debate about the implicit parts of that last one, but I’d say that the immediate outraged response by the anti-choice movement proves that’s a position they reject.)

Trump is a snake oil salesman, plain and simple. It’s not that the Republicans’ views have opened them up to Trump’s blandishments - it’s the militantly unintellectual ways in which they’ve been advocating for those views and propagating them. You can make really good arguments for things that any one of us might find morally repugnant, but the current Republican party has taken a different route.

(Also, Trump is really good at plain speaking. He oversimplifies the hell out of things, but when you want things to be simple and when the media demand things to be simple, that’s an amazing virtue.)
posted by Going To Maine at 2:38 PM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

when you want things to be simple and when the media demand things to be simple
nothing beyond a third-grade comprehension level, please
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:54 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's been established that general election polling early in the primaries has very little predictive power. Does anyone know when the polling starts to firm up and reflect reality better? Seems like something 538 would have written about but I probably missed it. I'm trying to figure when we can look at general election polls and start taking comfort / terror in the results.
posted by Justinian at 3:08 PM on May 7, 2016

According to Sam Wang, “General-election matchup polls (e.g. Clinton v. Trump) started to become informative in February. In May, they tell us quite a lot – and give a way to estimate the probability of a Hillary Clinton victory.”
posted by Going To Maine at 3:19 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

538 says you can put off worrying about general election polls until after the conventions. (I feel like they've highlighted April as a month when they historically start to get predictive but couldn't turn up a link to that effect in a hurry.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:24 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

All right, so we can start taking some comfort in the polls now. Thanks.
posted by Justinian at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2016

The Trump Campaign is really about the problem of ethics in journalism.
posted by humanfont at 5:32 PM on May 7, 2016 [31 favorites]

I thought they meant post-April if the nominee had already been determined by then.

Trump, I think, in particular, models this - he's really neither one nor the other.

I think this gives Trump too much credit. If you look at the history of Trump's attitudes through the billions of interviews and bullshit he's said, his only consistent beliefs have been a distaste for immigrants, disrespect for women, and the belief he is the greatest thing that's ever stepped on this planet.

Which is to say, I am not sure Trump holds any views that aren't directly tied to how much attention they get him at the moment. I am not saying that to be flippant. I am saying that because everything about the guy--even before either of his presidential runs--indicate his primary driver is his narcissism. He's erratic, bombastic, manipulative, paranoid, and insecure. People say "oh, he's great at speaking plainly, he simplifies things". But simplification implies his thought processes and vocabulary started out complex, and frankly, there is nothing in his history to indicate that's ever been the case. I don't say that to be mean. I mean I have literally never read or heard anything from him that demonstrates he has greater depth of thought and vocabulary buried down there. Even the supposedly "dumbest" politicians, like Quayle or Dubya, demonstrate intelligence and sensitivity once you start digging into their history.

This is not the case for Trump. That is why I find him so upsetting. I think too many people want to believe this is a persona he's adopting and there's deeper core beliefs there, but I don't think that's the case. Or not any that transcend the drives of his id. That is why it gives me no comfort about what he may have said about Iraq or abortion or visas in the past, because I don't think those beliefs have any impact on what he'll do in the future. I think if he actually caught the Presidency he wouldn't know what to do with it. He'd be driving decisions--including foreign policy--by whatever got him adulation or recompense for perceived slights.

I don't think the comparisons to Mussolini are far off, honestly. I think there would be only two saving graces to a Trump presidency. First, enough of the military leadership have expressed open distaste for him that he'd never get as far as a true dictatorship. Second, the relative success some of his kids have had at taking over his shit and running it in the background indicates the guy can be manipulated as long as you've got him distracted with ego-stroking bread-and-circuses. Which means we'd prob end up with another Cheney figure in the wings, but even Cheney was smart enough to not, like, break out the nukes. Literally everything else went to shit--but we didn't use nuclear weapons.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the guy is ever going to be President. But I think he can get a hell of a lot closer to the seat than is comfortable (he already has!), and that happens when we pretend that he is more moderate, more principled, and less demented, dangerous, and craven than he is in actuality.
posted by Anonymous at 5:38 PM on May 7, 2016

You can take comfort in the electoral map too. Look at the Sabato projections, Trump would basically have to SWEEP the swing states to win. Reince Priebus put out a fantasy-land scenario for a Trump victory, that relied on Trump winning Pennsylvania (for the first time since 1988, Michigan (1988), Wisconsin (1980) and Minnesota (1972). That is absurd. Even if you grant Trump Wisconsin on the back of Scott Walker's voter suppression, the idea of him sweeping to victory on the votes of white men in the upper midwest is not remotely plausible, when women outnumber men in the electorate and he's trailing with women by a 34pt margin.

I can't see any scenario where Clinton does not win Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and Minnesota. That gets her to 246. That means she needs to win either Florida, or ANY TWO of Michigan, Ohio, Wisonsin and North Carolina, or any ONE of those plus Nevada and Iowa, EVEN IF Trump were to win Florida. Trump has to win basically all of those, including places where the GOP has not won since Reagan. Trump has an absurd path to winning, he basically needs a landslide victory, because the electoral map is horrible for him.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:44 PM on May 7, 2016 [7 favorites]

Also, Trump is really good at plain speaking. He oversimplifies the hell out of things, but when you want things to be simple and when the media demand things to be simple, that’s an amazing virtue.

Simple and simplistic are fundamentally different things.
posted by howfar at 5:49 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I can't see any scenario where Clinton does not win Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

I don't know about Colorado -- it's swung more Republican in the last 8 years. Virginia will come down to the DC suburbs and Norfolk vs the rural areas. But no, I don't see a scenario where Trump wins Pennsylvania. He'd need the entire middle to come out for him and for Philly and Pittsburgh to misplace their voting machines.

That said, the paths to victory are many for Hillary, though they generally begin and end in Florida. The real fun will be watching what the Hispanic vote does to places like Arizona and North Carolina.
posted by dw at 5:55 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

Simple and simplistic are fundamentally different things.

Yes, but it can often be hard to tell the difference until it’s too late.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:55 PM on May 7, 2016

I don't want to be someone who underestimates Trump, but I've just never been able to see him following through with all this. It's really hard to imagine him sitting by and waiting to lose. I'm also one of those people who thinks he doesn't want to be president, just to win the election, so sticking it out when it looks like it's sure he's going to lose seems so out of character.

But I've also seen A Face In The Crowd several times so I know how this ends.
posted by bongo_x at 5:56 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

The real fun will be watching what the Hispanic vote does to places like Arizona and North Carolina.

John McCain is up for re-election.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:56 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

No one's ever called Trump a simplisticton.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:56 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's really hard to imagine him sitting by and waiting to lose.

He's stuck though now, is there any precedent for a change of the nominee after the convention? Could he even withdraw if he wanted to? He can't really walk away no matter how far down he's polling, right? Maybe he could and his VP pick would become the nominee, but that seems beyond absurd absent his actual death. Plus it wouldn't solve the only problem he would care about, he'd still be labeled a 'loser' for withdrawing just as much as when he actually loses.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:00 PM on May 7, 2016

Virginia will come down to the DC suburbs and Norfolk vs the rural areas.

200,000+ people -- mostly from demographics that tend to vote Democrat -- were just re-enfranchised, so if we can get a good chunk of them to register and vote that could help swing things blue by and extra 2% to 4%.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:01 PM on May 7, 2016 [6 favorites]

Plus it wouldn't solve the only problem he would care about, he'd still be labeled a 'loser' for withdrawing just as much as when he actually loses.

Not if he finds some amazing excuse to throw a fit about, like the RNC being mean to him.
posted by bongo_x at 6:02 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

And I don't know if he's that worried about precedent. There's a pun in there somewhere, has anyone seen it?
posted by bongo_x at 6:04 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I thought it was really interesting that Preibus conceded Virginia (and Colorado) in his fantasy map. Virginia is still technically a swing state, but the DC metro area keeps expanding further and further into the state, and NOVA is becoming steadily more liberal. Obama won 51/47 in 2012, basically off of NOVA voters, while McAuliffe won 47.5/45.5 with half the turnout, again largely off the NOVA margins. It's pretty difficult to see Trump over performing Ken Cuccinelli.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:08 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Not if he finds some amazing excuse to throw a fit about, like the RNC being mean to him.

Trump creates excuses out of whole cloth. They are entwined in his DNA. His mouth opens, and we drown.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I hope everyone takes a moment to listen to the clip msalt linked. It is a very important topic. And for those who might have an abiding interest and want to dig a little deeper, I highly recommend reading Lynn Stout's The Shareholder Value Myth. It's short and not hard to digest--i.e. not too much econospeak. One of the issues she explains is the notion that maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation--though many of the proponents of the myth would like us to believe so.

While Clinton is on the right side of history with this, and this does jibe well with her desire to legislate around high frequency trading, I'm going to be a little critical. Please don't get all riled up. The fact is that if she does manage to drive a stake into the heart of this myth it would be a great public service. Compared to the mishmash of some of Trump's proposals, this is a veritable breath of fresh air.

However, there are already differences in the way capital gains are taxed depending upon the length an investment is held. (There are also tax advantages in place to make long-term capital investment in plant/R&D etc... attractive.) Clearly, this isn't enough to prevent the arbitrage upon which HFT rests. And her little story is illuminating--poor CEO would get chewed up by activist investors. Which would happen to an extent. Yet, if a few well placed and well regarded CEOs were to be willing to engage in that fight, then there is an argument to be made for taking on those activists. Which of course begs the question--who are those activist investors and why do they have so much influence?

If I understand her proposal, she wants to tax HFT. So far, so good. Taxing authority is often used to direct behavior. However, this kind of reform of current practice still does not take on the core problem, which is that finance has an altogether too important place in American commerce. And, it allows one to infer a corollary, that officers of many companies are all too willing to go along for the ride. Their compensation is largely based on the production of quarterly results.

And this is kind of where the rubber meets the road between the campaigns. Is reform enough? Or does it require stronger axiom-changing measures to put finance back into it's proper place within a healthy economy? Should finance dominate or be subordinate? Is finance the "meat and bones" of our economy or merely the blood which lubricates the genuine meat and bones--the production of tangible goods and provision of useful services?

I'm going to leave it at that, hoping folks will reflect on some of these questions rather than just start another nit-picky shitstorm. Again, Clinton is way better than the Repubs on this issue. It's just that it may not be far enough.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:24 PM on May 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

I tend to agree with your analysis schroedinger, and that's why he has the appeal he does with his base. He's the ultimate empty suit, a mirror held up to their own wants and needs. Since Trump has no real ideology, no actual driving personal philosophy, he can turn on a dime to be whatever his base wants him to be as long as they adore him.

He's a fascist, but of a weird sort of informal democracy variety. He doesn't preach an ideology that converts people, he simply echos whatever the most popular whim of the moment his constituents have.

As you noted, the only real consistent part of him is xenophobia, misogyny, and need for approval. And the focus of the xenophobia can attach to whatever the people happen to be most worked up over at any given instant. One day it's Mexicans, the next it's Syrian refugees, the day after that it's every Muslim on the planet.

His voters say he represents them because, frighteningly enough, he does. Even when that means he contradicts himself in the same speech. They don't care, they're finally hearing what they think from a big name on the teevee box so they're happy. The parts they agree with they think he really means, the parts they don't they brush aside as irrelevant.

If, tomorrow, his base suddenly declared that their biggest concern was pink unicorns, Trump would instantly declare that the pink unicorn menace was the most important thing ever and that he'd always thought so and had always warned against pink unicorns.

This is why articles that highlight Trump's inconsistencies and self contradictions have never made the slightest difference. We're in a sort of post-ideology world. Facts don't matter, in addition to the hate the Republican party has been carefully dismantling the idea of objective reality for at least thirty years now [1]. All that matters is feelings, truthiness, and that depends largely on identity politics. Trump looks right (straight, male, older, white), and he says the right sounding things, so they love him.

And, thanks to the tribal nature of party politics in the USA, I'll be stunned if Trump gets less than 45% of the vote.

I'm not at all confident in the polls claiming that Trump will hurt the party downticket. So many people go to the polls and just hit the button to vote straight ticket.

[1] Like when Reagan confidently declared on national television that in the UK gun control laws were so out of control that if a criminal was caught with a gun, even if he didn't use it in a crime, the criminal would be tried for first degree murder and hanged. When reporters pointed out that this wasn't even remotely true, Larry Speaks [2] said that admittedly it wasn't technically true, but it made a good point and that's all that matters.

[2] Best. Press Secretary. Name. Ever.
posted by sotonohito at 6:25 PM on May 7, 2016 [16 favorites]

Keep in mind that in May 1980 Reagan was 6-8 points behind Carter. And in January he was 30 points behind Carter.

The email stuff hanging like the Sword of Damocles and an indictment could be the Iranian hostage situation that Trump needs to clobber her in the general.
posted by Talez at 6:27 PM on May 7, 2016 [5 favorites]

Man, it would suck if Trump walked away after "proving his point" and the convention nominated Kasich, who polls above Clinton.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:33 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Man, it would suck if Trump walked away after "proving his point" and the convention nominated Kasich, who polls above Clinton.

Trump's base wouldn't just shut up and take that. Not all of them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:35 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

Unlikely Clinton loss scenarios are my least favorite fanfic genre
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:36 PM on May 7, 2016 [30 favorites]

You get an in on all the dirt and secrets and politicking

So essentially, you get to be in the room where it happens, the room where it happens, the room where it happens.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:44 PM on May 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

"Man, it would suck if Trump walked away after "proving his point" and the convention nominated Kasich, who polls above Clinton."

... right up until the national press gets serious about digging in to Kasich's record, at which point he will rapidly quit polling above Clinton. Kasich polls as a "generic Republican." As soon as he quits being generic, those numbers will fall considerably. Specific politicians are (almost) always less popular than generic anonymous politicians.

Polls aren't magic. They do actually rely on people know things about the candidate and they do drift as people learn about the candidates. This is one reason to have confidence in Hillary's numbers -- no politician has ever been so thoroughly vetted, so well-known, and her hate-ceiling is pretty well-established. Her numbers aren't going to move very far as people "get to know" her.

(This may also account for Bernie polling so well against Hillary and/or various Republicans; he hasn't faced the kind of press vetting he'd face if he became the nominee, and it is likely that as people considered him specifically, and his background was more thoroughly exposed in the press, his popularity and polling would drift downward. He's somewhat insulated from that by the press being so sure Hillary will be the nominee. Not a criticism of Bernie; just that you'd expect a downward drift in his numbers of he became the nominee, that's pretty normal.)

Kasich is pretty freakin' unpopular (as a presidential candidate) among Ohioans who actually know who he is. There's no reason to think he'd be all that much more popular among the national electorate once they started examining his record seriously.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:45 PM on May 7, 2016 [21 favorites]

While everyone frets about Hillary's "email investigation", they forget that there's an active civil case against Trump for FRAUD at "Trump University" that could turn criminal at any moment. But then, being under indictment would probably just increase his popularity with his key demographics.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:50 PM on May 7, 2016 [9 favorites]

the idea that BOTH our presidential candidates could be under indictment is too depressing to think about
posted by pyramid termite at 6:52 PM on May 7, 2016 [18 favorites]

Which means we'd prob end up with another Cheney figure in the wings, but even Cheney was smart enough to not, like, break out the nukes. Literally everything else went to shit--but we didn't use nuclear weapons.

Looks like someone never did policy debate.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 6:53 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

And this is kind of where the rubber meets the road between the campaigns. Is reform enough? Or does it require stronger axiom-changing measures to put finance back into its proper place within a healthy economy? Should finance dominate or be subordinate? Is finance the “meat and bones” of our economy or merely the blood which lubricates the genuine meat and bones--the production of tangible goods and provision of useful services?

As Jamelle Bouie put it waaaaaaay back when he was live-tweeting one of the Democratic debates:

“This fight over financial reform is less about policy & more about political economy. BS doesn't think Wall Street is legitimate. HRC does.
‘In my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud.’ [said Sanders.] There it is. They are working from fundamentally different premises.”

I guess I don’t feel like anyone is going to answer that question here, though I’m sure if someone were to post an academic paper positing that it’s time to tear down the banks it would get a million faves and many positive comments. I’m not sure I’m comfortable generalizing about this primary more broadly than saying that it was a referendum by the party on these two candidates - there are too many variables, and sussing out what motivated each person is too difficult. But it seems like some people would really like to rip up the system. Maybe when some Sanders supporters have gone on to get elected and start appearing on Sunday shows, we’ll be able to actually measure the extent to which folks wanted to rip it up and start again.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:54 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I have every confidence that Trump would go after "the bad banks", while protecting "the good banks" that he had done business with personally. It's all about him.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:07 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Being a Democrat is like being a Seattle Mariners fan: It doesn't matter how well they're doing today, you're eternally bracing for the cataclysmic, probably self-inflicted collapse that you just know is coming.
posted by dw at 7:16 PM on May 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

The email stuff hanging like the Sword of Damocles and an indictment could be the Iranian hostage situation that Trump needs to clobber her in the general.

It certainly could be. But, at this point, it looks like Trump really does needs something like that. Which is not to discount the possibility, but rather to draw attention to the fact what is needed right now is a very strong, very conventional, campaign to elect Clinton, rather than anything less measured. Fear is very reasonable, but panic isn't going to be anything but counterproductive right now, even though it might plausibly become appropriate as a result of further events.
posted by howfar at 7:17 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

We're in a sort of post-ideology world. Facts don't matter, in addition to the hate the Republican party has been carefully dismantling the idea of objective reality for at least thirty years now. All that matters is feelings, truthiness, and that depends largely on identity politics. Trump looks right (straight, male, older, white), and he says the right sounding things, so they love him.

Exactly. It is exacerbated by a media industry that prizes the 24/7 news cycle over journalism and analysis. And at the risk of sounding like a Luddite telling kids to get off my lawn, I think the way communication norms have changed in response to technology influence it too. It is hard to get across nuance in a status update, a tweet, a seven second video, a snap. Not to mention the way message boards and online communities tend to become havens for groupthink.

There's a pretty good comic series published at the turn of this century by Western Ellis called Transmetropolitan. It centers around a Hunter S. Thompson analogue in a future urbab dystopia. It focuses on themes of corruption, propaganda, truth, technology, and the role journalism plays in all of those. Like all good dystopias there are close parallels to our current society. But in other ways Ellis's vision is hopelessly naive. The main character's deal is that writes long narrative screeds that drop bombs of truth on The Man. I suppose in the late 90s Ellis never imagined Spider Jerusalem would need to be able to fit his missives into 140 characters for maximum impact.
posted by Anonymous at 7:22 PM on May 7, 2016

Also, as long as Trump is getting crowds, media, and retweets he's here to stay. He doesn't even care if he's popular among everyone, he just needs adulation from the White Male Everyman and attention from everyone else.
posted by Anonymous at 7:28 PM on May 7, 2016

No matter how big the margin Clinton beats him by, Republicans are going to very suddenly be Very Concerned about vote suppression. And they'll spin it to their own, successfully, as a tactic employed by Democrats.

That's Trump's endgame, I suspect. He won't deliver a concession speech, of course. And he'll spend the next 4-8 years as Shadow President, braying in the media about how he would have done it so differently if the Democrats hadn't stolen the election.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:32 PM on May 7, 2016 [14 favorites]

There's a pretty good comic series published at the turn of this century by Western Ellis called Transmetropolitan.

Never mind long narrative screeds, gimme a bowel disruptor and the Chair Leg of Truth, I'll fix this whole problem.
posted by mordax at 7:35 PM on May 7, 2016 [8 favorites]

And they'll spin it to their own, successfully, as a tactic employed by Democrats.

I am unconvinced at this point that the Republicans can do anything successfully right now, given how fractured the party is.

He won't deliver a concession speech, of course. And he'll spend the next 4-8 years as Shadow President, braying in the media about how he would have done it so differently if the Democrats hadn't stolen the election.

Fuck him. He doesn’t win, he’s going to do Trump no matter what.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:47 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

re: Clinton winning CO - may I present Julian Castro, the next Vice President of these United States.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:54 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

I am unconvinced at this point that the Republicans can do anything successfully right now, given how fractured the party is.

What I mean is Republicans will sell the narrative that the election was stolen by Democrat vote suppression. And it will be believed.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:55 PM on May 7, 2016

I think the Republicans can still do more effective vote suppression, so they're more likely to accuse the Democrats of voter fraud as they have done for years. The Demos' Get Out The Vote operation needs to get smarter and more effective to overcome the first if they're going to make sufficient gains in Congress (not to mention State and Local races) and then they could shrug off the second. But they can't assume Hillary will have coattails. Of course, a lot of the "new voters" Trump will bring to the table won't have adequate attention spans to vote for anything but President.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:05 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

Exactly. It is exacerbated by a media industry that prizes the 24/7 news cycle over journalism and analysis.

Totally agree. There are thousands of examples but I think that this is a current one that does a good job of pointing out how ephemeral and non evidential "facts" can be. Non facts become half facts or mostly facts depending on which word in a statement you decide to focus on. Just how truthy is a fact? How facty is a fact? Why does anyone trust PolitiTruthy when they are so often wrong, biased, and apparently unable to pin down the definition of the word "fact"?
posted by futz at 8:14 PM on May 7, 2016

Few stand in Trump’s way as he piles up the Four-Pinocchio whoppers

At the Fact Checker, we have often said we do not write fact checks to change the behavior of politicians. Fact checks are intended to inform voters and explain complicated issues.

Still, most politicians will drop a talking point if it gets labeled with Four Pinocchios by The Fact Checker or “Pants on Fire” by PolitiFact.

...But the news media now faces the challenge of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Trump makes Four-Pinocchio statements over and over again, even though fact checkers have demonstrated them to be false.

...But, astonishingly, television hosts rarely challenge Trump when he makes a claim that already has been found to be false. For instance, Trump says he was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but research by BuzzFeed found that he did express support for an attack. He said the White House even sent a delegation to tell him to tone down his statements —and we found that also to be false.

Yet at least a dozen television hosts in the past two months allowed Trump to make this claim and failed to challenge him. There is no excuse for this. TV hosts should have a list of Trump’s repeated misstatements so that if he repeats them, as he often does, he can be challenged on his claims.

The WP is astonished. I don't think anyone else is.
posted by futz at 8:53 PM on May 7, 2016 [19 favorites]

I think that this is a current one that does a good job of pointing out how ephemeral and non evidential "facts" can be

I get the impression when the guy wrote that piece he was not intending it in of itself to be an example of the ephemerality of facts, but I suppose we can't control how our art is interpreted.
posted by Anonymous at 8:56 PM on May 7, 2016

What I mean is Republicans will sell the narrative that the election was stolen by Democrat vote suppression. And it will be believed.

Pardon my French, but bullshit. Donald Trump is the most unpopular candidate ever nominated. EVER. Both Breitbart and 538 will talk about he is disliked by the majority of the electorate. His own party is still falling to pieces over him, for all that some members appear to be rallying around him. The idea that “the public” could be convinced that such a manifestly unpopular and divisive candidate would only have lost because voters were suppressed and not because the Republicans are a shambles seems ridiculous on the face. It’s a while until November, but that narrative will take an impressive amount of coordination to pull off. Tump might claim it, but Trump will claim he’s been robbed no matter what.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:56 PM on May 7, 2016

I said nothing about selling that narrative to the public, I said they'd sell it to their own side. For all the caterwauling on the R side about Trump, we all know the vast majority will fall right in line come November. And when they lose, Trump and the RNC will cry that the election was stolen from them and the party faithful will believe.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:14 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

The side conversation about the journalistic quality of the HuffPo is way off topic, especially this late in a very long thread. Discuss the merits of the article, drop the derail about HuffPo.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 9:15 PM on May 7, 2016

P.J. O'Rourke, long past his due-by date, yet an entertaining establishment Republican, came on a NPR show to declare he was voting for Hillary, which is a bit like Calvin Coolidge declaring he's gonna vote for Eugene Debbs.

Forget the Bernie Bros, establishment Republicans and Movement conservatives now find themselves sharing a bathroom with Hillary supporters.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:25 PM on May 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

Good! Then she'll win easily and Trump won't be our next president.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:26 PM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

Obama delivered a commencement speech [transcript] at Howard today. A good chunk of it was about civic engagement, and I imagine it may provoke some controversy as he spent some time talking about the need to not sacrifice political advancement in the name of ideological purity.

The whole thing is worth the read (or watch), but I felt these excerpts touched on some issues we've discussed over this election.

You have to go through life with more than just passion for change; you need a strategy. I'll repeat that. I want you to have passion, but you have to have a strategy. Not just awareness, but action. Not just hashtags, but votes.

You see, change requires more than righteous anger. It requires a program, and it requires organizing. At the 1964 Democratic Convention, Fannie Lou Hamer -- all five-feet-four-inches tall -- gave a fiery speech on the national stage. But then she went back home to Mississippi and organized cotton pickers. And she didn't have the tools and technology where you can whip up a movement in minutes. She had to go door to door. And I’m so proud of the new guard of black civil rights leaders who understand this. It’s thanks in large part to the activism of young people like many of you, from Black Twitter to Black Lives Matter, that America’s eyes have been opened -- white, black, Democrat, Republican -- to the real problems, for example, in our criminal justice system.

But to bring about structural change, lasting change, awareness is not enough. It requires changes in law, changes in custom.
[...]
And your plan better include voting -- not just some of the time, but all the time. (Applause.) It is absolutely true that 50 years after the Voting Rights Act, there are still too many barriers in this country to vote. There are too many people trying to erect new barriers to voting. This is the only advanced democracy on Earth that goes out of its way to make it difficult for people to vote. And there's a reason for that. There's a legacy to that.

But let me say this: Even if we dismantled every barrier to voting, that alone would not change the fact that America has some of the lowest voting rates in the free world. In 2014, only 36 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the midterms -- the secondlowest participation rate on record. Youth turnout -- that would be you -- was less than 20 percent. Less than 20 percent. Four out of five did not vote. In 2012, nearly two in three African Americans turned out. And then, in 2014, only two in five turned out. You don’t think that made a difference in terms of the Congress I've got to deal with? And then people are wondering, well, how come Obama hasn’t gotten this done? How come he didn’t get that done? You don’t think that made a difference? What would have happened if you had turned out at 50, 60, 70 percent, all across this country? People try to make this political thing really complicated. Like, what kind of reforms do we need? And how do we need to do that? You know what, just vote. It's math. If you have more votes than the other guy, you get to do what you want. (Laughter.) It's not that complicated.
[...]
When we don’t vote, we give away our power, disenfranchise ourselves -- right when we need to use the power that we have; right when we need your power to stop others from taking away the vote and rights of those more vulnerable than you are -- the elderly and the poor, the formerly incarcerated trying to earn their second chance.

So you got to vote all the time, not just when it’s cool, not just when it's time to elect a President, not just when you’re inspired. It's your duty. When it’s time to elect a member of Congress or a city councilman, or a school board member, or a sheriff. That’s how we change our politics -- by electing people at every level who are representative of and accountable to us. It is not that complicated. Don’t make it complicated.

And finally, change requires more than just speaking out -- it requires listening, as well. In particular, it requires listening to those with whom you disagree, and being prepared to compromise.
[...]
. . . [Y]ou need allies in a democracy. That's just the way it is. It can be frustrating and it can be slow. But history teaches us that the alternative to democracy is always worse. That's not just true in this country. It’s not a black or white thing. Go to any country where the give and take of democracy has been repealed by one-party rule, and I will show you a country that does not work.

And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that's never been the source of our progress. That's how we cheat ourselves of progress.

We remember Dr. King’s soaring oratory, the power of his letter from a Birmingham jail, the marches he led. But he also sat down with President Johnson in the Oval Office to try and get a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act passed. And those two seminal bills were not perfect -- just like the Emancipation Proclamation was a war document as much as it was some clarion call for freedom. Those mileposts of our progress were not perfect. They did not make up for centuries of slavery or Jim Crow or eliminate racism or provide for 40 acres and a mule. But they made things better. And you know what, I will take better every time. I always tell my staff -- better is good, because you consolidate your gains and then you move on to the next fight from a stronger position.
[...]
So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There's been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that -- no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths. Because as my grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance. Let them talk. Let them talk. If you don’t, you just make them a victim, and then they can avoid accountability.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you -- you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you've got to start with the world as it is.

So that’s my advice. That’s how you change things. Change isn’t something that happens every four years or eight years; change is not placing your faith in any particular politician and then just putting your feet up and saying, okay, go. Change is the effort of committed citizens who hitch their wagons to something bigger than themselves and fight for it every single day.

It is interesting to see how Obama's rhetoric has changed from when he entered office. When he began, it was "Yes we can", "Hope", "Change", that sort of thing. Now it's "Yes we can . . . but it will take a long time, and we need to work hard." Which I imagine he felt was implicit in his statement when he entered office, but I think he likely underestimated exactly how hard it would be, and how much crap he'd get when he wasn't able to achieve exactly what others were expecting.
posted by Anonymous at 9:27 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

For all the caterwauling on the R side about Trump, we all know the vast majority will fall right in line come November. And when they lose, Trump and the RNC will cry that the election was stolen from them and the party faithful will believe.

Who’s “we”? I really don’t know this. I know that HRC has already made several campaign commercials about Trump using only the words of other Republicans. I know that the endorsement levels for Trump (or any Republican candidate) still sit at shockingly low levels. I know that many obvious veep contenders have rejected the possibility, that former Republican presidents and presidential nominees remain divided on Trump. This is a really crazy moment. If by “the party faithful” we’re talking about a rump of the Trump supporters: sure, some will buy it. But if we’re talking about “the party faithful” as being the general people who vote for Republicans -the people who were denying Trump majorities until the last round of the East Coast primaries- I just don’t see it.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:42 PM on May 7, 2016 [3 favorites]

My only qualm with Obama's message is that he should have started preaching it from the rooftops earlier... like after he saw what happened in the 2010 midterms (remember this?) he needed to get serious BEFORE the 2014 midterms. "In 2014, only 36 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the midterms -- the secondlowest participation rate on record." So your party's GetOutTheVote program sucked. Thanks, Obama.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:47 PM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

I am sort of sad that after reading the NYT article in this mefi thread about Obama's right hand communicator and speech writer, the oration just doesn't feel the same. It's like when crime show detectives turn on a black light and they're surrounded by clues; I can't help but see the spin in the speeches now.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:51 PM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]

So your party's GetOutTheVote program sucked.

So we didn't vote but it's his fault for not telling us to enough?
posted by bongo_x at 9:54 PM on May 7, 2016 [11 favorites]

I would expect the Republicans to continue pushing voter suppression. The rationale for their voter suppression tactics has been the idea that there are thousands of votes coming from non-citizens and felons who are swinging elections for Democrats, and thus draconian anti-fraud measures like voter ID are needed.

This isn't even new. In his debate with James Baldwin, you can watch William F. Buckley disgustingly say that too many uninformed people vote.
posted by chrchr at 10:03 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]

So your party's GetOutTheVote program sucked. Thanks, Obama.

You know, it's one thing to say a party's crap GOTV strategy helped keep them out of power. It's quite another to then blame that party and its leadership for issues caused by the opposing party when the fundamental problem was that people did not vote.
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 PM on May 7, 2016

Paraphrasing Obama: "People who resist compromise tend to get disillusioned and withdraw from the process, making things worse by not participating. Participation is messy but it makes progress."

Paraphrasing Response: "People withdrew from the process and didn't participate much in the midterms, and things proceeded to get worse. Thanks, Obama."

My face: O_0
posted by chimaera at 10:35 PM on May 7, 2016 [12 favorites]

I've mentioned before that my mother the Republican Activist pushed me into "volunteering" for the Nixon campaign in 1972, the year before I was old enough to vote. I was working a phone bank calling registered Republicans for their GOTV program. Then, because I was a young man with my own car, I was asked if I'd work another of their projects... to go to nursing homes and "help" older voters fill out their absentee ballots. While carefully worded to avoid saying it directly, it was obvious my job was to make sure their ballots were filled out "the right way" (and the nursing home management was cooperating, with zero evidence that the same thing was being done of Democrats in their facilities). I felt guilty that I didn't report that obvious Voter Fraud (but I didn't know where to report it and I would've gotten in a lot of trouble with my mother the Republican Activist). But I still wonder how common that practice was then and how common it has been in the many years since. I've never seen the practice exposed anywhere, but it would certainly contribute to the longtime trend of Republicans getting more votes from Seniors.

Later, the ONLY time I have missed voting was in 1984 when I was notified on Election Day before I could go to the polls that my mother had suddenly died and I had to catch a plane from L.A. to Phoenix. She had already sent in HER absentee ballot. A Republican to the end.

Anyway, as soon as it became possible for me to get Permanent Vote-By-Mail status, I did, and now enjoy the opportunity to mail in my ballot before the last-minute campaign nonsense that some people think might change my vote. I am walking the walk (and talking the talk, but only by nagging friends to vote if/when I've learned in conversation that they agree with me). I could do more but nobody has asked me to.

And I will go to my grave arguing that after the disastrous 2010 mid-terms, the Democratic Party should have done so much more to prevent what turned out to be another disaster in 2014. That was the time when it really would have helped to push the GetOutTheVote issue. And then, it would have made this year's work easier (by getting some people into the voting habit). Now, it's almost like closing the barn door after all the horses (or donkeys) have run off.

End rant.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:54 PM on May 7, 2016 [13 favorites]

I understand that midterm elections often favor the GOP, who draw much of their strength from retirees, people whose work lifestyles allow them to go vote, and non-minorities who don't have to deal with voter suppression issues. And that they've been stacking the system for decades through gerrymandering. But it sure would be nice if the Democratic Party put up more of an effort dealing with those systemic issues.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:09 PM on May 7, 2016

On a similar theme, from Obama's monologue last week, he said:

Sander's campaign slogan is "Feel the Bern!"
Clinton's campaign slogan is "Trudge up the hill."
posted by JackFlash at 11:11 PM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]

He gave a speech telling young people that it was their personal responsibility to to take action and vote throughout their lifetime and not be complacent. The response that this is a failure of a specific get out the vote campaign during a specific election cycle seems to miss the entire point.

This. It would be one thing if the majority of the citizenry had exercised their right to vote and chosen to vote Republican. If someone wants you to vote for them, it's their job to convince you. But no one - fucking no one - is responsible for putting on a little hat and doing a little dance to get you to vote - to perform the most basic responsibility of a citizen of a democracy. You can't be arsed to do that much, that's on you.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:21 PM on May 7, 2016 [27 favorites]

And at the risk of sounding like a Luddite telling kids to get off my lawn, I think the way communication norms have changed in response to technology influence it too. It is hard to get across nuance in a status update, a tweet, a seven second video, a snap. Not to mention the way message boards and online communities tend to become havens for groupthink.

Nah; death to the era of talk radio, Fox News, CNN, and the soundbite. Your lawn was dirt, weeds, and trash before those kids even showed up.
posted by nom de poop at 1:34 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Not being American, I lack the deep knowledge to unpack why two African American sisters might "vlog" joy at Trump's success.... and I am sure "Diamond" and "Silk" are just looking for likes, but if someone can explain it to me I would be happy.
posted by Mezentian at 6:05 AM on May 8, 2016

Always remember: Just because somebody belongs to a particular social or cultural cohort, you should never assume that they, personally, are not terrible.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:22 AM on May 8, 2016 [14 favorites]

Diamond and Silk are playing this game as much of the bone-ignorant electorate is playing this game, as the biggest, best reality show ever. At some point Trump is going to have to say " I didn't come here to make friends".
posted by readery at 7:21 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump doubles down on defaulting on the national debt.
posted by chris24 at 8:02 AM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump Won’t Rule Out Effort to Remove Paul Ryan as Convention Chairman (nyt)
posted by double block and bleed at 8:21 AM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

The Republican Party is dead
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

The Republican Party is dead

"There has never been a major party nominee in U.S. history as unqualified for the presidency. The risk of Trump winning, however remote, represents the biggest national security threat that the United States faces today."

I agree with Max Boot.

I can't believe I just said that.
posted by homunculus at 9:12 AM on May 8, 2016 [22 favorites]

Have we talked about the NBC electoral map? Because holy crap, the Democrats are close. I really hope they don't blow this.

They're going to blow it, aren't they?
posted by dw at 10:02 AM on May 8, 2016

Trump university trial postponed until after election.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:05 AM on May 8, 2016

They're going to blow it, aren't they?

You know who also got called "dangerous" in the media recently? Captain America, by Secretary of Defense Ross. I know that Clinton will probably win because of inevitable numbers and factors, but man oh man the Democratic leadership are good at being tone-deaf and failing to connect with people's sensibilities and tastes.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:08 AM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wait, is the Hulk going to get involved in this?
posted by Artw at 10:20 AM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Hulk Hogan is a potential running mate for Trump, yes.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:22 AM on May 8, 2016 [7 favorites]

They're going to blow it, aren't they?

I have had this total "this must be how it felt against Reagan in the '80s" vibe for months.
posted by Talez at 10:23 AM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Wait, is the Hulk going to get involved in this?

Well, The Donald seems to have schtick down for a wrestling running mate.
(the vid does not seem to have audio)
posted by lampshade at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2016

yeah but whereas Trump may be dangerous he's dangerous like falling through the outhouse floor whereas Captain A is dangerous like kiss me again you dangerous fool
posted by angrycat at 11:14 AM on May 8, 2016 [15 favorites]

They're going to blow it, aren't they?

I have had this total "this must be how it felt against Reagan in the '80s" vibe for months.

People were saying that in 2012, too. At this stage, the Democratic Party has "blown", so to speak, only two out of the last six presidential elections. There's a weird half-masochist, half-shell-shock quality to the way some Democrats approach Presidential elections that doesn't seem to match up with the reality at all (although it could be said to apply to the party's Congressional situation, definitely).
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:15 AM on May 8, 2016 [17 favorites]

I have had this total "this must be how it felt against Reagan in the '80s" vibe for months.

I don't think magical thinking is the answer to complacency. I just don't understand what's wrong with recognising that the data indicate that Trump has a limited but real chance of winning the presidency. Surely that's a better motivator (when motivation is sorely needed), given how disastrous it would be if that happened, than concluding that everything is doomed.
posted by howfar at 11:17 AM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

I wonder what happens to the Republucans if he actually wins? Do they just drop using dogwhistles overnight?
posted by Artw at 11:22 AM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Fission. For many Rs, dog whistles work because they sound like the policies in which they believe. Not out of racism, but our of sincerity. Those folks won't stand for Trump, and they will leave.

I imagine the Libertarians are hoping to make out like bandits. Ditto any other third party on the right that has infrastructure in each state.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:33 AM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

Exultant Extremists Hail The Ascension Of ‘Emperor Trump’ As GOP Nominee
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:48 AM on May 8, 2016

It's too late now, but this would have been a good year for Rand Paul to temporarily jump ship to the Libertarians like his father did in '88, or Mike Gravel did in '08. But this year the Libertarian Party actually has a fairly decent spate of candidates with executive experience, ideological purity, and star power, at least by L.P. standards. So those who have Libertarians all of their lives will probably nominate Gary Johnson. But if it was feasible to have Rand or even a Tea Party defector as their nominee, the party probably would get even more votes.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:49 AM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Virginia will come down to the DC suburbs and Norfolk vs the rural areas.

Maybe so, but even then the numbers are stacked against Trump. Virginia has been a swing state even in good years for the Republicans, and that's not all urban vs. rural --- while the urban areas skew Democratic, they've got not insignificant Republican population as well. The DC 'burbs went around 65-35 in the 2012 election. That Republican 35% of NoVA is actually a good chunk of the state population, and they're not the Trump base: DC-area Republicans are disproprtionately in defense, in political support roles, etc. They're establishment, and they detest Trump.

When Virginia was a heavily Republican-skewed rural area versus Democratic-skewed urban centers, it was swingy. Push that urban skew further to the left, and it's not even close.

Unless things get really weird, I don't see electoral numbers for a Trump victory. Virginia and Florida have both been decisive close calls in the past and the (rabidly anti-Latino and anti-establishment) current Republican candidate has some baked-in problems in those areas. On the subject of Florida, I find myself wondering how Trump would fare among seniors? Trump has a distinct lack of the sort of gravitas that appeals to staid older conservatives.
posted by jackbishop at 12:07 PM on May 8, 2016

I imagine the Libertarians are hoping to make out like bandits.

Yeah, if there was ever an election where they had the opportunity to cross the 5% threshold it's this one.
posted by Anonymous at 12:20 PM on May 8, 2016

Is there a chance Gary Johnson makes it onto the debate stage this year? I think the threshold is 15% in a handful of select polls (many of which don't even include 3rd parties), and I read somewhere yesterday that one of those polls had him at 11% back in March.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:29 PM on May 8, 2016

I wonder if the Greens will see a similar bump from the left.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:29 PM on May 8, 2016

I don't think the Greens will see a similar bump from the left. I think the never Hillary people were already going to vote Green or not vote at all.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:33 PM on May 8, 2016 [10 favorites]

It's too late now, but this would have been a good year for Rand Paul to temporarily jump ship to the Libertarians like his father did in '88, or Mike Gravel did in '08.

I think that Rand Paul has permanently destroyed his standing with the Libertarians by endorsing Trump.
posted by octothorpe at 12:40 PM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

Moreover, his endorsing Trump shows that he was never the kind of guy who would go over to the Libertarians.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:50 PM on May 8, 2016 [10 favorites]

Did Rand Paul ever have any standing with Libertarians, or did he just have his dad's old mailing list?
posted by box at 1:15 PM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

It would seem that the son truly is far from the father.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:17 PM on May 8, 2016

I don't think the Greens will see a similar bump from the left. I think the never Hillary people were already going to vote Green or not vote at all.

Right, Clinton's favorability among Democrats is sky high. It's among Republicans and right-leaning "independents" among whom she is detested. There simply isn't a pool of voters who might have otherwise voted Democratic for the Greens to cannibalize like the Libertarians have a chance with anti-Trump Republicans.
posted by Justinian at 1:54 PM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

It would seem that the son truly is far from the father.

Eh, Rand is obviously a true believer when it comes Hayek/Rothbard attitudes toward economics and the role of government, but I think he saw the limits to what his father could do as mostly an outsider among the GOP elites and decided to employ a different strategy. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if ol' Ron advised him to play it that way, knowing he could do more operating within the host organism of the GOP than he could without it.

I don't see a lot of daylight between their ideologies, honestly. Rand is just the new and "improved" version that integrates better with the legacy platform.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:03 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sure, but he didn't have to be all "endorse Trump for the sake of party unity" about it.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:19 PM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sure he did. Trump might be the nominee, and he as a Senator is going to want things out of whoever becomes President. He gets Washington in ways his daddy never did.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:23 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Given how much of Hillary's unfavorable rating comes from men, and given the Greens nominated Jill Stein, I don't see how they don't get more than a few percentage points and maybe "major party" status in a few very blue states.
posted by dw at 2:37 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Meanwhile, Jill Stein... I mean, what does this even mean? Hillary's a bad mom? On Mothers Day?
posted by dw at 2:42 PM on May 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

What does it mean? Utterly irrelevant hack trying to get a headline and eke out 0.0001% more of the vote.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:05 PM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

I love the comment to that tweet that was a picture of Obama looking like an annoyed father with the CNN ticker: DELETE ACCOUNT
posted by angrycat at 3:08 PM on May 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation is also available as a female nominee of a leftist third party.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:18 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that the Marxist-Leninist vote wasn't gonna go for Clinton in the first place. Pro-Soviet parties don't tend to play well.
posted by Justinian at 3:26 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

What does it mean? Utterly irrelevant hack trying to get a headline and eke out 0.0001% more of the vote

well, lots of people proudly proclaim they want to vote for her because their values won't allow them to vote for HRC.
posted by zutalors! at 3:55 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Reading T.D. Strange's link about white nationalists loving Trump reminds me that as much as many anti-Semites love Trump, they conveniently forget / don't know about the fact that two of his children married Jewish people in Jewish religious ceremonies, and that his eldest is married to a woman whose father was Jewish. Not that this makes Trump any less reliant on scurrilous anti-black, anti-Hispanic, Islamophobic, Sinophobic etc. stereotypes, but still.
posted by dhens at 4:06 PM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

they conveniently forget / don't know about / are distracted from by the antisemitic shit Trump comes out with anyway.

His poor fucking family.
posted by howfar at 4:26 PM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

howfar, yeah, I had actually forgotten about that. I suppose in Trump's mind this is like saying that black people are good at basketball and that East Asian folks are all good at math -- it's a complement!
posted by dhens at 4:38 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure that the Marxist-Leninist vote wasn't gonna go for Clinton in the first place

Perhaps more than you think! The Communist Party USA has a history going back to the thirties of collaborating with the Democrats. In their public statements they all but endorse the Democratic winner this election. The Maoist/Stalinist tendencies in the US mostly entered into the Democratic party during the Jesse Jackson campaigns and never really recovered their political independence. Trotskyist groups, on the other hand, do tend to resist supporting Democratic politicians.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:50 PM on May 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

What I want to see, and it came to me today, random Trump endorsement signs. Yeah.

TWEAKERS FOR TRUMP! I think it would be funny to put these out on lawns, in the night.
posted by Oyéah at 4:57 PM on May 8, 2016 [5 favorites]

And yet a few months after that disgusting Republican Jewish Coalition speech, Trump shows up at AIPAC and gives a speech to wild applause (which AIPAC leadership later apologized for).

Ivanka didn't do it the easy way either. She went through a full Modern Orthodox conversion and everything.
posted by zachlipton at 5:10 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Perhaps more than you think! The Communist Party USA has a history going back to the thirties of collaborating with the Democrats.

SPLITTERS!!
posted by pyramid termite at 5:32 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

Huh, today I learned something new about the doctrinal and tactical differences between Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist political parties in the USA.
posted by Justinian at 5:39 PM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'm actually sort of fascinated by Ivanka. I don't understand how she lives with the cognitive dissonance.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:08 PM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Grow up with outlandish behaviour and it becomes normalized. Plus, calling it out means, probably, no more allowance and getting cut out of the will. Few people would do that.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:09 PM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

It is interesting to see how Obama's rhetoric has changed from when he entered office. When he began, it was "Yes we can", "Hope", "Change", that sort of thing. Now it's "Yes we can . . . but it will take a long time, and we need to work hard." Which I imagine he felt was implicit in his statement when he entered office, but I think he likely underestimated exactly how hard it would be, and how much crap he'd get when he wasn't able to achieve exactly what others were expecting.

"Yes we can, but it will take a long time and we need to work hard" was something he said in his god-damn election night acceptance speech in 2008:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I don't know how much more implicit you can get than that. And him flat-out saying that "look, this is gonna take a lot of work and it's probably going to take longer than you think so we gotta pull together on this" is itself the thing that made me glad I voted for him when he said it because I agree absolutely.

Obama hasn't changed his rhetoric - what's changed is that people are finally listening to it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:17 PM on May 8, 2016 [49 favorites]

You know, now that you link to it I remember it. But you're right, my feelings-memory of that time period latched onto "yes we can" and not the "but it will be hard."
posted by Anonymous at 6:19 PM on May 8, 2016

Ivanka Trump: Nobody [in the family] is doing anything for the sake of being famous. It’s all for the sake of raising the price per square foot we’re able to get on saleable real estate.

http://pagesix.com/2007/04/14/trumpean-logic/

I don't think there is cognitive dissonance, I think there is only "What Is Good For Us".
posted by glitter at 6:20 PM on May 8, 2016

The Trump family motto is "Fuck Everyone, Get Money."
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:32 PM on May 8, 2016 [8 favorites]

Justinian: "I'm pretty sure that the Marxist-Leninist vote wasn't gonna go for Clinton in the first place."

ALL POWER TO THE MODERATES AND THEIR INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS!
posted by Chrysostom at 7:06 PM on May 8, 2016

So how does postponing the trial work if, khuda na khwasta, Trump wins? Why isn't the judge concerned about the potential of a media circus for the trial of a president-elect?
posted by bardophile at 7:20 PM on May 8, 2016

Postponed until February means it would be a trial of a President. And the judge may be doing the right thing. Can you even imagine the media circus?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:39 PM on May 8, 2016

I find the delay especially troubling because (as if we would not have enough to contend with in this situation already) a President Trump would arguably be immune from state and federal prosecution while in office. [PDF]
posted by sallybrown at 7:41 PM on May 8, 2016 [4 favorites]

The one silver lining I am seeing is that maybe now we are seeing that there are good people of principle in many places we did not believe. The down side is those people are all huddled together weeping.
posted by corb at 7:41 PM on May 8, 2016 [13 favorites]

So, in theory, this delay means that the trial actually gets postponed four to eight years?
posted by bardophile at 7:44 PM on May 8, 2016

I was looking at the 270towin map again, picturing just how badly Trump could conceivably tank the Republican party given the Gary Johnson/independent/#nevertrump talk the past two days. If there's really a split in the party, Trump could bottom out winning only the rump core of the deep south, and the irrelevant all-white upper plains states. There's an outside scenario where he becomes so toxic, even Utah and Texas could be up for grabs, as Utah is dominated by evangelicals who hate him, and Texas is slowly, ever so slowly, marching towards becoming a majority-minority state by 2032 or so. There's a much better case for states like Missouri and even Georgia legitimately on the board.

I don't think he'd do quite this badly, but the institutional Republican class is slower to come on board than I thought they would be, an apocalyptic wipeout for the Right could be in play.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:44 PM on May 8, 2016

I wonder if Trump may have torpedoed his chances when he talked about not paying US debt obligations in full. I imagine that would be disastrous for very wealthy people and corporations (and likely the entire economy of the US).
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:45 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Sen. John McCain said in an interview aired Sunday he believes Donald Trump 'could be a capable leader' and reiterated his stance that he will 'support the nominee' of the Republican Party."

Flashback: Megan McCain on May 3: "I hope history remembers those who gave up their conservative principles for the cult of personality and celebrity. And those who didn't."
posted by sallybrown at 7:45 PM on May 8, 2016 [16 favorites]

Is anyone giving odds on an '88 style landslide?
posted by bardophile at 7:47 PM on May 8, 2016

McCain, he's so maverick-y. Even to the end.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:47 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

which way?
posted by andrewcooke at 7:48 PM on May 8, 2016

I wonder if Trump may have torpedoed his chances when he talked about not paying US debt obligations in full. I imagine that would be disastrous for very wealthy people and corporations (and likely the entire economy of the US).

It's not hyperbolic to say such an action would be disastrous for the entire global economy.
posted by sallybrown at 7:52 PM on May 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

McCain, he's so maverick-y. Even to the end.

Whatever bits of maverick were left in McCain got beat out of him in '00, when Bush won SC by suggesting his adopted daughter was actually the bastard off spring of a (gasp!) interracial affair. He's basically been a broken man since then. He's full on toady now. It's a tragic decline, and this soft endorsement of Trump is rock bottom. He must think he needs Trumpian support to win re-election. You should just retire Maverick McCain. How can anyone respect you now?
posted by dis_integration at 7:53 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

Dem victory landslide, I mean.
posted by bardophile at 7:54 PM on May 8, 2016

Given the Hispanic population of Arizona, tying himself to Trump seems risky.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:56 PM on May 8, 2016

Donald Trump said he would not rule out an effort to remove Speaker Paul Ryan as chairman of the Republican National Convention if he did not endorse Trump’s candidacy, the New York Times reports.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:04 PM on May 8, 2016

Trump is going to harass every Republican who doesn't outright endorse him eventually if he's the official Republican nominee. Swing state on-the-fencers will all be targets. McCain's probably better off getting it out of the way now. Paul Ryan actually has a chance of being removed from Speaker just as quick as it began if he holds out his endorsement for too much longer. It's going to get ugly quick.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:05 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

What does it take to remove a speaker?
posted by bunderful at 8:18 PM on May 8, 2016

Just a vote of the House. "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker".
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:23 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

bunderful, Trump is not proposing to remove Ryan from his parliamentary (Congressional) position as Speaker of the House, but rather from his party position as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
posted by dhens at 8:24 PM on May 8, 2016 [3 favorites]

What does it take to remove a speaker?

The speaker is elected by a majority of votes of the house, and has to be reelected with every new Congress (every two years).

In these late and epigonal times, a "majority" of the votes means: you need all the GOP in favor of you, since the vote will be a pure party vote. Hence why Boehner had such troubles with the Tea Party caucus. They might make up a small % of the GOP, but the speaker needs their votes. A Trump Caucus of Vichy Republicans could oust a speaker easily. You don't need that many defectors to fight off a majority.
posted by dis_integration at 8:25 PM on May 8, 2016

Another way: Ryan could be "Cantored."
posted by sallybrown at 8:28 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

(warning: that's autoplaying video, and also Sarah Palin appears to think she's about to take her senior portrait)
posted by sallybrown at 8:28 PM on May 8, 2016

Another way: Ryan could be "Cantored."

Apparently Sarah Palin is interested in doing just that.
posted by dhens at 8:30 PM on May 8, 2016

Derp, saw that sallybrown's link is actually the same as mine.
posted by dhens at 8:30 PM on May 8, 2016

Jeeze, that McCain article illustrates the power of the headline. These refer to the same interview:

NYTimes: John McCain Demands Donald Trump Make Amends to Veterans

Politico: McCain: Trump could be a 'capable leader'

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
posted by Anonymous at 9:17 PM on May 8, 2016

Meanwhile, in the Philippines...

"The boorish frontrunner—who during campaigning made jokes about rape, his penis and killing his children if they took drugs—is tipped to win..."
posted by notyou at 9:24 PM on May 8, 2016

John Oliver makes the same point about the Philippines tonight on his show.
posted by zachlipton at 9:35 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

If Trump and Palin push out Ryan they may trigger the split the GOP is desperately trying to avoid -- and failing miserably at avoiding.
posted by dw at 9:48 PM on May 8, 2016

How exactly does an unelected person with no political office get Paul Ryan ousted as chairman?

Is he just saying he'll win the presidency and THEN kick Ryan out? And even then isn't it something he isn't empowered to do?

I'm honestly asking because I'm confused.
posted by mmoncur at 9:54 PM on May 8, 2016

I thought Palin was elected Speaker of FOX News? Isn't that a lifetime appointment?
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:04 PM on May 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

*NYTimes: John McCain Demands Donald Trump Make Amends to Veterans

Politico: McCain: Trump could be a ‘capable leader’

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.*

Anyone up for re-election is going to tread the finest of fine lines for the next few months. It’s a great opportunity to make them pay for it.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:30 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

(Of course, McCain has said that he’ll support Trump, so fuck ‘im.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:31 PM on May 8, 2016 [1 favorite]

I wonder if Trump may have torpedoed his chances when he talked about not paying US debt obligations in full

Maybe a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad. Imagine having to sell off chunks of the country to our debtors. Like how Russia once sold Alaska to the US for some quick cash, but this time we get to contractually make Sarah Palin some other rich asshole's flaming hemorrhoid.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:03 PM on May 8, 2016

I think the delegates control the chairman, but honestly Trumps delegate game is shit so idk.
posted by corb at 11:15 PM on May 8, 2016 [6 favorites]

As a Californian who has had a few Republican vs Republican options thanks to the jungle primary, I am fine with Bernie staying in for another month while Trump tells Republicans don't bother showing up.
posted by ckape at 12:24 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

i fear for this country....seriously
posted by lampshade at 12:31 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

Trump is a gift to the Democrats. What I don't understand is why they are not using this to make a big push this November to take the Senate (hello Chuck Grassley) and at least make a sizable dent in the GOP hold on the House.

It's not as if Obama's agenda had any problems with a hostile Congress.
posted by lowest east side at 12:37 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

They will be. Trump just became the nominee, you know.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:30 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

I figured Ryan's comments about being not "yet" ready were the beginning of a two-week tack-around to supporting the nominee because Paul Ryan above all wants to be considered as serious, thoughtful, and statesmanlike, so he can't flip-flop too fast and he has to make it look like he thought about it.

Sarah Palin, in her infinite lack of perception, just completely torpedoed that strategy by calling for the end of his political career, making any tack-around make him look weak and like he's giving in to threats. She may have just created a situation where he CAN'T endorse Trump.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:57 AM on May 9, 2016 [35 favorites]

it's amusing - people talk about the circular firing squad on the left, but there's nothing like the loose cannons and hot potato hand grenade tosses of the right
posted by pyramid termite at 5:06 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]

If you're an establishment Republican I don't see that you have much incentive to try to win this election. If Trump wins, then the anti-establishment clowns will have taken over. If Trump loses, then you have a chance to reassert control and shape the party as it rebuilds.
posted by rdr at 5:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Trump just doubled down on discounting U.S. debt, while assailing the media for misrepresenting his remarks because he doesn't actually want to default, just to negotiate the debt. So, it's not just that he was ignorant about how U.S. debt works - he's such a moron that even after everyone has explained why negotiating U.S. debt threatens global catastrophe, he can't or won't grasp it.

He -- this orange moron -- is currently the greatest threat facing the United States. The GOP should be flayed and blown up from the inside for its role in this fiasco. The self-proclaimed party of national security has put our country in very real danger.

On the plus side, he is digging such a deep line in the sand to anyone with a basic grasp of how U.S. debt works that I think it will prevent a lot of people with the privilege to turn a blind eye to Trump from donating to, endorsing, and voting for him. (This is where he will lose the white male professional class.)
posted by sallybrown at 6:15 AM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]

Trump, Warren engage in Twitter war (MSNBC Morning Joe)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:38 AM on May 9, 2016

Given that Trump's debt comments are dumb and dangerous, he's not too far away from Obama's efforts to craft a Grand Bargain with the GOP around Social Security. The problem with Social Security? The trust fund holds about 16% of Federal debt, and soonish the government will have to buy that debt back AND keep the growing cohort of Olds receiving their checks. A savvy negotiator could convince the Trust Fund to take a haircut on its debt, and have the olds pay for it in reduced benefits. Basically the Grand Bargain!

The Federal Reserve holds another 17 or 18%. What would a haircut there look like?
posted by notyou at 6:41 AM on May 9, 2016

Threatening to buy back government bonds at a discount and calling it "a wonderful thing" is far far afield from the Grand Bargain concept.
posted by sallybrown at 6:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

For that, you would need for there to exist a person Trump respects who isn't Trump.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:08 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

My kindle came with a WaPo subscription, and I don't know how to link from it, but they've been doing a lot of Trump=bad stories, but today they did a pretty mean piece about his wife, which as much as I despise Trump seemed overly sexist and shamey, even by the standards of hit pieces. It was very much a "this leggy pretty foreign model could infest the hallowed halls of our White House." I found the piece pretty gross, but perhaps it was too early in the a.m. to translate well.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:14 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Are you talking about this one from last week? Because it is totally gross and sexist. I am not even sure what their point is aside from "Trump's wife, ugh, she's pretty and nothing else, and she dresses kind of slutty amirite?!"
posted by Anonymous at 7:18 AM on May 9, 2016

Re: why no-one is telling Trump it's a terrible idea (the debt-discounting):
Is it possible that a sizeable contingent of the GOP sees Trump as the Ultimate Doomsday Weapon to Destroy Government? Like, step back from him now, then associate Trump's disastrous ideas with Government Overreach, and then go Full Norquist for a comeback in the aftermath?
posted by obliviax at 7:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

‘There’s nobody left’: Evangelicals feel abandoned by GOP after Trump’s ascent
posted by Artw at 7:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

So between the SS Trust Fund and the Federal Reserve that's a third of the debt that can be "re-negotiated" via various federal govt policy. To prevent too much mayhem in bond markets and such, they'd just have to reclassify debt held by the govt or the Fed as "renegotiable" and debt held by others as "Really Truly Full Faith and Credit" debt and Trump can have his promise and the GOP can have its entitlement cuts and its tight money. It's wins all around!

I have no idea what point you're trying to get across here. The government owing money to itself is much different than the government owing money to other nation states. Social Security benefits determine how much the program costs, and can be changed at any time. This does not in any way resemble defaulting on sovereign debt, because nobody at the receiving end of Social Security payments has any promise as to the value of the benefits they receive. I vehemently oppose attempts to weaken the program, but let's not pretend doing so in any way would resemble Trump's hare-brained default strategery.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:24 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

Another thing that boggles my mind - this man has been working in business at very high levels for decades, and is now almost guaranteed to be the GOP nominee for President - there's no one out there who can sit him down and tell him why this is a horrible idea and he needs to shut up about it?

I swear I've read an opinion piece from his former campaign communications manager that implies that that wouldn't help. She claimed his original intent was to run as a protest candidate, get like a strong second place finish and drive the party further right to make a point. He never counted on, or wanted, to get this far. But he got so caught up in the strength of the campaign, and the rush of it, that he started playing along and started wanting to win. Hat's the point at which she quit.

If you've seen the movie "The Candidate" - in which Robert Redford is put forth as a protest candidate for the Senate, and originally agrees to it so he has a wider platform for his message, but then gets caught up in the campaign and wins - it sounds like that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:28 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

Plus pulling something out of his ass and ignoring what other people say about it is his main business strategy too.
posted by Artw at 7:31 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

"What do we do now?"
posted by Chrysostom at 7:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

/me wonders, horrified, about ass abs
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 AM on May 9, 2016

FUCK YOU EDIT WINDOW
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 AM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]

Evangelicals feel abandoned by GOP after Trump’s ascent

Well, except for all the ones that voted for him.
posted by TedW at 7:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

you should see my ass 6-pack
posted by the phlegmatic king at 7:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Someone should organise a showing of The Great Rock And Roll Swindle for the evangelicals. Turns out if you sell your soul to politicians, you never get a good deal in the end.

If Trump drives home to the Christian conservatives that they have been royally used by the cynical side of the GOP over the past thirty years or so, then at least some of this angst-storm will have been worth it.
posted by Devonian at 7:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump is a gift to the Democrats. What I don't understand is why they are not using this to make a big push this November to take the Senate (hello Chuck Grassley) and at least make a sizable dent in the GOP hold on the House.

But they are. I probably get an email once a week from the Dems showing the current polling in the Senate races with a message about GIVE NOW AND WE CAN KEEP THE GOP FROM STEALING OUR MAJORITY or something weirdly phrased like that. The House will take some time to spin up given they have only a slight chance of retaking it.

Also, remember that we're still (sigh) four weeks from California where we'll settle the Democratic nomination once and for all. People are a little occupied.
posted by dw at 7:42 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

> Another thing that boggles my mind - this man has been working in business at very high levels for decades, and is now almost guaranteed to be the GOP nominee for President - there's no one out there who can sit him down and tell him why this is a horrible idea and he needs to shut up about it???

Another factor (which I read somewhere, though I haven't got a link handy) might be that Trump has done most of his business in the world of New York real estate, which is apparently a very weird and idiosyncratic place with its own very particular set of forces. He's also much less of a high-level business man than he likes to present himself as. His main skill seems to be able to not be the one left holding the bag when things go bad. He doesn't need to care if something is a horrible idea; it just needs to be able to pull others in and not stick to him.

He really is just a con-man. And he's good at it.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]

Well, except for all the ones that voted for him.

I believe he was tremendously unpopular among them.
posted by Anonymous at 8:07 AM on May 9, 2016

I'm rather looking forward to the Dems getting their nomination out of the way, because then you get Obama in war mode, and he sure looks like he's ready for a decent dust-up. I don't think he's ready to forgive the GOP for eight years of obstructionism and just not doing their job.
posted by Devonian at 8:09 AM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]

Also, remember that we're still (sigh) four weeks from California where we'll settle the Democratic nomination once and for all. People are a little occupied.

Yeah - a lot of the Senate seats the Dems could win back are also still at the primary stage. I imagine the party will make a "support these Senate candidates" push once those candidates are actually selected...
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:09 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trump calls for end to federal minimum wage as views shift Donald Trump has called for the elimination of the federal minimum wage, as he retreated from primary promises and once again refused to release his tax returns because of “a link” to an audit.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president repeatedly said he would support a higher minimum wage, a reversal from his position when he had conservative opponents. But he insisted on Sunday that states should decide such wages.

“I like the idea of ‘let the states decide’,” Trump told NBC’s Meet the Press. “But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number.”

Asked “should the federal government set a floor” – a national minimum wage – Trump replied: “No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do.

“And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other.”

In a November debate, the businessman, who claims his net worth is worth more than $10bn, said: “Taxes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world.”

He then told Fox News: “We were talking about the minimum wage, and they said ‘Should we increase the minimum wage?’ And I’m saying that if we’re going to compete with other countries we can’t do that because the wages would be too high.”

But on Sunday he expressed sympathy for people who struggle to survive on the current federal minimum wage.

“I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour,” he said. “But I would say: let the states decide.”
This actually does not sound like much of a change except he's now in favor of eliminating a federal safety net for the poor and exploitable pink and blue collar employees. He's been saying he wants states to be able to set their own minimum wage levels for months.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

> In these late and epigonal times ...

Um?

epigonal ‎(adj., not comparable)

Relating to, or characteristic of, a prehistoric culture of coastal Peru and Chile
Near or surrounding the gonads (in the embryos of some fish)

But epigonic seems to work, and not drag one out of the literature seminar and into an archeology dig or biology dissection lab.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:12 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

Let the state's decide....oh well, that's worked so well for ACA, voting rights, and welfare....
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

So what are the odds Trump chooses Palin as a running mate?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:17 AM on May 9, 2016

I missed this over the weekend -- apparently Sanders wants a Democratic party-funded equivalent of Fox News? How exactly would that work? There are a lot of problems with the political process, but "political parties aren't spending enough on propaganda" really isn't one of them.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

"U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Sunday he was open to raising taxes on the rich, backing off his prior proposal to reduce taxes on all Americans and breaking with one of his party's core policies dating back to the 1990s."

That great disturbance we all just felt was several million Republicans clutching their chests in horror and screaming "TRUUUUUMP!!!!"
posted by zarq at 8:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

I have no idea what point you're trying to get across here.

This is is fairly decent point, I think!: "Trump can have his promise and the GOP can have its entitlement cuts and its tight money. "

Trump has gotten as far as he has this election season by, among other things, seizing on GOP narratives (they're stealing our jerbs, China owns the country, taxes are too high), which bear only thinnest connection to actually existing reality (China holds about 10% of US debt) while offering ludicrous or GOP friendly policy proposals in reply (the Wall on the Border (ludicrous); tax breaks for off-shoring Corps to get them to keep the jerbs here (GOP-friendly).

It's not a great leap from "I'll re-negotiate the debt" (ludicrous) to "I'll re-negotiate the debt the US govt itself holds" (GOP-friendly).
posted by notyou at 8:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

So what are the odds Trump chooses Palin as a running mate?

Sarah Palin Says She Wouldn't 'Want To Be A Burden' By Being Trump's VP

Stopped clock, etc
posted by saturday_morning at 8:26 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Somebody was paying attention in American History class: "In #NeverTrump Movement, Echoes of 1884's 'Mugwumps'". More on the Mugwumps from wikipedia
posted by zarq at 8:30 AM on May 9, 2016

I'd bet on Trump selecting Ann Coulter rather than Sarah Palin.

I'm assuming he wants a woman as his VP pick so she can deliver misogynist attacks on Clinton and claim that since she's a woman too it doesn't count.

But I've been wrong about literally every Trump prediction I've made so far. Based on my track record this means we should expect to see Trump choosing a straight white man.
posted by sotonohito at 8:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm guessing he'll pick (a) a defeated GOP challenger who hates his guts, (b) another lunatic billionaire, or (c) his own son, Donald Trump Jr., in accordance with the dark prophecy
posted by theodolite at 8:36 AM on May 9, 2016

epigonal ‎(adj., not comparable)
Relating to, or characteristic of, a prehistoric culture of coastal Peru and Chile
Near or surrounding the gonads (in the embryos of some fish)

Ah, but Merriam Webster agrees with me:

1 : EPIGONIC

In any case, I'm also comfortable with saying that our era is akin to fish crotch.
posted by dis_integration at 8:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Anne Coulter is too thirsty for the limelight, he will never be able to keep her under his control. She's not a good soldier. Paradoxically I see that Palin statement as her lobbying him for the VP slot, which won't work (she's already a one-time loser).
posted by sallybrown at 8:36 AM on May 9, 2016

If he's going to pick a kid of his (wasn't there some reason this was impossible?), it will be The Anointed One Ivanka.
posted by sallybrown at 8:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

The Mugwumps was definitely the best White Stripes side project.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Having afternoon tea and very much enjoying reading the election comments here today.

{looks at plate of assorted cheeses thoughtfully}
posted by Wordshore at 8:43 AM on May 9, 2016

Now I want to hear a parody of 'Creeque Alley' with lyrics about the Republican nomination process.
posted by box at 8:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

The presumptive Republican nominee for president repeatedly said he would support a higher minimum wage, a reversal from his position when he had conservative opponents. But he insisted on Sunday that states should decide such wages.

“I like the idea of ‘let the states decide’,” Trump told NBC’s Meet the Press. “But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number.”

“I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour,” he said. “But I would say: let the states decide.”

In other words: "I appear to care but I don't actually want to do anything". He gets all the credit for being with the average joe while still being able to fuck him on wages while "the states" (who in some cases are also bought and paid for by these fucks) serve as willing accomplices.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

Trump / A nameless, mute, and grotesquely mutilated blood-thrall bearing an uncanny resemblance to Chris Christie
posted by theodolite at 8:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also: my wife met fellow Wellesley alumna HRC last week. She liked her.

Pursuant to earlier questions about Hillary's height - she's about 5' 2".
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]

{looks at plate of assorted cheeses thoughtfully}

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:47 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'd bet on Trump selecting Ann Coulter rather than Sarah Palin.

Right now, he needs to sell himself to the American people as a leader and not a snake-oil salesman. A seasoned politician with extensive foreign policy and military experience -- in other words, areas where he's weakest -- would be a smart choice. So would a minority candidate.

That said, Martha McSally might be an interesting choice for him, since he's going up against Clinton. She's a retired USAF colonel and Afghanistan veteran who is a member of the House of Representatives for Arizona's 2nd District.

Scott Brown could also be a possibility.
posted by zarq at 8:53 AM on May 9, 2016

Right now, he needs to sell himself to the American people as a leader and not a snake-oil salesman.

If he were a politician who actually listens to the people around him, I'd buy that. His schtick is working, he has no reason to change it. While I agree that he's cunning enough to pick a woman as his VP, she's not going to be a sober, considered choice. Palin, Coulter, Bachmann... she'll be just as unhinged as he is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 AM on May 9, 2016

There is a fresh/new, moderator-approved, 2016 US election post.
posted by Wordshore at 9:00 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

If he were a politician who actually listens to the people around him, I'd buy that. His schtick is working, he has no reason to change it. While I agree that he's cunning enough to pick a woman as his VP, she's not going to be a sober, considered choice. Palin, Coulter, Bachmann... she'll be just as unhinged as he is.

Imagine the marketing campaign. Trump VP™.
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Thanks for making all these election posts, Wordshore!

At this point, I would've probably just posted a single link to the taco bowl .gif.
posted by box at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

Although that said, I think it's much more likely that he'll pick a totally compliant nonentity who couldn't possibly pose a threat. Basically he's looking for another Quayle.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:08 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

He'll probably pick someone loathsome as assassination insurance.
posted by corb at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]

I am not sure who would be sufficiently loathsome to serve that purpose.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]

Palpatine?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]

I missed this over the weekend -- apparently Sanders wants a Democratic party-funded equivalent of Fox News?

US Uncut, HuffPo and The Intercept are all pretty much functioning as house organs for the Sanders campaign. What more does he want?
posted by dersins at 9:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yeah, but... those aren't...TV networks....
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on May 9, 2016

Remember how well Air America turned out
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]

US Uncut, HuffPo and The Intercept are all pretty much functioning as house organs for the Sanders campaign. What more does he want?

Something that could make him win?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:37 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

I hardly have my finger on the pulse of the media landscape, but how relevant is Fox News at this point? I thought they were in trouble because their audience was basically dying off, and not very many people under 70 even watch cable news networks anymore. I think we'd be better off trying to do the thing that he's already doing really successfully: figuring out how to be effective in the emerging media landscape, which is probably not going to revolve around network television.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:39 AM on May 9, 2016

Fox News is doing just fine.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:43 AM on May 9, 2016

WaPo: Where is Trump’s evangelical base? Not in church.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:46 AM on May 9, 2016

I'm not sure that your link says that Fox News is doing fine. It's doing better than the other cable news networks: its viewership only declined by 1%. But the link says that cable news is declining and that the pay TV model is in trouble. I don't see why this would be the time to jump on that particular bandwagon.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:48 AM on May 9, 2016

Palpatine?

I'd take Palpatine over Trump. Death Star creation probably makes lots of jobs, at least.
posted by Archelaus at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2016

prize bull octorok: "Remember how well Air America turned out"

I'm sure Robert Downey, Jr. is very proud of it.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:10 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Re that WaPo link... so, basically, whoever speculated that Trump's base is comprised of All The Worst People is correct. It's the sort of assholes who self-identify as "Evangelical Christian" without even bothering to darken the doors of a church.
posted by Sara C. at 10:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump is going to harass every Republican who doesn't outright endorse him eventually if he's the official Republican nominee.

No wonder Chris Christie likes him. That's what motivated his whole bridge shutdown.
posted by msalt at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2016

The fact that Fox News is going just fine on revenue isn't the same thing as relevant. Cable news has always had kind of an outsized perception with their reality. Showbiz_liz's link shows the median daily viewership of the big three as being under 2 million. As a percentage of the population that's under 1%. Even in prime time it's under 3M.

By comparison, if you look at broadcast tv only (no cable channels) you get this:

In week 52 of the broadcast television season ending Sunday, September 13 2015, NBC was number one among adults 18-49 with a 2.5 adults 18-49 rating average. FOX took second with a 1.7 adults 18-49 rating, while CBS took third with a 1.7 18-49 rating. Univision and ABC tied for fourth with a 0.9 adults 18-49 rating average and The CW finished sixth with a 0.3 adults 18-49 rating average.
...
Each adults 18-49 rating point is a percentage of the adults 18-49 US TV population and equals 1.2681 million adults 18-49.

So that's 10.1M by comparison (and only measuring 18-49!), which doesn't include any cable or streaming. Cable news viewers are engaged in a way that the general populace is not but they don't begin to capture the majority of the voting population.
posted by phearlez at 10:40 AM on May 9, 2016

Since it's scrolled past recent activity, new and approved election thread.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:50 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]

"People who have participated in elections in California in the past have always known that their late primary makes them not a very decisive state for presidential primaries. It's not really a surprise to people who actually vote."

This kind of thing is why I do not bother, at all, trying to pick between multiple Democratic candidates. I don't bother to research the differences between the two of them because the decision will be made for me long before I supposedly can choose.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:49 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Paul Ryan offers to step down as GOP convention chair if Donald Trump asks
posted by Artw at 11:47 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ok, well, this is very very very bad:

New Poll Shows Drumpf, Clinton In Dead Heat In 3 Key Swing States
posted by holborne at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2016

Ok, well, this is very very very bad:

Don't freak out until you know the actual methodology and sampled groups and have more than one pollster to compare.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

this is all part of Nate Silver's elaborate ten year plan to educate the world about statistics and polling.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yeah, not to whistle past the graveyard here, but Quinnipiac had the worst record of any pollsters during the primary, and there seem to be some pretty obvious sampling issues.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:01 AM on May 10, 2016

Paul Ryan offers to step down as GOP convention chair if Donald Trump asks

I...have gained respect for Paul Ryan? Why does Trump have to ruin everything?
posted by middleclasstool at 9:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]

Also, who lies about getting a phone call from a dude when there's literally nothing at stake there?
posted by middleclasstool at 9:04 AM on May 10, 2016

Oh, can we have the Nate Silver who actually believes in his own results back then?
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Also, who lies about getting a phone call from a dude when there's literally nothing at stake there?

Apparently The Donald.
posted by Archelaus at 11:26 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh, can we have the Nate Silver who actually believes in his own results back then?

I think it was less a lack of faith in the results and more a case of falling into the trap of saying too much, too early. There just weren't much in the way of reliable data when the Trump Doom article was written. If Silver has just said "dunno" it would have been better prediction but less interesting punditry. Silver has to balance those two things, and he made a mistake by acting too much like a traditional pundit, and made a guess based on some flawed assumptions.
posted by howfar at 11:42 AM on May 10, 2016

He basically did the same thing the pundits did when an Obama victory was staring them in the face, which was a weird reversal from s guy who was previously all about trusting the numbers. As far as I can tell the flawed assumption that went in to this was "No no no no no no no no"
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

The numbers just weren't all that good to begin with. Predicting elections is not just looking at the polls. Look at the shit 538 predictions of the last UK general election for an example of that. His assumption was that the party decides, and that the weird candidate wouldn't win. My point isn't to excuse Silver's mistake, it's to argue that his mistake was engaging in traditional punditry when all he could reasonably say was "polls favour Trump but they aren't very predictive, so who knows?". That's actually a major blow to his credibility, because his credibility is significantly based on his knowing what he doesn't know, not just on calling right.
posted by howfar at 12:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

MapleMatch.com: Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:33 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]

aw jenfullmoon pulled a numaner! FPP
posted by numaner at 11:39 AM on May 11, 2016

MapleMatch.com: Maple Match makes it easy for Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:33 PM

OK, that's a joke site, right?

Because if it's not, I'm willing to sign up, although I still think I'd prefer a nice woman from Norway, given my lineage.

W the II was destructive enough to the USA. I don't think I can take much more.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 1:03 AM on May 12, 2016

Take it or leave it: Trump's rise puts moderate Republicans in a tough spot
posted by Artw at 5:32 AM on May 12, 2016

When devoted Republican Lindsay Arthurs walks into a polling booth on 8 November, she will stare at two names on the presidential ballot – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – and refuse to choose.

I don't think Lindsay Arthurs knows how voting works.
And, since the US doesn't have compulsory voting, why would she even do that?
posted by Mezentian at 6:22 AM on May 12, 2016

"The Benghazi stuff is troubling, besides the fact she let her husband do all that and let him get away with it."

This entire sentence reads like a thought-terminating cliché. She is a curious choice to represent thoughtful conservatives. Leaving aside the Benghazi truther dumbshit, the back half of that sentence is a stone's throw from Fiddleford McGucket-level gibberish.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:29 AM on May 12, 2016

I wonder if there are any Republucans regretting drumming up the email and Benghazi things... Those are cited as the two main reasons not to vote for her (that and generalized lack of trust and "Bill"), but she'd clearly be the better choice for them on economic issues than that nutcase Trump.
posted by Artw at 6:30 AM on May 12, 2016

I still cannot for the life of me understand the whole "she's a liar/I don't trust her" thing. Even with Bill -- he lied about cheating on his wife, okay. Pretty much anyone who cheats will lie about it. But every other so-called scandal turned out to be bullshit on close inspection, and other than Whitewater, a deal they lost money on, none of them had anything to do with her anyway.

They're no more ambitious or dishonest than anyone else in government, yet they're demonized by a party that produced Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Nixon. There is something about the Clintons that makes people lose their goddamn minds.

If I were her, suffering the kind of horseshit burn-the-witch stuff she does, the only thing that would keep me going in my career would be pure resentment. The desire to shove my every success in their pinched little Puritan faces.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]

I don't think Lindsay Arthurs knows how voting works.
And, since the US doesn't have compulsory voting, why would she even do that?

Do YOU know how voting works? Specifically, that there will be other choices on the ballot beyond just the presidential race?
posted by phearlez at 7:06 AM on May 12, 2016

Do YOU know how voting works? Specifically, that there will be other choices on the ballot beyond just the presidential race?

I know how our preferential voting works, and mostly how the NZ voting system works. But I admit my knowledge of the US voting system is not 100% there:
1. No one forces you to vote, sol the vote is not reflective.
2. Voting is held on work days, so workers can't easily vote.
3. There are all kinds of rules about which citizens can vote.
4. There is no national style of voting.
5. Y'all vote on everything from president to municipal sewer cleaner (and judges/magistrates and law enforcement) in the same ballot.
6. Hanging chads.
7. You like political dynasties,
8. You vote first past the post?

But, yes, I get she can vote for the local dog catcher, but the article makes it seem it she has to vote Trump/Clinton/Not At All.

The more people who "throw away their vote", the more likely it is to get a third party in.

Serious: are there any non R/D members of the congress or senate?
posted by Mezentian at 7:41 AM on May 12, 2016

There are some unaffiliated members, including Sanders. I'm pretty sure there are no currently seated legislators who represent a third party though.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:48 AM on May 12, 2016

Not to mention that Sanders is from the 49th most populous state, which means convincing a lot fewer people to vote for a somewhat non-traditional candidate.
posted by TedW at 7:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

1. No one forces you to vote, sol the vote is not reflective.

Well, in a perfect world where everyone has the option to vote, the vote is reflective of who cares enough to involve themselves. Personally I'm a bit of an outlier on the left in that I am perfectly comfortable with people who don't care choosing to stay home. I want them to have a big window of opportunity to vote - I personally think a 3 week window is the best possible choice for a number of reasons - but if they seriously want the rest of us to make decisions for their life? Okay, float where the current takes you, bub.

2. Voting is held on work days, so workers can't easily vote.

This is true. First tuesday after the first monday in November. Plus all sorts of other nonsense.

3. There are all kinds of rules about which citizens can vote.

Sort of. In theory it's all citizens who have not been specifically disenfranchised because of being jailed, though there's a lot of identification nonsense being implemented for what I and others would say are disingenuous reasons. Voting rights after being released from prison are not automatically restored, which is gross.

4. There is no national style of voting.

I am not sure what this means. Do you mean how the vote is conducted - machine, mail-in, little tick-marks on a piece of paper? If so, yes, this is true; like a lot of things, implementation details are left to the states themselves (provided, in theory, that they do not break certain equal-rights limitations). The fact of the matter is that for a number of contests the state isn't even necessarily obligated to conduct a popular vote; the state government could, using other mechanisms, make a selection and send that person to the national government. However I believe at this point all the state constitutions mandate a popular vote for president and congressional representations (though some allow for appointments out-of-cycle, like what happened in Illinois when Obama became president and left behind a vacant senate seat)

5. Y'all vote on everything from president to municipal sewer cleaner (and judges/magistrates and law enforcement) in the same ballot.

Mostly true. Again, this is up to the states and some, like mine in Virginia, have out-of-cycle elections. Usually this sucks; in Virginia the result is that people turn out in much lower quantity for the governor's race because it's not in line with either presidential OR senatorial/house votes. Additionally, running an election is expensive. So doing them when you don't have to has a cost. So putting them all together increases participation and saves money.

6. Hanging chads.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

7. You like political dynasties,

Who is this you?

8. You vote first past the post?

Mostly. Some states implement rules for some roles that require a runoff if there's not a victor by a certain margin, including for national level roles. But, as stated, it's up to them.

But, yes, I get she can vote for the local dog catcher, but the article makes it seem it she has to vote Trump/Clinton/Not At All.

Well, yes, if she walks in and gets a ballot to vote then she does indeed get presented with the choice for president which she can make a selection or leave blank. She lives within the same aprox 30 square mile county I do so she'll be asked to vote for a house representative at the very least, as well as - I think - two county commissioners. Plus any possible bond issues (though I am unaware of any at the moment) and possibly some other regional activity about public transportation and parks & recreation.

Now, in her particular case it might be that she may as well just stay home instead of going to vote for downticket items since Arlington is pretty liberal. However she's a weird voter given the supposed socially liberal stances she claims to support despite this republican identification. So perhaps she'll want to specifically support our lone republican commissioner (who as an Arlington Republican is probably to the left of, say, a West Virginia republican). Who knows?

The more people who "throw away their vote", the more likely it is to get a third party in.

Sadly this isn't much true in the US. The two party system is baked into state level processes pretty deeply, primarily via access to the ballot. Unless someone can find a way to challenge these things as unconstitutional in the courts it seems unlikely to be overturned anytime in my lifetime, as the people who would have to vote to do it almost universally have a vested interest in not opening up the door to more choices.
posted by phearlez at 8:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

Also, Sanders was officially no-party, but he was no-party in a way that meant that he was affiliated pretty closely with the Democrats. I think it would be very hard to be an actual free-agent, and it would make it very tough to be in any way effective.

Yeah, a tremendous amount of the sausage is made in committees in congress. Assignments are made by controlling parties and pretty much amount up to seniority. So long-serving party members get the more "valuable" places, like ways & means. When talking about caucusing with the dems, King (the other (I) in the senate) said it was because otherwise he's hosed on committee participation.

The chambers get to make a lot of their own rules about how things work - the filibuster being the most famous - but the committee stuff is possibly more important, particularly because for a long time what happened in a lot of them was very opaque to outside observation. When I was working on a project that tracked bills as they proceeded through their lifespans one of the most frustrating things was how little we knew about what was happening once things went into committee. A committee might discuss and further mark-up and modify a bill, but unless it actually left committee we'd see jack and shit.

Since so many things just go and die in committee that was super frustrating. It might not have been so bad if the committees all recorded and published their votes, but they didn't. In the 113th congress I would say they mostly did not (though I don't have stats on that; we didn't do much in that arena because the inconsistent publication made it a less valuable place for us to focus for our purposes). That's improved somewhat but still not universal, and the Senate - which tends to be way behind the house on technology - is still doing in-committee markup on paper the last I asked a friend about it.
posted by phearlez at 8:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

A Trump victory was easy to foretell, unless you were an idiot
posted by Artw at 9:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

My brain knew a Trump victory was possible, even likely. But my heart did not want to think we live in this world.
posted by maxsparber at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]

I still cannot for the life of me understand the whole "she's a liar/I don't trust her" thing.

I actually think there's a simple answer to that one: we're conditioned to believe that women are liars and untrustworthy by nature. Add that to the fact that the GOP has been trying for years to get something to stick and you get some vague, if totally spurious, impression that she's "dishonest." Unfortunately, Trump won't have a hard time playing that for all its worth.
posted by holborne at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]

They've worked long and hard for this moment - without that work the main suspicion hanging over her would be that she's actually a moderate republican, and I can't really see them latching on to that.
posted by Artw at 12:38 PM on May 12, 2016

I still cannot for the life of me understand the whole "she's a liar/I don't trust her" thing.

It's the Republican modus operandi. They use it to target woman and all minorities and political opponents by painting them as deceptive liars. They then ignore real world consequences, or alternatively, celebrate them. The Republican 'untrustworthy liars' narrative has been used to fight abortion rights, gay marriage, women's rights, civil rights, bathroom rights, etc.

Listen to that Othering narrative enough, and we get truly dangerous acts like this: "A local board of education in North Carolina voted Monday to allow high school students to carry pepper spray at school, with one board member arguing that female students may need mace to defend themselves if the state's "bathroom bill" is overturned in court."
posted by zarq at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

A Trump victory was easy to foretell, unless you were an idiot

I'm not sure what this adds. People were sceptical about the polls largely because the polls had been wrong before. All the inferences against Trump were crappy punditry, but doubting the polls was entirely reasonable, given the fact that relying on the polls in previous races would have been, on average, a bad idea. So saying "I looked at the polls and predicted a Trump win, you all are dumb" is, given what we know about primary polls in general, like saying "I looked at any obviously stopped clock that said 12 noon, you all are dumb for doubting the stopped clock".

It's important to avoid both:

(1) Crappy punditry that substitutes received wisdom for data. This is something that all the major pundits, including 538, engaged in. They also remained in denial for far too long once the actual primary results started to emerge.

(2) Crappy punditry that blindly follows the polls without assessing their reliability. This is what the linked writer is getting close to patting themself on the back for.
posted by howfar at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

Still, him not winning should have been the surprise, not vice-versa.
posted by Artw at 1:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

The polling averages are reliable for telling you the current state of the race, even if it's still early. That doesn't mean they will predict the winner, but they do tell you what the campaigns have to achieve over time to win.

Look at that December average in the linked post. I can't tell a plausible story about how any of those top names could have defeated Trump in this race at that point. He was the most likely winner for sure.

I understand how people could have different views there. I can't understand how people argued for so long he had no shot whatsoever. The polls made it very clear he was a serious threat to win at least.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:26 PM on May 12, 2016

I think early on a belief that he was one of the bizarre novelty frontrunners the GOP has before the primaries start was reasonable, but once he started winning primaries it stopped being reasonable and became wishful thinking.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't think it was stupid to think that Trump would fade; I myself figured that one of the others in the field would be able to coopt the same fascist and racist vibe with a somewhat smoother face. It's what usually happens in Republican nomination battles.
posted by tavella at 5:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

All the usual garbage lining up behind Trump.

Give it a month or two and it will be weird to think there ever was a Republican Party that didn't full support him.
posted by Artw at 8:56 AM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]

'Emails. Clinton. Scandal': my three days listening to nothing but rightwing media
posted by Artw at 10:24 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]

« Older Philadelphia - Rainbow - Phoenix - Montauk | “Watching them feels wicked meditative.” Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

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

Tags

Share

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