What variety of cheese would Donald be? The 2016 US election continues.
May 9, 2016 8:58 AM Subscribe
With only six months left in the all-too-brief election campaign, three candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties remain. In the red corner, Donald has vanquished Ben, Bobby, Carly, Chris, George, Jeb, Jim, John, Lindsey, Marco, Mike, Rand, Rick, the other Rick, Scott, and Ted. In the blue corner, Bernie and Hillary have vanquished Jim, Lawrence, Lincoln and Martin.
However, there is pessimism about whether Donald can win the general, with bookmaker odds stabilizing and keeping Hillary as the clear favorite. Elsewhere, Sarah doesn't like Paul, Lindsey is glad he isn't in Area 51, Gary Johnson "could" become POTUS, and Jeb sort-of returns. Meanwhile, Bernie collects more delegates in Washington state, while Hillary wins the Guam caucus. And, on the island of his mother's birth, war has broken out between rival facebook groups for and against Donald.
Recent news on voter ID laws, suppression and machines from Florida, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press and Bloomberg. Primaries in the rest of May for the Democratic and Republican parties are:
May 10th: Nebraska (Republican primary) and West Virginia (Democratic and Republican primary)
May 17th: Oregon (Democratic and Republican primary)
May 24th: Washington (Republican primary)
While a confused nation looks on, one group of people is quietly relieved. Meanwhile, more pictures of cats made to look like Donald, and previously.
Election threadopedia: most recent eight
May 4th - Trump will be the Republican standard-bearer.
April 26th - Crossing the Delaware: five primaries in the US election.
April 19th - Twirling towards freedom: the US election - New York primaries.
April 11th - It's still only April: the US election drags ever onwards.
April 3rd - After this it's the midterms: April's US election primaries.
March 15th - Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand.
March 5th - Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues.
March 1st - Super Tuesday.
Meta: the most recent election MetaTalk thread, and discussions in other MetaTalks here and here about election threads; also, commenting on the dangers of violence to POC. Also, c'mon people - give the moderators a break and make this a more inclusive debating place... [1] [2], [3] and especially [4]. For MeFites not interested in the US election, other elections are available.
Recent news on voter ID laws, suppression and machines from Florida, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press and Bloomberg. Primaries in the rest of May for the Democratic and Republican parties are:
May 10th: Nebraska (Republican primary) and West Virginia (Democratic and Republican primary)
May 17th: Oregon (Democratic and Republican primary)
May 24th: Washington (Republican primary)
While a confused nation looks on, one group of people is quietly relieved. Meanwhile, more pictures of cats made to look like Donald, and previously.
Election threadopedia: most recent eight
May 4th - Trump will be the Republican standard-bearer.
April 26th - Crossing the Delaware: five primaries in the US election.
April 19th - Twirling towards freedom: the US election - New York primaries.
April 11th - It's still only April: the US election drags ever onwards.
April 3rd - After this it's the midterms: April's US election primaries.
March 15th - Election 2016: Rubio and Kasich's last stand.
March 5th - Six candidates, eight days, eleven states: Election 2016 continues.
March 1st - Super Tuesday.
Meta: the most recent election MetaTalk thread, and discussions in other MetaTalks here and here about election threads; also, commenting on the dangers of violence to POC. Also, c'mon people - give the moderators a break and make this a more inclusive debating place... [1] [2], [3] and especially [4]. For MeFites not interested in the US election, other elections are available.
Thank you, wordshore. As always, you're doing a superb job on this season's election posts.
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by zarq at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
I still can't imagine how long it'll take for me to wrap my head around the fact that the Republicans actually nominated Trump. Insanity.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine the marketing campaign. Trump VP™.
"Trump VPs are the best VPs in the world and I mean that in every sense of the word and The Sharper Image is the only store where you can buy them!"
posted by Talez at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Trump VPs are the best VPs in the world and I mean that in every sense of the word and The Sharper Image is the only store where you can buy them!"
posted by Talez at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Trump starts his march leftwards by saying he’ll tax rich people
Neoconservatism and the Trump Effect
Here’s what it means when politicians and pundits call Trump ‘dangerous’
And the free media coverage
Douthat: The Conservative Case Against Trump
IT'S TOO LATE ROSS!
Shorter Dreher: STIGGINIT is not that satisfactory.
Our Awful Elites Gutted America. Now They Dare Ring Alarms About Trump, Sanders—And Cast Themselves as Saviors
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
Neoconservatism and the Trump Effect
Here’s what it means when politicians and pundits call Trump ‘dangerous’
And the free media coverage
Douthat: The Conservative Case Against Trump
IT'S TOO LATE ROSS!
Shorter Dreher: STIGGINIT is not that satisfactory.
Our Awful Elites Gutted America. Now They Dare Ring Alarms About Trump, Sanders—And Cast Themselves as Saviors
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [19 favorites]
I don't know, sometimes that Australia election thread goes 15 minutes between comments. Come on, slackers!
posted by Chrysostom at 9:04 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 9:04 AM on May 9, 2016
The GOP Doesn’t Seem To Be Cracking Up In Down-Ballot Races:
That's about primaries, and remember that these are people who have survived at least one Tea Party election cycle already. They know how to walk the tightrope between Establishment and True Conservative, but they might not know how to walk the 3D tightrope between Establishment and True Conservative and Total Fucking Nutjob.
And the downballot races won't be about attracting the mythical independent-but-informed voter -- they'll be about convincing people who desperately don't want to vote for Trump to come to the ballot box and vote for Rep. Smith. GOTV is everything this time around.
posted by Etrigan at 9:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's about primaries, and remember that these are people who have survived at least one Tea Party election cycle already. They know how to walk the tightrope between Establishment and True Conservative, but they might not know how to walk the 3D tightrope between Establishment and True Conservative and Total Fucking Nutjob.
And the downballot races won't be about attracting the mythical independent-but-informed voter -- they'll be about convincing people who desperately don't want to vote for Trump to come to the ballot box and vote for Rep. Smith. GOTV is everything this time around.
posted by Etrigan at 9:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
From the "isn't this premature" file: Trump taps Christie to lead transition
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:08 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:08 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
a non-edible one, surely. which doesn't mean this post counts, Wordshore.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
a non-edible one, surely. which doesn't mean this post counts, Wordshore.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
sure to warm hearts, the GOP'Lifer': Why Trump is Worse than Cruz
Yes, Republicans have been pandering to racists since the Sixties. However, in light of Trump’s appeals, complaints of “dogwhistle” signaling from Republican candidates now seem quaint. When Republicans still felt the need to conceal any racism, we could credibly believe (sometimes with good reason) that appeals to racism were no more than empty posturing. Everyone understood that in most cases the dogwhistle was a cynical distraction. It is precisely that ruse, that failure to follow through on the veiled promise of white supremacy, that so many white voters are now rebelling against.Trump And Trust
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]The 21st century has unfortunately seen quite a few issues where both parties have struck out. Both parties endorsed the Iraq War, telling the American people it was a good idea. In this election cycle, the only candidate who seemed to still think this was true was Jeb Bush. Both parties (for perhaps different reasons) endorsed immigration reform and then failed to deliver. Both parties wanted more free trade, especially with China, and didn't pay enough attention to the downside. Both parties voted for TARP and then ran for the hills, in effect refusing to explain to the American people why extraordinary actions were necessary to combat the fall 2008 financial crisis. Both parties were responsible at different times for slowing work in Congress to a crawl. And both parties are complicit in different ways in running the system that finances politics in ways that look irredeemably corrupt to the American people. The list of both-party failures is really pretty long. Democrats need the same wake-up call that Republicans just received! And because parties are key elements of our constitutional order, their continuous malfunction puts the legitimacy of that order into serious question.
From SNL, the (oh so very hopeful) imagining of a time, just two years from now, where we all enjoy the eternal sunshine of a spotless mind. [Hulu link, if that's better]
posted by psoas at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by psoas at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2016
a non-edible one, surely. which doesn't mean this post counts, Wordshore.
Orange, no substance and completely artificial? He's the pack of cheese mix from Kraft Mac and Cheese of course.
posted by Talez at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Orange, no substance and completely artificial? He's the pack of cheese mix from Kraft Mac and Cheese of course.
posted by Talez at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Those Onion links prove once again that this election is satire-proof. You could put the exact same articles up on TPM or Politico and no one would notice the difference from the "real" stories.
posted by octothorpe at 9:13 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 9:13 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump's Empty Administration:
The lack of interest in serving Trump extends from the energy and financial services sectors to defense and foreign policy. And while the reluctance of former officials to join a Trump administration may spark a good-riddance response from the candidate himself, the absence of experienced professionals at the assistant-secretary level could have profound consequences on the government.posted by sallybrown at 9:16 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
“The bottom line is Trump will be able to fill these jobs because there is a whole class of people who want these titles so badly it doesn’t matter who is president,” said a former senior George W. Bush administration official. “But these are B- or C-level people. They are honorable, but not very good. The A-level people, and there are not that many of them to begin with, mostly don’t want to work for Trump. He will cut the A-level bench of available policy talent at least in half, if not more.”
Building an administration from scratch requires filling more than 3,000 high-level federal jobs, starting with a Cabinet and trickling down to the scores of deputies, undersecretaries and assistant administrators who actually make the U.S. government tick.
From the "isn't this premature file":Trump taps Christie to lead transition
Scott Adams, MeFi hero and someone who called this for Trump ages ago, would say that's "anchoring" or something -- getting us to see the done deal -- and another example of Trump's off-the-charts Powers of Persuasion.
Maybe that's going too far, but folks gotta stop underestimating the person who just blitzed one of the most powerful political institutions on the planet!
posted by notyou at 9:16 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Scott Adams, MeFi hero and someone who called this for Trump ages ago, would say that's "anchoring" or something -- getting us to see the done deal -- and another example of Trump's off-the-charts Powers of Persuasion.
Maybe that's going too far, but folks gotta stop underestimating the person who just blitzed one of the most powerful political institutions on the planet!
posted by notyou at 9:16 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Best line about Kasich: he came in fourth in a three-man race.
posted by chavenet at 9:17 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 9:17 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Delegate count trackers are available at 538, Associated Press and Bloomberg.
The Economist also has a useful (non-paywalled) graphic timeline.
posted by psoas at 9:18 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Economist also has a useful (non-paywalled) graphic timeline.
posted by psoas at 9:18 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Confused? You won't be after this week's episode of Soap.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
The Making of an Ignoramus Trump’s bad ideas are largely a bombastic version of what many in his party have been saying.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says he’s willing to relinquish his duties as chairman of the Republican convention in July if Donald Trump requests it.
“He's the nominee. I'll do whatever he wants,” Ryan said during an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday. A Ryan aide confirmed the remarks posted by the paper’s reporters on Twitter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
“He's the nominee. I'll do whatever he wants,” Ryan said during an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday. A Ryan aide confirmed the remarks posted by the paper’s reporters on Twitter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:21 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I assume naming Christie to the transition is just Trump's way of kicking him out of the VP or cabinet running
posted by ckape at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Best line about Kasich: he came in fourth in a two-man race.
When Nate Silver brings snark, he really brings snark.
posted by zabuni at 9:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
When Nate Silver brings snark, he really brings snark.
posted by zabuni at 9:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says he’s willing to relinquish his duties as chairman of the Republican convention in July if Donald Trump requests it.
Something something rats something something sinking ship
posted by dersins at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Something something rats something something sinking ship
posted by dersins at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
The Making of an Ignoramus: Trump’s bad ideas are largely a bombastic version of what many in his party have been saying.
This is a much better restatement of what I was about to post, re: they may have to rename Dunning-Kruger Trumping-Kruger in his honor. But it DOESN'T MATTER to his followers because they don't WANT someone who understands government, economics and politics to be President. These are people who respond to a proposal of "well, we're going to smash the entire U.S. economy with a sledgehammer right off the bat" with APPROVAL, because they've been fed a Muzak system of "Everything government does is bad (unless it's dropping bombs), abolish all taxes, drown government in the bathtub" for the last forty years.
These people have absolutely no idea that drowning America _also affects them_ negatively.
posted by delfin at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
This is a much better restatement of what I was about to post, re: they may have to rename Dunning-Kruger Trumping-Kruger in his honor. But it DOESN'T MATTER to his followers because they don't WANT someone who understands government, economics and politics to be President. These are people who respond to a proposal of "well, we're going to smash the entire U.S. economy with a sledgehammer right off the bat" with APPROVAL, because they've been fed a Muzak system of "Everything government does is bad (unless it's dropping bombs), abolish all taxes, drown government in the bathtub" for the last forty years.
These people have absolutely no idea that drowning America _also affects them_ negatively.
posted by delfin at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2016 [36 favorites]
Ben Carson is leading the VP search. Amazing. I still feel scared and shook up at the fact that DJT is going to the R nominee.
posted by feste at 9:30 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by feste at 9:30 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
they'll be about convincing people who desperately don't want to vote for Trump to come to the ballot box and vote for Rep. Smith.
While at the same time convincing people who do want to vote for Trump to also vote for Rep. Smith. That'll be the tricky part.
Every candidate in every downballot race will eventually have to take a stand on whether they endorse Trump or not -- and no, the wishy washy "support the nominee" non-answers we're getting now will not hold up in September when Trump actually comes to town and wants to campaign with them. How do you run a good Republican race this year while alienating either the Trump primary vote or the Anyone-But-Trump primary vote?
I think that 538 article is missing the point -- there hasn't been a massive primary campaign against R incumbents because the insurrection is a one-man band at this point. But the problem for the GOP is that it won't be for much longer. The schizoid experience of running two separate and conflicting races at the same time is the force that threatens to crack the party up.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
While at the same time convincing people who do want to vote for Trump to also vote for Rep. Smith. That'll be the tricky part.
Every candidate in every downballot race will eventually have to take a stand on whether they endorse Trump or not -- and no, the wishy washy "support the nominee" non-answers we're getting now will not hold up in September when Trump actually comes to town and wants to campaign with them. How do you run a good Republican race this year while alienating either the Trump primary vote or the Anyone-But-Trump primary vote?
I think that 538 article is missing the point -- there hasn't been a massive primary campaign against R incumbents because the insurrection is a one-man band at this point. But the problem for the GOP is that it won't be for much longer. The schizoid experience of running two separate and conflicting races at the same time is the force that threatens to crack the party up.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
All of this completely ignores the main question on most people's minds: How does Deez Nutz feel about taco bowls?
posted by sexyrobot at 9:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 9:32 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
Cheez Whiz, obviously.
posted by dilettante at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Cheez Whiz, obviously.
posted by dilettante at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think people are underestimating how dangerous Trump could be against Clinton if he cares to tack left and pull some pages from Sanders' book. The people who are with him for xenophobic reasons will stay, but poor and disenfranchised people may be tempted over as well.
posted by corb at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2016 [40 favorites]
The Making of an Ignoramus Trump’s bad ideas are largely a bombastic version of what many in his party have been saying.
And on Friday, Krugman predicted that the so-called "liberal media"'s need for a close race and "balance" will cause them to give Trump free pass after free pass.
(And why not? This morning NPR ran a story on North Carolina's odious "no civil rights for LGBT citizens" bill that quoted several Republicans but not one opponent of the legislation.)
posted by Gelatin at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
And on Friday, Krugman predicted that the so-called "liberal media"'s need for a close race and "balance" will cause them to give Trump free pass after free pass.
(And why not? This morning NPR ran a story on North Carolina's odious "no civil rights for LGBT citizens" bill that quoted several Republicans but not one opponent of the legislation.)
posted by Gelatin at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I assume naming Christie to the transition is just Trump's way of kicking him out of the VP or cabinet running
The only thing I've enjoyed about Trump's horrible, horrible run has been the way he's exposed Chris Christie as a craven, grasping lickspittle with zero integrity and no true grit behind the cocky bombast and bully boy posturing.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
The only thing I've enjoyed about Trump's horrible, horrible run has been the way he's exposed Chris Christie as a craven, grasping lickspittle with zero integrity and no true grit behind the cocky bombast and bully boy posturing.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
what's that kind of cheese that is filled with live active maggots continuously eating and pooping cheese
posted by beerperson at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
what's that kind of cheese that is filled with live active maggots continuously eating and pooping cheese
posted by beerperson at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
So now that Trump is definitely going to be the GOP nominee, can we maybe revisit the idea of giving voters ultimate say in who the nominee is?
posted by Automocar at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wish there was a way that Bruce Springsteen could arrange for Christie to never be able to buy a ticket to one of his concerts again. Not even from scalpers.
"I'm sorry, Mr. Governor- I can't sell you this."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I'm sorry, Mr. Governor- I can't sell you this."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Every candidate in every downballot race will eventually have to take a stand on whether they endorse Trump or not
Every candidate in every downballot race will fall in line because that's how they'll get re-elected, and because Republicans are much better at acting in lockstep than Democrats are.
what's that kind of cheese that is filled with live active maggots continuously eating and pooping cheese
Casu Marzu
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Every candidate in every downballot race will fall in line because that's how they'll get re-elected, and because Republicans are much better at acting in lockstep than Democrats are.
what's that kind of cheese that is filled with live active maggots continuously eating and pooping cheese
Casu Marzu
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:39 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've always felt that American Cheese is a fraud, so on this one question Donald Trump is a true American.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
but poor and disenfranchised people may be tempted over as well
May be? They already are! Blue collar Democrats are a rich target for Trump! He's anti-trade! Clinton will go over like a lead balloon with the "less educated."
posted by feste at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
May be? They already are! Blue collar Democrats are a rich target for Trump! He's anti-trade! Clinton will go over like a lead balloon with the "less educated."
posted by feste at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Casu marzu was the first thing to pop into my mind as well, but I discounted the comparison as being unfair to live wriggling maggots.
posted by ckape at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ckape at 9:40 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
So now that Trump is definitely going to be the GOP nominee, can we maybe revisit the idea of giving voters ultimate say in who the nominee is?
That's kind of a ridiculous notion, because instead of the primaries shitshow it'll be a two-year double Presidential election shitshow. It's an uncontroversial idea that the members of a given political party get to choose who the leader of their party is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's kind of a ridiculous notion, because instead of the primaries shitshow it'll be a two-year double Presidential election shitshow. It's an uncontroversial idea that the members of a given political party get to choose who the leader of their party is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Casu Marzu-a-Lago
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Not everybody can pull off a Cheney, but Ben Carson would actually make a pretty good VP in a Trump/Carson ticket. He's soft-spoken, religious, and not a white guy. People who only ever vote Republican but don't like Trump's style would find Carson appealing and a sop to their sensibilities. I'm scaring myself thinking about how successful this strategy could be.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 9:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, he's always had a great relationship with The Blacks (tm).
posted by tonycpsu at 9:44 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 9:44 AM on May 9, 2016
This many comments into a political cheese thread and no one wants to make America grate again?
posted by chavenet at 9:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [76 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 9:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [76 favorites]
That's kind of a ridiculous notion, because instead of the primaries shitshow it'll be a two-year double Presidential election shitshow. It's an uncontroversial idea that the members of a given political party get to choose who the leader of their party is.
A party's presidential nominee isn't really the "leader" of the party though. And anyway this idea that the primaries should be binding is a fairly recent phenomenon.
posted by Automocar at 9:47 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
A party's presidential nominee isn't really the "leader" of the party though. And anyway this idea that the primaries should be binding is a fairly recent phenomenon.
posted by Automocar at 9:47 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, the VP doesn't have to do much of significance, which seems fine for Ben Carson.
Like, if you were going on a roadtrip with Ben Carson and some other friends, Carson would read out interesting stuff from travel guides and have interesting opinions on where to go for lunch, but you'd somehow work it so that he never actually got his hands on the steering wheel.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:47 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Like, if you were going on a roadtrip with Ben Carson and some other friends, Carson would read out interesting stuff from travel guides and have interesting opinions on where to go for lunch, but you'd somehow work it so that he never actually got his hands on the steering wheel.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:47 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Posted late in the last thread: Where is Trump’s evangelical base? Not in church.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just started imagining a new season of Celebrity Apprentice, where various discredited Republican hawks, ex-boy band members, and Fox News anchors compete for nominations to Trump's first Cabinet. They collaborate on tasks like: wandering into the Libyan desert and randomly shooting at the locals, destabilizing small Latin American democracies, putting together proposals for defense contracts and ... and then I started wondering what cheap bordeauxs are on special at Sainsburys at the moment because I really, really need a drink.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Some VP pick betting odds are starting to show up. I doubt these are too meaningful just now.
posted by Skorgu at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by Skorgu at 9:53 AM on May 9, 2016
A party's presidential nominee isn't really the "leader" of the party though.
I had been very much under the impression that the Presidential nominee is, in fact, the leader of the party. Google is equivocal. Cite?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:54 AM on May 9, 2016
I had been very much under the impression that the Presidential nominee is, in fact, the leader of the party. Google is equivocal. Cite?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:54 AM on May 9, 2016
Orange, no substance and completely artificial? He's the pack of cheese mix from Kraft Mac and Cheese of course.
You are wrong. His face undergoes the Maillard reaction, so he probably tastes delicious.
Sorry.
posted by clawsoon at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2016
You are wrong. His face undergoes the Maillard reaction, so he probably tastes delicious.
Sorry.
posted by clawsoon at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2016
You leave me out of this!
posted by cortex at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by cortex at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
I think people are underestimating how dangerous Trump could be against Clinton if he cares to tack left and pull some pages from Sanders' book. The people who are with him for xenophobic reasons will stay, but poor and disenfranchised people may be tempted over as well.
Yes, and when he tries, it is a magnificent spectacle of incoherence. From Meet the Press this past Sunday:
It's really quite incredible. I expect him to continue this way right through to November.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Yes, and when he tries, it is a magnificent spectacle of incoherence. From Meet the Press this past Sunday:
CHUCK TODD: Minimum wage. Minimum wage. At a debate, you know. You remember what you said. You thought you didn't want to touch it. Now you're open to it. What changed?The highlighted part is just... what? It literally means nothing. He contradicts himself in two adjacent sentences - he wants to see a minimum wage increase, and he wants to leave it to the states. The follow up question seems to confirm he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage, but by saying "I would like to see an increase" and "I don't know how you can live on 7.25 an hour," he is throwing a bone to economically disadvantaged people who really want to hear that. All while he is getting ready to sell them down the river. Or, best case, do nothing on the issue.
DONALD TRUMP: Let me just tell you, I've been traveling the country for many months....
I have seen what's going on. And I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour. Now, with that being said, I would like to see an increase of some magnitude. But I'd rather leave it to the states. Let the states decide. ...
CHUCK TODD: Right. You want the fed-- but should the federal government set a floor, and then you let the states--
DONALD TRUMP: 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, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they're out there. They're working. It is a very low number. You know, with what's happened to the economy, with what's happened to the cost. I mean, it's just-- I don't know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide.
It's really quite incredible. I expect him to continue this way right through to November.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Trump would be Provel Cheese. Like Provel, Trump is more of a petroleum product than dairy.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
A party's presidential nominee isn't really the "leader" of the party though.
The presidential nominee is the most visible member of a political party (unless there is an incumbent president of the same party). He or she has the most influence on the platform, election spending, and messaging. It takes a fairly twisted and targeted definition of "leader" to say that Donald Trump is not the "leader" of the Republican Party at this moment in time.
posted by Etrigan at 10:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
The presidential nominee is the most visible member of a political party (unless there is an incumbent president of the same party). He or she has the most influence on the platform, election spending, and messaging. It takes a fairly twisted and targeted definition of "leader" to say that Donald Trump is not the "leader" of the Republican Party at this moment in time.
posted by Etrigan at 10:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
Head cheese.
Pig's head set in jelly. The meat of the head is used, but the brain, eyes, and ears are usually removed. The tongue, however, may be included.
posted by Kabanos at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Head cheese.
Pig's head set in jelly. The meat of the head is used, but the brain, eyes, and ears are usually removed. The tongue, however, may be included.
posted by Kabanos at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
It takes a fairly twisted and targeted definition of "leader" to say that ANYONE is leading the Republican Party at this moment in time.
posted by delfin at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by delfin at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Regarding his stance on taxes, minimum wage, etc.: he's going to be all over the place and intentionally so so that he can't get tied down to anything. And his supporters will believe the one they want to hear. Don't worry about his latest statement, attack him on the one most extreme, damaging one.
posted by chris24 at 10:05 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 10:05 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
The polls all showed him doing really well, as early as September. He wound up doing really well. The polls all now show him doing really really poorly in November. I predict he will wind up doing really poorly in November. What I want to know is whether the RNC will order another post-mortem, and whether they'll ignore it, like they did the 2012 one.
posted by eclectist at 10:06 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by eclectist at 10:06 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's hard to nail down when there are also those political systems (eg. Westminster systems) where "party leader" has a coherent institutional definition. By that standard, no, you couldn't exactly say that Trump is the leader of the Republicans the way David Cameron is the leader of the UK Tories. Any claim made about someone being a leader of a party in the States is just by necessity a little hazier.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Head cheese
I think that's the other side of the Atlantic.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think that's the other side of the Atlantic.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The presidential nominee is the most visible member of a political party (unless there is an incumbent president of the same party). He or she has the most influence on the platform, election spending, and messaging. It takes a fairly twisted and targeted definition of "leader" to say that Donald Trump is not the "leader" of the Republican Party at this moment in time.
Except that this isn't how American political parties work. "Leader" is usually a term that is used in parliamentary systems where political parties vote for a specific leader and that leader of the party becomes the head of government if that party gains the most seats in an election.
Which I'm sure you know, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.
I mean, we have the Speaker of the House openly saying that he's not "ready" to back Trump. American political parties are messy, is my point.
posted by Automocar at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Except that this isn't how American political parties work. "Leader" is usually a term that is used in parliamentary systems where political parties vote for a specific leader and that leader of the party becomes the head of government if that party gains the most seats in an election.
Which I'm sure you know, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.
I mean, we have the Speaker of the House openly saying that he's not "ready" to back Trump. American political parties are messy, is my point.
posted by Automocar at 10:07 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Trump would be Provel Cheese.
I didn't capture a photo, but I once saw a package of "Shredded Pizza Topping" that included in its labeling "Warning: Keep refrigerated. Contains cheese."
posted by benito.strauss at 10:09 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I didn't capture a photo, but I once saw a package of "Shredded Pizza Topping" that included in its labeling "Warning: Keep refrigerated. Contains cheese."
posted by benito.strauss at 10:09 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump is the little block of American cheese that comes in Lunchables.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Joey Buttafoucault: The highlighted part is just... what? It literally means nothing. He contradicts himself in two adjacent sentences - he wants to see a minimum wage increase, and he wants to leave it to the states. The follow up question seems to confirm he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage, but by saying "I would like to see an increase" and "I don't know how you can live on 7.25 an hour," he is throwing a bone to economically disadvantaged people who really want to hear that. All while he is getting ready to sell them down the river. Or, best case, do nothing on the issue.
It's really quite incredible. I expect him to continue this way right through to November.
Ditto on taxes:
posted by clawsoon at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
It's really quite incredible. I expect him to continue this way right through to November.
Ditto on taxes:
In Trump’s tax plan, the wealthiest individuals would get a tax break, with the top tax rate dropping from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. But when pressed if he wants taxes on the wealthy to go up or down, he predicted that the top rate would be higher than the plan says. “On my plan they’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” Trump said.Reminds me of:
...
He meant to communicate that he was open to top rates higher than those in his proposal as part of the negotiations to get tax reform passed, but also maintained they would remain lower than the current rate. “Now, if I increase it on the wealthy, they’re still going to pay less than they pay now,” the presumptive Republican nominee said. “I’m not talking about increasing from this point. I’m talking about increasing from my tax proposal.”
RICK JAMES: See, I never just did things just to do them, c'mon I mean, what I'm gonna do just all of the sudden just jump up and grind my feet in somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that. ...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.It'll be fascinating to see how one constructs a campaign against someone with no consistent platform and no apparent desire to have one. It'll be a wildcard election.
posted by clawsoon at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump should pick former London Mayor Boris Johnson as his VP. As Johnson was born in the US and therefore a natural born citizen; he's eligible. Americans are not members of the EU; but the Trump voters don't realize it; so Johnson can even keep his signature issue.
posted by humanfont at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Gelatin: "The Making of an Ignoramus Trump’s bad ideas are largely a bombastic version of what many in his party have been saying. (And why not? This morning NPR ran a story on North Carolina's odious "no civil rights for LGBT citizens" bill that quoted several Republicans but not one opponent of the legislation.)"
NPR has really lapsed in self-parody there: "N.C.'s 'Bathroom Law' Energizes Voters On Both Sides Of The Issue". They're not even trying to pretend that there's an objective reality.
posted by octothorpe at 10:13 AM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
NPR has really lapsed in self-parody there: "N.C.'s 'Bathroom Law' Energizes Voters On Both Sides Of The Issue". They're not even trying to pretend that there's an objective reality.
posted by octothorpe at 10:13 AM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
Oh, and as "who's the head of the party", as far back as the 1980s my PoliSci prof was saying that in America at the federal level individual politicians run their own business and the party is more like a professional association. So the party is more like the "Greater St. Louis Restauranteurs Association", and the individual politicians each own and run their own restaurant. It's not so important who is the current head of the GSLRA.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:14 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:14 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hollywood Reporter: "Azealia Banks Endorses Donald Trump, Claims Hillary Clinton 'Talks to Black People As If We're Children or Pets'"
posted by Apocryphon at 10:15 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:15 AM on May 9, 2016
RNC Chair: Trump Should Reassure GOP That He Won’t Change The Party Platform: “There’s a few things that I think can help in this regard,” Priebus told radio host Mike Gallagher on Monday when asked about those who have said they would never vote for Trump. “I think the Trump folks are willing to explore this. Number one, Donald Trump is not wanting to rewrite the platform, OK? So all that anxiety, just take it off the table. So, not willing to do that, but, you know, but, get into that, tell people that. That you don’t want rewrite, that you appreciate and agree with the platform the way it is.”
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I want to know is whether the RNC will order another post-mortem, and whether they'll ignore it, like they did the 2012 one.
They didn't ignore it, although they could have embraced it harder they had two Hispanics running. They got hijacked. Question now is if there'll be a Republican Party to do the post mortem.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:22 AM on May 9, 2016
They didn't ignore it, although they could have embraced it harder they had two Hispanics running. They got hijacked. Question now is if there'll be a Republican Party to do the post mortem.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:22 AM on May 9, 2016
ok, wait, folks, I'm not even done with the last 300+ comments in the other thread! I've been reading nothing but that thread during my free time for the past 3 days and I still can't catch up.
posted by numaner at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by numaner at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
As Johnson was born in the US and therefore a natural born citizen; he's eligible.
Johnson claimed that he would be giving up his US citizenship and would therefore be ineligible.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2016
Johnson claimed that he would be giving up his US citizenship and would therefore be ineligible.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2016
Ugh, not editing to add: Plus there's a residency requirement that he doesn't meet.
posted by Etrigan at 10:24 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by Etrigan at 10:24 AM on May 9, 2016
What I want to know is whether the RNC will order another post-mortem, and whether they'll ignore it, like they did the 2012 one.
They'll probably conclude that, like in 2012, they lost because they didn't nominate a "true conservative". This belief will likely continue until they do nominate a "true conservative" and (I hope) lose. At which point they will have to conclude something else.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:24 AM on May 9, 2016
They'll probably conclude that, like in 2012, they lost because they didn't nominate a "true conservative". This belief will likely continue until they do nominate a "true conservative" and (I hope) lose. At which point they will have to conclude something else.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:24 AM on May 9, 2016
Nope, it's a No True Scotsman thing. The evidence that they haven't nominated a True Conservative is that they have lost.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Hollywood Reporter: "Azealia Banks Endorses Donald Trump, Claims Hillary Clinton 'Talks to Black People As If We're Children or Pets'"
Banks has been such a thin-skinned, homophobic mess for years. She and Trump seem like a good fit.
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Banks has been such a thin-skinned, homophobic mess for years. She and Trump seem like a good fit.
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
With only six months left in the all-too-brief election campaign
*crushes heavily on OP*
posted by infini at 10:33 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
*crushes heavily on OP*
posted by infini at 10:33 AM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
With only six months left in the all-too-brief election campaign
*crushes heavily on OP*
*wants to crush heavily the OP*
Just kidding, great work with the FPPs, Wordshore
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 10:37 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
*crushes heavily on OP*
*wants to crush heavily the OP*
Just kidding, great work with the FPPs, Wordshore
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 10:37 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I Was Crushed Heavily by the GOP, a new novel by Chuck Tingle.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:41 AM on May 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
RNC Chair: Trump Should Reassure GOP That He Won’t Change The Party Platform
Heh. Funnily I think that's one thing he can totally give the RNC. You think Donald wants to officially put his opinions into writing? Hell no, he'd much rather let you guys have your platform and then continue advocating whatever the hell pops into his head at any given moment. Less work for him too.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:42 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Heh. Funnily I think that's one thing he can totally give the RNC. You think Donald wants to officially put his opinions into writing? Hell no, he'd much rather let you guys have your platform and then continue advocating whatever the hell pops into his head at any given moment. Less work for him too.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:42 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
They didn't ignore it. ... They got hijacked.
No, I think the people who nominated Trump are The Republican Party, and that's the problem. The question is, what happens to The Party Formerly Known As The Republicans. Moderate Dems?
posted by eclectist at 10:42 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, I think the people who nominated Trump are The Republican Party, and that's the problem. The question is, what happens to The Party Formerly Known As The Republicans. Moderate Dems?
posted by eclectist at 10:42 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Azealia Banks is a good reminder that just because you are talented in one area, that doesn't mean you have a brain for a different area.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:43 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:43 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
feckless fecal fear mongering: "Nope, it's a No True Scotsman thing. The evidence that they haven't nominated a True Conservative is that they have lost."
Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I Was Crushed Heavily by the GOP, a new novel by Chuck Tingle.
posted by Faint of Butt
Faint of Butt being, naturally, how one feels after reading too many Chuck Tingle creations
posted by saturday_morning at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt
Faint of Butt being, naturally, how one feels after reading too many Chuck Tingle creations
posted by saturday_morning at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
“The bottom line is Trump will be able to fill these jobs because there is a whole class of people who want these titles so badly it doesn’t matter who is president,” said a former senior George W. Bush administration official. “But these are B- or C-level people. They are honorable, but not very good. The A-level people, and there are not that many of them to begin with, mostly don’t want to work for Trump. He will cut the A-level bench of available policy talent at least in half, if not more.”
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official....
So, instead of Heckuvajob Brownie, you get some third string guy who can actually run things in government but isn't crazy enough or obsequious enough to rise to the top. It's like the story of the Republican nomination all over again, the "A-level" bench is made up of low-energy idiots.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official....
So, instead of Heckuvajob Brownie, you get some third string guy who can actually run things in government but isn't crazy enough or obsequious enough to rise to the top. It's like the story of the Republican nomination all over again, the "A-level" bench is made up of low-energy idiots.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [17 favorites]
Clinton's million dollar trolling SuperPAC.
"It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”
"Super PACs are typically prohibited from working in tandem with candidates, but Correct the Record is doing just that by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance law that it says permits such coordination with digital campaigns."
posted by anti social order at 10:51 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
"It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”
"Super PACs are typically prohibited from working in tandem with candidates, but Correct the Record is doing just that by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance law that it says permits such coordination with digital campaigns."
posted by anti social order at 10:51 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
said a former senior George W. Bush administration official....
I definitely choke-laughed at that part too, but they're really talking how important the under-Brownies are -- not the Cabinet officials that we hear about, but the hundreds of assistants and deputies who actually get shit done. As much as we very much don't want so-called A-level people running departments if they're going to be Rumsfelds and Cheneys, you do need A-level administrators and bureaucrats running the day-to-day within the departments, or else we're going even farther down the "conservatives believing that government can't accomplish anything, getting elected, and proving it" rabbit hole.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I definitely choke-laughed at that part too, but they're really talking how important the under-Brownies are -- not the Cabinet officials that we hear about, but the hundreds of assistants and deputies who actually get shit done. As much as we very much don't want so-called A-level people running departments if they're going to be Rumsfelds and Cheneys, you do need A-level administrators and bureaucrats running the day-to-day within the departments, or else we're going even farther down the "conservatives believing that government can't accomplish anything, getting elected, and proving it" rabbit hole.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:53 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, instead of Heckuvajob Brownie, you get some third string guy who can actually run things in government but isn't crazy enough or obsequious enough to rise to the top.
Except the Heckuvajob Brownies of the world, who are quite frequently political appointees and semicompetent at best, precisely are the ones who "want these titles so badly it doesn’t matter who is president."
The real concern is that the people a level or 3 below that, who are generally at least semi-capable of fulfilling the duties of the positions that keep government even remotely functional, will say "fuck no," leaving a Trump administration populated by Heckuvajob Brownies all the way down.
posted by dersins at 10:55 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Except the Heckuvajob Brownies of the world, who are quite frequently political appointees and semicompetent at best, precisely are the ones who "want these titles so badly it doesn’t matter who is president."
The real concern is that the people a level or 3 below that, who are generally at least semi-capable of fulfilling the duties of the positions that keep government even remotely functional, will say "fuck no," leaving a Trump administration populated by Heckuvajob Brownies all the way down.
posted by dersins at 10:55 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, I think the people who nominated Trump are The Republican Party, and that's the problem. The question is, what happens to The Party Formerly Known As The Republicans. Moderate Dems?
For the last 30 years, the Republican party has been moving steadily to the right. This has basically given the Democratic party cover to move farther right themselves, adopting more centrist positions and mopping up centrist voters. Certainly Hillary Clinton would have been a Republican when I was a kid. In fact I think she actually was. Without organized labor to hold Democrats' feet to the fire, there's been nothing to stop them from doing this, and they don't really lose significant support from the left because a) where are they going to go? and b) the Republicans have become so extreme that most progressives vote protectively to keep them out.
This year is obviously different. Trump has played the GOP's Southern Strategy organ better than they ever could and effectively taken their party away from them. I don't see how the Republican party becomes anything other than a fringe right-wing weirdo party at this point. (Seriously, what's your path back to legitimacy after you nominate Donald Trump to be President?) The Democrats are already making overtures to the moderate Republicans repelled by Trump on the grounds that their positions aren't really all that far apart anymore.
At the same time, the progressive left is getting more and more upset by this, as the Sanders campaign shows. This is way, way more significant than the Nader fringe split of 2000. If the Republicans retreat into the Party of White Resentment and their electoral base fragments, this removes a lot of pressure on liberals to vote Democrat or else. So I can see a situation where the Democratic party increasingly loses support on the left.
The problem is, I don't see why the Democratic party should care all that much. I'm worried that we're moving from a two party system to a one party system where that one party is the Democrats, defending the center (and increasingly representing the needs of the elites) against right and left wing fringe populist parties that never actually win elections.
I find America's political future, frightening, honestly.
posted by Naberius at 10:56 AM on May 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
For the last 30 years, the Republican party has been moving steadily to the right. This has basically given the Democratic party cover to move farther right themselves, adopting more centrist positions and mopping up centrist voters. Certainly Hillary Clinton would have been a Republican when I was a kid. In fact I think she actually was. Without organized labor to hold Democrats' feet to the fire, there's been nothing to stop them from doing this, and they don't really lose significant support from the left because a) where are they going to go? and b) the Republicans have become so extreme that most progressives vote protectively to keep them out.
This year is obviously different. Trump has played the GOP's Southern Strategy organ better than they ever could and effectively taken their party away from them. I don't see how the Republican party becomes anything other than a fringe right-wing weirdo party at this point. (Seriously, what's your path back to legitimacy after you nominate Donald Trump to be President?) The Democrats are already making overtures to the moderate Republicans repelled by Trump on the grounds that their positions aren't really all that far apart anymore.
At the same time, the progressive left is getting more and more upset by this, as the Sanders campaign shows. This is way, way more significant than the Nader fringe split of 2000. If the Republicans retreat into the Party of White Resentment and their electoral base fragments, this removes a lot of pressure on liberals to vote Democrat or else. So I can see a situation where the Democratic party increasingly loses support on the left.
The problem is, I don't see why the Democratic party should care all that much. I'm worried that we're moving from a two party system to a one party system where that one party is the Democrats, defending the center (and increasingly representing the needs of the elites) against right and left wing fringe populist parties that never actually win elections.
I find America's political future, frightening, honestly.
posted by Naberius at 10:56 AM on May 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
What about Condi as Trump's VP pick?
posted by bardophile at 10:58 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 10:58 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I had been very much under the impression that the Presidential nominee is, in fact, the leader of the party. Google is equivocal. Cite?"
Definitely not in the Parliamentary sense. In the same way that we have a multi-polar governmental system, we have multi-polar party leadership. There's the chairman of the RNC (or DNC) -- that'd be Reince Priebus -- who controls a lot of the money, a lot of the staff, and a lot of the data; there's the head of the House and Senate party caucuses -- Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell -- who have the most power in setting the party's legislative agenda. (Ryan is ascendant over McConnell right now, but the House and Senate go back and forth on which house is more powerful and important over time, and the specifics of the situation make it vary which part of the party has more power to set the agenda.) Sometimes there is a president or presidential nominee (here, Trump), who has a vast bully pulpit and (if in office) control of a large bureaucracy and administrative apparatus, but surprisingly little power to set the legislative agenda. These various poles both cooperate but also compete; their desires are frequently not remotely in alignment.
In US politics we don't really talk about the "leader of the party" and the idea of a unitary leadership -- or, for that matter, a party with a highly unified legislative agenda like you have -- is relatively foreign to us. Party platforms and presidential promises are, like, negotiation starting points, people don't view them really as an agenda that will be put in motion, because no single point in our system has that kind of power. Maybe if we go back to Roosevelt in the 1930s? But even then, not Parliamentary in the scope of his ability to set and push an agenda.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:59 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Definitely not in the Parliamentary sense. In the same way that we have a multi-polar governmental system, we have multi-polar party leadership. There's the chairman of the RNC (or DNC) -- that'd be Reince Priebus -- who controls a lot of the money, a lot of the staff, and a lot of the data; there's the head of the House and Senate party caucuses -- Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell -- who have the most power in setting the party's legislative agenda. (Ryan is ascendant over McConnell right now, but the House and Senate go back and forth on which house is more powerful and important over time, and the specifics of the situation make it vary which part of the party has more power to set the agenda.) Sometimes there is a president or presidential nominee (here, Trump), who has a vast bully pulpit and (if in office) control of a large bureaucracy and administrative apparatus, but surprisingly little power to set the legislative agenda. These various poles both cooperate but also compete; their desires are frequently not remotely in alignment.
In US politics we don't really talk about the "leader of the party" and the idea of a unitary leadership -- or, for that matter, a party with a highly unified legislative agenda like you have -- is relatively foreign to us. Party platforms and presidential promises are, like, negotiation starting points, people don't view them really as an agenda that will be put in motion, because no single point in our system has that kind of power. Maybe if we go back to Roosevelt in the 1930s? But even then, not Parliamentary in the scope of his ability to set and push an agenda.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:59 AM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Clinton's million dollar trolling SuperPAC.
So are we now just using "trolling" to mean "saying something I don't agree with?"
posted by dersins at 10:59 AM on May 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
So are we now just using "trolling" to mean "saying something I don't agree with?"
posted by dersins at 10:59 AM on May 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Clinton's million dollar trolling SuperPAC.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.
[...]
Brock referred questions to Elizabeth Shappell, a spokesperson for the super PAC, who emailed a brief statement saying that Barrier Breakers, as the effort is labeled, "is only engaged in positive content, even when responding to offensive content, and is always identified" as Correct the Record, she wrote.
this article can't point to or identify any verifiable CTR activity that even loosely fits any definition of trolling
I guess people hella trolled reddit pretending to be CTR operatives, but I feel like that's not what they're referring to
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:00 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.
[...]
Brock referred questions to Elizabeth Shappell, a spokesperson for the super PAC, who emailed a brief statement saying that Barrier Breakers, as the effort is labeled, "is only engaged in positive content, even when responding to offensive content, and is always identified" as Correct the Record, she wrote.
this article can't point to or identify any verifiable CTR activity that even loosely fits any definition of trolling
I guess people hella trolled reddit pretending to be CTR operatives, but I feel like that's not what they're referring to
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:00 AM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Maybe if we go back to Roosevelt in the 1930s? But even then, not Parliamentary in the scope of his ability to set and push an agenda.
And even FDR was roadblocked by the Supreme Court, thus the court packing scheme.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:04 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
And even FDR was roadblocked by the Supreme Court, thus the court packing scheme.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:04 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The word "troll" here is being used in the same sense as "Russia's troll army", paid online propagandists.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:08 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 11:08 AM on May 9, 2016
By coincidence I spent several hours today going through and transcribing campaign leaflets from the 1927 and 1933 elections in Danzig. Some of them were...depressingly recognizable.
(However, the Social Democrats came up with some pretty amusing doggerel against the NSDAP!)
posted by orrnyereg at 11:15 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
(However, the Social Democrats came up with some pretty amusing doggerel against the NSDAP!)
posted by orrnyereg at 11:15 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem is, I don't see why the Democratic party should care all that much. I'm worried that we're moving from a two party system to a one party system where that one party is the Democrats, defending the center (and increasingly representing the needs of the elites) against right and left wing fringe populist parties that never actually win elections.
Never send to know for which party Trump is the nominee. He is the nominee for yours.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:15 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Never send to know for which party Trump is the nominee. He is the nominee for yours.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:15 AM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, a concerted "well, actually..." campaign of paid propaganda certainly counts as a type of trolling on many parts of the internet.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:18 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:18 AM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Clinton’s Sealioning Super PAC”?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
>this article can't point to or identify any verifiable CTR activity that even loosely fits any definition of trolling
Obviously defining 'trolling' correctly as a art is the most important thing here, not the Dem frontrunner using borderline-illegal coordination with a superPAC run by a well-known scumbag to try and manufacture grassroot support online.
posted by anti social order at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Obviously defining 'trolling' correctly as a art is the most important thing here, not the Dem frontrunner using borderline-illegal coordination with a superPAC run by a well-known scumbag to try and manufacture grassroot support online.
posted by anti social order at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, what is with David Brock’s hair in that photograph?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:22 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:22 AM on May 9, 2016
When Nate Silver brings snark, he really brings snark.
That last link makes me wonder if all of this is nothing more than a grand product placement opportunity?
posted by infini at 11:22 AM on May 9, 2016
That last link makes me wonder if all of this is nothing more than a grand product placement opportunity?
posted by infini at 11:22 AM on May 9, 2016
Oh good, we've gotten to the "your candidate is a scumball" portion of the thread. I was worried about things for a minute.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:23 AM on May 9, 2016 [39 favorites]
Yeah, but if your candidate is the Donald Trump/David Duke ticket, then, well ....
Trump/Duke 2016: Scumballs to the Wall!
posted by eclectist at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump/Duke 2016: Scumballs to the Wall!
posted by eclectist at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
I don't know, but I put my faith in Blast Hardcheese.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
I don't know, but I put my faith in Blast Hardcheese.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Man, I miss the days when someone could say "David Duke 2016" and I would know with certainty that they were kidding.
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on May 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
Cheese of the Patriarchy
posted by melissasaurus at 11:31 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cheese of the Patriarchy
posted by melissasaurus at 11:31 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
Possibly not entirely natural.
posted by Wordshore at 11:33 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Possibly not entirely natural.
posted by Wordshore at 11:33 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would be interesting to examine actual CTR activity we can link to, instead of just projecting whatever nefariousness we like onto what we imagine it to be.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:36 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You mean quid pro quo?
posted by kyp at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kyp at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What variety of cheese would Donald be?
Hell, I don't know. But here's a wee bit of cheesey diversion.
Sailing the Seas of Cheese
posted by dougzilla at 11:42 AM on May 9, 2016
Hell, I don't know. But here's a wee bit of cheesey diversion.
Sailing the Seas of Cheese
posted by dougzilla at 11:42 AM on May 9, 2016
On The Media interviews Libby Watson from the Sunlight Foundation on the "Correct The Record" SuperPac:
Hillary and the Trolls (4/29/16)
posted by kyp at 11:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary and the Trolls (4/29/16)
posted by kyp at 11:44 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Maybe let's skip jumping into the deep end on the speculative Clinton PAC Trollin' And What Does Trolling Mean Exactly thing here.
More generally, I'll take a moment here to remind folks that the endless "candidate/candidate's supporters that I dislike suck" and more coy or arms-length varitions of same as a dynamic is terrible and has been well overdone at this point already. We're sending folks email and giving time off at this point if we see it continuing to recur. Please help us make these threads less tedious.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
More generally, I'll take a moment here to remind folks that the endless "candidate/candidate's supporters that I dislike suck" and more coy or arms-length varitions of same as a dynamic is terrible and has been well overdone at this point already. We're sending folks email and giving time off at this point if we see it continuing to recur. Please help us make these threads less tedious.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:45 AM on May 9, 2016 [26 favorites]
Yes, PJ O’Rourke Endorsed Hillary Clinton Today
"I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it."
posted by tonycpsu at 11:46 AM on May 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
"I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it."
posted by tonycpsu at 11:46 AM on May 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
It would be interesting to examine actual CTR activity we can link to
Does anyone know what reddit handles they're using? If they're actually self-identifying as CTR like Shapell is claiming, it seems like finding out what they're up to should be pretty easy.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:47 AM on May 9, 2016
Does anyone know what reddit handles they're using? If they're actually self-identifying as CTR like Shapell is claiming, it seems like finding out what they're up to should be pretty easy.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:47 AM on May 9, 2016
roomthreeseventeen: From the "isn't this premature" file: Trump taps Christie to lead transition
Something somethingbuilding closing bridges
posted by filthy light thief at 11:49 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Something something
posted by filthy light thief at 11:49 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
reddit went a little crazy with the CTR accusations and parody accounts and ironic self-identification as shills so I don't know if that'd be the best place to try and make any sense of this
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:54 AM on May 9, 2016
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:54 AM on May 9, 2016
NPR: In November, People Could Be Voting Against — Not For — Trump And Clinton (May 4, 2016)
More: Republican Backlash Continues To Build Against Donald Trump, and GOP Has Yet To Unify Around Donald Trump (May 9, 2016). Transcripts up online later today, but in short, politicians aren't a great marker for national opinions (shocking, I know).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:54 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
More: Republican Backlash Continues To Build Against Donald Trump, and GOP Has Yet To Unify Around Donald Trump (May 9, 2016). Transcripts up online later today, but in short, politicians aren't a great marker for national opinions (shocking, I know).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:54 AM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The real concern is that the people a level or 3 below that, who are generally at least semi-capable of fulfilling the duties of the positions that keep government even remotely functional, will say "fuck no," leaving a Trump administration populated by Heckuvajob Brownies all the way down.
But we're not really talking about "career government" people, people with classifications who actually do things. Besides the Heckuvajob Brownies, we're talking about the think-tank clone army that ran the Emerald City in Baghdad and various other Republican hangers-on, biding their time in fake jobs waiting for a change of tide in DC.
That's the whole assumption in voting for someone like Trump, that all those "A-level" people are useless and you're better off with a bunch of nobodies. I'm not saying that's going to turn out great, but a vote for Trump is very much a no confidence vote in all those people, who imagine they are the competent, sensible ones but 8 years of Bush proved otherwise. Remember how the reconstruction of Iraq was going to be a demonstration project for the A-level ideas and talent of the Republican party?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:56 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
But we're not really talking about "career government" people, people with classifications who actually do things. Besides the Heckuvajob Brownies, we're talking about the think-tank clone army that ran the Emerald City in Baghdad and various other Republican hangers-on, biding their time in fake jobs waiting for a change of tide in DC.
That's the whole assumption in voting for someone like Trump, that all those "A-level" people are useless and you're better off with a bunch of nobodies. I'm not saying that's going to turn out great, but a vote for Trump is very much a no confidence vote in all those people, who imagine they are the competent, sensible ones but 8 years of Bush proved otherwise. Remember how the reconstruction of Iraq was going to be a demonstration project for the A-level ideas and talent of the Republican party?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:56 AM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What about Condi as Trump's VP pick?
Rice is way too intelligent to fall for his shit. Yeah, ok, she had her place in the Bush Administration and carried water for a lot of bullshit, but (as much as it galls me to say) Bush the Lesser was still a better and more intelligent President than Trump ever could be.
Alternatively, and less charitably, Rice was part of the cabal that recognized Bush was a useful patsy and would do as he was bidden. Trump is neither of those things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Rice is way too intelligent to fall for his shit. Yeah, ok, she had her place in the Bush Administration and carried water for a lot of bullshit, but (as much as it galls me to say) Bush the Lesser was still a better and more intelligent President than Trump ever could be.
Alternatively, and less charitably, Rice was part of the cabal that recognized Bush was a useful patsy and would do as he was bidden. Trump is neither of those things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
The word "troll" here is being used in the same sense as "Russia's troll army", paid online propagandists.
Troll has become the internet version of "enemy combatant" or "insurgent", in any political context.
posted by emptythought at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Troll has become the internet version of "enemy combatant" or "insurgent", in any political context.
posted by emptythought at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't know, but I put my faith in Blast Hardcheese.
Trump/Calgon 2016: Buckle your seatbelts: We're going to reach speeds of three!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump/Calgon 2016: Buckle your seatbelts: We're going to reach speeds of three!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
CNN (video, autoplay): Time editor Nancy Gibbs says "we have been serially surprised" by the Trump campaign. She urges reporters to "turn the cameras around" and concentrate on where Trump's support is coming from.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
(also, somehow I bet those "A-level" people aren't actually going to turn down a job in a Trump administration. No one is going to choose to spend another 8 years at some bullshit think-tank or commission or, dealing with uppity university faculty, out of "principle" when there's a chance to get your grift on in DC)
posted by ennui.bz at 12:07 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 12:07 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Condoleezza Rice accepting the veep role would be a nasty slap in the face to the Bushes. Not sure if she would want to do that.
posted by Bee'sWing at 12:10 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by Bee'sWing at 12:10 PM on May 9, 2016
So, if Trump defaults on the national debt, we all get to default on our student loans, right?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [29 favorites]
ah, ha ha ha, melissasaurus
posted by pyramid termite at 12:12 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:12 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Renegotiate, melissasaurus. Renegotiate.
posted by clawsoon at 12:12 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 12:12 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just trying to find the silver classy-gold-and-marble lining.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
The kids today are saying "renege". It's like "refi", it's just short for the whole word. "I'm gonna refi my house." "I'm gonna renege the full faith and credit of the United States."
posted by cortex at 12:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by cortex at 12:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's a new dating strategy. Negging is so last year. 2016 is all about reneging.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [23 favorites]
reddit went a little crazy with the CTR accusations and parody accounts and ironic self-identification as shills so I don't know if that'd be the best place to try and make any sense of this
Reddit is a terrible place to make any sense out of anything given the way "conversation" is structured there--specifically, downvoting that leads to posts and comments being hidden.
Any model of discourse that is predicated on the literal silencing of dissent is fundamentally broken.
posted by dersins at 12:24 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Reddit is a terrible place to make any sense out of anything given the way "conversation" is structured there--specifically, downvoting that leads to posts and comments being hidden.
Any model of discourse that is predicated on the literal silencing of dissent is fundamentally broken.
posted by dersins at 12:24 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think you mean SILENCED ALL MY LIFE.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:25 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:25 PM on May 9, 2016
dersins: Any model of discourse that is predicated on the literal silencing of dissent is fundamentally broken.
FLAGGED!
Kidding.
posted by clawsoon at 12:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
FLAGGED!
Kidding.
posted by clawsoon at 12:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I want to talk about how tacky and gauche Trump is. I know we don't really talk about class taste judgments in the US, etc etc, but OMG YOU GUYS he's so tacky and gauche and could that money BE any newer?
Even if he were not a dumpster fire of a human being, the level of gaucherie would be just really offputting. In addition to his total unfitness to serve, can we not make a judgment as a society that there is simply a level of tackiness that precludes one from being allowed in the White House where one might make taxpayer-funded decorating decisions that the country has to live with for 200 years? Is there not a level of gaucherie where we don't allow you to meet foreign leaders?
Actually I do think this is kind-of an interesting question historically, given the US's lasting inferiority complex about its upstart status as a nation and its lack of cultural sophistication, and the sorts of demands we therefore place on our Presidents and First Families, the ways it's acceptable to express culture and class in the White House -- like, it's okay to be uncultured but you have to be sort-of self-consciously Puritan/plain in your tastes so it's more like "I reject the fripperies of frivolous European culture" and not like "I'm a dumb American from the frontier." (It's also okay to be cultured, but not the frivolous kind of cultured, you're supposed to be too republican to be truly aristocratic in your tastes.) There was a whole national chattering-class panic when Lincoln was elected centering around Mary Todd Lincoln's perceived gaucherie and how embarrassing it would be to introduce her to ambassadors and how Lincoln himself was perceived as simple and republican in his tastes but she was viewed as a tacky jumped-up frontier farm girl aping her betters. (Which was enraging to her as she was from a gentle, well-bred family; she was considerably better-educated and more cultured than Abe; and she had spectacular taste, as evidenced by her renovations to the White House that still set the tone for its decor 150 years later.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:28 PM on May 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Even if he were not a dumpster fire of a human being, the level of gaucherie would be just really offputting. In addition to his total unfitness to serve, can we not make a judgment as a society that there is simply a level of tackiness that precludes one from being allowed in the White House where one might make taxpayer-funded decorating decisions that the country has to live with for 200 years? Is there not a level of gaucherie where we don't allow you to meet foreign leaders?
Actually I do think this is kind-of an interesting question historically, given the US's lasting inferiority complex about its upstart status as a nation and its lack of cultural sophistication, and the sorts of demands we therefore place on our Presidents and First Families, the ways it's acceptable to express culture and class in the White House -- like, it's okay to be uncultured but you have to be sort-of self-consciously Puritan/plain in your tastes so it's more like "I reject the fripperies of frivolous European culture" and not like "I'm a dumb American from the frontier." (It's also okay to be cultured, but not the frivolous kind of cultured, you're supposed to be too republican to be truly aristocratic in your tastes.) There was a whole national chattering-class panic when Lincoln was elected centering around Mary Todd Lincoln's perceived gaucherie and how embarrassing it would be to introduce her to ambassadors and how Lincoln himself was perceived as simple and republican in his tastes but she was viewed as a tacky jumped-up frontier farm girl aping her betters. (Which was enraging to her as she was from a gentle, well-bred family; she was considerably better-educated and more cultured than Abe; and she had spectacular taste, as evidenced by her renovations to the White House that still set the tone for its decor 150 years later.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:28 PM on May 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
I'm not sure there has ever been a First Lady truly treated well by the press/chattering classes.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:29 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 12:29 PM on May 9, 2016
Final four bracket of cortex's worst nightmares in this thread:
reddit sucks vs. that's not really trolling
your candidate sucks vs. no, your candidate sucks
posted by Existential Dread at 12:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
reddit sucks vs. that's not really trolling
your candidate sucks vs. no, your candidate sucks
posted by Existential Dread at 12:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [24 favorites]
I want to talk about how tacky and gauche Trump is. I know we don't really talk about class taste judgments in the US, etc etc, but OMG YOU GUYS he's so tacky and gauche and could that money BE any newer?
Trump is basically a theater person or artist in the wrong career path. He’s obsessed with a certain kind of style, and doesn’t give a toot for substance. Imagine Trump in art school. Imagine a Trump exhibition going up after a Keith Haring show. Imagine.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:33 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is basically a theater person or artist in the wrong career path. He’s obsessed with a certain kind of style, and doesn’t give a toot for substance. Imagine Trump in art school. Imagine a Trump exhibition going up after a Keith Haring show. Imagine.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:33 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure there has ever been a First Lady truly treated well by the press/chattering classes.
Michelle Obama and Jackie O have made out pretty well. So did Nancy Reagan, I thought?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on May 9, 2016
Michelle Obama and Jackie O have made out pretty well. So did Nancy Reagan, I thought?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on May 9, 2016
Michelle Obama and Jackie O have made out pretty well.
Hold on, we're talking about someone who received untold fury for trying to get American kids to eat their fucking vegetables.
posted by Talez at 12:38 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Hold on, we're talking about someone who received untold fury for trying to get American kids to eat their fucking vegetables.
posted by Talez at 12:38 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
reddit sucks
I want to be very clear that I am not saying "reddit sucks" or "redditors suck."
What I am saying is: I believe that institutionalizing the silencing of unpopular opinions is in direct opposition to democratic ideals of free speech, and thus, if our goal is to have a free and open exchange of views and ideas (which I believe it should be), the model of discourse upon which reddit's structure rests is fundamentally unable to achieve that goal.
posted by dersins at 12:39 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want to be very clear that I am not saying "reddit sucks" or "redditors suck."
What I am saying is: I believe that institutionalizing the silencing of unpopular opinions is in direct opposition to democratic ideals of free speech, and thus, if our goal is to have a free and open exchange of views and ideas (which I believe it should be), the model of discourse upon which reddit's structure rests is fundamentally unable to achieve that goal.
posted by dersins at 12:39 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine Trump in art school.
"Once thePolish Muslim question is settled, I want to end my life as an artist."
posted by Etrigan at 12:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Once the
posted by Etrigan at 12:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: I want to talk about how tacky and gauche Trump is. I know we don't really talk about class taste judgments in the US, etc etc, but OMG YOU GUYS he's so tacky and gauche and could that money BE any newer?
That's a really interesting subject. It reminds me of what Veblen said about good taste and manners being the ultimate advertisement of-and-for a ruling class. It's the perfect conspicuous leisure, because it takes both a lot of time and exposure to all the right social connections to truly perfect one's good breeding. And you can show it off simply by opening your mouth.
It's a great advertisement for the ruling class because one of the things you learn is how to be perfectly proper and polite and polished. You learn how to never offend anyone - not if you don't want to, anyway. You learn to be gracious and charming. And even if the education part of your education doesn't stick, you learn how to seem educated anyway. You certainly know what not to say.
That works wonderfully for a ruling class, whether it's Viennese aristocrats or Ivy League graduates.
posted by clawsoon at 12:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's a really interesting subject. It reminds me of what Veblen said about good taste and manners being the ultimate advertisement of-and-for a ruling class. It's the perfect conspicuous leisure, because it takes both a lot of time and exposure to all the right social connections to truly perfect one's good breeding. And you can show it off simply by opening your mouth.
It's a great advertisement for the ruling class because one of the things you learn is how to be perfectly proper and polite and polished. You learn how to never offend anyone - not if you don't want to, anyway. You learn to be gracious and charming. And even if the education part of your education doesn't stick, you learn how to seem educated anyway. You certainly know what not to say.
That works wonderfully for a ruling class, whether it's Viennese aristocrats or Ivy League graduates.
posted by clawsoon at 12:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
So did Nancy Reagan, I thought?
She was retrospectively pilloried by some people for "Just Say No", anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 12:43 PM on May 9, 2016
She was retrospectively pilloried by some people for "Just Say No", anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 12:43 PM on May 9, 2016
Hold on, we're talking about someone who received untold fury for trying to get American kids to eat their fucking vegetables.
My impression of the presses thoughts on Michelle Obama are perhaps filtered by my getting my FLOTUS news from MetaFilter and a few people who are irked by her, so do please correct me. As is, my understanding has been that she’s been roundly praised for having brought a certain, very defined style back to the White House (a la Jackie O), and that her “Let’s Move!” etc., initiatives hadn’t gone badly. But I guess… they did?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:45 PM on May 9, 2016
My impression of the presses thoughts on Michelle Obama are perhaps filtered by my getting my FLOTUS news from MetaFilter and a few people who are irked by her, so do please correct me. As is, my understanding has been that she’s been roundly praised for having brought a certain, very defined style back to the White House (a la Jackie O), and that her “Let’s Move!” etc., initiatives hadn’t gone badly. But I guess… they did?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:45 PM on May 9, 2016
She was retrospectively pilloried by some people for "Just Say No", anyway.
And (rightly) for her views on astrology and people with HIV.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
And (rightly) for her views on astrology and people with HIV.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Some VP pick betting odds are starting to show up. I doubt these are too meaningful just now.
It's missing Governor Brian Sandoval, who has affirmed support for Trump. Trump claims Hispanics love him, Nevadan Republican Hispanics did vote for him, so he could continue conflating the two by picking a Latino specifically from the latter subgroup.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:48 PM on May 9, 2016
It's missing Governor Brian Sandoval, who has affirmed support for Trump. Trump claims Hispanics love him, Nevadan Republican Hispanics did vote for him, so he could continue conflating the two by picking a Latino specifically from the latter subgroup.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:48 PM on May 9, 2016
Hating on First Ladies for what they do or say (or married) is different than hating on them for being inadequately classy, though. Michelle Obama, Jackie O, Nancy Reagan, have not really had their classiness (whether of the high-classy WASPy sort or the down-to-earth hail-fellow-yeomen sort) questioned, except by highly partisan press who were gonna do it anyway. I can't really think of a modern First Family that's been persistently attacked for tackiness (leaving aside a few small pockets like Jimmy Carter's brother Billy, or racists who refuse to believe the Obamas can be cultured because they're black). Certainly First Families have been criticized because people don't LIKE them, or their policies, or what they represent about America, but I'm specifically interested in tackiness and what expressions of class and culture are broadly acceptable in the Oval Office and I REFUSE TO BELIEVE that this nation will accept Trumpist gaucherie, which is like, let's find the UGLIEST American stereotypes and put a tacky, obviously-gilded crown on them.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump claims Hispanics love him, Nevadan Republican Hispanics did vote for him, so he could continue conflating the two by picking a Latino specifically from the latter subgroup.
But everybody loves Trump. Tall people, short people, fat people, skinny people! Highly educated, pretty well educated, and poorly educated! And the women!
Too many people who love him to choose from.
posted by clawsoon at 12:52 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
But everybody loves Trump. Tall people, short people, fat people, skinny people! Highly educated, pretty well educated, and poorly educated! And the women!
Too many people who love him to choose from.
posted by clawsoon at 12:52 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is basically a theater person or artist in the wrong career path.
Oh no not again
posted by officer_fred at 12:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
Oh no not again
posted by officer_fred at 12:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
My impression of the presses thoughts on Michelle Obama are perhaps filtered by my getting my FLOTUS news from MetaFilter and a few people who are irked by her, so do please correct me. As is, my understanding has been that she’s been roundly praised for having brought a certain, very defined style back to the White House (a la Jackie O), and that her “Let’s Move!” etc., initiatives hadn’t gone badly. But I guess… they did?
Lets take a trip back to 2009:
NYT - Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again
HuffPo - Up In Arms: Michelle Obama’s Sleeveless Style Sparks Controversy
Maureen Dowd - Should Michelle Cover Up?
USA Today - Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms?
WaPo - The Right to Bare Arms
They tried to shame her for her style, it just didn't work.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Lets take a trip back to 2009:
NYT - Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again
HuffPo - Up In Arms: Michelle Obama’s Sleeveless Style Sparks Controversy
Maureen Dowd - Should Michelle Cover Up?
USA Today - Michelle Obama: The right to bare arms?
WaPo - The Right to Bare Arms
They tried to shame her for her style, it just didn't work.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Too bad all that love is not translating into anything like good poll numbers. RealClearPolitics blew my mind with a poll showing Trump leading Clinton by one point for the Presidency in Georgia. I still think we may see Arizona and Texas go blue in November.
Also, good HuffPo piece via News Republic pointing out that Hillary Clinton is a Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard.
posted by bearwife at 12:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, good HuffPo piece via News Republic pointing out that Hillary Clinton is a Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard.
posted by bearwife at 12:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: I REFUSE TO BELIEVE that this nation will accept Trumpist gaucherie, which is like, let's find the UGLIEST American stereotypes and put a tacky, obviously-gilded crown on them.
Didn't a Cruz supporter already try an attack on Melania Trump's classiness, and it backfired?
posted by clawsoon at 12:57 PM on May 9, 2016
Didn't a Cruz supporter already try an attack on Melania Trump's classiness, and it backfired?
posted by clawsoon at 12:57 PM on May 9, 2016
Melania is much less tacky than Donald! It is Donald's gaucherie that concerns me.
(Perhaps the Mary Todd example has led my point astray, which is not really about First Ladies but about GUYS TRUMP WANTS TO PUT THE WORD TRUMP ON THE WHITE HOUSE and CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE THIS GUY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS? Berlusconi-esque, what a nightmare.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Perhaps the Mary Todd example has led my point astray, which is not really about First Ladies but about GUYS TRUMP WANTS TO PUT THE WORD TRUMP ON THE WHITE HOUSE and CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE THIS GUY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS? Berlusconi-esque, what a nightmare.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can't really think of a modern First Family that's been persistently attacked for tackiness (leaving aside a few small pockets like Jimmy Carter's brother Billy, or racists who refuse to believe the Obamas can be cultured because they're black).
The Clintons caught some "hillbilly" shit too (yeah, the Rhodes Scholar and the lawyer from Chicago got that). But sure, if you leave out the instances of First Families being attacked for tackiness, then no First Family has been attacked for tackiness.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Clintons caught some "hillbilly" shit too (yeah, the Rhodes Scholar and the lawyer from Chicago got that). But sure, if you leave out the instances of First Families being attacked for tackiness, then no First Family has been attacked for tackiness.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, but there's a gulf between catching some shit and being the living embodiment of tackiness.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
They tried to shame her for her style, it just didn't work. It never does. Good thing my FLOTUS news tends to emerge mostly from African sources.
CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE THIS GUY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS?
The Queen? OMG I would want to be a fly on the wall for just that moment to catch the tone of her voice
posted by infini at 1:04 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE THIS GUY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS?
The Queen? OMG I would want to be a fly on the wall for just that moment to catch the tone of her voice
posted by infini at 1:04 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump is basically a theater person or artist in the wrong career path. He’s obsessed with a certain kind of style, and doesn’t give a toot for substance. Imagine Trump in art school.
I think I've made it abundantly clear for months now that I have no trouble imagining Trump as a failed artist. None at all.
posted by Naberius at 1:05 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think I've made it abundantly clear for months now that I have no trouble imagining Trump as a failed artist. None at all.
posted by Naberius at 1:05 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
CAN YOU REALLY IMAGINE THIS GUY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS?
The Queen? OMG I would want to be a fly on the wall for just that moment to catch the tone of her voice
I got $20 that says she shows up to their first meeting with a translator.
posted by Etrigan at 1:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Queen? OMG I would want to be a fly on the wall for just that moment to catch the tone of her voice
I got $20 that says she shows up to their first meeting with a translator.
posted by Etrigan at 1:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Using the wikipedia "Statewide opinion polling for US presidential election, 2016, I made this map, using the latest polls, if available. 319 EVs for Clinton, 87 for Trump, with 132 EVs either not polled yet or too close. Of course, it takes 270 to win.
This is extremely crude, but fun!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is extremely crude, but fun!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Old money only beats new money if new money wants to be old money. Trump is so beautifully sure of himself that he wouldn’t care. (I imagine Putin would be savvy enough to send him some gratis gold plating as an inauguration gift.)
posted by Going To Maine at 1:11 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:11 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Extremely crude" is perfect for Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 1:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd add Washington and Oregon and Colorado to that map as blue, regardless of polling to date.
posted by bearwife at 1:14 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by bearwife at 1:14 PM on May 9, 2016
infini: The Queen? OMG I would want to be a fly on the wall for just that moment to catch the tone of her voice
She would tell him that she finds his work very interesting.
posted by clawsoon at 1:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
She would tell him that she finds his work very interesting.
posted by clawsoon at 1:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Melania Trump would be our first First Lady who has posed for nude photos. Well, I'm sure some of the previous First Ladies may have on a private basis, but Melania would be the first to have done so for publication. I personally don't care, but it will be interesting to see if that exacerbates the evangelical / social conservatives split over Trump. Not to mention the whole "trashy" argument. Clinton herself won't attack on this, but I could see her surrogates, some that are degrees away from the candidate, trying to make this an issue as part of the divide&conquer strategy.
She'd also be our first foreign born First Lady in a very long time. Which is interesting considering her husband's platform of xenophobia.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:20 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
She'd also be our first foreign born First Lady in a very long time. Which is interesting considering her husband's platform of xenophobia.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:20 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In a statement to CNN, @marcorubio says he's not interested in being @realDonaldTrump's running mate
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:21 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:21 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
She'd also be our first foreign born First Lady in a very long time. Which is interesting considering her husband's platform of xenophobia.
Yeah, but, y'know, not one of those kinds of foreigners.
/dogwhistled
posted by Existential Dread at 1:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but, y'know, not one of those kinds of foreigners.
/dogwhistled
posted by Existential Dread at 1:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton herself won't attack on this, but I could see her surrogates, some that are degrees away from the candidate, trying to make this an issue as part of the divide&conquer strategy.
Trump would love that. "Oh, my spouse is fair game? Has she been impeached?" And then his surrogates get to talk about how ugly and anti-woman the Clinton campaign is being. Going after Melania in any way is a losing proposition, and I bet that Clinton knows that and is putting the word out.
posted by Etrigan at 1:23 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Trump would love that. "Oh, my spouse is fair game? Has she been impeached?" And then his surrogates get to talk about how ugly and anti-woman the Clinton campaign is being. Going after Melania in any way is a losing proposition, and I bet that Clinton knows that and is putting the word out.
posted by Etrigan at 1:23 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
> can we not make a judgment as a society that there is simply a level of tackiness that precludes one from being allowed in the White House where one might make taxpayer-funded decorating decisions that the country has to live with for 200 years? Is there not a level of gaucherie where we don't allow you to meet foreign leaders?
... like, it's okay to be uncultured but you have to be sort-of self-consciously Puritan/plain in your tastes so it's more like "I reject the fripperies of frivolous European culture" and not like "I'm a dumb American from the frontier."
Sometimes on MetaFilter you get a moment of "Oh, person X doesn't know about this thing I know about and I'm the one who gets to introduces them to it."
EMcG, meet Richard Nixon’s Palace Guard.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:25 PM on May 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
... like, it's okay to be uncultured but you have to be sort-of self-consciously Puritan/plain in your tastes so it's more like "I reject the fripperies of frivolous European culture" and not like "I'm a dumb American from the frontier."
Sometimes on MetaFilter you get a moment of "Oh, person X doesn't know about this thing I know about and I'm the one who gets to introduces them to it."
EMcG, meet Richard Nixon’s Palace Guard.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:25 PM on May 9, 2016 [21 favorites]
I personally don't care, but it will be interesting to see if that exacerbates the evangelical / social conservatives split over Trump.
Never underestimate the Jesus-finding power of Republican politicians, nor how much that forgives.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:25 PM on May 9, 2016
Never underestimate the Jesus-finding power of Republican politicians, nor how much that forgives.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:25 PM on May 9, 2016
In case y'all were wondering why elections matter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
She'd also be our first foreign born First Lady in a very long time. Which is interesting considering her husband's platform of xenophobia.
What's the difference between Melania Trump and every race Trump is vilifying?
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
posted by Talez at 1:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
What's the difference between Melania Trump and every race Trump is vilifying?
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
posted by Talez at 1:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
EMcG, meet Richard Nixon’s Palace Guard.
Wow, TIL. In general, we're much more servile to authority now, especially if it is in a uniform. If Dubya had done it, they would have stayed.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, TIL. In general, we're much more servile to authority now, especially if it is in a uniform. If Dubya had done it, they would have stayed.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump would love that. “Oh, my spouse is fair game? Has she been impeached?”
Trump has already gone after Clinton as an enabler for Bill, so I’m pretty sure the spouse box has been opened. That said, I’d agree that it’s both gross and a bad idea to go after Melania Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump has already gone after Clinton as an enabler for Bill, so I’m pretty sure the spouse box has been opened. That said, I’d agree that it’s both gross and a bad idea to go after Melania Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
What's the difference between Melania Trump and every race Trump is vilifying?
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
Is it "ladyparts"? I can't make "ladyparts" rhyme with "height."
Eyebrows McGee: Even if he were not a dumpster fire of a human being, the level of gaucherie would be just really offputting. In addition to his total unfitness to serve, can we not make a judgment as a society that there is simply a level of tackiness that precludes one from being allowed in the White House where one might make taxpayer-funded decorating decisions that the country has to live with for 200 years? Is there not a level of gaucherie where we don't allow you to meet foreign leaders?
The thing is, he's seen as "my kind of people" by a significant number of voters. He's racist and bigoted and misogynistic, but SUCCESSFUL, so he's clearly doing something right. And I'm just like that, except the successful part, so screw your P.C. Patrol, I got me a president who says what he thinks (even/especially when it's without consideration for others).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
Is it "ladyparts"? I can't make "ladyparts" rhyme with "height."
Eyebrows McGee: Even if he were not a dumpster fire of a human being, the level of gaucherie would be just really offputting. In addition to his total unfitness to serve, can we not make a judgment as a society that there is simply a level of tackiness that precludes one from being allowed in the White House where one might make taxpayer-funded decorating decisions that the country has to live with for 200 years? Is there not a level of gaucherie where we don't allow you to meet foreign leaders?
The thing is, he's seen as "my kind of people" by a significant number of voters. He's racist and bigoted and misogynistic, but SUCCESSFUL, so he's clearly doing something right. And I'm just like that, except the successful part, so screw your P.C. Patrol, I got me a president who says what he thinks (even/especially when it's without consideration for others).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
re: tackiness in the White House - can you imagine if Cuomo the Younger ever got in there with Semi-Homemade Sandra Lee? Tablescapes and Kwanzaa Cakes as far as the eye can see...
posted by sallybrown at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: I want to talk about how tacky and gauche Trump is. I know we don't really talk about class taste judgments in the US, etc etc, but OMG YOU GUYS he's so tacky and gauche and could that money BE any newer?My theory is that this is precisely Trump's appeal. Republicans have been absurdly attacking "elitists" for years because Americans love that message. George W. Bush (2 Ivy degrees, son of a president and grandson of a senator) attacked elites. Ted Cruz ("I wil only study with Harvard, Yale or Princeton grads") attacked elites. And it was obviously phony.
clawsoon: That's a really interesting subject. It reminds me of what Veblen said about good taste and manners being the ultimate advertisement of-and-for a ruling class.
But Trump doesn't criticize elites, he IS non-elite, and he does non-elite. Nouveau riche is the American dream, getting rich without having to conform, having enough money to do whatever the hell you want. People loved it when Sam Walton drove a pickup.
posted by msalt at 1:37 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
What's the difference between Melania Trump and every race Trump is vilifying?
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
"Wight"?
Are we talking about a "reanimated corpse, either human or animal, raised from death by the White Walkers to act as their minions"?
posted by happyroach at 1:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
I feel like it starts with "w" and rhymes with "height".
"Wight"?
Are we talking about a "reanimated corpse, either human or animal, raised from death by the White Walkers to act as their minions"?
posted by happyroach at 1:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
What about Condi as Trump's VP pick?
"Ummm...I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States.'" It was all just historical information.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:45 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
When was the last time that the US had a truly old-money President? FDR? I'm going through names in my head, and only Kennedy (hooch smugglers) and the Bushes (up from the ground came some bubblin' crude) were anywhere close to old money since then.
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on May 9, 2016
But Trump doesn't criticize elites, he IS non-elite
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, Trump inherited millions in NYC real estate right before a huge boom in NYC real estate. The human embodiment of the Waterbury Tire Fire of 1981 could have made itself obscenely wealthy in that situation.
posted by dersins at 1:53 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dersins at 1:53 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Now that I think about it a bit more, the Melania photos will probably be revealed by some tabloid / TMZ style thing. It's true that the Clinton campaign will want nothing to do with it, not even at some great distance. Still wondering how the religious right will feel about it. They love to 'forgive' the right people but they also like their slutshaming. Have no idea how it will play out.
Speaking of the religious right, Trump's problems with evangelicals continue. Russell Moore, a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, renewed his attacks on Trump. Clinton too, but that's to be expected. Trump fired back.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Speaking of the religious right, Trump's problems with evangelicals continue. Russell Moore, a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, renewed his attacks on Trump. Clinton too, but that's to be expected. Trump fired back.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In case y'all were wondering why elections matter.
Yeah, just in case anyone's entertaining "no difference between the two parties" thoughts about November, this is a pretty big reminder that, well, actually there is indeed a gigantic fucking difference.
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, just in case anyone's entertaining "no difference between the two parties" thoughts about November, this is a pretty big reminder that, well, actually there is indeed a gigantic fucking difference.
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bush money is way way way older than the money GHWB made in Texas.
posted by notyou at 1:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by notyou at 1:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
Meanwhile, Bernie collects more delegates in Washington state
Clarification: He was really taking final delivery of his Washington delegates. He did gain, it looks like, a couple additional delegates out of Washington. But other than those two, these weren't any different from the delegates he was expected to get in March at the caucus.
Washington has a three-stage system -- local caucus, district caucus, state caucus. The delegates are divided in about eleventy million ways through the process, mostly by little districts and precincts.
It was getting reported he picked up 74, but in reality he'd always had them since March. They just weren't confirmed until the nitty-gritty numbers got done over the weekend.
posted by dw at 1:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clarification: He was really taking final delivery of his Washington delegates. He did gain, it looks like, a couple additional delegates out of Washington. But other than those two, these weren't any different from the delegates he was expected to get in March at the caucus.
Washington has a three-stage system -- local caucus, district caucus, state caucus. The delegates are divided in about eleventy million ways through the process, mostly by little districts and precincts.
It was getting reported he picked up 74, but in reality he'd always had them since March. They just weren't confirmed until the nitty-gritty numbers got done over the weekend.
posted by dw at 1:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are we talking about a "reanimated corpse, either human or animal, raised from death by the White Walkers to act as their minions"?
Yes. Melania Trump is a Wight, and Donald Trump is a Lich King, with a particularly good phylactery in the shape of a hairpiece.
posted by eclectist at 1:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes. Melania Trump is a Wight, and Donald Trump is a Lich King, with a particularly good phylactery in the shape of a hairpiece.
posted by eclectist at 1:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
You say that like facts matter in this post-Dubya world.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You say that like facts matter in this post-Dubya world.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Re: cheese, Trump is Cheeto powder.
posted by knuckle tattoos at 2:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by knuckle tattoos at 2:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Utter Truthlessness of Donald Trump, And more lessons from this week's Sunday showz.
posted by homunculus at 2:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 2:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
Trump's celebrity is self-made, though. Just as God gave Hulk Hogan a great body*, he gave Trump money. Each man had to turn their God-given gifts into celebrity all by themselves, by the size and force of their own personalities.
*Okay, God and steroids, I assume.
posted by clawsoon at 2:03 PM on May 9, 2016
Trump's celebrity is self-made, though. Just as God gave Hulk Hogan a great body*, he gave Trump money. Each man had to turn their God-given gifts into celebrity all by themselves, by the size and force of their own personalities.
*Okay, God and steroids, I assume.
posted by clawsoon at 2:03 PM on May 9, 2016
Trump's celebrity is self-made,
You needed to already have plenty of money to put your name on tall buildings. Thirty years ago, would we have had any clue that he was doing a massive-scale equivalent of candidate lawn signs? The man was thinking ahead.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:10 PM on May 9, 2016
You needed to already have plenty of money to put your name on tall buildings. Thirty years ago, would we have had any clue that he was doing a massive-scale equivalent of candidate lawn signs? The man was thinking ahead.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:10 PM on May 9, 2016
Trump is self-made in exactly the way that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are. Like... kind of. They started with a ton of advantages and then leveraged that to make money on their own.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
As for what cheese Trump is, I am very, very disappointed that not one of you suggested Velveeta. It's orange-ish. It's not even "cheese" but "pasteurized process cheese food." It's essentially plastic, just like Trump's beliefs. It's offensive to the idea of cheese, and I swear it's fascist tho I'm not exactly sure how.
posted by dw at 2:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dw at 2:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Velveeta is so Trump, it's even liquid gold. GO ON GIT!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:20 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:20 PM on May 9, 2016
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
Of course. The whole point of this populist appeal is to stay non-elite despite getting rich, and if you can do it through generations, so much the better. For a less easy-to-pick-on example in literature, look at the Stampers in Sometimes a Great Notion. The rebel boss is the archetype of an American leader.
Elite is about class, not money. Key difference. Goes back to Veblen, one of the most unsung geniuses of American history.
Trump is self-made in exactly the way that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are. Like... kind of. They started with a ton of advantages and then leveraged that to make money on their own.
You say that like it wouldn't resonate with white voters in a rich country who are fearful of losing their undeserved privilege.
posted by msalt at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course. The whole point of this populist appeal is to stay non-elite despite getting rich, and if you can do it through generations, so much the better. For a less easy-to-pick-on example in literature, look at the Stampers in Sometimes a Great Notion. The rebel boss is the archetype of an American leader.
Elite is about class, not money. Key difference. Goes back to Veblen, one of the most unsung geniuses of American history.
Trump is self-made in exactly the way that Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are. Like... kind of. They started with a ton of advantages and then leveraged that to make money on their own.
You say that like it wouldn't resonate with white voters in a rich country who are fearful of losing their undeserved privilege.
posted by msalt at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Velveeta's greatest quality is its 'smooth melting' ability that it can improve the meltability of Real Cheese when mixed together without losing much of the flavor of the good stuff (I use some for mac-n-cheese and queso dip). I don't see Trump melting or mixing with much of anything. Maybe 'generic Velveeta' (Have you SEEN that stuff?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
chavenet: This many comments into a political cheese thread and no one wants to make America grate again?
dw: As for what cheese Trump is, I am very, very disappointed that not one of you suggested Velveeta.
(Ahem.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:25 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
dw: As for what cheese Trump is, I am very, very disappointed that not one of you suggested Velveeta.
(Ahem.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:25 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Atom Eyes wins the thread. Would he be interested in being Trump's running mate?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel strongly that a cheese's running mate should be macaroni.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
well I have the same reaction to the maggot cheese and DT as nominee: 'well that can't possibly be real wait seriously' and then vomiting that is kind of vomiting where your body just rejects the thing immediately without any nausea prelude
posted by angrycat at 2:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 2:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because he's the cheese and she's the macaroni
His VP selection will be a woman according to that oracle we know as the Beastie Boys.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:37 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
His VP selection will be a woman according to that oracle we know as the Beastie Boys.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:37 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would he be interested in being Trump's running mate?
I'll take the bucket of warm spit instead, thanks.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll take the bucket of warm spit instead, thanks.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What kind of cheese?
Dick cheese.
Isn't it obvious?
posted by klangklangston at 2:44 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dick cheese.
Isn't it obvious?
posted by klangklangston at 2:44 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
no wait I've got it, Trump is a line of ground annatto snorted through a rolled up $20
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Richard Cheese. Please. Let's not be vulgar.
posted by clawsoon at 2:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 2:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Once the Polish Muslim question is settled, I want to end my life as an artist."
The Polish Muslim question is a live one.
posted by klangklangston at 2:48 PM on May 9, 2016
The Polish Muslim question is a live one.
posted by klangklangston at 2:48 PM on May 9, 2016
Okay, Gawker has collected 21 recent analyses for "People, Places, and Things You Can Blame for Donald Trump, Ranked". Me, I blame Gawker, just because I can (and isn't Gawker responsible for EVERYTHING bad today?)
And I understand, Atom Eyes, and I happen to have some warm spit in 2-liter bottles. Where would you like it sent?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
And I understand, Atom Eyes, and I happen to have some warm spit in 2-liter bottles. Where would you like it sent?
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I once had to get a quote for an anonymized mixture of human saliva for a grant proposal. It was surprisingly expensive.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:50 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 2:50 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
In case y'all were wondering why elections matter.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77
Clarence Thomas is 67
Samuel Alito is 66
John Roberts is 61
Sonia Sotomayor is also 61
Elena Kagan is 56
All of the women on the Supreme Court were born in New York City.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
i could just leave a six pack of budweiser outside overnight
oh ... warm SPIT ....
posted by pyramid termite at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2016
oh ... warm SPIT ....
posted by pyramid termite at 2:51 PM on May 9, 2016
Eyebrows McGee: I want to talk about how tacky and gauche Trump is. I know we don't really talk about class taste judgments in the US, etc etc, but OMG YOU GUYS he's so tacky and gauche and could that money BE any newer?
clawsoon: That's a really interesting subject. It reminds me of what Veblen said about good taste and manners being the ultimate advertisement of-and-for a ruling class.
Rich people, as a rule, have terrible taste. Occasionally, they can pay someone who has good taste to do things for them. But, usually not. And this is a rule that goes back in time. Good taste for a well-to-do Victorian meant decorating your mansion like a bordello in hell. Also, wrt manners, with enough money you can spit into any bowl...
If you could only see how tacky the really rich live. Trump is not such an outlier for his social class...
posted by ennui.bz at 2:55 PM on May 9, 2016
clawsoon: That's a really interesting subject. It reminds me of what Veblen said about good taste and manners being the ultimate advertisement of-and-for a ruling class.
Rich people, as a rule, have terrible taste. Occasionally, they can pay someone who has good taste to do things for them. But, usually not. And this is a rule that goes back in time. Good taste for a well-to-do Victorian meant decorating your mansion like a bordello in hell. Also, wrt manners, with enough money you can spit into any bowl...
If you could only see how tacky the really rich live. Trump is not such an outlier for his social class...
posted by ennui.bz at 2:55 PM on May 9, 2016
> I'll take the bucket of warm spit instead, thanks.
> posted by Atom Eyes
/b.strauss has mild trivia orgasm.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:08 PM on May 9, 2016
> posted by Atom Eyes
/b.strauss has mild trivia orgasm.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:08 PM on May 9, 2016
If there is one meme that NEEDS to be spread about Trump is that he is the Poster Boy for the .01%, NOT an outlier at all. Not to mention that he inherited wealth, then built his we-don't-really-know-how-much fortune on the economic trends of the last 40 years. If you're getting poorer, a few cents of your money is in HIS pocket, and he'll never give it up. He can't provide any solution if he's spent his adult life being Part of the Problem.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Good news in that Uncle Cortex has put a message up about Eurovision and the Eurovision Club on FanFare. I'm hoping that Bernie, Hillary, and the Orange Buffoon will do the decent thing and suspend all campaign activities from 3pm to 6pm EST this Saturday to allow the USA to watch this most important of votes in 2016. As a bonus, Justin Timberlake is apparently the interval act, fuelling speculation that the USA will be allowed to enter in the near future.
posted by Wordshore at 3:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 3:10 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
What, oh what will Brexit mean for this most crucial of international relationships?
posted by Existential Dread at 3:12 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 3:12 PM on May 9, 2016
Not to derail (because I often derail intentionally), the US channel for Eurovision, LOGO, does a 3-hour-delayed feed to the West Coast and will not be overriding it Saturday. And you think Exit Polls are spoiler-heavy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt — these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK? So there's never a default," Trump said on CNN's "New Day."
Your GOP nominee, ladies and gentlemen. Make AmericaGreat Greece Again!
posted by dw at 3:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Your GOP nominee, ladies and gentlemen. Make America
posted by dw at 3:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Donald Trump doesn't know what the GI Bill is, thinks "trade" will help veterans. Somehow.
posted by mmoncur at 3:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 3:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
How would one even grate Velveeta? It's way too squishy.
posted by peeedro at 3:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 3:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want to see large numbers of completely silent protesters get into Trump rallies and take off their shirts/sweaters/blouses to reveal t-shirts that simply say:
America IS great.
No gestures, no booing, just stand there.
Would Trump or his supporters be dumb enough to attack people for proclaiming that America is great? We can only hope.
posted by msalt at 3:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
America IS great.
No gestures, no booing, just stand there.
Would Trump or his supporters be dumb enough to attack people for proclaiming that America is great? We can only hope.
posted by msalt at 3:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
The thing is, I think the appeal of Trump is the idea that you would be such a big, powerful dude that you wouldn't have to follow any rules. You wouldn't have to clean your room or eat your dinner before dessert or pay the debts that you committed to paying. It's not a political philosophy: it's a childish fantasy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:34 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:34 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Former 'stop Trump' megadonor switches sides
In an interview on Monday, Hubbard said he was still no fan of Trump, but he said that he viewed him as a better choice than Hillary Clinton. And he called on the party’s donor class, much of which remains deeply skeptical of Trump, to get on board.
“All of my favorite candidates dropped out one by one. We’re down to my least favorite candidate. And my least favorite candidate is better than Hillary Clinton in terms of what’s best for the country,” said Hubbard.
posted by futz at 3:36 PM on May 9, 2016
In an interview on Monday, Hubbard said he was still no fan of Trump, but he said that he viewed him as a better choice than Hillary Clinton. And he called on the party’s donor class, much of which remains deeply skeptical of Trump, to get on board.
“All of my favorite candidates dropped out one by one. We’re down to my least favorite candidate. And my least favorite candidate is better than Hillary Clinton in terms of what’s best for the country,” said Hubbard.
posted by futz at 3:36 PM on May 9, 2016
I have no mouth and I must scream.
posted by corb at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
That podcast is going to be capital-A Amazeballs.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I want to see large numbers of completely silent protesters get into Trump rallies and take off their shirts/sweaters/blouses to reveal t-shirts that simply say:
America IS great.
they should be carrying flags, too
posted by pyramid termite at 3:45 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
America IS great.
they should be carrying flags, too
posted by pyramid termite at 3:45 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
In a new survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump emerged as active-duty service members' preference to become the next U.S. president, topping Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. However, in the latest Military Times election survey, more than one in five troops said they’d rather not vote in November if they have to choose between just those two candidates.
But given only those choices, 21 percent of the service members surveyed said they would abstain from voting.More than 54 percent of the 951 troops Military Times surveyed said they would vote for Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, over Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Only about 25 percent said they would vote for Clinton in that matchup.
posted by futz at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2016
In a new survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump emerged as active-duty service members' preference to become the next U.S. president, topping Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. However, in the latest Military Times election survey, more than one in five troops said they’d rather not vote in November if they have to choose between just those two candidates.
But given only those choices, 21 percent of the service members surveyed said they would abstain from voting.More than 54 percent of the 951 troops Military Times surveyed said they would vote for Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, over Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Only about 25 percent said they would vote for Clinton in that matchup.
posted by futz at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2016
You have to remember that when a George W. Bush appointee talks about "A-list people" he's not talking about what most of us consider competence. He's talking about people who belong to the insider's club, who went to the right schools and belonged to the right clubs and have the right contacts in their Rolodex. He's probably enough of a tool himself to think those people are more competent and effective, and they probably are at advancing the interests of their little inbred class.
People who are otherwise educated and experienced get onto the B and C lists mostly because of where they haven't played golf and who they don't know. They will do fine at running the government, probably better than the A-listers because they will actually be interested in doing their jobs. Considering that he's gotten quite a few large projects completed (even if he failed to make money at a few of them) Trump probably understands that you don't need to hire members of your own social class to run the business. He probably even knows that doing that isn't as good an idea as hiring munchkins who have put more effort into knowing their job.
This isn't to say that Trump should be within a thousand miles of the Presidency, but the quality of his likely appointees is not one of the reasons for that.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
People who are otherwise educated and experienced get onto the B and C lists mostly because of where they haven't played golf and who they don't know. They will do fine at running the government, probably better than the A-listers because they will actually be interested in doing their jobs. Considering that he's gotten quite a few large projects completed (even if he failed to make money at a few of them) Trump probably understands that you don't need to hire members of your own social class to run the business. He probably even knows that doing that isn't as good an idea as hiring munchkins who have put more effort into knowing their job.
This isn't to say that Trump should be within a thousand miles of the Presidency, but the quality of his likely appointees is not one of the reasons for that.
posted by Bringer Tom at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Republican members of Congress/RNC staff/etc. getting behind Trump I'm not surprised by. They have to be loyal to the party. The donors doing it is more confusing. They owe nothing to the party (and perhaps the party owes them for allowing Trump to win in the first place). Do they actually think Trump will be good for the economy? I'd guess not. But they hate the Democrats above all else like any other anti-Trump Republican bowing to Trump's inevitable nomination. Money can't buy common sense.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:51 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:51 PM on May 9, 2016
You wouldn't have to clean your room or eat your dinner before dessert
Or eat broccoli...
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or eat broccoli...
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
i wish that I had Trump friends and family. Well, not like, I wish I had ties to the Dark Side, but I am deeply fascinated with the state of mind of a person who votes Trump. What is it like in their house? Are the shelves full of weird tchotchkes? What are the dinner conversations like? What are gender relations like? Are there books on the shelves, and if so, what are they like?
It feels like an essay DFW would write, getting to know The Trumpians. RIP man, you went out before some truly weird shit went down
posted by angrycat at 3:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
It feels like an essay DFW would write, getting to know The Trumpians. RIP man, you went out before some truly weird shit went down
posted by angrycat at 3:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
My [close relative,] who collects guns and ammo and gold, and thinks Barack Obama was born in Africa, and who was claiming to support Trump back a few months ago, is either going to be voting 3rd party or abstaining, because even he thinks Trump is horrible now.
posted by Cookiebastard at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
They're the exact same people who support the Tea Party, Cliven Bundy, etc.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do they actually think Trump will be good for the economy?
If you own some credit default swaps on treasury bonds, you could make bank (just make sure you take delivery in euros).
posted by melissasaurus at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you own some credit default swaps on treasury bonds, you could make bank (just make sure you take delivery in euros).
posted by melissasaurus at 4:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
the Trumpeters I have personal knowledge of are mostly the sort who don't really engage with politics and governance and policy crafting on a granular level and basically picked their team (GOP) a long time ago and more or less accepted all the bad shit they heard about Clinton as fact and can't stand her and will vote for Trump because he's on their team and he's not Clinton. If they have any specific positive feelings towards Trump, it's that they like that he's a loose cannon, shake things up, not a politician kind of guy. These aren't dumb or malevolent people, but their approach to politics is basically my approach to baseball: I'll pay attention if we're in the playoffs, and I sure as fuck don't want the goddamn Dodgers to win anything ever, but I'm not super up on who's having a good year or whether that was a slider or a curveball or why this trade is a big deal, etc.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [33 favorites]
You have to remember that when a George W. Bush appointee talks about "A-list people" he's not talking about what most of us consider competence.
Say what you like about neoconservative foreign policy, but at least it’s an ethos.
Let us consider Trump’s foreign policy team, which is eclectic and terrible. Let us consider his inability to find a VP. Let us consider Trump’s association with the thuggish & fawning Corey Lewandowski.
As noted upthread by saturday morning and dersins, it isn’t that we should be happy that overlooked, intelligent wonks are going to emerge from the woodwork. It’s that serious wonks, of whatever flavor, will promptly disappear to be replaced by a bevy of incoherent sycophants.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Say what you like about neoconservative foreign policy, but at least it’s an ethos.
Let us consider Trump’s foreign policy team, which is eclectic and terrible. Let us consider his inability to find a VP. Let us consider Trump’s association with the thuggish & fawning Corey Lewandowski.
As noted upthread by saturday morning and dersins, it isn’t that we should be happy that overlooked, intelligent wonks are going to emerge from the woodwork. It’s that serious wonks, of whatever flavor, will promptly disappear to be replaced by a bevy of incoherent sycophants.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
To be fair, they admit their polling mechanism is wholly unscientific and non-representative of the overall military.
I really need to believe this, because I really need to believe that if Trump became POTUS he wouldn't have military backing.
posted by Anonymous at 4:16 PM on May 9, 2016
To be fair, they admit their polling mechanism is wholly unscientific and non-representative of the overall military.
I really need to believe this, because I really need to believe that if Trump became POTUS he wouldn't have military backing.
posted by Anonymous at 4:16 PM on May 9, 2016
I'd hate for us to become Turkey, with the military having the final word.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:26 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:26 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
i wish that I had Trump friends and family. Well, not like, I wish I had ties to the Dark Side, but I am deeply fascinated with the state of mind of a person who votes Trump. What is it like in their house? Are the shelves full of weird tchotchkes? What are the dinner conversations like? What are gender relations like? Are there books on the shelves, and if so, what are they like?
My parents and extended family voted for Trump in the NY primary. My aunt even went to a rally. They've been listening to Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Michael Savage for years and buy every O'Reilly and Coulter book. They liked Sarah Palin and thought that McCain shed his "maverick-ness" in 2008 and lost because he went too establishment. They liked 2008 Romney, but not 2012 Romney. They legitimately think that Hillary Clinton will be worse for women -- some of these relatives are more religious than others, but all adhere strictly to traditional gender roles even in the absence of religion. They legitimately think that PC has run amok. Some are anti-choice, some are more libertarian leaning and think the religion-and-social-injustice-motivated GOP policies of the past decade-ish have undermined the party's fiscal platform. Most liked Carson before he dropped out, then liked Trump not as an actual candidate but because he was tearing down the establishment Rs they virulently hated, they think he's the best chance to beat Clinton precisely because he won't shy away from misogynistic attacks (though they wouldn't concede that these attacks are actually misogynistic). They like him because he's destroying the system they've been conditioned to see as the root of all of their problems for the past 30 years.
Dinner conversations are a string of dogwhistles connected by "truths" they've heard on FoxNews. It is impossible to counter anything with facts, evidence, history.
According to my brother (a NeverClinton person who will probably vote Trump, unless Gary Johnson gets super popular) -- "Trump will either be the best president ever or destroy the entire world" --- this is actually a remarkably high degree of awareness for a Trump supporter, to recognize that his election could have catastrophic consequences.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
My parents and extended family voted for Trump in the NY primary. My aunt even went to a rally. They've been listening to Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Michael Savage for years and buy every O'Reilly and Coulter book. They liked Sarah Palin and thought that McCain shed his "maverick-ness" in 2008 and lost because he went too establishment. They liked 2008 Romney, but not 2012 Romney. They legitimately think that Hillary Clinton will be worse for women -- some of these relatives are more religious than others, but all adhere strictly to traditional gender roles even in the absence of religion. They legitimately think that PC has run amok. Some are anti-choice, some are more libertarian leaning and think the religion-and-social-injustice-motivated GOP policies of the past decade-ish have undermined the party's fiscal platform. Most liked Carson before he dropped out, then liked Trump not as an actual candidate but because he was tearing down the establishment Rs they virulently hated, they think he's the best chance to beat Clinton precisely because he won't shy away from misogynistic attacks (though they wouldn't concede that these attacks are actually misogynistic). They like him because he's destroying the system they've been conditioned to see as the root of all of their problems for the past 30 years.
Dinner conversations are a string of dogwhistles connected by "truths" they've heard on FoxNews. It is impossible to counter anything with facts, evidence, history.
According to my brother (a NeverClinton person who will probably vote Trump, unless Gary Johnson gets super popular) -- "Trump will either be the best president ever or destroy the entire world" --- this is actually a remarkably high degree of awareness for a Trump supporter, to recognize that his election could have catastrophic consequences.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [43 favorites]
On first pass, it sounds like that expected value would be zero, which could be better than Clinton for some folks. Then you realize that Best President Ever is like 1,000 and “destroy the world” is -∞, and you get all sad.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
(And that’s not even weighting values based on probability…)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:52 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:52 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The donors doing it is more confusing. They owe nothing to the party (and perhaps the party owes them for allowing Trump to win in the first place).
Especially considering how JEB! blew through his warchest with so little to gain. Perhaps they're just making noise for Trump but will put the bulk of their money to the downticket* candidates, where (presumably) they will get a much more reliable ROI. It's so weird: after Citizen's United, I figured the phrase of the day forevermore would be 'follow the money', but that certainly hasn't been the case in this mindbender of an election. Trump largely coasted on free publicity and Bernie blew up the small-donor racket.
*-love that word
posted by eclectist at 5:00 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Especially considering how JEB! blew through his warchest with so little to gain. Perhaps they're just making noise for Trump but will put the bulk of their money to the downticket* candidates, where (presumably) they will get a much more reliable ROI. It's so weird: after Citizen's United, I figured the phrase of the day forevermore would be 'follow the money', but that certainly hasn't been the case in this mindbender of an election. Trump largely coasted on free publicity and Bernie blew up the small-donor racket.
*-love that word
posted by eclectist at 5:00 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would seem that Citizens United’s biggest effect has been making everyone mad about the status quo.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:04 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 5:04 PM on May 9, 2016
dw: "People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt — these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK? So there's never a default," Trump said on CNN's "New Day."
To be fair, he's just quoting Alan Greenspan.
posted by clawsoon at 5:04 PM on May 9, 2016
To be fair, he's just quoting Alan Greenspan.
posted by clawsoon at 5:04 PM on May 9, 2016
Angrycat said: It feels like an essay DFW would write, getting to know The Trumpians. RIP man, you went out before some truly weird shit went down.
I was friends with Bill Hicks, I missed him during Bush redux, then Palin, then Binders Filled With Women, but I think the Presumptive Trump might have just given him a stroke. Speaking of, has anyone checked on Lewis Black lately?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was friends with Bill Hicks, I missed him during Bush redux, then Palin, then Binders Filled With Women, but I think the Presumptive Trump might have just given him a stroke. Speaking of, has anyone checked on Lewis Black lately?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like the Nixons and the Fords were sneered at on aesthetic grounds, but I think that was more for squareness, and less for gaucheness specifically. But isn't that basically the 70s version of tacky, anyway?
I also remember people talking a lot about the Bush twins and what drunken sorority girl trash they were, but I was running in hardcore leftist circles at the time so who knows whether that was a part of the main narrative about them.
posted by Sara C. at 5:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also remember people talking a lot about the Bush twins and what drunken sorority girl trash they were, but I was running in hardcore leftist circles at the time so who knows whether that was a part of the main narrative about them.
posted by Sara C. at 5:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
dw: "People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt — these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK? So there's never a default," Trump said on CNN's "New Day."
To be fair, he's just quoting Alan Greenspan.
More on Trump and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
posted by triggerfinger at 5:12 PM on May 9, 2016
To be fair, he's just quoting Alan Greenspan.
More on Trump and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
posted by triggerfinger at 5:12 PM on May 9, 2016
NAACP: We invite Mr. Trump to speak about issues from which we’ve scarcely heard a word—race, VRA, criminal justice reform.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
On Trump's tackiness:
I visited Graceland once and didn't see a lot of people changing their mind about Elvis based on his lack of taste. [although to be fair, Graceland isn't gold-and-marble tacky, it is shag-carpet-on-the-walls-tacky, and reminded me of how everybody's house looked in the 70s, only more so). I also visited a Trump casino once, and people seemed to want a casino to look exactly like that- it was what they were paying for. I can only assume a really Ritzy White House will get the thumbs-up.
In summary: I doubt he is too gauche for today's America.
posted by acrasis at 5:17 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I visited Graceland once and didn't see a lot of people changing their mind about Elvis based on his lack of taste. [although to be fair, Graceland isn't gold-and-marble tacky, it is shag-carpet-on-the-walls-tacky, and reminded me of how everybody's house looked in the 70s, only more so). I also visited a Trump casino once, and people seemed to want a casino to look exactly like that- it was what they were paying for. I can only assume a really Ritzy White House will get the thumbs-up.
In summary: I doubt he is too gauche for today's America.
posted by acrasis at 5:17 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watching Sherrod Brown on Chris Hayes' show. I wish he would get a VP slot. He's just great.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:24 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:24 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
To be fair, they admit their polling mechanism is wholly unscientific and non-representative of the overall military.
I really need to believe this, because I really need to believe that if Trump became POTUS he wouldn't have military backing.
Yeah, here's the methodology:
posted by dersins at 5:40 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
To be fair, they admit their polling mechanism is wholly unscientific and non-representative of the overall military.
I really need to believe this, because I really need to believe that if Trump became POTUS he wouldn't have military backing.
Yeah, here's the methodology:
Between May 3 and May 6, Military Times conducted a voluntary, confidential survey of subscribers who include verified active-duty, National Guard and reserve component service members. More than 59,000 subscribers received e-mail invitations to participate. In total, 951 respondents completed the survey.This is about as scientific as someone posting "Hey do you like Trump or Clinton?" to Facebook, and then counting the responses.
posted by dersins at 5:40 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Wow, a 1.6% response rate? That's sure something.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:43 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:43 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
This, from the methodology section, is pretty fucking hilarious as well:
posted by dersins at 5:54 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion polls that use random sampling can't be calculated for this survey.And, to be clear, by "hilarious" I mean "HOW FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO PUBLISH A HUGE SPLASHY HEADLINE AND LENGTHY 'ANALYSIS' OF 'POLL' RESULTS WITH PIE CHARTS AND EVERYTHING IF THIS IS YOUR FUCKING METHODOLOGY? CHRISTING FUCK WHAT THE GOD DAMN FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, MILITARY TIMES?"
posted by dersins at 5:54 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
Has Nate stopped trying to make Rubio happen? Does he once again see why polling data might be better than punditry?
posted by asra at 5:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by asra at 5:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
"HOW FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO PUBLISH A HUGE SPLASHY HEADLINE AND LENGTHY 'ANALYSIS' OF 'POLL' RESULTS WITH PIE CHARTS AND EVERYTHING IF THIS IS YOUR FUCKING METHODOLOGY? CHRISTING FUCK WHAT THE GOD DAMN FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, MILITARY TIMES?"
the numbersposted by an animate objects at 5:59 PM on May 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
are meaningless
like dust
and suffering
we hope
fondly
you'll appreciate
the subtle texture
of these finely crafted graphs
please taste them
as nectar
in the shade
And, to be clear, by "hilarious" I mean "HOW FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO PUBLISH A HUGE SPLASHY HEADLINE AND LENGTHY 'ANALYSIS' OF 'POLL' RESULTS WITH PIE CHARTS AND EVERYTHING IF THIS IS YOUR FUCKING METHODOLOGY? CHRISTING FUCK WHAT THE GOD DAMN FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, MILITARY TIMES?"
I'm guessing this comes from the high school lab report school of science. You totally didn't let your compound boil off enough, then your partner accidentally dumped God knows what in there, then it fell in the sink and you had to scrape it out, but you're gonna write it up anyway because that is what you do.
posted by Anonymous at 6:00 PM on May 9, 2016
I'm guessing this comes from the high school lab report school of science. You totally didn't let your compound boil off enough, then your partner accidentally dumped God knows what in there, then it fell in the sink and you had to scrape it out, but you're gonna write it up anyway because that is what you do.
posted by Anonymous at 6:00 PM on May 9, 2016
As you know, ah, you go to press with the survey results you have---not the survey results you might want or wish to have at a later time.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm willing to believe that the military poll isn't ridiculously far off. I'm basing this on nothing but the reaction that John Stewart got when he made a Trump joke at a military event recently. He wasn't booed off the stage, but he did have to act quickly to keep the room on his side.
posted by clawsoon at 6:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 6:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't believe it took so long for someone to say Velveeta-- after all it is bright orange, tasteless, and bad for you.
I'm sure Sarah Palin would turn down the V.P. slot if it was offered, don't forget she hates to work. She might take an ambassadorship though if it was a plum position with little actual responsibility. Monte Carlo or the Bahamas, maybe? Somewhere where they speak English and have a lot of parties but no scary terrorists. Even with an easy position she would probably quit after 18 months.
The trumpiest choice for V.P. would be Ivanka. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure Sarah Palin would turn down the V.P. slot if it was offered, don't forget she hates to work. She might take an ambassadorship though if it was a plum position with little actual responsibility. Monte Carlo or the Bahamas, maybe? Somewhere where they speak English and have a lot of parties but no scary terrorists. Even with an easy position she would probably quit after 18 months.
The trumpiest choice for V.P. would be Ivanka. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:08 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm basing this on nothing but the reaction that John Stewart got when he made a Trump joke at a military event recently.
Daily Show Jon Stewart? That's a shame, because he's done a lot for 9/11 survivors and cares very deeply for military folks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 PM on May 9, 2016
Daily Show Jon Stewart? That's a shame, because he's done a lot for 9/11 survivors and cares very deeply for military folks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 PM on May 9, 2016
The thing about the Military Times is they can only survey subscribers- and the only people who subscribe to it are people checking their name on the promotion lists, or people who don't want to get their news elsewhere.
posted by corb at 6:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The problem Trump is going to have filling VP is that it's a mostly powerless position that is only worth taking if you have aspirations of your own for the Oval Office, and nobody is going to believe being Trump's VP is a path to being President yourself, because Trump's great power is Trump's ego.
I don't think he will have a problem filling his cabinet with mostly competent people, though, because there are a lot of people who are very qualified who will jump at those positions no matter who the President offering them is. Besides, could he really pick a Secretary of the Interior worse than James Watt?
I really don't think Trump wants to burn the country down. He's going to try to find people who are qualified if only so that people won't laugh at him and so that he won't have to work too hard himself. Some of those people (including most likely interior) are going to be business cronies but a lot of them are likely to be C-list suggestions Trump will solicit because he doesn't know anybody personally and the A-listers won't return his team's phone calls. Of my worries about Trump his cabinet is far down the list.
The much bigger risk is that the wrong person will laugh at him in public and he will take it personally. This is someone who really does still send a journalist glosssies of himself with his hands circled to show how small they aren't. The problem isn't that his advisors will be poor, it's that when all of them tell him not to start a war he will pull a Dubya and start it anyway because his ego is bruised.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think he will have a problem filling his cabinet with mostly competent people, though, because there are a lot of people who are very qualified who will jump at those positions no matter who the President offering them is. Besides, could he really pick a Secretary of the Interior worse than James Watt?
I really don't think Trump wants to burn the country down. He's going to try to find people who are qualified if only so that people won't laugh at him and so that he won't have to work too hard himself. Some of those people (including most likely interior) are going to be business cronies but a lot of them are likely to be C-list suggestions Trump will solicit because he doesn't know anybody personally and the A-listers won't return his team's phone calls. Of my worries about Trump his cabinet is far down the list.
The much bigger risk is that the wrong person will laugh at him in public and he will take it personally. This is someone who really does still send a journalist glosssies of himself with his hands circled to show how small they aren't. The problem isn't that his advisors will be poor, it's that when all of them tell him not to start a war he will pull a Dubya and start it anyway because his ego is bruised.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watching Sherrod Brown on Chris Hayes' show. I wish he would get a VP slot. He's just great.
As an Ohioan who's a big fan of Sen. Sherrod Brown.... I don't want him within 100 miles of VP consideration as long as "moderate yet super anti-choice and anti-union" Kasich has the ability to replace him. We really, really, really need him to keep repping the best of Midwest Rust Belt progressivism in the Senate. I'm not at all confident that (Republican) Sen. Rob Portman is going to be replaced by Ted Strickland this election, y'all aren't allowed to take Sherrod from us!
I'm holding out for MN Senator Amy Klobuchar for my favorite Senator for VP slot (who happens to be good buds with Sherrod Brown). And while I don't know how Senate replacements work in Minnesota, if they are also replaced by a governor, looks like Minnesota has a Dem (DFL) governor.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
As an Ohioan who's a big fan of Sen. Sherrod Brown.... I don't want him within 100 miles of VP consideration as long as "moderate yet super anti-choice and anti-union" Kasich has the ability to replace him. We really, really, really need him to keep repping the best of Midwest Rust Belt progressivism in the Senate. I'm not at all confident that (Republican) Sen. Rob Portman is going to be replaced by Ted Strickland this election, y'all aren't allowed to take Sherrod from us!
I'm holding out for MN Senator Amy Klobuchar for my favorite Senator for VP slot (who happens to be good buds with Sherrod Brown). And while I don't know how Senate replacements work in Minnesota, if they are also replaced by a governor, looks like Minnesota has a Dem (DFL) governor.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
I suppose Trump's supporters are probably thinking "YAY, HE'S GOING TO PRINT US MORE MONEY!" now.
Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.
posted by mmoncur at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016
Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.
posted by mmoncur at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2016
As an Ohioan who's a big fan of Sen. Sherrod Brown.... I don't want him within 100 miles of VP consideration as long as "moderate yet super anti-choice and anti-union" Kasich has the ability to replace him.
Good point I had failed to consider.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:23 PM on May 9, 2016
Good point I had failed to consider.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:23 PM on May 9, 2016
I'm sort of appalled at Michael Moore, Robert Reich, and these other Sanders surrogates still talking about national polls against Trump as a way to prop Sanders over Hillary. It really makes no sense and it has to be continually pointed out that that's a hypothetical match up and the 25 year campaign against Clinton has got to be a part of this.
Also, she still beats Trump in that polling! Just...stop.
posted by zutalors! at 6:23 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
Also, she still beats Trump in that polling! Just...stop.
posted by zutalors! at 6:23 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm sort of appalled at Michael Moore, Robert Reich, and these other Sanders surrogates still talking about national polls against Trump as a way to prop Sanders over Hillary.
Well, you can talk about the accuracy of polls this far out on either side, but promoting the one with the bigger lead isn't crazy.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, you can talk about the accuracy of polls this far out on either side, but promoting the one with the bigger lead isn't crazy.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:28 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I actually do think it's a little crazy. That plus super delegates is their only message these days.
posted by zutalors! at 6:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:30 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Journalist Julia Ioffe has filed a police report over antisemitic harassment she received after she wrote a profile of Melania Trump. (Think GamerGate, but with a lot more references to gas chambers.) It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of it. I sure as hell don't envy any woman covering the Trump campaign.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right. I'm not appalled at that. It's the only card they have left to play unless there is a deus ex machina. I just roll my eyes and move on. My dismay is reserved for things like statements coming out of the Trump dumpster fire.
I also spent a while trying to figure out if "appalled" had an equivalent noun. Like "dismay" for "dismayed" or "shock" for "shocked". But I don't think so? Appall is a verb...
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on May 9, 2016
I also spent a while trying to figure out if "appalled" had an equivalent noun. Like "dismay" for "dismayed" or "shock" for "shocked". But I don't think so? Appall is a verb...
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on May 9, 2016
could he really pick a Secretary of the Interior worse than James Watt?
First requirement: be a Climate Change Denialist. So, maybe.
I really don't think Trump wants to burn the country down.
Only parts that his companies couldn't get a contract to rebuild.
It's becoming more and more clear that Trump had seen that one episode of Mythbusters when Adam said "I reject your reality and substitute my own" and embraced it as his life calling. (maybe more like "I reject your reality and have the money to buy my own") It's getting to the point where I'm ready to assume that any press reporting of him that he DOESN'T complain about must be totally inaccurate.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2016
First requirement: be a Climate Change Denialist. So, maybe.
I really don't think Trump wants to burn the country down.
Only parts that his companies couldn't get a contract to rebuild.
It's becoming more and more clear that Trump had seen that one episode of Mythbusters when Adam said "I reject your reality and substitute my own" and embraced it as his life calling. (maybe more like "I reject your reality and have the money to buy my own") It's getting to the point where I'm ready to assume that any press reporting of him that he DOESN'T complain about must be totally inaccurate.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2016
I am still not entirely convinced that Trump isn't deliberately throwing the election, by saying and doing increasingly outrageous things that are at odds with his previous, admittedly unclear, positions. "What we need to do is default on the national debt!" "No, I need to start taking campaign contributions!" "Welp, we might have to raise taxes on the rich people!" This is, of course, in addition to continuing to double down on the outrageous positions previously staked out. I think it's been mentioned here before, but it really looks like the (poor - ha!) guy has gotten in way over his head with a vanity project/publicity stunt that went way out of control. He never expected to actually get this far, and now he has, and there's no way out other than setting himself up to fail, but while also setting up a narrative of "this/that/the other thing conspired/cheated me out of it!" as a face-saver.
posted by yhbc at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
From Trump's "We can just print more money" statement:
How is Trump still a thing? You'd think even the crazy racist Trumpers would be jumping ship now.
posted by mmoncur at 6:45 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
"You know, I’m the king of debt. I understand debt probably better than anybody. I know how to deal with debt very well. I love debt..."And also:
"In business, that happens all the time. I bought mortgages back when the market went bad, I bought mortgages back at tremendous discounts. And I love doing it. I mean, there’s nothing like it. Actually, it gives me a great thrill,"So he's the "king of debt" and taking advantage of people with mortgages "gives him a great thrill."
How is Trump still a thing? You'd think even the crazy racist Trumpers would be jumping ship now.
posted by mmoncur at 6:45 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman in Conversation from September 2014 (an hour and 15 min (skipped 5 minutes of introduction stuff)). While not exactly related to the current election many of the issues are, so I found it to be a nice policy talk without any horse race noise. Plus, Sen.Warren!!!! all passionate and brilliant and funny has great answers and stories of Senate workings, so Krugman doesn't detract too much.
posted by phoque at 6:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by phoque at 6:46 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In medieval terms: Principles, consistency, logic: Monk. Winning: Soldier.
posted by clawsoon at 6:47 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 6:47 PM on May 9, 2016
Senate workings
There's a phrase that should really be deleted from the lexicon.
posted by zachlipton at 6:49 PM on May 9, 2016
There's a phrase that should really be deleted from the lexicon.
posted by zachlipton at 6:49 PM on May 9, 2016
There's a phrase that should really be deleted from the lexicon.
Don't throw it away! Put it over there with the rest of the oxymorons.
posted by an animate objects at 6:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Don't throw it away! Put it over there with the rest of the oxymorons.
posted by an animate objects at 6:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Snopes finally wrote about Hillary defending a rapist.
posted by dw at 6:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dw at 6:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
could he really pick a Secretary of the Interior worse than James Watt?
Jim Inhofe.
posted by dw at 6:53 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Jim Inhofe.
posted by dw at 6:53 PM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
also spent a while trying to figure out if "appalled" had an equivalent noun. Like "dismay" for "dismayed" or "shock" for "shocked". But I don't think so? Appall is a verb...
I think it's "pall" as in pall-bearer and "casts a pall."
posted by msalt at 6:54 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think it's "pall" as in pall-bearer and "casts a pall."
posted by msalt at 6:54 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders no longer has a chance and should be focussing on strategies that build a down-ballot movement and nudge Clinton leftward. That said, as was discussed in the previous thread, Sam Wang at Princeton Election Consortium presents data showing that current head-to-head polls are sufficiently predictive at this point to be useful, and by his formula (using current head-to-head polls) Clinton has an 88% chance of beating Trump, while Sanders has (would have had) a 97% chance of beating Trump. It's all moot now, and in any case there's a lot of error in these things, but you can in fact talk about current head-to-head polls meaningfully now.
posted by chortly at 6:57 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by chortly at 6:57 PM on May 9, 2016
Well, I'm appalled, ajohnned, ageorged and aringoed... especially aringoed.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think so, the roots of the words "appall" and "pall" are different. One (appalled) is from an old french word for pale while "pall" is from an old english word for a covering.
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
As I've mentioned before:
I gave up on Military Times surveys meaning anydamnthing in 2004, when a nonzero percentage of servicemembers (I forget whether it was 2 percent or 8 percent, but somewhere in the single digits) said that George W. Bush's military service (the... let's say "casual" nature of which had already been widely publicized) made them more likely to vote for him.
More likely.
Let me say that again. Some servicemembers in a Military Times poll claimed that they were more likely to vote for George W. Bush based on his experience in the Texas Air National Guard -- which, regardless of whether you believe in the famous memo that cost Dan Rather his job, was undeniably not a Formative Experience in any sense of the words. That's not even "Well, 34 percent of people think Bigfoot exists." That's just willfully fucking with the poll questions.
posted by Etrigan at 7:00 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
As I've mentioned before:
I gave up on Military Times surveys meaning anydamnthing in 2004, when a nonzero percentage of servicemembers (I forget whether it was 2 percent or 8 percent, but somewhere in the single digits) said that George W. Bush's military service (the... let's say "casual" nature of which had already been widely publicized) made them more likely to vote for him.
More likely.
Let me say that again. Some servicemembers in a Military Times poll claimed that they were more likely to vote for George W. Bush based on his experience in the Texas Air National Guard -- which, regardless of whether you believe in the famous memo that cost Dan Rather his job, was undeniably not a Formative Experience in any sense of the words. That's not even "Well, 34 percent of people think Bigfoot exists." That's just willfully fucking with the poll questions.
posted by Etrigan at 7:00 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think so, the roots of the words "appall" and "pall" are different. One (appalled) is from an old french word for pale while "pall" is from an old english word for a covering.
Oops, you're right. No such noun. There is an obscure meaning of pall where it is a verb mean "to make someone appalled."
posted by msalt at 7:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oops, you're right. No such noun. There is an obscure meaning of pall where it is a verb mean "to make someone appalled."
posted by msalt at 7:06 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
A new Miami Herald poll in Florida’s Miami-Dade county finds Hillary Clinton trouncing Donald Trump in a general election match up, 52% to 25%, with 23% undecided.
Key finding: One-fifth of Republicans said they back Clinton.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Key finding: One-fifth of Republicans said they back Clinton.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:09 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think he will have a problem filling his cabinet with mostly competent people, though, because there are a lot of people who are very qualified who will jump at those positions no matter who the President offering them is. Besides, could he really pick a Secretary of the Interior worse than James Watt?
I don't think Trump wants to burn it all down, but I think he won't be able to help himself. If his campaign team and his foreign policy "experts" are any indication, he is not good at picking subordinates. I would bet you anything that Trump places a high value on the "is this a man's man, can I have a beer with this guy" factor.
posted by Anonymous at 7:18 PM on May 9, 2016
I don't think Trump wants to burn it all down, but I think he won't be able to help himself. If his campaign team and his foreign policy "experts" are any indication, he is not good at picking subordinates. I would bet you anything that Trump places a high value on the "is this a man's man, can I have a beer with this guy" factor.
posted by Anonymous at 7:18 PM on May 9, 2016
My Trump VP prediction is that he'll want someone who is even more blisteringly incompetent and incoherent than he is. Spectacularly so.
He'll want someone so awful that Congress will be hesitant to impeach him over his inevitable high crimes. "Oh yeah? Impeach me? You really want President Palin?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:20 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
He'll want someone so awful that Congress will be hesitant to impeach him over his inevitable high crimes. "Oh yeah? Impeach me? You really want President Palin?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:20 PM on May 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oops, you're right. No such noun.
Maybe pallor? I'm pretty sure they all derive from the same IE root.
posted by eclectist at 7:31 PM on May 9, 2016
Maybe pallor? I'm pretty sure they all derive from the same IE root.
posted by eclectist at 7:31 PM on May 9, 2016
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger criticized the tone of today's political discourse, as well as those who confuse "extrication" from wars as strategy, at a Pentagon ceremony honoring him on Monday.
The former secretary of state and national security adviser recalled anti-war protestors making it hard to enter the Pentagon, adding that the U.S. was returning to another difficult political period.
"Now we are again in an extremely difficult period," he said.
"We are entering a presidential campaign and it seems to be the habit of political figures now to contrast themselves with the evils of their predecessors and of aspirants to office to contrast themselves with the evils of the incumbent," he said.
"But the fact is, we were involved for good causes," he added.
While the ceremony for Kissinger — where Defense Secretary Ash Carter awarded him the Pentagon's top civilian honor, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service — drew some criticism on Twitter, it was attended by more than 30 of the most distinguished foreign policy figures in Washington.
WTF Obama Administration.
posted by futz at 7:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
The former secretary of state and national security adviser recalled anti-war protestors making it hard to enter the Pentagon, adding that the U.S. was returning to another difficult political period.
"Now we are again in an extremely difficult period," he said.
"We are entering a presidential campaign and it seems to be the habit of political figures now to contrast themselves with the evils of their predecessors and of aspirants to office to contrast themselves with the evils of the incumbent," he said.
"But the fact is, we were involved for good causes," he added.
While the ceremony for Kissinger — where Defense Secretary Ash Carter awarded him the Pentagon's top civilian honor, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service — drew some criticism on Twitter, it was attended by more than 30 of the most distinguished foreign policy figures in Washington.
WTF Obama Administration.
posted by futz at 7:48 PM on May 9, 2016 [30 favorites]
Jon Stewart on the Axe Files, discussing the election and American politics in general. (An hour long video, but totally worth watching.)
posted by jacquilynne at 7:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:51 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
While the ceremony for Kissinger — where Defense Secretary Ash Carter awarded him the Pentagon's top civilian honor, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service — drew some criticism on Twitter, it was attended by more than 30 of the most distinguished foreign policy figures in Washington.
Is this part of that whole "Obama Don't Care" thing I've heard so much about?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is this part of that whole "Obama Don't Care" thing I've heard so much about?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:14 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Make America Great Again
America IS great.
It always reminds me of:
"Let America Be America Again"
Langston Hughes
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.
O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!
posted by sallybrown at 8:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [63 favorites]
America IS great.
It always reminds me of:
"Let America Be America Again"
Langston Hughes
Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.
(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.
(It never was America to me.)
O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)
Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!
I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.
Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”
The free?
Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.
O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!
posted by sallybrown at 8:15 PM on May 9, 2016 [63 favorites]
NYT: Donald Trump, in Switch, Turns to Republican Party for Fund-Raising Help
Donald J. Trump took steps to appropriate much of the Republican National Committee’s financial and political infrastructure for his presidential campaign on Monday, amid signs that he and the party would lag dangerously behind the Democrats in raising money for the general election. Mr. Trump, who by the end of March had spent around $40 million of his fortune on the primaries, has said that he may need as much as $1.5 billion for the fall campaign ... he has no fund-raising apparatus to resort to, no network of prolific bundlers to call upon, and little known experience with the type of marathon, one-on-one serial salesmanship and solicitousness that raising so much money is likely to require.
This is surprisingly delicious. But unfortunately, all that donor money probably has to go somewhere, and I can just picture it squirting into the downticket races...
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald J. Trump took steps to appropriate much of the Republican National Committee’s financial and political infrastructure for his presidential campaign on Monday, amid signs that he and the party would lag dangerously behind the Democrats in raising money for the general election. Mr. Trump, who by the end of March had spent around $40 million of his fortune on the primaries, has said that he may need as much as $1.5 billion for the fall campaign ... he has no fund-raising apparatus to resort to, no network of prolific bundlers to call upon, and little known experience with the type of marathon, one-on-one serial salesmanship and solicitousness that raising so much money is likely to require.
This is surprisingly delicious. But unfortunately, all that donor money probably has to go somewhere, and I can just picture it squirting into the downticket races...
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:16 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
If he tries to "appropriate much of the Republican National Committee’s financial and political infrastructure", won't it take away from what's available for downticket races? But with all the SuperPACs, is the Party all that important for campaign financing anyway? I confused.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:38 PM on May 9, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:38 PM on May 9, 2016
Jon Stewart on the Axe Files, discussing the election and American politics in general. (An hour long video, but totally worth watching.)
This should almost be it's own FPP, or merged into an array on the natures of media and satire.
It would be a good thing for example to discuss the natures of public discourse without the need to mention the candidates with every exhale. Or to talk about bringing young people into the political infrastructures, or what that might require or entail.
posted by an animate objects at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
This should almost be it's own FPP, or merged into an array on the natures of media and satire.
It would be a good thing for example to discuss the natures of public discourse without the need to mention the candidates with every exhale. Or to talk about bringing young people into the political infrastructures, or what that might require or entail.
posted by an animate objects at 9:22 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jon Stewart on the Axe Files, discussing the election and American politics in general.(An hour long video, but totally worth watching.)
He's become so powerful after being allowed to grow gr(a|e)y hair.
posted by Peccable at 9:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
He's become so powerful after being allowed to grow gr(a|e)y hair.
posted by Peccable at 9:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
For those of you who were paying attention to Updates From the Front - I think the rebellion is over. I'll write a postmortem later. But sans the Hail Mary of all Hail Marys - we need to find another way to fight.
posted by corb at 9:33 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:33 PM on May 9, 2016 [32 favorites]
I thought about posting the Jon Stewart link as a standalone post, but wasn't sure it was a good idea given the candidate specific content.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jacquilynne at 10:02 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If anyone wants to hear incoherent ranting about the cowardice of various supposed NeverTrumpers, I'll be on chat until the weeping makes it hard for me to see the screen.
posted by corb at 10:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
nobody is going to believe being Trump's VP is a path to being President yourself
Unless of course you're betting on him getting impeached.
posted by ckape at 10:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless of course you're betting on him getting impeached.
posted by ckape at 10:03 PM on May 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Watching Sherrod Brown on Chris Hayes' show. I wish he would get a VP slot. He's just great.
We really, really, really, really don't need to take sitting Democratic Senators away from the Senate when the majority is there for the taking. Do you want to to never see another Democratic Supreme Court pick confirmed? Or never see a Clinton budget passed? Clinton should not appoint a Senator to ANY position, they're much too valuable where they are, and the Democratic bench is deep enough that they're not really needed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:04 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
We really, really, really, really don't need to take sitting Democratic Senators away from the Senate when the majority is there for the taking. Do you want to to never see another Democratic Supreme Court pick confirmed? Or never see a Clinton budget passed? Clinton should not appoint a Senator to ANY position, they're much too valuable where they are, and the Democratic bench is deep enough that they're not really needed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:04 PM on May 9, 2016 [10 favorites]
PolitiFact released Truth-O-Meter scorecard updates for the candidates today.
Sanders and Clinton are basically the same, within 1-2% points of each other. They each have roughly 50% True/Mostly True statements, 20% Half-True statements and 30% False/Mostly False statements
Trump has 9% True/Mostly True statements, 15% Half-True statements, and 76% False/Mostly False Statements
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:17 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sanders and Clinton are basically the same, within 1-2% points of each other. They each have roughly 50% True/Mostly True statements, 20% Half-True statements and 30% False/Mostly False statements
Trump has 9% True/Mostly True statements, 15% Half-True statements, and 76% False/Mostly False Statements
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:17 PM on May 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
nobody is going to believe being Trump's VP is a path to being President yourself
Unless of course you're betting on him getting impeached.
Well, you’re betting on him being elected and impeached rather than him losing and your own national career being forever tainted. So, long odds.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 PM on May 9, 2016
Unless of course you're betting on him getting impeached.
Well, you’re betting on him being elected and impeached rather than him losing and your own national career being forever tainted. So, long odds.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 PM on May 9, 2016
Sanders and Clinton are basically the same, within 1-2% points of each other. They each have roughly 50% True/Mostly True statements, 20% Half-True statements and 30% False/Mostly False statements
Politics!
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Politics!
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on May 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
This piece by Max Fisher was mentioned in the article bearwife linked to upthread about Clinton's claim to being identified as a progressive. I have been struggling to articulate why the picture of Clinton as bloodthirsty hawk rings false for me. This quote captures some of the nuance that I had been unable to describe, but the whole piece is worth reading.
They reveal Clinton as someone who is exceptionally enthusiastic about the merits and potential of American engagement in the world. She is indeed, more than any other candidate in the race, a true believer in American power.posted by bardophile at 10:29 PM on May 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
But Clinton's policies and past record suggest that her vision of power includes military force as well as diplomacy, so that while she is more likely to act in foreign affairs, she is also more likely to do so peacefully.
The picture is also great, albeit for (I suspect) stereotypical weird patriarchal dynamics of seeing a bevy of government suits and uniforms swarming about a small, well-dressed woman at the center.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:55 PM on May 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
In Virginia, Clinton Calls For Health-Care Public Option, Medicare Buy-In - "Clinton has endorsed a public option on her website, though it seldom comes up on the campaign trail."
Sanders: Clinton's Medicare Buy-In Proposal 'Not Good Enough' - "Secretary Clinton's proposal to let the American people buy into Medicare is a step in the right direction, but just like her support for a $12 minimum wage, it is not good enough."
go bernie :P
posted by kliuless at 10:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sanders: Clinton's Medicare Buy-In Proposal 'Not Good Enough' - "Secretary Clinton's proposal to let the American people buy into Medicare is a step in the right direction, but just like her support for a $12 minimum wage, it is not good enough."
go bernie :P
posted by kliuless at 10:56 PM on May 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
But unfortunately, all that donor money probably has to go somewhere, and I can just picture it squirting into the downticket races
Seems like that would be a decent strategy for Republicans. Work hard to maintain a majority, and perhaps let Trump's fortunes fall where they may. If he doesn't get elected, elected Republicans can go on obstructing government. If he does happen to win, they either get to enact their policy changes or make a good case that he was never one of the true faith to begin with. It seems like a potential way to make a win out of what would otherwise look like a difficult situation on the surface.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:01 PM on May 9, 2016
Seems like that would be a decent strategy for Republicans. Work hard to maintain a majority, and perhaps let Trump's fortunes fall where they may. If he doesn't get elected, elected Republicans can go on obstructing government. If he does happen to win, they either get to enact their policy changes or make a good case that he was never one of the true faith to begin with. It seems like a potential way to make a win out of what would otherwise look like a difficult situation on the surface.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:01 PM on May 9, 2016
The decent strategy for Republicans at this point is to burn their party to the ground and crown someone king of the ashes. Then turn out the lights.
posted by corb at 11:36 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:36 PM on May 9, 2016 [28 favorites]
WTF Obama AdministrationEvery so often, the mist clears just enough to give Democrats a glimpse of how the Northern Strategy works.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:25 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Quinnipiac just released some swing state polls. They have Florida at 43-42 Clinton-Trump, Pennsylvania 43-42, and Ohio 39-43(!). What is this I don't even.
I can maybe buy Trump doing well in Ohio. But I can't buy what amounts to a tie in Florida and Pennsylvania. I just can't do it.
posted by Justinian at 3:55 AM on May 10, 2016
I can maybe buy Trump doing well in Ohio. But I can't buy what amounts to a tie in Florida and Pennsylvania. I just can't do it.
posted by Justinian at 3:55 AM on May 10, 2016
so basically half the usa is evil racist fascists?
posted by andrewcooke at 4:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 4:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Based on my years of experience, I'm surprised it's not higher.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:06 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:06 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Someone talk me down from the ledge.
posted by Justinian at 4:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Every so often, the mist clears just enough to give Democrats a glimpse of how the Northern Strategy works.
yes, yes, Clinton is a evil hellbeast bent on starving our children to feed the rich, we get it
and a Republican, oh, we can't forget calling her a Republican
posted by Anonymous at 4:17 AM on May 10, 2016
yes, yes, Clinton is a evil hellbeast bent on starving our children to feed the rich, we get it
and a Republican, oh, we can't forget calling her a Republican
posted by Anonymous at 4:17 AM on May 10, 2016
The decent strategy for Republicans at this point is to burn their party to the ground and crown someone king of the ashes. Then turn out the lights.
posted by corb at 2:36 on May 10 [8 favorites −] [!]
corb, I want to give you a hug and a stack of cupcakes, the hopelessness is melting my screen :(
posted by Anonymous at 4:18 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by corb at 2:36 on May 10 [8 favorites −] [!]
corb, I want to give you a hug and a stack of cupcakes, the hopelessness is melting my screen :(
posted by Anonymous at 4:18 AM on May 10, 2016
Someone talk me down from the ledge.
I find that when a poll makes me go "WTF?!" like that, it usually emerges there's something seriously off about it. If we get a bunch of polls from reputable pollsters saying the same thing, then we worry more.
Also, you know, first debate isn't until September, Bernie hasn't yet ended his race, and meanwhile Bill Kristol is continuing to divert the Morning Joe crowd with talk of a (hopeless) third party run.
posted by sallybrown at 4:33 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I find that when a poll makes me go "WTF?!" like that, it usually emerges there's something seriously off about it. If we get a bunch of polls from reputable pollsters saying the same thing, then we worry more.
Also, you know, first debate isn't until September, Bernie hasn't yet ended his race, and meanwhile Bill Kristol is continuing to divert the Morning Joe crowd with talk of a (hopeless) third party run.
posted by sallybrown at 4:33 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is gonna be a long damn 6 months.
posted by Justinian at 4:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I mean, the election feels imminent right now, but it's not even Memorial Day.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:36 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:36 AM on May 10, 2016
Someone talk me down from the ledge.Here is an article about how hard it's going to be for Trump to win. It already had Ohio and Florida as pure tossups and Pennsylvania as "leaning Dem," which is the weakest category. So that analysis already assumed what the new polls are showing.
Having said that, nobody should take a thing for granted. Trump could win this. If you care about your country and your fellow citizens, even if you are extremely privileged and know that you will be just fine in a Trump administration, you should do everything in your power to make sure that doesn't happen.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Q poll swing state samples show smaller Hispanic and black electorates in 2016--this is highly unlikely."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Someone talk me down from the ledge.
They seem to believe that PoC will vote less than they did in 2008 and 2012, and are 5+ points down from poll averages. Or, as one of the people from Larry Sabato's site points out: "Here's my advice on Quinnipiac - if you're gonna write a story citing its polls and no other polls, don't."
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They seem to believe that PoC will vote less than they did in 2008 and 2012, and are 5+ points down from poll averages. Or, as one of the people from Larry Sabato's site points out: "Here's my advice on Quinnipiac - if you're gonna write a story citing its polls and no other polls, don't."
posted by zombieflanders at 4:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
sio42: "PA is Philly and Pittsburgh with a red state in the middle. I'm surprised we're not even more Trumpy than the polls show."
Fortunately, hardly anyone lives in the middle of the state. Philly and Pittsburgh can usually carry the day for Democrats almost by themselves. Look at this map from 2012; it's a big sea of red with only the two big metro areas plus Harrisburg and Erie colored blue and yet Obama got 52% of the vote.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fortunately, hardly anyone lives in the middle of the state. Philly and Pittsburgh can usually carry the day for Democrats almost by themselves. Look at this map from 2012; it's a big sea of red with only the two big metro areas plus Harrisburg and Erie colored blue and yet Obama got 52% of the vote.
posted by octothorpe at 5:20 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Even if the new polling is whiter than we expect the electorate to be, I think it's scary enough that people need to take GOTV and voter suppression way more seriously.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
For those who are interested, if you look up the Stop Trump National Network on Facebook, they have links to events and groups in different states and are also offering to help anyone get organized. The event in my area hasn't happened yet but is organized (in part) around voter registration efforts and coming up with some kind of a plan for the local area.
posted by sallybrown at 5:27 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:27 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right, I buy that the polling sample is wrong (though of course we should keep in mind the right-wing "unskewing" fiasco from 4 years ago) but I am appalled that you wouldn't see Trump getting his ass kicked in those states even if your polling sample was 100% white people. Don't be dummos, white people!
posted by Justinian at 5:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Guys...I just want to warn you that you're about to read the best article published so far this cycle:
Hillary Clinton, the First 'E.T Candidate,' Has U.F.O. Fans in Thrall
posted by sallybrown at 5:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hillary Clinton, the First 'E.T Candidate,' Has U.F.O. Fans in Thrall
posted by sallybrown at 5:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Good luck to everyone voting in West Virginia today. Let us know how it goes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't help but wonder if the reason we aren't seeing much downticket damage for Republicans due to Trump yet is simply because the campaigning season hasn't really started so there haven't been many efforts to tie Representative whoever to Trump yet.
Surely any Democrat who wantsto win will make their local elections all about Trump.
posted by sotonohito at 5:53 AM on May 10, 2016
Surely any Democrat who wantsto win will make their local elections all about Trump.
posted by sotonohito at 5:53 AM on May 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton, the First 'E.T Candidate,' Has U.F.O. Fans in Thrall
I'm a big Sanders guy, but if she gets an endorsement from Fox Mulder, I'm All Hillary All the Way.
posted by dis_integration at 5:54 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm a big Sanders guy, but if she gets an endorsement from Fox Mulder, I'm All Hillary All the Way.
posted by dis_integration at 5:54 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Omg sallybrown why does that delight me so? Man if Gingrich wasn't total scum on basically every other issue I'd be like: Unity ticket! UFOs/MoonBase 2016!
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!
Tell us, Langston, how should we do that, exactly?
Put one more S in the U.S.A.
To make it Soviet.
One more S in the U.S.A.
Oh, we’ll live to see it yet.
When the land belongs to the farmers
And the factories to the working men–
The U.S.A. when we take control
Will be the U.S.S.A. then.
(full poem)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!
Tell us, Langston, how should we do that, exactly?
Put one more S in the U.S.A.
To make it Soviet.
One more S in the U.S.A.
Oh, we’ll live to see it yet.
When the land belongs to the farmers
And the factories to the working men–
The U.S.A. when we take control
Will be the U.S.S.A. then.
(full poem)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Laura Bush and Jenna Bush Hager will be on Jimmy Fallon tonight. Forecast calls for some shade.
posted by sallybrown at 6:24 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:24 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
octothorpe: "Fortunately, hardly anyone lives in the middle of the state. Philly and Pittsburgh can usually carry the day for Democrats almost by themselves. "
Fun fact - in 2012, Philadelphia County alone had more votes than the 35 smallest PA counties combined.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:27 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Fun fact - in 2012, Philadelphia County alone had more votes than the 35 smallest PA counties combined.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:27 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
acrasis: "In summary: I doubt he is too gauche for today's America."
He's just being gauche to attract the left.
posted by chavenet at 6:33 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
He's just being gauche to attract the left.
posted by chavenet at 6:33 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Every so often, the mist clears just enough to give Democrats a glimpse of how the Northern Strategy works.
Anytime someone's thesis is predicating on equating compromise (what that article winkingly calls "the Northern Strategy") with racism (you, know, like the actual Southern Strategy), it's reasonable to pretty much disregard the rest of their disingenuous sophistry. It's the left-wing equivalent of "both sides are bad."
Plus, this phrase: "Hillary Clinton is a Republican in all but name" is basically an instant tab-closer for me, as it reveals the author as either rhetorically dishonest or incapable of reasoned analysis.
posted by dersins at 6:34 AM on May 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
Anytime someone's thesis is predicating on equating compromise (what that article winkingly calls "the Northern Strategy") with racism (you, know, like the actual Southern Strategy), it's reasonable to pretty much disregard the rest of their disingenuous sophistry. It's the left-wing equivalent of "both sides are bad."
Plus, this phrase: "Hillary Clinton is a Republican in all but name" is basically an instant tab-closer for me, as it reveals the author as either rhetorically dishonest or incapable of reasoned analysis.
posted by dersins at 6:34 AM on May 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
Anytime someone's thesis is predicating
(I am apparently incapable of writing grammatically--or even coherently--while I am still working on the day's first cup of coffee.)
posted by dersins at 6:58 AM on May 10, 2016
(I am apparently incapable of writing grammatically--or even coherently--while I am still working on the day's first cup of coffee.)
posted by dersins at 6:58 AM on May 10, 2016
From a new PPP poll of registered voters:
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:00 AM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
"Do you have a higher opinion of Donald Trump or..." Hemorrhoids -- Trump, 45-39 Cockroaches -- Trump, 46-42 Nickelback -- Nickelback, 39-34 Used car salesmen -- Salesmen, 47-41 Traffic jams -- Traffic, 47-40 Hipsters -- Hipsters, 45-38 DMV -- DMV, 50-40 Root canal -- Root canal, 49-38 Jury Duty -- Jury duty, 57-35 Lice -- Lice, 54-28Though it should be noted that Trump loses to hemorrhoids and cockroaches among women and non-anglos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:00 AM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Nickelback!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:03 AM on May 10, 2016
Another "fun" point from the PPP poll -- \me heartsymbols PPP -- is that only 13% of Republicans agreed that Obama is Christian. They also asked about Ted Cruz being Zodiac but hardly anyone bit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:08 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:08 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Dems totally missed their chance of a dream Hipsters/Lice ticket this year. Would have cleaned up against Trump on those polling figures, too. Damn you, closed primaries!
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
WHAT ABOUT BEDBUGS
posted by dersins at 7:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 7:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, I would vote for Trump before bedbugs.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:15 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
In today's episode of Tucker Carlson is a tool:
And Hillary's campaign made an official Woman Card, playing off of Drumpf's comment that Hillary only has the support she does because she's a woman, which has helped drive $2.4 million in campaign contributions ... to Hillary.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
CARLSON: [Trump] won the majority of women. I mean, he won the plurality of women in a number of these races against...Because Donald Trump has a well-documented problem with women - as seen in two handy graphics from Washington Post, and in more detail from Gallup.
ROBERTS: Well, Republican women...
CARLSON: Yeah, of course.
And Hillary's campaign made an official Woman Card, playing off of Drumpf's comment that Hillary only has the support she does because she's a woman, which has helped drive $2.4 million in campaign contributions ... to Hillary.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait, does that suggest that people have a higher opinion of lice than cockroaches? I think I prefer either to Trump, but I would definitely take cockroaches over lice.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The truth about Donald Trump’s angry white men: they're not a new group, but have been identified as a political "bloc" back a few decades. That piece doesn't go as far as to align Trump with MRA, but this other Salon article does.
In this morning's NPR piece on gender and the Presidential election (no transcript up yet), they mention a poll where men are asked about how much their lady-partners make compared to them, which instantly skews the male respondents to be more favorable to Trump, who is all about being a macho man, as seen when he mocked Jeb(!?) for bringing 'his mommy' to help him campaign.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:25 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
In this morning's NPR piece on gender and the Presidential election (no transcript up yet), they mention a poll where men are asked about how much their lady-partners make compared to them, which instantly skews the male respondents to be more favorable to Trump, who is all about being a macho man, as seen when he mocked Jeb(!?) for bringing 'his mommy' to help him campaign.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:25 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know, this may be the only time I ever say this in my life, but Trump is correct here:
It is only the people that were never asked to be VP that tell the press that they will not take the position.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It is only the people that were never asked to be VP that tell the press that they will not take the position.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
The increasingly apoplectic Nate Silver is tweeting about polls and the US election just now. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
posted by Wordshore at 7:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 7:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Final four bracket of cortex's worst nightmares in this thread:
posted by Existential Dread
Eponysterical!
posted by Gelatin at 7:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread
Eponysterical!
posted by Gelatin at 7:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
'In a widely anticipated move, President Hipsters today officially expunged every Animal Collective release after Strawberry Jam from the band's discography, declaring the group "over." Controversially, Hipsters also used the executive office to personally fire bassist Devin Ruben Perez from DIIV, based on anonymous comments Perez made on 4Chan in 2013. Anyone still listening to the band should be "ashamed of themselves," Hipsters declared in a prepared statement released on Tumblr'—AP.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:42 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:42 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wait, does that suggest that people have a higher opinion of lice than cockroaches? I think I prefer either to Trump, but I would definitely take cockroaches over lice.
Lice are much easier to get rid of, but roaches, like Trump, are bizarrely difficult to eliminate completely.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:47 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lice are much easier to get rid of, but roaches, like Trump, are bizarrely difficult to eliminate completely.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:47 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That piece doesn't go as far as to align Trump with MRA
"Make America Great Again--Let Men Be Men Again!"
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:57 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Make America Great Again--Let Men Be Men Again!"
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:57 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mark Wilson at FastCoDesign: “Budweiser Renames Its Beer ‘America’ [until the election]”
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't tell parody from real articles anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I know. This story is parody, right?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2016
Nope.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2016
Poll: Clinton, Trump run tight races in key swing states
posted by entropicamericana at 8:14 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by entropicamericana at 8:14 AM on May 10, 2016
“Budweiser Renames Its Beer ‘America’ [until the election]”
Best drunk while wearing your patriotic sexy eagle’s head crotch underwear.
posted by Wordshore at 8:16 AM on May 10, 2016
Best drunk while wearing your patriotic sexy eagle’s head crotch underwear.
posted by Wordshore at 8:16 AM on May 10, 2016
BRB guys I'm gonna go on an America run
My bro's hitting the gym to work off his America gut
Do you really like him/her or is it the America goggles
I hear Paul's really into the craft America movement
posted by zutalors! at 8:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
My bro's hitting the gym to work off his America gut
Do you really like him/her or is it the America goggles
I hear Paul's really into the craft America movement
posted by zutalors! at 8:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Poll: Clinton, Trump run tight races in key swing states
See above: Q poll swing state samples show smaller Hispanic and black electorates in 2016--this is highly unlikely. Q Poll Ohio sample is 4 pts. more white than 2012 Ohio exit poll; PA sample is 3 pts. more white and FL sample is 2 pts. more white.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
See above: Q poll swing state samples show smaller Hispanic and black electorates in 2016--this is highly unlikely. Q Poll Ohio sample is 4 pts. more white than 2012 Ohio exit poll; PA sample is 3 pts. more white and FL sample is 2 pts. more white.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or in other words, "pollsters are going to be intentionally fucking around with their data for the next six months in order to drive pageviews aren't they, fuck my entire life"
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
I hear Paul's really into the craft America movement
You can't buy beer on Etsy.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on May 10, 2016
You can't buy beer on Etsy.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on May 10, 2016
Going To Maine: "Mark Wilson at FastCoDesign: “Budweiser Renames Its Beer ‘America’ [until the election]”"
Nothing says America like a Belgian owned beer.
posted by octothorpe at 8:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Nothing says America like a Belgian owned beer.
posted by octothorpe at 8:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
“Budweiser Renames Its Beer ‘America’ [until the election]”
Hard to see that as anything other than a corporate Trump endorsement by AB-Inbev. What kind of beer would Trump be? A shitty "domestic" water-lager with a tacky relabel slapped on the front to "class it up", that's actually owned by a foreign conglomerate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hard to see that as anything other than a corporate Trump endorsement by AB-Inbev. What kind of beer would Trump be? A shitty "domestic" water-lager with a tacky relabel slapped on the front to "class it up", that's actually owned by a foreign conglomerate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Q poll also understates college grads, another demo that favors HRC. And skews older than the electorate. Which I guess is not surprising given that they only call land lines. Older, whiter, less educated. No wonder this poll shows Trump closer.
posted by chris24 at 8:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 8:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Turned on the TV news here in England. A clip of Trump, with that utter cumberworld Chris Christie standing beside him, just ... doing nothing. The whole time. Yet again, my immediate reaction is "What is the point of Chris Christie?"
posted by Wordshore at 8:40 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 8:40 AM on May 10, 2016
He's tremendously useful as ballast.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Okay, I need to do something besides hate everything forever. How does one find the phone number to local Clinton campaign offices?
posted by corb at 8:44 AM on May 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:44 AM on May 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
Okay, I need to do something besides hate everything forever. How does one find the phone number to local Clinton campaign offices?
https://forms.hillaryclinton.com/contact
posted by zarq at 8:48 AM on May 10, 2016
https://forms.hillaryclinton.com/contact
posted by zarq at 8:48 AM on May 10, 2016
Hillaryclinton.com makes it pretty straightforward, corb.
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 AM on May 10, 2016
"What is the point of Chris Christie?"
you remember in Aladdin, when Jafar gets the lamp and takes over and transforms the ex-Sultan into a capering jester in order to humiliate him
posted by theodolite at 8:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
you remember in Aladdin, when Jafar gets the lamp and takes over and transforms the ex-Sultan into a capering jester in order to humiliate him
posted by theodolite at 8:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I said phone number. I know how to get my name on their lists, I want to actually talk to a human.
posted by corb at 8:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 8:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's at the bottom of the contact form. 646-854-1432
posted by zutalors! at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 8:50 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks, sorry, it wasn't displaying on my mobile. I think I'm extra cantankerous today because I am busy despising all the never trumpers who just want to talk about hating him and not actually do anything about it.
posted by corb at 8:52 AM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:52 AM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Heh: Alexander Hamilton is appearing to me in dreams begging me to stop Trump.
posted by clawsoon at 8:53 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 8:53 AM on May 10, 2016
Best reaction to Ted Cruz possibly (shakes head, disbelievingly) restarting his campaign.
posted by Wordshore at 8:58 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Wordshore at 8:58 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks, sorry, it wasn't displaying on my mobile. I think I'm extra cantankerous today because I am busy despising all the never trumpers who just want to talk about hating him and not actually do anything about it.
Take care of yourself, corb. I know it can be terribly difficult and frustrating to compromise your beliefs and hold your nose in order to serve the greater good.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on May 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
Take care of yourself, corb. I know it can be terribly difficult and frustrating to compromise your beliefs and hold your nose in order to serve the greater good.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on May 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
Alexander Hamilton is appearing to me in dreams begging me to stop Trump.
Enemy of my enemy and all, but that dude is fucking despicable:
posted by dersins at 9:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Enemy of my enemy and all, but that dude is fucking despicable:
...the economically preposterous notion that the minimum wage must be a living wage.What a complete and utter waste of human genetic material.
posted by dersins at 9:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am busy despising all the never trumpers who just want to talk about hating him and not actually do anything about it.
What exactly are the #NeverTrump-ers supposed to do without a candidate? If Cruz had stayed in the race, they could have made a credible show at back-room rules-making to deny Trump the nomination, and maaaaaybe in that scenario the party big-wigs would have allowed that to happen. But now that Trump is unopposed and probably headed for a first-ballot victory or something very close to it, you're asking a lot of GOP delegates to rally around a dotted line cardboard cutout with the words "NON-TRUMP CANDIDATE HERE" inside.
The simple fact is, the moment Cruz dropped out, Hillary Clinton became the new face of #NeverTrump. I don't expect much of the GOP electorate to accept that as you seem to have, but you can't be surprised when you find out they're actually more #NeverHillary than anything else.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
What exactly are the #NeverTrump-ers supposed to do without a candidate? If Cruz had stayed in the race, they could have made a credible show at back-room rules-making to deny Trump the nomination, and maaaaaybe in that scenario the party big-wigs would have allowed that to happen. But now that Trump is unopposed and probably headed for a first-ballot victory or something very close to it, you're asking a lot of GOP delegates to rally around a dotted line cardboard cutout with the words "NON-TRUMP CANDIDATE HERE" inside.
The simple fact is, the moment Cruz dropped out, Hillary Clinton became the new face of #NeverTrump. I don't expect much of the GOP electorate to accept that as you seem to have, but you can't be surprised when you find out they're actually more #NeverHillary than anything else.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
this post is so offensive, to cheese lovers everywhere, to the entire dairy industry, to innocent ruminants across the nation
for shame
posted by poffin boffin at 9:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
for shame
posted by poffin boffin at 9:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
HRC's campaign emails have moved to Stop Trump stuff, which is disappointing to me as it's less inspiring than her previous messages.
posted by zutalors! at 9:13 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:13 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Cruz had stayed in the race, they could have made a credible show at back-room rules-making to deny him the nomination, and maaaaaybe in that scenario the party big-wigs would have allowed that to happen.
Yeah, but Cruz might be coming back, now that we’ve all realized how much we miss him.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:16 AM on May 10, 2016
Yeah, but Cruz might be coming back, now that we’ve all realized how much we miss him.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:16 AM on May 10, 2016
I would say they are trying to get people like me, but given the complete and utter failure of her call center to be useful when I am trying to volunteer for them, I am not sure.
posted by corb at 9:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Enemy of my enemy and all, but that dude is fucking despicable:
On the one hand, it’s a very informative view of what folks are thinking through the looking glass, though. On the other hand, I feel like I couldn’t make his arguments for opposing Trump because they’re at least partly hinged on “he’s a secret liberal!” and not entirely on “this man might literally blow up the country and the current global order without regard for anyone’s safety.”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:18 AM on May 10, 2016
On the one hand, it’s a very informative view of what folks are thinking through the looking glass, though. On the other hand, I feel like I couldn’t make his arguments for opposing Trump because they’re at least partly hinged on “he’s a secret liberal!” and not entirely on “this man might literally blow up the country and the current global order without regard for anyone’s safety.”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:18 AM on May 10, 2016
Considering Hamilton was definitely the "strong government" guy, interesting choice of founding father.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:21 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
this post is so offensive, to cheese lovers everywhere, to the entire dairy industry, to innocent ruminants across the nation
Maybe he's cheese made out of rat milk, like in that one episode of The Simpsons
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe he's cheese made out of rat milk, like in that one episode of The Simpsons
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's cheez made out of malk
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:24 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:24 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would say they are trying to get people like me, but given the complete and utter failure of her call center to be useful when I am trying to volunteer for them, I am not sure.
For what it's worth, the Obama call center(s) were similarly useless in both 2008 and 2012, despite the historically effective ground game.
Your best bets are to inquire with your local (county or state) Democratic Party as to the location of the nearest campaign office, or to use the event tool on the campaign web site to find volunteer opportunities near you.
posted by dersins at 9:26 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, the Obama call center(s) were similarly useless in both 2008 and 2012, despite the historically effective ground game.
Your best bets are to inquire with your local (county or state) Democratic Party as to the location of the nearest campaign office, or to use the event tool on the campaign web site to find volunteer opportunities near you.
posted by dersins at 9:26 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think corbs point is that the website really makes it difficult to do much but either spend money or get on a list. There is no easy access to actionable action.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:31 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:31 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
The event tool seems okay for finding local stuff? Sample size of one, but I threw in my zip and got back a link to a local phone banking operation.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:33 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 9:33 AM on May 10, 2016
Once you get on the list, though, the campaigns are fairly aggressive about asking you to phone bank or do other volunteer work. I think they use the email lists as primary contacts.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:34 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:34 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's kind of bizarre looking to me coming from the R side. I think it's more democratic maybe, is the best thing I can say for it? I think offices have more autonomy in R-ville, and the authority to send something up the chain if they don't understand it.
posted by corb at 9:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 9:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's unrealistic to expect to get a task on the campaign like, immediately with one phone call. There are already mechanisms in motion at this point and it's better to join one of those - phonebanking, local events, etc. If you join the mailing list you will start getting them, and then you meet people, and go from there.
posted by zutalors! at 9:36 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:36 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
There is no easy access to actionable action.
There absolutely is, though. "Events" lets you not only easily search for phone banks, canvasses, etc., but also create your own. It is one of only six options in the main site navigation bar at the top of each page.
posted by dersins at 9:36 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
There absolutely is, though. "Events" lets you not only easily search for phone banks, canvasses, etc., but also create your own. It is one of only six options in the main site navigation bar at the top of each page.
posted by dersins at 9:36 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Democrats DISORGANIZED? That's crazy talk.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:37 AM on May 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
It's kind of bizarre looking to me coming from the R side. I think it's more democratic maybe, is the best thing I can say for it? I think offices have more autonomy in R-ville, and the authority to send something up the chain if they don't understand it.
I would be interested in this podcast as well.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I would be interested in this podcast as well.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
You may be several steps ahead of me here but there's a 'volunteer' section on the website and if you put your info in there you will almost certainly receive a phone call from a nice local person within a few days.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
as a liberal, I'm gonna say that the conservatives crossing over the aisle to defeat Trump are the last people we should be dogpiling, or even giving the impression of dogpiling
Because Donald Trump has a well-documented problem with women
In the Washington Post article filthy light thief links, it says watching that campaign ad of women reciting horrible things Trump has said about women shifts women 19 points against Trump and men only 1 point. The quotes in that ad are really bad. I am very disappointed in what it says about our society that knowing he said that basically didn't affect dudes' opinions of him at all.
posted by Anonymous at 9:45 AM on May 10, 2016
Because Donald Trump has a well-documented problem with women
In the Washington Post article filthy light thief links, it says watching that campaign ad of women reciting horrible things Trump has said about women shifts women 19 points against Trump and men only 1 point. The quotes in that ad are really bad. I am very disappointed in what it says about our society that knowing he said that basically didn't affect dudes' opinions of him at all.
posted by Anonymous at 9:45 AM on May 10, 2016
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Democrats DISORGANIZED? That's crazy talk.
To be clear, the "it's not easy to just call up and start doing stuff" thing does not stem from disorganization, and is not an accident.
Quite the contrary, in fact. It is a core principle of community organizing that people who are brought into a movement through a more deliberate and intentional process--usually one that begins with a one-on-one, sit-down conversation with an organizer--are more likely to become productive, committed, long-term members of that movement.
This obviously all goes out the window during the utter chaos of final-days GOTV when hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of volunteers suddenly come out of the woodwork. However, this early in the process, building the organizational structure and capacity to be able to absorb those legions of last-days volunteers and use them productively is more useful than just throwing people into random busywork tasks.
posted by dersins at 9:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
To be clear, the "it's not easy to just call up and start doing stuff" thing does not stem from disorganization, and is not an accident.
Quite the contrary, in fact. It is a core principle of community organizing that people who are brought into a movement through a more deliberate and intentional process--usually one that begins with a one-on-one, sit-down conversation with an organizer--are more likely to become productive, committed, long-term members of that movement.
This obviously all goes out the window during the utter chaos of final-days GOTV when hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of volunteers suddenly come out of the woodwork. However, this early in the process, building the organizational structure and capacity to be able to absorb those legions of last-days volunteers and use them productively is more useful than just throwing people into random busywork tasks.
posted by dersins at 9:49 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I am very disappointed in what it says about our society that knowing he said that basically didn't affect dudes' opinions of him at all.
I think it's of a piece with the Trump-as-Rorschach-blot thing that's happening with so many of his positions. Many if not all of his supporters decide he means the things they like, and doesn't mean the things he does. I'd wager that the lack of shift in male approval rating is basically them going "No way is he sexist, look at the beautiful women he marries, he's just saying that to piss off the liberals amirite."
Which doesn't make it any less disappointing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:52 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's of a piece with the Trump-as-Rorschach-blot thing that's happening with so many of his positions. Many if not all of his supporters decide he means the things they like, and doesn't mean the things he does. I'd wager that the lack of shift in male approval rating is basically them going "No way is he sexist, look at the beautiful women he marries, he's just saying that to piss off the liberals amirite."
Which doesn't make it any less disappointing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:52 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you are interested in reading a very accurate picture of precisely how the Obama campaign used these community organizing principles to a scale (and level of effectiveness) unprecedented in electoral politics, Elizabeth McKenna and Hahrie Han's "Groundbreakers" is a great resource.
posted by dersins at 9:55 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 9:55 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the topic of Trump being an MRA, he literally says "All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women any more -- the women get it better than we do, folks" in this clip.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:57 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by pocketfullofrye at 9:57 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Op-ed by WSJ's Bret Stephens: Hillary: The Conservative Hope.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:58 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:58 AM on May 10, 2016
Many if not all of his supporters decide he means the things they like, and doesn't mean the things he does.
I'm even finding that this is the case among my Bernie supporter friends who are thinking through the calculus of who to vote for in November. I just spent a weekend trip with a few diehard Bernie supporters and heard over and over "He would never really set up a registry for Muslims", "He would never really default on the national debt", "He would never really nuke Syria," etc.
And, I mean, maybe not? But they weren't saying "this wouldn't be feasible via the system of checks and balances" or "keep in mind that American politics are incremental by their very nature, so he wouldn't really be able to usher in sweeping changes like that by fiat*". They just think everything he says is pretend and thus probably he and Hillary are the same and probably it would be fine if he were president.
*But of course they do believe that Bernie, if elected, would have an unprecedented mandate to enact those exact types of sweeping changes, but in their preferred direction.
posted by Sara C. at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm even finding that this is the case among my Bernie supporter friends who are thinking through the calculus of who to vote for in November. I just spent a weekend trip with a few diehard Bernie supporters and heard over and over "He would never really set up a registry for Muslims", "He would never really default on the national debt", "He would never really nuke Syria," etc.
And, I mean, maybe not? But they weren't saying "this wouldn't be feasible via the system of checks and balances" or "keep in mind that American politics are incremental by their very nature, so he wouldn't really be able to usher in sweeping changes like that by fiat*". They just think everything he says is pretend and thus probably he and Hillary are the same and probably it would be fine if he were president.
*But of course they do believe that Bernie, if elected, would have an unprecedented mandate to enact those exact types of sweeping changes, but in their preferred direction.
posted by Sara C. at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Sorry if I missed this above, but:
Cruz Won't Rule Out Jumping Back Into Presidential Race
What? Really? What?
posted by saturday_morning at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cruz Won't Rule Out Jumping Back Into Presidential Race
What? Really? What?
posted by saturday_morning at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Op-ed by WSJ's Bret Stephens: Hillary: The Conservative Hope.
"The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation."
But then as has been prophesied Lisa Simpson will be President.
posted by zutalors! at 10:01 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation."
Does anyone even know what a metaphor is
posted by beerperson at 10:02 AM on May 10, 2016 [37 favorites]
Does anyone even know what a metaphor is
posted by beerperson at 10:02 AM on May 10, 2016 [37 favorites]
It is a core principle of community organizing that people who are brought into a movement through a more deliberate and intentional process--usually one that begins with a one-on-one, sit-down conversation with an organizer--are more likely to become productive, committed, long-term members of that movement.
You're right, but this is not what is going on. In fact, what you are describing sounds much more like how the Republicans, in my experience, have organized - triaging volunteers, and arranging to make personal phone calls or have sitdowns with people they think can be effective force multipliers.
What it looks like, admittedly from the outside, is that either the Clinton campaign thinks they have it all sewn up and thus need nothing but a horde of worker ants who can ask for money, hold signs, and call existing Democrats.
I don't know how this looks to existing Democrats, because I'm not one, but to a Republican, this is intensely offputting. It seems to say "I won't be able to make use of any talents you have, because I don't care, and won't use you effectively: I will just slot you in somewhere, eventually, when I get around to it."
You want to make it easy for people to come over to your side, and you want to make it especially easy for people who you don't have to train at what they want to do. And though this doesn't really apply to me, you want to make it easy for people who are not comfortable on computers. If your campaign essentially requires you to be online, you're leaving out a large swath of the population.
posted by corb at 10:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
You're right, but this is not what is going on. In fact, what you are describing sounds much more like how the Republicans, in my experience, have organized - triaging volunteers, and arranging to make personal phone calls or have sitdowns with people they think can be effective force multipliers.
What it looks like, admittedly from the outside, is that either the Clinton campaign thinks they have it all sewn up and thus need nothing but a horde of worker ants who can ask for money, hold signs, and call existing Democrats.
I don't know how this looks to existing Democrats, because I'm not one, but to a Republican, this is intensely offputting. It seems to say "I won't be able to make use of any talents you have, because I don't care, and won't use you effectively: I will just slot you in somewhere, eventually, when I get around to it."
You want to make it easy for people to come over to your side, and you want to make it especially easy for people who you don't have to train at what they want to do. And though this doesn't really apply to me, you want to make it easy for people who are not comfortable on computers. If your campaign essentially requires you to be online, you're leaving out a large swath of the population.
posted by corb at 10:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
A stain could cripple if you slip on it.
posted by zutalors! at 10:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:03 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
However, essentially requiring people to get online means your volunteers will skew younger, and likely much more passionate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
London's Mayor-Elect, Sadiq Khan, rejected Trump's offer to exempt him from the ban on Muslim visitors should the former visit the U.S after the latter is elected President. He also expressed hope that Hillary "trounces" Trump. It's the same sort of jujitsu Ryan employed by volnteering to abdicate his role as Convention Chair should Trump request it. The best way to mock Trump and expose his ridiculousness is to take him seriously.
posted by carmicha at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by carmicha at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have received calls for volunteering for the Clinton campaign from people who are much younger and maler (possibly whiter) than the media would have you believe.
posted by zutalors! at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2016
Does anyone even know what a metaphor is
If we hit the bullseye on this election, the rest of the Republican Party should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
If we hit the bullseye on this election, the rest of the Republican Party should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [30 favorites]
Checkmate YOUR MOVE
posted by zutalors! at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2016 [18 favorites]
need nothing but a horde of worker ants who can ask for money, hold signs, and call existing Democrats.
Well, I mean, yeah.
What do you think Republican "in off the street" volunteers do?
It's a lot of phonebanking, canvassing, and getting out the vote. Which means more phonebanking and canvassing. (And to an extent other things like driving vans of elderly people from nursing homes to the polls, mass mailings, tabling on college campuses, etc.)
The lists of people you canvass or phonebank comes from the rolls of registered Democrats as well as previous donors. This makes sense, since these are likely voters and/or donors. Also, it would be a complete waste of time to just go through the phonebook or whatever other option you're imagining. The great thing about phonebanking as a Democrat is that everyone you call is a Democrat, and it's much more a reminder that election day is next week than it is a political debate.
I've always assumed that since I don't ever get calls from Republican phonebankers, it's probably done similarly on the Republican side. Find your likely voters and put a bug up their ass to vote.
posted by Sara C. at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I mean, yeah.
What do you think Republican "in off the street" volunteers do?
It's a lot of phonebanking, canvassing, and getting out the vote. Which means more phonebanking and canvassing. (And to an extent other things like driving vans of elderly people from nursing homes to the polls, mass mailings, tabling on college campuses, etc.)
The lists of people you canvass or phonebank comes from the rolls of registered Democrats as well as previous donors. This makes sense, since these are likely voters and/or donors. Also, it would be a complete waste of time to just go through the phonebook or whatever other option you're imagining. The great thing about phonebanking as a Democrat is that everyone you call is a Democrat, and it's much more a reminder that election day is next week than it is a political debate.
I've always assumed that since I don't ever get calls from Republican phonebankers, it's probably done similarly on the Republican side. Find your likely voters and put a bug up their ass to vote.
posted by Sara C. at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Someone talk me down from the ledge.
Keep in mind that, as Paul Krugman pointed out, the media is going to report on this race as a squeaker all the way thru November, regardless of the reality on the ground.
(Krugman also considers the media's tendency to create a sense that the outcome is in doubt less harmful than its likely unwillingness to call Trump on his serial prevarication; Charles Pierce seems to agree.)
posted by Gelatin at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Keep in mind that, as Paul Krugman pointed out, the media is going to report on this race as a squeaker all the way thru November, regardless of the reality on the ground.
(Krugman also considers the media's tendency to create a sense that the outcome is in doubt less harmful than its likely unwillingness to call Trump on his serial prevarication; Charles Pierce seems to agree.)
posted by Gelatin at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
What it looks like, admittedly from the outside, is that either the Clinton campaign thinks they have it all sewn up and thus need nothing but a horde of worker ants who can ask for money, hold signs, and call existing Democrats.
"I won't be able to make use of any talents you have, because I don't care, and won't use you effectively: I will just slot you in somewhere, eventually, when I get around to it."
The Clinton machine has been rolling for over a year officially, and unofficially for a long time before that. Volunteer management is a profession and they are already staffed with enthusiastic and committed disciples who are already thinking six months out. At this point, if they need an individual with specific talents for specif types of outreach, they've already got the name in their rolodex.
At this point it is a numbers game, get as many people as you can on the list and through the door, then have your volunteer coordinators look out for committed people who can come back for more intensive training. No one has the time to do a proper intake to assess your strengths and slot you accordingly.
posted by Think_Long at 10:13 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I won't be able to make use of any talents you have, because I don't care, and won't use you effectively: I will just slot you in somewhere, eventually, when I get around to it."
The Clinton machine has been rolling for over a year officially, and unofficially for a long time before that. Volunteer management is a profession and they are already staffed with enthusiastic and committed disciples who are already thinking six months out. At this point, if they need an individual with specific talents for specif types of outreach, they've already got the name in their rolodex.
At this point it is a numbers game, get as many people as you can on the list and through the door, then have your volunteer coordinators look out for committed people who can come back for more intensive training. No one has the time to do a proper intake to assess your strengths and slot you accordingly.
posted by Think_Long at 10:13 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Remember how we were supposed to calm down and trust Nate Silver in 2012? I still think there's a case to do that, but the point was that the data didn't bear out the media lunacy.
posted by zutalors! at 10:14 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:14 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Someone talk me down from the ledge.
From elsewhere: As a reminder, [this is the electoral map] if every state had 5% extra Republican vote added to their 2012 totals (and the corresponding vote taken away from Democrat vote)
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
From elsewhere: As a reminder, [this is the electoral map] if every state had 5% extra Republican vote added to their 2012 totals (and the corresponding vote taken away from Democrat vote)
![As a reminder, [this is the electoral map] if every state had 5% extra Republican vote added to their 2012 totals (and the corresponding vote taken away from Democrat vote)](http://i.imgur.com/S3I2rOc.png){kind=link}
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
zutalors!: "But then as has been prophesied Lisa Simpson will be President."
No, I've done the calculations, and the next president has to be named Yelnick McWawa.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, I've done the calculations, and the next president has to be named Yelnick McWawa.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:17 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The data doesn't bear out the media lunacy now, either.
I am so disappointed in our media, which holds no one to account, fact checks nothing, and remembers nothing. And hypes anything, no matter how tiny. Collectively they remind me of the dogs in "Up" that could not stay with anything when they caught a whiff of "Squirrel!"
posted by bearwife at 10:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am so disappointed in our media, which holds no one to account, fact checks nothing, and remembers nothing. And hypes anything, no matter how tiny. Collectively they remind me of the dogs in "Up" that could not stay with anything when they caught a whiff of "Squirrel!"
posted by bearwife at 10:18 AM on May 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
if they need an individual with specific talents for specif types of outreach, they've already got the name in their rolodex.
Well all I can say is, I hope their confidence that they've got everything totes under wraps and need no help from anyone new bears out in the general election. Because if we face even just four years of President Trump because they thought they had it, I am going to be intolerable in the camps.
posted by corb at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well all I can say is, I hope their confidence that they've got everything totes under wraps and need no help from anyone new bears out in the general election. Because if we face even just four years of President Trump because they thought they had it, I am going to be intolerable in the camps.
posted by corb at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
there was an article that predicted that the media would tear down Hillary Clinton while raising up Trump and then proceeded to do that IN THE ARTICLE.
posted by zutalors! at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
and need no help from anyone new
But they do need help from new people. They just have most of the specialists locked in already. What they need is grunt work.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
But they do need help from new people. They just have most of the specialists locked in already. What they need is grunt work.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:22 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
fact checks nothing,
HOLD ON THERE / Pedant alert! The media has fact-checked the hell out of Trump. What they don’t do at this point is straight-up label him as a serial liar, or demand that he account for his lies if he wants airtime, which is damned depressing.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 AM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
HOLD ON THERE / Pedant alert! The media has fact-checked the hell out of Trump. What they don’t do at this point is straight-up label him as a serial liar, or demand that he account for his lies if he wants airtime, which is damned depressing.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 AM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is it really "fact checking" if they refuse to state the only possible conclusion?
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Firstly, I wish I could believe that - I wish that Clinton had a team ready, willing, fully staffed to the extent of their capacity, and able to reach across the aisle and get Republicans to vote for her. I can't, but that would be great! I wish I could.
Secondly: I have never met a campaign, ever, where the problem was too much skilled labor. If Clinton's campaign is like that, that's...unprecedented and great! But I just have never seen it happen even for more popular candidates.
Thirdly: Even if this is 100% the truth, and they only need people for very, very limited work - the way they interact with potential volunteers still needs some work. You should never, ever, ever, when interacting with potential volunteers, act like you couldn't give a fuck if they volunteer or not. Even if you think it's all sewed up, you should never act like it's all sewed up, because you never know, and it turns people off and alienates them for no purpose.
Fourthly: look, I have deep, personal reasons for hating everything Sanders stands for, and the way I just interacted with the Clinton campaign gave me a bad enough taste in my mouth that my immediate thought was regret that Bernie Sanders showed no sign of being able to clinch the nomination. That's a problem.
It's okay to support Clinton! Look I'm even supporting her! But her campaign does not appear to be being run optimally.
posted by corb at 10:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Secondly: I have never met a campaign, ever, where the problem was too much skilled labor. If Clinton's campaign is like that, that's...unprecedented and great! But I just have never seen it happen even for more popular candidates.
Thirdly: Even if this is 100% the truth, and they only need people for very, very limited work - the way they interact with potential volunteers still needs some work. You should never, ever, ever, when interacting with potential volunteers, act like you couldn't give a fuck if they volunteer or not. Even if you think it's all sewed up, you should never act like it's all sewed up, because you never know, and it turns people off and alienates them for no purpose.
Fourthly: look, I have deep, personal reasons for hating everything Sanders stands for, and the way I just interacted with the Clinton campaign gave me a bad enough taste in my mouth that my immediate thought was regret that Bernie Sanders showed no sign of being able to clinch the nomination. That's a problem.
It's okay to support Clinton! Look I'm even supporting her! But her campaign does not appear to be being run optimally.
posted by corb at 10:30 AM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
You do know that Trump is not a self-made man, right?
But he's well known to play one on TV . . .
posted by flug at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2016
But he's well known to play one on TV . . .
posted by flug at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2016
No, I've done the calculations, and the next president has to be named Yelnick McWawa.
That's the stupidest name I've ever heard.
posted by zarq at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2016
That's the stupidest name I've ever heard.
posted by zarq at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2016
Mod note: Couple comments deleted. corb, I'm sorry you've been frustrated in your effort to volunteer today, but that point has been made and I'm gonna suggest the thread move on from there?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:35 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
New Trump campaign commercial
I think I need a shower.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:38 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think I need a shower.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:38 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Any polling organization posting about a Trump/Hillary general election should also be required to remind us what they were predicting a year or so ago about Trump getting the nomination.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
New Trump campaign commercial
I cant even tell if that's a campaign commercial, or a cartoon evil campaign commercial.
Also, does it seem weird to anyone else that they chose a shot of her with longer hair to open? It seemed very emphasizing her gender, but I might just be looking for reasons to hate.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I cant even tell if that's a campaign commercial, or a cartoon evil campaign commercial.
Also, does it seem weird to anyone else that they chose a shot of her with longer hair to open? It seemed very emphasizing her gender, but I might just be looking for reasons to hate.
posted by corb at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think I need a shower.
You'll be showering constantly until election day. This is a serious health risk, and even the Guinness Book of World Records no longer records record attempts in the "longest shower" category. Please reconsider.
posted by clawsoon at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
You'll be showering constantly until election day. This is a serious health risk, and even the Guinness Book of World Records no longer records record attempts in the "longest shower" category. Please reconsider.
posted by clawsoon at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
How a third-party ticket could fix the GOP’s Trump problem
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:45 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:45 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've had enough of naysayers and haters bashing presidential tackiness.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:46 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 10:46 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That Trump commercial is incredibly weak, unless the goal is purely to grab diehard Republicans. If that's where he feels he has to spend his money, things are going well for the Democrats. The laughing is so obviously put out of context I can't imagine how anyone could be persuaded by that.
posted by msalt at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by msalt at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How a third-party ticket could fix the GOP’s Trump problem
Ben Domenech lol
there's pretty much no way to fuck up punditing so bad that they won't let you pundit anymore, is there?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ben Domenech lol
there's pretty much no way to fuck up punditing so bad that they won't let you pundit anymore, is there?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
...they've already got the name in their rolodex...
...No one has the time to do a proper intake to assess your strengths and slot you accordingly...
This is for reals not what is happening. I know it feels like SHIT ITS ALL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, but the fact is that primary season is just wrapping up, and the Clinton field effort is probably just now beginning to fully ramp up for the general.
Building capacity properly needs to be a deliberate, intentional process, and it absolutely begins with a one-on-one meeting. Right now those one-on-one meetings are probably happening with known quantities-- people on the list who volunteered in 2008 and/or 2012 (or even 2010 or 2014). You bring those people back, get them back up to speed, and then reach out to the new folks.
you want to make it easy for people who are not comfortable on computers. If your campaign essentially requires you to be online, you're leaving out a large swath of the population.
For what it's worth, in 2012 a huge percentage of volunteer leaders and core volunteer team members were older folks who were, let's say, not exactly digital natives. (My mom, who calls me at least once a week with some random, basic, computer question, was one of them--a "Neighborhood Team Leader" in the suburbs of Boston.)
Over the course of the 2012 cycle, all these folks became perfectly comfortable navigating barackobama.com (and the other digital organizing tools) to find, sign up for, and/or create volunteer events. The Clinton campaign website seems to be structured almost identically to barackobama.com, and I guarantee you that those veteran volunteers, however computer-averse they may be in other areas of their life, are able to use the event, volunteering, and donation areas.
The priority right now is going to be on reactivating those very same veteran volunteers. Once they are back in the fold, retrained, and prepared to organize their own teams of volunteers, outreach to others who want to be involved can begin in earnest.
One reason you (corb) are finding it difficult to get involved right away is that they're not ready for you yet. If they bring you in now, and give you some random busywork, the statistics say you're likely to kind of drift away well before things kick off in earnest. If they want to keep you, they need a meaningful place to put you, and right now they're building those places.
Now, if you want to help build those places, especially as someone who hasn't been involved in Dem politics, you're going to need to walk in the door and talk to someone. It might feel difficult to locate that door on your own, but the tools to find it are absolutely on the website.
Please note that this also very much depends on where you are located, which I don't know. If you are in particularly conservative area, that door will likely be harder to find, or may not be located particularly close by. This is a thing that I have some--though not a ton--of experience with, and I'm more than happy to try to answer any specific questions via memail or email (which is my username at the gmail thing).
I know that this is the internet and I'm a dude, but if don't have the answers, I promise I won't make shit up. (Not about this.)
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [34 favorites]
...No one has the time to do a proper intake to assess your strengths and slot you accordingly...
This is for reals not what is happening. I know it feels like SHIT ITS ALL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, but the fact is that primary season is just wrapping up, and the Clinton field effort is probably just now beginning to fully ramp up for the general.
Building capacity properly needs to be a deliberate, intentional process, and it absolutely begins with a one-on-one meeting. Right now those one-on-one meetings are probably happening with known quantities-- people on the list who volunteered in 2008 and/or 2012 (or even 2010 or 2014). You bring those people back, get them back up to speed, and then reach out to the new folks.
you want to make it easy for people who are not comfortable on computers. If your campaign essentially requires you to be online, you're leaving out a large swath of the population.
For what it's worth, in 2012 a huge percentage of volunteer leaders and core volunteer team members were older folks who were, let's say, not exactly digital natives. (My mom, who calls me at least once a week with some random, basic, computer question, was one of them--a "Neighborhood Team Leader" in the suburbs of Boston.)
Over the course of the 2012 cycle, all these folks became perfectly comfortable navigating barackobama.com (and the other digital organizing tools) to find, sign up for, and/or create volunteer events. The Clinton campaign website seems to be structured almost identically to barackobama.com, and I guarantee you that those veteran volunteers, however computer-averse they may be in other areas of their life, are able to use the event, volunteering, and donation areas.
The priority right now is going to be on reactivating those very same veteran volunteers. Once they are back in the fold, retrained, and prepared to organize their own teams of volunteers, outreach to others who want to be involved can begin in earnest.
One reason you (corb) are finding it difficult to get involved right away is that they're not ready for you yet. If they bring you in now, and give you some random busywork, the statistics say you're likely to kind of drift away well before things kick off in earnest. If they want to keep you, they need a meaningful place to put you, and right now they're building those places.
Now, if you want to help build those places, especially as someone who hasn't been involved in Dem politics, you're going to need to walk in the door and talk to someone. It might feel difficult to locate that door on your own, but the tools to find it are absolutely on the website.
Please note that this also very much depends on where you are located, which I don't know. If you are in particularly conservative area, that door will likely be harder to find, or may not be located particularly close by. This is a thing that I have some--though not a ton--of experience with, and I'm more than happy to try to answer any specific questions via memail or email (which is my username at the gmail thing).
I know that this is the internet and I'm a dude, but if don't have the answers, I promise I won't make shit up. (Not about this.)
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on May 10, 2016 [34 favorites]
From yesterday: Clinton back on the air with TV ads
After taking a brief break from primary season television advertising, Hillary Clinton's campaign went back on the air in Kentucky with a reservation Monday of roughly $180,000 for the final week before the state's May 17 primary, according to media buying sources.posted by filthy light thief at 10:54 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The move comes on the eve of Tuesday's West Virginia primary, likely to be Clinton's second straight state loss to Bernie Sanders.
My experience of working for Democrats is that it works like this:
First of all, they have a structure. They have paid people who do a lot of the high-level strategizing, and they don't need volunteers to do that stuff. In fact, one of the biggest pains in the ass is that a lot of volunteers want to reinvent the wheel and come up with their own ways of doing things, and they really just need people who will be very efficient and effective at playing their assigned role.
So it was actually kind of a pain in the butt for me to get involved initially. I had a really hard time figuring out how to sign up in 2012. Finally, I saw an announcement for an event for team leaders, which I was not at the time, and I crashed it. That got me on the list of people to be called to volunteer. When I was called, I said yes if I could do it. I went and did what they told me to do, which typically was knocking on doors. If I took a packet, I finished it. If I said I would be there, I came. If I couldn't make it, I called and cancelled.
After not very long (maybe a month) of basically just being a responsible grunt worker, a staff member called me and asked if we could have a one-on-one meeting. We did that, and she said that they'd noticed that I was involved and reliable, and would I be interested in a leadership role. I said no. I said that I had social anxiety and was kind of a disorganized mess and didn't think I would be good at that. They said they thought I would be fine and should reconsider, but it was ok if I didn't want to do it.
About a month later, they asked for another sit-down. They basically said they were desperate, and would I try it out temporarily, and if it was really awful, I could quit. So I said ok, I'd try it out. They made me neighborhood team leader, which basically means that I was in charge of organizing weekly canvassing events and recruiting volunteers. Again: they told me what doors we were knocking on, gave us a basic script, etc. I did things like finding someone who would let us use their house as a staging location, calling up potential volunteers, making confirmation phone calls, and figuring out who would train new volunteers.
I've done other stuff since then, but it's basically all been organizational and interpersonal. I don't think that those are particularly my talents, although it turns out that I can fake it when I really need to. That's what they need volunteers to do, so that's what I do.
There are a lot of people who find this structure really frustrating. They don't like that the people in charge are typically very young. They don't like that your brilliant ideas are mostly not going to be implemented. It sometimes is really annoying when you have local knowledge, and someone in an office a hundred miles away is telling you to do something stupid. (For instance, it was really hard to convince the central office people that we needed to canvass on Sundays rather than Saturdays during football season. They believed that people in the hinterlands were very religious, and they weren't buying that football is as much of a religion as church, even though I promise you that's true.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:54 AM on May 10, 2016 [29 favorites]
First of all, they have a structure. They have paid people who do a lot of the high-level strategizing, and they don't need volunteers to do that stuff. In fact, one of the biggest pains in the ass is that a lot of volunteers want to reinvent the wheel and come up with their own ways of doing things, and they really just need people who will be very efficient and effective at playing their assigned role.
So it was actually kind of a pain in the butt for me to get involved initially. I had a really hard time figuring out how to sign up in 2012. Finally, I saw an announcement for an event for team leaders, which I was not at the time, and I crashed it. That got me on the list of people to be called to volunteer. When I was called, I said yes if I could do it. I went and did what they told me to do, which typically was knocking on doors. If I took a packet, I finished it. If I said I would be there, I came. If I couldn't make it, I called and cancelled.
After not very long (maybe a month) of basically just being a responsible grunt worker, a staff member called me and asked if we could have a one-on-one meeting. We did that, and she said that they'd noticed that I was involved and reliable, and would I be interested in a leadership role. I said no. I said that I had social anxiety and was kind of a disorganized mess and didn't think I would be good at that. They said they thought I would be fine and should reconsider, but it was ok if I didn't want to do it.
About a month later, they asked for another sit-down. They basically said they were desperate, and would I try it out temporarily, and if it was really awful, I could quit. So I said ok, I'd try it out. They made me neighborhood team leader, which basically means that I was in charge of organizing weekly canvassing events and recruiting volunteers. Again: they told me what doors we were knocking on, gave us a basic script, etc. I did things like finding someone who would let us use their house as a staging location, calling up potential volunteers, making confirmation phone calls, and figuring out who would train new volunteers.
I've done other stuff since then, but it's basically all been organizational and interpersonal. I don't think that those are particularly my talents, although it turns out that I can fake it when I really need to. That's what they need volunteers to do, so that's what I do.
There are a lot of people who find this structure really frustrating. They don't like that the people in charge are typically very young. They don't like that your brilliant ideas are mostly not going to be implemented. It sometimes is really annoying when you have local knowledge, and someone in an office a hundred miles away is telling you to do something stupid. (For instance, it was really hard to convince the central office people that we needed to canvass on Sundays rather than Saturdays during football season. They believed that people in the hinterlands were very religious, and they weren't buying that football is as much of a religion as church, even though I promise you that's true.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:54 AM on May 10, 2016 [29 favorites]
i think it also depends where you are. There are a lot of volunteers in New York, for example, her headquarters is here.
posted by zutalors! at 11:00 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 11:00 AM on May 10, 2016
First of all, they have a structure. They have paid people who do a lot of the high-level strategizing, and they don't need volunteers to do that stuff. In fact, one of the biggest pains in the ass is that a lot of volunteers want to reinvent the wheel and come up with their own ways of doing things, and they really just need people who will be very efficient and effective at playing their assigned role.
That's been my experience as well, and it kinda sucks feeling under-utilized but I think it's just the nature of the beast, especially the extremely large beasts.
posted by Think_Long at 11:00 AM on May 10, 2016
That's been my experience as well, and it kinda sucks feeling under-utilized but I think it's just the nature of the beast, especially the extremely large beasts.
posted by Think_Long at 11:00 AM on May 10, 2016
Is it really “fact checking” if they refuse to state the only possible conclusion?
See, I find this interesting. I mean, The Fact Checker is part of the Washington Post, and Glenn Kessler has complained about the news media’s handling of Trump. I don’t read the WaPo thoroughly enough, but my impression is that it’s doing an okay job of calling out Trump. What I’m less clear on is the interface between, say, the CNN’s headline news team and its editorial board. Or the editorial team at MSNBC and powerful buffoon Joe Scarborough’s Caffeine & Crap. What is the power balance between the news room and the news/entertainment shows that seem to be the bread and butter of daily programming?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on May 10, 2016
See, I find this interesting. I mean, The Fact Checker is part of the Washington Post, and Glenn Kessler has complained about the news media’s handling of Trump. I don’t read the WaPo thoroughly enough, but my impression is that it’s doing an okay job of calling out Trump. What I’m less clear on is the interface between, say, the CNN’s headline news team and its editorial board. Or the editorial team at MSNBC and powerful buffoon Joe Scarborough’s Caffeine & Crap. What is the power balance between the news room and the news/entertainment shows that seem to be the bread and butter of daily programming?
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on May 10, 2016
zarq: "That's the stupidest name I've ever heard."
No, no. That's Joey Jo-Jo Jr. Shabadoo.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:04 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, no. That's Joey Jo-Jo Jr. Shabadoo.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:04 AM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wish I could believe that
I don't really understand why you can't believe that.
Hillary Clinton is a real grownup professional politician.
She has been elected to the US senate multiple times.
She has previously run a presidential primary campaign and come extremely close to winning, ultimately being beat by an unprecedented ground-game run by Barack Obama (who went on to win the general by a landslide and also be re-elected by a landslide).
She has run an immensely successful primary campaign this year, learning from the mistakes of her previous run.
Once nominated, she will have the full resources of the entire Democratic Party at her disposal, a party which has trounced the Republicans to almost a hilarious degree in 4 of the last 5 elections. Again, Obama won by a landslide in two successive Presidential elections.
Not to mention she's a character in one of the most famous books ever written about a presidential campaign, Primary Colors.
Why do you assume she has the campaign organizing skills of a seventh grader running for student council?
posted by Sara C. at 11:04 AM on May 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't really understand why you can't believe that.
Hillary Clinton is a real grownup professional politician.
She has been elected to the US senate multiple times.
She has previously run a presidential primary campaign and come extremely close to winning, ultimately being beat by an unprecedented ground-game run by Barack Obama (who went on to win the general by a landslide and also be re-elected by a landslide).
She has run an immensely successful primary campaign this year, learning from the mistakes of her previous run.
Once nominated, she will have the full resources of the entire Democratic Party at her disposal, a party which has trounced the Republicans to almost a hilarious degree in 4 of the last 5 elections. Again, Obama won by a landslide in two successive Presidential elections.
Not to mention she's a character in one of the most famous books ever written about a presidential campaign, Primary Colors.
Why do you assume she has the campaign organizing skills of a seventh grader running for student council?
posted by Sara C. at 11:04 AM on May 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
there's pretty much no way to fuck up punditing so bad that they won't let you pundit anymore, is there?
Nope.
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Nope.
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
So, I've actually never volunteered for a campaign before. corb's experience has at least made me curious to see how things are on my corner, being in a deep red county bastion of a solid blue state. Maybe I should take the jump?
posted by FJT at 11:06 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by FJT at 11:06 AM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm interested too. As I'm not needed in Illinois I can maybe take a fall vacation to a state that needs boots on the ground. Iowa? Indiana? Wisconsin?
posted by readery at 11:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by readery at 11:09 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I volunteered for the 2012 Obama campaign by going door to door in New Hampshire. I went with some of my other fellow Americans who were living in Canada. And you know what? There wasn't a problem. We were warmly greeted, told what to do and where to go, and I didn't expect them to throw me a ticker-tape parade. I crossed a border to do it when all it was was knocking on doors and talking to people.
posted by Kitteh at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have friends who did that (vacation to purple states) during the Obama election. I think it's a great idea.
posted by zutalors! at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 11:12 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why do you assume she has the campaign organizing skills of a seventh grader running for student council?
hey Tracy Flick ran a very savvy campaign
posted by zutalors! at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Readery, in my experience for the most part outreach from staunch blue states to swing states is done more via phonebanking (I called PA and Ohio A LOT as an Obama phonebanker in 2008). Though people who have the ability to travel often do. I think it's more regionally, or to places that are within an easy drive of your home turf.
The real question is what the DNC is going to consider their key swing states this year. It sounds right now like a lot hinges on Florida, which means there might not be a ton of opportunities for out-of-state blue staters to put boots on the ground. But maybe not?
posted by Sara C. at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2016
The real question is what the DNC is going to consider their key swing states this year. It sounds right now like a lot hinges on Florida, which means there might not be a ton of opportunities for out-of-state blue staters to put boots on the ground. But maybe not?
posted by Sara C. at 11:14 AM on May 10, 2016
Go for it, FJT. And come back here and tell us what happens.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:31 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 11:31 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The One Man Who Could Stop Donald Trump
Curly Haugland loves the rules. The stubborn 69-year-old pool-supply magnate is North Dakota’s top Republican gadfly, its rule-mongering crank, its official state pain in the ass. On the national GOP’s standing rules committee, he’s been the pedantic curmudgeon, the stubborn speed bump who for years has raised points of order only to watch establishment Republicans stampede over him. . . .posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is one article of faith in the Republican Party: On the convention’s first ballot, bound delegates are required to vote for the candidate to whom they’re bound. What you need to know about Haugland’s radical vision is this: He insists that’s not the case. Haugland has been trumpeting this nuclear option for months. In March, he blasted out a letter to fellow Republican National Committee members with the subject line: “NEWS FLASH: All Republican Delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention are Unbound!” He’s on a mission to let all the delegates at the convention in Cleveland to vote however they’d like on the first ballot, no matter whom their state’s voters chose. . . .
Haugland won’t say what else he’ll propose to the rules committee. “The element of surprise is important,” he says. But he’ll likely challenge his least favorite rule: Rule 16, which binds delegates to their state’s primary and caucus results. . . .
Haugland’s argument is a lot like Ted Kennedy’s at the 1980 Democratic convention, Kamarck says. Kennedy thought he could snatch the nomination from President Jimmy Carter if he could unbind the delegates. He even mocked the binding rule as the “robot rule,” creating programmed delegates with no free will. On the first night of the convention, the robot rule became the test vote that revealed the candidates’ strengths. Carter was in control of the convention, so the robot rule was overwhelmingly upheld.
As I'm not needed in Illinois I can maybe take a fall vacation to a state that needs boots on the ground. Iowa? Indiana? Wisconsin?I've actually campaigned in all three! In October and November, someone will definitely be arranging to send people from the Chicago area to nearby swing states. I would wait until closer to the time to make plans. They'll let you know where they need people the most.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:36 AM on May 10, 2016
He’s on a mission to let all the delegates at the convention in Cleveland to vote however they’d like on the first ballot, no matter whom their state’s voters chose. . . .
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:39 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
So people know. But I'm definitely supporting the effort to unbind them after this debacle.
posted by corb at 11:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So people know. But I'm definitely supporting the effort to unbind them after this debacle.
posted by corb at 11:41 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They just think everything he says is pretend and thus probably he and Hillary are the same and probably it would be fine if he were president.
Honestly, I'm also seeing a lot of that online from leftists, where there's been a lot of "Hillary's a Moderate Republican" and "Trump can Run to the Left" rhetoric. It's just so frustrating to look at reviews and statements and STILL see people doing the equivalent of eve "We're not so different, you and I." line. It's still feels like there's a faction that is trying to set things up for going Nader, and that depresses me.
But I had to research alpha-holes this morning, and then I read this, and I want to go kick a concrete wall for a couple hours. So maybe I'm not in the best state to think about this election.
posted by happyroach at 11:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, I'm also seeing a lot of that online from leftists, where there's been a lot of "Hillary's a Moderate Republican" and "Trump can Run to the Left" rhetoric. It's just so frustrating to look at reviews and statements and STILL see people doing the equivalent of eve "We're not so different, you and I." line. It's still feels like there's a faction that is trying to set things up for going Nader, and that depresses me.
But I had to research alpha-holes this morning, and then I read this, and I want to go kick a concrete wall for a couple hours. So maybe I'm not in the best state to think about this election.
posted by happyroach at 11:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
Unless you're treating them like the Founders intended the Electoral College, in which you are picking Wise Men to Go To Cleveland and Choose A Candidate.
posted by clawsoon at 11:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Unless you're treating them like the Founders intended the Electoral College, in which you are picking Wise Men to Go To Cleveland and Choose A Candidate.
posted by clawsoon at 11:43 AM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
The rest of the article talks about how this guy has been on the unbound delegates train forever and hates primaries and wants them to go away (North Dakota, where this guy is from, doesn't have a Republican primary or caucus and doesn't bind delegates, which I didn't realize before). He's been shot down every previous election year when he proposed it, but thinks that there might actually be enough support for it this year.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2016
The rest of the article talks about how this guy has been on the unbound delegates train forever and hates primaries and wants them to go away (North Dakota, where this guy is from, doesn't have a Republican primary or caucus and doesn't bind delegates, which I didn't realize before). He's been shot down every previous election year when he proposed it, but thinks that there might actually be enough support for it this year.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2016
I took the arduous step of clicking on the volunteer button. I'm in Kansas, which is almost certainly a lost cause, but Missouri will be in play and that's not far away. Iowa as well.
Even though registering as a volunteer was a dead simple 2 second process, it's not set up very well. Clicking on 'submit' sent me to a "donate!!" page with no acknowledgement. I understand the desire to convert potential volunteers into donors too, but there really needed to be something which said: "Thanks for registering as a volunteer. We're gearing up for the General and will contact you soon." I had to check my email to see if the registration went through.
If anyone here has a contact on the campaign, get them to change that quickly. The donation page is fine but have the acknowledgement / confirmation in there too. Some people are just going to think their volunteer submission was ignored.
posted by honestcoyote at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Even though registering as a volunteer was a dead simple 2 second process, it's not set up very well. Clicking on 'submit' sent me to a "donate!!" page with no acknowledgement. I understand the desire to convert potential volunteers into donors too, but there really needed to be something which said: "Thanks for registering as a volunteer. We're gearing up for the General and will contact you soon." I had to check my email to see if the registration went through.
If anyone here has a contact on the campaign, get them to change that quickly. The donation page is fine but have the acknowledgement / confirmation in there too. Some people are just going to think their volunteer submission was ignored.
posted by honestcoyote at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
"I'm guessing this comes from the high school lab report school of science. You totally didn't let your compound boil off enough, then your partner accidentally dumped God knows what in there, then it fell in the sink and you had to scrape it out, but you're gonna write it up anyway because that is what you do."
You go to print with the data you have, not the data you want.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
You go to print with the data you have, not the data you want.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ben Carson Is Off Trump’s VP Vetting Team
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:46 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:46 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good that Clinton is getting back on TV in Kentucky. She can win there, disrupt the Bernie narrative, and put her perilously close to clinching if you count the superdelegates who've come out for her (and if you trust those numbers).
posted by dw at 11:55 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by dw at 11:55 AM on May 10, 2016
@SopanDeb: “What a race. NRSC telling Senate candidates that it's okay to skip convention.” story
posted by Going To Maine at 11:55 AM on May 10, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:55 AM on May 10, 2016
Also, NRO is going after Rick “Donald Trump is a cancer on conservatism” Perry for flipping on him.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:59 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:59 AM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"After selecting a list of names for the team to vet, Ben Carson has stepped away from the vice presidential selection team."
Ben Carson: Here is the list Mr. Trump requested. I think you'll be very pleased with the level of work I've put into it.
Campaign Manager: [perusing list] Why, this is just an alphabetized list of the names of popular Pokémon characters!
Ben Carson: Welp. Gotta go! [vanishes in a puff of smoke]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
Ben Carson: Here is the list Mr. Trump requested. I think you'll be very pleased with the level of work I've put into it.
Campaign Manager: [perusing list] Why, this is just an alphabetized list of the names of popular Pokémon characters!
Ben Carson: Welp. Gotta go! [vanishes in a puff of smoke]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [46 favorites]
Which Pokemon character would make the best Trump running mate, and why?
posted by clawsoon at 12:07 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 12:07 PM on May 10, 2016
It seems like both conventions have the potential for at least some spectacle, but it's hard to topthe GOP. I'm waiting for the moment after the delegates are unbound when it goes full on pro wrestling and we get to witness a core overload/reactor eject meltdown as Mitt Romney or whoever drops down out of the rafters as the new nominee and chairs just start flying. That said, if enough people who might form the backbone of any alternative skip the convention, it'll be Trump's show to run. Who ever thought they'd be looking back on Dole/Kemp as the good old days of Republicanism?
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:08 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:08 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Squirtle, because its name is Squirtle.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:09 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 12:09 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I can't get this song out of my head...
Trump lingered last in line for brains
And the one he got was sorta rotten and insane
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump lingered last in line for brains
And the one he got was sorta rotten and insane
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
If this is the case, there is literally no reason whatsoever to have presidential primaries.
It's hard to come up with things more disgusting than Trump, but asking party members to come out and indicate their preference before completely rejecting it... that qualifies in my book. It has the advantage of not being overtly racist, like Trump himself, but that level of hostility towards the most basic of democracy's actions is just breathtaking.
It certainly feels to me like it has a lot in common with doing things like refusing the Klan permission to have a march in the public square - the right choice in terms of basic decency, but absolutely opening the door for what will be inevitably and more commonly used against everyone else by the powers that be.
posted by phearlez at 12:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's hard to come up with things more disgusting than Trump, but asking party members to come out and indicate their preference before completely rejecting it... that qualifies in my book. It has the advantage of not being overtly racist, like Trump himself, but that level of hostility towards the most basic of democracy's actions is just breathtaking.
It certainly feels to me like it has a lot in common with doing things like refusing the Klan permission to have a march in the public square - the right choice in terms of basic decency, but absolutely opening the door for what will be inevitably and more commonly used against everyone else by the powers that be.
posted by phearlez at 12:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ben Carson Is Off Trump’s VP Vetting Team
that article (or at least, selected quotes it contains) couldn't sound more like a sales pitch for carson as vp.
posted by andrewcooke at 12:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
that article (or at least, selected quotes it contains) couldn't sound more like a sales pitch for carson as vp.
posted by andrewcooke at 12:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which Pokemon character would make the best Trump running mate, and why?
Herman Cain.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Herman Cain.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
but absolutely opening the door for what will be inevitably and more commonly used against everyone else by the powers that be.
Uh no actually. Everyone likes to trot out that slippery slope nonsense and no.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh no actually. Everyone likes to trot out that slippery slope nonsense and no.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Squirtle, because its name is Squirtle.
Trump/Squirtle.
Sounds about right. Sounds like a euphemism for a shart.
posted by daq at 12:23 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump/Squirtle.
Sounds about right. Sounds like a euphemism for a shart.
posted by daq at 12:23 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
No you don't think speech limits should be content-neutral? (You can skip elaborating in that case; I would need a lobotomy to care less what a non-US resident thinks about how our first amendment works) Or no you don't think a party leadership that had rejected the will of its voters once would then go on to reject them in other ways? Because personally I think it's clear they absolutely would; Trump is running their playbook from the last twenty years with regards to othering and immigration, they just don't like that he's doing it in a blatant way that harms their overall power.
posted by phearlez at 12:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 12:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary Clinton Targets Republicans Turned Off by Donald Trump
How Donald Trump is running to the left of Hillary Clinton
This is was is traditionally called "pivoting from the primaries to the general", correct? It'll be interesting to see if either of them succeeds to any degree in peeling off opposition party support.
posted by clawsoon at 12:38 PM on May 10, 2016
How Donald Trump is running to the left of Hillary Clinton
This is was is traditionally called "pivoting from the primaries to the general", correct? It'll be interesting to see if either of them succeeds to any degree in peeling off opposition party support.
posted by clawsoon at 12:38 PM on May 10, 2016
I'm enjoying the really in depth accounts of campaign volunteering. I've never done it before but probably will for Hillary this year. What is an approximate weekly time expectation?
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That "to the left of Hillary Clinton" headline is just junk - as is almost anything trying to boil most nationwide politics down to a pure left-right place on a number line - but it does have some interesting and/or scary shit. For me the top would be this one:
posted by phearlez at 12:46 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
But Trump’s populist pitch may be seriously hampered, even among voters skeptical of Clinton, by his controversial statements on women, Muslims and Mexican immigrants.Personally I think it's a huge mistake to underestimate the average white american's willingness to overlook awful racist/othering statements. The majority of the population may reject what they can identify as overtly racist statements but what it takes for them to see things as racist is a pretty high bar. If they can find a way to shrug it off as accidental or claim to themselves it can be seen in a non-racist manner (because as long as you can weasel it out into a certain interpretation who cares if an entire group of people identify it as offensive, rite?) then they will do so.
posted by phearlez at 12:46 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ben Carson Is Off Trump's VP Vetting Team
I'm sad this election is just so chock full of crazy twists that we'll probably never find out the backstory of this in the innumerable tell-alls that will come out after, there's just so much to cover.
Do you think he tried to stab Donald or pray with him?
posted by sallybrown at 12:46 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sad this election is just so chock full of crazy twists that we'll probably never find out the backstory of this in the innumerable tell-alls that will come out after, there's just so much to cover.
Do you think he tried to stab Donald or pray with him?
posted by sallybrown at 12:46 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that Trump running to the left of Clinton isn't quite the standard pivot, though my impression was that her husband w on in part by swiping Republican talking points.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:48 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:48 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No you don't think speech limits should be content-neutral? (You can skip elaborating in that case; I would need a lobotomy to care less what a non-US resident thinks about how our first amendment works)
As your nearest neighbour, we have such restrictions in place and haven't descended into a hellscape of government censorship. It takes a lot of privilege to say that all opinions deserve equal time. And I know how your First Amendment works, I just disagree with it. Mainly because absolutists like (apparently) yourself fail to understand that it's not absolute there, either.
I agree, however, that it would be both fantastically stupid and fundamentally undemocratic for the RNC to ignore the will of the voters in the primaries. If nothing else, since the RNC cares neither about stupidity nor democracy except in the Athenian "only the right people get to vote" sense, it gives Trump HELLA ammunition for his inevitable third party run.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
As your nearest neighbour, we have such restrictions in place and haven't descended into a hellscape of government censorship. It takes a lot of privilege to say that all opinions deserve equal time. And I know how your First Amendment works, I just disagree with it. Mainly because absolutists like (apparently) yourself fail to understand that it's not absolute there, either.
I agree, however, that it would be both fantastically stupid and fundamentally undemocratic for the RNC to ignore the will of the voters in the primaries. If nothing else, since the RNC cares neither about stupidity nor democracy except in the Athenian "only the right people get to vote" sense, it gives Trump HELLA ammunition for his inevitable third party run.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"I'm even finding that this is the case among my Bernie supporter friends who are thinking through the calculus of who to vote for in November. I just spent a weekend trip with a few diehard Bernie supporters and heard over and over "He would never really set up a registry for Muslims", "He would never really default on the national debt", "He would never really nuke Syria," etc. "
Why, that charismatic Austrian gentleman would never actually invade Poland — he just wants to get us out from under the thumb of the elite bankers!
"Ben Carson Is Off Trump’s VP Vetting Team"
The vetting team achieved its mission of convincing Trump to name Ken Barson his VP.
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why, that charismatic Austrian gentleman would never actually invade Poland — he just wants to get us out from under the thumb of the elite bankers!
"Ben Carson Is Off Trump’s VP Vetting Team"
The vetting team achieved its mission of convincing Trump to name Ken Barson his VP.
posted by klangklangston at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Personally I think it's a huge mistake to underestimate the average white american's willingness to overlook awful racist/othering statements. The majority of the population may reject what they can identify as overtly racist statements but what it takes for them to see things as racist is a pretty high bar.
Yeah, Trump's populist support is overwhelmingly among White people, especially men. Who don't care so much about the racism and sexism, apparently. Thankfully it is no longer possible to win elections just on White men, and that's only getting more true with each passing year. The GOP appears to be intent on heading down the fast track to irrelevance.
posted by Anonymous at 12:54 PM on May 10, 2016
Yeah, Trump's populist support is overwhelmingly among White people, especially men. Who don't care so much about the racism and sexism, apparently. Thankfully it is no longer possible to win elections just on White men, and that's only getting more true with each passing year. The GOP appears to be intent on heading down the fast track to irrelevance.
posted by Anonymous at 12:54 PM on May 10, 2016
Do you think he tried to stab Donald or pray with him?
Knowing Carson, probably a little of both.
posted by honestcoyote at 12:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Knowing Carson, probably a little of both.
posted by honestcoyote at 12:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
i don't know how to say this without sounding like a psycho, but does anybody have weird after-images of pictures of Trump sort of floating through their mind? It's like I can instantly summon his visage, starfish hand waving, snub nose sort of upturned, eyes squinting, hair doing that indescribable thing, small smile? I can't summon that mental image of Clinton. I assume this is because some or all of the following:
a) I'm losing my fucking mind
b) Trump is striking a Mussolini pose in every shot and that shit works on your mind
c) Clinton doesn't scare the bejeezus outta me and thus I'm less haunted by her visage
posted by angrycat at 12:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
a) I'm losing my fucking mind
b) Trump is striking a Mussolini pose in every shot and that shit works on your mind
c) Clinton doesn't scare the bejeezus outta me and thus I'm less haunted by her visage
posted by angrycat at 12:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
pretty sure the trump campaign is trying to make c) happen
posted by zutalors! at 1:04 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 1:04 PM on May 10, 2016
"This is was is traditionally called 'pivoting from the primaries to the general'"
Traditionally, the candidates knew the orientation of the axis about which they needed to pivot. This year, the one who figures out the new compass points wins.
posted by klarck at 1:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Traditionally, the candidates knew the orientation of the axis about which they needed to pivot. This year, the one who figures out the new compass points wins.
posted by klarck at 1:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, he is nightmarish, angrycat. I'm totally with you on that. I've said before and will repeat here that my mental image of him is an amalgamation of Mussolini and Hitler with sneery lips.
posted by bearwife at 1:05 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by bearwife at 1:05 PM on May 10, 2016
does anybody have weird after-images of pictures of Trump sort of floating through their mind? It's like I can instantly summon his visage, starfish hand waving, snub nose sort of upturned, eyes squinting, hair doing that indescribable thing, small smile?
This is classic babadookery. Hie thee quick to your nearest house of the holy.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is classic babadookery. Hie thee quick to your nearest house of the holy.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
My mental image of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip and Trump keep merging. The Trump campaign has guaranteed I can't stop thinking about that book. If there's anyone here who hasn't read It Can't Happen Here, this is probably a great year to read it.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by honestcoyote at 1:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
NYT: Clinton, in Shift to Left, Favors Wider Access to Medicare
This kind of thing makes me think the "pivot to the center" might not happen this time.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
This kind of thing makes me think the "pivot to the center" might not happen this time.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wait ten minutes and hit F5. It'll self-adjust.
posted by delfin at 1:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by delfin at 1:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would be great if this turns out to be an election where everybody goes left, the way that everybody went right in the early '90s. Margaret Thatcher talked about her greatest achievement being the right-leaning "New Labour". Maybe Clinton and Sanders' greatest achievement will be a left-leaning Republican Party.
One can dream, right?
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
One can dream, right?
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, Trump is certainly the pandering and self-serving non-ideologue who can enable that from his side of the aisle.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on May 10, 2016
I'm enjoying the really in depth accounts of campaign volunteering. I've never done it before but probably will for Hillary this year. What is an approximate weekly time expectation?
Generally, whatever you want it to be, with a realistic lower limit of one 3-hour shift per week. Upper limit? In 2012 there were Obama volunteers who put in well over 40 hours/week--mostly retired folks who treat campaign volunteering as their "full time job" every 2-4 years.
Do know, though, that you'll have to draw your own boundaries and stick to them: field staff and volunteer leaders will absolutely ask more and more of you as time goes on, unless you set firm limits.
posted by dersins at 1:22 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Generally, whatever you want it to be, with a realistic lower limit of one 3-hour shift per week. Upper limit? In 2012 there were Obama volunteers who put in well over 40 hours/week--mostly retired folks who treat campaign volunteering as their "full time job" every 2-4 years.
Do know, though, that you'll have to draw your own boundaries and stick to them: field staff and volunteer leaders will absolutely ask more and more of you as time goes on, unless you set firm limits.
posted by dersins at 1:22 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thanks, Cruz, you unmitigated ass. "If I win Nebraska I'll come back in the race" indeed. Now I'm getting FB messages from my mom, a one-issue voter, about making sure I vote for him and that I don't let "your lib colleagues" sway me. Now I must continue the delicate tap dance that does not reveal I am now a registered Dem that has already caucused here. At least I can tell her truthfully that I'll be voting tonight; there's a school board race that I want to make sure I vote in.
In other terrible news, the Philippines has elected somebody far worse than Trump and Cruz smooshed together into one writhing ball of hate. Nngh.
posted by PussKillian at 1:29 PM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
In other terrible news, the Philippines has elected somebody far worse than Trump and Cruz smooshed together into one writhing ball of hate. Nngh.
posted by PussKillian at 1:29 PM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, thanks Cruz for making me listen to Glenn Beck for that pearl of wisdom.
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2016
Yeah, Trump's populist support is overwhelmingly among White people, especially men. Who don't care so much about the racism and sexism, apparently. Thankfully it is no longer possible to win elections just on White men, and that's only getting more true with each passing year. The GOP appears to be intent on heading down the fast track to irrelevance.
I don't think they're intent so much as they're just trapped. They have spent much of my lifetime claiming one thing - we want limited spending! - while doing the other - opening the door on previously unprecedented deficits. They threw in with certain blocks that were obsessed with things like abortion and other cultural issues and ran off folks who might have been economically conservative but who couldn't stomach the culture war.
I'm sure that with 20-20 hindsight there's plenty of folks who wish they could go back and avoid signing on to the absolutist issues and ceding an economic middle groud, but at this point they're just stuck. If they drop those positions they lose percentage points they can't spare.
posted by phearlez at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think they're intent so much as they're just trapped. They have spent much of my lifetime claiming one thing - we want limited spending! - while doing the other - opening the door on previously unprecedented deficits. They threw in with certain blocks that were obsessed with things like abortion and other cultural issues and ran off folks who might have been economically conservative but who couldn't stomach the culture war.
I'm sure that with 20-20 hindsight there's plenty of folks who wish they could go back and avoid signing on to the absolutist issues and ceding an economic middle groud, but at this point they're just stuck. If they drop those positions they lose percentage points they can't spare.
posted by phearlez at 1:35 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sadiq Khan: I don't want exemption from 'ignorant' Trump's Muslim ban
Sadiq Khan Will Not Be Trump's 'Exception' And other foreign leaders should follow suit.
posted by homunculus at 1:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sadiq Khan Will Not Be Trump's 'Exception' And other foreign leaders should follow suit.
posted by homunculus at 1:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Medicare program currently covers Americans once they reach 65. Beneficiaries pay premiums to help cover the cost of their coverage, but the government foots the bulk of the bill. Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion was that perhaps younger Americans, “people 55 or 50 and up,” could voluntarily pay the full cost to join the program.
Why not younger people? The article offers no explanation, other than "it might lower costs for younger people on private plans". That's a pretty weak opening negotiating position.
posted by indubitable at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2016
Why not younger people? The article offers no explanation, other than "it might lower costs for younger people on private plans". That's a pretty weak opening negotiating position.
posted by indubitable at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2016
However, there's also this awesome news: Philippines elects first transgender woman to congress
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:38 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Democratic focus groups reveal warning signs about Donald Trump "Trump has a very simple economic message: The elites have screwed you with trade deals that have sucked jobs out of the country. He’d bring them roaring back by kicking the asses of other countries, international bureaucrats and elites, CEOs who ship jobs overseas, and immigrants who are eating out of American workers’ lunch buckets."
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:39 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:39 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Christie on Trump's VP shortlist: report
I mean, why?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, why?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Will Trump be able to effectively deploy that attack, given that his businesses are often dependent upon the very things he's decrying? It seems like an easy counter that can be brought up every time he tries to paint himself that way.
"I feel the X, Y, and Z is wrong when it comes trade and will fight to change it, but I will also note that I don't currently own and operate businesses that hypocritically take advantage of the very things I decry."
Then Clinton can name the businesses one after the other.
posted by defenestration at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I feel the X, Y, and Z is wrong when it comes trade and will fight to change it, but I will also note that I don't currently own and operate businesses that hypocritically take advantage of the very things I decry."
Then Clinton can name the businesses one after the other.
posted by defenestration at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I remain convinced this is all puffery to put Christie in place for a spectacular, humiliating fall, as punishment for his putting Jared Kushner's father in jail.
posted by sallybrown at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Indubitable, one thing that occurs to me is that the 50-65 age group is basically the remaining Baby Boomers who aren't already medicare age. So that's a gigantic cohort of Americans. Maybe the idea is to roll it out to a large demographic sector, see if it works, and then open the floodgates?
50-65 is also a population that is more likely to have pertinent medical needs, and is a somewhat vulnerable population in terms of things like forced early retirement, underemployment, and other situations that may result in a lack of employer-provided insurance.
More cynically, people who are 50+ are much more likely to vote.
posted by Sara C. at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
50-65 is also a population that is more likely to have pertinent medical needs, and is a somewhat vulnerable population in terms of things like forced early retirement, underemployment, and other situations that may result in a lack of employer-provided insurance.
More cynically, people who are 50+ are much more likely to vote.
posted by Sara C. at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
New Vermin Supreme campaign commercial.
posted by homunculus at 1:52 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 1:52 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Christie on Trump's VP shortlist: report
I mean, why?
Well, they may both be oldish asshole blowhard white guys from the NY area, but Christie brings the all-important "married to someone age-appropriate" demo to the table.
posted by dersins at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean, why?
Well, they may both be oldish asshole blowhard white guys from the NY area, but Christie brings the all-important "married to someone age-appropriate" demo to the table.
posted by dersins at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Pointing out that Trump is a hypocrite is a bigtime losing strategy. It only works with people who claim some kind of moral purity. Trump is attractive because he breaks rules - being exempt from his own rhetoric is just another facet of his power. See also: every cult leader ever
posted by theodolite at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
you know, if the polls that show Ohio/PA/FL close are some bullshit I feel like I might have a legal cause of action for damages related to emotional distress
posted by angrycat at 1:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Omarosa reads every morning's VP speculation, and laughs quietly to herself...
posted by sallybrown at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, why?
Because Christie was, IIRC, the first of the contenders to lick Trump's jackboots.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because Christie was, IIRC, the first of the contenders to lick Trump's jackboots.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
kicking the asses of other countries, international bureaucrats and elites, CEOs who ship jobs overseas, and immigrants who are eating out of American workers’ lunch buckets.
Sure, but this is classic red meat for the Republican base. If Democrats were likely to be swayed by this, they would already be voting Republican.
I would be much more worried if Trump was taking a sheet from the Sanders playbook, talking about organized labor, or some third idea that has not been seen previously but feels more lefty/populist than "IMMIGRANTS R STEALIN R JOBS LETS BOMB EM"
posted by Sara C. at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016
Sure, but this is classic red meat for the Republican base. If Democrats were likely to be swayed by this, they would already be voting Republican.
I would be much more worried if Trump was taking a sheet from the Sanders playbook, talking about organized labor, or some third idea that has not been seen previously but feels more lefty/populist than "IMMIGRANTS R STEALIN R JOBS LETS BOMB EM"
posted by Sara C. at 1:57 PM on May 10, 2016
"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby"
-H.L. Mencken, who is becoming my spirit animal this election year.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
-H.L. Mencken, who is becoming my spirit animal this election year.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
you know, if the polls that show Ohio/PA/FL close are some bullshit I feel like I might have a legal cause of action for damages related to emotional distress
They are, you're fine.
Pennsylvania hasn't gone R since freakin' 1988.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
They are, you're fine.
Pennsylvania hasn't gone R since freakin' 1988.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
In other terrible news, the Philippines has elected somebody far worse than Trump and Cruz smooshed together into one writhing ball of hate. Nngh.
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Neoreactionaries and other troglodytes decry the death of democracy, then elect candidates that most showcase the failings of democracy. Those strongmen then proceed to dismantle democracy from the top and institute the monarchy they so crave. What an ouroboros of shit.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:00 PM on May 10, 2016
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Neoreactionaries and other troglodytes decry the death of democracy, then elect candidates that most showcase the failings of democracy. Those strongmen then proceed to dismantle democracy from the top and institute the monarchy they so crave. What an ouroboros of shit.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:00 PM on May 10, 2016
But like who else? Who else would be Trump's VP?
Any of them would, he's 69. And there's only a few that have gone full #nevertrump. Rubio, Jindal, Christie all have basically stalled out or failed careers at this point, any of them would accept if Trump offered no matter what they're saying now. Ok Mitt wouldnt, probably. And others in powerful positions like Walker, Ryan, even Huckabee; but the opposition is already inching towards acceptance, they all hate libruls FAR more than they care an iota about putting a madman in control of the nuclear weapons. 8 or 9/10 Republicans would accept being Trump's VP, make no mistake, just like 45-47% of the country is going to vote for him anyway in November, literally no matter what he says between now and then, or how manifestly dangerous and unqualified he is for the job. Hatred of Democrats is all that matters, and they all have plenty of that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:03 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any of them would, he's 69. And there's only a few that have gone full #nevertrump. Rubio, Jindal, Christie all have basically stalled out or failed careers at this point, any of them would accept if Trump offered no matter what they're saying now. Ok Mitt wouldnt, probably. And others in powerful positions like Walker, Ryan, even Huckabee; but the opposition is already inching towards acceptance, they all hate libruls FAR more than they care an iota about putting a madman in control of the nuclear weapons. 8 or 9/10 Republicans would accept being Trump's VP, make no mistake, just like 45-47% of the country is going to vote for him anyway in November, literally no matter what he says between now and then, or how manifestly dangerous and unqualified he is for the job. Hatred of Democrats is all that matters, and they all have plenty of that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:03 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
entropicamericana: "H.L. Mencken, who is becoming my spirit animal this election year"
Keep in mind he was basically a proto-Libertarian who was vehemently anti-FDR.
He was a really funny guy, but politically - eh.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Keep in mind he was basically a proto-Libertarian who was vehemently anti-FDR.
He was a really funny guy, but politically - eh.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think Jindal would fly with the racists, Rubio doesn't seem to want to, Walker, Ryan, definitely not at this point.
Acceptance is one thing, but being his VP pick? I mean I know Republican names too, but that wasn't my question.
posted by zutalors! at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2016
Acceptance is one thing, but being his VP pick? I mean I know Republican names too, but that wasn't my question.
posted by zutalors! at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2016
Well ok, you asked, the answer is, "all of them, no matter what they're saying publicly today".
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:06 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:06 PM on May 10, 2016
Yeah, I disagree with that. I actually think it does matter what they're saying today.
posted by zutalors! at 2:07 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 2:07 PM on May 10, 2016
TRUMP/BUTTAFUOCO 2016
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
And others in powerful positions like Walker, Ryan, even Huckabee;
Huckabee has actually liked Trump for quite some time - see, e.g. this article from March. This actually gives him a fair bit of credibility that many of the other “likely” veeps you’ve mentioned can’t pull off. Unlike a Perry or a Rubio (who I really don’t see accepting), it wouldn’t come across as at all hypocritical for Huckabee to jump on the bandwagon. Incoherent, perhaps, but not hypocritical.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:09 PM on May 10, 2016
Huckabee has actually liked Trump for quite some time - see, e.g. this article from March. This actually gives him a fair bit of credibility that many of the other “likely” veeps you’ve mentioned can’t pull off. Unlike a Perry or a Rubio (who I really don’t see accepting), it wouldn’t come across as at all hypocritical for Huckabee to jump on the bandwagon. Incoherent, perhaps, but not hypocritical.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:09 PM on May 10, 2016
Jindal also managed to single-handedly destroy Louisiana's economy during his tenure as governor there (something that just came out and is very fresh in the minds of locals), so he's not really the best choice for "but no really this is not going to be a tire fire at all". Assuming they're looking for a VP choice that signals legitimacy and experience.
Not to mention that Louisiana is a red state, went handily for Trump in the primary, and Louisianians are not pleased with Jindal right now to say the least. Putting him on the ticket potentially turns a red state purple.
posted by Sara C. at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that Louisiana is a red state, went handily for Trump in the primary, and Louisianians are not pleased with Jindal right now to say the least. Putting him on the ticket potentially turns a red state purple.
posted by Sara C. at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Apocryphon: Neoreactionaries and other troglodytes decry the death of democracy, then elect candidates that most showcase the failings of democracy. Those strongmen then proceed to dismantle democracy from the top and institute the monarchy they so crave. What an ouroboros of shit.
I wish I could remember who said something to the effect of, "The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is one man." It has stuck in my head for years. The alternative that was being contrasted was an aristocracy or oligarchy, and I don't remember which of the options the author was in favour of. Their point, I think, was that it's much easier to get to democracy by removing one man than by rooting out thousands of aristocrats/oligarchs.
From the sound of that article, the oligarchy is strong in the Philippines, with most politicians coming from the same wealthy political families that have been running things for decades. That's another way for democracy to die. It's a slow death, not nearly as dramatic as a strongman taking over, but it's still death. A terminal illness.
posted by clawsoon at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2016
I wish I could remember who said something to the effect of, "The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is one man." It has stuck in my head for years. The alternative that was being contrasted was an aristocracy or oligarchy, and I don't remember which of the options the author was in favour of. Their point, I think, was that it's much easier to get to democracy by removing one man than by rooting out thousands of aristocrats/oligarchs.
From the sound of that article, the oligarchy is strong in the Philippines, with most politicians coming from the same wealthy political families that have been running things for decades. That's another way for democracy to die. It's a slow death, not nearly as dramatic as a strongman taking over, but it's still death. A terminal illness.
posted by clawsoon at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2016
In retrospect, Jindal would also have had made for an excellent VP for Cruz.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I see the VP slot going one of two ways: (a) a non-white and/or non-male person, outsider or semi-outsider, "speaks their mind" but worships Trump like a cult leader (Omarosa, Carson, etc.) or (b) not-extremely-disliked establishment person that Trump hasn't insulted yet that Trump acquiesces to behind closed doors as a compromise for the party not unbinding his delegates before the first ballot.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016
Keep in mind he was basically a proto-Libertarian who was vehemently anti-FDR.
Yes, Mencken's politics were, uh, problematic, to say the least, but god damn, he could write.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, Mencken's politics were, uh, problematic, to say the least, but god damn, he could write.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I saw some chatter today about Sen Bob Corker of TN as a VP candidate. He came out for Trump pretty early.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 2:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
WV starting to come in, by exit. Noteworthy (but not surprising) from WV Dem exit poll: Just 27% want to continue Obama's policies -- lowest % I can remember of any state
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:15 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:15 PM on May 10, 2016
Omarosa worked in a nominal role in the Clinton Administration, and (taking into account her tendency for hyperbole and running miles ahead of the truth) that would make for an interesting attack surrogate.
posted by sallybrown at 2:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 2:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
WV starting to come in, by exit. Noteworthy (but not surprising) from WV Dem exit poll: Just 27% want to continue Obama's policies -- lowest % I can remember of any state
Not surprising indeed. The "War on Coal" narrative is stronger in WV than perhaps anywhere other than Kentucky, and Joe Manchin has basically a free hand to vote against every White House policy initiative without repercussions from the party because it's the only way he keeps his job.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not surprising indeed. The "War on Coal" narrative is stronger in WV than perhaps anywhere other than Kentucky, and Joe Manchin has basically a free hand to vote against every White House policy initiative without repercussions from the party because it's the only way he keeps his job.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jindal also managed to single-handedly destroy Louisiana's economy during his tenure as governor there
Right, that's the thing, it's hard to think of a Republican who is:
a) Popular (among Republicans)
b) has unreserved support for Trump and isn't "falling in line"
c) Represents a problem demographic for Trump.
Even Christie fails that test, but someone like Rubio fails even harder IMO.
posted by zutalors! at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2016
Right, that's the thing, it's hard to think of a Republican who is:
a) Popular (among Republicans)
b) has unreserved support for Trump and isn't "falling in line"
c) Represents a problem demographic for Trump.
Even Christie fails that test, but someone like Rubio fails even harder IMO.
posted by zutalors! at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2016
Gov. Sandoval is not attending the RNC, so that's that.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:19 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 2:19 PM on May 10, 2016
I mean, it still could go to Kasich, right?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:20 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:20 PM on May 10, 2016
MSNBC's Steve Kornacki:
Mischievous Trump supporters in WV?
9% of Clinton voters would back Trump over her
39% of Sanders voters would back Trump over *Sanders*
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2016
Mischievous Trump supporters in WV?
9% of Clinton voters would back Trump over her
39% of Sanders voters would back Trump over *Sanders*
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2016
Well, bless their wild and wonderful hearts.
posted by sallybrown at 2:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
And some people wonder why the parties prefer closed primaries.
posted by dersins at 2:28 PM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by dersins at 2:28 PM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
39% of Sanders voters would back Trump over *Sanders*
I do (non-political) survey data analysis for a living. This is the point where we would switch gears from "what does this data mean" to "how did we screw this one up"
posted by theodolite at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
I do (non-political) survey data analysis for a living. This is the point where we would switch gears from "what does this data mean" to "how did we screw this one up"
posted by theodolite at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [16 favorites]
Trump Selects a White Nationalist Leader as a Delegate in California (more from SPLC)
posted by melissasaurus at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, when both parties have competitive primaries it doesn't matter too much, but once you get into a situation where only one party's contest matters there is a much higher chance of spoilers.
(Although this year I considered whether I would want to do that in the Republican primary if Clinton didn't need my vote, and decided it was too complicated --- because the seemingly "less electable" ones like Cruz or Trump were also the most horrible options to me, and when you end up in a general election there's always a _chance_ they could be president...)
posted by thefoxgod at 2:32 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Although this year I considered whether I would want to do that in the Republican primary if Clinton didn't need my vote, and decided it was too complicated --- because the seemingly "less electable" ones like Cruz or Trump were also the most horrible options to me, and when you end up in a general election there's always a _chance_ they could be president...)
posted by thefoxgod at 2:32 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that Johnson will be a Republican delegate even though he is actually the leader of a "rival" political party ( American Freedom Party, which is basically the White Power Party and whose nominee was "known for coining the phrase “White Genocide” to describe the declining percentage of Whites in the United States" ).
Although they already changed that: In March, in an effort to be “more diplomatic” with the media, the AFP Board decided to replace the term “White Genocide” with “physical, administrative removal of Americans of European extraction.” In addition, it asked members to use the terms “white advocates” or “advocates of European heritage” in lieu of “White Nationalists.”
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Although they already changed that: In March, in an effort to be “more diplomatic” with the media, the AFP Board decided to replace the term “White Genocide” with “physical, administrative removal of Americans of European extraction.” In addition, it asked members to use the terms “white advocates” or “advocates of European heritage” in lieu of “White Nationalists.”
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually think that the 39% of Sanders voters thing could be an artifact of closed primaries, not open ones. (West Virginia's are semi-closed, I think: independents can vote in either primary, but registered Democrats can't vote in Republican ones or vice versa.) Basically, if you're a Democrat who favors Trump, you still can't vote in the Republican primary. So you might vote for your preferred Democrat, even if you'd rather vote for Trump than either of the Democratic candidates.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump Selects a White Nationalist Leader as a Delegate in California
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Johnson got the news that he had been selected by Trump in a congratulatory email sent to him by the campaign's California delegate coordinator, Katie Lagomarsino. "I just hope to show how I can be mainstream and have these views," Johnson tells Mother Jones. "I can be a white nationalist and be a strong supporter of Donald Trump and be a good example to everybody."Regardless of how the election turns out, this could be the true legacy of the Trump campaign. *shudders*
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Its also true that WVa is one of those places with lots of registered Democrats who usually vote Republican for President. They have more Democrats registered than Republicans, but Romney won 62% of the vote in 2012 for example.
Probably a holdover from the days when lots of Southern Democrats were more conservative, so you had people who registered Democratic and voted for local Democrats but voted for Republicans for national office. Which is still true in a few places but mostly have been replaced by Republicans at the local level as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Probably a holdover from the days when lots of Southern Democrats were more conservative, so you had people who registered Democratic and voted for local Democrats but voted for Republicans for national office. Which is still true in a few places but mostly have been replaced by Republicans at the local level as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
In other terrible news, the Philippines has elected somebody far worse than Trump and Cruz smooshed together into one writhing ball of hate. Nngh.
A friend of mine who is not only pin@y, but has spent lots of time there and worked in relief/activism posted a gigantic rant today crapping super hard on the western reporting of this and basically decrying it as the worst kind of not only uninformed, incomplete, and inaccurate but also just sort of that standard western media "lol look at these ZANY foreigners!" stuff.
I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt, is what i'm saying. They made a fairly strong case for this being shitty skewed reporting. And not to say this guy is good, just that he's being misrepresented as superrr evil for clicks and to make that lazy comparison.
posted by emptythought at 2:58 PM on May 10, 2016
A friend of mine who is not only pin@y, but has spent lots of time there and worked in relief/activism posted a gigantic rant today crapping super hard on the western reporting of this and basically decrying it as the worst kind of not only uninformed, incomplete, and inaccurate but also just sort of that standard western media "lol look at these ZANY foreigners!" stuff.
I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt, is what i'm saying. They made a fairly strong case for this being shitty skewed reporting. And not to say this guy is good, just that he's being misrepresented as superrr evil for clicks and to make that lazy comparison.
posted by emptythought at 2:58 PM on May 10, 2016
Any links showing which parts have been misrepresented, emptythought? Absent an incorrect translation, some of Duterte's statements sounded unambiguously horrible. If your friend has any English-language reading on where the media went wrong on the guy, I'd love to read it.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:03 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:03 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's sort of interesting that the founder and one of the commanders of the separatist Moro National Liberation Front endorsed Duterte for president... and the son of Ferdinand Marcos for vice president.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:04 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 3:04 PM on May 10, 2016
This was linked early on in the conversation. When i can actually sift through it all later at home, i'll try and grab some more.
posted by emptythought at 3:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by emptythought at 3:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
John Oliver showed video of Duterte going to pains to make sure people understood that shitty things he said weren't a joke. You can say, "Well, yeah, but John Oliver," but that doesn't change the fact that no, Duterte wanted everyone to know he was absolutely serious about the shitty rape commentary he'd made.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
"For many, many years, when I would say these things, other white people would call me names: 'Oh, you're a hatemonger, you're a Nazi, you're like Hitler,'" he confessed. "Now they come in and say, 'Oh, you're like Donald Trump.'"
In case you didn't make it to the end; there's a sweet nugget there.
posted by eyesontheroad at 3:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
In case you didn't make it to the end; there's a sweet nugget there.
posted by eyesontheroad at 3:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
This was linked early on in the conversation.
The thesis there seems to be that it's not fair to compare Duterte to Trump because the former has a lot of political experience and the people of Davao view his tenure as mayor positively, whereas Candidate Trump is more of a cipher.
The thing is, though, I kind of thought the point of the comparisons was not that they have similar resumes, but that they both present themselves as huge assholes (and both revel in their reputations as huge assholes).
posted by dersins at 3:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The thesis there seems to be that it's not fair to compare Duterte to Trump because the former has a lot of political experience and the people of Davao view his tenure as mayor positively, whereas Candidate Trump is more of a cipher.
The thing is, though, I kind of thought the point of the comparisons was not that they have similar resumes, but that they both present themselves as huge assholes (and both revel in their reputations as huge assholes).
posted by dersins at 3:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Plus, one of them already has operational roving death squads, if you're into that sort of thing.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"...campaign volunteering... What is an approximate weekly time expectation?"
Most campaigns I've been on, they'll take whatever you can give, and they will ask for more. I'm a pretty experienced Field Organizer, and in my experience across many campaigns, there was always so much work to do that anyone who wanted to help out was put to work pretty quickly. I've worked with volunteers who had 30 minutes a week, and with (not nearly as many) volunteers who could put in 30 hours.
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:28 PM on May 10, 2016
Most campaigns I've been on, they'll take whatever you can give, and they will ask for more. I'm a pretty experienced Field Organizer, and in my experience across many campaigns, there was always so much work to do that anyone who wanted to help out was put to work pretty quickly. I've worked with volunteers who had 30 minutes a week, and with (not nearly as many) volunteers who could put in 30 hours.
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:28 PM on May 10, 2016
Trump is a raging asshole but I don't think he has openly admitted to murdering at least three people with his own hands...
posted by Justinian at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
His own hands are too tiny for murder
posted by saturday_morning at 3:32 PM on May 10, 2016 [50 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 3:32 PM on May 10, 2016 [50 favorites]
he has something else he likes to choke people with
posted by pyramid termite at 3:34 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 3:34 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Their own bile?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:34 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:34 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's okay, Justinian. Don't think of Trump destroying America. Think of him offering us an exciting opportunity to role play living in Westeros!
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Surely he chokes people with a gold, glitter-encrusted rope with big cubic zirconia crystals at each end.
posted by phearlez at 3:38 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by phearlez at 3:38 PM on May 10, 2016
For me, it's really just the idea of him that sticks in my craw.
posted by dersins at 3:40 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 3:40 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
is there anyway that we can sneak a pair of ruby red slippers on him and get him to to click them 3 times while chanting "there's no place like home?"
i have it on very good info that the emerald city is missing its village idiot and the cowardly lion is missing his twin brother
posted by pyramid termite at 3:43 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
i have it on very good info that the emerald city is missing its village idiot and the cowardly lion is missing his twin brother
posted by pyramid termite at 3:43 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
PMURT!
Nope, the Mxyzptlk method doesn't work either. Any other ideas?
posted by delfin at 3:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nope, the Mxyzptlk method doesn't work either. Any other ideas?
posted by delfin at 3:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
he has something else he likes to choke people with
⬇⬊➡ Ⓐ : Donald’s Yuge Hair Whip : choke opponent for two seconds, then drag into uppercut range. CAUTION! If opponent breaks free, your scalp flies off.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
⬇⬊➡ Ⓐ : Donald’s Yuge Hair Whip : choke opponent for two seconds, then drag into uppercut range. CAUTION! If opponent breaks free, your scalp flies off.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton: Kraft Singles. This smooth and friendly product of industry is a classic all-American cheese.
Sanders: Swiss Cheese. This cheese from socialist Europe is seen by some as being of a distinctly higher level of quality than the others, but look closely and you might spot some holes in its story.
Trump: Cannon Rush. That's the one where you build a wall around some cannons in the enemy base and make your opponent pay for it.
posted by sfenders at 3:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders: Swiss Cheese. This cheese from socialist Europe is seen by some as being of a distinctly higher level of quality than the others, but look closely and you might spot some holes in its story.
Trump: Cannon Rush. That's the one where you build a wall around some cannons in the enemy base and make your opponent pay for it.
posted by sfenders at 3:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Probably a holdover from the days when lots of Southern Democrats were more conservative, so you had people who registered Democratic and voted for local Democrats but voted for Republicans for national office. Which is still true in a few places but mostly have been replaced by Republicans at the local level as well."
In WV, there are still people registered as Democrats to protest Lincoln.
posted by klangklangston at 4:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
In WV, there are still people registered as Democrats to protest Lincoln.
posted by klangklangston at 4:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I knew the Republicans skewed older, but damn.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:20 PM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:20 PM on May 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Pointing out that Trump is a hypocrite is a bigtime losing strategy. It only works with people who claim some kind of moral purity. Trump is attractive because he breaks rules - being exempt from his own rhetoric is just another facet of his power. See also: every cult leader ever"
Right. The argument that he does one thing and says another isn't persuasive — but you can pretty easily frame that into an attack on his credibility. How can you trust him to do the things he says he'd do if he benefits by not doing them? That attacks his strength — his anti-elitist claim — and forces him to come up with more concrete examples of policy, where he's weaker.
The strategy I'd pursue is calling out bullshit on his claims (rather than, like many of his opponents, getting bogged down in trying to argue against them — just dismiss them as bluster and move on) and pointing out that he's another elite telling people what they want to hear while doing whatever serves him best. It's easy to turn that into a broader anti-Republican message too: Trump's right that the GOP is screwing you, but he doesn't want to stop — he just wants to jump the line and screw you first. He's right that the GOP is screwing you — but he ran in the GOP primary to make sure he's the one in charge of the screwing, not to stop it.
posted by klangklangston at 4:25 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right. The argument that he does one thing and says another isn't persuasive — but you can pretty easily frame that into an attack on his credibility. How can you trust him to do the things he says he'd do if he benefits by not doing them? That attacks his strength — his anti-elitist claim — and forces him to come up with more concrete examples of policy, where he's weaker.
The strategy I'd pursue is calling out bullshit on his claims (rather than, like many of his opponents, getting bogged down in trying to argue against them — just dismiss them as bluster and move on) and pointing out that he's another elite telling people what they want to hear while doing whatever serves him best. It's easy to turn that into a broader anti-Republican message too: Trump's right that the GOP is screwing you, but he doesn't want to stop — he just wants to jump the line and screw you first. He's right that the GOP is screwing you — but he ran in the GOP primary to make sure he's the one in charge of the screwing, not to stop it.
posted by klangklangston at 4:25 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
West Virginia counter-seceded out of loyalty to the Union, that doesn't even make any sense
posted by Apocryphon at 4:25 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 4:25 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
In WV, there are still people registered as Democrats to protest Lincoln.
Which is super weird since WV exists as an entity distinct from Virginia due to it siding with the Union during the Civil War.
posted by indubitable at 4:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which is super weird since WV exists as an entity distinct from Virginia due to it siding with the Union during the Civil War.
posted by indubitable at 4:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
WV called for Sanders and Trump.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Probably a holdover from the days when lots of Southern Democrats were more conservative, so you had people who registered Democratic and voted for local Democrats but voted for Republicans for national office. Which is still true in a few places but mostly have been replaced by Republicans at the local level as well.
Kim Davis was a Democrat until after her SSM tantrum.
posted by Etrigan at 4:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kim Davis was a Democrat until after her SSM tantrum.
posted by Etrigan at 4:30 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has there been much Oregon polling? Because a 15 point Clinton lead sounds like a big outlier.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:46 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 4:46 PM on May 10, 2016
27% of Democratic voters would vote Trump in the fall, including a lot of the Sanders voters.
posted by zutalors! at 4:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 4:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do you always have to bring up Sanders supporters? What is the source for the 27% number? I am happy to be corrected. I find that number extreme so far out from the election.
posted by futz at 4:54 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by futz at 4:54 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"West Virginia counter-seceded out of loyalty to the Union, that doesn't even make any sense"
Not to belabor a throw-away joke, but West Virginia provided about equal numbers of troops for Confederate and Union Armies, the secession vote (from Virginia) was taken while the state was occupied by Union soldiers, and West Virginia reverted to virulently anti-Reconstruction Democrats immediately after the war, and elected a former Confederate as Senator in the 1870s (right about the time that the SCOTUS told Virginia they couldn't have WV back).
posted by klangklangston at 4:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Not to belabor a throw-away joke, but West Virginia provided about equal numbers of troops for Confederate and Union Armies, the secession vote (from Virginia) was taken while the state was occupied by Union soldiers, and West Virginia reverted to virulently anti-Reconstruction Democrats immediately after the war, and elected a former Confederate as Senator in the 1870s (right about the time that the SCOTUS told Virginia they couldn't have WV back).
posted by klangklangston at 4:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
futz, MSNBC reported the number.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:56 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't say Sanders supporters, I said Sanders voters. It looks like there's a number of people who voted Sanders this primary to vote against Clinton but wouldn't vote for him in the general.
It's just interesting, it's not to take away anything from a Sanders win.
posted by zutalors! at 4:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's just interesting, it's not to take away anything from a Sanders win.
posted by zutalors! at 4:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
From CBS:
"Almost half of Democratic primary voters in West Virginia (47 percent) identify as liberal, among the lowest we've seen in exit polling this year. More than four in 10 Democratic primary voters in West Virginia want to see the next president actually change to policies that are less liberal than President Obama's--the highest in the primaries so far."
This is interesting, since both Democratic candidates are more liberal than Obama. I'm guessing those 40%+ that want "less liberal" politics are the bulk of the "registered Democrats" who are considering voting for Trump.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Almost half of Democratic primary voters in West Virginia (47 percent) identify as liberal, among the lowest we've seen in exit polling this year. More than four in 10 Democratic primary voters in West Virginia want to see the next president actually change to policies that are less liberal than President Obama's--the highest in the primaries so far."
This is interesting, since both Democratic candidates are more liberal than Obama. I'm guessing those 40%+ that want "less liberal" politics are the bulk of the "registered Democrats" who are considering voting for Trump.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
They asked people to answer in an exit poll who they would support in the fall.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:59 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jeebus. WV seceded from Virginia? Where was I that day in High School history?
How did I miss that episode of Ken Burns' Civil War?
posted by notyou at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2016
How did I miss that episode of Ken Burns' Civil War?
posted by notyou at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2016
More on white nationalist William Johnson's selection as a Trump delegate: Trump Camp: 'Database Error' Led To White Nationalist On CA Delegate Slate:
posted by zachlipton at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
“A database error led to the inclusion of a potential delegate that had been rejected and removed from the campaign’s list in February 2016,” the Trump campaign said of William Johnson’s inclusion on the delegate list, which was released Monday night.This story makes increasingly little sense.
...
The New York Daily News' Cameron Joseph said that Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told him the report was "totally false" before the campaign sent the statement ascribing Johnson's inclusion to a "database error."
posted by zachlipton at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fun fact from the West Virginia exit polls: Sanders led overwhelmingly (62 to 29%) among Democratic primary voters who said they wanted less liberal policies than President Obama's.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Jeebus. WV seceded from Virginia? Where was I that day in High School history?
Check it out. Super interesting. Especially given where the state's politics have gone since then.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Check it out. Super interesting. Especially given where the state's politics have gone since then.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK here is the main exit poll data
If you scroll down:
If these were the candidates in November, would you:
1) Vote for Clinton -- 47% (among these voters, Clinton won by 36%)
2) Vote for Trump -- 33% (among these voters, Sanders won by 66%)
3) Not Vote -- 18% (among these voters, Sanders won by 75%)
If these were the candidates in November, would you:
1) Vote for Sanders -- 54% (among these voters, Sanders won by 30%)
2) Vote for Trump -- 30% (among these voters, Sanders won by 46%)
3) Not Vote -- 13%
posted by thefoxgod at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you scroll down:
If these were the candidates in November, would you:
1) Vote for Clinton -- 47% (among these voters, Clinton won by 36%)
2) Vote for Trump -- 33% (among these voters, Sanders won by 66%)
3) Not Vote -- 18% (among these voters, Sanders won by 75%)
If these were the candidates in November, would you:
1) Vote for Sanders -- 54% (among these voters, Sanders won by 30%)
2) Vote for Trump -- 30% (among these voters, Sanders won by 46%)
3) Not Vote -- 13%
posted by thefoxgod at 5:02 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Since we already trotted out Mencken, how about some W. C. Fields?
"I never voted for anybody. I always voted against."
posted by box at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I never voted for anybody. I always voted against."
posted by box at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
somehow this is like one of those nightmares where something horrible is chasing you and you have this knowledge that this nightmare will go on for years or until you wake up
posted by angrycat at 5:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 5:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
So the vast majority of Democratic primary voters who said they will vote for Trump (which is 30-33% depending on who wins the Democratic primary) voted for Sanders.
But yeah, the "weird" part is even if Sanders is the candidate, many of those who voted for him today say they will vote for Trump. Which is probably some combination of conservative registered Democrats who don't like Hillary and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary for the one they consider less electable.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
But yeah, the "weird" part is even if Sanders is the candidate, many of those who voted for him today say they will vote for Trump. Which is probably some combination of conservative registered Democrats who don't like Hillary and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary for the one they consider less electable.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:05 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary for the one they consider less electable.
I'm not sure this is allowed in WV.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on May 10, 2016
I'm not sure this is allowed in WV.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on May 10, 2016
WV called for Sanders and Trump.
The NYT seems to have tentatively called it for Clinton? And NBC’s numbers, despite the call for Sanders, have Clinton in the lead as well. Strangeness.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:10 PM on May 10, 2016
The NYT seems to have tentatively called it for Clinton? And NBC’s numbers, despite the call for Sanders, have Clinton in the lead as well. Strangeness.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:10 PM on May 10, 2016
Yeah I'm thinking Republican-leaning independents, not registered Republicans. I don't know about WVa but I know a lot of Dems/Republicans in general are not officially registered as such (by which I mean they are technically independents, but always vote R or D, so I don't consider them "real" independents). By many measures more independents don't actually switch back and forth and thus are independent in name only.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2016
I'm not sure this is allowed in WV.
It is. Both parties allow unaffiliated voters, sez ballotpedia.
posted by klangklangston at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is. Both parties allow unaffiliated voters, sez ballotpedia.
posted by klangklangston at 5:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen is right that actually registered Republicans can't vote in the Democratic primary, however. According the the registration stats I posted earlier, though, there are a lot of independents in WVa, and most of them vote Republican in Presidential elections, so it's not unthinkable many chose to vote in the Dem primary now that the GOP one is over.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 5:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
MSNBC reported there's a somewhat competitive Democratic primary race for Governor, so perhaps the Trump fans turned out to vote for that and either didn't want to leave the Presidential part blank / didn't know they could / wanted to stick to to Hillary.
posted by sallybrown at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
they're saying on MSNBC that there's a Democratic primary for governor or something that might be driving independent turnout for Democrats.
posted by zutalors! at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2016
The NYT seems to have tentatively called it for Clinton?
The colored box simply means Clinton has the lead currently (1% reporting). They put a check next to the name when they call it for someone.
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on May 10, 2016
The colored box simply means Clinton has the lead currently (1% reporting). They put a check next to the name when they call it for someone.
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on May 10, 2016
Ha, jinx except sallybrown said it better.
You owe me aKoch Coke!
posted by sallybrown at 5:18 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
You owe me a
posted by sallybrown at 5:18 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pundit Man on MSNBC just predicted the first Trump/Clinton debate will have the largest global television viewership since the moon landing.
posted by sallybrown at 5:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:19 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
sallybrown, that's Steve Schmidt, who ran the McCain/Palin campaign.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:20 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:20 PM on May 10, 2016
If you saw that HBO movie about the Palin VP pick, Schmidt was the main character (played by Woody Harrelson).
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm really surprised by the Oregon polling showing a big Clinton lead. I'm an Oregonian, and I figured this was Bernie country, because of the demographics and because of how extremely liberal some of our cities are.
An unusual thing about Oregon is that all ballots are cast by mail, and consequently we have high voter participation rates. I wonder if this is the reverse caucus effect.
posted by chrchr at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
An unusual thing about Oregon is that all ballots are cast by mail, and consequently we have high voter participation rates. I wonder if this is the reverse caucus effect.
posted by chrchr at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
You're thinking of Haymitch.
posted by beerperson at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know who this "Haymitch" is, that guy is Woody the bartender.
posted by sallybrown at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2016
Pundit Man on MSNBC just predicted the first Trump/Clinton debate will have the largest global television viewership since the moon landing.
At one point I fantasized about seeing that. Now it just gets me all tangled up in knots of worry.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
At one point I fantasized about seeing that. Now it just gets me all tangled up in knots of worry.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:29 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rest of the PPP poll results beyond the Hemorrhoids: 42% Clinton 38% Trump
The poll has 9% of democrats voting for Trump and 7% of republicans voting for Clinton.
"Although much has been made of disunity in the GOP, it is actually just as unified behind Trump as the Democrats are behind Clinton."
Still early days for polling, but I vividly remember driving home on election day 2012 and listening to right wing talk radio which was so utterly convinced that all the polls were wrong and Romney would win big.
posted by joeyh at 5:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
The poll has 9% of democrats voting for Trump and 7% of republicans voting for Clinton.
"Although much has been made of disunity in the GOP, it is actually just as unified behind Trump as the Democrats are behind Clinton."
Still early days for polling, but I vividly remember driving home on election day 2012 and listening to right wing talk radio which was so utterly convinced that all the polls were wrong and Romney would win big.
posted by joeyh at 5:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
In WV, there are still people registered as Democrats to protest Lincoln.
Speaking of that AND the White Nationalist Trump Delegate in California, the "U.S. Senate Candidate Statements" in the California Primary Voter Guide has some interesting content. For background: a California initiative a few years ago required that all Primaries EXCEPT the Presidential be non-partisan open primaries, so there are 34 candidates for the open seat, a mix of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, two parties left over from the 60s - Peace & Freedom and George Wallace's American Independent, and No Party. And 21 of them paid extra to include their Candidate Statement in the Voter Guide. Because it's charged by the word, some are mercifully short, but others range from standard-boilerplate platform to very wacky to kinda scary.
Then there is "Herbert G. Peters | Andrew Jackson Democrat. Our first 70 years; our county grew and flourished. We had no income tax. Motto: Manifest Destiny. Democrat Presidents; were most wise: Andrew Jackson balanced budget seven of eight years. Franklin Pierce vetoed a federal welfare bill. To reverse downward spiral of last II8 years: balance our budget, resist war, reduce costs, reduce taxes, repeal welfare and minimum wage so all can find jobs. Churches and Charities help needful. Reduce oppression: replace income tax with sales tax. Goal: Better life for all. "
Yep, an "Andrew Jackson Democrat". Probably hording current-design $20-bills. And "Our first 70 years", yep that was until that damn Republican freed the slaves... But "downward spiral of last II8 years" would that be specifically anti-Teddy Roosevelt, or include McKinley? But there he is, on the California statewide ballot as a Democrat.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Speaking of that AND the White Nationalist Trump Delegate in California, the "U.S. Senate Candidate Statements" in the California Primary Voter Guide has some interesting content. For background: a California initiative a few years ago required that all Primaries EXCEPT the Presidential be non-partisan open primaries, so there are 34 candidates for the open seat, a mix of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, two parties left over from the 60s - Peace & Freedom and George Wallace's American Independent, and No Party. And 21 of them paid extra to include their Candidate Statement in the Voter Guide. Because it's charged by the word, some are mercifully short, but others range from standard-boilerplate platform to very wacky to kinda scary.
Then there is "Herbert G. Peters | Andrew Jackson Democrat. Our first 70 years; our county grew and flourished. We had no income tax. Motto: Manifest Destiny. Democrat Presidents; were most wise: Andrew Jackson balanced budget seven of eight years. Franklin Pierce vetoed a federal welfare bill. To reverse downward spiral of last II8 years: balance our budget, resist war, reduce costs, reduce taxes, repeal welfare and minimum wage so all can find jobs. Churches and Charities help needful. Reduce oppression: replace income tax with sales tax. Goal: Better life for all. "
Yep, an "Andrew Jackson Democrat". Probably hording current-design $20-bills. And "Our first 70 years", yep that was until that damn Republican freed the slaves... But "downward spiral of last II8 years" would that be specifically anti-Teddy Roosevelt, or include McKinley? But there he is, on the California statewide ballot as a Democrat.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:36 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh wow, I don't watch MSNBC; is Pundit Man an actual thing??
I'm imagining superpowers like Conventional Wisdom and No Career Consequences For Being Wrong.
posted by indubitable at 5:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm imagining superpowers like Conventional Wisdom and No Career Consequences For Being Wrong.
posted by indubitable at 5:37 PM on May 10, 2016 [15 favorites]
Pundit Man on MSNBC just predicted the first Trump/Clinton debate will have the largest global television viewership since the moon landing.
I can only assume he was being facetious or kidding or something? The moon landing brought in something like half a billion viewers worldwide; the last world cup final doubled that.
posted by dersins at 5:43 PM on May 10, 2016
I can only assume he was being facetious or kidding or something? The moon landing brought in something like half a billion viewers worldwide; the last world cup final doubled that.
posted by dersins at 5:43 PM on May 10, 2016
So Paul Manafort called the election "the ultimate reality show."
Dude. Even if you believe that's true, you're not supposed to celebrate it.
posted by Anonymous at 5:45 PM on May 10, 2016
Dude. Even if you believe that's true, you're not supposed to celebrate it.
posted by Anonymous at 5:45 PM on May 10, 2016
Yeah, there are some crazy (in both amusing and also scary ways) candidates for Senate in the California primary.
But the interesting (and kinda neat) thing is that given the way it works, there's a good chance that the general election for Boxer's Senate seat in California will be between two Democratic women of color (Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:50 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
But the interesting (and kinda neat) thing is that given the way it works, there's a good chance that the general election for Boxer's Senate seat in California will be between two Democratic women of color (Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez).
posted by thefoxgod at 5:50 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
West Virginia reverted to virulently anti-Reconstruction Democrats immediately after the war, and elected a former Confederate as Senator in the 1870s (right about the time that the SCOTUS told Virginia they couldn't have WV back).
Copperheads out!
posted by Apocryphon at 5:50 PM on May 10, 2016
Copperheads out!
posted by Apocryphon at 5:50 PM on May 10, 2016
Who's the "other" (or others?) that's currently getting about 9% of the vote in the WV Democratic Primary?
posted by kyrademon at 5:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kyrademon at 5:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Surprise! Trump Supporters Celebrate Birth of Shapiro’s Second Child With Anti-Semitism, Racism
I know a lot of people here don't care for the Republican Party, but it's scary to watch it being consumed by the monster it nurtured. Also, I'm worried that the Republican Party is so embedded in the USA's electoral structure that it can't be replaced: that the USA will retain a two-party system even after one of them has literally become fascist.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
Conservative icon and Daily Wire Editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro took to Twitter on Saturday to announce the birth of his baby boy. “With infinite gratitude to God, we’re overjoyed to welcome to the world our new baby boy, who arrived at 10:30 this morning!” wrote Shapiro.This is a conservative columnist. It's not like there's even the pretence of being hateful-for-political-reasons.
Naturally, the Trump-supporting altright trolls came out in full force to celebrate the occasion by wishing Shapiro and his son to the gas chambers, along with other racist vile tweets.
I know a lot of people here don't care for the Republican Party, but it's scary to watch it being consumed by the monster it nurtured. Also, I'm worried that the Republican Party is so embedded in the USA's electoral structure that it can't be replaced: that the USA will retain a two-party system even after one of them has literally become fascist.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:57 PM on May 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
Well, Shapiro quit Breitbart after it wouldn't stand up for Michelle Fields (so he says anyways). Thats the reporter who was assaulted by Trump's campaign manager.
So I suspect Shapiro is pretty unpopular with Trump supporters. Combine that with their over the top racism and antisemitism and those tweets are sadly unsurprising. But there is a somewhat political angle to it as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2016
So I suspect Shapiro is pretty unpopular with Trump supporters. Combine that with their over the top racism and antisemitism and those tweets are sadly unsurprising. But there is a somewhat political angle to it as well.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2016
Nebraska called for Trump. There will be no Cruz resurgence.
posted by kyrademon at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by kyrademon at 6:05 PM on May 10, 2016
Also, I'm worried that the Republican Party is so embedded in the USA's electoral structure that it can't be replaced
That's a real concern, and the blame hangs equally on both parties.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's a real concern, and the blame hangs equally on both parties.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who's the "other" (or others?) that's currently getting about 9% of the vote in the WV Democratic Primary?
Politico's returns map has the full breakdown. Right now it's 6.8% for WV attorney Paul Farrell, 1.5% Keith Judd (the inmate that beat Obama in a few counties in 2012), 1.4% Martin O'Malley, and 0.4% Rocky De La Fuente.
posted by peeedro at 6:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Politico's returns map has the full breakdown. Right now it's 6.8% for WV attorney Paul Farrell, 1.5% Keith Judd (the inmate that beat Obama in a few counties in 2012), 1.4% Martin O'Malley, and 0.4% Rocky De La Fuente.
posted by peeedro at 6:11 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know a lot of people here don't care for the Republican Party, but it's scary to watch it being consumed by the monster it nurtured. Also, I'm worried that the Republican Party is so embedded in the USA's electoral structure that it can't be replaced: that the USA will retain a two-party system even after one of them has literally become fascist.
There was a nice 538 column a few days back: “The GOP Doesn’t Seem To Be Cracking Up In Down-Ballot Races” In brief: outside of the massive freak event that is Donald Trump, the party is functioning normally. The party infrastructure persists, and there are no hordes of white supremacists rising up to seize every office. So I think there’s a lot of dying left in the party, even if this year is going to force it to introspect like never before.
My impression is that the US is kind of doomed to two parties at a national level no matter what - the electoral calculus of first-past-the-post makes the idea of splitting your interests with a third party a mug’s game. However, I’m not at all sure why there couldn’t be third parties at the local level representing “true conservative” interests (& eventually replacing the old R party). But given that in local races the Republican brand has gone to crazytown (by everyday standards, not those of MetaFilter) except in isolated pockets, I’m not sure that state-level Republicans need to worry so much.
And -perhaps most interesting- if heavyweights really do start thinking that they need to split the party- I’m pretty sure that the conservatives who are vested in doing so will have the financial resources to make it happen. I mean, heck, what is a party but a coalition of folks who can get onto all of the state ballots, get over 5% of the vote, and then manage to persist beyond one election? A lot of what that requires is money and organization, and there are plenty of dedicated party hacks who would be glad to provide their skills.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
There was a nice 538 column a few days back: “The GOP Doesn’t Seem To Be Cracking Up In Down-Ballot Races” In brief: outside of the massive freak event that is Donald Trump, the party is functioning normally. The party infrastructure persists, and there are no hordes of white supremacists rising up to seize every office. So I think there’s a lot of dying left in the party, even if this year is going to force it to introspect like never before.
My impression is that the US is kind of doomed to two parties at a national level no matter what - the electoral calculus of first-past-the-post makes the idea of splitting your interests with a third party a mug’s game. However, I’m not at all sure why there couldn’t be third parties at the local level representing “true conservative” interests (& eventually replacing the old R party). But given that in local races the Republican brand has gone to crazytown (by everyday standards, not those of MetaFilter) except in isolated pockets, I’m not sure that state-level Republicans need to worry so much.
And -perhaps most interesting- if heavyweights really do start thinking that they need to split the party- I’m pretty sure that the conservatives who are vested in doing so will have the financial resources to make it happen. I mean, heck, what is a party but a coalition of folks who can get onto all of the state ballots, get over 5% of the vote, and then manage to persist beyond one election? A lot of what that requires is money and organization, and there are plenty of dedicated party hacks who would be glad to provide their skills.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:14 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
> There will be no Cruz resurgence.
I'm just glad there still hasn't been a Santorum resurgence.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm just glad there still hasn't been a Santorum resurgence.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I need to take a break from Maddow, she's freaking me out
posted by zutalors! at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
the party is functioning normally
Where "functioning normally" = trying to destroy the entire federal government in service of the 1%. Really, Trump is nothing different than the standard Republican platform, only, let's call it, "classier".
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:21 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Where "functioning normally" = trying to destroy the entire federal government in service of the 1%. Really, Trump is nothing different than the standard Republican platform, only, let's call it, "classier".
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:21 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
In brief: outside of the massive freak event that is Donald Trump, the party is functioning normally. The party infrastructure persists, and there are no hordes of white supremacists rising up to seize every office.
There are no American tanks in Baghdad, this is an infidel lie! etc.
posted by indubitable at 6:23 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are no American tanks in Baghdad, this is an infidel lie! etc.
posted by indubitable at 6:23 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
The party infrastructure persists, and there are no hordes of white supremacists rising up to seize every office
ya because they're already in office
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
ya because they're already in office
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:26 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nebraska called for Trump. There will be no Cruz resurgence.
With 10% of the votes in? Bleargh. Let me dream for another 90%.
posted by corb at 6:31 PM on May 10, 2016
With 10% of the votes in? Bleargh. Let me dream for another 90%.
posted by corb at 6:31 PM on May 10, 2016
Again, Trump won, at his best showing, 60% of the primary votes in an evenly divided electorate - 60% of 50% is 30%, which is close to the crazification factor: we knew these people are out there, they just happen to be yawping particularly loud this time. I'm focusing on getting progressives on the ballot so that they can take advantage of what could be a wonderful opportunity to take back local governments.
posted by eclectist at 6:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by eclectist at 6:31 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
> "Trump won, at his best showing, 60% of the primary votes in an evenly divided electorate ..."
That's not really meaningful either way.
posted by kyrademon at 6:36 PM on May 10, 2016
That's not really meaningful either way.
posted by kyrademon at 6:36 PM on May 10, 2016
Where “functioning normally” = trying to destroy the entire federal government in service of the 1%. Really, Trump is nothing different than the standard Republican platform, only, let’s call it, “classier”
Without a doubt, the Republicans have cultivated a contempt for the workings of government that is coming home to bite them (and the country) in the rear. But to pretend that Trump’s rabid, anti-trade position is the standard Republican platform is dumb. You can talk about how Trump is ‘in service of the 1%’, but that doesn’t explain why the Koch brothers hate his platform. The attacks coming at Trump from the Right are about how he plans to expand government, not shrink it. Let us never forget that Trump completely bombed at understanding how pro-life/anti-choice folks think about their own movement so badly that he had to do a 180-spin in twenty four hours, and who was happy to praise Planned Parenthood.
Trump has no positions. He is all white working class anger, racism, and chaos. The Rs got him because they decided to ride that train, but he’s not their candidate. (This would also be how he can go after Clinton from the left: because he has no positions.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Without a doubt, the Republicans have cultivated a contempt for the workings of government that is coming home to bite them (and the country) in the rear. But to pretend that Trump’s rabid, anti-trade position is the standard Republican platform is dumb. You can talk about how Trump is ‘in service of the 1%’, but that doesn’t explain why the Koch brothers hate his platform. The attacks coming at Trump from the Right are about how he plans to expand government, not shrink it. Let us never forget that Trump completely bombed at understanding how pro-life/anti-choice folks think about their own movement so badly that he had to do a 180-spin in twenty four hours, and who was happy to praise Planned Parenthood.
Trump has no positions. He is all white working class anger, racism, and chaos. The Rs got him because they decided to ride that train, but he’s not their candidate. (This would also be how he can go after Clinton from the left: because he has no positions.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
A friend of mine who is not only pin@y, but has spent lots of time there and worked in relief/activism posted a gigantic rant today crapping super hard on the western reporting of this and basically decrying it as the worst kind of not only uninformed, incomplete, and inaccurate but also just sort of that standard western media "lol look at these ZANY foreigners!" stuff.
I'm getting most of my stuff from my cousins there, plus philstar.com. My relatives are not happy, although some of them who were part of the People's Power demonstrations are almost more upset about another Marcos getting into power. None of them have said anything about Duerte being a better person than he's been painted.
(Should I put up an FPP about this?)
Anyway, I voted for my school board person today. And Trump won handily so my mom will have to figure out what she's going to do about this election because she'll never vote for Clinton but Trump is not the religious hardliner she wants for a president. I wonder what she'll end up doing.
posted by PussKillian at 6:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm getting most of my stuff from my cousins there, plus philstar.com. My relatives are not happy, although some of them who were part of the People's Power demonstrations are almost more upset about another Marcos getting into power. None of them have said anything about Duerte being a better person than he's been painted.
(Should I put up an FPP about this?)
Anyway, I voted for my school board person today. And Trump won handily so my mom will have to figure out what she's going to do about this election because she'll never vote for Clinton but Trump is not the religious hardliner she wants for a president. I wonder what she'll end up doing.
posted by PussKillian at 6:47 PM on May 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Should I put up an FPP about this?)
I would read such an FPP and carefully be sure not to be all #butwhataboutAmericanpolitics about it
posted by zutalors! at 6:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I would read such an FPP and carefully be sure not to be all #butwhataboutAmericanpolitics about it
posted by zutalors! at 6:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I predict that Ben Carson is obviously going to be Trump's pick because Carson is cool with enhancing the size of people's hands in portraiture.
posted by TwoStride at 7:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 7:04 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bridgegate update:
If you recall, there's a secret list of "unindicted co-conspirators" (people who were part of Bridgegate but weren't indicted) the media has been asking the court to force the feds to turn over / make public. Today, the court ruled the feds do have to turn over the list - and as part of its reasoning, the court cited a particular precedent: the case in which Christie put Trump's son-in-law's father (Kushner) in jail.
"The ruling in the Kushner case stated that a public official 'cannot claim a right of privacy with respect to the manner in which they perform their duties. Where a criminal trial allegedly involves violations of the public trust by government officials, the public's need to monitor closely the judicial proceedings is perforce increased,' according to Judge Wigenton's decision Tuesday."
That is some expert-level trolling by the judge.
posted by sallybrown at 7:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
If you recall, there's a secret list of "unindicted co-conspirators" (people who were part of Bridgegate but weren't indicted) the media has been asking the court to force the feds to turn over / make public. Today, the court ruled the feds do have to turn over the list - and as part of its reasoning, the court cited a particular precedent: the case in which Christie put Trump's son-in-law's father (Kushner) in jail.
"The ruling in the Kushner case stated that a public official 'cannot claim a right of privacy with respect to the manner in which they perform their duties. Where a criminal trial allegedly involves violations of the public trust by government officials, the public's need to monitor closely the judicial proceedings is perforce increased,' according to Judge Wigenton's decision Tuesday."
That is some expert-level trolling by the judge.
posted by sallybrown at 7:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm looking at the Oregon poll... but I can't find the actual breakdown. They did talk to likely voters, but was it landline?
The GOP numbers look similar to a Hoffman poll that was land and cell, so perhaps it was phone.
I don't trust the poll, anyway. Oregon has a strong progressive streak, especially in Portland and on the coast. No way Bernie could lose this, closed primary or not.
posted by dw at 7:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The GOP numbers look similar to a Hoffman poll that was land and cell, so perhaps it was phone.
I don't trust the poll, anyway. Oregon has a strong progressive streak, especially in Portland and on the coast. No way Bernie could lose this, closed primary or not.
posted by dw at 7:16 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow...Both CNN and MSNBC are giving Bernie's rally in Oregon significant airtime. Shocking. Bernie won handily too.
posted by futz at 7:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:17 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
the court cited a particular precedent: the case in which Christie put Trump's son-in-law's father (Kushner) in jail.
Just so you know, the word is "mechutan" (meh-KHOO-t'n).
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:33 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Just so you know, the word is "mechutan" (meh-KHOO-t'n).
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:33 PM on May 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I predict that Ben Carson is obviously going to be Trump's pick because Carson is cool with enhancing the size of people's hands in portraiture.
He definitely adheres to the Trump school of interior design.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:33 PM on May 10, 2016
He definitely adheres to the Trump school of interior design.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:33 PM on May 10, 2016
Stu Rothenberg, who's a well-regarded forecaster: Clinton Starts with a Decisive Advantage - Working-class whites aren't enough to carry Trump to victory
posted by Chrysostom at 7:45 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:45 PM on May 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie won handily too.
If I were Sanders, not sure I'd be super pumped about winning on the strength of votes from Trump supporters, tbh.
posted by dersins at 8:21 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
If I were Sanders, not sure I'd be super pumped about winning on the strength of votes from Trump supporters, tbh.
posted by dersins at 8:21 PM on May 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Jeebus. WV seceded from Virginia? Where was I that day in High School history?
How did I miss that episode of Ken Burns' Civil War?
Is...is this a joke?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:48 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How did I miss that episode of Ken Burns' Civil War?
Is...is this a joke?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:48 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
West Virginia did indeed secede from Virginia.
posted by bearwife at 8:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bearwife at 8:55 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's no joke. I learned something new today.
posted by notyou at 9:07 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 9:07 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
West Virginia did indeed secede from Virginia.
...yeah, I know...
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:08 PM on May 10, 2016
...yeah, I know...
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:08 PM on May 10, 2016
And with that information, you can convince some gullible fools that North & South Dakota were once a single state (but don't try it with North & South Carolina; that's just going too far).
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
And with that information, you can convince some gullible fools that North & South Dakota were once a single state
It's a little harder to fool them if they know that Montana was originally called West Dakota, though.
posted by dersins at 9:21 PM on May 10, 2016
It's a little harder to fool them if they know that Montana was originally called West Dakota, though.
posted by dersins at 9:21 PM on May 10, 2016
If I were Sanders, not sure I'd be super pumped about winning on the strength of votes from Trump supporters, tbh.
Oof. That article reads like an op-ed.
posted by iamck at 9:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oof. That article reads like an op-ed.
posted by iamck at 9:51 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nate Silver predicts that Trump will either win or lose the general election.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 10:17 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 10:17 PM on May 10, 2016
@NateSilver538: “Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later.”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:30 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:30 PM on May 10, 2016
MSNBC reported that 34% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would for trump over hillary in the general. That is a problem if that translates nation wide and continues up to the election. But i think people are pissed off right now and I think that number reflects that.
posted by futz at 10:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 10:44 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Silver should be a has been after this primary season. But alas, the nyt will keep him on for the clicks.
posted by futz at 10:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 10:49 PM on May 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nate Silver has melted down. Okay Trump, pull it, you have my permission to retire.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:03 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:03 PM on May 10, 2016
Actually, Nate Silver sold 538 to ESPN/Disney about 2 or 3 years ago. I'm still waiting for his Disney Infinity figure.
posted by FJT at 11:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by FJT at 11:12 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Silver should be a has been after this primary season. But alas, the nyt will keep him on for the clicks.
Nate Silver works for ESPN, not the NYT. (If you listen to this week’s Elections Podcast, you can hear him vent a bit about how 538 was generally not treated very well at the NYT in response to a big ol’ hot take from an NYT reporter on how data journalism is dead. Journalist beef!)
But more importantly -and I guess I’m pretty heavily in the 538 tank here- it seems really weird to say that Silver -who has done a crazy good job predicting Senate race outcomes and Presidential election results for the entirety of the Obama Presidency (and the Senate race before?) should hang up his hat for having bought way too much into the “party decides” model -something that had played out pretty darn well in the previous year’s primaries, when a succession of Republican candidates burst like bubbles. (And certainly, it’s not like the 538 polling models for the primaries have been particularly off, I don’t think - just the general discussion of Trump.) Essentially, 538 seems to be getting treated as the whipping boy because they’ve been totally aces before this. Now, having whiffed on Trump -along with every other pundit- they’re getting all of the grief because they’d been taking everyone else to school.
So yeah, data journalism forever, some elections go wrong, other punditry can go die in a garbage fire. (Except for Ron Elving and Ken Rudin, who are wonderfully folksy and charming and in love with weird political trivia.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
Nate Silver works for ESPN, not the NYT. (If you listen to this week’s Elections Podcast, you can hear him vent a bit about how 538 was generally not treated very well at the NYT in response to a big ol’ hot take from an NYT reporter on how data journalism is dead. Journalist beef!)
But more importantly -and I guess I’m pretty heavily in the 538 tank here- it seems really weird to say that Silver -who has done a crazy good job predicting Senate race outcomes and Presidential election results for the entirety of the Obama Presidency (and the Senate race before?) should hang up his hat for having bought way too much into the “party decides” model -something that had played out pretty darn well in the previous year’s primaries, when a succession of Republican candidates burst like bubbles. (And certainly, it’s not like the 538 polling models for the primaries have been particularly off, I don’t think - just the general discussion of Trump.) Essentially, 538 seems to be getting treated as the whipping boy because they’ve been totally aces before this. Now, having whiffed on Trump -along with every other pundit- they’re getting all of the grief because they’d been taking everyone else to school.
So yeah, data journalism forever, some elections go wrong, other punditry can go die in a garbage fire. (Except for Ron Elving and Ken Rudin, who are wonderfully folksy and charming and in love with weird political trivia.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 PM on May 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
Actually, Nate Silver sold 538 to ESPN/Disney about 2 or 3 years ago. I'm still waiting for his Disney Infinity figure.
Er, about that...
posted by zachlipton at 11:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Er, about that...
posted by zachlipton at 11:15 PM on May 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nate Silver predicts that Trump will either win or lose the general election.
This is the same professional statistician who effectively used a fair coin to decide whether Trump would win or lose his nomination.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 PM on May 10, 2016
This is the same professional statistician who effectively used a fair coin to decide whether Trump would win or lose his nomination.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:23 PM on May 10, 2016
MSNBC reported that 34% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would for trump over hillary in the general. That is a problem if that translates nation wide and continues up to the election. But i think people are pissed off right now and I think that number reflects that.
That's like saying that Clinton won 71.3% of the vote in Georgia and that's a problem for the Republicans if it translates nation wide. It's both true and irrelevant. West Virginia is nothing like the nation as a whole.
Note that 39% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would vote for Trump over Bernie in the general.
posted by Justinian at 11:27 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's like saying that Clinton won 71.3% of the vote in Georgia and that's a problem for the Republicans if it translates nation wide. It's both true and irrelevant. West Virginia is nothing like the nation as a whole.
Note that 39% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would vote for Trump over Bernie in the general.
posted by Justinian at 11:27 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Here's my prediction for the Trump Veepstakes: Trump floats/hints that Sanders is on his VP shortlist. Of course, Sanders probably won't even dignify it with an answer. But it gives Trump another news cycle, makes him appear as a "post-partisan" outsider, and continues his wooing of Sanders supporters.
posted by FJT at 11:42 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by FJT at 11:42 PM on May 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
MSNBC reported that 34% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would for trump over hillary in the general. That is a problem if that translates nation wide and continues up to the election. But i think people are pissed off right now and I think that number reflects that.
WV is specifically pissed at Hillary because she said out loud that the coal industry is dead and fucked. It doesn't translate nationwide.
posted by rifflesby at 11:43 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
WV is specifically pissed at Hillary because she said out loud that the coal industry is dead and fucked. It doesn't translate nationwide.
posted by rifflesby at 11:43 PM on May 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders would absolutely respond and I suspect the response would be scathing. Trump isn't stupid enough to invite that... I think.
posted by Justinian at 11:43 PM on May 10, 2016
posted by Justinian at 11:43 PM on May 10, 2016
Sanders would respond; his response would be scathing; Trump would claim that Sanders begged him to be veep and Trump said no. CNN would report that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 12:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
"Speaking of that AND the White Nationalist Trump Delegate in California, the "U.S. Senate Candidate Statements" in the California Primary Voter Guide has some interesting content."
The day after I had to file my candidate statement for neighborhood council, I got the primary guide in the mail. My first thought: "Maybe I should have clarified that I also oppose mind control slavery."
"Note that 39% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would vote for Trump over Bernie in the general."
Bernie has more supporters in VWs than WV.
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The day after I had to file my candidate statement for neighborhood council, I got the primary guide in the mail. My first thought: "Maybe I should have clarified that I also oppose mind control slavery."
"Note that 39% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would vote for Trump over Bernie in the general."
Bernie has more supporters in VWs than WV.
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Donald Trump, GOP nomination virtually in hand, is planning a general election campaign that banks heavily on his personal appeal and trademark rallies while spurning the kind of sophisticated data operation that was a centerpiece of Barack Obama's winning White House runs.
AP Interview: Trump says big rallies his key campaign weapon
posted by honestcoyote at 2:23 AM on May 11, 2016
AP Interview: Trump says big rallies his key campaign weapon
posted by honestcoyote at 2:23 AM on May 11, 2016
Okay, this reassures me that Trump isn't going to be any more practical or any less egomaniacal for the remainder of his campaign. What drove some white Republicans to his "personal appeal" will drive the rest of us toward Mrs. Clinton. Then again, if he stages enough "trademark rallies" outside polling places on election day, it could be the most effective voter suppression strategy the GOP has ever had.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, but when your 'offhand remark' can crash markets, you have to moderate your tone. What is he then? If he can't be Donald 'The Bombastard' Trump, what else does he have? It's the only trick this pony's got!
posted by eclectist at 4:06 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by eclectist at 4:06 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
hey, you know who else had big rallies as his key campaign weapon?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:42 AM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 4:42 AM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
MSNBC reported that 34% of WV Bernie supporters said that they would for trump over hillary in the general. That is a problem if that translates nation wide and continues up to the election.
For what it's worth, based on the exit poll data either Trump supporters were voting in the primary, or Bernie supporters in WV are a conservative, bizarre outlier. Or the exit polls happen to sweep all the most conservative Bernie supporters.
Calculations from the CNN exit poll breakdown. When I refer to voters, I'm just talking about voters in the Democratic primary.
obvious caveats apply: I'm using basic probability multiplication, this doesn't account for polling error, this could all be wrong.
----------------------------------
Silver should be a has been after this primary season. But alas, the nyt will keep him on for the clicks.
A ton of people have been coming down on Silver this election, and I am not sure why because his models are just as excellent as ever. The major mistake Silver made was expecting Trump to lose steam, despite his polling analysis saying otherwise. But to be fair, it was the same mistake every pundit made. The data said he was doing great, but nobody, even the data journalists, believe the Republicans would truly end up with an orange clown as their nominee. Shit, it's clear even the Republicans didn't expect this outcome. 538 in general has been pretty open and thoughtful about the mistakes they've made.
Nate Silver predicts that Trump will either win or lose the general election.
This is pretty clearly Silver expressing frustration with this election season's overwhelming obsession with pouring over the minutest day-to-day poll changes, and how this shitty data analysis attempt at data analysis is substituting for the campaigns discussing actual issues and the media doing anything resembling journalism.
(yes, I am frustrated with it too)
(yes, data journalism 4-evar)
posted by Anonymous at 4:51 AM on May 11, 2016
For what it's worth, based on the exit poll data either Trump supporters were voting in the primary, or Bernie supporters in WV are a conservative, bizarre outlier. Or the exit polls happen to sweep all the most conservative Bernie supporters.
Calculations from the CNN exit poll breakdown. When I refer to voters, I'm just talking about voters in the Democratic primary.
- Only 56% of voters in the Democratic primary identified as Democrat, and that's in a state where Democrats tend to be more conservative anyway.
- 55% of voters identified as moderate/conservative.
- 27% of all voters in the Democratic primary were moderates/conservatives voting for Sanders. Only 17.5% of all voters were moderates/conservatives voting for Clinton.
- If we incorporate the ideology breakdown from the MSNBC poll breakdown (don't know why CNN didn't, they're using the same dataset), we find 7% of all voters were conservatives voting Sanders, only 1.8% were conservatives voting Clinton.
- A full 41% of voters wanted the next president to be less liberal than Obama. Within this group, 51% voted for Sanders, only 27% voted Clinton.
- That means 20% of all voters both voted Sanders and wanted a less liberal president. Only 11% of voters wanted Clinton and a less liberal president.
- Given a choice between Clinton and Trump in the general, 35% of voters planned on voting for Trump and 18% chose neither. Of the Trump group, 63% of these voters voted for Sanders, only 10% Clinton.
- OK, so a total of 22% of all voters in the Democratic primary were people who voted Sanders and would prefer Trump in a Trump/Clinton matchup. Doesn't reflect well on Bernie fans, right? BUT WAIT.
- Here's the kicker: given a choice between Sanders and Trump in the general, 33% of all voters still wanted Trump! And of that 33%, 53% voted Sanders in the primary. Only 18% Clinton! And 14% of all voters still said they'd pick neither Sanders nor Trump!
- Let's calculate: that means 17.5% of all voters in the primary, both voted Sanders and would vote Trump in the general even if given the choice of Sanders. Note that only 3.5% of voters fell into the category of "voted Clinton, but would vote Trump in the general given the choice of Clinton."
obvious caveats apply: I'm using basic probability multiplication, this doesn't account for polling error, this could all be wrong.
----------------------------------
Silver should be a has been after this primary season. But alas, the nyt will keep him on for the clicks.
A ton of people have been coming down on Silver this election, and I am not sure why because his models are just as excellent as ever. The major mistake Silver made was expecting Trump to lose steam, despite his polling analysis saying otherwise. But to be fair, it was the same mistake every pundit made. The data said he was doing great, but nobody, even the data journalists, believe the Republicans would truly end up with an orange clown as their nominee. Shit, it's clear even the Republicans didn't expect this outcome. 538 in general has been pretty open and thoughtful about the mistakes they've made.
Nate Silver predicts that Trump will either win or lose the general election.
This is pretty clearly Silver expressing frustration with this election season's overwhelming obsession with pouring over the minutest day-to-day poll changes, and how this shitty data analysis attempt at data analysis is substituting for the campaigns discussing actual issues and the media doing anything resembling journalism.
(yes, I am frustrated with it too)
(yes, data journalism 4-evar)
posted by Anonymous at 4:51 AM on May 11, 2016
NYT: Trump is not planning to release his tax returns before November
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
West Virginia's electorate does not match the national electorate. As pointed out above, Hillary said that she would put the coal industry and coal miners out of business. The Sander's campaign hammered her for it. All the while his team his attacking her in California for secretly being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
posted by humanfont at 5:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump is not planning to release his tax returns before November
He can't do it. He'll never do it, because it will reveal what's been an open secret for a long time: he's not that rich and he reports negative income in order to pay no tax. I think the not that rich thing is what he's really concerned about. He's no billionaire. Without billionaire status he's just an orange asshole.
posted by dis_integration at 5:33 AM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
He can't do it. He'll never do it, because it will reveal what's been an open secret for a long time: he's not that rich and he reports negative income in order to pay no tax. I think the not that rich thing is what he's really concerned about. He's no billionaire. Without billionaire status he's just an orange asshole.
posted by dis_integration at 5:33 AM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
hey, you know who else had big rallies as his key campaign weapon?
Bernie Sanders.
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders.
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's no billionaire. Without billionaire status he's just an orange asshole.
With car doors that open like this. Not like this! Or like this!
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:35 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
With car doors that open like this. Not like this! Or like this!
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:35 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
A ton of people have been coming down on Silver this election, and I am not sure why because his models are just as excellent as ever.
It's weird how if a pundit who goes by their gut gets it wrong, people shrug and book them again for the next round of Sunday morning shows. If Silver gets it wrong, it suddenly puts the whole notion of data-journalism in question. Like, have people never heard of the error term before?
posted by Think_Long at 6:41 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's weird how if a pundit who goes by their gut gets it wrong, people shrug and book them again for the next round of Sunday morning shows. If Silver gets it wrong, it suddenly puts the whole notion of data-journalism in question. Like, have people never heard of the error term before?
posted by Think_Long at 6:41 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Thanks for that excellent breakdown, schroedinger. I was looking at the exit poll breakdown and my eyes started to cross.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 6:43 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by everybody had matching towels at 6:43 AM on May 11, 2016
Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he intended to enter the 2016 presidential race but his son’s death changed his plans. “It’s an awful thing to say—I think I would have been the best president” out of the current contenders, he told Good Morning America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
So ... do any of the rest of you ever just stop in the middle of the day and think, "Holy shit. Donald Trump is the Republican Party nominee."
posted by kyrademon at 7:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 7:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Only when I'm sober.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he intended to enter the 2016 presidential race but his son’s death changed his plans.
He and Clinton would have split the votes and Sanders would have won in a landslide.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016
He and Clinton would have split the votes and Sanders would have won in a landslide.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:15 AM on May 11, 2016
He and Clinton would have split the votes and Sanders would have won in a landslide.
I think it would've come down to Biden versus Clinton, actually. I think inherent dislike of Clinton got a lot of people to give Sanders a second look, one they might not if Diamond Joe was there being wacky.
posted by Anonymous at 7:22 AM on May 11, 2016
I think it would've come down to Biden versus Clinton, actually. I think inherent dislike of Clinton got a lot of people to give Sanders a second look, one they might not if Diamond Joe was there being wacky.
posted by Anonymous at 7:22 AM on May 11, 2016
Media Matters: “The Stakes Are Too High” To Let Trump Get Away With Constant Lying
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wow...Both CNN and MSNBC are giving Bernie's rally in Oregon significant airtime. Shocking.
Equally shocking, NPR led with Sanders' message that "we deed an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%." The narrative is supposed to be that Trump and Sanders voters are protesting the political establishment, not the economic inequality that establishment protects.
Also from NPR, How The Media Failed In Covering Donald Trump. ("Most egregiously, the media did not subject Trump's record to the kind of scrutiny other major candidates should receive.")
posted by Gelatin at 7:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Equally shocking, NPR led with Sanders' message that "we deed an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%." The narrative is supposed to be that Trump and Sanders voters are protesting the political establishment, not the economic inequality that establishment protects.
Also from NPR, How The Media Failed In Covering Donald Trump. ("Most egregiously, the media did not subject Trump's record to the kind of scrutiny other major candidates should receive.")
posted by Gelatin at 7:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
He and Clinton would have split the votes and Sanders would have won in a landslide.
I think it would've come down to Biden versus Clinton, actually. I think inherent dislike of Clinton got a lot of people to give Sanders a second look, one they might not if Diamond Joe was there being wacky.
I agree, not sure there would have been a Sanders candidacy at this point with Biden in the mix.
posted by zutalors! at 7:48 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly, I think that neither the Clinton nor the Sanders camp wants to admit how much of Sanders's success is basically based on his being a white man. There are a lot of people who would literally vote for any white man over a woman who is seen as the successor to a black man. Admitting that is a problem for Sanders and his supporters for obvious reasons, but it's also a problem for Clinton and hers, because it points to the fact that misogyny is going to be a very serious problem for her going forward.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Can we not do this again, please and thanks?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [24 favorites]
The major mistake Silver made was expecting Trump to lose steam, despite his polling analysis saying otherwise. But to be fair, it was the same mistake every pundit made. The data said he was doing great, but nobody, even the data journalists, believe the Republicans would truly end up with an orange clown as their nominee. Shit, it's clear even the Republicans didn't expect this outcome.
That's the thing- they should have followed the data if they were true to their ethos. 538 should have been the lone voice in the wild, calling out a black swan while the rest of the pundits naysayed. But they didn't, and Nate Silve didn't. So he's lost his wunderbar status. He's another conventional thinker for that mistake.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's the thing- they should have followed the data if they were true to their ethos. 538 should have been the lone voice in the wild, calling out a black swan while the rest of the pundits naysayed. But they didn't, and Nate Silve didn't. So he's lost his wunderbar status. He's another conventional thinker for that mistake.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:02 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Populist" Trump is Revising His Economic Plan to Make it Even More Typically Republican
Politico reports that Donald Trump is revising his economic plan. Given how many times we've been told that Trump is an "economic populist," I was curious to learn which experts he's asked to help him do the revising. Piven and Cloward? Thomas Piketty and Naomi Klein?posted by tonycpsu at 8:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Um, no. These guys:... the campaign last month contacted at least two prominent conservative economists -- Larry Kudlow, the CNBC television host, and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Wall Street Journal writer -- to spearhead an effort to update the package....Oh. Well then.
Kudlow and Moore are well known voices in conservative economic circles. They are two of the founders, with economist and former Ronald Reagan adviser Art Laffer and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes, of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, established last year to advance for conservative economic policies.
[...]
That's what the Trump-Kudlow-Moore economic plan will be like (assuming Trump agrees to Kudlow and Moore's suggestions) -- no specificity, inevitable huge cuts to domestic programs, and Trump angrily insisting that none of that is true and he won't cut anything important.
And even if that's true, even if the plan looks just like every other GOP plan, the press will still call Trump an economic populist.
They basically said that on MSNBC - Hillary won WV in 2008 because people didn't want to vote for a black man, now they'd rather vote for a white man than a white woman tied to a black man's policies. I kind of groan when people are like THEY'RE HEARING BERNIE'S MESSAGE because to me it's like...maybe? I think the sincerity of Sanders support varies by region/demographic etc.
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the sincerity of Sanders support varies by region/demographic etc.
I wouldn't describe it as a lack of sincerity. A different priority, and one that we personally might find pretty abhorrent, but not necessarily insincere.
I think recognizing the sincerity of the beliefs of our ideological opponents is the only way to win this thing in the long term.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't describe it as a lack of sincerity. A different priority, and one that we personally might find pretty abhorrent, but not necessarily insincere.
I think recognizing the sincerity of the beliefs of our ideological opponents is the only way to win this thing in the long term.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Look: I think that's the most plausible way to read the West Virginia exit poll results, in which Sanders did super well among people who thought that Obama, who is way to the right of Sanders, was too liberal. I think it's a pretty plausible explanation for why Sanders consistently does better among people who identify as moderates than he does among people who identify as leaning liberal. (He does well among people who identify as very liberal, which makes sense. He does better among moderates than among people who identify as pretty liberal.) I don't think that it makes any sense to see the appeal of Sanders as purely ideological, which is not to deny that many, many people like him for purely ideological reasons.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think that's fair, showbiz_liz.
posted by zutalors! at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really disagree that we should not be allowed to talk about race and gender wrt support in this Democratic primary. It's not "doing this," it's important.
posted by zutalors! at 8:10 AM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:10 AM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Jeff Daniels Goes 'Will McAvoy' on Trump
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
For what it's worth, based on the exit poll data either Trump supporters were voting in the primary, or Bernie supporters in WV are a conservative, bizarre outlier.
It's been mentioned that West Virginia is a latecomer to the conservative shift from the Democrats to the GOP. Oklahoma and Kentucky have similar things happening -- lifelong Democrats who are very conservative but unwilling to make the leap to the GOP. Thus Kentucky and Oklahoma have elected Democratic governors in the last 15 years and West Virginia has had numerous Democratic leaders, but you'd never mistake them for progressives.
I think people on the left forget that the Democrats are not a single, monolithic set of lefties, and this is why you see so much anger at Hillary being center-left. People want to pull the party left, but the consequences of that strong pull mean giving up more rural states. As a long term strategy it makes sense given the drain of electoral votes away from rural states, but it also just reinforces the coastal nature of the Democrats. And it means when you have an opportunity like you do in Kansas and Oklahoma, where the electorate is now fed up with their state leadership, you can't capitalize on it by seizing state legislatures.
posted by dw at 8:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's been mentioned that West Virginia is a latecomer to the conservative shift from the Democrats to the GOP. Oklahoma and Kentucky have similar things happening -- lifelong Democrats who are very conservative but unwilling to make the leap to the GOP. Thus Kentucky and Oklahoma have elected Democratic governors in the last 15 years and West Virginia has had numerous Democratic leaders, but you'd never mistake them for progressives.
I think people on the left forget that the Democrats are not a single, monolithic set of lefties, and this is why you see so much anger at Hillary being center-left. People want to pull the party left, but the consequences of that strong pull mean giving up more rural states. As a long term strategy it makes sense given the drain of electoral votes away from rural states, but it also just reinforces the coastal nature of the Democrats. And it means when you have an opportunity like you do in Kansas and Oklahoma, where the electorate is now fed up with their state leadership, you can't capitalize on it by seizing state legislatures.
posted by dw at 8:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, I think that neither the Clinton nor the Sanders camp wants to admit how much of Sanders's success is basically based on his being a white man. There are a lot of people who would literally vote for any white man over a woman who is seen as the successor to a black man.Well, the logic you've outlined above to malign Sanders supporters as crypto-racists could easily be applied to Clinton voters in the 2008 primaries. And if they were racists in 2008, why would anyone think they've changed their stripes in 2016? Seriously, just stop it.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:21 AM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mod note: There's a tension here between talking about demographics and ideology in the election and dipping back into another cycle of "but let me tell you what candidate x's supporters really think" and at this point probably almost everyone who has been reading some of this long string of threads has some level of allergic reaction to the latter. Taking extra care than would normally be needed to avoid falling into that kind of conflated framing will help stuff stay workable in here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:21 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:21 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think a lot of Clinton supporters in 2008 were crypto-racists, for what it's worth.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Well, the logic you've outlined above to malign Sanders supporters as crypto-racists could easily be applied to Clinton voters in the 2008 primaries.
I hate to invoke what's become a cliche, but in all seriousness: Not all Sanders supporters. Not even a plurality of Sanders supporters. Specifically the Sanders supporters who are voting for a self-declared socialist while stating that Obama is too liberal.
Also, Clinton this year is winning the states that she lost in 2008, and losing the states that she previously won. Her voters in 2016 are in large part not the people who supported her last time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I hate to invoke what's become a cliche, but in all seriousness: Not all Sanders supporters. Not even a plurality of Sanders supporters. Specifically the Sanders supporters who are voting for a self-declared socialist while stating that Obama is too liberal.
Also, Clinton this year is winning the states that she lost in 2008, and losing the states that she previously won. Her voters in 2016 are in large part not the people who supported her last time.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think it's possible that there's a range of motivation behind people who vote for Sanders, which I consider somewhat separate from "supporters" and I think people can talk about some of those motivations without people in this thread feeling personally maligned.
posted by zutalors! at 8:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
they should have followed the data if they were true to their ethos.
They did follow their data, and their data said that polling early in primaries is unreliable. Silver and Co. needed to find a model that predicted Herman Cain's fade in 2012 and Trump's sustained poll numbers in 2016. Maybe you can do it in retrospect, but I'm unaware of any empirical evidence that readily distinguishes Trump from the pretenders of 2012. "You should have predicted a black swan" isn't how any of this works.
posted by chrchr at 8:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
They did follow their data, and their data said that polling early in primaries is unreliable. Silver and Co. needed to find a model that predicted Herman Cain's fade in 2012 and Trump's sustained poll numbers in 2016. Maybe you can do it in retrospect, but I'm unaware of any empirical evidence that readily distinguishes Trump from the pretenders of 2012. "You should have predicted a black swan" isn't how any of this works.
posted by chrchr at 8:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
We've had less than 50 presidential elections. Only about 25 since the invention of Television, and only 6 since the Internet became a thing. They're all black swans.
posted by mmoncur at 8:39 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 8:39 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
It shouldn't have been this hard to figure out that we were in uncharted waters. Fringe candidates fade out historically, but they also historically don't display the total dominance Trump did in this race. Cain and Romney regularly traded places at the top of the polls during that surge, while if RealClearPolitics poll reports are to be believed nobody but fringe candidates (i.e. Trump and Carson) led national polling after July 7 -- except for one poll in one week of February that gave Cruz a 2% lead.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:40 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:40 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm unaware of any empirical evidence that readily distinguishes Trump from the pretenders of 2012. "You should have predicted a black swan" isn't how any of this works.
But he just kept winning. No one's saying Silver should've called it in July, but by November it was a bunch of articles about why the data SEEMS like it's SAYING Trump will win, but...
(I didn't believe it either, because I didn't WANT to believe it either, but I'm also not a professional political statistician)
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:41 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
But he just kept winning. No one's saying Silver should've called it in July, but by November it was a bunch of articles about why the data SEEMS like it's SAYING Trump will win, but...
(I didn't believe it either, because I didn't WANT to believe it either, but I'm also not a professional political statistician)
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:41 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's hard to believe apocalypse will come. I'm not mad at Nate Silver, but I have stopped making DrunkNateSilver jokes.
posted by corb at 8:44 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 8:44 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ehn, it's also the case that Trump was only getting 30-35% of the vote in most of the early races that he won. It was plausible at the time to suggest that most of the rest of the votes would go to another candidate if it was a two-person race, and that once it became a two-person race he'd hit a ceiling.
You can see the same analysis in this very thread: Once it becomes a two-person race with Clinton, surely Trump will hit a ceiling and lose.
posted by clawsoon at 8:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
You can see the same analysis in this very thread: Once it becomes a two-person race with Clinton, surely Trump will hit a ceiling and lose.
posted by clawsoon at 8:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
For those waiting with bated breath, Trump has finally unveiled his nickname for Sanders:
Crazy Bernie.
The collection so far:
Low-Energy Jeb
Liddle Marco [Trump has explicitly requested this spelling, not a joke]
Lyin' Ted
Crooked Hillary
Goofy Elizabeth Warren
Crazy Bernie
He really hit his stride with Marco and Ted but seems to be running out of creative juice since then, imo. Crazy Bernie is not half-bad, but Goofy Elizabeth Warren is a flub for sure. Sad!
posted by sallybrown at 8:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Crazy Bernie.
The collection so far:
Low-Energy Jeb
Liddle Marco [Trump has explicitly requested this spelling, not a joke]
Lyin' Ted
Crooked Hillary
Goofy Elizabeth Warren
Crazy Bernie
He really hit his stride with Marco and Ted but seems to be running out of creative juice since then, imo. Crazy Bernie is not half-bad, but Goofy Elizabeth Warren is a flub for sure. Sad!
posted by sallybrown at 8:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
> Clinton has an 88% chance of beating Trump, while Sanders has (would have had) a 97% chance of beating Trump.
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll - "Donald Trump's support has surged and he is now running nearly even with Democrat Hillary Clinton among likely U.S. voters, a dramatic turnaround since he became the Republican party's presumptive presidential nominee, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday... 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet, according to the online poll of 1,289 people conducted from Friday to Tuesday. The poll had a credibility interval of about 3 percentage points."
posted by kliuless at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll - "Donald Trump's support has surged and he is now running nearly even with Democrat Hillary Clinton among likely U.S. voters, a dramatic turnaround since he became the Republican party's presumptive presidential nominee, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday... 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet, according to the online poll of 1,289 people conducted from Friday to Tuesday. The poll had a credibility interval of about 3 percentage points."
posted by kliuless at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile, a literally deadly meme targets Sanders supporters. It's easy to say that this is just the work of a single sociopath on the internet but this shit is only going to get worse.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by OverlappingElvis at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Really, he pales compared to Dubya. I mean, "Lyin' Ted" and "Crooked Hillary" are not nearly as euphonic as "Pootie-Poot" or "Turd Blossom."
posted by entropicamericana at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jesus Christ, OverlappingElvis.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:55 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:55 AM on May 11, 2016
Crazy Bernie.
I feel like now you can do a proper parody of Sondheim's "Someone is Waiting."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on May 11, 2016
I feel like now you can do a proper parody of Sondheim's "Someone is Waiting."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on May 11, 2016
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll
Online polls are basically worthless.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Online polls are basically worthless.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
They're all black swans.
Sure. But you can't base your punditry on WHAT'S THE WEIRDEST LEAST PREDICTABLE THING, I'M GOING WITH THAT.
It would have been neat in a hindsighty sort of way if, as a complete fluke, Nate Silver had leaned toward a Trump candidacy in the absence of good numbers. But he didn't, because that seemed like a completely nutty tack to take. And if you want to keep being a sober and reliable statistics journalist, you probably shouldn't opt for the nuttiest possible prediction in the absence of data. You should probably tack pretty (small c) conservative. Which is exactly what happened.
Nobody saw this coming. Nate Silver isn't a fucking shaman. Cut the dude some slack.
posted by Sara C. at 9:11 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sure. But you can't base your punditry on WHAT'S THE WEIRDEST LEAST PREDICTABLE THING, I'M GOING WITH THAT.
It would have been neat in a hindsighty sort of way if, as a complete fluke, Nate Silver had leaned toward a Trump candidacy in the absence of good numbers. But he didn't, because that seemed like a completely nutty tack to take. And if you want to keep being a sober and reliable statistics journalist, you probably shouldn't opt for the nuttiest possible prediction in the absence of data. You should probably tack pretty (small c) conservative. Which is exactly what happened.
Nobody saw this coming. Nate Silver isn't a fucking shaman. Cut the dude some slack.
posted by Sara C. at 9:11 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
OK, here you go:
Someone is winning,
Wrong as Donald,
Stubborn and dogged as Hill’ry...
Marco...
Someone is winning,
Firm as Hill’ry,
Social and lefty as Bernie...
Barack...
Would we vote them even if we met them?
Did I miss them? Is the campaign done?
A Hill’ry sort of Donald,
A Marco-ish Barack.
Vote for me, I'm ready now,
The summer’s just begun
Someone will vote them,
Lost as Marco,
Sudden, unlikely as Bernie...
Hill’ry...
Someone will wake me,
Comrade Bernie,
Bullish and take charge as Hill’ry...
Barack...
Can we vote now? Must we wait for so long?
Maybe so, but who will this one be?
Our angry Donald, new Barack,
Small Marco, Lady Hill’ry, crazy Bernie,
Vote for me!
I'll hurry!
Vote for me!
Hurry!
Vote for me!
Hurry!
Vote for me!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Someone is winning,
Wrong as Donald,
Stubborn and dogged as Hill’ry...
Marco...
Someone is winning,
Firm as Hill’ry,
Social and lefty as Bernie...
Barack...
Would we vote them even if we met them?
Did I miss them? Is the campaign done?
A Hill’ry sort of Donald,
A Marco-ish Barack.
Vote for me, I'm ready now,
The summer’s just begun
Someone will vote them,
Lost as Marco,
Sudden, unlikely as Bernie...
Hill’ry...
Someone will wake me,
Comrade Bernie,
Bullish and take charge as Hill’ry...
Barack...
Can we vote now? Must we wait for so long?
Maybe so, but who will this one be?
Our angry Donald, new Barack,
Small Marco, Lady Hill’ry, crazy Bernie,
Vote for me!
I'll hurry!
Vote for me!
Hurry!
Vote for me!
Hurry!
Vote for me!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:13 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Nate Silver has just basically become this guy, and no one should really begrudge him for that.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I saw it coming. I am the new Nate Silver, 538 is MINE!
But to be serious, the NPR article posted above on media failure to cover Trump mentioned an NYT article in March that asked various reporters when they thought Trump was actually serious and might win. A lot of them said somewhere around November/December. For me it was probably around the first or second debate when I actually saw him on stage where I developed that feeling in the pit of my stomach.
posted by FJT at 9:19 AM on May 11, 2016
But to be serious, the NPR article posted above on media failure to cover Trump mentioned an NYT article in March that asked various reporters when they thought Trump was actually serious and might win. A lot of them said somewhere around November/December. For me it was probably around the first or second debate when I actually saw him on stage where I developed that feeling in the pit of my stomach.
posted by FJT at 9:19 AM on May 11, 2016
Quite honestly, I can't take ANY polls seriously anymore. If it's a phone poll, there's a significant part of likely voters that they aren't talking to. I have a landline that I don't even answer and the ringer is muted. If I get a call on my cell from a number I don't recognize, I let it go to voice mail. So, nobody has ever, not once in 22 years of voting, polled me. Or my husband, or my parents or actually anyone I know in person. Where do they get the contact information for these people? I really want to know exactly who they're asking.
(I've also never been exit polled either, which is odd because I vote in every single election I can.)
posted by hollygoheavy at 9:24 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
(I've also never been exit polled either, which is odd because I vote in every single election I can.)
posted by hollygoheavy at 9:24 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
hollygoheavy, you're obviously the margin of error.
posted by sour cream at 9:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sour cream at 9:26 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
For me it was probably around the first or second debate when I actually saw him on stage where I developed that feeling in the pit of my stomach.
For me it's when he called POWs losers, and went up in the polls instead of down.
posted by sallybrown at 9:27 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
For me it's when he called POWs losers, and went up in the polls instead of down.
posted by sallybrown at 9:27 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Trump surges in support, almost even with Clinton in national U.S. poll
This poll has the same problem as the Rasmussen poll everyone wrung their hands about last week -- it offers a third party alternative but doesn't name names. Thus, it's not "undecided" but "mythical third party candidate come and save us!"
If you force a choice without a third party safety valve, it's generally Hillary +6. That number hasn't changed much.
posted by dw at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
This poll has the same problem as the Rasmussen poll everyone wrung their hands about last week -- it offers a third party alternative but doesn't name names. Thus, it's not "undecided" but "mythical third party candidate come and save us!"
If you force a choice without a third party safety valve, it's generally Hillary +6. That number hasn't changed much.
posted by dw at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
OverlappingElvis: Meanwhile, a literally deadly meme targets Sanders supporters. It's easy to say that this is just the work of a single sociopath on the internet but this shit is only going to get worse.
Well, he did say it was "Bernie sander's glowstick", presumably referring to some euphemism for sanding Bernies?
(I joke because it's just too depressing for words otherwise.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2016
Well, he did say it was "Bernie sander's glowstick", presumably referring to some euphemism for sanding Bernies?
(I joke because it's just too depressing for words otherwise.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2016
So, basically, Trump's economic team is from the same ideological base as that which wrecked the Kansas economy. Awesome.
posted by eclectist at 9:31 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by eclectist at 9:31 AM on May 11, 2016
Quite honestly, I can't take ANY polls seriously anymore.
You should never take individual polls seriously. You should always take a macro view while taking a micro view on methods.
On a macro level, polls are very predictive. On a micro level, they're snapshots of a moment in time of a particular group of people you were able to round up into a box.
posted by dw at 9:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
You should never take individual polls seriously. You should always take a macro view while taking a micro view on methods.
On a macro level, polls are very predictive. On a micro level, they're snapshots of a moment in time of a particular group of people you were able to round up into a box.
posted by dw at 9:31 AM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If it's a phone poll, there's a significant part of likely voters that they aren't talking to.
They can undo this on the back end by weighting people according to the inverse of their response probability -- each respondent from an unlikely-to-respond set of demographics counts more than the typical respondent. Each polling house will have their own secret sauce and some of them will work better than others but the basic principle is very much Not Rocket Surgery.
Where do they get the contact information for these people?
They don't need contact information. They can just dial random numbers from the universe of potentially-valid phone numbers.
Or my husband, or my parents or actually anyone I know in person. ... (I've also never been exit polled either, which is odd because I vote in every single election I can.)
It's not odd that you've never been polled about political stuff or exit-polled. Hardly anyone is, and hardly anyone needs to be because sampling math is glorious and wonderful and almost as good a proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy as beer is. Short answer: 1000 people is a very good sample of 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or a million billion trillion kazillion schmillion. Population size doesn't matter and is usually assumed to be infinite anyway.
But yeah, you want to pay more attention to polling averages and aggregators like Silver, Wang, or RCP than to any individual poll.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
They can undo this on the back end by weighting people according to the inverse of their response probability -- each respondent from an unlikely-to-respond set of demographics counts more than the typical respondent. Each polling house will have their own secret sauce and some of them will work better than others but the basic principle is very much Not Rocket Surgery.
Where do they get the contact information for these people?
They don't need contact information. They can just dial random numbers from the universe of potentially-valid phone numbers.
Or my husband, or my parents or actually anyone I know in person. ... (I've also never been exit polled either, which is odd because I vote in every single election I can.)
It's not odd that you've never been polled about political stuff or exit-polled. Hardly anyone is, and hardly anyone needs to be because sampling math is glorious and wonderful and almost as good a proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy as beer is. Short answer: 1000 people is a very good sample of 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or a million billion trillion kazillion schmillion. Population size doesn't matter and is usually assumed to be infinite anyway.
But yeah, you want to pay more attention to polling averages and aggregators like Silver, Wang, or RCP than to any individual poll.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
It'll be interesting to see how many of the remaining #NeverTrump holdouts change their tune if it looks like he'll win.
posted by clawsoon at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2016
And if you want to keep being a sober and reliable statistics journalist, you probably shouldn't opt for the nuttiest possible prediction in the absence of data.
But that's the thing, isn't it? There was far from an absence of data. There was a surplus of data that was dismissed and discarded because it went against conventional wisdom. And instead of taking that fuzzy-looking data seriously, going, "hmm, the polls seem to indicate people really in favor of this nutty celebrity, let's examine that scenario and see where it leads us", Nate Silver and Co. opted for conventional wisdom that claimed that it was unthinkable. And in doing so, he became no worse or less than a conventional thinker.
But we already have plenty of conventional thinkers in punditry. In times of uncertainty, we need unconventionalists and iconoclasts who can safeguard the republic by being dissenters against conventional wisdom, as the mythical tenth man. This election, with its surfeit of sensationalists and trolls, I'm going with the Diggler.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that's the thing, isn't it? There was far from an absence of data. There was a surplus of data that was dismissed and discarded because it went against conventional wisdom. And instead of taking that fuzzy-looking data seriously, going, "hmm, the polls seem to indicate people really in favor of this nutty celebrity, let's examine that scenario and see where it leads us", Nate Silver and Co. opted for conventional wisdom that claimed that it was unthinkable. And in doing so, he became no worse or less than a conventional thinker.
But we already have plenty of conventional thinkers in punditry. In times of uncertainty, we need unconventionalists and iconoclasts who can safeguard the republic by being dissenters against conventional wisdom, as the mythical tenth man. This election, with its surfeit of sensationalists and trolls, I'm going with the Diggler.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Quinnipiac poll people were worried about showing Trump/Clinton basically tied also had an overrepresentation of white people.
I basically think ALL discussion of this election takes into account an overrepresentation of white people. Unless widespread disenfranchisement comes into play, and I mean real disenfranchisement, not "closed primary," minorities are not going to vote Trump or third party in large numbers. We need to focus on making sure that disenfranchisement doesn't happen.
posted by zutalors! at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I basically think ALL discussion of this election takes into account an overrepresentation of white people. Unless widespread disenfranchisement comes into play, and I mean real disenfranchisement, not "closed primary," minorities are not going to vote Trump or third party in large numbers. We need to focus on making sure that disenfranchisement doesn't happen.
posted by zutalors! at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also, it's not just the Cubs surge; it's the Mariners off to their third best start ever and leading the AL West.
It's not just a Cubs series; it's a Cubs-Mariners World Series. I mean, that practically guarantees the End Times. As in during Game 7 the bullpen door will open up and Jesus will literally come in to save.
posted by dw at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's not just a Cubs series; it's a Cubs-Mariners World Series. I mean, that practically guarantees the End Times. As in during Game 7 the bullpen door will open up and Jesus will literally come in to save.
posted by dw at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Analysis of the Democratic primary electorate in states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, even Oregon, has less than 0 applicability to the general election. Neither does either of the two polls this week showing a Trump "surge", where the whiteness factor is 3-4 points off of the 2012 turnout, or the options stacked with a 3rd candidate to be named later, who won't be on the ballot. I'll start saying the sky is falling when Clinton polls down 2-4 points in Florida to Trump in a head to head matchup across 3 or more polls, and not before. The electoral map is still TERRIBLE for Trump. He could win the popular vote by 1% (which remains HIGHLY unlikely) and still lose in the electoral college by Obama numbers.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not just a Cubs series; it's a Cubs-Mariners World Series. I mean, that practically guarantees the End Times. As in during Game 7 the bullpen door will open up and Jesus will literally come in to save.
And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, the crowd in the stadium saying, Come and see.posted by Gelatin at 9:41 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
And I saw, and beheld a dugout: and he that emerged from it had a ball; and a cap was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
We need to focus on making sure that disenfranchisement doesn't happen.
Yeah, can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all? What can we as volunteers do in order to fight against it?
posted by Apocryphon at 9:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all? What can we as volunteers do in order to fight against it?
posted by Apocryphon at 9:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
The cooler guy has won pretty much all the US Presidential elections since at least Carter. The nerd has always lost. Trump is not a cool guy, but he's a bully. In the American political schoolyard that may be close enough.
posted by clawsoon at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, but also, the more positive campaign usually wins, and I think Clinton's is much more positive than Trump's, which is an engine running on anger.
posted by zutalors! at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is the Democratic leadership still nicknaming Trump "Dangerous Donald"? Because they should watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster and knock that off. Ahem.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2016
can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all
As campaign volunteers? Nothing aside from the GOTV operations of each campaign. Which I'm sure people at the campaign will know a lot more about than I would.
However, if you really want to be useful at preventing voter suppression in general, become a local poll worker! My guess is that a LOT of suppression comes down to the individual gatekeepers at each polling place.
On the macro level, my guess is that this would be a completely separate activity from electoral-cycle volunteering, and is probably more about preventing voter ID laws from being passed (or initiating legislation to remove them), or on a more local level getting involved with whatever committee sets polling places and determines their hours, etc. I'm also curious if groups like the ACLU, or other orgs, are doing this work.
posted by Sara C. at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
As campaign volunteers? Nothing aside from the GOTV operations of each campaign. Which I'm sure people at the campaign will know a lot more about than I would.
However, if you really want to be useful at preventing voter suppression in general, become a local poll worker! My guess is that a LOT of suppression comes down to the individual gatekeepers at each polling place.
On the macro level, my guess is that this would be a completely separate activity from electoral-cycle volunteering, and is probably more about preventing voter ID laws from being passed (or initiating legislation to remove them), or on a more local level getting involved with whatever committee sets polling places and determines their hours, etc. I'm also curious if groups like the ACLU, or other orgs, are doing this work.
posted by Sara C. at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
There's so much complexity and misinformation. In the NY primary, I went to my regular polling plac and they tried to tell me I had to go to a completely different place. Turns out you had to line up my address with my polling place number on this sheet, and the woman had lined it up wrong.
This only worked out for me because I insisted I was in the right place and the polling official came to investigate my frustration, and found the error. Once I went in to the actual voting area, of course they had all my info, but they at first weren't even going to let me in.
Even more troubling is that my street is the same name as a number of projects, and I think part of the original poll workers issue was that people in the projects vote in the further location. I had to bite my lip to not say "I don't live in the projects... I know I vote here."
This is the kind of thing we're up against...also why do the people in the projects have to go so far?
I think lots of GOTV with a lot of "here's what you do if they say no" added in, plus advocacy for making the whole process a lot easier.
posted by zutalors! at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
This only worked out for me because I insisted I was in the right place and the polling official came to investigate my frustration, and found the error. Once I went in to the actual voting area, of course they had all my info, but they at first weren't even going to let me in.
Even more troubling is that my street is the same name as a number of projects, and I think part of the original poll workers issue was that people in the projects vote in the further location. I had to bite my lip to not say "I don't live in the projects... I know I vote here."
This is the kind of thing we're up against...also why do the people in the projects have to go so far?
I think lots of GOTV with a lot of "here's what you do if they say no" added in, plus advocacy for making the whole process a lot easier.
posted by zutalors! at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The thing about voter suppression is that people really need to pay attention to state-level races, because that's where a lot of that stuff gets determined. I am sure the Democrats are going to put a huge amount of effort into counteracting attempts to stop people from voting, but boy would it be more effective just to elect people who didn't have that agenda in the first place.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all? What can we as volunteers do in order to fight against it?
Register voters.
Also, you can register voters.
After that, register some more voters.
Then, maybe participate in more voter registration drives.
Finally, when you're sick of registering voters, register some more voters.
After you do that, go out and register more voters.
Do this every week between now and the registration deadline in your state.
But do get training from a campaign (or other reputable organization) so that you make sure you're doing it both legally and effectively.
Finally, if you are an attorney, work with a campaign or a poltical party to volunteer as a poll watcher on election day.
posted by dersins at 10:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Register voters.
Also, you can register voters.
After that, register some more voters.
Then, maybe participate in more voter registration drives.
Finally, when you're sick of registering voters, register some more voters.
After you do that, go out and register more voters.
Do this every week between now and the registration deadline in your state.
But do get training from a campaign (or other reputable organization) so that you make sure you're doing it both legally and effectively.
Finally, if you are an attorney, work with a campaign or a poltical party to volunteer as a poll watcher on election day.
posted by dersins at 10:05 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The more I think about it, the more I think my Trump spoiler theory in the Democratic primary pans out. Check it out:
Ideology & Candidate Preference Weirdness
Percent who voted Sanders and want a less liberal president: 20%
Percent who voted Sanders and would pick Trump over Clinton: 22%
Percent who voted Sanders, and would Trump over Sanders: 17.5%
Basically, no matter what direction you come from you're getting the same answer: ~20% of the voters in the Democratic primary were uncommonly conservative Sanders voters.
Demographic Weirdness
AI noticed something weird about the age distribution of Trump voters in the WV Republican primary and Sanders voters in the Democratic primary.
Check the age demographic breakdown of Sanders voters, per usual his share drops with age--and then at 65+ it jumps 8%, from 39% of voters age 50-64 to 47% of voters age 65+. This really wouldn't mean anything if it wasn't for the fact that this is not seen in any other state exit poll. Literally, in every other one you get a decrease, even if it's small.
Check the Trump share of those age groups in the Republican primary. He gets 63% of 17-29, 78% of 30-44, 83% of 45-64--and then drops to 69% in the 65+ category. In every other state, Trump either has had the same share of every age group, or his supporters lean older. You can count on his share of the 45-64 and 65+ age groups being within a few percentage points of one another. A 14% drop is cray.
OK, now look at the age distribution of all voters in the Republican Party: 17% were ages 17-29. 26% 30-44. 41% ages 45-64. And then 17% ages 65+.
In what other state has the percentage of Republican primary voters aged 17-29 tied the percentage of primary voters aged 65+? If you laughed your head off and said that would never happen, you're right, none of them.
In what other state has the percentage of Republican primary voters aged 30-44 been higher than the percentage of primary voters aged 65+? Only one: Indiana. They were also tied in Maryland.
Does the 65+ age group just not like voting? No, because if you look at the Democratic side you look at a more normal age distribution: 15% 17-29, 22% 30-44, 37% 45-64, 25% 65+. Though that is curious in its own way, because normally the Democratic side skews younger. Save in West Virginia.
Summary
Basically:
- ideology results indicate a large percentage of Trump voters went for Sanders
- Sanders had an unusually high percentage of 65+ supporters
- Trump had an unusually low percentage of 65+ voters
- An unusually low number of 65+ voters voted in the Republican Party
In conclusion: DID THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN RAID RETIREMENT HOMES TO SPOIL THE PRIMARIES?!
Seriously though--there are apparently a bunch of pissed-off conservative grandparents who want to screw over Clinton.
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 AM on May 11, 2016
Ideology & Candidate Preference Weirdness
Percent who voted Sanders and want a less liberal president: 20%
Percent who voted Sanders and would pick Trump over Clinton: 22%
Percent who voted Sanders, and would Trump over Sanders: 17.5%
Basically, no matter what direction you come from you're getting the same answer: ~20% of the voters in the Democratic primary were uncommonly conservative Sanders voters.
Demographic Weirdness
AI noticed something weird about the age distribution of Trump voters in the WV Republican primary and Sanders voters in the Democratic primary.
Check the age demographic breakdown of Sanders voters, per usual his share drops with age--and then at 65+ it jumps 8%, from 39% of voters age 50-64 to 47% of voters age 65+. This really wouldn't mean anything if it wasn't for the fact that this is not seen in any other state exit poll. Literally, in every other one you get a decrease, even if it's small.
Check the Trump share of those age groups in the Republican primary. He gets 63% of 17-29, 78% of 30-44, 83% of 45-64--and then drops to 69% in the 65+ category. In every other state, Trump either has had the same share of every age group, or his supporters lean older. You can count on his share of the 45-64 and 65+ age groups being within a few percentage points of one another. A 14% drop is cray.
OK, now look at the age distribution of all voters in the Republican Party: 17% were ages 17-29. 26% 30-44. 41% ages 45-64. And then 17% ages 65+.
In what other state has the percentage of Republican primary voters aged 17-29 tied the percentage of primary voters aged 65+? If you laughed your head off and said that would never happen, you're right, none of them.
In what other state has the percentage of Republican primary voters aged 30-44 been higher than the percentage of primary voters aged 65+? Only one: Indiana. They were also tied in Maryland.
Does the 65+ age group just not like voting? No, because if you look at the Democratic side you look at a more normal age distribution: 15% 17-29, 22% 30-44, 37% 45-64, 25% 65+. Though that is curious in its own way, because normally the Democratic side skews younger. Save in West Virginia.
Summary
Basically:
- ideology results indicate a large percentage of Trump voters went for Sanders
- Sanders had an unusually high percentage of 65+ supporters
- Trump had an unusually low percentage of 65+ voters
- An unusually low number of 65+ voters voted in the Republican Party
In conclusion: DID THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN RAID RETIREMENT HOMES TO SPOIL THE PRIMARIES?!
Seriously though--there are apparently a bunch of pissed-off conservative grandparents who want to screw over Clinton.
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 AM on May 11, 2016
Republicans can't vote in Democratic primaries in West Virginia, schroedinger.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:07 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that a better conclusion is that a lot of 65+ people in West Virginia are lifelong Democrats who won't switch their party affiliations but are actually quite conservative. And they voted for Sanders for reasons other than ideology.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to Snopes - the Sanders Glowstick Meme originated at 4Chan (this is my surprised face), and some people who were actually ON 4Chan have already forwarded it to the FBI (now that REALLY is my surprised face).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:12 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:12 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I edited my comment to replace "Republican grandparents" with "conservative grandparents".
And now that I wrote all that up I'm finding a whole bunch of news agencies are coming to the same conclusion. And here I thought I was special. :(
(though nobody documented the age distribution weirdness)
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 AM on May 11, 2016
And now that I wrote all that up I'm finding a whole bunch of news agencies are coming to the same conclusion. And here I thought I was special. :(
(though nobody documented the age distribution weirdness)
posted by Anonymous at 10:12 AM on May 11, 2016
But that's the thing, isn't it? There was far from an absence of data. There was a surplus of data that was dismissed and discarded because it went against conventional wisdom.
Well, not really. There's an important difference between Silver this year and the usual punditry.
The usual punditry is the same old shit every year, and we know that most of it is wrong, but they just don't give a shit. We'll be hearing yet again about how you've got to win the independents because they're the most important, even though we know that most independents are just closet partisans and the remainder of actual independents are too fractured, ignorant, and unmotivated to be appealed to as a coherent group. We're be hearing yet again how gerrymandering causes polarization when we know that that isn't so (or is at most a very minor contributor). That's the conventional wisdom.
Silver didn't discount the early poll results because of conventional wisdom. He was pretty explicit that he was discounting the early poll results because there were good reasons to do so drawn from an actual no-shit theory drawn from real-life, actual, no-shit political science*, that was as well corroborated by actual no-shit data as any theory of the current nomination system could be. It's these parts -- drawn from real theory that was backed up with real data -- that separates Silver's decision from just following the conventional wisdom. The other big difference is that the UCLA crowd are, right now, trying to figure out where they went wrong and what happened.
*As opposed to the crap by George Will or whoever that you find in the horrifyingly mislabeled "political science" section in B&N.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:16 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Well, not really. There's an important difference between Silver this year and the usual punditry.
The usual punditry is the same old shit every year, and we know that most of it is wrong, but they just don't give a shit. We'll be hearing yet again about how you've got to win the independents because they're the most important, even though we know that most independents are just closet partisans and the remainder of actual independents are too fractured, ignorant, and unmotivated to be appealed to as a coherent group. We're be hearing yet again how gerrymandering causes polarization when we know that that isn't so (or is at most a very minor contributor). That's the conventional wisdom.
Silver didn't discount the early poll results because of conventional wisdom. He was pretty explicit that he was discounting the early poll results because there were good reasons to do so drawn from an actual no-shit theory drawn from real-life, actual, no-shit political science*, that was as well corroborated by actual no-shit data as any theory of the current nomination system could be. It's these parts -- drawn from real theory that was backed up with real data -- that separates Silver's decision from just following the conventional wisdom. The other big difference is that the UCLA crowd are, right now, trying to figure out where they went wrong and what happened.
*As opposed to the crap by George Will or whoever that you find in the horrifyingly mislabeled "political science" section in B&N.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:16 AM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
According to Snopes - the Sanders Glowstick Meme originated at 4Chan (this is my surprised face), and some people who were actually ON 4Chan have already forwarded it to the FBI (now that REALLY is my surprised face).
yeah this is the special US election edition of a "classic" 4chan ruse
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:18 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
yeah this is the special US election edition of a "classic" 4chan ruse
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:18 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really disappointed that I didn't find "hand cheese" anywhere in this post - It's a really fetid and slightly translucent cheese made from sour milk that most people will not voluntarily eat if they see it - it typically gives people gas, but it's strangely popular with a subset of people for inexplicable reasons, and those people really love it.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:33 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:33 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
a "classic" 4chan ruse
"Ruse" seems a bit on the mild side for something that is in many ways tantamount to attempted murder.
posted by dersins at 10:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Ruse" seems a bit on the mild side for something that is in many ways tantamount to attempted murder.
posted by dersins at 10:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, you can say that ideology didn't play a part, but the fact remains that a disproportionate number of conservatives (especially Trump voters) voted for Sanders in the primaries compared to Clinton voters. 17.5% of Democratic primary voters who voted Sanders in the primary would choose Trump in the general. Usually candidates see ~3% of their primary voters state they'll vote for the opposition in the general. Indeed, Clinton pulled 3.5% in West Virginia. So that really is an aberration.
Another tidbit: this is the most male Democratic primary of any in the exit polls. Normally you're looking at 10% more women or more (over 20% in some states). In this case, there's only a 6% difference. Given that Trump voters lean towards men, this adds further weight to the Trump-voters-voting-for-Sanders hypothesis.
posted by Anonymous at 10:44 AM on May 11, 2016
Another tidbit: this is the most male Democratic primary of any in the exit polls. Normally you're looking at 10% more women or more (over 20% in some states). In this case, there's only a 6% difference. Given that Trump voters lean towards men, this adds further weight to the Trump-voters-voting-for-Sanders hypothesis.
posted by Anonymous at 10:44 AM on May 11, 2016
but the fact remains that a disproportionate number of conservatives (especially Trump voters) voted for Sanders in the primaries compared to Clinton voters.
Do we know these people are conservatives, rather than people who just want to burn shit down?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do we know these people are conservatives, rather than people who just want to burn shit down?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's true that Trump voters are voting for Sanders. That's what they said in exit polls. It's not obvious to me that it's some sort of effort to spoil the primary. I think it may be that Trump voters just prefer Sanders, because voters don't vote solely based on candidate's positions on issues. And it seems blindingly obvious to me, as someone who has done a whole lot of direct voter contact, that voters do not choose candidates based solely on the candidates' positions on issues.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all? What can we as volunteers do in order to fight against it?
If you're a lawyer, paralegal, or law school student, you can volunteer with Election Protection, associated with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. You will need to go through training before you can man the hotlines that are run on primary days and on Election Day in November, so don't wait until the last minute to volunteer. You can sign up to be contacted here:
https://connect.lawyerscommittee.org/volunteer-opportunities-with-election-protection/
Or you can email volunteer@866ourvote.org or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you're a lawyer, paralegal, or law school student, you can volunteer with Election Protection, associated with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. You will need to go through training before you can man the hotlines that are run on primary days and on Election Day in November, so don't wait until the last minute to volunteer. You can sign up to be contacted here:
https://connect.lawyerscommittee.org/volunteer-opportunities-with-election-protection/
Or you can email volunteer@866ourvote.org or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Reuters/Ipsos: In the most recent survey, 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet,
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
ArbitraryAndCapricious: I think it's true that Trump voters are voting for Sanders. That's what they said in exit polls. It's not obvious to me that it's some sort of effort to spoil the primary.
I'd agreed. But:
I think it may be that Trump voters just prefer Sanders, because voters don't vote solely based on candidate's positions on issues.
It also depends on which issues are important to you. If trade and Wall Street are your hot-button issue, and you could care less about social issues, a preference for Trump-then-Sanders makes reasonable sense. If you're casually racist and hear that Sanders listens respectfully to brown people, there's a chance you'll say, "Whatever, I hate hedge fund managers more than Mexicans."
posted by clawsoon at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2016
I'd agreed. But:
I think it may be that Trump voters just prefer Sanders, because voters don't vote solely based on candidate's positions on issues.
It also depends on which issues are important to you. If trade and Wall Street are your hot-button issue, and you could care less about social issues, a preference for Trump-then-Sanders makes reasonable sense. If you're casually racist and hear that Sanders listens respectfully to brown people, there's a chance you'll say, "Whatever, I hate hedge fund managers more than Mexicans."
posted by clawsoon at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2016
"That's the thing- they should have followed the data if they were true to their ethos. 538 should have been the lone voice in the wild, calling out a black swan while the rest of the pundits naysayed. But they didn't, and Nate Silve didn't. So he's lost his wunderbar status. He's another conventional thinker for that mistake."
… you really don't understand how probability and prediction works, do you?
posted by klangklangston at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
… you really don't understand how probability and prediction works, do you?
posted by klangklangston at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Reuters/Ipsos: In the most recent survey, 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet,
Yeah, that got posted upthread an hour ago. They include an imaginary third party candidate in the question, which is probably why it disagrees with the aggregate polls showing Clinton +6.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that got posted upthread an hour ago. They include an imaginary third party candidate in the question, which is probably why it disagrees with the aggregate polls showing Clinton +6.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:04 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that got posted upthread an hour ago.
Oops, sorry, thread is moving too quickly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on May 11, 2016
Oops, sorry, thread is moving too quickly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:05 AM on May 11, 2016
Do we know these people are conservatives, rather than people who just want to burn shit down?
From the exit polling, yes. That's what my previous comments have been about. Those are all calculated using exit poll data.
posted by Anonymous at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2016
From the exit polling, yes. That's what my previous comments have been about. Those are all calculated using exit poll data.
posted by Anonymous at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2016
… you really don't understand how probability and prediction works, do you?
Who needs to know, when Carl "the Dig" Diggler eats stats for breakfast and churns out gut calls- that are right! Probability and stats, like economics, presume human beings are rational actors who make rational decisions. And this is a season for extra irrationality.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who needs to know, when Carl "the Dig" Diggler eats stats for breakfast and churns out gut calls- that are right! Probability and stats, like economics, presume human beings are rational actors who make rational decisions. And this is a season for extra irrationality.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fortunately we aren't actually responsible for reading every comment in these threads, r317. God that job would really suck.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Interestingly, that article is written by one of the Diggler guys, who while admitting that both are amateurs and are "neither statisticians nor political scientists", goes on to attack 538's methodology and data models in detail. I hadn't heard of Benchmark Politics, either, but good to hear that there's more competition in the data journalism space.
Despite the pretense of scientific detachment, Silver’s models are hardly unbiased. The moment you decide to weight some data sets over others, you’ve introduced bias. Silver’s failed Polls-Plus model incorporated indicators that had virtually no predictive value this year, like endorsements and fundraising totals. Why? Because of Silver’s dogmatic adherence to “The Party Decides,” a thesis in political science that says nominees are chosen by party establishment elites. That theory is currently buried under a pile of Trump signs. Silver’s sanctimonious claims that Trump could never be the nominee — complete with FiveThirtyEight’s invention of an “Endorsement Primary” — were a pretty clear case of using Diggler-style gut, not science, to guide your predictions.
If it seems I’m being too hard on Silver now, that’s because I am. But we should all feel bamboozled. If the quants had not ignored Trump’s soaring popularity all last year, perhaps the GOP establishment would not have sat on their hands as he waltzed to the nomination. And if the same pundits had not been writing Sanders’s obituary before any votes were cast, perhaps that race would be even closer. Maybe a more subjective form of analysis, such as going out and listening to voters, would have understood their passions better than the data journalists’ models.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Despite the pretense of scientific detachment, Silver’s models are hardly unbiased. The moment you decide to weight some data sets over others, you’ve introduced bias. Silver’s failed Polls-Plus model incorporated indicators that had virtually no predictive value this year, like endorsements and fundraising totals. Why? Because of Silver’s dogmatic adherence to “The Party Decides,” a thesis in political science that says nominees are chosen by party establishment elites. That theory is currently buried under a pile of Trump signs. Silver’s sanctimonious claims that Trump could never be the nominee — complete with FiveThirtyEight’s invention of an “Endorsement Primary” — were a pretty clear case of using Diggler-style gut, not science, to guide your predictions.
If it seems I’m being too hard on Silver now, that’s because I am. But we should all feel bamboozled. If the quants had not ignored Trump’s soaring popularity all last year, perhaps the GOP establishment would not have sat on their hands as he waltzed to the nomination. And if the same pundits had not been writing Sanders’s obituary before any votes were cast, perhaps that race would be even closer. Maybe a more subjective form of analysis, such as going out and listening to voters, would have understood their passions better than the data journalists’ models.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Re WV, I also wonder whether there isn't a problem with the exit polling data in terms of people self-identifying as "conservative". I'm from a red state and have lived in blue states for my entire adult life. In my experience, most people who don't explicitly consider themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the status quo in their state (liberal in red states, conservative in blue states) will self-identify as whatever the going label is in their area. Even if their actual beliefs aren't consistent with that.
There are probably a lot of "conservatives" in West Virginia who have no idea that their internal political compass is more blue than they entirely realize. Could that explain the "conservative" Sanders voters?
posted by Sara C. at 11:23 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are probably a lot of "conservatives" in West Virginia who have no idea that their internal political compass is more blue than they entirely realize. Could that explain the "conservative" Sanders voters?
posted by Sara C. at 11:23 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ad spending in Oregon:
Team Sanders: $123,000
Team Clinton: $0
And in California
Team Sanders: $555,000
Team Clinton: $0
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on May 11, 2016
Team Sanders: $123,000
Team Clinton: $0
And in California
Team Sanders: $555,000
Team Clinton: $0
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on May 11, 2016
and Kentucky:
Team Clinton: $178,000
Team Sanders: $93,000
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2016
Team Clinton: $178,000
Team Sanders: $93,000
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2016
I mean, I guess that's an option, but these are people who vote Sanders and then explicitly say they'd vote Trump in the election. So wherever their compass is, it's pointing towards that.
I have been reading more articles that say West Virginia has a disproportionate number of people who are conservative registered Democrats but mostly vote Republican. It is a legit conservative state, also. I don't think these are secret socialists.
posted by Anonymous at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2016
I have been reading more articles that say West Virginia has a disproportionate number of people who are conservative registered Democrats but mostly vote Republican. It is a legit conservative state, also. I don't think these are secret socialists.
posted by Anonymous at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2016
That makes sense, roomthreeseventeen: this is Sanders's last stand, and Clinton is conserving resources for the general election.
Washington Post article: Trump's candidacy sparking a surge in citizenship, voter applications.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Washington Post article: Trump's candidacy sparking a surge in citizenship, voter applications.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:34 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
and Kentucky:
Team Clinton: $178,000
Team Sanders: $93,000
So what's going on is:
Clinton doesn't need Oregon. And she doesn't need to start spending until Bernie actually takes a lead on California; he's still averaging 10 points back.
Kentucky is close, and I think that's a case where it's a cheap enough state from an advertising market perspective that it's worth putting money into to disrupt the Bernie "winning streak" narrative.
Sinking $178K into Kentucky is nothing compared to the millions that Bernie will have to dump into California to even get a win, much less turn it into the blowout he'll need to have a real argument about the nomination.
posted by dw at 11:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Team Clinton: $178,000
Team Sanders: $93,000
So what's going on is:
Clinton doesn't need Oregon. And she doesn't need to start spending until Bernie actually takes a lead on California; he's still averaging 10 points back.
Kentucky is close, and I think that's a case where it's a cheap enough state from an advertising market perspective that it's worth putting money into to disrupt the Bernie "winning streak" narrative.
Sinking $178K into Kentucky is nothing compared to the millions that Bernie will have to dump into California to even get a win, much less turn it into the blowout he'll need to have a real argument about the nomination.
posted by dw at 11:36 AM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
it's possible that a lot, maybe the majority, of Sanders voters are not staunch zizek-quoting socialists, but random registered democrats pissed off at Clinton/"Washington"/everything
posted by theodolite at 11:43 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 11:43 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Interestingly, that article is written by one of the Diggler guys, who while admitting that both are amateurs and are "neither statisticians nor political scientists", goes on to attack 538's methodology and data models in detail.
This entire editorial is a series of cheap shots. Silver & Co. have spent plenty of time in articles and their podcast discussing where they went wrong, how their model failed during this election, and how they were trying to improve it. This dude is digging up articles from last summer and acting like it's something Silver believed until recently, when he had basically disavowed them by December. He says nothing they haven't already said months ago.
But to be honest, based on his website and social media he has really got some personal feelings against Silver. Like, 50% or more of what this guy posts is directed towards Silver. It is really bizarre, especially since I am not sure Silver has ever responded or even acknowledged he exists.
posted by Anonymous at 11:45 AM on May 11, 2016
This entire editorial is a series of cheap shots. Silver & Co. have spent plenty of time in articles and their podcast discussing where they went wrong, how their model failed during this election, and how they were trying to improve it. This dude is digging up articles from last summer and acting like it's something Silver believed until recently, when he had basically disavowed them by December. He says nothing they haven't already said months ago.
But to be honest, based on his website and social media he has really got some personal feelings against Silver. Like, 50% or more of what this guy posts is directed towards Silver. It is really bizarre, especially since I am not sure Silver has ever responded or even acknowledged he exists.
posted by Anonymous at 11:45 AM on May 11, 2016
If the quants had not ignored Trump’s soaring popularity all last year, perhaps the GOP establishment would not have sat on their hands as he waltzed to the nomination.
I feel fairly confident that the following conversation never happened at the RNC:
"We've gotta do something about Trump!"
"Relax, Nate Silver says he won't last."
posted by Etrigan at 11:49 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I feel fairly confident that the following conversation never happened at the RNC:
"We've gotta do something about Trump!"
"Relax, Nate Silver says he won't last."
posted by Etrigan at 11:49 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
> "Do we know these people are conservatives, rather than people who just want to burn shit down?"
Trump Voters For Sanders: Because Some Men Just Want To Feel The World Bern.
posted by kyrademon at 11:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump Voters For Sanders: Because Some Men Just Want To Feel The World Bern.
posted by kyrademon at 11:51 AM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think these are secret socialists.
That's not really what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that you probably have some self-identified conservatives who lean more towards Sanders because he's the white guy, or because he's for the 99% as opposed to Big Business, or he's an "outsider", or whatever weirdo rorschach reason that doesn't directly correspond with his politics (which, it should be mentioned, aren't particularly socialist, they're reformist liberal).
Those people are probably politically moderate or even slightly liberal, but because everyone they know calls themselves a conservative, they've always called themselves conservative, they usually vote Republican, and they have some conservative beliefs, they will ALWAYS self-identify as conservative no matter what they actually believe deep down.
I've seen the same thing happen with people from blue states, who all think of themselves as liberals despite having a lot of conservative political beliefs and actually being quite reactionary. Sanders has captured basically 100% of those folks, too. And many to most of them are in the #NeverHillary camp now, because they can stomach the idea of Trump because they're actually much further to the right than they self-identify.
posted by Sara C. at 11:54 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's not really what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that you probably have some self-identified conservatives who lean more towards Sanders because he's the white guy, or because he's for the 99% as opposed to Big Business, or he's an "outsider", or whatever weirdo rorschach reason that doesn't directly correspond with his politics (which, it should be mentioned, aren't particularly socialist, they're reformist liberal).
Those people are probably politically moderate or even slightly liberal, but because everyone they know calls themselves a conservative, they've always called themselves conservative, they usually vote Republican, and they have some conservative beliefs, they will ALWAYS self-identify as conservative no matter what they actually believe deep down.
I've seen the same thing happen with people from blue states, who all think of themselves as liberals despite having a lot of conservative political beliefs and actually being quite reactionary. Sanders has captured basically 100% of those folks, too. And many to most of them are in the #NeverHillary camp now, because they can stomach the idea of Trump because they're actually much further to the right than they self-identify.
posted by Sara C. at 11:54 AM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Has anyone yet heard if anyone is gonna run with the fact that Trump was apparently named in hte Panama Papers?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2016
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2016
Has anyone yet heard if anyone is gonna run with the fact that Trump was apparently named in hte Panama Papers?
Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But to be honest, based on his website and social media he has really got some personal feelings against Silver. Like, 50% or more of what this guy posts is directed towards Silver. It is really bizarre, especially since I am not sure Silver has ever responded or even acknowledged he exists.
I think it's more like Nate Silver and 538 have been the king of the hill for quite a while, and everyone loves taking potshots at the king, and especially loves it when they occasionally fail to miss. The other co-creator of the Dig alluded to other purveyors of data journalism in a different interview, not just Silver itself. And it's not even the Diggler guys only who like to attack 538- even before he took to parody and calling Trump the winner back in September, Matt Bruenig was cautioning against the promises of the 538 project back in 2014 - far before the Trump debacle.
On a meta-note, it's interesting how there seems to be a general faith in data journalism for predicting political results here, while it tends to be looked at with skepticism and scorn in other fields such as business, or criminal behavior. Shouldn't the buzzword-laden, sexy field of data science be critiqued in all forms, not just when Web 2.0 brogrammers and Minority Report-cosplaying police departments do it? Why do data pundits get a pass? Is it just because the alternative- the conventional, gut-based pundits, are just such awful blowhards? Well, I guess in a world at the verge of being taken over by trolls, it's good that satirists like Carl Diggler and Matt Breunig are able to fight chaos with chaos. (I mean, this was presaged for over a decade with the rise of The Daily Show and news satire in general as a replacement for real news. The jesters are holding court.)
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on May 11, 2016
I think it's more like Nate Silver and 538 have been the king of the hill for quite a while, and everyone loves taking potshots at the king, and especially loves it when they occasionally fail to miss. The other co-creator of the Dig alluded to other purveyors of data journalism in a different interview, not just Silver itself. And it's not even the Diggler guys only who like to attack 538- even before he took to parody and calling Trump the winner back in September, Matt Bruenig was cautioning against the promises of the 538 project back in 2014 - far before the Trump debacle.
On a meta-note, it's interesting how there seems to be a general faith in data journalism for predicting political results here, while it tends to be looked at with skepticism and scorn in other fields such as business, or criminal behavior. Shouldn't the buzzword-laden, sexy field of data science be critiqued in all forms, not just when Web 2.0 brogrammers and Minority Report-cosplaying police departments do it? Why do data pundits get a pass? Is it just because the alternative- the conventional, gut-based pundits, are just such awful blowhards? Well, I guess in a world at the verge of being taken over by trolls, it's good that satirists like Carl Diggler and Matt Breunig are able to fight chaos with chaos. (I mean, this was presaged for over a decade with the rise of The Daily Show and news satire in general as a replacement for real news. The jesters are holding court.)
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on May 11, 2016
I think it's true that Trump voters are voting for Sanders. That's what they said in exit polls. It's not obvious to me that it's some sort of effort to spoil the primary. I think it may be that Trump voters just prefer Sanders, because voters don't vote solely based on candidate's positions on issues.
Seems to me you can explain a lot of these results with garden-variety sexism.
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Seems to me you can explain a lot of these results with garden-variety sexism.
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Watching CNBC, it's been pretty obvious that Larry Kudlow has been kissing up to Trump for a few months.
posted by malocchio at 12:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"There is no recession. Despite all the doom and gloom from the economic pessimistas, the resilient U.S economy continues moving ahead — quarter after quarter, year after year — defying dire forecasts and delivering positive growth. In fact, we are about to enter the seventh consecutive year of the Bush boom….- Larry Kudlow, December 2007
There’s no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It’s not going to happen … Yes, it’s still the greatest story never told. "
posted by malocchio at 12:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, can this be the election where we focus on ending voter suppression once and for all? What can we as volunteers do in order to fight against it?
I would love to see some independent group take on a non-partisan effort against voter suppression. For example, a service where they will verify whether you are currently registered in good stead, way in advance of the deadline, to avoid New York type problems.
Could pull in Sanders voters voters especially, Latino and African American groups, but also Corb-type Republicans and of course independents. The organizational efforts could form the basis for ongoing advocacy and mobilization on this issue. I would volunteer for this in a second.
Is the League of Women Voters still around? That name might be problematic this year though.
posted by msalt at 12:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would love to see some independent group take on a non-partisan effort against voter suppression. For example, a service where they will verify whether you are currently registered in good stead, way in advance of the deadline, to avoid New York type problems.
Could pull in Sanders voters voters especially, Latino and African American groups, but also Corb-type Republicans and of course independents. The organizational efforts could form the basis for ongoing advocacy and mobilization on this issue. I would volunteer for this in a second.
Is the League of Women Voters still around? That name might be problematic this year though.
posted by msalt at 12:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The League of Women Voters is very much still around and I think is pretty active on this issue. They also do a lot of candidate forums and the like.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not just a Cubs series; it's a Cubs-Mariners World Series. I mean, that practically guarantees the End Times. As in during Game 7 the bullpen door will open up and Jesus will literally come in to save.
For which team?
posted by saturday_morning at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2016
For which team?
posted by saturday_morning at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2016
I would love to see some independent group take on a non-partisan effort against voter suppression.
An increase in voter turnout tends to correlate with an increase in vote share for a Democratic candidate over a Republican one.
So there's at least some aspect of voter suppression that is inherently partisan.
posted by dersins at 1:09 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
An increase in voter turnout tends to correlate with an increase in vote share for a Democratic candidate over a Republican one.
So there's at least some aspect of voter suppression that is inherently partisan.
posted by dersins at 1:09 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
League of Women Voters is still around and in many areas is by far the largest and most active group for voter registration, voter access, and governmental transparency in general. It's an excellent group to volunteer with if you care about vote suppression. They also host probably the greatest number of candidate forums/debates (maybe behind the NAACP in some places), including for local candidates, and they are often the only group sending observers to every public meeting of every obscure little local government body and ensuring sunshine laws are obeyed. (If sitting through local water board meetings every other week all year long is your idea of fun, they definitely could use you as an observer.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:10 PM on May 11, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:10 PM on May 11, 2016 [19 favorites]
Mitt Romney: It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mitt Romney: It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service.
What an utterly unsurprising lack of self-awareness. Hilariously, one of the people that urged Mittens to release his tax returns in 2012 was--please try not to fall out of your seats here--Donald Trump.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:25 PM on May 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
What an utterly unsurprising lack of self-awareness. Hilariously, one of the people that urged Mittens to release his tax returns in 2012 was--please try not to fall out of your seats here--Donald Trump.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:25 PM on May 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
You're not wrong, Walter Willard, you're just an out-of-touch plutocratic asshole.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I greatly prefer Romney hypocritically calling Trump out than the pathetic, squirming dance of quasi-endorsement Rubio did on the Today show this morning.
I don't care if Republicans found their principles five minutes ago. Trump is running and Romney isn't. Go fuckin' get him, Mittens.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:30 PM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I don't care if Republicans found their principles five minutes ago. Trump is running and Romney isn't. Go fuckin' get him, Mittens.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:30 PM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah why do we always need to be giving Donald Trump credit for things? "Well, ya gotta admit..." do we gotta?
posted by zutalors! at 1:35 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 1:35 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
While I think we can all enjoy laughing at Romney suddenly discovering the courage of his convictions, the bigger reason this is dumb is because nobody voting for Trump is going to pay attention to a sentence like "It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
so? it's a decent point generally. Do we need to tailor every message to the small percentage of the American voting public that has voted for Donald J Trump?
posted by zutalors! at 1:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 1:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If your message is "don't vote for Donald Trump," then yes! Yes you do!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
FEC requests clarification from Sanders campaign over donor irregularities. 639 pages of donors who have given more than the legal limit.
posted by humanfont at 1:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 1:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Putting further to bed the rumors of life in Cruz's Presidential campaign, he just filed for reelection in his 2018 Senate race.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps there's a donation to the Small Hands Foundation in his return that Trump doesn't want disclosed.
posted by localhuman at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by localhuman at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If your message is "don't vote for Donald Trump," then yes! Yes you do!
that doesn't make sense as a response to Do we need to tailor every message to the small percentage of the American voting public that has voted for Donald J Trump?
posted by zutalors! at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2016
that doesn't make sense as a response to Do we need to tailor every message to the small percentage of the American voting public that has voted for Donald J Trump?
posted by zutalors! at 1:42 PM on May 11, 2016
These messages aren't going to sway the people gadding about in MAGA hats, but for people who mainly vote Republican because they have investments or whatever, I think it's really helpful to have Romney types affirming that maybe it's okay if Trump doesn't win
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
For example, a service where they will verify whether you are currently registered in good stead, way in advance of the deadline, to avoid New York type problems.
I don't know about every state, but California has this as part of the state government web infrastructure. It's the most wonderful and user-friendly thing. You input your info and it will tell you if you're registered, where you're registered, what your polling place is, what your party affiliation is, and even upcoming elections you're eligible to vote in. Which is amazing since that means you can easily check whether you registered in time to vote in a particular election.
You can also register to vote online in CA, and the url for it is fricken registertovote.ca.gov for chrissakes, and it's the first google hit for "register to vote California".
One thing I think would help with GOTV and anti-voter suppression would be to make this information widely available. People here know you can make an appointment for the DMV, but I'm not sure people know you can register to vote online or quickly and easily confirm your registration.
posted by Sara C. at 2:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't know about every state, but California has this as part of the state government web infrastructure. It's the most wonderful and user-friendly thing. You input your info and it will tell you if you're registered, where you're registered, what your polling place is, what your party affiliation is, and even upcoming elections you're eligible to vote in. Which is amazing since that means you can easily check whether you registered in time to vote in a particular election.
You can also register to vote online in CA, and the url for it is fricken registertovote.ca.gov for chrissakes, and it's the first google hit for "register to vote California".
One thing I think would help with GOTV and anti-voter suppression would be to make this information widely available. People here know you can make an appointment for the DMV, but I'm not sure people know you can register to vote online or quickly and easily confirm your registration.
posted by Sara C. at 2:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
New York has a similar thing to check if you're registered and where your polling place is. You can also check your voter registration status by calling 1.866.VOTE-NYC (1.866.868.3692).
posted by chris24 at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by chris24 at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2016
Before one of the last two presidential elections Google had up some sort of tool for this. Did it get EOLed like everything else Google does (no I'm not bitter about Reader shut up) or does it still exist?
posted by phearlez at 2:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 2:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Links I found for checking your registration:
"Can I Vote?" National Association of Secretaries of State (canivote.org)
National list of links (Headcount.com)
Vote.org starts with a big web form for you to fill out, which feels sketchy, but lower down has a list of links.
Rockthevote.org has a web form and no list of links. Don't like that approach.
posted by msalt at 2:32 PM on May 11, 2016
"Can I Vote?" National Association of Secretaries of State (canivote.org)
National list of links (Headcount.com)
Vote.org starts with a big web form for you to fill out, which feels sketchy, but lower down has a list of links.
Rockthevote.org has a web form and no list of links. Don't like that approach.
posted by msalt at 2:32 PM on May 11, 2016
Given the tenor of the season, PPP will be including Gary Johnson in its polls. I'd love to see the United States move towards a more pluralistic party system than the current two-party behemoth, but first-past-the-post has to go before it's a plausible potentiality.
posted by stolyarova at 2:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 2:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know about every state, but California has this as part of the state government web infrastructure. It's the most wonderful and user-friendly thing. You input your info and it will tell you if you're registered, where you're registered, what your polling place is, what your party affiliation is, and even upcoming elections you're eligible to vote in. Which is amazing since that means you can easily check whether you registered in time to vote in a particular election.
Virginia has this too. That's online registration and online voter information tailored to the individual's precinct.
posted by indubitable at 3:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Virginia has this too. That's online registration and online voter information tailored to the individual's precinct.
posted by indubitable at 3:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
As usual, though, there are problems having to do with not everyone having internet access and not everyone having internet access at home. Are the websites optimized for people who are using phones? That would be really important.
A big part of Get Out the Vote is helping people make a plan to vote. So you tell them where their precinct is, and then you ask them when they're going to go. Do they go before work or afterwards? Will they drive, walk, or take the bus? Do they have to line up child care? What will they do if there's a line? There's research that suggests that people are significantly more likely to vote if you just take five minutes and talk this stuff through with them so they've thought about it and made a plan.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
A big part of Get Out the Vote is helping people make a plan to vote. So you tell them where their precinct is, and then you ask them when they're going to go. Do they go before work or afterwards? Will they drive, walk, or take the bus? Do they have to line up child care? What will they do if there's a line? There's research that suggests that people are significantly more likely to vote if you just take five minutes and talk this stuff through with them so they've thought about it and made a plan.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
In Oregon, we only have vote-by-mail. There are no polling places. It's so much easier than all this stuff you guys are describing.
You register to vote. Your ballot is mailed to you a few weeks before the election. You fill out the ballot at your leisure, sign it, seal it in the VOTER PRIVACY envelope, and drop it in the mail. Or you can drop your ballot off in a drop box, situated in libraries and post offices and places like that.
We have turnout north of 80% in presidential years.
posted by chrchr at 4:07 PM on May 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
You register to vote. Your ballot is mailed to you a few weeks before the election. You fill out the ballot at your leisure, sign it, seal it in the VOTER PRIVACY envelope, and drop it in the mail. Or you can drop your ballot off in a drop box, situated in libraries and post offices and places like that.
We have turnout north of 80% in presidential years.
posted by chrchr at 4:07 PM on May 11, 2016 [18 favorites]
Has anyone yet heard if anyone is gonna run with the fact that Trump was apparently named in hte Panama Papers?
And local faves Stanley Kubrick and Emma Watson, too. Tsk tsk. Though it does seem the news and electoral impacts of the Panama Papers leak have been minimal, to say the least. Outside of Bernie Sanders, no other politician has called for tougher regulations on banking as a result. It just embarrasses too many high-profile celebs and people we all like to even rate a mention.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
And local faves Stanley Kubrick and Emma Watson, too. Tsk tsk. Though it does seem the news and electoral impacts of the Panama Papers leak have been minimal, to say the least. Outside of Bernie Sanders, no other politician has called for tougher regulations on banking as a result. It just embarrasses too many high-profile celebs and people we all like to even rate a mention.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has anyone yet heard if anyone is gonna run with the fact that Trump was apparently named in hte Panama Papers?
My favorite shell corporations include:
TRUMP OFFSHORE INC
LONG TRUMP DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
TRUMP DRAGON INVESTMENTS LIMITED
and last but most certainly not least,
MEGA TRUMP LIMITED
posted by stolyarova at 4:34 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
My favorite shell corporations include:
TRUMP OFFSHORE INC
LONG TRUMP DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
TRUMP DRAGON INVESTMENTS LIMITED
and last but most certainly not least,
MEGA TRUMP LIMITED
posted by stolyarova at 4:34 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Since we seem to be doing this: Maryland State Board of Elections
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton pointed out that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had put out more than three decades of tax records. "You've got to ask yourself why doesn't he want to release it," she said.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for calling out Donald Trump for not yet releasing his tax returns, calling it "ironic" that Clinton was pushing for transparency.
"I find it ironic that Hillary Clinton is talking about transparency to anyone, given that she had her own email server that she used constantly and had her colleagues in the State Department use in order to avoid [Freedom of Information Act] requests and any transparency to the public," Christie said, according to ABC News.
"So I hardly believe that Hillary Clinton is in any place to be giving a critique on transparency."
posted by futz at 4:56 PM on May 11, 2016
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for calling out Donald Trump for not yet releasing his tax returns, calling it "ironic" that Clinton was pushing for transparency.
"I find it ironic that Hillary Clinton is talking about transparency to anyone, given that she had her own email server that she used constantly and had her colleagues in the State Department use in order to avoid [Freedom of Information Act] requests and any transparency to the public," Christie said, according to ABC News.
"So I hardly believe that Hillary Clinton is in any place to be giving a critique on transparency."
posted by futz at 4:56 PM on May 11, 2016
Christie is such a fucking douchebag.
posted by dersins at 4:58 PM on May 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:58 PM on May 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
"So I hardly believe that Hillary Clinton is in any place to be giving a critique on transparency."
Says the guy who lied about shutting down an entire massive bridge for petty revenge
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Says the guy who lied about shutting down an entire massive bridge for petty revenge
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
it's tu quoque all around
posted by indubitable at 5:09 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by indubitable at 5:09 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I find interesting is that it is traditionally the VP nominee's role to launch attacks like that. I am betting that Trump makes Christie his VP pick. And I think that is a terrible choice, not least because it puts two bloviating bullies on the same ticket.
posted by bearwife at 5:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 5:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Saves time.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
it's tu quoque all around
But I think the investigators have Clinton’s emails, and everyone has her tax returns? No one has Trump’s tax returns.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
But I think the investigators have Clinton’s emails, and everyone has her tax returns? No one has Trump’s tax returns.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm going to go with the wild guess that Trump will try to pick the unlikely rational moderate candidate- Jon Huntsman, and create a Faustian dilemma where establishment/mainstream conservatives are forced into a situation of being tempted to support that ticket. Yes, the choice would be contradictory to Trump's radical reactionary bluster, and Huntsman has far more an informed and nuanced view on Far East relations than Trump could ever have, but his base will eat it up. Trump has already done and said many self-contradicting things and his base has gone along with it anyway. Picking the unlikeliest choice of a rational Republican to balance out the ticket would be a game changer in terms of appealing to independents.
This makes too much sense of a strategy, so Trump will probably not do it, now that I think about it further.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:24 PM on May 11, 2016
This makes too much sense of a strategy, so Trump will probably not do it, now that I think about it further.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:24 PM on May 11, 2016
I don't know much about Huntsman. Do you think he has too much self respect to agree to be Trump's running mate?
posted by gaspode at 5:25 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by gaspode at 5:25 PM on May 11, 2016
(although it doesn't seem likely that Trump would pick him anyway, agreed.)
posted by gaspode at 5:25 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by gaspode at 5:25 PM on May 11, 2016
Has this been posted yet? TPM, The True Life Adventures of a Democratic Superdelegate. Interesting "inside baseball" chat about why superdelegates came about and what they do and how it works. Obviously the superdelegate is defending the superdelegate system, but it is interesting to hear about the logistics and how they think about their role.
What was the instigation for the Democrats to create the superdelegate system in the first place?posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:32 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
It was the very contentious 1980 convention where it came down to a floor fight between President [Jimmy] Carter and Senator [Ted] Kennedy. It was a wake up call. After that, the senators and governors and party chairmen said, ‘Hey, we’re not on the floor! We have to get a guest credential to decide who’s going to be on the top of the ticket that we run on?’ The rules had opened up the delegate selection process to anybody, as long as they were a Democrat. It meant that officials who wanted to be delegates would have had to go to their district conventions and run against their own constituents. Not surprisingly, congressmen said they didn’t want to do that. So they realized they needed some means of having a voice, because their fates were intricately linked to the nominee — they had to run on the same ticket, and they had to govern with that person.
Including Gary Johnson is going to do some really interesting things to the poll numbers. Now instead of "Mythical Third Party Savior!" you have a real name, one familiar to conservatives of a libertarian bent. But. We also know third party candidates rarely hit the numbers the polls say they will. It's going to really gum up the predictions, that's for sure.
posted by dw at 5:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dw at 5:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I don't know much about Huntsman. Do you think he has too much self respect to agree to be Trump's running mate?"
The guy from No Labels, who thinks that one of the biggest problems is a lack of cross-partisan civility? Yeah, no, just because some extremely improbable things have happened doesn't mean that all the other extremely improbable things will.
posted by klangklangston at 5:38 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The guy from No Labels, who thinks that one of the biggest problems is a lack of cross-partisan civility? Yeah, no, just because some extremely improbable things have happened doesn't mean that all the other extremely improbable things will.
posted by klangklangston at 5:38 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Former Ambassador to China Huntsman has already endorsed Donald "negotiate U.S. debt and get tough with China" Trump. One of the most blatant kissings of the ring yet. He definitely fooled me last cycle (into thinking he was somewhat reasonable.)
posted by sallybrown at 5:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Including Gary Johnson does ensure that PPP will have polls with sufficiently different results from everybody else throughout the cycle, getting them lots of free press.
posted by zachlipton at 5:42 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by zachlipton at 5:42 PM on May 11, 2016
I think the interesting question is whether including Johnson has a push effect: will more people vote for Johnson because his name will be out there in the polling? I can't believe that he won't hurt Trump more than Clinton, but maybe people will just vote for him as none-of-the-above.
I cannot in a billion years see Huntsman accepting the VP nod. I'm hearing chatter that it might be Joni Ernst, but I think that might just be Iowans wanting to be important.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:43 PM on May 11, 2016
I cannot in a billion years see Huntsman accepting the VP nod. I'm hearing chatter that it might be Joni Ernst, but I think that might just be Iowans wanting to be important.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:43 PM on May 11, 2016
Trump would never pick a "unlikely rational moderate candidate" as running mate, because if he won, it would make it so much easier for him to be impeached...
But his refusal to release his tax returns just backs up my theory that he is only doing this for the money... the nearly unlimited Federal Funds that he could channel into his own companies (blind trust? when your NAME is on everything you've invested in?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:44 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
But his refusal to release his tax returns just backs up my theory that he is only doing this for the money... the nearly unlimited Federal Funds that he could channel into his own companies (blind trust? when your NAME is on everything you've invested in?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:44 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I learned a bit about Huntsman from this thing.
tl;dr: Romney beef
posted by box at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
tl;dr: Romney beef
posted by box at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pigs are flying...icicles are forming on the gates of Hell...Donald Trump has given in and said he'll release his tax returns before the election.
posted by sallybrown at 6:19 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 6:19 PM on May 11, 2016
Heidi Cruz Likens Husband's Campaign to Efforts to End Slavery
posted by zarq at 6:20 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by zarq at 6:20 PM on May 11, 2016
Donald Trump has given in and said he'll release his tax returns before the election.
posted by zachlipton at 6:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
“So, the answer is, I’ll release. Hopefully before the election I’ll release,” he said. “And I’d like to release.”Yes. Hopefully. I'd like to. Not sure the headline is quite accurate there.
posted by zachlipton at 6:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I imagine we'll get a letter from his accountant, probably saying that his returns are the best of anyone that's ever held the office. It'll kinda read like he wrote it himself.
posted by box at 6:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by box at 6:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I just saw him say that his tax returns will be really great, really really good.
I mean...what?
posted by zutalors! at 6:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean...what?
posted by zutalors! at 6:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
You've really got to hand it to Trump though. He wants to convince us he's such a tough negotiator, so he takes a strong position on not releasing his tax returns, then promptly, sort of, reverses himself after receiving a rebuke on Facebook from no less powerful a force than Mitt Romney. What's he going to do if the Chinese leadership criticizes him? Hand over the nuclear codes and offer to buy them a new island in the South China Sea?
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 6:47 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The best tax returns the IRS has ever seen, believe me, you're gonna love them.
posted by stolyarova at 6:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 6:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
the most beautiful tax returns
posted by zutalors! at 6:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 6:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd love to see the United States move towards a more pluralistic party system than the current two-party behemoth, but first-past-the-post has to go before it's a plausible potentiality.
We'll need waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better options than Jill Stein or Gary Johnson before I'll be interested in going down that path.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
We'll need waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better options than Jill Stein or Gary Johnson before I'll be interested in going down that path.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Heidi Cruz Likens Husband's Campaign to Efforts to End Slavery
Unless that slavery is to a mythical homosexual agenda I think she's off by a couple of orders of magnitude.
posted by Talez at 6:56 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless that slavery is to a mythical homosexual agenda I think she's off by a couple of orders of magnitude.
posted by Talez at 6:56 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tax geek David J. Herzig writes to Forbes on What If Trump Becomes President While His Tax Returns Are Under IRS Audit?, in which we learn the interesting tidbit that the President and Vice President's returns are always subject to mandatory audit by the IRS. Maybe that will make Trump change his mind about all this?
posted by zachlipton at 7:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 7:01 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
He'll release his returns, as long as the IRS isn't "unfair".
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:15 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:15 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Canada and the UK have FPP voting, and yet have more than two major political parties.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:26 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:26 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't Canada and the UK also have proportional representation?
posted by stolyarova at 7:27 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 7:27 PM on May 11, 2016
Westminster doesn't; Scottish Parliment and Welsh Assembly do. Can't speak for Canada.
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 7:30 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 7:30 PM on May 11, 2016
Canada does not have proportional representation. It's occasionally floated, but I don't think it has ever made it even so far as a vote in the House of Commons.
posted by clawsoon at 7:32 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 7:32 PM on May 11, 2016
Don't Canada and the UK also have proportional representation?
Canada has first-past-the-post. That might change.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:33 PM on May 11, 2016
Canada has first-past-the-post. That might change.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:33 PM on May 11, 2016
Canada and the UK have FPP voting, and yet have more than two major political parties.
In the '90s, we had five major parties. Look at this colourful pretty map! Red provinces and blue provinces and orange provinces and green provinces and a different colour of blue provinces!
posted by clawsoon at 7:38 PM on May 11, 2016
In the '90s, we had five major parties. Look at this colourful pretty map! Red provinces and blue provinces and orange provinces and green provinces and a different colour of blue provinces!
posted by clawsoon at 7:38 PM on May 11, 2016
According to Twitter, Trump said on Greta Van Sustern that he'll appoint Rudy Giuliani to lead whatever unconstitutional piece of shit commission Trump forms to figure out how to enact the ban on Muslims.
posted by sallybrown at 7:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
We'll need waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better options than Jill Stein or Gary Johnson before I'll be interested in going down that path.
You get better options after reasonable, competent people see that it's possible for them to win enough seats to have a voice. As long as there's no possibility, third parties will only give you true believers who enjoy tilting at windmills.
posted by clawsoon at 7:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
You get better options after reasonable, competent people see that it's possible for them to win enough seats to have a voice. As long as there's no possibility, third parties will only give you true believers who enjoy tilting at windmills.
posted by clawsoon at 7:42 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
An interesting thing that might end up having an American parallel if Paul Ryan and others don't get into line: Three of those five parties were the result of the breakup of our right-wing party.
(It didn't save us from '90s austerity, though, since the Liberals dutifully followed our American neighbours with slash and burn budgets. That's one reason our left-wing NDP has survived: Everybody knows that the Liberals will go whichever way the wind blows, so they need a strong conscience in a party that threatens them on the left to pull them back left sometimes.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:53 PM on May 11, 2016
(It didn't save us from '90s austerity, though, since the Liberals dutifully followed our American neighbours with slash and burn budgets. That's one reason our left-wing NDP has survived: Everybody knows that the Liberals will go whichever way the wind blows, so they need a strong conscience in a party that threatens them on the left to pull them back left sometimes.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:53 PM on May 11, 2016
FBI head challenges Clinton's description of email probe
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:54 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:54 PM on May 11, 2016
"Former Ambassador to China Huntsman has already endorsed Donald "negotiate U.S. debt and get tough with China" Trump. One of the most blatant kissings of the ring yet. He definitely fooled me last cycle (into thinking he was somewhat reasonable.)"
Huntsman said in February that if he was the nominee, Huntsman (as a loyal Republican) would "tend to gravitate to him" and praised some things that Trump said. That's not endorsing Trump the way a VP would, that's peddling self-interested bullshit about party unity and trolling Mitt Romney.
posted by klangklangston at 8:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huntsman said in February that if he was the nominee, Huntsman (as a loyal Republican) would "tend to gravitate to him" and praised some things that Trump said. That's not endorsing Trump the way a VP would, that's peddling self-interested bullshit about party unity and trolling Mitt Romney.
posted by klangklangston at 8:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
According to Twitter, Trump said on Greta Van Sustern that he'll appoint Rudy Giuliani to lead whatever unconstitutional piece of shit commission Trump forms to figure out how to enact the ban on Muslims.
Step 1: Appoint a justice who is basically Scalia 2.0.
Step 2: Instruct the state department to deny all visas to passport holders of muslim majority countries except for people seeking EB, E and whatever other appropriate visas for the connected and powerful to use.
Step 3: When challenged by anyone adopt a strict "these countries have proven security risks and we're keeping our borders safe".
Step 4: Let your hand picked pieces of shit rubber stamp your new policy as passing strict scrutiny because the "security risk" is entirely relevant and for the executive to determine. The fact that it looks racist and has racist overtones is merely conincidence.
Step 5: Anyone with a shred of empathy watches with horror as we get our generation's McCleskey v. Kemp.
posted by Talez at 8:07 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Step 1: Appoint a justice who is basically Scalia 2.0.
Step 2: Instruct the state department to deny all visas to passport holders of muslim majority countries except for people seeking EB, E and whatever other appropriate visas for the connected and powerful to use.
Step 3: When challenged by anyone adopt a strict "these countries have proven security risks and we're keeping our borders safe".
Step 4: Let your hand picked pieces of shit rubber stamp your new policy as passing strict scrutiny because the "security risk" is entirely relevant and for the executive to determine. The fact that it looks racist and has racist overtones is merely conincidence.
Step 5: Anyone with a shred of empathy watches with horror as we get our generation's McCleskey v. Kemp.
posted by Talez at 8:07 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, Huntsman was Trumpcurious in February, but he went all in as soon as Cruz dropped out. He'd absolutely be the VP pick, just like all of them would if asked. #neverTrump is just as big a joke as No Labels, Jon Huntmans' other rightwing extremist front masquerading as a Very Seriously Moderate Policy Option.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
How odd. The NYT fucked up something. Even the links on google news are borked. Here is the correct link.
posted by futz at 8:33 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by futz at 8:33 PM on May 11, 2016
"While Mrs. Clinton has characterized the investigation as a “security inquiry,” Mr. Comey said he was “not familiar with the term.” The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information."
God, this is such frustrating bullshit. Real reason to be concerned: U.S. government transparency is an opaque morass that's only gotten worse since Obama took over, and abuses the deference national security receives to the detriment of the public interest.
The "scandal" narrative of the GOP is that Clinton had "classified" info on her private servers — but most, if not all, was classified after Clinton had them, evaluated after the fact. Anyone who has requested classified documents through more than one agency knows that what is deemed classified can be pretty arbitrary and capricious, and that you would get two different answers from two different reviews isn't surprising.
It's naked partisan fishing, just like Benghazi, just like fucking Vince Foster and fucking Whitewater.
"Well, Huntsman was Trumpcurious in February, but he went all in as soon as Cruz dropped out. He'd absolutely be the VP pick, just like all of them would if asked. #neverTrump is just as big a joke as No Labels, Jon Huntmans' other rightwing extremist front masquerading as a Very Seriously Moderate Policy Option."
That Hill article sources Huntsman to Politico, and the quote is practically the same as his from February — that the traditional Republican coalition isn't going to work, but that Trump has been able to put together a non-traditional coalition.
But hell, I was wrong about Trump becoming the nominee, so maybe I'm wrong about this. I still don't see it as the endorsement of someone who's going to hitch his career to Trump's star, and I don't see a Utah governor picking up any more electoral votes, but at this point his campaign seems plotted like a Murdock two-parter on the A-Team, so maybe it's just crazy enough to work.
posted by klangklangston at 8:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
God, this is such frustrating bullshit. Real reason to be concerned: U.S. government transparency is an opaque morass that's only gotten worse since Obama took over, and abuses the deference national security receives to the detriment of the public interest.
The "scandal" narrative of the GOP is that Clinton had "classified" info on her private servers — but most, if not all, was classified after Clinton had them, evaluated after the fact. Anyone who has requested classified documents through more than one agency knows that what is deemed classified can be pretty arbitrary and capricious, and that you would get two different answers from two different reviews isn't surprising.
It's naked partisan fishing, just like Benghazi, just like fucking Vince Foster and fucking Whitewater.
"Well, Huntsman was Trumpcurious in February, but he went all in as soon as Cruz dropped out. He'd absolutely be the VP pick, just like all of them would if asked. #neverTrump is just as big a joke as No Labels, Jon Huntmans' other rightwing extremist front masquerading as a Very Seriously Moderate Policy Option."
That Hill article sources Huntsman to Politico, and the quote is practically the same as his from February — that the traditional Republican coalition isn't going to work, but that Trump has been able to put together a non-traditional coalition.
But hell, I was wrong about Trump becoming the nominee, so maybe I'm wrong about this. I still don't see it as the endorsement of someone who's going to hitch his career to Trump's star, and I don't see a Utah governor picking up any more electoral votes, but at this point his campaign seems plotted like a Murdock two-parter on the A-Team, so maybe it's just crazy enough to work.
posted by klangklangston at 8:37 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Huntsman would win Trump Utah, which doesn't mean much. More importantly I think if there was a "sane" person as VP it would give the mainstream republicans an excuse to vote for Trump. I think that's the biggest danger we face right now -- someone sane and reasonable like Huntsman or Romney or Ryan adding legitimacy to Trump's ticket. That's what Trump will do if he wants to win.
I hope Huntsman doesn't do it, though, I still see him as someone with a bit of integrity.
As an aside, I have to mention that I've seen Jon Huntsman perform with REO Speedwagon at the Utah State Fairpark. He plays a decent piano and apparently used to be in an REO cover band. And that would be about the least bizarre fact about a Trump/Huntsman ticket...
posted by mmoncur at 8:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope Huntsman doesn't do it, though, I still see him as someone with a bit of integrity.
As an aside, I have to mention that I've seen Jon Huntsman perform with REO Speedwagon at the Utah State Fairpark. He plays a decent piano and apparently used to be in an REO cover band. And that would be about the least bizarre fact about a Trump/Huntsman ticket...
posted by mmoncur at 8:45 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huntsman would win Trump Utah, which doesn't mean much.
Well, given it's suddenly a swing state....
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on May 11, 2016
Well, given it's suddenly a swing state....
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on May 11, 2016
Can we please stop the "lol #neverTrump is a joke"? The constant pushing that we're all just joking and are going to vote for NewHitler in November is really upsetting. No, I'm not voting for Trump, and neither are lots of us, because "don't vote for Hitler" is pretty much baseline even in Republican Flag-Waving Patriot Land. Some people may not see it, and those people are Wrong As Wrong Can Be, but those of us who do are not going to budge.
posted by corb at 8:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:48 PM on May 11, 2016 [19 favorites]
are we doing that?
posted by zutalors! at 8:51 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 8:51 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
In context, it's clear that the "#neverTrump is just as big a joke" comment is referring to prominent Republican politicians who said they would never support trump flipping once it became clear he was going to be the guy, not demeaning the larger movement that undoubtedly has some people who actually won't vote for him, but who also don't have anything to gain professionally by backing him.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:54 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
In case anyone gets their hopes up from Trump's ambiguous statement on his taxes, don't. There's a huge logical flaw in his argument that he gets audited every year.
And that is, why doesn't he release tax returns from previous years? By his own account, the IRS has already seen them, year after year. Fine, skip 2014 and 2015 taxes until the audit's done. Just show us 2008-2013.
posted by msalt at 8:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
And that is, why doesn't he release tax returns from previous years? By his own account, the IRS has already seen them, year after year. Fine, skip 2014 and 2015 taxes until the audit's done. Just show us 2008-2013.
posted by msalt at 8:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
he said those were old
posted by zutalors! at 9:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
he's gonna build new returns and they're gonna be even bigger
posted by klangklangston at 9:08 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 9:08 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Giant, beautiful returns. You're going to be amazed! He knows accountants.
posted by dw at 9:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dw at 9:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
His accountant is his own brain, and he is very smart at accounting.
posted by mochapickle at 9:19 PM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 9:19 PM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
For that, the returns just got 10 feet taller.
posted by dw at 9:21 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by dw at 9:21 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
In context, it's clear that the "#neverTrump is just as big a joke" comment is referring to prominent Republican politicians who said they would never support trump flipping once it became clear he was going to be the guy, not demeaning the larger movement that undoubtedly has some people who actually won't vote for him, but who also don't have anything to gain professionally by backing him.
That's what I was referring to. I'm sure there's some small percentage of rank and file Republicans who will sit home or even vote Clinton, and 87% vs 95% of otherwise unshakable Republican votes nationally is the difference between a small win and and a blowout.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's what I was referring to. I'm sure there's some small percentage of rank and file Republicans who will sit home or even vote Clinton, and 87% vs 95% of otherwise unshakable Republican votes nationally is the difference between a small win and and a blowout.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:22 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I heard the Mexican government pays his accountant's bill.
posted by dersins at 9:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 9:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump In 2011: I’ll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases His Birth Certificate
posted by kirkaracha at 10:15 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 10:15 PM on May 11, 2016
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I'm a bit touchy - Trump's very existence is starting to wear on the spot where the last nerve used to be, and there's definitely a lot of pressure on people who are involved at all with the local party to just suck it up and go Trump.
posted by corb at 10:19 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:19 PM on May 11, 2016 [15 favorites]
Trump In 2011: I’ll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases His Birth Certificate
Please, people in the press: ask him about this. Every time. Ask him every time.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Please, people in the press: ask him about this. Every time. Ask him every time.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Or, you know, just start calling him a huckster. Every time. That’s great too.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
You know, I don't miss much about the 80s, but man, right about now, I really miss Spy Magazine, and the valley of No fucks given from which it published.They constantly ridiculed Trump. Constantly. Cut him down to size and made him a laughable little clown. He's like poison ivy, this guy. If you can't get to the protest first, you have to just keep whacking it down until you can uproot it. He's just been allowed to grow unfettered, fertilized by the bullshit of talk radio, and photosyntheticly feeding on the media spotlight. He needs to be ridiculed to be kept in check. I miss Spy.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 10:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
“Gingrich doesn't rule out Trump VP role,” Steve Holland, Reuters, 11 May 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 11:35 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 11:35 PM on May 11, 2016
Or, you know, just start calling him a huckster. Every time. That’s great too.
Closer. I think there's a perfect slogan closer to "Trump is not a man of his word." His brand is having the guts to say the non-PC thing. The truth is, he panders rights and left, he's actually weak and calculating, the opposite of what he claims to be. And I think enough of that might really undermine the sense that he's something new.
He's just another politician, and not a very skilled one at that.
posted by msalt at 11:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Closer. I think there's a perfect slogan closer to "Trump is not a man of his word." His brand is having the guts to say the non-PC thing. The truth is, he panders rights and left, he's actually weak and calculating, the opposite of what he claims to be. And I think enough of that might really undermine the sense that he's something new.
He's just another politician, and not a very skilled one at that.
posted by msalt at 11:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
there's definitely a lot of pressure on people who are involved at all with the local party to just suck it up and go Trump.
I feel for ya. It's just...
If this situation were reversed, and we were forced to choose between a relatively predictable, middle-of-the-road, don't-burn-the-world-down Republican or a plainly unqualified, batshit, destructive loon of a Democrat, I wouldn't even blink at jumping ship. Seriously.
The whole notion of party loyalty is appalling. Party platforms shift over time, and the character of the party changes with its leadership. Given that, I can't understand devoting one's lifelong loyalty, y'know? At that point, you're only choosing a flag and no longer assigning it any real meaning. Mindless tribalism.
Presumably we have a lot of differences, corb, but I'm really glad to see you sticking to your senses and your independence in the face of all this madness. I hope to God we see a lot more of that out of more Republicans as this mess goes on.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:50 PM on May 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
I feel for ya. It's just...
If this situation were reversed, and we were forced to choose between a relatively predictable, middle-of-the-road, don't-burn-the-world-down Republican or a plainly unqualified, batshit, destructive loon of a Democrat, I wouldn't even blink at jumping ship. Seriously.
The whole notion of party loyalty is appalling. Party platforms shift over time, and the character of the party changes with its leadership. Given that, I can't understand devoting one's lifelong loyalty, y'know? At that point, you're only choosing a flag and no longer assigning it any real meaning. Mindless tribalism.
Presumably we have a lot of differences, corb, but I'm really glad to see you sticking to your senses and your independence in the face of all this madness. I hope to God we see a lot more of that out of more Republicans as this mess goes on.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:50 PM on May 11, 2016 [23 favorites]
NEWT GINGRICH IS GOING TO MAKE THE MEXICANS PAY FOR A MOON BASE
posted by XMLicious at 12:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 12:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Donald & Newt are going to make the Mexicans pay for their mistresses.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:38 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:38 AM on May 12, 2016
On the rural white suicide/overdose epidemic, and Trumpism: "Unnecessariat"
(Warning: very dark)
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 3:07 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
(Warning: very dark)
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 3:07 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
You can go ahead and add Dan Quayle to the list of Trumpettes
posted by sallybrown at 4:33 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 4:33 AM on May 12, 2016
If this situation were reversed, and we were forced to choose between a relatively predictable, middle-of-the-road, don't-burn-the-world-down Republican or a plainly unqualified, batshit, destructive loon of a Democrat, I wouldn't even blink at jumping ship. Seriously.
The problem is that the predictable, middle-of-the-road, don't-burn-the-world-down Democrat in this scenario has been built up by Republicans for decades as the Embodiment Of All Liberal Evil. When I look around social media I see as many Republicans talking about holding their noses and voting Trump to stop Hillary from destroying the republic as I see Democrats who are resigned to backing a candidate they're not enthusiastic about.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
The problem is that the predictable, middle-of-the-road, don't-burn-the-world-down Democrat in this scenario has been built up by Republicans for decades as the Embodiment Of All Liberal Evil. When I look around social media I see as many Republicans talking about holding their noses and voting Trump to stop Hillary from destroying the republic as I see Democrats who are resigned to backing a candidate they're not enthusiastic about.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
In an election season where I was wrong so much, I'm rather depressed about the one thing I was right on: #neverTrump turning out to be nothing. All the Republican leaders are now lining up to kiss his ass, the pundits who were previously saying he was a vile scumbag Fascist are now singing his praises, and in general it's exactly as I predicted. A few days of upset, followed by the Republican machine fully getting behind him, and most voters following.
I'm sure there are some who meant it, but nominating the most obscenely unqualified, authoritarian, openly racist, clearly unfit for the job candidate since, well, ever, has not turned most Republicans, either voters or elites, away from the Party.
#neverTrump has morphed into #voteRepublicanNoMatterWhat, and that's that. I wonder how many *actual* #neverTrump Republicans existed vs the (obviously much larger) number who just had a brief snit and then fell into line like the obedient Party types they always were?
posted by sotonohito at 6:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm sure there are some who meant it, but nominating the most obscenely unqualified, authoritarian, openly racist, clearly unfit for the job candidate since, well, ever, has not turned most Republicans, either voters or elites, away from the Party.
#neverTrump has morphed into #voteRepublicanNoMatterWhat, and that's that. I wonder how many *actual* #neverTrump Republicans existed vs the (obviously much larger) number who just had a brief snit and then fell into line like the obedient Party types they always were?
posted by sotonohito at 6:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
#neverTrumpexceptagainstHillary
#ohorexceptagainstSanders
#andIguessexceptagainstBidenifsomethingweirdhappens
#alsoofcourseexceptagainstObamabutwedontreallyneedtosaythatdowe
#fuckitIguessalwaysTrump
posted by Etrigan at 6:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
#ohorexceptagainstSanders
#andIguessexceptagainstBidenifsomethingweirdhappens
#alsoofcourseexceptagainstObamabutwedontreallyneedtosaythatdowe
#fuckitIguessalwaysTrump
posted by Etrigan at 6:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
Misogyny, racism allegations against Trump 'not true', Republican spin doctor says
TAKE THE TRUTHINESS, AMERICA.
TAKE IT!
posted by Mezentian at 6:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
TAKE THE TRUTHINESS, AMERICA.
TAKE IT!
posted by Mezentian at 6:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Man, that Unnecessariat piece has just made me understand why someone might vote Trump. I never will, but I can at least look at someone doing it without flailing and wanting to hurl things.
I wish that someone else would address the issues of rural poverty, but that's not where the votes are these days.
posted by corb at 6:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wish that someone else would address the issues of rural poverty, but that's not where the votes are these days.
posted by corb at 6:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
#NeverTrump really needs to get out from behind their gilded desks and find a 3rd candidate if they want to amount to anything. Not next month, now.
posted by aramaic at 6:28 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by aramaic at 6:28 AM on May 12, 2016
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please don't use racial slurs, even in an effort to show how gross people who use racial slurs are; please don't do "I hope that guy gets shot"; and please don't act like if one cares about race issues, one thereby can't care about class issues.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
So Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential candidate, just said in a Reddit AMA (thread) that between Trump and Clinton it is hard to tell who is the 'lesser evil' based on their actions and comments. Image link of comment. There is some good follow up for a reddit thread pointing out some flaws in that opinion, but it again points to how much the those on the left dislikes policies of the center/right Clinton Dems.
posted by anti social order at 7:01 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by anti social order at 7:01 AM on May 12, 2016
What makes Clinton center/right?
posted by defenestration at 7:06 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 7:06 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Read every other one of these threads for multiple conversations about that.
posted by Etrigan at 7:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 7:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I have. What makes her right of center?
posted by defenestration at 7:10 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by defenestration at 7:10 AM on May 12, 2016
Fighty things.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
And I am honestly not sealioning or trolling or something. I have honestly not seen the reasoning behind her being right of center; just the assertion.
posted by defenestration at 7:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 7:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Handwave Handwave donors WallStreet Iraq Handwave Handwave
posted by happyroach at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ah, so support of the mess in Iraq, you mean? OK, that makes sense I guess.
I dunno if I agree that it pushes a candidate to the right of center overall, though.
posted by defenestration at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016
I dunno if I agree that it pushes a candidate to the right of center overall, though.
posted by defenestration at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016
What makes Clinton center/right?
Hawkishness, corporate-and-trade-friendliness.
There are also many things which make her left: Support for women and minorities, support for abortion, support for universal healthcare.
We need at least a four-square grid to describe the wingedness of the remaining candidates in the race. The one spot that's empty is a candidate who loves free trade but hates minorities. Trump hates trade and hates minorities. Sanders hates trade and loves minorities. Clinton loves trade and loves minorities. No-one is left who loves trade and hates minorities.
Does that clear anything up?
posted by clawsoon at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hawkishness, corporate-and-trade-friendliness.
There are also many things which make her left: Support for women and minorities, support for abortion, support for universal healthcare.
We need at least a four-square grid to describe the wingedness of the remaining candidates in the race. The one spot that's empty is a candidate who loves free trade but hates minorities. Trump hates trade and hates minorities. Sanders hates trade and loves minorities. Clinton loves trade and loves minorities. No-one is left who loves trade and hates minorities.
Does that clear anything up?
posted by clawsoon at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
My guess: because the 'centre left' in the developed world are more Thatcher than Lenin.
And they are in the pocket of big business, and are not prepared to upset the status quo.
posted by Mezentian at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016
And they are in the pocket of big business, and are not prepared to upset the status quo.
posted by Mezentian at 7:15 AM on May 12, 2016
Do Sanders's views on and history with guns push him rightward on the spectrum?
If not, who decides what views on what issues determine that push toward past centrism to the right?
Is it that, regarding the political spectrum, that economics and war affect your standing above all?
Don't get me wrong: I don't think of Clinton as way to the left or something , and do consider Sanders to be more so, but I would classify Clinton as more centrist of center/left than center/right. Thanks for sharing why you see it differently.
posted by defenestration at 7:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
If not, who decides what views on what issues determine that push toward past centrism to the right?
Is it that, regarding the political spectrum, that economics and war affect your standing above all?
Don't get me wrong: I don't think of Clinton as way to the left or something , and do consider Sanders to be more so, but I would classify Clinton as more centrist of center/left than center/right. Thanks for sharing why you see it differently.
posted by defenestration at 7:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
seriously, read the old threads, man
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 7:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
OK, I have but I am obviously bothering people so I will stop trying to talk about this.
posted by defenestration at 7:25 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by defenestration at 7:25 AM on May 12, 2016
You've really got to hand it to Trump though. He wants to convince us he's such a tough negotiator, so he takes a strong position on not releasing his tax returns, then promptly, sort of, reverses himself after receiving a rebuke on Facebook from no less powerful a force than Mitt Romney. What's he going to do if the Chinese leadership criticizes him? Hand over the nuclear codes and offer to buy them a new island in the South China Sea?I want an ad that's nothing but Hillary Clinton reading zachlipton's comment and then saying "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message."
posted by Gelatin at 7:28 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have honestly not seen the reasoning behind her behind right of center; just the assertion.
There's no objective "center" in politics like there is in math. You can pick the "center" to be wherever you want along the political spectrum, and most people will pick a "center" that is relatively close to their own views. (There are various methodologies which attempt to quantify political positions and may be able to define a center within that methodology, but the choice of methodology itself is not an objective one.)
So, for some definitions of "center," Clinton is right of center. Personally, I am pretty far left of "center" as it is often used in wider political discourse in the US, but I am a bit right of "center" as it tends to be used on MeFi.
seriously, read the old threads, man
That's over 25000 comments. I understand that for those of you who have read every one of those comments, seeing the same discussion rehashed can be tedious, but I don't think it's fair to demand that MeFites who haven't read every single comment in every single previous election thread bow to the will of those who have.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:31 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
There's no objective "center" in politics like there is in math. You can pick the "center" to be wherever you want along the political spectrum, and most people will pick a "center" that is relatively close to their own views. (There are various methodologies which attempt to quantify political positions and may be able to define a center within that methodology, but the choice of methodology itself is not an objective one.)
So, for some definitions of "center," Clinton is right of center. Personally, I am pretty far left of "center" as it is often used in wider political discourse in the US, but I am a bit right of "center" as it tends to be used on MeFi.
seriously, read the old threads, man
That's over 25000 comments. I understand that for those of you who have read every one of those comments, seeing the same discussion rehashed can be tedious, but I don't think it's fair to demand that MeFites who haven't read every single comment in every single previous election thread bow to the will of those who have.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:31 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
> "So Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential candidate, just said in a Reddit AMA (thread) that between Trump and Clinton it is hard to tell who is the 'lesser evil' based on their actions and comments."
I hate to say it, since I agree with a lot of her positions, but that's pretty much the end of my respect for Jill Stein.
Anyone equating Clinton and the actual, no-shit-not-kidding crazy person running against her pretty much goes on my "I can safely ignore your thoughts on this" list.
posted by kyrademon at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [45 favorites]
I hate to say it, since I agree with a lot of her positions, but that's pretty much the end of my respect for Jill Stein.
Anyone equating Clinton and the actual, no-shit-not-kidding crazy person running against her pretty much goes on my "I can safely ignore your thoughts on this" list.
posted by kyrademon at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [45 favorites]
To repeat:
"Clinton is not now nor has she ever been a member of "the conservative wing of the Democratic Party." She's not even a centrist. She's not a free-enterpriser, either, although she's given her opinion at length about the positive effects of free trade. DW-NOMINATE rated her the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. "That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154)."
From the link:
"Some more numbers from the 110th Congress, to further help put things in perspective:
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
"Clinton is not now nor has she ever been a member of "the conservative wing of the Democratic Party." She's not even a centrist. She's not a free-enterpriser, either, although she's given her opinion at length about the positive effects of free trade. DW-NOMINATE rated her the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. "That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154)."
From the link:
"Some more numbers from the 110th Congress, to further help put things in perspective:
Oh, and a certain junior Senator from Illinois, Obama I think his name was? At -0.367, he ranked 23rd in the 110th Congress.""
Most liberal Dem 1 Sanders -0.523 11 CLINTON -0.391 Median Dem 33 Biden -0.331 Most conservative Dem 51 B. Nelson -0.035 Most liberal Rep 52 Specter 0.061 Median Rep 76 McConnell 0.409 Most conservative Rep 101 Coburn 0.809
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
Again, this is why I wish we had a wiki page where we could summarize the thinking across the 25K comments.
posted by dw at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dw at 7:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have honestly not seen the reasoning behind her being right of center; just the assertion.
I don't really understand how, if you have read the old threads and seen the assertions but nothing that you consider sufficient reasoning, that you cannot draw a conclusion from that. Will bullet points help?
posted by phearlez at 7:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't really understand how, if you have read the old threads and seen the assertions but nothing that you consider sufficient reasoning, that you cannot draw a conclusion from that. Will bullet points help?
- Some people assert HRC is right of center.
- They have shared what they consider proof of this fact
- You consider their proof incorrect or unpresuasive
- This has been discussed to death multiple times
- It is reasonable to conclude that after a half-dozen threads with thousands of comments each that there is not new information to be presented on the matter
posted by phearlez at 7:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, regarding Clinton's position on guns, Politifact looked into that in depth in December.
In 2008, she backed off her 2000 call for a national licensing and registration plan because it would "preempt" cities and states’ initiatives. But she also called for reinstating the assault weapons ban and better background checks for potential gun purchasers. This change in her stance led then-Candidate Obama to call her "Annie Oakley." (Conservative media has been making a big deal about this lately.) However, she has never been anti-gun control in her political career. She's been much more aggressive on the issue since Sandy Hook.
And yes, she's rated F by the NRA. She has a lower rating than Sanders.
posted by zarq at 7:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
In 2008, she backed off her 2000 call for a national licensing and registration plan because it would "preempt" cities and states’ initiatives. But she also called for reinstating the assault weapons ban and better background checks for potential gun purchasers. This change in her stance led then-Candidate Obama to call her "Annie Oakley." (Conservative media has been making a big deal about this lately.) However, she has never been anti-gun control in her political career. She's been much more aggressive on the issue since Sandy Hook.
And yes, she's rated F by the NRA. She has a lower rating than Sanders.
posted by zarq at 7:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
but I don't think it's fair to demand that MeFites who haven't read every single comment in every single previous election thread bow to the will of those who have.
Especially when people ignore someone who has clearly stated they HAVE read those threads and just continue on berating them to do so.
posted by agregoli at 7:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Especially when people ignore someone who has clearly stated they HAVE read those threads and just continue on berating them to do so.
posted by agregoli at 7:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do think the Unnecessariat makes some good points, but also misses something important.
For all that there may be some quiet, mostly behind the scenes, generally very wonkish and obscure, work being done to address the problems in the financial industry by Democrats, there isn't much being done to actually talk about economic issues in any realistic or narrative driven terms.
Clinton, whether or not it is factually true, is generally perceived as being on the side of Wall Street because she, like Obama, is very reluctant to actually name the enemy. And that is helping build the right wing populism we see today.
When the right is out there telling poor people that they know the source of the problem and will fix it, the fact that they're lying about the cause of the problem is largely irrelevant. The point is that the Right has a narrative here.
The nefarious enemy is liberals, environmentalists, feminists, immigrants, people of color, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc. Anyone, basically, who isn't a cis, white, straight, man, though the focus on exactly which nefarious enemy is at fault may shift daily they're all to blame ultimately.
The problem here is that there's no counternarrative. The Democrats are so terrified of being called Communists, and often so tied up with Wall Street and in agreement with wall street, that they won't produce a workable counternarrative.
Because any workable counternarrative will require truth. The only counternarrative that can possibly work is the honest one:
Look at how, in Greece, the Golden Dawn was (temporarily) blunted and their voters scattered by Alexis Tsipras getting out there and speaking the truth. That the people of Greece were being economically abused, but that it was the fault of the billionaires.
I am convinced that the American people are desperate to hear an actual call to class war. Trump, ironically, is sounding that call and he is being rewarded with votes and fervent support.
Every right wing populist/nationalist movement in all history has come about in an environment where the billionaires of the day were stealing all the money and the political Left lacked the will to clearly identify the enemy and do something about it. So the racist Right was able to identify a false enemy, mobilize the forces of populism, and take power.
While the Southern Strategy and the naked racism of the Right has been a large part of their power and growth, it has also been fueled by a total lack of narrative and action from the Left. The Southern Strategy only works if the Left is silent about the true causes of economic pain and thus allows the Right to take the field unchallenged.
I don't think the Democrats can bring over all the racist Republican votes. But I do think that by opening up a genuine counternarrative, they can take away the populist leaning but not deeply committed to racism votes. And I think there's a large number of those.
One huge part of what's the matter with Kansas is that those on the Left tend to take it as a sort of vague, nebulous, given that Democrats stand for economic progress, but it's always vague and nebulous rather than presented in a nice simple narrative.
That, much more than any actual policy, is why Sanders has such support and such fanatic support. Even if he and Clinton were completely identical when it comes to economic policy, Sanders shows that he understands narrative and that on a fundamental level he is recognizes that people need to be reassured that their political leaders recognize who the bad guys are and that they will call out the bad guys as such.
Clinton, even if in terms of policy she is pretty good, fundamentally shows that she likes Wall Street and doesn't want to admit that they're the enemy.
Trump couldn't have built the nationalist/populist movement he did without the total paralysis of the Democrats, their utter refusal to build a narrative and name the true villains of the economic catastrophe.
posted by sotonohito at 7:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [48 favorites]
For all that there may be some quiet, mostly behind the scenes, generally very wonkish and obscure, work being done to address the problems in the financial industry by Democrats, there isn't much being done to actually talk about economic issues in any realistic or narrative driven terms.
Clinton, whether or not it is factually true, is generally perceived as being on the side of Wall Street because she, like Obama, is very reluctant to actually name the enemy. And that is helping build the right wing populism we see today.
When the right is out there telling poor people that they know the source of the problem and will fix it, the fact that they're lying about the cause of the problem is largely irrelevant. The point is that the Right has a narrative here.
Things were good for you decent white Real Americans until the nefarious enemy showed up and stole your prosperity.That's it. Nice and simple. It's seldom stated quite so bluntly, but there's the core narrative that Trump and the other right wing populists use.
The nefarious enemy is liberals, environmentalists, feminists, immigrants, people of color, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc. Anyone, basically, who isn't a cis, white, straight, man, though the focus on exactly which nefarious enemy is at fault may shift daily they're all to blame ultimately.
The problem here is that there's no counternarrative. The Democrats are so terrified of being called Communists, and often so tied up with Wall Street and in agreement with wall street, that they won't produce a workable counternarrative.
Because any workable counternarrative will require truth. The only counternarrative that can possibly work is the honest one:
Things are getting worse, wages are down, healthcare costs more, and all expenses are up, and this is because the billionaires are hoarding all the money and stealing all the gains you have made in productivity.Again, it doesn't have to be quite that bluntly stated, but it'll work because unlike the lies from the Right this narrative is actually true. It can be demonstrated with facts and figures and graphs, but ultimately that's less important than the narrative simply existing.
Look at how, in Greece, the Golden Dawn was (temporarily) blunted and their voters scattered by Alexis Tsipras getting out there and speaking the truth. That the people of Greece were being economically abused, but that it was the fault of the billionaires.
I am convinced that the American people are desperate to hear an actual call to class war. Trump, ironically, is sounding that call and he is being rewarded with votes and fervent support.
Every right wing populist/nationalist movement in all history has come about in an environment where the billionaires of the day were stealing all the money and the political Left lacked the will to clearly identify the enemy and do something about it. So the racist Right was able to identify a false enemy, mobilize the forces of populism, and take power.
While the Southern Strategy and the naked racism of the Right has been a large part of their power and growth, it has also been fueled by a total lack of narrative and action from the Left. The Southern Strategy only works if the Left is silent about the true causes of economic pain and thus allows the Right to take the field unchallenged.
I don't think the Democrats can bring over all the racist Republican votes. But I do think that by opening up a genuine counternarrative, they can take away the populist leaning but not deeply committed to racism votes. And I think there's a large number of those.
One huge part of what's the matter with Kansas is that those on the Left tend to take it as a sort of vague, nebulous, given that Democrats stand for economic progress, but it's always vague and nebulous rather than presented in a nice simple narrative.
That, much more than any actual policy, is why Sanders has such support and such fanatic support. Even if he and Clinton were completely identical when it comes to economic policy, Sanders shows that he understands narrative and that on a fundamental level he is recognizes that people need to be reassured that their political leaders recognize who the bad guys are and that they will call out the bad guys as such.
Clinton, even if in terms of policy she is pretty good, fundamentally shows that she likes Wall Street and doesn't want to admit that they're the enemy.
Trump couldn't have built the nationalist/populist movement he did without the total paralysis of the Democrats, their utter refusal to build a narrative and name the true villains of the economic catastrophe.
posted by sotonohito at 7:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [48 favorites]
So, I like the Greens conceptually, but Jill Stein is wackadoo, pants on head, insane. Can we all agree on this?
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Clinton, even if in terms of policy she is pretty good, fundamentally shows that she likes Wall Street and doesn't want to admit that they're the enemy.
Clinton was also the senator for New York, which happens to represent Wall Street; it would be really strange if her career had been built on completely destroying it.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton was also the senator for New York, which happens to represent Wall Street; it would be really strange if her career had been built on completely destroying it.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Going To Maine It doesn't even require a commitment to destroying Wall Street, just an open recognition that they're the problem.
And if that's a hard and/or impossible thing for a Senator from New York to do, then I'd say now is not the time for a Senator from New York to be the national face of the Democrats.
This year she'll win. Things aren't quite bad enough yet for nationalist populism to really win. Yet. In 2020 I'd be a lot more worried about Trump or someone like him.
posted by sotonohito at 8:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
And if that's a hard and/or impossible thing for a Senator from New York to do, then I'd say now is not the time for a Senator from New York to be the national face of the Democrats.
This year she'll win. Things aren't quite bad enough yet for nationalist populism to really win. Yet. In 2020 I'd be a lot more worried about Trump or someone like him.
posted by sotonohito at 8:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, the right is running on xenophobia and fear of the other. I almost feel like there's some desire on the left to make "people who work at banks" the other, in the same slot as minorities/foreigners/LGBT on the right, and that doesn't really work. The enemy can't really be "banks" on the left the way it's "others" on the right.
posted by zutalors! at 8:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
>rated her the 11th most liberal member of the Senate
That's like being the 11th biggest shrimp.
posted by anti social order at 8:05 AM on May 12, 2016
That's like being the 11th biggest shrimp.
posted by anti social order at 8:05 AM on May 12, 2016
That's like being the 11th biggest shrimp.
OR LIKE THE 11TH MOST CRAYONY CRAYON IN A BOX OF THINGS THAT AREN'T CRAYONS AMIRITE
posted by dersins at 8:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
OR LIKE THE 11TH MOST CRAYONY CRAYON IN A BOX OF THINGS THAT AREN'T CRAYONS AMIRITE
posted by dersins at 8:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
zutalors!: The enemy can't really be "banks" on the left the way it's "others" on the right.
That seems like an odd thing to say, and I'd be curious to know how I'm misunderstanding you. "The banks" have been a reliable "enemy other" for pretty much the entire history of populist leftism, from William Jennings Bryan through FDR to Occupy Wall Street. (They've also been a reliable "enemy other" for populist rightism and racism.) Why can't they "really" be an other?
posted by clawsoon at 8:11 AM on May 12, 2016
That seems like an odd thing to say, and I'd be curious to know how I'm misunderstanding you. "The banks" have been a reliable "enemy other" for pretty much the entire history of populist leftism, from William Jennings Bryan through FDR to Occupy Wall Street. (They've also been a reliable "enemy other" for populist rightism and racism.) Why can't they "really" be an other?
posted by clawsoon at 8:11 AM on May 12, 2016
sotonohito: "Going To Maine It doesn't even require a commitment to destroying Wall Street, just an open recognition that they're the problem."
She has. Her financial plan was released last October. Here's a NY Times analysis. She's also discussed her plans to make changes to regulation and oversight of the financial industry. She mentioned some of those points in the Daily News interview. And the Newsday interview. And has discussed it in multiple speeches and other interviews. And in answers to debate questions. There's a page on her site about her plan.
If you disagree with its specific points or think it doesn't go too far etc., then by all means make those arguments. There are arguments to be made!
But for fuck's sake how many fucking times does the fucking candidate have to talk about her fucking financial plan before we fucking drop the fucking canard that she doesn't fucking have one or is somehow afraid of taking on fucking banks?
posted by zarq at 8:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [29 favorites]
She has. Her financial plan was released last October. Here's a NY Times analysis. She's also discussed her plans to make changes to regulation and oversight of the financial industry. She mentioned some of those points in the Daily News interview. And the Newsday interview. And has discussed it in multiple speeches and other interviews. And in answers to debate questions. There's a page on her site about her plan.
If you disagree with its specific points or think it doesn't go too far etc., then by all means make those arguments. There are arguments to be made!
But for fuck's sake how many fucking times does the fucking candidate have to talk about her fucking financial plan before we fucking drop the fucking canard that she doesn't fucking have one or is somehow afraid of taking on fucking banks?
posted by zarq at 8:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [29 favorites]
Because working at a bank is not an ethnic identity. It's not a one to one replacement. And there are actual issues and policies at work wrt bank regulation, and people who work at banks are often interested in discussing those.
It's not like Muslims are out there being like 'Yeah, what is really going on here?' despite what Trump says.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 AM on May 12, 2016
It's not like Muslims are out there being like 'Yeah, what is really going on here?' despite what Trump says.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 AM on May 12, 2016
Clinton, whether or not it is factually true, is generally perceived as being on the side of Wall Street because she, like Obama, is very reluctant to actually name the enemy.
I get that people like "naming enemies" but I think this fundamentally misunderstands Clinton's (and Obama's) politics. Not their specific positions but how they approach politics. Both of them at their core believe in plurality and that all Americans are Americans. This includes "Wall Street robber barons". They don't generally demonize or essentialize in that (negative) way because it's not helpful or fair (no wealthy financier is going to see the error of their ways because you called them evil). They are also fundamentally structuralist thinkers. People are all similar and react to the incentives provided. You change the structure - the incentives - not shame individuals.
posted by R343L at 8:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
I get that people like "naming enemies" but I think this fundamentally misunderstands Clinton's (and Obama's) politics. Not their specific positions but how they approach politics. Both of them at their core believe in plurality and that all Americans are Americans. This includes "Wall Street robber barons". They don't generally demonize or essentialize in that (negative) way because it's not helpful or fair (no wealthy financier is going to see the error of their ways because you called them evil). They are also fundamentally structuralist thinkers. People are all similar and react to the incentives provided. You change the structure - the incentives - not shame individuals.
posted by R343L at 8:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
Jill Stein is wackadoo, pants on head, insane.Is she really? Or do you just disagree with her on this one particular issue? Because if I were asked to come up with a list of things I would consider "wackadoo, pants on head insane," it would include: targeted drone assassination, mass surveillance, endless war in the Middle East, bank bailouts, pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at other nations, wanton water wastage, and a consumer-economy and fossil-fuel-led sixth extinction that may indeed see the end of human civilization as we know it.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Jill Stein's comment about Hillary Clinton on Mother's Day was out of line and ridiculous.
Also, Bernie Sanders supports the drone program.
posted by zutalors! at 8:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, Bernie Sanders supports the drone program.
posted by zutalors! at 8:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is she really?
Kinda, yeah. But, as you point out, a lot of people are kinda wackadoo, so
posted by dersins at 8:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kinda, yeah. But, as you point out, a lot of people are kinda wackadoo, so
posted by dersins at 8:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
zutalors!: Because working at a bank is not an ethnic identity. It's not a one to one replacement. And there are actual issues and policies at work wrt bank regulation, and people who work at banks are often interested in discussing those.
Hmm. That's a good point. But I'm not sure that the Othering is typically about the individual people who work at banks (with some notable exceptions). It is, in a roundabout way, a recognition of the corporate personhood of banks: Even if most of the people who work at banks are decent people, the Vampire Squid has an evil, otherable being of its own, separate from most of the people who work there.
posted by clawsoon at 8:25 AM on May 12, 2016
Hmm. That's a good point. But I'm not sure that the Othering is typically about the individual people who work at banks (with some notable exceptions). It is, in a roundabout way, a recognition of the corporate personhood of banks: Even if most of the people who work at banks are decent people, the Vampire Squid has an evil, otherable being of its own, separate from most of the people who work there.
posted by clawsoon at 8:25 AM on May 12, 2016
More people seem to care about Clinton as a symbol than about what Clinton actually has to say. She represents this or she represents that, but her actual voice is more or less erased from a lot of these conversations.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:26 AM on May 12, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:26 AM on May 12, 2016 [28 favorites]
angrycat: Ew
Welp, that didn't take long.
posted by clawsoon at 8:28 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Welp, that didn't take long.
posted by clawsoon at 8:28 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I was just talking to someone about this today, who was like "it'll be great when she starts talking about policy."
I was like - what? she has been talking about policy.
Also, she is the only candidate who has mentioned equal pay and other rights for women in every single post primary vote speech, win or lose.
Women's rights still feels like a very far left position to me, though I know it doesn't seem that way to a lot of people, and I appreciate her steadfast commitment to it.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I was like - what? she has been talking about policy.
Also, she is the only candidate who has mentioned equal pay and other rights for women in every single post primary vote speech, win or lose.
Women's rights still feels like a very far left position to me, though I know it doesn't seem that way to a lot of people, and I appreciate her steadfast commitment to it.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Even if most of the people who work at banks are decent people, the Vampire Squid has an evil, otherable being of its own, separate from most of the people who work there.
I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that putting Banks in the position of a demonized Other doesn't work as well as putting minorities in that slot does for the right - it's a less strictly emotional and simple seeming idea.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 AM on May 12, 2016
I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that putting Banks in the position of a demonized Other doesn't work as well as putting minorities in that slot does for the right - it's a less strictly emotional and simple seeming idea.
posted by zutalors! at 8:31 AM on May 12, 2016
For those on the very very far left, the Clinton record would indeed look like it's to the right. However, this actually isn't so much about Hillary Clinton's own record so much as it's railing against the party itself; my friend in the Green Party was saying things like this about Obama. He's one of my best friends, but we have learned that he and I simply cannot discuss politics, because the two worst fights we've ever had have been on the topic of "WHAT INSANE TROLL LOGIC ARE YOU USING TO ARRIVE AT THE CLAIM THAT OBAMA IS JUST AS BAD AS MITT ROMNEY", and we've just permanently tabled that. It is what it is; he's just super, super left, and I'm not.
But this really is about the party perspective itself, and not about Clinton personally. You could have, like, a potted plant running on the Democratic ticket and these same arguments would still be put forth.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
But this really is about the party perspective itself, and not about Clinton personally. You could have, like, a potted plant running on the Democratic ticket and these same arguments would still be put forth.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
zutalors!: I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that putting Banks in the position of a demonized Other doesn't work as well as putting minorities in that slot does for the right - it's a less strictly emotional and simple seeming idea.
A good point, partly because banks are only widely hated during economic crises, while minorities stay minorities all the time. Is that part of what you were driving at?
posted by clawsoon at 8:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
A good point, partly because banks are only widely hated during economic crises, while minorities stay minorities all the time. Is that part of what you were driving at?
posted by clawsoon at 8:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
> is somehow afraid of taking on fucking banks?
This is wrong. She's proposing some moderate regulatory increases. She is not pushing for them to be broken up or to re-implement glass-steagall. That would be "taking on the fucking banks".
posted by anti social order at 8:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
This is wrong. She's proposing some moderate regulatory increases. She is not pushing for them to be broken up or to re-implement glass-steagall. That would be "taking on the fucking banks".
posted by anti social order at 8:38 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I had an unpleasant surprise recently when I was chatting to some old lefty buddies about my fight against Trump, thinking it'd be nice common ground, and got hit with "Are you insane? Trump is way better than Clinton" and then I pulled my parachute ripcord and exited the conversation.
posted by corb at 8:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
"Hillary Clinton says she called for Wall Street regulations early in the financial crisis" Politifact rating: True
posted by zarq at 8:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
"While the financial crisis came to a head in summer 2008, problems with housing started to bubble up in 2007 during Clinton’s ill-fated presidential primary campaign. On the trail, Clinton addressed these nascent issues -- particularly the mortgage crisis -- as early as March of that year.
Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people were ignoring warning signs.
"The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street," Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families."
She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent foreclosures.
In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals, and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders.
"I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here.’ "
It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these policies in September 2007.
The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in Iowa. (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.)
"We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out. Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments. Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply because the securities they own are worth less than they thought."
In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution.
And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."
This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according to the New York Times.
At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections.
After becoming secretary of state in 2009, Clinton made noticeably fewer comments on domestic policy and financial regulation. But the record shows that establishing policies to address the then-nascent financial crisis was a key point of her campaign platform in 2007 and 2008.
posted by zarq at 8:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
... putting Banks in the position of a demonized Other doesn't work as well as putting minorities in that slot does for the right - it's a less strictly emotional and simple seeming idea.I don't know. For those deep in debt, paying extortionate interest rates, humiliated by running out of credit, being pursued by letters and phone calls and bailiffs, that is to say, an ever increasing number of desperate people—I think banks (and the finance industry in general) are perfectly capable of assuming the role of a frightening, demonised other.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:41 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is wrong. She's proposing some moderate regulatory increases. She is not pushing for them to be broken up or to re-implement glass-steagall. That would be "taking on the fucking banks".
I completely agree that the larger banks should be broken up and that Glass-Steagall should be re-implemented. I also think we need to stop subsidizing them. But that's not what I was addressing in my comment.
posted by zarq at 8:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I completely agree that the larger banks should be broken up and that Glass-Steagall should be re-implemented. I also think we need to stop subsidizing them. But that's not what I was addressing in my comment.
posted by zarq at 8:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know. For those deep in debt, paying extortionate interest rates, humiliated by running out of credit, being pursued by letters and phone calls and bailiffs, that is to say, an ever increasing number of desperate people—I think banks (and the finance industry in general) are perfectly capable of assuming the role of a frightening, demonised other.
This is missing the point. It's not working as well as demonizing minorities works on the right. A lot of those people you describe are perfectly happy to blame minorities for their financial problems.
posted by zutalors! at 8:45 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is missing the point. It's not working as well as demonizing minorities works on the right. A lot of those people you describe are perfectly happy to blame minorities for their financial problems.
posted by zutalors! at 8:45 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The whole notion of party loyalty is appalling. Party platforms shift over time, and the character of the party changes with its leadership. Given that, I can't understand devoting one's lifelong loyalty, y'know? At that point, you're only choosing a flag and no longer assigning it any real meaning. Mindless tribalism.
But that's basically what most Republican support is. As driven from the top of the RNC, it's not about a sober contemplation of the issues, and it's certainly not about people voting for their own self-interest (or the interests of society at large). For the past several decades, Republican ideology has been built on ignoring facts and stoking fear of the Other. It's been about mindless tribalism for the most part for my entire life.
#neverTrump has morphed into #voteRepublicanNoMatterWhat, and that's that.
I think everyone predicted that. Some outliers who actually won't vote for him, sure, but the vast majority of the party will fall into line.
Again, this is why I wish we had a wiki page where we could summarize the thinking across the 25K comments.
Mefi Wiki
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
But that's basically what most Republican support is. As driven from the top of the RNC, it's not about a sober contemplation of the issues, and it's certainly not about people voting for their own self-interest (or the interests of society at large). For the past several decades, Republican ideology has been built on ignoring facts and stoking fear of the Other. It's been about mindless tribalism for the most part for my entire life.
#neverTrump has morphed into #voteRepublicanNoMatterWhat, and that's that.
I think everyone predicted that. Some outliers who actually won't vote for him, sure, but the vast majority of the party will fall into line.
Again, this is why I wish we had a wiki page where we could summarize the thinking across the 25K comments.
Mefi Wiki
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Again, this is why I wish we had a wiki page where we could summarize the thinking across the 25K comments.
In sum: butts lmao
posted by entropicamericana at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In sum: butts lmao
posted by entropicamericana at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I had an unpleasant surprise recently when I was chatting to some old lefty buddies about my fight against Trump, thinking it'd be nice common ground, and got hit with "Are you insane? Trump is way better than Clinton" and then I pulled my parachute ripcord and exited the conversation.
Were these lefty buddies male perchance?
posted by Talez at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Were these lefty buddies male perchance?
posted by Talez at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
they usually are, in my experience.
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's complicated, because Wall Street is an actual system of financial institutions that are regulated (and not regulated) in particular ways, but Wall Street is also a kind of code for "scary outside influences over which I have no control" in a way that does not simply refer to those particular financial institutions. I was talking to a relative recently who was convinced that Bernie Sanders was an anti-Semite, which was totally perplexing to me. (And to be honest, it remains totally perplexing to me, but my relative's politics are kind of a mystery as far as I'm concerned.) But where he lives, "Wall Street" is often used as a synonym for "the Jews." That language doesn't come from the left, typically, and it doesn't come from people who have actual proposals to reform the financial system. It comes from the kind of people who used to put up David Duke signs in their yards.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
I am convinced that the American people are desperate to hear an actual call to class war. Trump, ironically, is sounding that call and he is being rewarded with votes and fervent support.
From a certain perspective I can see it, but that's the thing with Trump. The guy's lenticular. One angle it's class warfare. But you turn your head, walk a couple of feet, it's xenophobia. Then it's anti-establishment/anti-government. Anti-political correctness. White Nationalism. Men's Rights.
There's an extent of people projecting what they want to see. I guess it's another way to put that people think he's not going to do certain things, but believe he will do others. For me, the only thing I think that Trump is proof of is that charisma, anger, and the finger of blame are a winning combination.
posted by FJT at 8:52 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
From a certain perspective I can see it, but that's the thing with Trump. The guy's lenticular. One angle it's class warfare. But you turn your head, walk a couple of feet, it's xenophobia. Then it's anti-establishment/anti-government. Anti-political correctness. White Nationalism. Men's Rights.
There's an extent of people projecting what they want to see. I guess it's another way to put that people think he's not going to do certain things, but believe he will do others. For me, the only thing I think that Trump is proof of is that charisma, anger, and the finger of blame are a winning combination.
posted by FJT at 8:52 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Welp, that didn't take long.
this is my surprised face i had no idea the party would unite behind trump like that because they're all honorable men
posted by lord_wolf at 8:52 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
this is my surprised face i had no idea the party would unite behind trump like that because they're all honorable men
posted by lord_wolf at 8:52 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: For those on the very very far left, the Clinton record would indeed look like it's to the right. However, this actually isn't so much about Hillary Clinton's own record so much as it's railing against the party itself; my friend in the Green Party was saying things like this about Obama.
I'd be curious to know if this is a disagreement about which dimensions of "left" are most important to someone, rather than "how far left" someone is. Are you more left-wing than your friend about one or two things?
Your point (and others) about the image people have of Clinton that's divorced from what she actually says is a good one. It worries me for the election, since Clinton is great at details and Trump is great at getting people to ignore details.
(Also, is it just me, or does every single president since Reagan go further to the right the instant they're elected? It's like they take them into a briefing room, pin their eyes open and show them the world collapsing in chaos, and they come out ten points to the right.)
posted by clawsoon at 8:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'd be curious to know if this is a disagreement about which dimensions of "left" are most important to someone, rather than "how far left" someone is. Are you more left-wing than your friend about one or two things?
Your point (and others) about the image people have of Clinton that's divorced from what she actually says is a good one. It worries me for the election, since Clinton is great at details and Trump is great at getting people to ignore details.
(Also, is it just me, or does every single president since Reagan go further to the right the instant they're elected? It's like they take them into a briefing room, pin their eyes open and show them the world collapsing in chaos, and they come out ten points to the right.)
posted by clawsoon at 8:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'd be curious to know if this is a disagreement about which dimensions of "left" are most important to someone, rather than "how far left" someone is. Are you more left-wing than your friend about one or two things?
Yeah, this is my question too generally - for me something like abortion rights blows any thought of supporting a Republican to watch the world burn or even demonizing Democrats a whole lot right out of the water.
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is missing the point. It's not working as well as demonizing minorities works on the right.Again, I don't know about that! One of the most bizarre black swans of this election was seeing a previously obscure 70-something politician hoover up a ton of the Democratic vote and run the establishment candidate rather closer than expected on the basis of just such an argument. And polling suggests he would've comfortably seen off Trump's nativism in the general as well. The point for me is that, the New New Deal, anti-bank, anti-finance-industry argument has only just started to enter the mainstream and it appears to have a remarkable degree of potential cross-party support (among actual voters, that is, rather than party representatives). Why not pursue that programme further and see where it leads?
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Has any serious thought been given to the idea that the protests against Trump had the exact opposite effect than was intended? This has been bothering the hell out of me lately. It's like the political equivalent of "Parental Advisory" stickers on Gangsta Rap albums.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why not pursue that programme further and see where it leads?
sure, let's do that.
posted by zutalors! at 9:02 AM on May 12, 2016
sure, let's do that.
posted by zutalors! at 9:02 AM on May 12, 2016
zarq My point was that when it comes to rhetoric, not action, Clinton is failing.
It'd be nice to think that policy was the real important part, and you certainly have to have good policy on the back end to make things work. But when it comes to drumming up support and getting out votes, rhetoric and narrative are critical. They aren't everything, but they are critical.
And Clinton is fundamentally incapable of weaving a narrative about the billionaires being at fault for the economy. She may well have a perfectly fine plan and policy that addresses the problem, but that's not going to get anyone fired up.
This is why, despite Sanders falling down in interviews when he tries (and fails miserably) to talk specifics he's perceived as the better candidate on these matters. Because it isn't the policy that's most important when it comes to that perception, it's the narrative and the rhetoric.
Sanders is out there saying that the economy is messed up because the billionaire looter class is stealing all the money. Because of that his weakness when it comes to talking actual policy is largely irrelevant.
Clinton is out there saying, literally, "Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild." That narrative, that Wall Street is basically ok and just needs some wonkish policy adjustments, is simply not an effective counter to Trumpism.
People think in terms of stories. And the Right has a really easy, simple, story to tell about the economy. The story is total fiction, but that's not hugely important.
The Left needs a story, a true story, to counter the Right's story and Clinton won't, or can't, produce that narrative. Policy proposals aren't what I'm talking about here.
posted by sotonohito at 9:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
It'd be nice to think that policy was the real important part, and you certainly have to have good policy on the back end to make things work. But when it comes to drumming up support and getting out votes, rhetoric and narrative are critical. They aren't everything, but they are critical.
And Clinton is fundamentally incapable of weaving a narrative about the billionaires being at fault for the economy. She may well have a perfectly fine plan and policy that addresses the problem, but that's not going to get anyone fired up.
This is why, despite Sanders falling down in interviews when he tries (and fails miserably) to talk specifics he's perceived as the better candidate on these matters. Because it isn't the policy that's most important when it comes to that perception, it's the narrative and the rhetoric.
Sanders is out there saying that the economy is messed up because the billionaire looter class is stealing all the money. Because of that his weakness when it comes to talking actual policy is largely irrelevant.
Clinton is out there saying, literally, "Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild." That narrative, that Wall Street is basically ok and just needs some wonkish policy adjustments, is simply not an effective counter to Trumpism.
People think in terms of stories. And the Right has a really easy, simple, story to tell about the economy. The story is total fiction, but that's not hugely important.
The Left needs a story, a true story, to counter the Right's story and Clinton won't, or can't, produce that narrative. Policy proposals aren't what I'm talking about here.
posted by sotonohito at 9:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'd much rather see a campaign that focuses on policy and GOTV. The liberal "narrative" is never going to be able to compete with the right-wing narrative, because the latter can go for the gut and lizard brain in a way that the former can't without chucking out the principles that make them liberals in the first place. And lord help us, the answer here isn't to find the right people to "demonize."
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sonny Jim: Why not pursue that programme further and see where it leads?
After FDR was elected, banks (and rich people in general) freaked out about what they feared he was going to do and pulled their money out of the economy even more dramatically than they had done after the 1929 Crash, crippling the economy even further and extending the Depression. Some of it was fear, and some of it was calculated spite.
They'll do that again if they're threatened seriously enough. That's the power they hold. They know it, and we know it. People aren't willing to go through that in order to reduce the power of the banks unless things are already so unbelievably shitty for a majority of the population that living through another plutocrat-enhanced Great Depression seems like a reasonable long-term option. Right now there is a sizable chunk going through shittiness that bad, but, like farmers in 1896, there just aren't enough of them.
posted by clawsoon at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
After FDR was elected, banks (and rich people in general) freaked out about what they feared he was going to do and pulled their money out of the economy even more dramatically than they had done after the 1929 Crash, crippling the economy even further and extending the Depression. Some of it was fear, and some of it was calculated spite.
They'll do that again if they're threatened seriously enough. That's the power they hold. They know it, and we know it. People aren't willing to go through that in order to reduce the power of the banks unless things are already so unbelievably shitty for a majority of the population that living through another plutocrat-enhanced Great Depression seems like a reasonable long-term option. Right now there is a sizable chunk going through shittiness that bad, but, like farmers in 1896, there just aren't enough of them.
posted by clawsoon at 9:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually kind of liked 2008's "Hope & Change" and even 2012's "Forward".
posted by FJT at 9:09 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by FJT at 9:09 AM on May 12, 2016
I'd much rather see a campaign that focuses on policy and GOTV. The liberal "narrative" is never going to be able to compete with the right-wing narrative, because the latter can go for the gut and lizard brain in a way that the former can't without chucking out the principles that make them liberals in the first place. And lord help us, the answer here isn't to find the right people to "demonize."
Exactly. I'm not sure what was so hard to understand about what I was saying, but it was pretty much this - the right uses xenophobia to control and convince, and the left seems to want to use that model but insert banks, and that doesn't really work and despite BUT BERNIE SANDERS it still hasn't really gotten any traction.
posted by zutalors! at 9:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Exactly. I'm not sure what was so hard to understand about what I was saying, but it was pretty much this - the right uses xenophobia to control and convince, and the left seems to want to use that model but insert banks, and that doesn't really work and despite BUT BERNIE SANDERS it still hasn't really gotten any traction.
posted by zutalors! at 9:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In another victory for #neverTrump, Paul Ryan is coming around to Trump, as long as Trump drops his opposition to Ryan's reason for existence, slashing Social Security and Medicare. Which, cmon, of course Trump will cave on.
We're going to get the worst of all worlds, a Trump who will agree to literally everything proposed by the hate radio fever swamp, as well as the long time goals of the donor class he needs to fund his general election. Personhood and bathroom bills, means tests and budget cuts, oh my.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
We're going to get the worst of all worlds, a Trump who will agree to literally everything proposed by the hate radio fever swamp, as well as the long time goals of the donor class he needs to fund his general election. Personhood and bathroom bills, means tests and budget cuts, oh my.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
prize bull octorok I would argue that narrative and GOTV are inseperable. I'm a total politics geek and I'll get out there in November and vote Clinton no matter what because while she's hardly perfect from my view she's not awful and I'll vote for just about anyone with a D after their name simply due to the Supreme Court.
But people who are like me are few and far between and the majority need a narrative to get them off their lazy butts and to the voting booth.
And it isn't as if Clinton or the Left in general have a problem weaving narratives on non-economic matters. Look at how successful they are with talking abortion rights narratives, or gay rights narratives, and using those to drive GOTV efforts.
I'm not arguing that the Democrats should abandon policy and wonkery and go for nothing but narrative. I'm arguing that they need a narrative to hang that policy and wonkery on so it has an emotional appeal for the less policy motivated people.
Even if the narrative can't match the Right's for sheer visceral appeal, it needs to be there and it needs to be towards the front.
You've got to have a solid basis in policy, but without some narrative to sell it the best policy will just languish.
If Clinton would get out there with some fighting words it'd help tremendously both in terms of the general election and in terms of the perception (regardless of its truth) of her as someone weak on billionaires.
posted by sotonohito at 9:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
But people who are like me are few and far between and the majority need a narrative to get them off their lazy butts and to the voting booth.
And it isn't as if Clinton or the Left in general have a problem weaving narratives on non-economic matters. Look at how successful they are with talking abortion rights narratives, or gay rights narratives, and using those to drive GOTV efforts.
The Right wants to bring us back to a time of dangerous back alley abortions that kill womenNow there's a narrative that works. It gets people off their duff and into the voting booth.
I'm not arguing that the Democrats should abandon policy and wonkery and go for nothing but narrative. I'm arguing that they need a narrative to hang that policy and wonkery on so it has an emotional appeal for the less policy motivated people.
Even if the narrative can't match the Right's for sheer visceral appeal, it needs to be there and it needs to be towards the front.
You've got to have a solid basis in policy, but without some narrative to sell it the best policy will just languish.
If Clinton would get out there with some fighting words it'd help tremendously both in terms of the general election and in terms of the perception (regardless of its truth) of her as someone weak on billionaires.
posted by sotonohito at 9:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
In another victory for #neverTrump, Paul Ryan is coming around to Trump, as long as Trump drops his opposition to Ryan's reason for existence, slashing Social Security and Medicare. Which, cmon, of course Trump will cave on.
“cave” is not the right word for describing Trump changing a stated position, especially since he is beyond capable of having both all and none of these positions at the same time.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
“cave” is not the right word for describing Trump changing a stated position, especially since he is beyond capable of having both all and none of these positions at the same time.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
zutalors!, it's gotten enough traction that Sanders came within a smidge of winning the nomination. Seriously, how the fuck is this not obvious?
Sanders, a dude with no charisma at all, with no looks or TV presence at all, with very little money, came out of fucking nowhere and came within 200 delegates of winning the Democratic nomination.
All that he had against the entire might of the Democratic establishment, and a politician like Clinton who ran a fantastic campaign and who has a lot of support and political clout, was the narrative. And it was **ALMOST** enough to win. Not quite, but so close it should shake the Democratic establishment to its core and have them falling all over themselves figuring out how he did it and how they can copy it.
And instead they, like you, are trying to pretend that somehow it didn't happen. That some how, despite decades of steady loss in the Senate and House and state and local elections, doing more of the same will turn things around.
Look, I'm not here to scream that Sanders is the best and that Clinton sucks. Forget about that, please.
I'm here to say that there are extremely valuable lessons to learn from the Sanders campaign, and one is that narrative is critical, so critical he came amazingly close to beating Clinton, and that if the Democrats in general want to win for a change they need to learn the lesson of Sanders.
Because let's face it, Sanders was a shitty candidate. He had exactly one thing going for him, and that was his narrative. And if a candidate as awful as Sanders can come so close to victory with that narrative, just imagine what it can do with a candidate as good as Clinton.
My point here is not that Clinton is awful or in bed with the banks or that I hate her. My point is that there is a giant fucking learning opportunity here and that she, and you, and the Democratic establishment in general seems perversely obsessed with missing it.
And I am fucking terrified by this because I see a Fascist future looming, and I see the Democrats as the only possible chance we have of avoiding it, and I see them pissing away every opportunity they have to avert it. I see, in fact, the Democrats perversely fueling the Fascist future by steadfastly refusing to provide what I think is the single hope we have: a class war based narrative which acknowledges the truth that the billionaires are stealing all the money.
Look at the rise of the Golden Dawn in Greece, and how quickly they were scattered and defeated by a person wielding a true narrative of class warfare.
Mussolini, Hitler, Trump, and all the others like them rise because a large number of people feel (justifiably) economically hopeless and they offer a false, racist, hope.
I want Clinton to win, I want her to succeed, not just now but in 2020, and I want the Democrats in general to win and succeed, and I do not think that repeating the same bloodless, empty, wonkish bullshit they've been losing on for my entire life is going to suddenly start winning.
posted by sotonohito at 9:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [44 favorites]
Sanders, a dude with no charisma at all, with no looks or TV presence at all, with very little money, came out of fucking nowhere and came within 200 delegates of winning the Democratic nomination.
All that he had against the entire might of the Democratic establishment, and a politician like Clinton who ran a fantastic campaign and who has a lot of support and political clout, was the narrative. And it was **ALMOST** enough to win. Not quite, but so close it should shake the Democratic establishment to its core and have them falling all over themselves figuring out how he did it and how they can copy it.
And instead they, like you, are trying to pretend that somehow it didn't happen. That some how, despite decades of steady loss in the Senate and House and state and local elections, doing more of the same will turn things around.
Look, I'm not here to scream that Sanders is the best and that Clinton sucks. Forget about that, please.
I'm here to say that there are extremely valuable lessons to learn from the Sanders campaign, and one is that narrative is critical, so critical he came amazingly close to beating Clinton, and that if the Democrats in general want to win for a change they need to learn the lesson of Sanders.
Because let's face it, Sanders was a shitty candidate. He had exactly one thing going for him, and that was his narrative. And if a candidate as awful as Sanders can come so close to victory with that narrative, just imagine what it can do with a candidate as good as Clinton.
My point here is not that Clinton is awful or in bed with the banks or that I hate her. My point is that there is a giant fucking learning opportunity here and that she, and you, and the Democratic establishment in general seems perversely obsessed with missing it.
And I am fucking terrified by this because I see a Fascist future looming, and I see the Democrats as the only possible chance we have of avoiding it, and I see them pissing away every opportunity they have to avert it. I see, in fact, the Democrats perversely fueling the Fascist future by steadfastly refusing to provide what I think is the single hope we have: a class war based narrative which acknowledges the truth that the billionaires are stealing all the money.
Look at the rise of the Golden Dawn in Greece, and how quickly they were scattered and defeated by a person wielding a true narrative of class warfare.
Mussolini, Hitler, Trump, and all the others like them rise because a large number of people feel (justifiably) economically hopeless and they offer a false, racist, hope.
I want Clinton to win, I want her to succeed, not just now but in 2020, and I want the Democrats in general to win and succeed, and I do not think that repeating the same bloodless, empty, wonkish bullshit they've been losing on for my entire life is going to suddenly start winning.
posted by sotonohito at 9:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [44 favorites]
She represents this or she represents that, but her actual voice is more or less erased from a lot of these conversations.
Which you know, happens all the time to women. And the men who do it, generally don't even consider themselves sexist.
If Clinton would get out there with some fighting words it'd help tremendously
Why bother, when what she actually says, will be replaced by what men think she said? You might as well go ahead and invent that narrative yourself.
posted by happyroach at 9:31 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Which you know, happens all the time to women. And the men who do it, generally don't even consider themselves sexist.
If Clinton would get out there with some fighting words it'd help tremendously
Why bother, when what she actually says, will be replaced by what men think she said? You might as well go ahead and invent that narrative yourself.
posted by happyroach at 9:31 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'd much rather see a campaign that focuses on policy and GOTV.Well, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a recipe for ... November 2000. The Gore campaign showed what happens when you go up against proudly stupid with "now here's a detailed policy breakdown."
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
“cave” is not the right word for describing Trump changing a stated position
That's true, and why I think Mitch McConnell's vision of the Trump presidency is probably the right one. It doesn't really matter what he says, he'll sign/support whatever crap comes out of the GOP Congress, including every repeal of the New Deal and drowning of [insert agency here] on the billionaire wishlists; plus he'll wield the 'bully pulpit' to flog whatever insanity is the topic of the day on FOX/hateradio and create a direct pipeline from Alex Jones and Rush to duly passed legislation.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's true, and why I think Mitch McConnell's vision of the Trump presidency is probably the right one. It doesn't really matter what he says, he'll sign/support whatever crap comes out of the GOP Congress, including every repeal of the New Deal and drowning of [insert agency here] on the billionaire wishlists; plus he'll wield the 'bully pulpit' to flog whatever insanity is the topic of the day on FOX/hateradio and create a direct pipeline from Alex Jones and Rush to duly passed legislation.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump couldn't have built the nationalist/populist movement he did without the total paralysis of the Democrats, their utter refusal to build a narrative and name the true villains of the economic catastrophe.
and
The Left needs a story, a true story, to counter the Right's story and Clinton won't, or can't, produce that narrative. Policy proposals aren't what I'm talking about here.
I think you can look at that "Unnecessariat" piece and see a lot of the issue that dems are going to have going up against the republicans on the economic issues. The folks who are hurting and being sucked in by this nationalism/othering stuff have bought into decades of narrative that painted any government assistance as giveaways and signs that you're a horrible person (never mind that you paid for that help with your taxes).
I mean, this is a message from someone who is nominally leftish but was conflicted on their primary vote and included chunks like this:
The facts on the ground are pretty hard to dispute. The last sane-ish person standing in the republican primaries was someone who slashed a bunch of other programs in Ohio, a non-negligible number of them benefiting white folks. I'm not sure how democrats stay true to their values and drop pointing out when this stuff disproportionately impacts PoC, even if that likely is harming them. But even if you made that racist impact go away, how do you counter this erroneous belief that people at that level are suffering because the government is transferring their wealth away?
What narrative based on truth - and I am assuming we care if it's truthful - counters that? Because it really feels like the problem is that these folks consider programs to help them being floated to be an offensive/insulting one because they've been told it's filthy dirty welfare, and for some non-zero number of them it's offensive because PoC benefit from it too. So on the one side we have real programs that actually exist, but are tainted. On the other we have magical faerie dust that's never going to actually accomplish something because immigration and welfare programs aren't what actually harms these folks.
I would love to hear the narrative that counters this without policy proposals. I'm not sure there is one beyond "those people are lying to you."
posted by phearlez at 9:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
and
The Left needs a story, a true story, to counter the Right's story and Clinton won't, or can't, produce that narrative. Policy proposals aren't what I'm talking about here.
I think you can look at that "Unnecessariat" piece and see a lot of the issue that dems are going to have going up against the republicans on the economic issues. The folks who are hurting and being sucked in by this nationalism/othering stuff have bought into decades of narrative that painted any government assistance as giveaways and signs that you're a horrible person (never mind that you paid for that help with your taxes).
I mean, this is a message from someone who is nominally leftish but was conflicted on their primary vote and included chunks like this:
Over at hipcrime they’re blaming automation, but in my experience in flyover country, white folks are predictably blaming everyone of color for their plight. That’s a bigger issue than I can talk about here, but in brief I disagree with (and hate) the argument that a white sense of economic disenfranchisement is somehow separable from a racial narrative. It isn’t. Rural white people, in my (ethnographic) experience, see their economic circumstances as a result of the rich/the government taking “their” stuff and giving it to the “undeserving,” which is as racially marked a definition as exists in the American vernacular. We can talk about this later.Put aside the fact that this is kind of a big thing to talk about "later" in the subject of the piece. This is basically the core issue in reaching these voters - communicating who actually wants to do some things for them. From my perspective it's pretty clear which party is, overall, interested in doing things for the poor. (Even if it requires some higher earners paying some more, that is, which seems to be the differentiator; I do not remotely doubt all republicans would love to help the poor, just so long as it doesn't actually cost anyone any money.)
The facts on the ground are pretty hard to dispute. The last sane-ish person standing in the republican primaries was someone who slashed a bunch of other programs in Ohio, a non-negligible number of them benefiting white folks. I'm not sure how democrats stay true to their values and drop pointing out when this stuff disproportionately impacts PoC, even if that likely is harming them. But even if you made that racist impact go away, how do you counter this erroneous belief that people at that level are suffering because the government is transferring their wealth away?
What narrative based on truth - and I am assuming we care if it's truthful - counters that? Because it really feels like the problem is that these folks consider programs to help them being floated to be an offensive/insulting one because they've been told it's filthy dirty welfare, and for some non-zero number of them it's offensive because PoC benefit from it too. So on the one side we have real programs that actually exist, but are tainted. On the other we have magical faerie dust that's never going to actually accomplish something because immigration and welfare programs aren't what actually harms these folks.
I would love to hear the narrative that counters this without policy proposals. I'm not sure there is one beyond "those people are lying to you."
posted by phearlez at 9:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mitch McConnell's vision of the Trump presidency is probably the right one. It doesn't really matter what he says, he'll sign/support whatever crap comes out of the GOP Congress
I agree with this prediction.
posted by Gelatin at 9:37 AM on May 12, 2016
I agree with this prediction.
posted by Gelatin at 9:37 AM on May 12, 2016
sotonohito, you said you want a simple narrative like the right has a simple narrative. And I guess you think Sanders had success making Banks as scary for his voters as Trump made Muslims/Mexicans? I disagree with that. I'm not pretending or anything.
I think that the reason policy and details is the strategy Democrats go with is that it's more successful for change at all levels within our structure. I don't see why we need to emulate the low level fear mongering of the Right but with different targets.
posted by zutalors! at 9:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that the reason policy and details is the strategy Democrats go with is that it's more successful for change at all levels within our structure. I don't see why we need to emulate the low level fear mongering of the Right but with different targets.
posted by zutalors! at 9:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a recipe for ... November 2000. The Gore campaign showed what happens when you go up against proudly stupid with "now here's a detailed policy breakdown."
You're not going to flip the proudly stupid by being proudly stupider.
And a little more GOTV on his campaign's part might have put Florida in the bag.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
You're not going to flip the proudly stupid by being proudly stupider.
And a little more GOTV on his campaign's part might have put Florida in the bag.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
>Has any serious thought been given to the idea that the protests against Trump had the exact opposite effect than was intended?
The alt-right is all over that angle, and videos like this one of people violently attacking Trump supporters is absolute gold to them. I've not seen the issue mentioned by the left.
posted by anti social order at 9:44 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The alt-right is all over that angle, and videos like this one of people violently attacking Trump supporters is absolute gold to them. I've not seen the issue mentioned by the left.
posted by anti social order at 9:44 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
And a little more GOTV on his campaign's part might have put Florida in the bag.
One factor from the 2000 election that won't apply to this race is that Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton won't do that; while this narrative might not appeal to the more idealistic voters, she will indicate her presidency will continue Barack Obama's legacy. And Obama will no doubt campaign for her, and be welcomed, not shunned, by the Clinton campaign.
And why not? Obama is wildly popular among Democrats, and indeed popular generally.
posted by Gelatin at 9:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
One factor from the 2000 election that won't apply to this race is that Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton won't do that; while this narrative might not appeal to the more idealistic voters, she will indicate her presidency will continue Barack Obama's legacy. And Obama will no doubt campaign for her, and be welcomed, not shunned, by the Clinton campaign.
And why not? Obama is wildly popular among Democrats, and indeed popular generally.
posted by Gelatin at 9:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Michael A. Cohen: Dear liberals, stop panicking over Trump
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have to say I don't really like that kind of protest generally, whether against Trump or Sanders or Clinton or Obama.
posted by zutalors! at 9:47 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 9:47 AM on May 12, 2016
Does anyone else feel that we've entered a post-truth world? Ten, fifteen years ago, the sorts of factual errors (and outright lies) that Trump repeats incessantly would have been called out by the press. But there's a sick relationship between network television and the Trump campaign - they're afraid to alienate him because Trump means ratings, and if they call him out on his shit, he'll freeze them out. No more interviews, no more press at his events. So all the other networks will suck up their viewers because CBS or whoever can't deliver first-degree Trump anymore.
How does this get fixed?
posted by stolyarova at 9:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
How does this get fixed?
posted by stolyarova at 9:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mitch McConnell's vision of the Trump presidency is probably the right one. It doesn't really matter what he says, he'll sign/support whatever crap comes out of the GOP Congress
Basically what Norquist said four years ago, "All we need is someone who can 'handle a pen'"
posted by octothorpe at 9:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Basically what Norquist said four years ago, "All we need is someone who can 'handle a pen'"
posted by octothorpe at 9:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ten, fifteen years ago, the sorts of factual errors (and outright lies) that Trump repeats incessantly would have been called out by the press.
I remember George W. Bush's presidency, and Ronald Reagan's. I disagree.
posted by Gelatin at 9:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [26 favorites]
I remember George W. Bush's presidency, and Ronald Reagan's. I disagree.
posted by Gelatin at 9:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [26 favorites]
(That said, the point about Trump being good for ratings is a solid one, and the mainstream media is deathly afraid of being accused of liberal bias, despite the fact that they inevitably will be whenever they report facts inconvenient to the conservative narrative.)
posted by Gelatin at 9:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Gelatin at 9:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sometimes simple narratives are true. The message that corporations and rich people financing elections and getting away with wrecking the economy has proven to be effective in galvanizing a lot of people in this country on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic party needs to recognize that and embrace it, rather than doubling down and saying things like "America is already great".
And let's not start equating the demonization of Wall Street to the demonization of minorities. They are in no way equivalent.
posted by kyp at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
And let's not start equating the demonization of Wall Street to the demonization of minorities. They are in no way equivalent.
posted by kyp at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
zutalors!, it's gotten enough traction that Sanders came within a smidge of winning the nomination. Seriously, how the fuck is this not obvious?
I think we should maybe be able to agree that this is a contested notion.
Proportionality of delegates has kept things dragging out, but to go on 538’s projected per-state delegate targets, Clinton has hit 33 out of 46 of her marks, while Sanders has hit 20, and he has garnered effectively nil establishment support in the form of endorsements.
Without a doubt, Sanders has changed the tone of the conversation, has set a new high-water mark for the impact of small donors, and has got a bunch of fresh hot blood into toe process. He’s succeeding in many ways despite the lack of support rather than for it. But it’s going to be hard to argue that despite those amazing successes he was actually close to winning. Outperforming expectations, even amazingly, doesn’t mean that you’re close to the winner’s circle.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think we should maybe be able to agree that this is a contested notion.
Proportionality of delegates has kept things dragging out, but to go on 538’s projected per-state delegate targets, Clinton has hit 33 out of 46 of her marks, while Sanders has hit 20, and he has garnered effectively nil establishment support in the form of endorsements.
Without a doubt, Sanders has changed the tone of the conversation, has set a new high-water mark for the impact of small donors, and has got a bunch of fresh hot blood into toe process. He’s succeeding in many ways despite the lack of support rather than for it. But it’s going to be hard to argue that despite those amazing successes he was actually close to winning. Outperforming expectations, even amazingly, doesn’t mean that you’re close to the winner’s circle.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Reagan was known as the "Teflon President" for good reason.
posted by Superplin at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 9:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders, a dude with no charisma at all, with no looks or TV presence at all, with very little money, came out of fucking nowhere and came within 200 delegates of winning the Democratic nomination.
Emphasis added. I am very much not saying "Sanders supporters are misogynist," and I am very much not denying that a lot of people have very real policy/political objections to Clinton's platform and record, but it is an enormous error to pretend this is just a coincidence.
posted by dersins at 9:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Emphasis added. I am very much not saying "Sanders supporters are misogynist," and I am very much not denying that a lot of people have very real policy/political objections to Clinton's platform and record, but it is an enormous error to pretend this is just a coincidence.
posted by dersins at 9:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're not going to flip the proudly stupid by being proudly stupider.No, but you might have a better chance if you don't talk to them like you think they're stupid, irredeemable bigots. Counter-intuitive, I know! This is something Azealea Banks was getting at this week, but we decided to disregard her too apparently because she's a homophobe. But this is the issue: you can't pre-emptively sift your potential voters into deserving and undeserving categories, target only the deserving ones, and expect to win a sizable constituency. People understandably resent seeing a set of moral calipers come out. The great advantage of economic arguments is that you get beyond moral disagreements and can start putting together larger coalitions based on shared needs and interests. Start with Maslow's hierarchy of needs and build from there.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I remember George W. Bush's presidency, and Ronald Reagan's. I disagree.
Maybe the problem is that I haven't lived long enough to see those administrations as a functioning adult. I was still in high school when GWB got elected the first time, and only got interested in politics around 2008, after Obama's election.
That said, Nixon was impeached for the kind of wiretapping that the NSA now does routinely, to everyone, not just official political opponents. Dan Quayle basically exploded his political career by misspelling "potato." Lesser sins have sunk greater men than Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 9:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe the problem is that I haven't lived long enough to see those administrations as a functioning adult. I was still in high school when GWB got elected the first time, and only got interested in politics around 2008, after Obama's election.
That said, Nixon was impeached for the kind of wiretapping that the NSA now does routinely, to everyone, not just official political opponents. Dan Quayle basically exploded his political career by misspelling "potato." Lesser sins have sunk greater men than Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 9:58 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
One thing about policy details is that they're not sexy or interesting to a lot of people. They are to us, but we're here on a website discussing these things precisely because we're interested in those things and more importantly, we mostly understand them. A not insignificant amount of our country don't really care about the details, they just want to feel like they're being heard and sympathized with. Trump is doing that, both by what he says but also by how he says it. When Clinton talks, a lot of people just hear the "whom whom whom" voice of adults in Peanuts cartoons.
I think what Clinton has to say is SO important, but if you're not terribly interested in how the sausage is made, just whether you get some or not, you're going to stop listening to her and will listen to the guy who just barfs out whatever he feels.
I really hope somehow she is able to find her voice that is able to hit those emotional spots in the less informed voter, because that's really where I think this election is going to be won.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think what Clinton has to say is SO important, but if you're not terribly interested in how the sausage is made, just whether you get some or not, you're going to stop listening to her and will listen to the guy who just barfs out whatever he feels.
I really hope somehow she is able to find her voice that is able to hit those emotional spots in the less informed voter, because that's really where I think this election is going to be won.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is something Azealea Banks was getting at this week, but we decided to disregard her too apparently because she's a homophobe.
I would disregard Azealia Banks because she is a fool. But then, perhaps that’s the point.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I would disregard Azealia Banks because she is a fool. But then, perhaps that’s the point.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
One factor from the 2000 election that won't apply to this race is that Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton.
Yeah, from my perspective as a 2000 voter that was my issue with Gore. I was someone who voted for Clinton both times but was - hey this sounds familiar - repeatedly disappointed by what I felt like were failures to stand up for liberal principles I cared about. I'd been angry about DADT and the failure to enact any health care reform. While I'd been happy with some stuff I wanted more. So when Gore distanced himself from Clinton in the other direction, and picks a running mate who has just recently shook his sabre at Hollywood telling them to clean up their act or we'll clean it up for you - bringing back all those PMRC memories - well no surprise you lose the people who wanted more left, not less.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, from my perspective as a 2000 voter that was my issue with Gore. I was someone who voted for Clinton both times but was - hey this sounds familiar - repeatedly disappointed by what I felt like were failures to stand up for liberal principles I cared about. I'd been angry about DADT and the failure to enact any health care reform. While I'd been happy with some stuff I wanted more. So when Gore distanced himself from Clinton in the other direction, and picks a running mate who has just recently shook his sabre at Hollywood telling them to clean up their act or we'll clean it up for you - bringing back all those PMRC memories - well no surprise you lose the people who wanted more left, not less.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, Sanders has no charisma? WTF? He's hella likeable! I like him! His supporters LOVE him!
you can't pre-emptively sift your potential voters into deserving and undeserving categories, target only the deserving ones, and expect to win a sizable constituency.
Okay? This is pretty far from any argument I was making. I just think it's a mistake for Clinton to try to out-demagogue Trump. It's not her wheelhouse, and I think she's much better off firing up and turning out the people who vote in favor of stuff like, say, good policy, and not being a horrible racist, instead of trying to find One Cool Trick to peel off some of the resentful white people. I will be happy to see her implement policies that will benefit those people once she's president, but I don't think she needs to pander to people who are rallying to Trump because they think Mexicans are stealing their jobs and PC culture has run amok.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
you can't pre-emptively sift your potential voters into deserving and undeserving categories, target only the deserving ones, and expect to win a sizable constituency.
Okay? This is pretty far from any argument I was making. I just think it's a mistake for Clinton to try to out-demagogue Trump. It's not her wheelhouse, and I think she's much better off firing up and turning out the people who vote in favor of stuff like, say, good policy, and not being a horrible racist, instead of trying to find One Cool Trick to peel off some of the resentful white people. I will be happy to see her implement policies that will benefit those people once she's president, but I don't think she needs to pander to people who are rallying to Trump because they think Mexicans are stealing their jobs and PC culture has run amok.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
When Clinton talks, a lot of people just hear the "whom whom whom" voice of adults in Peanuts cartoons.
She is much better one on one, and has lots of videos on her FB of her hearing people's individual stories and engaging with them. She makes sure to drop some policy in her answers as well.
It's the introvert approach to campaigning.
posted by zutalors! at 10:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
She is much better one on one, and has lots of videos on her FB of her hearing people's individual stories and engaging with them. She makes sure to drop some policy in her answers as well.
It's the introvert approach to campaigning.
posted by zutalors! at 10:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is basically the core issue in reaching these voters - communicating who actually wants to do some things for them. From my perspective it's pretty clear which party is, overall, interested in doing things for the poor. (Even if it requires some higher earners paying some more, that is, which seems to be the differentiator; I do not remotely doubt all republicans would love to help the poor, just so long as it doesn't actually cost anyone any money.)
This is so fucking heartbreaking, because it's not just about "communicating who actually wants to do some things for them." If it were that easy, don't you think it'd already be done? The problem is that no one wants to do things that they personally find value in for them.
It's not just about higher earners paying more. It's 100% not. It's about what is being done, and whether it falls into the category of "help" or "charity", which is a function that from my perspective, Democrats in particular have shown zero interest in differentiating, because they just don't care. It's not a meaningful axis to them, so they don't bother explore it, so you have people suffering, agonizing, in grinding, awful poverty, because they can't be arsed to offer a lifeline people will actually take, and then they sit smug about what idiots the sufferers are.
And then we get Trump, because no one is bothering to offer a program people will actually take and feel good about. You can't just give people what they perceive to be charity and then tell them to feel good about it. You have to offer a way they can still contribute and feel they're bringing in the food.
posted by corb at 10:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is so fucking heartbreaking, because it's not just about "communicating who actually wants to do some things for them." If it were that easy, don't you think it'd already be done? The problem is that no one wants to do things that they personally find value in for them.
It's not just about higher earners paying more. It's 100% not. It's about what is being done, and whether it falls into the category of "help" or "charity", which is a function that from my perspective, Democrats in particular have shown zero interest in differentiating, because they just don't care. It's not a meaningful axis to them, so they don't bother explore it, so you have people suffering, agonizing, in grinding, awful poverty, because they can't be arsed to offer a lifeline people will actually take, and then they sit smug about what idiots the sufferers are.
And then we get Trump, because no one is bothering to offer a program people will actually take and feel good about. You can't just give people what they perceive to be charity and then tell them to feel good about it. You have to offer a way they can still contribute and feel they're bringing in the food.
posted by corb at 10:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
People understandably resent seeing a set of moral calipers come out.
But isn't that what the Republicans do now and have been doing for my entire generation? The morality police have taken over and set the narratives about who is deserving according to certain pull quotes from the bible. That's pretty much been the basis of all the othering going on, that some people are morally righteous and deserving and the rest of you don't meet those standards so go fuck yourselves.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:06 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
But isn't that what the Republicans do now and have been doing for my entire generation? The morality police have taken over and set the narratives about who is deserving according to certain pull quotes from the bible. That's pretty much been the basis of all the othering going on, that some people are morally righteous and deserving and the rest of you don't meet those standards so go fuck yourselves.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:06 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, I guess my concern is if the Democrats match the anger in hating banks and billionaires as much as the Republicans and their hate on women, minorities, etc. Are we actually harnessing that anger and energy annd redirecting it, or are we simply going to add to it and see it slowly build up like that slime in Ghostbusters 2.
One of my old thoughts back in the early primary days would be a candidate or platform in the future that combines parts of the Trump and Sanders platform. Because as ridiculous as it sounds, I don't see it inherently incompatible to hate government AND minorities. To hate billionaires AND women. Trump is already in some ways like that.
posted by FJT at 10:07 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of my old thoughts back in the early primary days would be a candidate or platform in the future that combines parts of the Trump and Sanders platform. Because as ridiculous as it sounds, I don't see it inherently incompatible to hate government AND minorities. To hate billionaires AND women. Trump is already in some ways like that.
posted by FJT at 10:07 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually kind of liked 2008's "Hope & Change" and even 2012's "Forward".
definitely better than 2016's "1000 Years of the Fourth Reich"
posted by poffin boffin at 10:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
definitely better than 2016's "1000 Years of the Fourth Reich"
posted by poffin boffin at 10:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
zutalors!, it's gotten enough traction that Sanders came within a smidge of winning the nomination. Seriously, how the fuck is this not obvious?
We actually know two things.
We know that Sanders did far better than expected, and that he said those things.
But it doesn't follow, without more evidence, that he did far better than expected because he said those things. Unfortunately, even looking at what people said motivated them won't be much help, because people tend to rationalize their choices after the fact. We won't really have a good handle on what the actual attraction to Sanders was until we have access to the individual-level data and can start ruling out theories on the basis of their other observable implications.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
We actually know two things.
We know that Sanders did far better than expected, and that he said those things.
But it doesn't follow, without more evidence, that he did far better than expected because he said those things. Unfortunately, even looking at what people said motivated them won't be much help, because people tend to rationalize their choices after the fact. We won't really have a good handle on what the actual attraction to Sanders was until we have access to the individual-level data and can start ruling out theories on the basis of their other observable implications.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not just about higher earners paying more. It's 100% not. It's about what is being done, and whether it falls into the category of "help" or "charity", which is a function that from my perspective, Democrats in particular have shown zero interest in differentiating, because they just don't care. It's not a meaningful axis to them, so they don't bother explore it, so you have people suffering, agonizing, in grinding, awful poverty, because they can't be arsed to offer a lifeline people will actually take, and then they sit smug about what idiots the sufferers are.
Plenty of us on the left care about this categorization, but the people you have supported for the last twenty years have deliberately muddied the definition, making it a battle not just to keep the programs alive but also to define them accurately. Unemployment insurance is something people pay into - they buy it with their own wages. It is inherently not a handout or charity. Yet you constantly have people who want to insist they'll never take it. Why? Because the definition has been tainted.
I agree, this is a tragic and frustrating thing. But if you're really not on board this party-above-all support-Trump thing then maybe you want to stop also buying into this narrative of sneering liberals who just don't care and call people dumb thing. Trump is offering magical do-nothing pixie dust for these people's problems. You're complaining about the language someone is using in inviting people onto the lifeboat.
posted by phearlez at 10:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Plenty of us on the left care about this categorization, but the people you have supported for the last twenty years have deliberately muddied the definition, making it a battle not just to keep the programs alive but also to define them accurately. Unemployment insurance is something people pay into - they buy it with their own wages. It is inherently not a handout or charity. Yet you constantly have people who want to insist they'll never take it. Why? Because the definition has been tainted.
I agree, this is a tragic and frustrating thing. But if you're really not on board this party-above-all support-Trump thing then maybe you want to stop also buying into this narrative of sneering liberals who just don't care and call people dumb thing. Trump is offering magical do-nothing pixie dust for these people's problems. You're complaining about the language someone is using in inviting people onto the lifeboat.
posted by phearlez at 10:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's not just about higher earners paying more. It's 100% not. It's about what is being done, and whether it falls into the category of "help" or "charity", which is a function that from my perspective, Democrats in particular have shown zero interest in differentiating, because they just don't care. It's not a meaningful axis to them, so they don't bother explore it, so you have people suffering, agonizing, in grinding, awful poverty, because they can't be arsed to offer a lifeline people will actually take, and then they sit smug about what idiots the sufferers are.
Uh no actually, it is the party that you support that has been steadily chipping away at benefits that everyone pays into, and that has been tainting the social safety net with notions of being a 'freeloader.' Stop pretending that anyone except Republicans are responsible for those things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Uh no actually, it is the party that you support that has been steadily chipping away at benefits that everyone pays into, and that has been tainting the social safety net with notions of being a 'freeloader.' Stop pretending that anyone except Republicans are responsible for those things.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Unemployment insurance is something people pay into - they buy it with their own wages. It is inherently not a handout or charity
It's not a job. It's money they give you for doing nothing. Even if you did pay into it in roughly equivalent amount to the amount you would use, there's no pride in taking unemployment insurance. You can't come home at the end of the day and say "My sweat, my brain power, bought this meat on this table."
You could do that with a jobs program that paid the same as unemployment insurance, but worked you 30 hours a week with an additional 10 spent job seeking. It could even cost the same, and bring productive things to our country. It could even be funded the same. But it would be worlds apart. Just like having a daycare, a physical daycare, where your kids can go for free, while you are in this jobs program, is worlds apart from them giving you money for daycare.
Because someone opposes handing out money, doesn't mean they oppose services for the poor. For many people, the act of receiving actually money without labor in exchange is inherently a handout or charity. That's not because of 'Republican messaging', it's because of structural cultural differences.
posted by corb at 10:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's not a job. It's money they give you for doing nothing. Even if you did pay into it in roughly equivalent amount to the amount you would use, there's no pride in taking unemployment insurance. You can't come home at the end of the day and say "My sweat, my brain power, bought this meat on this table."
You could do that with a jobs program that paid the same as unemployment insurance, but worked you 30 hours a week with an additional 10 spent job seeking. It could even cost the same, and bring productive things to our country. It could even be funded the same. But it would be worlds apart. Just like having a daycare, a physical daycare, where your kids can go for free, while you are in this jobs program, is worlds apart from them giving you money for daycare.
Because someone opposes handing out money, doesn't mean they oppose services for the poor. For many people, the act of receiving actually money without labor in exchange is inherently a handout or charity. That's not because of 'Republican messaging', it's because of structural cultural differences.
posted by corb at 10:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
it's because of structural cultural differences
No it is not. It's because of a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of those benefits.
posted by zutalors! at 10:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
No it is not. It's because of a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of those benefits.
posted by zutalors! at 10:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's money they give you for doing nothing.
It's cashing in on a bet that you wouldn't lose your job.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
It's cashing in on a bet that you wouldn't lose your job.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [27 favorites]
I'd be curious to know if this is a disagreement about which dimensions of "left" are most important to someone, rather than "how far left" someone is. Are you more left-wing than your friend about one or two things?
--
Yeah, this is my question too generally - for me something like abortion rights blows any thought of supporting a Republican to watch the world burn or even demonizing Democrats a whole lot right out of the water.
I've been thinking about this, actually, and I think it's actually only partly left-v.-center; my friend was actually bemoaning not being able to vote in the NY Democratic primary, because he would have voted for Sanders. And we both agree on just about every liberal social policy.
Where we differ is more a matter of zeal, I think. I'm less than impressed with Clinton's economic record too, to be honest (okay, yeah, she supported penalizing the banks at first, but didn't do quite enough to advance that cause as I would have liked before giving in), but I'm willing to accept an imperfect candidate that supports most of my causes, and my friend is more of an all-or-nothing sort of guy. He and I also absolutely agree that having more than just two parties would be a much, much better thing for the country all around; but I've accepted that this is the kind of sweeping change that just plain isn't going to happen overnight, and you need to also watch out for things in the short-term, even if that means voting for an imperfect candidate so as not to prevent, like, Satan from getting in. But here, too, my friend is more all-or-nothing.
So it may be more about that. My willingness to sacrifice a few battles in order to win the longer war definitely puts me in more of a centrist place than his all-or-nothing nature puts him. But the world needs both kinds of people, I think, so it's fine.
I also tend to look at my primary vote as a way of influencing the general tone of the party; I don't think a single one of my primary choices has made it to the candidacy ever. I voted for Sanders this time, and in 2008 I voted for Chris Dodd; hell, I think in 1992 I voted for Tsongas in the primary. If they'd gone on to win, it'd have been great; but I was reasonably sure that the odds were long for all of them, and I was seeing my vote as a message to the eventual winner that "this guy's message is important to me, so consider that fact when you are preparing your own policy in the future." So I'm a Sanders supporter as far as the primary goes, because I greatly prefer his stance on the economy; but when it comes to a Clinton V. Trump match, no fucking contest.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
--
Yeah, this is my question too generally - for me something like abortion rights blows any thought of supporting a Republican to watch the world burn or even demonizing Democrats a whole lot right out of the water.
I've been thinking about this, actually, and I think it's actually only partly left-v.-center; my friend was actually bemoaning not being able to vote in the NY Democratic primary, because he would have voted for Sanders. And we both agree on just about every liberal social policy.
Where we differ is more a matter of zeal, I think. I'm less than impressed with Clinton's economic record too, to be honest (okay, yeah, she supported penalizing the banks at first, but didn't do quite enough to advance that cause as I would have liked before giving in), but I'm willing to accept an imperfect candidate that supports most of my causes, and my friend is more of an all-or-nothing sort of guy. He and I also absolutely agree that having more than just two parties would be a much, much better thing for the country all around; but I've accepted that this is the kind of sweeping change that just plain isn't going to happen overnight, and you need to also watch out for things in the short-term, even if that means voting for an imperfect candidate so as not to prevent, like, Satan from getting in. But here, too, my friend is more all-or-nothing.
So it may be more about that. My willingness to sacrifice a few battles in order to win the longer war definitely puts me in more of a centrist place than his all-or-nothing nature puts him. But the world needs both kinds of people, I think, so it's fine.
I also tend to look at my primary vote as a way of influencing the general tone of the party; I don't think a single one of my primary choices has made it to the candidacy ever. I voted for Sanders this time, and in 2008 I voted for Chris Dodd; hell, I think in 1992 I voted for Tsongas in the primary. If they'd gone on to win, it'd have been great; but I was reasonably sure that the odds were long for all of them, and I was seeing my vote as a message to the eventual winner that "this guy's message is important to me, so consider that fact when you are preparing your own policy in the future." So I'm a Sanders supporter as far as the primary goes, because I greatly prefer his stance on the economy; but when it comes to a Clinton V. Trump match, no fucking contest.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not a job. It's money they give you for doing nothing.
I've been on unemployment, and actively seeking employment -- and being able to prove it -- is a precondition for it, at least here in Indiana.
Furthermore, it's insurance that is paid for as a benefit of my actual employment, just as sick leave and medical insurance is. If I were to take a sick day in order to get treatment under my employer's health insurance plan, that wouldn't be "money they give you for doing nothing." Neither is unemployment.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
I've been on unemployment, and actively seeking employment -- and being able to prove it -- is a precondition for it, at least here in Indiana.
Furthermore, it's insurance that is paid for as a benefit of my actual employment, just as sick leave and medical insurance is. If I were to take a sick day in order to get treatment under my employer's health insurance plan, that wouldn't be "money they give you for doing nothing." Neither is unemployment.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
I think arguing the liberal case for social welfare programs is kind of missing corb's point here
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
So why haven't the Republicans created just such a jobs program? Also, unemployment insurance means that someone lost their job and it wasn't their fault. A lot of people put their pride away when it comes to feeding their kids while they look for another job.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
So why haven't the Republicans created just such a jobs program?
Because a) It would have to be funded by taxation and 2) still be perceived as a benefit going to the undeserving. But mostly a.
posted by Gelatin at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Because a) It would have to be funded by taxation and 2) still be perceived as a benefit going to the undeserving. But mostly a.
posted by Gelatin at 10:27 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Just like having a daycare, a physical daycare, where your kids can go for free, while you are in this jobs program, is worlds apart from them giving you money for daycare.
I totally agree with you, but this also sounds like worlds away from anything the Rs have ever proposed to anyone. That daycare is state-run, and the money can be used to get your kids into daycare in the private sector.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:28 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I totally agree with you, but this also sounds like worlds away from anything the Rs have ever proposed to anyone. That daycare is state-run, and the money can be used to get your kids into daycare in the private sector.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:28 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
So, I guess my concern is if the Democrats match the anger in hating banks and billionaires as much as the Republicans and their hate on women, minorities, etc. Are we actually harnessing that anger and energy annd redirecting it, or are we simply going to add to it and see it slowly build up like that slime in Ghostbusters 2.
I think if that sort of populist anger can be used to push the party elites into adopting policies in order to appease that anger, then it will not be for naught. Say what you want about the Tea Party, they forced the Republican establishment to respond. It's about time that a similar anti-neoliberal agitation movement forced the same against the Democratic leadership. People shouldn't be afraid of their party. Parties should be afraid of their people.*
*Well, in theory the people and their party should be one, but we live in a representative democracy so there's always going to be a separation between the political class and the people they claim to represent. So the latter is preferable to the former.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:29 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think if that sort of populist anger can be used to push the party elites into adopting policies in order to appease that anger, then it will not be for naught. Say what you want about the Tea Party, they forced the Republican establishment to respond. It's about time that a similar anti-neoliberal agitation movement forced the same against the Democratic leadership. People shouldn't be afraid of their party. Parties should be afraid of their people.*
*Well, in theory the people and their party should be one, but we live in a representative democracy so there's always going to be a separation between the political class and the people they claim to represent. So the latter is preferable to the former.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:29 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not a job. It's money they give you for doing nothing. Even if you did pay into it in roughly equivalent amount to the amount you would use, there's no pride in taking unemployment insurance. You can't come home at the end of the day and say "My sweat, my brain power, bought this meat on this table."
Do those same people also object to earning interest or dividends or capital gains on their investments? How about life insurance payments, or their health insurer paying (part of) their medical bills? Because those are, in most significant ways, functionally equivalent to unemployment insurance.
In the case of unemployment insurance, your investment is both your labor (the sweat of your brow!) and what you effectively pay into the system out of your wages (an insurance premium!); the fact that the return on that investment is available to you only if your opportunity to earn is taken from you out of no fault of your own, does not change this.
posted by dersins at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
Do those same people also object to earning interest or dividends or capital gains on their investments? How about life insurance payments, or their health insurer paying (part of) their medical bills? Because those are, in most significant ways, functionally equivalent to unemployment insurance.
In the case of unemployment insurance, your investment is both your labor (the sweat of your brow!) and what you effectively pay into the system out of your wages (an insurance premium!); the fact that the return on that investment is available to you only if your opportunity to earn is taken from you out of no fault of your own, does not change this.
posted by dersins at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
It's about time that a similar anti-neoliberal agitation movement forced the same against the Democratic leadership
I'd love to be wrong, but since the online narrative seems to be "Bernie was only as successful as he was because sexism," I don't see the Dems doing a lot of soul-searching or shifting to the left. Again, I'd love to be wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'd love to be wrong, but since the online narrative seems to be "Bernie was only as successful as he was because sexism," I don't see the Dems doing a lot of soul-searching or shifting to the left. Again, I'd love to be wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's not a job. It's money they give you for doing nothing. Even if you did pay into it in roughly equivalent amount to the amount you would use, there's no pride in taking unemployment insurance. You can't come home at the end of the day and say "My sweat, my brain power, bought this meat on this table."
Would you say that to someone who is taking disability? Because disability insurance works on the exact same principle. You're hedging against economic dislocation.
The conservative angst about unemployment is bizarre -- if you're a capitalist, you should SUPPORT it, because it gives companies much more elasticity in terms of labor costs. Without unemployment benefits, you end up destroying spending power by driving down wages. This is why cutting taxes on the rich alone (and giving tax incentives to large corporations) never makes sense -- it's better to give everyone an extra dollar they can spend than to give $300M to a person or a company. Those dollars get spread widely across the economy.
posted by dw at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Would you say that to someone who is taking disability? Because disability insurance works on the exact same principle. You're hedging against economic dislocation.
The conservative angst about unemployment is bizarre -- if you're a capitalist, you should SUPPORT it, because it gives companies much more elasticity in terms of labor costs. Without unemployment benefits, you end up destroying spending power by driving down wages. This is why cutting taxes on the rich alone (and giving tax incentives to large corporations) never makes sense -- it's better to give everyone an extra dollar they can spend than to give $300M to a person or a company. Those dollars get spread widely across the economy.
posted by dw at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think arguing the liberal case for social welfare programs is kind of missing corb's point here
I would be 100% for a comprehensive employment program that recruited armies of people to fix up our nations decaying infrastructure, engage in socially useful construction products, staff all those free day care centers and just pick the freaking litter off the streets. Sort of like a WPA on steroids.
One caveat is that there would still need to be, on some level, money going to support people who can't work -- children, the elderly, and the infirm -- and another is that Republicans, who opposed the initial incarnation of the WPA, would never go for it now, because of the reasons I outline above, and equally importantly, because it would utterly torpedo their decades-long marketing effort to push the narrative that government can't ever do anything right.
posted by Gelatin at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
I would be 100% for a comprehensive employment program that recruited armies of people to fix up our nations decaying infrastructure, engage in socially useful construction products, staff all those free day care centers and just pick the freaking litter off the streets. Sort of like a WPA on steroids.
One caveat is that there would still need to be, on some level, money going to support people who can't work -- children, the elderly, and the infirm -- and another is that Republicans, who opposed the initial incarnation of the WPA, would never go for it now, because of the reasons I outline above, and equally importantly, because it would utterly torpedo their decades-long marketing effort to push the narrative that government can't ever do anything right.
posted by Gelatin at 10:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
it’s because of structural cultural differences
No it is not. It's because of a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of those benefits.
Misunderstandings of the purposes of benefits can be due to structural cultural differences.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
No it is not. It's because of a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of those benefits.
Misunderstandings of the purposes of benefits can be due to structural cultural differences.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure how I missed corb's point. She said that Dems don't differentiate between help and charity which somehow makes people feel bad. So semantics is the problem? Because frankly, I don't see a difference between the two words. The definition of charity even has the word help in it:
Charity
Simple Definition of charity
: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
If I'm still missing the point, please let me know.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2016
Charity
Simple Definition of charity
: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
If I'm still missing the point, please let me know.
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:33 AM on May 12, 2016
The only reason Republicans oppose unemployment insurance is because it is in the interest of rich people to always keep poor people held over a barrel.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:34 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:34 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Misunderstandings of the purposes of benefits can be due to structural cultural differences.
...those differences being decades of conservative messaging.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:34 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
...those differences being decades of conservative messaging.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:34 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
So why haven't the Republicans created just such a jobs program? Also, unemployment insurance means that someone lost their job and it wasn't their fault. A lot of people put their pride away when it comes to feeding their kids while they look for another job.
Again, I'm not saying - though I think people are hearing - 'People who take government benefits are lazy/bad/wrong/at fault'. When I say 'Unemployment benefits doesn't usually make the people we are talking about feel pride', I'm not saying 'People are wrong for taking unemployment benefits'. I am talking about specific, emotional, cultural feelings of worth that are centered in differences.
And that kind of illustrates how difficult it is to talk about this and other similar cultural barriers - because it's really hard to say 'this is a thing that is not a culturally appropriate offer, find a different offer' without people hearing 'and anyone who does take it/feel it is appropriate is BadWrong'. And once you get into that mode, people are already fighting and not hearing each other, and they double down on their positions, and so you have people straight up attacking people over any cultural difference. And yes, you have people on both sides doing it - judging people by their own cultural perspective. Democrats thinking anyone not willing to take money is an idiot, and Republicans thinking anyone willing to take a sack of money is a moocher.
But to bring it back, that's what the article is talking about, and that's also why people are falling for suicidal things like the Trumpocalypse. Because Trump isn't offering a lot of hope, and his plans are shit - but he's offering hope in the form of jobs. Trump has figured out the cultural need of these people. He's not saying, "I'm going to give you a sack of money." He's saying, "I'm going to make you an earner again. I'm going to give you cultural relevance again. I'm going to let you hold your chin high again."
If you want to counter Trump, you have to understand that - because no one else is offering that. No one else is offering that hope, is saying, "I'm going to bring jobs back to the places they have gone away from." Even if it's a lie.
posted by corb at 10:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
Again, I'm not saying - though I think people are hearing - 'People who take government benefits are lazy/bad/wrong/at fault'. When I say 'Unemployment benefits doesn't usually make the people we are talking about feel pride', I'm not saying 'People are wrong for taking unemployment benefits'. I am talking about specific, emotional, cultural feelings of worth that are centered in differences.
And that kind of illustrates how difficult it is to talk about this and other similar cultural barriers - because it's really hard to say 'this is a thing that is not a culturally appropriate offer, find a different offer' without people hearing 'and anyone who does take it/feel it is appropriate is BadWrong'. And once you get into that mode, people are already fighting and not hearing each other, and they double down on their positions, and so you have people straight up attacking people over any cultural difference. And yes, you have people on both sides doing it - judging people by their own cultural perspective. Democrats thinking anyone not willing to take money is an idiot, and Republicans thinking anyone willing to take a sack of money is a moocher.
But to bring it back, that's what the article is talking about, and that's also why people are falling for suicidal things like the Trumpocalypse. Because Trump isn't offering a lot of hope, and his plans are shit - but he's offering hope in the form of jobs. Trump has figured out the cultural need of these people. He's not saying, "I'm going to give you a sack of money." He's saying, "I'm going to make you an earner again. I'm going to give you cultural relevance again. I'm going to let you hold your chin high again."
If you want to counter Trump, you have to understand that - because no one else is offering that. No one else is offering that hope, is saying, "I'm going to bring jobs back to the places they have gone away from." Even if it's a lie.
posted by corb at 10:35 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
The Biggest Problem with Presidential Campaigns, from JFK to Trump: It begins with "star" and ends with "f*cking."
posted by homunculus at 10:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 10:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
If by 'messaging' you mean 'flat out lying,' sure.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do those same people also object to earning interest or dividends or capital gains on their investments?
In many cases, dividends and capital gains are money earned by the sweat of other peoples' brows.
posted by Gelatin at 10:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
In many cases, dividends and capital gains are money earned by the sweat of other peoples' brows.
posted by Gelatin at 10:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm finding the entire idea that this is "cultural" to be kind of gross. You'll often find people with the same cultural heritage, raised in the same place and in the same way, seeing two different sides of this coin. That's not a culture, that's an ideology, and conflating the two misses the point entirely.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 10:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
corb, I believe you and I said the same thing. I said that Trump is hitting people where they feel, even though he's lying and that Clinton uses facts which don't hit people emotionally. I also don't know any Democrat who thinks someone not taking public assistance is stupid, do you have a cite for that?
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by hollygoheavy at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2016
And let's not start equating the demonization of Wall Street to the demonization of minorities. They are in no way equivalent.
Well...I have to remember the discussion I've gotten into where, when pressed for actual names behind "The rich people bought and own America, the same old names started popping out. It's really easy to develop an intersection between "Wall Street owns everything" and "Jews own everything". With strong runner-ups in "Arabs" and "Chinese" and earlier, "Japanese".
That's why I think Sanders & Co. have been careful to avoid attaching actual names to their Wall Street messaging (not to mention it's easier to other someone without a face or name). It's also where Trump could do his "Steer to the left" tactic while still appealing to the racism of his base: "It's not the real American entrepreneurs and job creators I oppose, but those not quite Americans who drain our wealth!"
posted by happyroach at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well...I have to remember the discussion I've gotten into where, when pressed for actual names behind "The rich people bought and own America, the same old names started popping out. It's really easy to develop an intersection between "Wall Street owns everything" and "Jews own everything". With strong runner-ups in "Arabs" and "Chinese" and earlier, "Japanese".
That's why I think Sanders & Co. have been careful to avoid attaching actual names to their Wall Street messaging (not to mention it's easier to other someone without a face or name). It's also where Trump could do his "Steer to the left" tactic while still appealing to the racism of his base: "It's not the real American entrepreneurs and job creators I oppose, but those not quite Americans who drain our wealth!"
posted by happyroach at 10:41 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
some people value hard work and earning their keep, while other kinds of people value mooching and freebies. No moral judgments here, it's just two different cultures!
posted by theodolite at 10:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 10:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's really easy to develop an intersection between "Wall Street owns everything" and "Jews own everything". With strong runner-ups in "Arabs" and "Chinese" and earlier, "Japanese".
Buh? I'd nominate the Koch brothers and the Sam Walton dynasty well before any others. Not only are none of those people Jewish, there's much more evidence that "they own everything" would actually be true.
I can't recall as I've ever heard any anti-Semitic implications in the Wall-Street-Owns-Everything quarters.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:45 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Buh? I'd nominate the Koch brothers and the Sam Walton dynasty well before any others. Not only are none of those people Jewish, there's much more evidence that "they own everything" would actually be true.
I can't recall as I've ever heard any anti-Semitic implications in the Wall-Street-Owns-Everything quarters.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:45 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
No one else is offering that hope, is saying, "I'm going to bring jobs back to the places they have gone away from."
A lot of candidates running would disagree with that. Some people just want to listen to the orange guy about jobs and deliberately ignore what the other candidates say about jobs, even if those candidates all want the same end result — i.e., more jobs.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of candidates running would disagree with that. Some people just want to listen to the orange guy about jobs and deliberately ignore what the other candidates say about jobs, even if those candidates all want the same end result — i.e., more jobs.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:46 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
dw: if you're a capitalist, you should SUPPORT it, because it gives companies much more elasticity in terms of labor costs. Without unemployment benefits, you end up destroying spending power by driving down wages.
Tragedy of the Commons. You're 100% correct, it would be better for all capitalists if they all paid higher taxes with the result of dependable consumer spending power. But as soon as one of them makes excess profits by weaseling out of their tax obligations, it puts pressure on all of them to turn into anti-social tax weasels lest they lose their investment capital to the weasels.
posted by clawsoon at 10:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tragedy of the Commons. You're 100% correct, it would be better for all capitalists if they all paid higher taxes with the result of dependable consumer spending power. But as soon as one of them makes excess profits by weaseling out of their tax obligations, it puts pressure on all of them to turn into anti-social tax weasels lest they lose their investment capital to the weasels.
posted by clawsoon at 10:47 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
And that kind of illustrates how difficult it is to talk about this and other similar cultural barriers - because it's really hard to say 'this is a thing that is not a culturally appropriate offer, find a different offer' without people hearing 'and anyone who does take it/feel it is appropriate is BadWrong'. And once you get into that mode, people are already fighting and not hearing each other, and they double down on their positions, and so you have people straight up attacking people over any cultural difference. And yes, you have people on both sides doing it - judging people by their own cultural perspective. Democrats thinking anyone not willing to take money is an idiot, and Republicans thinking anyone willing to take a sack of money is a moocher.
I mean, I think you have a point that Trump is exploiting a very particular kind of ideological programming, but people are not pointing out the role of conservatism or Republicans in creating that programming just to get their hate on. Trump didn't "figure out" shit. Republicans laid the foundation for that "cultural need" decades ago, and have been milking it ever since.
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean, I think you have a point that Trump is exploiting a very particular kind of ideological programming, but people are not pointing out the role of conservatism or Republicans in creating that programming just to get their hate on. Trump didn't "figure out" shit. Republicans laid the foundation for that "cultural need" decades ago, and have been milking it ever since.
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Democrats thinking anyone not willing to take money is an idiot
I am a registered Democrat, and I am not aware of anyone, least of all any Democratic politician, who holds this attitude. I do believe there's a certain amount of frustration that people aren't aware of the benefits they could take advantage of, and often there are too many hoops to jump thru (many of which are centered around proving one is, in fact, eligible, to prevent "waste, fraud, and abuse").
Republicans thinking anyone willing to take a sack of money is a moocher
I don't think this attitude is a caricature at all; Mitt Romney just about said as much in his infamously leaked comments, and you have the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul who are hardcore Ayn Rand devotees.
posted by Gelatin at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I am a registered Democrat, and I am not aware of anyone, least of all any Democratic politician, who holds this attitude. I do believe there's a certain amount of frustration that people aren't aware of the benefits they could take advantage of, and often there are too many hoops to jump thru (many of which are centered around proving one is, in fact, eligible, to prevent "waste, fraud, and abuse").
Republicans thinking anyone willing to take a sack of money is a moocher
I don't think this attitude is a caricature at all; Mitt Romney just about said as much in his infamously leaked comments, and you have the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul who are hardcore Ayn Rand devotees.
posted by Gelatin at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
There's so much hand-wavey special pleading going on with this argument that Democrats aren't offering anything to help the poor. Sure, if you cast any objection to the myriad programs that do exactly that as "cultural" differences, of course you can rule out many of those programs.
By that same logic, however, even if Republicans actually pushed for their theoretical solution to poverty (tax cuts targeting lower-income people, e.g. payroll taxes, expansion of existing tax credits, etc.) which they never seem to do without a much larger handout to the wealthy (c.f. the two sets of Bush 43 tax cuts) liberals should just, instead of ruling them out empirically as they usually do, they should simply say "I have a cultural objection to tax cuts." Boom, argument is over, as we're at first principles.
Of course liberals don't do that, because they don't willfully conflate economic first principles with cultural identity in order to win arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
By that same logic, however, even if Republicans actually pushed for their theoretical solution to poverty (tax cuts targeting lower-income people, e.g. payroll taxes, expansion of existing tax credits, etc.) which they never seem to do without a much larger handout to the wealthy (c.f. the two sets of Bush 43 tax cuts) liberals should just, instead of ruling them out empirically as they usually do, they should simply say "I have a cultural objection to tax cuts." Boom, argument is over, as we're at first principles.
Of course liberals don't do that, because they don't willfully conflate economic first principles with cultural identity in order to win arguments.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:49 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Which is why I think it's even more vital for the Democratic party to acknowledge the anger people feel towards corruption and Wall Street and build on it constructively with a progressive platform that address that anger, rather than let it be co-opted by fascists and racists.
posted by kyp at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by kyp at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
I also don't know any Democrat who thinks someone not taking public assistance is stupid, do you have a cite for that?
We don't call them stupid, but we frequently express bafflement at people 'voting against their own interests' and where those sentiments are viewed across the aisle I think it often can come off as a 'we, your betters, know what's good for you' kind of mentality
corb is absolutely right: there are huge swaths of people to whom anything that the right wing would classify as a "handout" is absolutely anathema, even though they and their families would benefit from them, and explaining 'no it's okay it's just like other kinds of insurance' isn't going to square that circle
telling corb we disagree with her and her fellow Republicans about the value of social welfare programs -- well, duh. But she has some useful information about how the other side is looking at things here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
We don't call them stupid, but we frequently express bafflement at people 'voting against their own interests' and where those sentiments are viewed across the aisle I think it often can come off as a 'we, your betters, know what's good for you' kind of mentality
corb is absolutely right: there are huge swaths of people to whom anything that the right wing would classify as a "handout" is absolutely anathema, even though they and their families would benefit from them, and explaining 'no it's okay it's just like other kinds of insurance' isn't going to square that circle
telling corb we disagree with her and her fellow Republicans about the value of social welfare programs -- well, duh. But she has some useful information about how the other side is looking at things here.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
people are not pointing out the role of conservatism or Republicans in creating that programming just to get their hate on. Trump didn't "figure out" shit. Republicans laid the foundation for that "cultural need" decades ago, and have been milking it ever since.
About all kinds of things. As I've said before, Trump just says the quiet parts loud.
posted by Gelatin at 10:52 AM on May 12, 2016
About all kinds of things. As I've said before, Trump just says the quiet parts loud.
posted by Gelatin at 10:52 AM on May 12, 2016
there are huge swaths of people to whom anything that the right wing would classify as a "handout" is absolutely anathema, even though they and their families would benefit from them
Or even though their families do benefit from them. cf which states take more money in Federal aid dollars? Which states have higher percentages of people on welfare? States that consistently vote Republican.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or even though their families do benefit from them. cf which states take more money in Federal aid dollars? Which states have higher percentages of people on welfare? States that consistently vote Republican.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
some people value hard work and earning their keep, while other kinds of people value mooching and freebies. No moral judgments here, it's just two different cultures!
So, I've actually really changed a lot of my views since I, Catholic-Hispanic culture, married someone raised WASP, and realized how ridiculously different a lot of basic cultural views are and how much the things we take for granted as norms are not actually universal norms. Particularly around work. My husband and his family tend to think "work must be done before any enjoyment happens". If there's, say, a full day of work, and two days of weekend time, they must do the full day of work the first day and then rest the next day. For me, and with my family, as long as you worked things out so the work would get done in the time allotted, it's totally okay to, say, work both mornings and play both evenings. It's not even a thing. But to his family, that's anathema. You are lazing while there's work to be done. Bizarre to me! But real. And this isn't because they listen to too much talk radio or whatever. This has been their opinion for hundreds of years before the Republicans even really got going.
So for some people, it doesn't actually matter whether work in the past brings money in the present, or whether it's work in the present that brings money in the present. It's just irrelevant and bizarre to consider that. You worked, and now you're reaping the benefits. But for other people, it is absolutely a cultural difference - it matters that you are presently working.
That's stuff we need to look at with nonpartisan eyes if we're ever going to get anywhere and avoid fascism. Which for me is really, really important! Fascism is the enemy and it must be defeated! And fascism grows when you have people who feel completely unheard and disenfranchised. Which means we need to not have those people. We need to find a way to bring everyone in, or our country is going to go down in flames.
posted by corb at 10:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
So, I've actually really changed a lot of my views since I, Catholic-Hispanic culture, married someone raised WASP, and realized how ridiculously different a lot of basic cultural views are and how much the things we take for granted as norms are not actually universal norms. Particularly around work. My husband and his family tend to think "work must be done before any enjoyment happens". If there's, say, a full day of work, and two days of weekend time, they must do the full day of work the first day and then rest the next day. For me, and with my family, as long as you worked things out so the work would get done in the time allotted, it's totally okay to, say, work both mornings and play both evenings. It's not even a thing. But to his family, that's anathema. You are lazing while there's work to be done. Bizarre to me! But real. And this isn't because they listen to too much talk radio or whatever. This has been their opinion for hundreds of years before the Republicans even really got going.
So for some people, it doesn't actually matter whether work in the past brings money in the present, or whether it's work in the present that brings money in the present. It's just irrelevant and bizarre to consider that. You worked, and now you're reaping the benefits. But for other people, it is absolutely a cultural difference - it matters that you are presently working.
That's stuff we need to look at with nonpartisan eyes if we're ever going to get anywhere and avoid fascism. Which for me is really, really important! Fascism is the enemy and it must be defeated! And fascism grows when you have people who feel completely unheard and disenfranchised. Which means we need to not have those people. We need to find a way to bring everyone in, or our country is going to go down in flames.
posted by corb at 10:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Because Trump isn't offering a lot of hope, and his plans are shit - but he's offering hope in the form of jobs.
More he is offering hope in restoring jobs that have long ago left our economy. The whole "bring back the Pittsburgh steel industry" was a great example -- Pittsburgh long ago moved on from steel; now they're an education, healthcare, and tech hub. Birmingham has done a similar thing. But Trump is arguing for restoring those industries, even as we're the most educated this nation has ever been.
Trump's argument is for 55 year olds who think America used to be great. Sanders' argument is for 25 years old who feel betrayed. Oddly, they both want the same thing -- the return of blue collar jobs. But most of those jobs are never coming back, not even if you threw up a tariff wall. The ones that are here are actually pretty well-paid and because it makes perfect sense to make it here, e.g. Mercedes and BMW plants in the South.
We've suffered an immense dislocation as a result of the WTO/NAFTA era as well as the rise of the Internet. But neither party seems to really get that. The GOP wants to bring back 1950. The Democrats either want to just play this skein out or they want to bring back FDR. But between crap infrastructure, shitty education in poor areas, and a general distrust of government, we are struggling to make the leap. And when we do, we end up with these empathy deficits like we see in Silicon Valley.
I live in an absolutely booming Seattle. Value of my house is up nearly $100K in a year. We have thousands of people moving here every month. We have money. And then I go back to Tulsa to see the family, and I see the Warehouse Market (think Aldi with even more dented cans and institutional grade meat) and its packed out parking lot. I hear about their immense teacher shortage because they're now 50th in pay and Texas is offering incentives to move south. And, of course, the stories about expensive operations and oxy addictions to deal with pain they can't afford to treat.
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as "dumb" or "backward." But I get why Oklahoma voted for Sanders and Trump -- they are hurting, and neither party is offering more than bromides, but they'll take them. I appreciated that Sanders is thinking about the economic problems even as his plans are Underpants Gnome level of detail. But the GOP... it's trans people in bathrooms, the evil IRS, and Planned Parenthood anger.
Oklahoma may not be able to open their schools this fall with enough teachers even as they've cut thousands of positions, and there just aren't enough private schools for "vouchers" to even come close to working. But let's talk about that border wall again because that solves a real problem.
We're in a lot of trouble. And it's not about pride in being on the dole, or that a person assigned male at birth is pooping in the stall next to you. We are in the midst of a huge dislocation. Tax cuts, tax increases, free college all fix NOTHING. I'm voting for Hillary because she seems to get at least a little piece of this. But I don't even think she gets it. None of the finalists get it. Jill Stein certainly doesn't, I know that.
posted by dw at 10:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
More he is offering hope in restoring jobs that have long ago left our economy. The whole "bring back the Pittsburgh steel industry" was a great example -- Pittsburgh long ago moved on from steel; now they're an education, healthcare, and tech hub. Birmingham has done a similar thing. But Trump is arguing for restoring those industries, even as we're the most educated this nation has ever been.
Trump's argument is for 55 year olds who think America used to be great. Sanders' argument is for 25 years old who feel betrayed. Oddly, they both want the same thing -- the return of blue collar jobs. But most of those jobs are never coming back, not even if you threw up a tariff wall. The ones that are here are actually pretty well-paid and because it makes perfect sense to make it here, e.g. Mercedes and BMW plants in the South.
We've suffered an immense dislocation as a result of the WTO/NAFTA era as well as the rise of the Internet. But neither party seems to really get that. The GOP wants to bring back 1950. The Democrats either want to just play this skein out or they want to bring back FDR. But between crap infrastructure, shitty education in poor areas, and a general distrust of government, we are struggling to make the leap. And when we do, we end up with these empathy deficits like we see in Silicon Valley.
I live in an absolutely booming Seattle. Value of my house is up nearly $100K in a year. We have thousands of people moving here every month. We have money. And then I go back to Tulsa to see the family, and I see the Warehouse Market (think Aldi with even more dented cans and institutional grade meat) and its packed out parking lot. I hear about their immense teacher shortage because they're now 50th in pay and Texas is offering incentives to move south. And, of course, the stories about expensive operations and oxy addictions to deal with pain they can't afford to treat.
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as "dumb" or "backward." But I get why Oklahoma voted for Sanders and Trump -- they are hurting, and neither party is offering more than bromides, but they'll take them. I appreciated that Sanders is thinking about the economic problems even as his plans are Underpants Gnome level of detail. But the GOP... it's trans people in bathrooms, the evil IRS, and Planned Parenthood anger.
Oklahoma may not be able to open their schools this fall with enough teachers even as they've cut thousands of positions, and there just aren't enough private schools for "vouchers" to even come close to working. But let's talk about that border wall again because that solves a real problem.
We're in a lot of trouble. And it's not about pride in being on the dole, or that a person assigned male at birth is pooping in the stall next to you. We are in the midst of a huge dislocation. Tax cuts, tax increases, free college all fix NOTHING. I'm voting for Hillary because she seems to get at least a little piece of this. But I don't even think she gets it. None of the finalists get it. Jill Stein certainly doesn't, I know that.
posted by dw at 10:54 AM on May 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: Buh? I'd nominate the Koch brothers and the Sam Walton dynasty well before any others. Not only are none of those people Jewish, there's much more evidence that "they own everything" would actually be true.
I can't recall as I've ever heard any anti-Semitic implications in the Wall-Street-Owns-Everything quarters.
The error you're making here is assuming that antisemitism is logic-based. And also ignoring a rich history going back years/decades/centuries of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'-based (and other) antisemitic tropes of Banker Jews who control the world, media and other powerful institution.
posted by zarq at 10:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
I can't recall as I've ever heard any anti-Semitic implications in the Wall-Street-Owns-Everything quarters.
The error you're making here is assuming that antisemitism is logic-based. And also ignoring a rich history going back years/decades/centuries of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'-based (and other) antisemitic tropes of Banker Jews who control the world, media and other powerful institution.
posted by zarq at 10:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Well, I've been on SocSec Disability for ten years and I know I can't do half of what I used to be able to... in fact, my last two years of employment were pretty much a gift from an employer I'd given a decade of good work to (and the accumulated knowledge I had of what the company was doing, but even that was wearing thin toward the end). In fact, strong support from that employer helped me qualify for Disability, for which I will be doubly grateful. Of course, my monthly stipend was determined based on my work history... similar to what I'd have gotten 15 years later from Social Security Retirement. So I'm living on my 'early retirement' and I absolutely so NOT feel ashamed.
In fact, I never felt ashamed collecting Unemployment between jobs, because it meant that the System had my back when the companies that I worked for and laid me off didn't.
I do feel a LOT of shame over one job I had, and it was the highest paying job I ever had, working for a financial firm in the middle of the "Junk Bond Bubble" of the late '80s. There was no honor working for those barely-legal crooks, and the facts of the situation were drilled into me when the company stopped paying out on the annuities it carried, and the volume of phone calls to the home office was so high they had to take everybody there off their regular duties just to answer those calls a couple hours a day. And what were we told to say to the people who had lost what was for some of them their only source of income? "I'm sorry, we can't do anything at this time, and we don't know when we will".
Maybe I should have told them to get jobs so they could have some Pride.
There is the saying that "nobody's greatest dying regret is that they didn't work more hours". Well, maybe nobody. Only people who think that Jobs are the only thing that can give you Pride.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
In fact, I never felt ashamed collecting Unemployment between jobs, because it meant that the System had my back when the companies that I worked for and laid me off didn't.
I do feel a LOT of shame over one job I had, and it was the highest paying job I ever had, working for a financial firm in the middle of the "Junk Bond Bubble" of the late '80s. There was no honor working for those barely-legal crooks, and the facts of the situation were drilled into me when the company stopped paying out on the annuities it carried, and the volume of phone calls to the home office was so high they had to take everybody there off their regular duties just to answer those calls a couple hours a day. And what were we told to say to the people who had lost what was for some of them their only source of income? "I'm sorry, we can't do anything at this time, and we don't know when we will".
Maybe I should have told them to get jobs so they could have some Pride.
There is the saying that "nobody's greatest dying regret is that they didn't work more hours". Well, maybe nobody. Only people who think that Jobs are the only thing that can give you Pride.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
You could do that with a jobs program that paid the same as unemployment insurance, but worked you 30 hours a week with an additional 10 spent job seeking. It could even cost the same, and bring productive things to our country. It could even be funded the same. But it would be worlds apart. Just like having a daycare, a physical daycare, where your kids can go for free, while you are in this jobs program, is worlds apart from them giving you money for daycare.
You are suggesting a system that is completely at odds with the current republican philosophy. I have too much respect for the value of my own time to google up for you the countless attacks on pre-school systems, which could serve a portion of what you say would be an acceptable service to offer in lieu of these other programs. Further, it is at odds with what recent research says about the superiority of simply giving the needy money and letting them spend it - research that has been embraced more by the republicans than democrats.
You are welcome to your own ideology and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. But I am absolutely not going to sit and let And then we get Trump, because no one is bothering to offer a program people will actually take and feel good about stand. That's horse hockey. Trump running as a republican and being welcomed by self-identified republicans with that rhetoric is on republicans and on the republicans who have defined what is and is not acceptable within that party.
You're welcome to think that there's been a failure of the democratic party to really speak to folks in the middle of the country in a way that is acceptable. I think it's an open question as to how unwelcome these folks have actually been made, versus their attachment to things offered them by the party, but whatever. But don't you dare lay the fact that Trump found fertile ground for his message within the party on anyone outside the party.
telling corb we disagree with her and her fellow Republicans about the value of social welfare programs -- well, duh. But she has some useful information about how the other side is looking at things here.
Useful for understanding reactions, perhaps, but I am unsure how useful it is to be told that nothing that can be offered will be considered welcome. There are times in a conflict where the only reasonable thing to do is to ask the other person what can I do to make this better? And sometimes the only sensible way to react to their answer is to say that is not a thing that can be done.
Trump is instead saying yeah sure, we'll change that. We know he won't and mostly can't. I didn't need special insight to know that he's getting traction with fiction. Okay, you lie too is not useful.
posted by phearlez at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
You are suggesting a system that is completely at odds with the current republican philosophy. I have too much respect for the value of my own time to google up for you the countless attacks on pre-school systems, which could serve a portion of what you say would be an acceptable service to offer in lieu of these other programs. Further, it is at odds with what recent research says about the superiority of simply giving the needy money and letting them spend it - research that has been embraced more by the republicans than democrats.
You are welcome to your own ideology and I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. But I am absolutely not going to sit and let And then we get Trump, because no one is bothering to offer a program people will actually take and feel good about stand. That's horse hockey. Trump running as a republican and being welcomed by self-identified republicans with that rhetoric is on republicans and on the republicans who have defined what is and is not acceptable within that party.
You're welcome to think that there's been a failure of the democratic party to really speak to folks in the middle of the country in a way that is acceptable. I think it's an open question as to how unwelcome these folks have actually been made, versus their attachment to things offered them by the party, but whatever. But don't you dare lay the fact that Trump found fertile ground for his message within the party on anyone outside the party.
telling corb we disagree with her and her fellow Republicans about the value of social welfare programs -- well, duh. But she has some useful information about how the other side is looking at things here.
Useful for understanding reactions, perhaps, but I am unsure how useful it is to be told that nothing that can be offered will be considered welcome. There are times in a conflict where the only reasonable thing to do is to ask the other person what can I do to make this better? And sometimes the only sensible way to react to their answer is to say that is not a thing that can be done.
Trump is instead saying yeah sure, we'll change that. We know he won't and mostly can't. I didn't need special insight to know that he's getting traction with fiction. Okay, you lie too is not useful.
posted by phearlez at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
But to corb's point about pride: I get it. I spent a lot of time trying to convince my mother to file for bankruptcy to get some debt relief, but she refused to, because DAMNIT being bankrupt is SHAMEFUL. So she sold the house and moved in with my brother. If she'd filed for bankruptcy, she might have been able to keep the house and get considerable debt relief. I still shake my head.
posted by dw at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dw at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
explaining 'no it's okay it's just like other kinds of insurance' isn't going to square that circle
I mean, think about why that is, though. Most people who aren't hardcore libertarians have no big objection to the concept of insurance, and nearly everyone who has conventional, purchased insurance (car/home/whatever) doesn't hesitate to use it when they need it. It's not viewed as a "handout." There is a reason why social welfare--which all taxpayers pay into--is viewed very differently, and that reason is decades of conservative propaganda.
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I mean, think about why that is, though. Most people who aren't hardcore libertarians have no big objection to the concept of insurance, and nearly everyone who has conventional, purchased insurance (car/home/whatever) doesn't hesitate to use it when they need it. It's not viewed as a "handout." There is a reason why social welfare--which all taxpayers pay into--is viewed very differently, and that reason is decades of conservative propaganda.
posted by Krom Tatman at 10:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
So for some people, it doesn't actually matter whether work in the past brings money in the present, or whether it's work in the present that brings money in the present. It's just irrelevant and bizarre to consider that. You worked, and now you're reaping the benefits. But for other people, it is absolutely a cultural difference - it matters that you are presently working.
I'm genuinely curious, corb -- are you saying there are people who will refuse to retire, and forego their Social Security benefits -- to which they contributed all their working life -- because it would feel like a handout, because they aren't presently working?
posted by Gelatin at 10:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm genuinely curious, corb -- are you saying there are people who will refuse to retire, and forego their Social Security benefits -- to which they contributed all their working life -- because it would feel like a handout, because they aren't presently working?
posted by Gelatin at 10:57 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think if that sort of populist anger can be used to push the party elites into adopting policies in order to appease that anger
Populist anger is also quite volatile, as the current election proves as well. And at worst, populist anger seems better tuned for candidates that are better at the publicity or performance aspects of being "angry" or fighting whoever the enemy of the populists is (like Trump). I will admit, based on my family's history and my own viewpoints I am a bit bias against populism itself so this is totally a personal observation.
posted by FJT at 10:58 AM on May 12, 2016
Populist anger is also quite volatile, as the current election proves as well. And at worst, populist anger seems better tuned for candidates that are better at the publicity or performance aspects of being "angry" or fighting whoever the enemy of the populists is (like Trump). I will admit, based on my family's history and my own viewpoints I am a bit bias against populism itself so this is totally a personal observation.
posted by FJT at 10:58 AM on May 12, 2016
You could do that with a jobs program that paid the same as unemployment insurance, but worked you 30 hours a week with an additional 10 spent job seeking.
Maybe this is coming from work stress, but here's why this doesn't work.
I currently work a job that requires me to be in the office 10 hours a day, with no lunch break. It's an unbelievably stressful job where, to be perfectly honest with you, I do the work of three people, and extra as needed. Most weeks I work a little over that 10 hours a day, too, not to mention the emails I get after hours and on weekends. For this labor, I make just barely over minimum wage (with no overtime for the time I spend over 10/day and no compensation for off-hours work). This is just about enough money to eek out a living.
If I were to get laid off from this job, the idea that I would ALSO have to provide free labor that I would not be compensated for -- most likely in a capacity that is not related to my career or likely to provide any benefit to me -- WHILE looking for a new "real" job, IS FUCKING INSANE. Especially since unemployment insurance is just that, INSURANCE, compensation provided to me on the off chance that I lose my job. You know, my incredibly stressful job where I work 50+ hours a week for just barely enough money to get by.
The idea of throwing people into a workhouse for being laid off is fucking dystopian, sorry.
posted by Sara C. at 11:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
Maybe this is coming from work stress, but here's why this doesn't work.
I currently work a job that requires me to be in the office 10 hours a day, with no lunch break. It's an unbelievably stressful job where, to be perfectly honest with you, I do the work of three people, and extra as needed. Most weeks I work a little over that 10 hours a day, too, not to mention the emails I get after hours and on weekends. For this labor, I make just barely over minimum wage (with no overtime for the time I spend over 10/day and no compensation for off-hours work). This is just about enough money to eek out a living.
If I were to get laid off from this job, the idea that I would ALSO have to provide free labor that I would not be compensated for -- most likely in a capacity that is not related to my career or likely to provide any benefit to me -- WHILE looking for a new "real" job, IS FUCKING INSANE. Especially since unemployment insurance is just that, INSURANCE, compensation provided to me on the off chance that I lose my job. You know, my incredibly stressful job where I work 50+ hours a week for just barely enough money to get by.
The idea of throwing people into a workhouse for being laid off is fucking dystopian, sorry.
posted by Sara C. at 11:00 AM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
The error you're making here is assuming that antisemitism is logic-based. And also ignoring a rich history going back years/decades/centuries of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'-based (and other) antisemitic tropes of Banker Jews who control the world, media and other powerful institution.
oh, I agree, I just haven't heard that the people who are arguing "the Jews own everything" are the same people who are saying "Wall Street owns everything", or even that they're talking about the same people. At least, it's not anything I've come across; in the "Wall Street owns everything" quarters, I've always sensed that "Wall Street" is a stand-in for "rich white WASP dudes" instead.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
oh, I agree, I just haven't heard that the people who are arguing "the Jews own everything" are the same people who are saying "Wall Street owns everything", or even that they're talking about the same people. At least, it's not anything I've come across; in the "Wall Street owns everything" quarters, I've always sensed that "Wall Street" is a stand-in for "rich white WASP dudes" instead.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:01 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
yeah idk what the solution to poverty and unemployment would be in the perfect world but i do know that "bring back the poorhouses/workhouses" is definitely not it
posted by poffin boffin at 11:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 11:02 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
there are people for whom not being engaged in productive work feels like a devastating existential crisis, and whatever the reason they feel that way, it's not something they're going to get splained out of
this is not an argument against disability/unemployment insurance, food stamps, social security, or anything else, it's just a good thing to know about your fellow humans and how they operate
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
this is not an argument against disability/unemployment insurance, food stamps, social security, or anything else, it's just a good thing to know about your fellow humans and how they operate
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
"Wall Street owns everything" quarters, I've always sensed that "Wall Street" is a stand-in for "rich white WASP dudes" instead.
well I have definitely heard it as Jews
posted by zutalors! at 11:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
well I have definitely heard it as Jews
posted by zutalors! at 11:03 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jill Stien on Reddit;
First off I agree with the comment below that it's hard to say which is the greater evil. …
The politics of fear says you have to vote against the candidate you fear rather than for the candidate who shares your values.
Oh, that's rich.
posted by bongo_x at 11:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
First off I agree with the comment below that it's hard to say which is the greater evil. …
The politics of fear says you have to vote against the candidate you fear rather than for the candidate who shares your values.
Oh, that's rich.
posted by bongo_x at 11:04 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
there are people for whom not being engaged in productive work feels like a devastating existential crisis, and whatever the reason they feel that way, it's not something they're going to get splained out of
do you think that the people who feel that way beyond any kind of reasoning make up the majority of the "populist anger" being described?
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
do you think that the people who feel that way beyond any kind of reasoning make up the majority of the "populist anger" being described?
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know about all you guys but I've definitely heard of Jews
posted by beerperson at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: oh, I agree, I just haven't heard that the people who are arguing "the Jews own everything" are the same people who are saying "Wall Street owns everything",
That must be nice.
I swear, I don't mean that rudely. But your comment does sound privileged.
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
That must be nice.
I swear, I don't mean that rudely. But your comment does sound privileged.
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
there are people for whom not being engaged in productive work feels like a devastating existential crisis
Sure, and I'm one of those people. I spent six months of last year unemployed, and it was devastating. I'm honestly happy to have the kinda-ridiculous job I currently have, because it's better than the alternative.
I'd be for an "unemployment work program" if it actually took the form of meaningful work that was compensated on top of unemployment insurance*, could be done on a flexible and voluntary basis, and stood a chance of developing career skills or being personally fulfilling. But I think we all know that this isn't what it would turn out to be, at all.
*Fun fact, unemployment money is only about half your regular pay at the job you got laid off from.
posted by Sara C. at 11:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sure, and I'm one of those people. I spent six months of last year unemployed, and it was devastating. I'm honestly happy to have the kinda-ridiculous job I currently have, because it's better than the alternative.
I'd be for an "unemployment work program" if it actually took the form of meaningful work that was compensated on top of unemployment insurance*, could be done on a flexible and voluntary basis, and stood a chance of developing career skills or being personally fulfilling. But I think we all know that this isn't what it would turn out to be, at all.
*Fun fact, unemployment money is only about half your regular pay at the job you got laid off from.
posted by Sara C. at 11:08 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
We've all been watching the cognitive dissonance on the right play out for years, nothing that corb is saying is new to us. The issue is that now due to that cognitive dissonance, we stand a real chance of electing a completely unqualified wizard of oz to be our President. How do we stop that from happening?
zutalors! said upthread that Clinton is much better at communicating her message one on one. Since that's obviously not an option and there are millions of people who aren't going to see her videos, it's up to us to spread that message one to one. We have to figure out how to hit people where they feel like Trump does.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
zutalors! said upthread that Clinton is much better at communicating her message one on one. Since that's obviously not an option and there are millions of people who aren't going to see her videos, it's up to us to spread that message one to one. We have to figure out how to hit people where they feel like Trump does.
posted by hollygoheavy at 11:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
there are people for whom not being engaged in productive work feels like a devastating existential crisis, and whatever the reason they feel that way, it's not something they're going to get splained out of
I wish - deeply wish - that there were some kind of way that we could have divergent benefits for people with different cultural interests - that there were a way we could have 'light work' jobs for the elderly or for employment seekers who wanted to find better jobs, while still having 'traditional' unemployment insurance for those who preferred it. I wish we could do this, so that everyone could benefit in the way that best suited them, while not taking away from other people.
But I don't think we'll get that when people are so deeply resistant to the other ideas having any support or prominence at all - when work programs are dismissed as 'workhouses' and insurance is dismissed as 'freebies'. And that means that people will struggle for dominance, and whoever is on top will feel justified in it, and whoever is on bottom will feel ignored and resentful. And that's a real problem.
posted by corb at 11:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wish - deeply wish - that there were some kind of way that we could have divergent benefits for people with different cultural interests - that there were a way we could have 'light work' jobs for the elderly or for employment seekers who wanted to find better jobs, while still having 'traditional' unemployment insurance for those who preferred it. I wish we could do this, so that everyone could benefit in the way that best suited them, while not taking away from other people.
But I don't think we'll get that when people are so deeply resistant to the other ideas having any support or prominence at all - when work programs are dismissed as 'workhouses' and insurance is dismissed as 'freebies'. And that means that people will struggle for dominance, and whoever is on top will feel justified in it, and whoever is on bottom will feel ignored and resentful. And that's a real problem.
posted by corb at 11:09 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think a lot of basic human psychology is informing odd looking political choices. If having a job and good economic circumstances were based on personal qualities and work ethic, not uncontrollable things like race, gender, and luck, then of course the people who are fortunate economically are the good people, and anyone who isn't doing well must be bad, meaning their situation is their own fault. And government shouldn't reward those slackers for their failures. This thinking alone informs a lot of politics these days, and supports the whole R edifice.
Another really common belief is that demonizing and tearing down the "other" is a solution all by itself. With all due respect to those MeFis who champion tearing down "Wall Street," a lot of this animus is frankly fueling both Trump's blunt appeals to hatred and anger, and the Sanders campaign.
Clinton in traditional political terms is a liberal, who thinks government can and should solve social problems, that social justice is a critical goal, that institutions are made up of people who can be negotiated with, reasoned with, and regulated, and that human intelligence and compassion when deployed via government can make things better. She's definitely right of anarchists, but her background and goals and detailed policy plans could never be confused with those of a Republican.
One dangerous result of the thinking we are seeing in politics these days is that opting for extremism results in deadlock, and we cannot afford deadlock. We will inevitably see another recession in a few years, our relentless drift toward economic inequality is destroying our prosperity, global warming is having huge and irreversible impacts already, and social justice cannot wait.
posted by bearwife at 11:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Another really common belief is that demonizing and tearing down the "other" is a solution all by itself. With all due respect to those MeFis who champion tearing down "Wall Street," a lot of this animus is frankly fueling both Trump's blunt appeals to hatred and anger, and the Sanders campaign.
Clinton in traditional political terms is a liberal, who thinks government can and should solve social problems, that social justice is a critical goal, that institutions are made up of people who can be negotiated with, reasoned with, and regulated, and that human intelligence and compassion when deployed via government can make things better. She's definitely right of anarchists, but her background and goals and detailed policy plans could never be confused with those of a Republican.
One dangerous result of the thinking we are seeing in politics these days is that opting for extremism results in deadlock, and we cannot afford deadlock. We will inevitably see another recession in a few years, our relentless drift toward economic inequality is destroying our prosperity, global warming is having huge and irreversible impacts already, and social justice cannot wait.
posted by bearwife at 11:10 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Because I don't want to inadvertently vilify OWS to prove a point: Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park. Also: When Did the Occupy Movement Start Hating Jews?
posted by zarq at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Another really common belief is that demonizing and tearing down the "other" is a solution all by itself. With all due respect to those MeFis who champion tearing down "Wall Street," a lot of this animus is frankly fueling both Trump's blunt appeals to hatred and anger, and the Sanders campaign.
please do not use social justice language to defend the elite.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
please do not use social justice language to defend the elite.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:11 AM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I would be 100% for a comprehensive employment program that recruited armies of people to fix up our nations decaying infrastructure, engage in socially useful construction products, staff all those free day care centers and just pick the freaking litter off the streets.
And pyramids. We totally need more pyramids in this country.
Damn it, the Egyptians managed to work out a nation-wide make-work program...
Of course my downer friend who does job placement pointed out that a lot of the infrastructure projects can't just use anybody like they did 80+ years ago, it's much more technically defending. Even those guys doing highway repair have certification requirements now. So there would have to be a large training and testing infrastructure as part of the program. Unlike we just have them dog ditches.
Hmm....you know, California COULD use a water channel to bring down all that extra water Washington has....
posted by happyroach at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
And pyramids. We totally need more pyramids in this country.
Damn it, the Egyptians managed to work out a nation-wide make-work program...
Of course my downer friend who does job placement pointed out that a lot of the infrastructure projects can't just use anybody like they did 80+ years ago, it's much more technically defending. Even those guys doing highway repair have certification requirements now. So there would have to be a large training and testing infrastructure as part of the program. Unlike we just have them dog ditches.
Hmm....you know, California COULD use a water channel to bring down all that extra water Washington has....
posted by happyroach at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know about all you guys but I've definitely heard of Jews
"urban youths" oh right, like the kids on Friends, they lived in new york city
posted by poffin boffin at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
"urban youths" oh right, like the kids on Friends, they lived in new york city
posted by poffin boffin at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as "dumb" or "backward."
Yeah thanks but no, we do not. This is just yet another example of conservative messaging that everyone picks up and plays along with and thus makes it "true." Yes, we don't always understand each other and we sometimes disagree with other people's priorities or even flat-out think they're wrong. It doesn't mean we have disdain for each other. My wife and I manage to disagree about things without thinking the other is a dope.
It is not an accident that this is a description of disagreement that only flows one way. It is a construct built by the people whose interest it serves for midwesterners to believe they are thought stupid. Don't play along.
posted by phearlez at 11:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yeah thanks but no, we do not. This is just yet another example of conservative messaging that everyone picks up and plays along with and thus makes it "true." Yes, we don't always understand each other and we sometimes disagree with other people's priorities or even flat-out think they're wrong. It doesn't mean we have disdain for each other. My wife and I manage to disagree about things without thinking the other is a dope.
It is not an accident that this is a description of disagreement that only flows one way. It is a construct built by the people whose interest it serves for midwesterners to believe they are thought stupid. Don't play along.
posted by phearlez at 11:14 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: in the "Wall Street owns everything" quarters, I've always sensed that "Wall Street" is a stand-in for "rich white WASP dudes" instead.
And I'm not even sure if "rich white WASP dudes" captures it, either; it's someone of any colour or culture who's willing to serve the beast.
zutalors!: well I have definitely heard it as Jews
And that happens, too, and is the most dangerous way for this to go.
This makes me think: An interesting thing about Trump is that he's made specific ethnic attacks on poor people, and non-ethnic attacks on rich people.
posted by clawsoon at 11:15 AM on May 12, 2016
And I'm not even sure if "rich white WASP dudes" captures it, either; it's someone of any colour or culture who's willing to serve the beast.
zutalors!: well I have definitely heard it as Jews
And that happens, too, and is the most dangerous way for this to go.
This makes me think: An interesting thing about Trump is that he's made specific ethnic attacks on poor people, and non-ethnic attacks on rich people.
posted by clawsoon at 11:15 AM on May 12, 2016
phearlez: It is a construct built by the people whose interest it serves for midwesterners to believe they are thought stupid. Don't play along.
I've read enough "they are stupid" on Salon and Slate and, yes, Metafilter to know that the belief is not completely made-up. It's not universal, but it's out there. Yes, you're right, it unfairly gets amplified into a universal once it enters an echo chamber.
posted by clawsoon at 11:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
I've read enough "they are stupid" on Salon and Slate and, yes, Metafilter to know that the belief is not completely made-up. It's not universal, but it's out there. Yes, you're right, it unfairly gets amplified into a universal once it enters an echo chamber.
posted by clawsoon at 11:20 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
As we like to say on the Blue, intersectionality is important. Income inequality hurts us all and people manifest that anger in different ways across the spectrum of ideology.
That Trump and Sanders are the beneficiaries of this volatility and anger does not mean that we can dismiss the source of the malaise that ordinary Americans feel.
posted by kyp at 11:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
That Trump and Sanders are the beneficiaries of this volatility and anger does not mean that we can dismiss the source of the malaise that ordinary Americans feel.
posted by kyp at 11:21 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Of course my downer friend who does job placement pointed out that a lot of the infrastructure projects can't just use anybody like they did 80+ years ago, it's much more technically defending. Even those guys doing highway repair have certification requirements now. So there would have to be a large training and testing infrastructure as part of the program.
Which would be a bonus, as we'd have a larger trained work force.
That said, I am not sure how much specialized skill it takes to use a paintbrush, and there are plenty of park benches and facilities that could use a fresh coat of paint.
I should emphasize that I, for one, and in no way advocating "workhouses" -- I already said there would need to be a robust alternative for those who can't work, for example -- but rather a robust program to ensure that everyone who wants a job can have one.
(I'd imagine that if, as a result, the nation gets to full employment, private sector wages would naturally rise, because someone could quit their lousy Wal-Mart job and go do useful public service work instead.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which would be a bonus, as we'd have a larger trained work force.
That said, I am not sure how much specialized skill it takes to use a paintbrush, and there are plenty of park benches and facilities that could use a fresh coat of paint.
I should emphasize that I, for one, and in no way advocating "workhouses" -- I already said there would need to be a robust alternative for those who can't work, for example -- but rather a robust program to ensure that everyone who wants a job can have one.
(I'd imagine that if, as a result, the nation gets to full employment, private sector wages would naturally rise, because someone could quit their lousy Wal-Mart job and go do useful public service work instead.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would wager you a week's salary that "they think you're stupid for" was uttered by folks trying to appeal to that constituency before it ever became a part of liberal punditry.
BUT, regardless - it is incumbent on us, if we all supposedly care on both sides about this gap, to stop saying it in the present tense as if it's true. Say that people are called stupid. Describe it and call it out when it happens. But accepting it as fact and repeating it is against everyone's interests except those who would divide us.
posted by phearlez at 11:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
BUT, regardless - it is incumbent on us, if we all supposedly care on both sides about this gap, to stop saying it in the present tense as if it's true. Say that people are called stupid. Describe it and call it out when it happens. But accepting it as fact and repeating it is against everyone's interests except those who would divide us.
posted by phearlez at 11:23 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
So for some people, it doesn't actually matter whether work in the past brings money in the present, or whether it's work in the present that brings money in the present. It's just irrelevant and bizarre to consider that. You worked, and now you're reaping the benefits. But for other people, it is absolutely a cultural difference - it matters that you are presently working.
So I was pretty snarky about the "culture" thing but I think that's a good point. There was some book I was assigned to read in middle school (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, maybe?) where Poor Family Dad refuses to accept any charity, even though his kids are starving and dressed in rags, and I remember just not getting why he doesn't take the money! I couldn't comprehend it, at all. And I get, now, that this sweat-of-your-brow pride thing is real, but it's inconsistently applied to some benefits but not others, and there's a racial/tribal element to which entitlements are a patriotic god-given right for every American (society security, Medicare) and which are for, you know, those people (food stamps, Medicaid). And your suggestion to have respectable workfare for the proud sweatbrow folk and cash benefits for the rest will just reinforce that division.
posted by theodolite at 11:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
So I was pretty snarky about the "culture" thing but I think that's a good point. There was some book I was assigned to read in middle school (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, maybe?) where Poor Family Dad refuses to accept any charity, even though his kids are starving and dressed in rags, and I remember just not getting why he doesn't take the money! I couldn't comprehend it, at all. And I get, now, that this sweat-of-your-brow pride thing is real, but it's inconsistently applied to some benefits but not others, and there's a racial/tribal element to which entitlements are a patriotic god-given right for every American (society security, Medicare) and which are for, you know, those people (food stamps, Medicaid). And your suggestion to have respectable workfare for the proud sweatbrow folk and cash benefits for the rest will just reinforce that division.
posted by theodolite at 11:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
All this talk about JOBS and nothing about what what will really help (although it will be nearly impossible to institute here): Universal Basic Income. There are a lot of jobs that are never coming back NOT because they've been exported to where people work for less but because they've been automated out of existence. And Apple is not going to pay the people who build iPhones as much as Ford paid the people who built Mustangs. And speaking of cars, autonomous vehicle technology will likely put 75% of those who drive for a living out of work in the next twenty years. If we somehow were able to build a "full employment" society with the technology we're developing now, it would require either massive amounts of 'make work' or hand construction of pyramids or massive factories that can't operate on energy that wouldn't speed up climate change... anyway, WORK IS NOT THE ANSWER.
And wasn't the Jetsons future supposed to have one guy with a 3-hour-a-day job supporting a family of four with a live-in robot maid? Well, it also had flying cars and we know how wrong THAT would be.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
And wasn't the Jetsons future supposed to have one guy with a 3-hour-a-day job supporting a family of four with a live-in robot maid? Well, it also had flying cars and we know how wrong THAT would be.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:24 AM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as “dumb” or “backward.”
Yeah thanks but no, we do not.
If someone has some real regional-attitudes-about-other-regions data, I’d love to see it.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on May 12, 2016
Yeah thanks but no, we do not.
If someone has some real regional-attitudes-about-other-regions data, I’d love to see it.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on May 12, 2016
But I don't think we'll get that when people are so deeply resistant to the other ideas having any support or prominence at all - when work programs are dismissed as 'workhouses' and insurance is dismissed as 'freebies'.
Well, corb, again, from my perspective, I fully accept that many Republicans dismiss legitimate and useful social programs as "freebies" (although that perception does not seem to extend, among many voters, to Social Security and Medicare, which are viewed as having been earned, hence "keep your government hands off my Medicare).
But I would disagree liberals are "deeply resistant to other ideas" -- we love policy proposals! I would just caution, though, that we've been burned by, for example, Bill Clinton's willingness to adopt Republican framing and Republican priorities in the past. Hillary Clinton is getting a certain amount of heat because her husband signed so-called "welfare reform" and criminal justice bills that are widely regarded as harmful failures, and much of the disillusionment over Obamacare stems from it at least partially originating in a proposal by the freaking Heritage Foundation.
As some of the responses in this thread indicate, many Republican frames are regarded by many liberals as utterly bogus, and with good reason. I won't apologize for at least being skeptical when people like Sam Brownback are even now bringing Kansas to economic ruin by once again enacting the supply-side, trickle-down fantasy that George H. W. Bush rightly dismissed as "voodoo economics." 36 years ago.
posted by Gelatin at 11:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, corb, again, from my perspective, I fully accept that many Republicans dismiss legitimate and useful social programs as "freebies" (although that perception does not seem to extend, among many voters, to Social Security and Medicare, which are viewed as having been earned, hence "keep your government hands off my Medicare).
But I would disagree liberals are "deeply resistant to other ideas" -- we love policy proposals! I would just caution, though, that we've been burned by, for example, Bill Clinton's willingness to adopt Republican framing and Republican priorities in the past. Hillary Clinton is getting a certain amount of heat because her husband signed so-called "welfare reform" and criminal justice bills that are widely regarded as harmful failures, and much of the disillusionment over Obamacare stems from it at least partially originating in a proposal by the freaking Heritage Foundation.
As some of the responses in this thread indicate, many Republican frames are regarded by many liberals as utterly bogus, and with good reason. I won't apologize for at least being skeptical when people like Sam Brownback are even now bringing Kansas to economic ruin by once again enacting the supply-side, trickle-down fantasy that George H. W. Bush rightly dismissed as "voodoo economics." 36 years ago.
posted by Gelatin at 11:32 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as “dumb” or “backward.”
There was a lot of writing off of Southern minority voters who voted for Clinton.
posted by zutalors! at 11:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
There was a lot of writing off of Southern minority voters who voted for Clinton.
posted by zutalors! at 11:36 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
a lot of writing off of minority voters who voted for Sanders, too.
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:37 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:37 AM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
See, here's the bottom line about this alleged Republican desire to help poor people. Well, two bottom lines:
1) They have done absolutely nothing but slash programs that help poor people, for decades. And the ones they don't slash they put a million roadblocks in front of getting them.
2) The only way to pay for those is through taxes. Specifically, taxes on non-poor people.
So forgive me if there is literally not one iota of evidence to support this notion that Republicans want to help anyone
Another bit of evidence: single-payer healthcare would eliminate medical bankruptcies. And yet.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
1) They have done absolutely nothing but slash programs that help poor people, for decades. And the ones they don't slash they put a million roadblocks in front of getting them.
2) The only way to pay for those is through taxes. Specifically, taxes on non-poor people.
So forgive me if there is literally not one iota of evidence to support this notion that Republicans want to help anyone
Another bit of evidence: single-payer healthcare would eliminate medical bankruptcies. And yet.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
The last couple of dozen comments have had some great, detailed, respectful exchanges of ideas. Not perfect, but not bad for an election thread! :-)
posted by clawsoon at 11:41 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 11:41 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
my nation states country has a 76.6% income tax rate and all 11 billion of my citizens are super happy about it
also everyone in the army is gay
posted by poffin boffin at 11:42 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
also everyone in the army is gay
posted by poffin boffin at 11:42 AM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
a robust program to ensure that everyone who wants a job can have one.
The problem with that is that (just to use myself as an example) is that I work in the entertainment industry. I'm not a bench-painter. Being required to spend 30 hours a week painting benches because it makes some billionaire Republican sad to think that somebody might be getting something for nothing (especially when, in fact, said somebody is NOT getting something for nothing, and that something is barely enough to avoid homelessness) is an "are there no workhouses?!" situation, even if we vehemently deny that it is.
posted by Sara C. at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
The problem with that is that (just to use myself as an example) is that I work in the entertainment industry. I'm not a bench-painter. Being required to spend 30 hours a week painting benches because it makes some billionaire Republican sad to think that somebody might be getting something for nothing (especially when, in fact, said somebody is NOT getting something for nothing, and that something is barely enough to avoid homelessness) is an "are there no workhouses?!" situation, even if we vehemently deny that it is.
posted by Sara C. at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Which would be a bonus, as we'd have a larger trained work force.
I'm not disgusting, just pointing out that administration, training and placement costs could be non-trivial problem. As a professional bureaucract myself, I can appreciate that.
posted by happyroach at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016
I'm not disgusting, just pointing out that administration, training and placement costs could be non-trivial problem. As a professional bureaucract myself, I can appreciate that.
posted by happyroach at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2016
i am recalling my ambassador to clawsoontopia
posted by poffin boffin at 11:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 11:48 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am spinning my centrifuges faster.
posted by clawsoon at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Being required to spend 30 hours a week painting benches because it makes some billionaire Republican sad to think that somebody might be getting something for nothing (especially when, in fact, said somebody is NOT getting something for nothing, and that something is barely enough to avoid homelessness) is an "are there no workhouses?!" situation, even if we vehemently deny that it is.
But I already said there should be alternatives; the sticking point here seems to be required, and I never said it should be. Simply creating the jobs, and setting the compensation such that it's, say, more attractive than working 30 hours a week as a greeter at Wal-Mart -- and definitely more than enough to avoid homelessness -- should suffice.
just pointing out that administration, training and placement costs could be non-trivial problem.
I don't disagree, but administration, training and placement are also legitimate jobs and valuable skills, so in some ways a jobs program would be self-sustaining -- it could also employ people in these roles.
posted by Gelatin at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I already said there should be alternatives; the sticking point here seems to be required, and I never said it should be. Simply creating the jobs, and setting the compensation such that it's, say, more attractive than working 30 hours a week as a greeter at Wal-Mart -- and definitely more than enough to avoid homelessness -- should suffice.
just pointing out that administration, training and placement costs could be non-trivial problem.
I don't disagree, but administration, training and placement are also legitimate jobs and valuable skills, so in some ways a jobs program would be self-sustaining -- it could also employ people in these roles.
posted by Gelatin at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree that the Democrats need to work on messaging. People more or less believe in Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Democrats need a simple explanation for people's current pain -- even if the policy wonkery for the solutions behind the scenes is actually complex. Are tax rates the reason for tax complexity? No, but if all you really know or care to know about taxes is that there are tax rates, then you might think the various rates are what make it complex. It's Dunning-Kruger all over the place. And if you're inside of the policy wonk bubble, I think it's easy to forget that most people don't know enough about these issues to know how much they don't know. Trump gets branding, he gets "middle America" (whatever the f that means) - he's been looking at ratings and demographic information for reality tv shows for years - he gets how to deliver a simple message, over and over, until it sticks. Republicans have been really good about this since at least the Bush (Rove) years -- get a catchy phrase, have every single person with an R next to their name repeat that phrase until it's part of the common discourse -- you have to control the conversation if you want to win.
"America's already great" - when people are living in poverty, can't afford or access health care, are being killed by the government's police force, are being forced to give birth, etc. - is not a winning message. I'm not sure what the message should be, but "it's complex, there are a lot of factors, we have to weigh all of the competing interests and look for a solution that blah blah blah" is boring, even if correct. It's not that people are too dumb to get the complex answer, it's that laws and regulations are not high on their list of interests (whether because of preferences or because their life circumstances don't leave room for that) -- you have like 15 seconds to get them to absorb your message before something else takes priority. Yes, there are "cultural" differences, and no, you're not going to win over people whose primary or sole motivation is racism and/or sexism and/or xenophobia. But you could win over the people who are hurting and who are looking for a simple explanation for their problems. "But there is no simple explanation!" --- it doesn't matter.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
"America's already great" - when people are living in poverty, can't afford or access health care, are being killed by the government's police force, are being forced to give birth, etc. - is not a winning message. I'm not sure what the message should be, but "it's complex, there are a lot of factors, we have to weigh all of the competing interests and look for a solution that blah blah blah" is boring, even if correct. It's not that people are too dumb to get the complex answer, it's that laws and regulations are not high on their list of interests (whether because of preferences or because their life circumstances don't leave room for that) -- you have like 15 seconds to get them to absorb your message before something else takes priority. Yes, there are "cultural" differences, and no, you're not going to win over people whose primary or sole motivation is racism and/or sexism and/or xenophobia. But you could win over the people who are hurting and who are looking for a simple explanation for their problems. "But there is no simple explanation!" --- it doesn't matter.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I swear, I don't mean that rudely. But your comment does sound privileged.
Nah, it's an entirely fair comment. I was trying to qualify my comment with more "I'll grant this has only been my experience and my experience may indeed have been limited" messaging, which is the case, but I grant I didn't do a good enough job of saying that; my apologies.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nah, it's an entirely fair comment. I was trying to qualify my comment with more "I'll grant this has only been my experience and my experience may indeed have been limited" messaging, which is the case, but I grant I didn't do a good enough job of saying that; my apologies.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:51 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But she has some useful information about how the other side is looking at things here.
But this is the whole false-equivalency thing again. Just because a group of people holds certain opinions about things (in this case, that collecting unemployment is tantamount to some sort of freeloading)--no matter how large or small that group of people might be--doesn't mean those views are necessarily correct, or even valid. It is perfectly possible for a quite large cross section of a society to simply be wrong.
posted by dersins at 11:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
But this is the whole false-equivalency thing again. Just because a group of people holds certain opinions about things (in this case, that collecting unemployment is tantamount to some sort of freeloading)--no matter how large or small that group of people might be--doesn't mean those views are necessarily correct, or even valid. It is perfectly possible for a quite large cross section of a society to simply be wrong.
posted by dersins at 11:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
talking about made up bench painting jobs as better than unemployment insurance is really making the case for Universal Basic Income to me
posted by zutalors! at 11:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 11:55 AM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
"unemployment insurance is bad for individuals and the economy" can be an objectively wrong belief; "having access to gainful employment is my top priority" is not
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: Nah, it's an entirely fair comment. I was trying to qualify my comment with more "I'll grant this has only been my experience and my experience may indeed have been limited" messaging, which is the case, but I grant I didn't do a good enough job of saying that; my apologies.
That's fine. No problem. Thanks.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on May 12, 2016
That's fine. No problem. Thanks.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on May 12, 2016
Mod note: One deleted. Maybe not so much with the rape metaphors, you're resourceful, find a different metaphor.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
talking about made up bench painting jobs as better than unemployment insurance is really making the case for Universal Basic Income to me
I suppose we might as well; Republicans have made it clear they aren't willing to spend money on America's crumbling infrastructure, so as long as we're blue-skying we might as well go large.
But I wouldn't sniff at "made up bench painting jobs;" there are still lots of useful public facilities that were built in the 30s by the WPA. Employing people to add value to this nation, value that everyone can enjoy, and in addition to, not rather than, unemployment insurance and the like, makes sense to me.
posted by Gelatin at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I suppose we might as well; Republicans have made it clear they aren't willing to spend money on America's crumbling infrastructure, so as long as we're blue-skying we might as well go large.
But I wouldn't sniff at "made up bench painting jobs;" there are still lots of useful public facilities that were built in the 30s by the WPA. Employing people to add value to this nation, value that everyone can enjoy, and in addition to, not rather than, unemployment insurance and the like, makes sense to me.
posted by Gelatin at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
talking about made up bench painting jobs as better than unemployment insurance is really making the case for Universal Basic Income to me
I think a jobs program would be great, but people don't have jobs because there are already not enough jobs. An entire industry works every day to make ensure that current work can be done with fewer and fewer people.
So, where would these jobs come from? The government could create public works projects again, but those are largely viewed as "artificial" and not market-driven. Would these jobs just be thought of as unacceptable big government welfare? Because that would be big government welfare, which I personally think is good, but if we're talking about people that hate welfare that don't have skills useful to the shrinking labor market, then that's not going to make them happy, either.
posted by ignignokt at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think a jobs program would be great, but people don't have jobs because there are already not enough jobs. An entire industry works every day to make ensure that current work can be done with fewer and fewer people.
So, where would these jobs come from? The government could create public works projects again, but those are largely viewed as "artificial" and not market-driven. Would these jobs just be thought of as unacceptable big government welfare? Because that would be big government welfare, which I personally think is good, but if we're talking about people that hate welfare that don't have skills useful to the shrinking labor market, then that's not going to make them happy, either.
posted by ignignokt at 12:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wish - deeply wish - that there were some kind of way that we could have divergent benefits for people with different cultural interests
We basically do have your wish fulfilled by our interconnected system of federal, state, and local governments. Someone who hates the PPACA can move to a state that rejected the Medicaid expansion, or vote for governors who will fight that and other provisions of the law. Likewise, the details of unemployment insurance programs vary by state.
Only programs paid for and administered purely at the federal level are in this zero-sum "we can have only one set of policies" state you're talking about. Of course liberals support more of these things being at the federal level and taking power away from the states, but the status quo is very conservative-leaning because it lets state governments control many of the details of programs that help people, and it turns out that many of the rural poor that you're worried about live in states where their cultural values have led to past versions of themselves taking funds away from present versions of themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
We basically do have your wish fulfilled by our interconnected system of federal, state, and local governments. Someone who hates the PPACA can move to a state that rejected the Medicaid expansion, or vote for governors who will fight that and other provisions of the law. Likewise, the details of unemployment insurance programs vary by state.
Only programs paid for and administered purely at the federal level are in this zero-sum "we can have only one set of policies" state you're talking about. Of course liberals support more of these things being at the federal level and taking power away from the states, but the status quo is very conservative-leaning because it lets state governments control many of the details of programs that help people, and it turns out that many of the rural poor that you're worried about live in states where their cultural values have led to past versions of themselves taking funds away from present versions of themselves.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
"That must be nice.
I swear, I don't mean that rudely. But your comment does sound privileged."
I'm surprised that anyone toward the left of the Dems hasn't had that awkward moment when you realize that the person who has been agreeing with you about the abuses of the banking industry is really just an anti-Semite.
("Why do you keep saying it Goldman Sachs? And why is 'BDS' part of this?")
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I swear, I don't mean that rudely. But your comment does sound privileged."
I'm surprised that anyone toward the left of the Dems hasn't had that awkward moment when you realize that the person who has been agreeing with you about the abuses of the banking industry is really just an anti-Semite.
("Why do you keep saying it Goldman Sachs? And why is 'BDS' part of this?")
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
the reason I said the bench painting was made up was because that was the premise - corb said maybe we could have some structure where the people who want to work can get some made up job, and the people who don't wanna work can get them some unemployment insurance because "culture" and all.
Personally I think plenty of benchpainters would consider it a skill.
posted by zutalors! at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016
Personally I think plenty of benchpainters would consider it a skill.
posted by zutalors! at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016
"unemployment insurance is bad for individuals and the economy" can be an objectively wrong belief; "having access to gainful employment is my top priority" is not
In theory, I totally agree with you. In practice, however, the latter view seems generally to be expressed through the former.
posted by dersins at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016
In theory, I totally agree with you. In practice, however, the latter view seems generally to be expressed through the former.
posted by dersins at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016
I like having a job even on the days I do no useful work because I get to be where all the people are.
posted by clawsoon at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 12:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
In practice, however, the latter view seems generally to be expressed through the former.
That's the rub, innit?
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2016
That's the rub, innit?
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2016
Personally I think plenty of benchpainters would consider it a skill.
Also they're already working for the parks department and probably don't want their hours or wages cut.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also they're already working for the parks department and probably don't want their hours or wages cut.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't get why some conservative leaning folks think giving unemployment insurance is a handout, but also won't give anything (sometimes not even basic medical care) to undocumented immigrants who are actually employed.
posted by FJT at 12:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 12:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deleted. klang, check your mefimail and if you need to yell at me do it there.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:06 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:06 PM on May 12, 2016
I don't get why some conservative leaning folks think giving unemployment insurance is a handout, but also won't give anything (sometimes not even basic medical care) to undocumented immigrants who are actually employed.
WALL
posted by dersins at 12:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
WALL
posted by dersins at 12:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
corb said maybe we could have some structure where the people who want to work can get some made up job,
That is - I think with the best of intentions - a misread of my position. I am not suggesting that people get made up jobs that don't benefit people. I am saying that we have many unmet needs in our society, both infrastructure wise and otherwise. Tutors for struggling kids, WPA-style projects, cleanup of urban and rural decay, etc. I think we can make some space to pay people for that.
posted by corb at 12:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is - I think with the best of intentions - a misread of my position. I am not suggesting that people get made up jobs that don't benefit people. I am saying that we have many unmet needs in our society, both infrastructure wise and otherwise. Tutors for struggling kids, WPA-style projects, cleanup of urban and rural decay, etc. I think we can make some space to pay people for that.
posted by corb at 12:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
It would also have the benefit of giving work experience for resumes. I have a lot of friends who have been out of work for years because no one wants to trust they won't just burn down the office on Day 1 or whatever it is they think the long term unemployed are a danger for.
posted by corb at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've heard "we need a new WPA" from left-leaning people for years
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
corb, what you're saying is that defunding public schools, defunding other public services, has killed a lot of jobs, and maybe we should raise taxes and pay for those jobs again.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
The government could create public works projects again, but those are largely viewed as "artificial" and not market-driven.
But the government should provides services that the market can't, or won't. Another benefit I see of this program is that it'd provide yet more objective evidence against the "only the free market works and government never does any good" hogwash the Republicans have been spewing for decades. Which is another reason they'd never vote for it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the government should provides services that the market can't, or won't. Another benefit I see of this program is that it'd provide yet more objective evidence against the "only the free market works and government never does any good" hogwash the Republicans have been spewing for decades. Which is another reason they'd never vote for it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am saying that we have many unmet needs in our society, both infrastructure wise and otherwise. Tutors for struggling kids, WPA-style projects, cleanup of urban and rural decay, etc. I think we can make some space to pay people for that.
I mean, I don't disagree with you that something like that could have a lot of benefits , but I kind of feel like it's unlikely that you'd get a lot of Republican signoff on a new New Deal. Because that is pretty much literally what you are talking about.
posted by dersins at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
I mean, I don't disagree with you that something like that could have a lot of benefits , but I kind of feel like it's unlikely that you'd get a lot of Republican signoff on a new New Deal. Because that is pretty much literally what you are talking about.
posted by dersins at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
And that would require raising taxes to pay for. Which Republicans won't do.
And since you've been going on about pride... I'm a trained professional in a specific, demanding career. If I couldn't get a job I sure as shit wouldn't feel much pride 'cleaning up urban decay' instead of using the skills I actually have.
So we're back to what I told you when you asked what to do to stop Trump: Stop. Voting. Republican. Because Republicans are never going to participate in this scheme.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
And since you've been going on about pride... I'm a trained professional in a specific, demanding career. If I couldn't get a job I sure as shit wouldn't feel much pride 'cleaning up urban decay' instead of using the skills I actually have.
So we're back to what I told you when you asked what to do to stop Trump: Stop. Voting. Republican. Because Republicans are never going to participate in this scheme.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
just come to the other side and blame it on metafilter
posted by angrycat at 12:14 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:14 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Gelatin, I agree – I just don't think that is something that is accepted by people who hate welfare and want jobs and yet are not going to get them from the free market.
posted by ignignokt at 12:16 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by ignignokt at 12:16 PM on May 12, 2016
please do not use social justice language to defend the elite.
Please don't try to silence people who disagree with you. I could add, please don't reinforce bullshit Republican attacks on anyone with education or rational arguments or successful real world experience as "the elite," but let's stick with defending free speech for now.
posted by msalt at 12:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Please don't try to silence people who disagree with you. I could add, please don't reinforce bullshit Republican attacks on anyone with education or rational arguments or successful real world experience as "the elite," but let's stick with defending free speech for now.
posted by msalt at 12:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
And that would require raising taxes to pay for. Which Republicans won't do.
To be fair, it's also something most Democrats won't do either.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
To be fair, it's also something most Democrats won't do either.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
If I couldn't get a job I sure as shit wouldn't feel much pride 'cleaning up urban decay' instead of using the skills I actually have.
Obviously not every profession is going to be represented, but we've discussed in this thread how many infrastructure jobs will require engineering skills, and there would also be considerable administration and project management expertise needed. A jobs program wouldn't simply be armies of bench painters; there would be all kinds of room to provide professional jobs as well.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obviously not every profession is going to be represented, but we've discussed in this thread how many infrastructure jobs will require engineering skills, and there would also be considerable administration and project management expertise needed. A jobs program wouldn't simply be armies of bench painters; there would be all kinds of room to provide professional jobs as well.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
something like that could have a lot of benefits , but I kind of feel like it's unlikely that you'd get a lot of Republican signoff on a new New Deal. Because that is pretty much literally what you are talking about.
Sometimes I feel like we have Parties and Shadow Parties, because this is not even like a new idea in conservative circles, privately. I think you'd need to make sure the jobs and funding are plainly non-ideological, and the program would need to be evenly geographically distributed rather than concentrating in cities, but I think it'd be easy to do if you could avoid the pit traps.
posted by corb at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016
Sometimes I feel like we have Parties and Shadow Parties, because this is not even like a new idea in conservative circles, privately. I think you'd need to make sure the jobs and funding are plainly non-ideological, and the program would need to be evenly geographically distributed rather than concentrating in cities, but I think it'd be easy to do if you could avoid the pit traps.
posted by corb at 12:18 PM on May 12, 2016
Actually, I would pay hard money to get Ds and Rs in a room to talk "here are the policy proposals we would make if we weren't worried the other side would make hay of it."
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
You may say corb's a dreamer, but she's not the only one.
posted by clawsoon at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm surprised that anyone toward the left of the Dems hasn't had that awkward moment when you realize that the person who has been agreeing with you about the abuses of the banking industry is really just an anti-Semite.
I think I might have some kind of sixth sense that unconsciously steers me away from getting into conversations with complete buttwads.
This does lead to weird "wait, I've never run into people who said that..." moments like I just had with zarq, and a more pollyanna-ish-than-usual perspective on human nature, but it also spares me from having to scream and chew people a new asshole more often than I do. (It also saves my energy for things like testifying at TLC hearings about the cabbie from hell, though.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2016
I think I might have some kind of sixth sense that unconsciously steers me away from getting into conversations with complete buttwads.
This does lead to weird "wait, I've never run into people who said that..." moments like I just had with zarq, and a more pollyanna-ish-than-usual perspective on human nature, but it also spares me from having to scream and chew people a new asshole more often than I do. (It also saves my energy for things like testifying at TLC hearings about the cabbie from hell, though.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:23 PM on May 12, 2016
"here are the policy proposals we would make if we weren't worried the other side would make hay of it."
I literally can not imagine, given this Presidential campaign, any Republican keeping mum about any policy proposal out of fear Democrats would make hay of it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I literally can not imagine, given this Presidential campaign, any Republican keeping mum about any policy proposal out of fear Democrats would make hay of it.
posted by Gelatin at 12:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
So if in private conversation some conservatives think that something resembling the New Deal is a great idea, why won't they stand up and say it in public? Why do they still vote the party line instead of actually working towards a compromise? Are you talking about elected officials or private citizens that you know?
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 12:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
the program would need to be evenly geographically distributed rather than concentrating in cities
No, it should be evenly distributed based on need of citizens. Over 70% of Americans live in cities or metro areas, punishing them for that is unnecessarily cruel.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, it should be evenly distributed based on need of citizens. Over 70% of Americans live in cities or metro areas, punishing them for that is unnecessarily cruel.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
(Now, out of fear of a primary challenge from even-more-conservative Republicans, maybe.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 12:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sometimes I feel like we have Parties and Shadow Parties, because this is not even like a new idea in conservative circles, privately.
And it's not public because? I don't believe for a moment there's much more than a few people in the Republican party--that is, elected officials and their apparatus--who are in favour of a new WPA. You're going to have to provide proof for your claim that this is a thing.
but I think it'd be easy to do if you could avoid the pit traps.
Like, y'know, paying for it?
I mean, there are approximately 7.9 million unemployed people in the USA. Let's call that 8M for roundness' sake. Let's say 25% of those people would take part in a WPA-style scheme.
So. 2M people. The average recipient of social assistance in the USA gets about $9K a year--that's welfare, social security, etc. 9k x 2M = 18 billion dollars.
But you'd have to pay people more than average social assistance income, otherwise why bother? I'm certainly not going to work full time for $9K a year. $18K/year = $1.5K/month, which is slightly more than I received when I was on disability as a single person.
So that's $18 billion over and above what's already being spent on social assistance. Plus training costs, plus administration costs, plus materials costs.. let's say, I dunno, another couple billion on top.
Where is that money coming from? Raising taxes? That's a no-go for Republicans. Maybe shave off some of the military budget? It would be a drop in the bucket, but nope, that's a no-go too.
There is no way in hell the Republican party is going to endorse a WPA, and everyone knows it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
And it's not public because? I don't believe for a moment there's much more than a few people in the Republican party--that is, elected officials and their apparatus--who are in favour of a new WPA. You're going to have to provide proof for your claim that this is a thing.
but I think it'd be easy to do if you could avoid the pit traps.
Like, y'know, paying for it?
I mean, there are approximately 7.9 million unemployed people in the USA. Let's call that 8M for roundness' sake. Let's say 25% of those people would take part in a WPA-style scheme.
So. 2M people. The average recipient of social assistance in the USA gets about $9K a year--that's welfare, social security, etc. 9k x 2M = 18 billion dollars.
But you'd have to pay people more than average social assistance income, otherwise why bother? I'm certainly not going to work full time for $9K a year. $18K/year = $1.5K/month, which is slightly more than I received when I was on disability as a single person.
So that's $18 billion over and above what's already being spent on social assistance. Plus training costs, plus administration costs, plus materials costs.. let's say, I dunno, another couple billion on top.
Where is that money coming from? Raising taxes? That's a no-go for Republicans. Maybe shave off some of the military budget? It would be a drop in the bucket, but nope, that's a no-go too.
There is no way in hell the Republican party is going to endorse a WPA, and everyone knows it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'd also like to point out: 30 hours a week is a full time job. Yes, I know people like to count it as part time, but that's because we like to punish people. I pay for unemployment insurance to make sure that in case I lose my job, I will have a comfortable time to get a new job in my field. The idea that I would manage to do that while working 30 hours a week and commuting and everything else while magically fitting all my job search into 10 hours is both cruel and nuts.
For example, I've learned that it's not a good idea to schedule more than one interview a day, especially in-person ones. I need to focus on the interview as I prep, and then once it's done I'm drained, because it's a performance and being on like that exhausts me. This is especially true for modern interviews in the tech field -- you usually talk to 4 to 6 people.
And I need to be available for interviews at any time, especially when they want to call you back for a second round. Hell, even filtering through the recruiter calls and emails for the high quality ones takes tons of time -- and I'm lucky enough to be in a field where they come looking for you instead of having to hunt everything yourself.
posted by tavella at 12:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
For example, I've learned that it's not a good idea to schedule more than one interview a day, especially in-person ones. I need to focus on the interview as I prep, and then once it's done I'm drained, because it's a performance and being on like that exhausts me. This is especially true for modern interviews in the tech field -- you usually talk to 4 to 6 people.
And I need to be available for interviews at any time, especially when they want to call you back for a second round. Hell, even filtering through the recruiter calls and emails for the high quality ones takes tons of time -- and I'm lucky enough to be in a field where they come looking for you instead of having to hunt everything yourself.
posted by tavella at 12:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I sometimes wonder how many of the political arguments on Metafilter are between people who grew up rural (even if they now live in big cities) and people who grew up in cities. I see some hints of that in this thread, but it would be interesting to know if that bears out. I wonder if it's sometimes just as important as left-vs-right.
posted by clawsoon at 12:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 12:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
evenly geographically distributed rather than concentrating in cities
Acres don't fill jobs, people do.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:30 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Acres don't fill jobs, people do.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:30 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it'd be easy to do if you could avoid the pit traps.
I think you are overestimating the ability and willingness of Republican politicians to do the right thing--even if it is the only smart, effective option.
The last time something like this came up was Obama's stimulus package. The pit trap there was that exactly zero House Republicans voted in favor of it, and only three Republican Senators (one of whom switched parties not long after).
The only way that trap was avoided was that there were Dem majorities in both chambers, and a Dem president to sign it into law.
posted by dersins at 12:30 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think you are overestimating the ability and willingness of Republican politicians to do the right thing--even if it is the only smart, effective option.
The last time something like this came up was Obama's stimulus package. The pit trap there was that exactly zero House Republicans voted in favor of it, and only three Republican Senators (one of whom switched parties not long after).
The only way that trap was avoided was that there were Dem majorities in both chambers, and a Dem president to sign it into law.
posted by dersins at 12:30 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sotonhito's point about narrative is a good one, and an obvious Hillary weakness, though I disagree on the Wall Street diagnosis. Wall Street goes where the money is, and follows the incentives that government sets up.
I think Hillary's critique of quarterly capitalism is a lot more likely to lead to useful reforms than Bernie's approach, which seems to be "We'll let big banks figure out how to restructure themselves to meet some arbitrary dollar or market share threshholds." Because one thing Wall Street is really good at is restructuring companies for monetary advantage.
But Bernie's approach makes a much better narrative, and that's more likely to win the election than good policy. At least among a big chunk of the population. If it was everybody, though, Sanders would be winning the primaries.
posted by msalt at 12:31 PM on May 12, 2016
I think Hillary's critique of quarterly capitalism is a lot more likely to lead to useful reforms than Bernie's approach, which seems to be "We'll let big banks figure out how to restructure themselves to meet some arbitrary dollar or market share threshholds." Because one thing Wall Street is really good at is restructuring companies for monetary advantage.
But Bernie's approach makes a much better narrative, and that's more likely to win the election than good policy. At least among a big chunk of the population. If it was everybody, though, Sanders would be winning the primaries.
posted by msalt at 12:31 PM on May 12, 2016
Out here on the coast, we write off the South as “dumb” or “backward.”
Yeah thanks but no, we do not.
When you're an Okie married to an Alabamian, you hear it ALL THE DAMN TIME. As pointed out, the trivialization of Southern voting for Hillary or Midwestern red state voting for Bernie. The "why didn't we just let them go instead of fighting the Civil War?" talk. My Facebook feed that's full of well-meaning liberals who just shit all over Flyover Country every chance they get (but with a "I'm not talking about Southerners, but those people..." caveat that is not).
It's not everyone. But that starts turning towards a #notallmen sort of line of thinking when you get dismissive of a consistent prejudice like that. It's there, it's stupid, and we need to stop trivializing it.
posted by dw at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
Yeah thanks but no, we do not.
When you're an Okie married to an Alabamian, you hear it ALL THE DAMN TIME. As pointed out, the trivialization of Southern voting for Hillary or Midwestern red state voting for Bernie. The "why didn't we just let them go instead of fighting the Civil War?" talk. My Facebook feed that's full of well-meaning liberals who just shit all over Flyover Country every chance they get (but with a "I'm not talking about Southerners, but those people..." caveat that is not).
It's not everyone. But that starts turning towards a #notallmen sort of line of thinking when you get dismissive of a consistent prejudice like that. It's there, it's stupid, and we need to stop trivializing it.
posted by dw at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
Same pit trap with ACA. And now the Republicans in the House keep trying to repeal it, removing healthcare from how many millions of people?
Republicans do not care about poor people, period, and it's sickening that anyone--not just corb--can pretend they do. That's a level of cognitive dissonance I cannot understand.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Republicans do not care about poor people, period, and it's sickening that anyone--not just corb--can pretend they do. That's a level of cognitive dissonance I cannot understand.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I sometimes wonder how many of the political arguments on Metafilter are between people who grew up rural (even if they now live in big cities) and people who grew up in cities. I see some hints of that in this thread, but it would be interesting to know if that bears out. I wonder if it's sometimes just as important as left-vs-right.
I'm sure it does. After all, that division affects threads on certain other topics, such as cars vs., bikes.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure it does. After all, that division affects threads on certain other topics, such as cars vs., bikes.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
it should be evenly distributed based on need of citizens. Over 70% of Americans live in cities or metro areas, punishing them for that is unnecessarily cruel.
Aaaand this is why Trump is cleaning up.
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities, and 30% in the rural areas (95% geographically)" and have it be a useful program for rural areas. This is how we do social services currently, and it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities. When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Aaaand this is why Trump is cleaning up.
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities, and 30% in the rural areas (95% geographically)" and have it be a useful program for rural areas. This is how we do social services currently, and it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities. When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trumps refusal to release tax returns is starting to heat up. If he isn't consistently hammered on this by mainstream media, then I will start to worry that this is going to be a completely post-empirical election, and that the Empire has already won.
posted by skewed at 12:37 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by skewed at 12:37 PM on May 12, 2016
But that starts turning towards a #notallmen sort of line of thinking when you get dismissive of a consistent prejudice like that. It's there, it's stupid, and we need to stop trivializing it.
It's a two-way street, though. There are a lot of people who romanticize rural life and culture and put down urban culture. It's not just racism, either (although that often plays a big part). It's not unusual to see people claim that people who live in cities just don't have the bonds that the good salt-of-the-earth folk do, that they are unfeeling or uncaring or always angry.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a two-way street, though. There are a lot of people who romanticize rural life and culture and put down urban culture. It's not just racism, either (although that often plays a big part). It's not unusual to see people claim that people who live in cities just don't have the bonds that the good salt-of-the-earth folk do, that they are unfeeling or uncaring or always angry.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd like everyone to keep their word and release everything they said they would.
posted by futz at 12:39 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by futz at 12:39 PM on May 12, 2016
The real problem with the US economy is not banks, or trade deals, or the tax rate.
It's that we're on the downslope after an insane and mostly unearned period of excessive wealth, built on avoiding WW2 attacks, grabbing a huge chunk of resource-rich land, having the world's strongest army and best weapons, cultural domination, and foreign policy aggression (both IMF type soft aggression and CIA/Army direct aggression.)
it can't last. It shouldn't last. it only worked with 3/4ths of the world's population prevented from joining the world economy by tariffs and their own government's policies (India as well as China). There's a reason that Republicans champion "American Exceptionalism" and dogwhistle racism, because there is no other way to justify the easy wealth we've had or say we deserve to continue it.
This is not a very good campaign narrative though. Trump's idiocy and Bernie's bank-bashing win because they offer scapegoats for America's inevitable decline, and (irrationally) promise to reverse it.
posted by msalt at 12:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's that we're on the downslope after an insane and mostly unearned period of excessive wealth, built on avoiding WW2 attacks, grabbing a huge chunk of resource-rich land, having the world's strongest army and best weapons, cultural domination, and foreign policy aggression (both IMF type soft aggression and CIA/Army direct aggression.)
it can't last. It shouldn't last. it only worked with 3/4ths of the world's population prevented from joining the world economy by tariffs and their own government's policies (India as well as China). There's a reason that Republicans champion "American Exceptionalism" and dogwhistle racism, because there is no other way to justify the easy wealth we've had or say we deserve to continue it.
This is not a very good campaign narrative though. Trump's idiocy and Bernie's bank-bashing win because they offer scapegoats for America's inevitable decline, and (irrationally) promise to reverse it.
posted by msalt at 12:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities, and 30% in the rural areas (95% geographically)" and have it be a useful program for rural areas. This is how we do social services currently, and it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities. When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
The logical step, then, is to remove many of the hurdles the Republicans have put into place w/r/t getting social assistance. Not to ignore where most of the needy people actually are. Nor to spend more money on inefficient staffing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The logical step, then, is to remove many of the hurdles the Republicans have put into place w/r/t getting social assistance. Not to ignore where most of the needy people actually are. Nor to spend more money on inefficient staffing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities
Distributed based on need of citizens is not the same as distributed based on population of citizens. There is a middle ground between "70% of citizens get 70% of offices" and "1 office per X square miles".
And it's not the Democrats who have been trying to shut down PP and other health clinics in rural areas, forcing people to drive 4 hours to find one.
posted by Roommate at 12:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
Distributed based on need of citizens is not the same as distributed based on population of citizens. There is a middle ground between "70% of citizens get 70% of offices" and "1 office per X square miles".
And it's not the Democrats who have been trying to shut down PP and other health clinics in rural areas, forcing people to drive 4 hours to find one.
posted by Roommate at 12:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities, and 30% in the rural areas (95% geographically)" and have it be a useful program for rural areas.
I didn't say anything about offices. In fact, it'd be great if those offices were at least as numerous as (or even part of) post offices. But to have 95% of funds and services go to 30% of the population would definitely be cruel towards the other 70%.
Aaaand this is why Trump is cleaning up.
That's a profound misreading of what we're talking about here.
When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
And yet driving four hours to get to an office is perfectly acceptable when it comes to voting rights?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I didn't say anything about offices. In fact, it'd be great if those offices were at least as numerous as (or even part of) post offices. But to have 95% of funds and services go to 30% of the population would definitely be cruel towards the other 70%.
Aaaand this is why Trump is cleaning up.
That's a profound misreading of what we're talking about here.
When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
And yet driving four hours to get to an office is perfectly acceptable when it comes to voting rights?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Or, as Roommate notes, health care and women's rights.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or women's healthcare rights, as previously noted.
posted by agregoli at 12:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
msalt, I mostly agree. But it doesn't mean that the US government should have just stepped aside and basically allowed a lot of people working in manufacturing and union jobs to feel the full force of economic changes when there would have been numerous things that a more active and responsive government can and should have done to provide social services, promote and grow new industry/businesses, and to retrain and educate it's workforce for the changes that were coming down the pipeline.
It never had to be a zero-sum game.
posted by FJT at 12:48 PM on May 12, 2016
It never had to be a zero-sum game.
posted by FJT at 12:48 PM on May 12, 2016
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities
You wouldn't need to put 70% of the offices in the cities to have the correct proportion of benefits going to those in need.
it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities.
I'm sure their Republican information sources are telling them that -- the myth of Taking Our Hard Earned Tax Dollars and Giving It To Those People is part of the Republican lifeblood -- but they're lying. Rural states -- Republican states -- receive more Federal tax money than their citizens contribute.
posted by Gelatin at 12:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
You wouldn't need to put 70% of the offices in the cities to have the correct proportion of benefits going to those in need.
it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities.
I'm sure their Republican information sources are telling them that -- the myth of Taking Our Hard Earned Tax Dollars and Giving It To Those People is part of the Republican lifeblood -- but they're lying. Rural states -- Republican states -- receive more Federal tax money than their citizens contribute.
posted by Gelatin at 12:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
what if we just built some pyramids
posted by poffin boffin at 12:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
we'll need people to farm the grain to put in them, too
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
You cannot say, "70% of the people in need are in the cities (let's generously say 5% geographically) so let's put 70% of the offices in the cities, and 30% in the rural areas (95% geographically)" and have it be a useful program for rural areas. This is how we do social services currently, and it's one reason rural people think social services are failing them and siphoning their aid to the cities. When someone has to drive four hours to get to an office, that is just plain not useful to them.
Hospitals are a good example of community resources that are not evenly distributed throughout the country. They are typically centrally placed (geographically) in order to be as accessible as possible. Despite this, there's still a disparity of coverage in urban vs. rural health care, because distribution isn't necessarily based on need.
People in suburban and rural areas know they will likely have to travel further to reach the resources they need. That's part of the burden they accept in exchange for not living in tightly-populated urban areas -- and it's a trade off that's never going to be 100% resolved because of the distances involved.
The issue isn't whether those services are farther away, but (a) whether the coverage they provide can be made more fair given regional geography and (b) whether a community's specific and possibly unique needs are being taken care of. The statistics at the NRHA link show that suicide and hypertension are higher in rural areas than urban. It stands to reason that medical specialists would have a slightly higher concentration than average in rural areas. But they don't, and that's the sort of thing that should really be addressed.
posted by zarq at 12:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hospitals are a good example of community resources that are not evenly distributed throughout the country. They are typically centrally placed (geographically) in order to be as accessible as possible. Despite this, there's still a disparity of coverage in urban vs. rural health care, because distribution isn't necessarily based on need.
People in suburban and rural areas know they will likely have to travel further to reach the resources they need. That's part of the burden they accept in exchange for not living in tightly-populated urban areas -- and it's a trade off that's never going to be 100% resolved because of the distances involved.
The issue isn't whether those services are farther away, but (a) whether the coverage they provide can be made more fair given regional geography and (b) whether a community's specific and possibly unique needs are being taken care of. The statistics at the NRHA link show that suicide and hypertension are higher in rural areas than urban. It stands to reason that medical specialists would have a slightly higher concentration than average in rural areas. But they don't, and that's the sort of thing that should really be addressed.
posted by zarq at 12:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
We already have plenty of grain silos, poffin boffin. Building the Alpha Centauri Spaceship, on the other hand...
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think we're making a mistake here when we are talking about the Work is Virtue crowd, and that mistake is expecting their attitude to be rational and taken to its logical extremes.
Of course they don't reject Social Security. That's been around so long and is now such a built in part of the American culture that they are able to exempt it from their attitude and count it as not a handout.
Similarly we don't see them objecting to massive inheritances or the idle rich. Possibly because usually the idle rich these days have pretend office jobs and don't just lounge around in smoking jackets, but mostly because there's a weird aspirational thing going, as well as the just world hypothesis mixed with a lot of prosperity gospel.
Unemployment is immoral. Being left a few billion by your rich parents so you never have to work is totally moral.
I think it is these inconsistencies, which clearly benefit the looter billionaire class, that lead us on the left to often conclude that the Work is Virtue people are lying about their beliefs, or more charitably that they are tricked into their beliefs. Because when examined closely, their beliefs seem very much to help the Randite billionaires and hurt everyone else.
Plus, of course, the nakedly racist part, which doesn't really help make the attitude look much better. Benefits to white people are often accepted as necessary (however grudgingly), while benefits to people of color are universally derided. The racist view that the lazy brown people are taking the money created by the hard working white people goes back to before abolition.
Still, I'll admit that there are people who have a weird sort of scattershot attitude that some forms of assistance are inherently shameful or immoral, while others are perfectly fine and dandy.
What I don't see is why the solution to that problem isn't education rather than trying to mask benefits as something else.
posted by sotonohito at 12:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Of course they don't reject Social Security. That's been around so long and is now such a built in part of the American culture that they are able to exempt it from their attitude and count it as not a handout.
Similarly we don't see them objecting to massive inheritances or the idle rich. Possibly because usually the idle rich these days have pretend office jobs and don't just lounge around in smoking jackets, but mostly because there's a weird aspirational thing going, as well as the just world hypothesis mixed with a lot of prosperity gospel.
Unemployment is immoral. Being left a few billion by your rich parents so you never have to work is totally moral.
I think it is these inconsistencies, which clearly benefit the looter billionaire class, that lead us on the left to often conclude that the Work is Virtue people are lying about their beliefs, or more charitably that they are tricked into their beliefs. Because when examined closely, their beliefs seem very much to help the Randite billionaires and hurt everyone else.
Plus, of course, the nakedly racist part, which doesn't really help make the attitude look much better. Benefits to white people are often accepted as necessary (however grudgingly), while benefits to people of color are universally derided. The racist view that the lazy brown people are taking the money created by the hard working white people goes back to before abolition.
Still, I'll admit that there are people who have a weird sort of scattershot attitude that some forms of assistance are inherently shameful or immoral, while others are perfectly fine and dandy.
What I don't see is why the solution to that problem isn't education rather than trying to mask benefits as something else.
posted by sotonohito at 12:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
hollygoheavy: So if in private conversation some conservatives think that something resembling the New Deal is a great idea, why won't they stand up and say it in public? Why do they still vote the party line instead of actually working towards a compromise? Are you talking about elected officials or private citizens that you know?
If you spend some time on places like Patheos, you'll see pockets of this on a semi-regular basis. They vote for the party line because of abortion. The kindest among them do sincerely believe that they're working to save the weakest of the weak, and that's the most important, most compassionate thing they could possibly be doing. The "compassionate conservatism" catchphrase was a big draw for them, because it promised that both "unborn babies" and the poor and disenfranchised would be helped. But after 40 years, some of them are realizing that they've been duped, that the promise to end abortion has been used as a way to blind them to all the other injustice that's been done with their votes. E.g.:
So, yeah, short answer: Abortion is part of it.
posted by clawsoon at 12:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you spend some time on places like Patheos, you'll see pockets of this on a semi-regular basis. They vote for the party line because of abortion. The kindest among them do sincerely believe that they're working to save the weakest of the weak, and that's the most important, most compassionate thing they could possibly be doing. The "compassionate conservatism" catchphrase was a big draw for them, because it promised that both "unborn babies" and the poor and disenfranchised would be helped. But after 40 years, some of them are realizing that they've been duped, that the promise to end abortion has been used as a way to blind them to all the other injustice that's been done with their votes. E.g.:
Pro life isn't just abortion. Pro life means health care, clean air, clean water, adequate food, a living wage, social safety nets, environmental protections, ending wars, caring for veterans and much, much more. Republican politicians, with the concurrence of evangelical Christian voters, have focused all of the attention on abortion and gay rights, keeping those issues front and center, while off to the side they and their billionaire friends stole the store.There are plenty of hypocritical conservatives - maybe even the majority! - who have used abortion as a cover to implement lots of other horrible policies. But there are a few - as misguided as they may be - who are sincere in their compassion, whether it's for the unborn or the born. If you get to know them, you discover that they're kind, giving, wonderful - conservative - people. Not all of them, but some. And some of them would be on board with a new New Deal. But the ones who are sincerely kind and compassionate are usually spending their time actually helping people, rather than standing on political soapboxes advertising themselves and their ideas.
So, yeah, short answer: Abortion is part of it.
posted by clawsoon at 12:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
>Not to ignore where most of the needy people actually are. Nor to spend more money on inefficient staffing.
These goals are at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you focus on putting resources where the need is, those with little need out in the rural areas will get little staffing. If you want more than one person per 100 miles, you have to accept that the extra capacity will not be utilized at highly efficient rates.
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market. Lots of bluecollar workers have been displaced or know someone who has. I work with a man that ran a cleaning service for 20+ years until competitors could hire people for less than minimum wage. Friends in construction complain they cant get jobs they used to get unless they learn to speak Spanish. Trumps 'build a wall' is a lot more compelling to those people than the Dem response of 'go to college' or worse, 'that's not true you racist'.
posted by anti social order at 1:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
These goals are at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you focus on putting resources where the need is, those with little need out in the rural areas will get little staffing. If you want more than one person per 100 miles, you have to accept that the extra capacity will not be utilized at highly efficient rates.
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market. Lots of bluecollar workers have been displaced or know someone who has. I work with a man that ran a cleaning service for 20+ years until competitors could hire people for less than minimum wage. Friends in construction complain they cant get jobs they used to get unless they learn to speak Spanish. Trumps 'build a wall' is a lot more compelling to those people than the Dem response of 'go to college' or worse, 'that's not true you racist'.
posted by anti social order at 1:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Except it's factually wrong that stamping out abortion services helps anyone. Women still seek abortions. Women will die because of it. Closing clinics hurts people, including those who don't even seek abortion. I find nothing compassionate about people who ignore facts and pursue agendas that hurt people. That's what's infuriating about the supposedly true compassionate folks.
posted by agregoli at 1:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market.
This isn't new, and is just the continuation of slavery under another name.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
This isn't new, and is just the continuation of slavery under another name.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market.
This supply-side view of labor can be expressed in demand-side terms as "the companies hiring illegal labor don't want to pay what they have to pay legal workers, so they hire the people who will work for the lower wages." Ignoring the culpability of the employers who seek to minimize labor costs is at least as bad a sin as you're accusing "the left" of.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
This supply-side view of labor can be expressed in demand-side terms as "the companies hiring illegal labor don't want to pay what they have to pay legal workers, so they hire the people who will work for the lower wages." Ignoring the culpability of the employers who seek to minimize labor costs is at least as bad a sin as you're accusing "the left" of.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [25 favorites]
There is no way in hell the Republican party is going to endorse a WPA, and everyone knows it.
Sure they would. But you're not going to like what they want to build with it.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure they would. But you're not going to like what they want to build with it.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market. Lots of bluecollar workers have been displaced or know someone who has.
C'mon, this sounds like a cariacture from talk radio. "The left" has been acknowledging this for decades, specifically the exploitation by so-called job creators.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
C'mon, this sounds like a cariacture from talk radio. "The left" has been acknowledging this for decades, specifically the exploitation by so-called job creators.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
Also, related to jobs, I wish the 'left' would acknowledge that illegal immigrants or exploited legal immigrants have absolutely taken over the low-end labor market.
The "left" acknowledges this all the time, and correctly assigns the lion's share of the blame to the companies that hire people who are cheap enough to exploit.
posted by Etrigan at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
The "left" acknowledges this all the time, and correctly assigns the lion's share of the blame to the companies that hire people who are cheap enough to exploit.
posted by Etrigan at 1:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
it doesn't mean that the US government should have just stepped aside and basically allowed a lot of people working in manufacturing and union jobs to feel the full force of economic changes when there would have been numerous things that a more active and responsive government can and should have done to provide social services, promote and grow new industry/businesses, and to retrain and educate it's workforce for the changes that were coming down the pipeline.
Here on the West Coast anyway, the government is falling all over itself trying to promote and grow new industry and businesses, and to retrain and educate its workforce. I've worked in this area myself, for outfits that had more than average success. But it's a lot easier said than done.
And fundamentally, there are tens of millions of people in India and China who work harder for less money and in many cases are better educated than most Americans. The top 1% of Chinese and Indian workers is 25 million people, which is 8% of the US population. In any kind of fair world, they're going to do a lot of the high-paying jobs Americans hold right now.
Social services is a different story. Definitely the government should soften that blow. I think the best narrative for Hillary is some kind "Fix the infrastructure" initiative combined with structural quarterly capitalism reform. Plus one more thing I'll put in another comment.
posted by msalt at 1:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here on the West Coast anyway, the government is falling all over itself trying to promote and grow new industry and businesses, and to retrain and educate its workforce. I've worked in this area myself, for outfits that had more than average success. But it's a lot easier said than done.
And fundamentally, there are tens of millions of people in India and China who work harder for less money and in many cases are better educated than most Americans. The top 1% of Chinese and Indian workers is 25 million people, which is 8% of the US population. In any kind of fair world, they're going to do a lot of the high-paying jobs Americans hold right now.
Social services is a different story. Definitely the government should soften that blow. I think the best narrative for Hillary is some kind "Fix the infrastructure" initiative combined with structural quarterly capitalism reform. Plus one more thing I'll put in another comment.
posted by msalt at 1:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
So how do these voters reconcile that their one issue is more important than all of the others so that they can still vote Republican? I get that they truly believe that clean air, ending wars and social safety nets are part of being pro life, but to them none of that is nearly as important than stopping abortion. That's just picking and choosing what and who they personally think is more important. If they really believe all those other issues are important, then they would rationally look and see that Republicans aren't where they should be placing their support.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
zarq: The issue isn't whether those services are farther away, but (a) whether the coverage they provide can be made more fair given regional geography and (b) whether a community's specific and possibly unique needs are being taken care of. The statistics at the NRHA link show that suicide and hypertension are higher in rural areas than urban. It stands to reason that medical specialists would have a slightly higher concentration than average in rural areas. But they don't, and that's the sort of thing that should really be addressed.
arachnidette had a great comment on this issue in another thread.
I have one minor quibble with what you say, though: Distance does matter in the case of heart attacks, which is one area in which urban hospitals have made a significant dent in death rates over the past decade or two by focusing on time-to-treatment. It would be extremely expensive to serve rural areas with the same low response times that have helped so much in cities.
/derail
posted by clawsoon at 1:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
arachnidette had a great comment on this issue in another thread.
I have one minor quibble with what you say, though: Distance does matter in the case of heart attacks, which is one area in which urban hospitals have made a significant dent in death rates over the past decade or two by focusing on time-to-treatment. It would be extremely expensive to serve rural areas with the same low response times that have helped so much in cities.
/derail
posted by clawsoon at 1:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
anti social order I don't think I've ever heard a Democrat argue that illegal immegrants haven't taken a large percentage of sub-minimum wage jobs.
In fact, I've heard a lot of Democrats argue exactly this and decry the horrible injustice of scumbag farms, construction companies, hotels, and so forth exploiting people who can't complain about getting paid less than minimum wage due to their immigration status.
Most Democrats I've spoken to remember the last time anyone seriously tried rounding up illegal labor and how it devastated the California farming industry because the farms wouldn't pay enough to keep legal labor working.
Most Democrats I've spoken to have the belief (and I think it is justified) that the current status quo is largely the result of industries that like having easily exploitable illegal labor working actively to make legal immigration more difficult explicitly to keep their labor costs down and their profits high.
I'd love to see a vastly expanded work visa program that allows, quite literally, every single illegal immigrant to become legal and thus eligible to get minimum wage, medical benefits, and all the other things they are currently being denied.
What I *don't* think is that many legal Americans will take those jobs at the shit wages that are currently offered.
Illegal immigrants are indeed "taking our jobs", but only if by "our jobs" you mean "godawful backbreaking physical labor at preposterously low wages".
posted by sotonohito at 1:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
In fact, I've heard a lot of Democrats argue exactly this and decry the horrible injustice of scumbag farms, construction companies, hotels, and so forth exploiting people who can't complain about getting paid less than minimum wage due to their immigration status.
Most Democrats I've spoken to remember the last time anyone seriously tried rounding up illegal labor and how it devastated the California farming industry because the farms wouldn't pay enough to keep legal labor working.
Most Democrats I've spoken to have the belief (and I think it is justified) that the current status quo is largely the result of industries that like having easily exploitable illegal labor working actively to make legal immigration more difficult explicitly to keep their labor costs down and their profits high.
I'd love to see a vastly expanded work visa program that allows, quite literally, every single illegal immigrant to become legal and thus eligible to get minimum wage, medical benefits, and all the other things they are currently being denied.
What I *don't* think is that many legal Americans will take those jobs at the shit wages that are currently offered.
Illegal immigrants are indeed "taking our jobs", but only if by "our jobs" you mean "godawful backbreaking physical labor at preposterously low wages".
posted by sotonohito at 1:12 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
One thing to also consider about the focus on work programs is that actual full unemployment is only around 5%. Sure, that's 18 million people, but it's a facility small number committed to the people who ARE supporting, but still in poverty. The pepper who are working two or three part-tone or full-time jobs, taking care of kids, and still barely or not getting by.
Going to those people and saying "Hey, we'll put you in a full-time make-work program digging and filling ditches, for less than you're making now" isn't going to be received well. A lot of the "We need jobs" rhetoric is actually "We need jobs we can live on", and that's not so easy to fix. Increased minimum wage is a start, retraining helps, and so would subsidized day care. But on a large scale, providing living wage jobs is a difficult, complicated issue.
posted by happyroach at 1:13 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Going to those people and saying "Hey, we'll put you in a full-time make-work program digging and filling ditches, for less than you're making now" isn't going to be received well. A lot of the "We need jobs" rhetoric is actually "We need jobs we can live on", and that's not so easy to fix. Increased minimum wage is a start, retraining helps, and so would subsidized day care. But on a large scale, providing living wage jobs is a difficult, complicated issue.
posted by happyroach at 1:13 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I go away for one day of bench painting and when I come back it's like Frank Underwood's America Works plotline in here.
I, too, wonder whether those people who detest receiving money or enjoying leisure without "earning" it through labor object to inheriting money or other things of value.
posted by sallybrown at 1:14 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I, too, wonder whether those people who detest receiving money or enjoying leisure without "earning" it through labor object to inheriting money or other things of value.
posted by sallybrown at 1:14 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think we're making a mistake here when we are talking about the Work is Virtue crowd, and that mistake is expecting their attitude to be rational and taken to its logical extremes.
Taking most any view to its logical extremes paints a grim picture.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:15 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Taking most any view to its logical extremes paints a grim picture.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:15 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I go away for one day of bench painting and when I come back it's like Frank Underwood's America Works plotline in here.
Haha yes. A Metafilter election thread can spawn any number of House of Cards scripts, given enough time and monkeys at typewriters.
posted by zutalors! at 1:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Haha yes. A Metafilter election thread can spawn any number of House of Cards scripts, given enough time and monkeys at typewriters.
posted by zutalors! at 1:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
[sigh]
We're not monkeys. We're great apes. Biology, geez.
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're not monkeys. We're great apes. Biology, geez.
posted by clawsoon at 1:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
on the internet no one knows you're a monkey.
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
The best -- and truest -- economic narrative for Hillary and other Democrats IMHO is that low wages are crippling our economy because average people don't have money to spend. The solution? Raise the minimum wage, and wage equality for women. Also, immigration reform combined with severe penalties against employers who hire undocumented workers.
Big business didn't go along with union deals for decades out of prosperity out of the goodness of their hearts. They understood that when workers can buy vacation homes and boats, there is lots of domestic demand. That's what made the US economy strong, not exports.
In the 1980s they got greedy and killed the golden goose, insanely boosting executive compensation while slashing real wages and killing off the union movement. And yes, business drove immigration by undocumented workers as part of that strategy. But it strangled demand.
Unlike an actual dead golden goose, though, this situation is reversible.
posted by msalt at 1:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Big business didn't go along with union deals for decades out of prosperity out of the goodness of their hearts. They understood that when workers can buy vacation homes and boats, there is lots of domestic demand. That's what made the US economy strong, not exports.
In the 1980s they got greedy and killed the golden goose, insanely boosting executive compensation while slashing real wages and killing off the union movement. And yes, business drove immigration by undocumented workers as part of that strategy. But it strangled demand.
Unlike an actual dead golden goose, though, this situation is reversible.
posted by msalt at 1:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
there are people for whom not being engaged in productive work feels like a devastating existential crisis, and whatever the reason they feel that way, it's not something they're going to get splained out of
[...]
"unemployment insurance is bad for individuals and the economy" can be an objectively wrong belief; "having access to gainful employment is my top priority" is not
This kind of sounds like saying people who have put a high personal or cultural calue in work can't be reasoned with or aren't smart enough to understand the societal benefits of social welfare, which is insulting in much the same way as "voting against their interests" or "a cultural belief in rejecting handouts"
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:21 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
[...]
"unemployment insurance is bad for individuals and the economy" can be an objectively wrong belief; "having access to gainful employment is my top priority" is not
This kind of sounds like saying people who have put a high personal or cultural calue in work can't be reasoned with or aren't smart enough to understand the societal benefits of social welfare, which is insulting in much the same way as "voting against their interests" or "a cultural belief in rejecting handouts"
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:21 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The best -- and truest -- economic narrative for Hillary and other Democrats IMHO is that low wages are crippling our economy because average people don't have money to spend. The solution? Raise the minimum wage, and wage equality for women.
She has been saying this
posted by zutalors! at 1:21 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Unlike an actual dead golden goose, though, this situation is reversible.
On unions, at least, I'm afraid we might be past the point of no return. Once you're down to less than 12% of the work force and falling, it's really hard to imagine the conditions that would lead to growth, especially given that increased federal involvement would likely require new pro-union legislation that's not happening in the absence of a Democratic majority in the house and a supermajority in the Senate.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016
On unions, at least, I'm afraid we might be past the point of no return. Once you're down to less than 12% of the work force and falling, it's really hard to imagine the conditions that would lead to growth, especially given that increased federal involvement would likely require new pro-union legislation that's not happening in the absence of a Democratic majority in the house and a supermajority in the Senate.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016
clawsoon: arachnidette had a great comment on this issue in another thread.
Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that comment!
I have one minor quibble with what you say, though: Distance does matter in the case of heart attacks, which is one area in which urban hospitals have made a significant dent in death rates over the past decade or two by focusing on time-to-treatment. It would be extremely expensive to serve rural areas with the same low response times that have helped so much in cities.
That's a very good point.
posted by zarq at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016
Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that comment!
I have one minor quibble with what you say, though: Distance does matter in the case of heart attacks, which is one area in which urban hospitals have made a significant dent in death rates over the past decade or two by focusing on time-to-treatment. It would be extremely expensive to serve rural areas with the same low response times that have helped so much in cities.
That's a very good point.
posted by zarq at 1:23 PM on May 12, 2016
I go away for one day of bench painting and when I come back it's like Frank Underwood's America Works plotline in here.
America Works is not a terrible idea. Hell, just expand AmeriCorps.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
America Works is not a terrible idea. Hell, just expand AmeriCorps.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
what if we just built some pyramids
I would vote for this platform. Better pyramids than piles of unused tanks. Though, twenty years down the line, we might have some kind of pyramid-industrial-complex.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would vote for this platform. Better pyramids than piles of unused tanks. Though, twenty years down the line, we might have some kind of pyramid-industrial-complex.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
America Works is not a terrible idea. Hell, just expand AmeriCorps.
But he got rid of Social Security because who needs old people
That's when I started shouting at the TV and didn't stop and I'm not dating the guy who liked that show anymore.
posted by zutalors! at 1:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would vote for this platform.
♫ Let My People Go ♬
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
♫ Let My People Go ♬
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Most people in their 30s and younger really don't understand unions because they haven't been relevant to their lives in that generation. They don't realize what benefits strong unions used to be able to give them and so they don't have any incentive to vote for candidates who use pro union talking points. Ironically, the guy who was a 2 term union president decided later in life that unions were evil and had to be destroyed.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016
That's when I started shouting at the TV and didn't stop and I'm not dating the guy who liked that show anymore.
It gets a lot better in Season 4
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It gets a lot better in Season 4
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
To me (and maybe I'm misunderstanding HoC on this one) America Works was nightmarish because I believe all Americans should have a guaranteed safety net of health care, safe shelter, food, and other things needed for basic survival, without having to hold a job. Full stop. (I am not at all saying this is the jobs program everyone here was discussing, it's just that the way today's discussion was framed reminded me of HoC.)
posted by sallybrown at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 1:27 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
America Works was very much Benches They Need Paintin. But all Underwood policies were nightmarish, because that show is a nightmare.
posted by zutalors! at 1:31 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 1:31 PM on May 12, 2016
It's not everyone. But that starts turning towards a #notallmen sort of line of thinking when you get dismissive of a consistent prejudice like that. It's there, it's stupid, and we need to stop trivializing it.
I don't disagree, and said as much in the follow-up comment. But in that comment itself your quote doesn't convey that I bolded WE. You will never be able to say "we call them stupid" if you're talking to me because no, I do not. I won't claim I never did - grodd knows I have done no end of shitty things in my life before learning better - but I sure as shit do not now. Nor will I state it as inclusive fact.
Yeah, step one absolutely needs to be stop calling rural folks dumb but step two, immediately following, needs to be stop stating that calling folks dumb is what we all do. We don't all do it, none of us should do it, and accepting and amplifying it as a fact is harmful. It's bad for national relations - and I assert it's bad in a way that helps conservatives with an interest in keeping the gap wide and both sides from understanding - and it normalizes it for the people who like doing it.
posted by phearlez at 1:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't disagree, and said as much in the follow-up comment. But in that comment itself your quote doesn't convey that I bolded WE. You will never be able to say "we call them stupid" if you're talking to me because no, I do not. I won't claim I never did - grodd knows I have done no end of shitty things in my life before learning better - but I sure as shit do not now. Nor will I state it as inclusive fact.
Yeah, step one absolutely needs to be stop calling rural folks dumb but step two, immediately following, needs to be stop stating that calling folks dumb is what we all do. We don't all do it, none of us should do it, and accepting and amplifying it as a fact is harmful. It's bad for national relations - and I assert it's bad in a way that helps conservatives with an interest in keeping the gap wide and both sides from understanding - and it normalizes it for the people who like doing it.
posted by phearlez at 1:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump butler calls for Obama to be killed
Also can we please talk about this because it is waaaaay more crazy than determining who is the leftest?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also can we please talk about this because it is waaaaay more crazy than determining who is the leftest?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
killery clinton smh
posted by defenestration at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by defenestration at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016
I can't read that butler thing, it makes me sick.
posted by zutalors! at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Basically what Norquist said four years ago, "All we need is someone who can 'handle a pen'"
Well Trump might not work out in that case, I hear his fingers are really stubby.
"it's really hard to imagine the conditions that would lead to growth, "
I think it was like "widespread hunger" and "violent clashes with police and the national guard" last time around.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well Trump might not work out in that case, I hear his fingers are really stubby.
"it's really hard to imagine the conditions that would lead to growth, "
I think it was like "widespread hunger" and "violent clashes with police and the national guard" last time around.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would be great to get some more employment, not to mention replace outmoded and failing infrastructure, with government supported work programs, no matter what we call them. It would likely help everyone to put more dollars in minimum wage workers' hands by raising minimum wage.
But a whole lot more than that needs to happen to change income inequality and provide real economic opportunity for everyone. We need to stop disabling everyone with a criminal record from being able to get a job. We need equal access to quality education. We need companies that are employers in or near our poor neighborhoods, so the people that live there can get to work. We need available microcredit, so people who don't have a lot of resources can start their own businesses. We need to actively combat wage and employment discrimination. We need to aggressively regulate market distortions like monopolistic and oligarchic structures.
What we do not need to do is demonize everyone who is a lender, or destroy every lending institution, or break up every corporation. Because when your focus is on tearing what you have down, not only are you unlikely to achieve more than stalemate with entrenched interests, but even success gives you no more than smoking ruins and capital flight.
Really, social justice requires sensible and ambitious economic reform. (Something Trump will never even attempt.) I know Clinton is sensible, I know she has been making income inequality a central theme from the very beginning of this campaign and is quite serious about it and my hope is that she is also very, very ambitious.
posted by bearwife at 1:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
But a whole lot more than that needs to happen to change income inequality and provide real economic opportunity for everyone. We need to stop disabling everyone with a criminal record from being able to get a job. We need equal access to quality education. We need companies that are employers in or near our poor neighborhoods, so the people that live there can get to work. We need available microcredit, so people who don't have a lot of resources can start their own businesses. We need to actively combat wage and employment discrimination. We need to aggressively regulate market distortions like monopolistic and oligarchic structures.
What we do not need to do is demonize everyone who is a lender, or destroy every lending institution, or break up every corporation. Because when your focus is on tearing what you have down, not only are you unlikely to achieve more than stalemate with entrenched interests, but even success gives you no more than smoking ruins and capital flight.
Really, social justice requires sensible and ambitious economic reform. (Something Trump will never even attempt.) I know Clinton is sensible, I know she has been making income inequality a central theme from the very beginning of this campaign and is quite serious about it and my hope is that she is also very, very ambitious.
posted by bearwife at 1:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
my hope is that she is also very, very ambitious.
people have been hating her ambition for 30 years, she's not going to cut it out now.
posted by zutalors! at 1:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
people have been hating her ambition for 30 years, she's not going to cut it out now.
posted by zutalors! at 1:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Tell me more about this pyramid scheme you guys have cooked up
posted by yhbc at 1:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 1:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
This kind of sounds like saying people who have put a high personal or cultural calue in work can't be reasoned with or aren't smart enough to understand the societal benefits of social welfare, which is insulting in much the same way as "voting against their interests" or "a cultural belief in rejecting handouts"
I don't think I'm besmirching anyone's intelligence to say that a deep feeling about what gives them purpose and self-esteem -- and for some people, that's the work they do -- isn't something they can be reasoned out of.
There are people who are underemployed who want specifically to be employed again, for whom programs that provide for them in the absence of employment are not an adequate substitute for access to a decent job, and this would remain true for those people whether or not they themselves are in favor of social welfare in general.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think I'm besmirching anyone's intelligence to say that a deep feeling about what gives them purpose and self-esteem -- and for some people, that's the work they do -- isn't something they can be reasoned out of.
There are people who are underemployed who want specifically to be employed again, for whom programs that provide for them in the absence of employment are not an adequate substitute for access to a decent job, and this would remain true for those people whether or not they themselves are in favor of social welfare in general.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm going to go way half-baked here and suggest that ambulance response time explains rural conservatism. The government can't get there in time to help you in an emergency, so you have to cultivate a combination of self-reliance and strong families. Result: Conservatism. That will never change, because distance.
In the city, though, the ambulance can get there on time. Result: Socialism.
It's a slightly ridiculous idea, but I think there may be a grain of (probably unoriginal) truth to it. I remember seeing rural conservatism in extra detail on the map of the last Alberta election, where there were two conservative parties. The most rural areas voted for the hard-right "total self-reliance" party. The small towns and hamlets voted for the mid-right "partial self-reliance" party. And the cities voted for the "left wing but we're in Alberta so oil isn't that bad" NDP. It was like the usual red/blue rural/urban map you see in American elections, but with extra rural detail.
posted by clawsoon at 1:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the city, though, the ambulance can get there on time. Result: Socialism.
It's a slightly ridiculous idea, but I think there may be a grain of (probably unoriginal) truth to it. I remember seeing rural conservatism in extra detail on the map of the last Alberta election, where there were two conservative parties. The most rural areas voted for the hard-right "total self-reliance" party. The small towns and hamlets voted for the mid-right "partial self-reliance" party. And the cities voted for the "left wing but we're in Alberta so oil isn't that bad" NDP. It was like the usual red/blue rural/urban map you see in American elections, but with extra rural detail.
posted by clawsoon at 1:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also can we please talk about this because it is waaaaay more crazy than determining who is the leftest?
Yeah there is some utterly staggering shit in that Mother Jones article. To wit:
posted by dersins at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2016
Yeah there is some utterly staggering shit in that Mother Jones article. To wit:
On August 12, he published a photo of Obama with this caption: "If ALLAH HAD AN ASSHOLE IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS.""I can't even" doesn't begin to do it justice.
posted by dersins at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2016
I feel like some of that butler stuff has got to be Secret Service actionable?
posted by zutalors! at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 1:40 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like some of that butler stuff has got to be Secret Service actionable?
OBAMA USES SECRET SERVICE TO SILENCE HIS CRITICS!
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
OBAMA USES SECRET SERVICE TO SILENCE HIS CRITICS!
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I imagine that kind of vitriol is (sadly) just background noise for the Secret Service at this point in Obama's presidency.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like some of that butler stuff has got to be Secret Service actionable?
that's exactly what I was just wondering.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:45 PM on May 12, 2016
that's exactly what I was just wondering.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:45 PM on May 12, 2016
Trump Butler Proves Sanders Is "Crazy Bernie"
/a headline somewhere
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016
/a headline somewhere
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016
The Secret Service has released a statement that they're aware and will undertake any appropriate investigation. I don't know that they'll actually do anything, but I'm sure that someone will be having an uncomfortable conversation with some law enforcement officials. Because yeah, you actually can't say that kind of thing about the president, first amendment or no.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
for real, some of that stuff has got to be illegal, I'd think so even if it were about W - you don't threaten our President. It's a limit to free speech.
posted by zutalors! at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016
But a whole lot more than that needs to happen to change income inequality and provide real economic opportunity for everyone.
This is one of those things where I think definitely, definitely, the perfect is the enemy of the bipartisan good.
When you say the words "income inequality", those words come with more connotations than you may be intending to load on them. From the get-go, at least to me, it says "I think everyone should be relatively equal, income-wise". Which is a hugely political ideological statement, and also, doesn't have to exist in order to provide the second half - real economic opportunity for everyone, which presumably a majority of people would agree with, at least?
I have just been spending a lot of time describing my (perhaps pie in the sky, who knows) vision of how we could increase economic opportunity for everyone. It's something I really value! I could even vote for someone across the aisle who was supporting this, if he wasn't awful in other ways. But when you pair it to "income inequality", I'm bound to vote against it (as long as the other guy isn't Trump), even if it's something that I otherwise might really like - because you're pairing it to something I'm unequivocally against.
We do a lot of that in this country - the pairing - and it really inhibits our ability to get shit done. You see that in other areas, too. There's a lot of programs that I think could get funded, but then someone says "And we'll fund it by taxing the rich" and then suddenly it's Death. First. time. When it didn't have to be!
posted by corb at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016
This is one of those things where I think definitely, definitely, the perfect is the enemy of the bipartisan good.
When you say the words "income inequality", those words come with more connotations than you may be intending to load on them. From the get-go, at least to me, it says "I think everyone should be relatively equal, income-wise". Which is a hugely political ideological statement, and also, doesn't have to exist in order to provide the second half - real economic opportunity for everyone, which presumably a majority of people would agree with, at least?
I have just been spending a lot of time describing my (perhaps pie in the sky, who knows) vision of how we could increase economic opportunity for everyone. It's something I really value! I could even vote for someone across the aisle who was supporting this, if he wasn't awful in other ways. But when you pair it to "income inequality", I'm bound to vote against it (as long as the other guy isn't Trump), even if it's something that I otherwise might really like - because you're pairing it to something I'm unequivocally against.
We do a lot of that in this country - the pairing - and it really inhibits our ability to get shit done. You see that in other areas, too. There's a lot of programs that I think could get funded, but then someone says "And we'll fund it by taxing the rich" and then suddenly it's Death. First. time. When it didn't have to be!
posted by corb at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016
On the "but what about all the people who actually enjoy working and aren't lazy slobs?" tip, one thing that has always stuck in my craw about unemployment insurance is that you are not allowed to work on personal projects or in an unpaid capacity doing something like starting a business. We don't need a jobs program. We need an unemployment insurance system that encourages people to actually do something with their time while searching for gainful employment.
posted by Sara C. at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 1:47 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
There's a lot of programs that I think could get funded, but then someone says "And we'll fund it by taxing the rich" and then suddenly it's Death. First. time. When it didn't have to be!
Please suggest another way to pay.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Please suggest another way to pay.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obviously not a well trained butler. No class. Not done. But then again, like master, like
posted by infini at 1:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by infini at 1:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I work with a man that ran a cleaning service for 20+ years until competitors could hire people for less than minimum wage. Friends in construction complain they cant get jobs they used to get unless they learn to speak Spanish.
I feel like others well addressed the exploited worker thing; I will only add that you can see a map here of what states mandate use of E-Verify. I think it's telling that the massive lack of adoption doesn't correlate with R/D control of the state.
I do want to comment that the above two described situations are pretty radially different with regards to illegal immigration. The second doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a significant portion of the workforce speaks spanish. When I lived in Miami it was tough to find work if you didn't speak some spanish. That didn't have anything to do with illegal immigration; most all the native spanish speakers I ever worked next to were there legally. So I learned some spanish.
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like others well addressed the exploited worker thing; I will only add that you can see a map here of what states mandate use of E-Verify. I think it's telling that the massive lack of adoption doesn't correlate with R/D control of the state.
I do want to comment that the above two described situations are pretty radially different with regards to illegal immigration. The second doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether a significant portion of the workforce speaks spanish. When I lived in Miami it was tough to find work if you didn't speak some spanish. That didn't have anything to do with illegal immigration; most all the native spanish speakers I ever worked next to were there legally. So I learned some spanish.
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would vote for this platform.
It's not a platform, it's a mastaba! GEEZ!
posted by happyroach at 1:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not a platform, it's a mastaba! GEEZ!
posted by happyroach at 1:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trumps 'build a wall' is a lot more compelling to those people than the Dem response of 'go to college' or worse, 'that's not true you racist'.
It is racism. And that's not only a Dem response, it's what happened historically to many past immigrant groups in the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese Internment, and Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s are all examples.
posted by FJT at 1:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is racism. And that's not only a Dem response, it's what happened historically to many past immigrant groups in the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese Internment, and Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s are all examples.
posted by FJT at 1:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Please suggest another way to pay.
One thing I've seen done that I really like is levies for specific purpose. Everyone pays the same rate, so even if it is an additional tax on the rich, it's also an additional tax on everyone else. The money goes directly to the program. People don't feel like the increase is just going to put money in some hidden side pocket.
posted by corb at 1:55 PM on May 12, 2016
One thing I've seen done that I really like is levies for specific purpose. Everyone pays the same rate, so even if it is an additional tax on the rich, it's also an additional tax on everyone else. The money goes directly to the program. People don't feel like the increase is just going to put money in some hidden side pocket.
posted by corb at 1:55 PM on May 12, 2016
Deep income inequality -- a yawning gap between rich and anything less, plus a disappearing middle class -- suffocates economic opportunity, which is what I think is disappearing to the cost of us all. I am not suggesting nor do I need to see income leveling. I DO think we need a level playing field. That includes rich people paying a fair share of taxes.
posted by bearwife at 1:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bearwife at 1:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is a regressive tax and disproportionately affects the poor. Unacceptable, therefore. Next suggestion?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's way worse than (paraphrasing) "liberals shouldn't suggest raising taxes on the rich to pay for new government programs" because the actual fulcrum of the debate since the sequestration battle is which discretionary programs are going to get cut to make room for the increasing share of healthcare spending as a proportion of all government spending. The notion that any living Republican congressperson would embrace policies that increase the size of government if only liberals would stop using the words "income inequality" and talk about spreading the tax burden farther down the income scale is simply laughable.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Proposing flat/highly regressive taxes is the problem, not the solution. And it's not even an ideological difference, it's an empirical one. Every time it's used, it makes everything worse for everybody except he richest. Kansas is learning that the hard way.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:59 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 1:59 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
One thing I've seen done that I really like is levies for specific purpose. Everyone pays the same rate, so even if it is an additional tax on the rich, it's also an additional tax on everyone else. The money goes directly to the program. People don't feel like the increase is just going to put money in some hidden side pocket.
Exactly what do these unemployed needy rural people use to pay this levy, the one that everyone pays? What you are describing sounds great for paying for the trash pickup from businesses where everyone there is doing business. I'm not sure how it helps the chronically unemployed.
posted by phearlez at 2:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Exactly what do these unemployed needy rural people use to pay this levy, the one that everyone pays? What you are describing sounds great for paying for the trash pickup from businesses where everyone there is doing business. I'm not sure how it helps the chronically unemployed.
posted by phearlez at 2:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
corb When I say "income inequality" I usually mean "excessive income inequality". Can't speak for anyone else, but no I'm not looking for everyone to make the same hourly wage within 50% or so.
But I **DO** think that when the wealthy are making more than 20 to 30 times the amount that the poor are then we're entering seriously problematic territory.
In the USA during the 1950's the average CEO made around 12 times what the lowest paid worker in their company did. That's income inequality, but in a range I'd find acceptable.
Today the average CEO makes over 300 times what the lowest paid worker does, and many make upwards of 1,000 times what the lowest paid worker does, and that I find unacceptably high income inequality.
Does that make you feel any better, or is any objection to income inequality simply morally wrong in your view?
posted by sotonohito at 2:01 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
But I **DO** think that when the wealthy are making more than 20 to 30 times the amount that the poor are then we're entering seriously problematic territory.
In the USA during the 1950's the average CEO made around 12 times what the lowest paid worker in their company did. That's income inequality, but in a range I'd find acceptable.
Today the average CEO makes over 300 times what the lowest paid worker does, and many make upwards of 1,000 times what the lowest paid worker does, and that I find unacceptably high income inequality.
Does that make you feel any better, or is any objection to income inequality simply morally wrong in your view?
posted by sotonohito at 2:01 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean, if you have $100 and I have $10, a flat levy of $1 takes 1% of your money and 10% of mine. A flat 10% still takes much more money, proportionally, from me than it does from you. That $1 is the difference between me eating and me not. For you, that $1 is.. perhaps not another coffee today. There's a big difference, and as just pointed out on preview, that's not ideology, that is basic math.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:01 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:01 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
In other words, it's as fundamentally unserious and cruel as the idea that 70% of the country's poor deserves 50% or less of the services because of "geography".
posted by zombieflanders at 2:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:02 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, if you have $100 and I have $10, a flat levy of $1 takes 1% of your money and 10% of mine.
Oh I see where the confusion is! I was bewildered. The levies as I have seen them are percentages rather than flat amounts.
posted by corb at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2016
Oh I see where the confusion is! I was bewildered. The levies as I have seen them are percentages rather than flat amounts.
posted by corb at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2016
15% of a teacher's income to pay for bridges hurts them a shit ton more than 15% of a CEO's income. That's just perpetuating the inequality we have now.
posted by hollygoheavy at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 2:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I seem to recall a conversation here about the so-called "Cadillac tax" on healthcare plans above a certain limit, the funds going to subsidize health-care for people who couldn't afford it. That would seem to fit the description of a fixed-rate levy as described above. Is that what you're talking about?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
what if people want to opt out of the specific program their tax goes to?
posted by zutalors! at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
one thing that has always stuck in my craw about unemployment insurance is that you are not allowed to work on personal projects or in an unpaid capacity doing something like starting a business.
This isn't always true, depending on where you live. Here in Oregon, the unemployment department has programs like this which are specifically designed to encourage entrepreneurial ventures while receiving UI funds.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
This isn't always true, depending on where you live. Here in Oregon, the unemployment department has programs like this which are specifically designed to encourage entrepreneurial ventures while receiving UI funds.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:04 PM on May 12, 2016
Oh I see where the confusion is! I was bewildered. The levies as I have seen them are percentages rather than flat amounts.
10% of my $10 affects me a lot more than 10% of your $100. So it's still regressive and disprortionate, and again, that's just math and facts, not ideology.
Next suggestion for paying for these programs?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
10% of my $10 affects me a lot more than 10% of your $100. So it's still regressive and disprortionate, and again, that's just math and facts, not ideology.
Next suggestion for paying for these programs?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
what if people want to opt out of the specific program their tax goes to
I mean, if we're talking In My Ideal World, memail is in the corner and I'd sincerely love to hear from you. If we're talking "how can we get out of this destructive, bitterly divided world where it's all my way or the highway and everyone hates each other and people think voting for a possibly genocidal maniac is a good idea", then probably only if they have sincere conscientious objections to them, or we design levies not to be morally objectionable in the first place.
posted by corb at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2016
I mean, if we're talking In My Ideal World, memail is in the corner and I'd sincerely love to hear from you. If we're talking "how can we get out of this destructive, bitterly divided world where it's all my way or the highway and everyone hates each other and people think voting for a possibly genocidal maniac is a good idea", then probably only if they have sincere conscientious objections to them, or we design levies not to be morally objectionable in the first place.
posted by corb at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2016
You are literally proposing What The Matter With Kansas is.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
...to whose morals?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 2:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is a regressive tax and disproportionately affects the poor. Unacceptable, therefore. Next suggestion?
Stop taxing labor at a higher rate than wealth. All income--whether wages or capital gains--subject to the same tax schedule. Done and done.
posted by dersins at 2:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Stop taxing labor at a higher rate than wealth. All income--whether wages or capital gains--subject to the same tax schedule. Done and done.
posted by dersins at 2:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
...to whose morals?
Exactly. I mean people are mad because Queen Elsa might get a girlfriend.
posted by zutalors! at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Exactly. I mean people are mad because Queen Elsa might get a girlfriend.
posted by zutalors! at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Sincerity" is not a valid measure of whether someone's objection is acceptable or not. Kim Davis was certainly sincere.
Stop taxing labor at a higher rate than wealth. All income--whether wages or capital gains--subject to the same tax schedule. Done and done.
I could get behind this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stop taxing labor at a higher rate than wealth. All income--whether wages or capital gains--subject to the same tax schedule. Done and done.
I could get behind this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does anyone remember this from Trump's butler's NYT profile?:
Is this guy praising Trump Sr. for his literally Donald-Duck-as-Scrooge degree of greed and degradation?
posted by stolyarova at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
He recalled how Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, once stepped out of his limo on the club’s gravel driveway and remarked to Mr. Senecal, “Somebody better get that coin.” The butler went on his hands and knees and after a few minutes found a crusty penny.
“His eyes were incredible,” Mr. Senecal said of Fred Trump. “Mr. Trump has the same eyes.”
Is this guy praising Trump Sr. for his literally Donald-Duck-as-Scrooge degree of greed and degradation?
posted by stolyarova at 2:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Let's say that the flat tax is 10%. And let's say that the absolute minimum on which you can raise a family of four is $25,000 a year. If you're earning $500,000 a year, your flat tax is $50,000, which is a lot of money, but it's not going to come out of your food fund. You've got $450,000 left over, which is plenty to pay for everything you need and many things that you don't need. If you're earning $30,000 a year, then it's $3,000, and that's most of your discretionary income. It means that you'll have very little money left for your emergency fund and to save for retirement and for your kid to do some extracurricular activities and for all sorts of other stuff that is not really a luxury in the way that someone's yacht or summer home is a luxury. A flat tax isn't actually fair, because the implications of paying the tax are very, very different for a low-income person than for a high-income person. Progressive taxation is fair, because it takes into account that people have very different amounts of discretionary income.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
Progressive taxation is fair, because it takes into account that people have very different amounts of discretionary income.
Look, I really don't want to get into arguing about whether or not progressive taxation is "fair" or "what is really discretionary" or "what does fairness mean" shit that really isn't going to benefit anyone and is just going to bring out the knives. I got distracted into rabbitholing about details, and in retrospect, that was an error and totally outside scope.
What I do think is important to note is that a lot of this stuff appears uncontroversial from one perspective, but really isn't. To me, small levies are absolutely uncontroversial. To others, it's not. To others, progressive taxation is Just The Way It Should Be, while it really, really bothers me. It's hard to find things that aren't political. I think, personally, I'd be interested to see more "okay, we'll fund it your way, but do it our way/we'll fund it our way, but do it your way" compromises - but to be perfectly honest, my party is an exploding dumpster fire and may never be functional again, and also to be honest, while they were in charge, they didn't really offer a lot of those compromises either.
posted by corb at 2:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Look, I really don't want to get into arguing about whether or not progressive taxation is "fair" or "what is really discretionary" or "what does fairness mean" shit that really isn't going to benefit anyone and is just going to bring out the knives. I got distracted into rabbitholing about details, and in retrospect, that was an error and totally outside scope.
What I do think is important to note is that a lot of this stuff appears uncontroversial from one perspective, but really isn't. To me, small levies are absolutely uncontroversial. To others, it's not. To others, progressive taxation is Just The Way It Should Be, while it really, really bothers me. It's hard to find things that aren't political. I think, personally, I'd be interested to see more "okay, we'll fund it your way, but do it our way/we'll fund it our way, but do it your way" compromises - but to be perfectly honest, my party is an exploding dumpster fire and may never be functional again, and also to be honest, while they were in charge, they didn't really offer a lot of those compromises either.
posted by corb at 2:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
The tl;dr I suppose is that it's hard to get programs through, because "who pays" is going to be a political fight in and of itself.
posted by corb at 2:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stop taxing labor at a higher rate than wealth. All income--whether wages or capital gains--subject to the same tax schedule. Done and done.
And, to be crystal clear, I do not mean "lower income taxes to the level of the capital gains tax," but "tax capital gains at the same level as income."
posted by dersins at 2:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
And, to be crystal clear, I do not mean "lower income taxes to the level of the capital gains tax," but "tax capital gains at the same level as income."
posted by dersins at 2:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I always say I will 100% get behind a flat tax as soon as we also get rent and grocery bills defined as a flat percentage of income.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:21 PM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:21 PM on May 12, 2016 [14 favorites]
Donald-Duck-as-Scrooge degree of greed and degradation
Disney's already got you covered there, the character is named Scrooge McDuck.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Disney's already got you covered there, the character is named Scrooge McDuck.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's hard to find things that aren't political.
I would use this same phrasing to explain my opposition to your privileging some views as cultural and intrinsic while designating others as political and exogenous above. You can't stack the deck in that way and expect a productive conversation.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
I would use this same phrasing to explain my opposition to your privileging some views as cultural and intrinsic while designating others as political and exogenous above. You can't stack the deck in that way and expect a productive conversation.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Regions in states like Oregon found they couldn't pay for basic services like law enforcement, which lead to emergency dispatchers — and I'm not making this up — recommending that victims of domestic violence find somewhere to hide when they call for help because the ex has shown up. And then the sheriff recommends that victims relocate to somewhere there is adequate law enforcement. I'm swear I'm not making this shit up, this actually happened when people didn't want to pay for levies. This is a real example of regressive taxation causing people to get hurt.
Levies or regressive taxes are a lousy way to reduce the tax burden of wealthy people who can afford privatized core services that were once public.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Levies or regressive taxes are a lousy way to reduce the tax burden of wealthy people who can afford privatized core services that were once public.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Disney's already got you covered there, the character is named Scrooge McDuck.
Exactly who I meant. Couldn't remember the name. Thank you for the nostalgia. <3
posted by stolyarova at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Exactly who I meant. Couldn't remember the name. Thank you for the nostalgia. <3
posted by stolyarova at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
life is like a hurricane
here in trumpburg
posted by poffin boffin at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
here in trumpburg
posted by poffin boffin at 2:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's hard to find things that aren't political.
Everything is political because politics is the business of getting things done. That's not the problem. The issue is that it's hard for some folks to not look at things first from a political ideology standpoint.
posted by phearlez at 2:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everything is political because politics is the business of getting things done. That's not the problem. The issue is that it's hard for some folks to not look at things first from a political ideology standpoint.
posted by phearlez at 2:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
A single tax rate can be imposed and still be progressive - you just build the progressivity into the determination of the tax base (the effective tax rates or tax as a percentage of income, if we're talking about non-income-based taxes, would be progressive). That's not what most GOP tax plans actually do, but it is theoretically possible.
One thing the GOP loves to do is cut "taxes" but raise "fees." This is bullshit and should be called out.
I also found this article to be interesting - corporations are now becoming too greedy even for the GOP.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
One thing the GOP loves to do is cut "taxes" but raise "fees." This is bullshit and should be called out.
I also found this article to be interesting - corporations are now becoming too greedy even for the GOP.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. The "what does corb think" aspect of the conversation has gone okay here, and thanks everyone for keeping it cool in here, but at this point, the major points have been made and maybe it's time to set down the specifically corb-centric aspects and move on, either to a more general discussion of the issues or something else altogether.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would use this same phrasing to explain my opposition to your privileging some views as cultural and intrinsic while designating others as political and exogenous above.
That's a fair point, and I apologize if I neglected to consider some cultural considerations I was unaware of around differences in taxation policy. It's really hard to consider cultural impact- it's so deep and affects so much and definitely sometimes I as well as others am going to get it wrong. If you want to memail me what I was neglecting, I'm definitely open to it - I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I simply wasn't aware of any.
posted by corb at 2:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's a fair point, and I apologize if I neglected to consider some cultural considerations I was unaware of around differences in taxation policy. It's really hard to consider cultural impact- it's so deep and affects so much and definitely sometimes I as well as others am going to get it wrong. If you want to memail me what I was neglecting, I'm definitely open to it - I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I simply wasn't aware of any.
posted by corb at 2:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Let's All Pretend Trump Hasn't Bulldozed the Sad Remnants of the Republican Establishment. And treat his big meeting with Paul Ryan seriously.
Paul Ryan Is Happy. This Can't Be Good. It was about time for another attack on Obamacare.
posted by homunculus at 2:36 PM on May 12, 2016
Paul Ryan Is Happy. This Can't Be Good. It was about time for another attack on Obamacare.
posted by homunculus at 2:36 PM on May 12, 2016
One thing the GOP loves to do is cut "taxes" but raise "fees." This is bullshit and should be called out.
The larger goal is privatization of public services that should remain public. The goal is attained by doing an end-run around taxpayers. For example, Republicans hate teacher unions, but cannot attack them directly. So their legislators at all levels of government deliberately cripple public schools by starving them of funds, so as to make it functionally impossible for public schools to carry out their taxpayer-mandated mission.
Donald Trump, the Republican standard-bearer, is against public-sector unions and particularly dislikes public school teachers. The long view is transitioning control over public schools to for-profit companies that can skim profits while providing a worse service, because the relationship between lobbyists and right-wing legislators ensures minimal or no oversight.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
The larger goal is privatization of public services that should remain public. The goal is attained by doing an end-run around taxpayers. For example, Republicans hate teacher unions, but cannot attack them directly. So their legislators at all levels of government deliberately cripple public schools by starving them of funds, so as to make it functionally impossible for public schools to carry out their taxpayer-mandated mission.
Donald Trump, the Republican standard-bearer, is against public-sector unions and particularly dislikes public school teachers. The long view is transitioning control over public schools to for-profit companies that can skim profits while providing a worse service, because the relationship between lobbyists and right-wing legislators ensures minimal or no oversight.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Josh Marshall asking some good questions today as the GOP gets behind Trump in force-
What About the Mass Expulsion?
Trump Gets Kochy
Watch the Senators
and Paul Waldman - Trump is waging an assault on the entire structure of our democracy. "So when you ask the question, “Where does Donald Trump stand on the minimum wage?”, the answer is: everywhere and nowhere. He has nothing resembling a position, because what he said today has no relationship to what he said yesterday or what he’ll say tomorrow ... That leaves us unable to talk about Trump and issues in the way we normally would. And this is a serious problem. The basic issue divides between the parties comprise one of the key foundations on which we build our explanations of politics. They structure the arguments and the contest for power, they give meaning to the whole game. They’re the reason all of this silliness matters, because at the end of it we’ll be choosing a new government, led by one individual who will make choices that affect all of us in profound ways.
It’s clear now that Donald Trump may be unique in American history — not just in his inexperience, not just in his ignorance, not just in his bombast, and not just in his crypto-fascist appeal. He’s unique in that he doesn’t care in the least about the things that politics and government are all about, and he won’t even bother to pretend he does.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
What About the Mass Expulsion?
Trump Gets Kochy
Watch the Senators
and Paul Waldman - Trump is waging an assault on the entire structure of our democracy. "So when you ask the question, “Where does Donald Trump stand on the minimum wage?”, the answer is: everywhere and nowhere. He has nothing resembling a position, because what he said today has no relationship to what he said yesterday or what he’ll say tomorrow ... That leaves us unable to talk about Trump and issues in the way we normally would. And this is a serious problem. The basic issue divides between the parties comprise one of the key foundations on which we build our explanations of politics. They structure the arguments and the contest for power, they give meaning to the whole game. They’re the reason all of this silliness matters, because at the end of it we’ll be choosing a new government, led by one individual who will make choices that affect all of us in profound ways.
It’s clear now that Donald Trump may be unique in American history — not just in his inexperience, not just in his ignorance, not just in his bombast, and not just in his crypto-fascist appeal. He’s unique in that he doesn’t care in the least about the things that politics and government are all about, and he won’t even bother to pretend he does.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Let's All Pretend Trump Hasn't Bulldozed the Sad Remnants of the Republican Establishment. And treat his big meeting with Paul Ryan seriously.
I hope they open TV coverage of the RNC with composited footage of Trump as Slim Pickens, hollering as he rides The Bomb down onto the Quicken Loans Arena.
posted by indubitable at 2:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope they open TV coverage of the RNC with composited footage of Trump as Slim Pickens, hollering as he rides The Bomb down onto the Quicken Loans Arena.
posted by indubitable at 2:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Speaking of old movies that remind us of Donald Trump, I heartily recommend A Face in the Crowd. It chronicles the rise of a populist demagogue (played by Andy Griffith) and it's absolutely fantastic.
posted by stolyarova at 2:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 2:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Donald won another four Pinnochio award for his statements about releasing his tax returns.
posted by bearwife at 2:45 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by bearwife at 2:45 PM on May 12, 2016
I don't understand the claim that Trump's candidacy will destroy the Republican party.
What happened in 1964? Barry Goldwater lost by 20 points. In the very next election, Democrats splintered (Humphrey and Wallace both ran) and lost the election to Nixon. If that's what getting destroyed looks like, it looks pretty good.
In 1972, George McGovern lost by 20 points. In the very next election, Carter wins. Again, not bad as far as destruction goes.
This year, Trump will probably lose by 4-6 points. Maybe it'll be worse and he'll lose by 8 points, like Dukakis did in 1988, the election prior to the one that Clinton won. There's just no precedent for electoral blowouts causing anything resembling party destruction.
The only thing that happens this year is that the GOP writes a little post-mortem memo like in 2012, continues dominating state elections, tightens up their procedures a little, and fields someone like Paul Ryan in a close race in 2020.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
What happened in 1964? Barry Goldwater lost by 20 points. In the very next election, Democrats splintered (Humphrey and Wallace both ran) and lost the election to Nixon. If that's what getting destroyed looks like, it looks pretty good.
In 1972, George McGovern lost by 20 points. In the very next election, Carter wins. Again, not bad as far as destruction goes.
This year, Trump will probably lose by 4-6 points. Maybe it'll be worse and he'll lose by 8 points, like Dukakis did in 1988, the election prior to the one that Clinton won. There's just no precedent for electoral blowouts causing anything resembling party destruction.
The only thing that happens this year is that the GOP writes a little post-mortem memo like in 2012, continues dominating state elections, tightens up their procedures a little, and fields someone like Paul Ryan in a close race in 2020.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
And, to be crystal clear, I do not mean "lower income taxes to the level of the capital gains tax," but "tax capital gains at the same level as income."
Even more simply, remove the concept of "long term" capital gains. "Short term" capital gains are already taxed as ordinary income, so just remove the idea that holding something longer affects your tax paid on it. While you could probably find a few edge cases, the vast vast majority of people whose primary income is from long-term capital gains are also wealthy, since it requires being able to sink your capital into an investment for an extended period of time. (While plenty of "middle class"-ish people might have a little long-term capital gains income, its not going to be nearly as significant a change as it would be for the wealthy).
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has any Repiblican nominee been THIS crass and disgusting though? Not just in policies, in actual statements. Therin lies the difference that is prompting the "destroyed" comments. Altho I agree there is likely no stopping racism, sexism, etc.
posted by agregoli at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 2:52 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Talking about his penis on the debate stage? Yea that's unprecedented gross.
posted by zutalors! at 2:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 2:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I believe the only people seriously making the claim that the Republican party will be "destroyed" are the omniscient 22 year olds at Vox voting in their first Presidential election. The Republicans have shown nothing else if not the long game, they'll rebuild and regroup after Trump, because there will still be abortions to outlaw and government spending to end/redirect to rich people. They'll never stop trying to accomplish those goals, because the billionaire donor class that funds them will never run out of money to keep paying them to.
And Trump may still win.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
And Trump may still win.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:56 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
They can do abortion outlawing and spending cutting without Trump.
That's why it's embarrassing that Dems don't vote in midterms.
posted by zutalors! at 3:02 PM on May 12, 2016
That's why it's embarrassing that Dems don't vote in midterms.
posted by zutalors! at 3:02 PM on May 12, 2016
This year, Trump will probably lose by 4-6 points. Maybe it'll be worse and he'll lose by 8 points, like Dukakis did in 1988, the election prior to the one that Clinton won. There's just no precedent for electoral blowouts causing anything resembling party destruction
There’s “destroyed” and there’s “destroyed”. If the party say, does lose by Goldwater levels and then reorganizes to be overtly anti-trade (unlikely) - well, that’s a kind of destruction. If the Trump nomination makes it impossible for them to ever follow the precepts of the 2012 memo such that they remain lodged in a politics of white resentment, that’s another form of destruction.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
There’s “destroyed” and there’s “destroyed”. If the party say, does lose by Goldwater levels and then reorganizes to be overtly anti-trade (unlikely) - well, that’s a kind of destruction. If the Trump nomination makes it impossible for them to ever follow the precepts of the 2012 memo such that they remain lodged in a politics of white resentment, that’s another form of destruction.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the talk about destruction of the party comes from the lack of party unity in support of Trump. Will the party ever unify again, or is Trump exppsing much deeper divisions within the Republican coalition? He is alienating both Rockefeller Republicans (who may defect to the Democrats) and Religious conservatives (who may... disengage from politics? Undermine the existing Republican leadership and messaging? Set up separatist colonies in Montana and try to secede? I'm not sure.)
Probably they'll reunify to some extent to fight their common enemy, the Democrats, but the much vaunted party discipline will take a hit.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:06 PM on May 12, 2016
Probably they'll reunify to some extent to fight their common enemy, the Democrats, but the much vaunted party discipline will take a hit.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:06 PM on May 12, 2016
Donald Trump, the Republican standard-bearer, is against public-sector unions and particularly dislikes public school teachers. The long view is transitioning control over public schools to for-profit companies that can skim profits while providing a worse service, because the relationship between lobbyists and right-wing legislators ensures minimal or no oversight.
...I swear to fucking God, I feel like it's just one goddamn politician after another stealing the future-dystopian educational system from my sci-fi novel.
It leaves me wondering how many other sci-fi novelists feel like their futuristic dystopias are being co-opted into the Republican platform, too. Maybe we should file a class action copyright infringement lawsuit or something?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
...I swear to fucking God, I feel like it's just one goddamn politician after another stealing the future-dystopian educational system from my sci-fi novel.
It leaves me wondering how many other sci-fi novelists feel like their futuristic dystopias are being co-opted into the Republican platform, too. Maybe we should file a class action copyright infringement lawsuit or something?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump Gets Kochy
I have my own issues with the Koch brothers, but they aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and as far as I can tell they're libertarians who really don't like Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 3:18 PM on May 12, 2016
I have my own issues with the Koch brothers, but they aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and as far as I can tell they're libertarians who really don't like Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 3:18 PM on May 12, 2016
Donald won another four Pinnochio award for his statements about releasing his tax returns.
Oh, boy. He's really sunk now.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
Oh, boy. He's really sunk now.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
At this point their names are interchangeable with the Ryan budget/agenda.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:21 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:21 PM on May 12, 2016
Donald won another four Pinnochio award for his statements about releasing his tax returns.
Allow me to bring back into relevance an old MeFi staple:
*cough, ahem*
Surely this...
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Allow me to bring back into relevance an old MeFi staple:
*cough, ahem*
Surely this...
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Oh, boy. He's really sunk now.
I vote for this phrase to be the new "Surely this..."
posted by peeedro at 3:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
I vote for this phrase to be the new "Surely this..."
posted by peeedro at 3:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Republicans have shown nothing else if not the long game, they'll rebuild and regroup after Trump, because there will still be abortions to outlaw and government spending to end/redirect to rich people.
Also, as was pointed out above, an awful lot of people only care about the tribal instincts of rallying around a flag, regardless of how that flag or what it stands for changes over time. That's probably true of both parties, but right now one of them is going pretty far out of its way to demonstrate it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, as was pointed out above, an awful lot of people only care about the tribal instincts of rallying around a flag, regardless of how that flag or what it stands for changes over time. That's probably true of both parties, but right now one of them is going pretty far out of its way to demonstrate it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
How Many People Support Trump but Don’t Want to Admit It?
posted by Talez at 3:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Perhaps not surprisingly, Hetherington and Engelhardt found that racial resentment follows a similar pattern to the expression of white ethnocentrism. It is highest among Republicans, but it is also present among Democrats and independents. The second chart derived from their data shows that in rankings of racial resentment, more than half of white Republicans, 58 percent, fall into the top four most resentful categories.At this point I'm pretty sure at this point some people would support a purge as long as it meant they could kill black people and Muslims. Jesus Christ we're so out of fucking touch with reality.
What should prove worrisome for Democrats is that 42 percent of white independents also fall into the four most resentful categories, as do 22 percent of white Democrats.
posted by Talez at 3:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just saw a man on the Upper West Side of Manhattan wearing a Trump shirt. I was actually astonished.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Did he have short fingers?
posted by dersins at 3:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 3:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Was he wearing Buddy Holly glasses and a handlebar mustache? He was probably a hipster wearing the shirt ironically. Like how I wear my "Nader 2000: Bush and Gore make me want to Ralph" shirt sometimes.
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
At this point I'm pretty sure at this point some people would support a purge as long as it meant they could kill black people and Muslims. Jesus Christ we're so out of fucking touch with reality.
I'm genuinely appalled and a little worried about how this election will really boil down to a litmus test of how many Americans really are bigots vs. how many aren't...or at least aren't complete bigots. This feels like it's going to be the most consequential poll on race (and gender) relations ever.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm genuinely appalled and a little worried about how this election will really boil down to a litmus test of how many Americans really are bigots vs. how many aren't...or at least aren't complete bigots. This feels like it's going to be the most consequential poll on race (and gender) relations ever.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The GOP coalition, as it stands, has been cracking for years, and it's reasonably likely that Trump is what deals the final blow. It's been predicated on movement conservatives using corporate money and evangelical votes to advance highly ideological policies that are favored by NEITHER neither their donors nor their voters. (Well, okay, some of their donors.) A party that preaches that compromise is treason and that promises impossible things and that speaks out of both sides of its mouth ("abortion is our #1 priority! ... right behind shipping your jobs overseas.") can't indefinitely win elections in a country this big. You've got Fortune 500 companies bailing on the GOP like crazy because the sexist, racist, anti-LGBT policies and rhetoric are bad for business. You can't suddenly turn around and tell the neanderthal wing of the party "oh, hey, we're going to compromise on these cultural issues now" when you have told them compromise is treason and those are your core priorities.
So the GOP itself may survive, but it's going to HAVE to realign its coalition, which is going to involve either ramping down the culture war and moderating on taxation OR becoming a rump party that only appeals to hard-core culture warriors and tax zealots.
Which is why while I appreciate pulling the Overton Window left, I get highly antsy when my fellow liberals start calling for ideological purges of the insufficiently liberal ... parties in the US that win elections are VERY BIG TENT parties that are defined by this building of coalitions and seeking of compromises among factions. The highly partisan, highly disciplined GOP of the last 20 years is an outlier, and it's clearly unstable, and I don't want us to become that on the left. (It's also a pretty clearly ineffective way to achieve your goals, as evangelical voters have discovered to their dismay.)
I may be more sensitive to this having watched it play out on the micro scale in local politics where a liberal gets voted in and achieves an 80% victory on some important local topic, but doesn't get the last 20% because it isn't politically possible with a city council that's 50% dems and 50% GOP and a lot of the dems are centrist and 80% of the agenda is a HUGE leap forward and an amazing achievement! And local liberals spit on him and revile him for giving in to the forces of evil on the last 20%, and refuse to support him in the next election, and recruit a more "pure" liberal to run, with the inevitable result that the more experienced GOP candidate gets elected because the liberal part of the party runs through their bench like WHOA, burns everybody out, and boots everyone who actually serves in elected office from their ranks for daring to compromise, and then they say, "SEE, I told you that guy was no better than a Republican, look what happened, he failed and we ended up with a GOP councilman." No, jackasses, you shot that poor guy in the back for only achieving 80% of his agenda and now he's too traumatized to ever run for office again and you're choking the pipeline for the left wing at the state and national level too!
(So, yeah, that was more paragraphs of feelings than I thought I had.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:40 PM on May 12, 2016 [37 favorites]
So the GOP itself may survive, but it's going to HAVE to realign its coalition, which is going to involve either ramping down the culture war and moderating on taxation OR becoming a rump party that only appeals to hard-core culture warriors and tax zealots.
Which is why while I appreciate pulling the Overton Window left, I get highly antsy when my fellow liberals start calling for ideological purges of the insufficiently liberal ... parties in the US that win elections are VERY BIG TENT parties that are defined by this building of coalitions and seeking of compromises among factions. The highly partisan, highly disciplined GOP of the last 20 years is an outlier, and it's clearly unstable, and I don't want us to become that on the left. (It's also a pretty clearly ineffective way to achieve your goals, as evangelical voters have discovered to their dismay.)
I may be more sensitive to this having watched it play out on the micro scale in local politics where a liberal gets voted in and achieves an 80% victory on some important local topic, but doesn't get the last 20% because it isn't politically possible with a city council that's 50% dems and 50% GOP and a lot of the dems are centrist and 80% of the agenda is a HUGE leap forward and an amazing achievement! And local liberals spit on him and revile him for giving in to the forces of evil on the last 20%, and refuse to support him in the next election, and recruit a more "pure" liberal to run, with the inevitable result that the more experienced GOP candidate gets elected because the liberal part of the party runs through their bench like WHOA, burns everybody out, and boots everyone who actually serves in elected office from their ranks for daring to compromise, and then they say, "SEE, I told you that guy was no better than a Republican, look what happened, he failed and we ended up with a GOP councilman." No, jackasses, you shot that poor guy in the back for only achieving 80% of his agenda and now he's too traumatized to ever run for office again and you're choking the pipeline for the left wing at the state and national level too!
(So, yeah, that was more paragraphs of feelings than I thought I had.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:40 PM on May 12, 2016 [37 favorites]
If the GOP coalition is fracturing under Trump why is he polling at 40%+ nationally. That's not a fracture that's almost unanimous support. I completely appreciate principled people like corb refusing to support Trump but the evidence is that people like her are a small minority of the Republican electorate.
The Republican party is not repudiating Trump and fracturing, they are falling in line like good little soldiers.
posted by Justinian at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Republican party is not repudiating Trump and fracturing, they are falling in line like good little soldiers.
posted by Justinian at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also our cultural orientation on "culture war" issues and economic issues have been remarkably stable since the Reagan era, but those are clearly and obviously shifting, and quickly, so there's going to be some kind of realignment of coalitions for both parties just based on that; the traditional economic solutions are for last-generation problems and politics can only lag reality for so long.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm genuinely appalled and a little worried about how this election will really boil down to a litmus test of how many Americans really are bigots vs. how many aren't...or at least aren't complete bigots. This feels like it's going to be the most consequential poll on race (and gender) relations ever.
Yep. Fuck our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Straight white male hegemony still has a few gasps left in it.
posted by Talez at 3:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. Fuck our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Straight white male hegemony still has a few gasps left in it.
posted by Talez at 3:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exactly, and it's like we're having two completely different elections. While one party is busy fighting about whether some kind of limited public option is good enough for now or whether a true single payer system is the only acceptable outcome, the other party is promising, among other things, to ban over a billion people from the country on the basis of their religion, the registration of 3.3 million Americans on the basis of their religion, the forced migration without due process of over 11 million people, many of whom are the immediate relatives of US citizens, and a massive wall to separate us from our neighbors.
It's like we're not living in the same country.
posted by zachlipton at 3:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
It's like we're not living in the same country.
posted by zachlipton at 3:46 PM on May 12, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yes! This is what is so flabbergasting to me, zachlipton. We here are arguing over whether one of our candidate's support for a national $12 minimum wage instead of $15 makes her a tool of the corporate oligarchs instead of a champion of the common man... and meanwhile her opponent is looking set to destroy the very fabric of society, completely trash American's position in the world as a whole (after Obama went so far to rebuild it after the Bush disasters), and normalize neo-fascist rhetoric.
What the hell? At this point I'd probably vote for the goddamn CEO of Goldman Sachs instead of Trump. Seriously, it's time to get our shit together and stop the madness of whether agreeing 90% of the time is good enough and unify the vote. This is too important to do otherwise and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [35 favorites]
What the hell? At this point I'd probably vote for the goddamn CEO of Goldman Sachs instead of Trump. Seriously, it's time to get our shit together and stop the madness of whether agreeing 90% of the time is good enough and unify the vote. This is too important to do otherwise and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [35 favorites]
I just saw a man on the Upper West Side of Manhattan wearing a Trump shirt. I was actually astonished.
okay but why didn't you shove him into the river
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
okay but why didn't you shove him into the river
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
i mean ideally you would step on his foot, very obviously deliberately, and then apologize in spanish
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 3:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
What the hell? At this point I'd probably vote for the goddamn CEO of Goldman Sachs instead of Trump.
Agreed! And when Bernie takes the nomination, we'll be expecting all you Clinton supporters to get in line ;)
posted by iamck at 3:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Agreed! And when Bernie takes the nomination, we'll be expecting all you Clinton supporters to get in line ;)
posted by iamck at 3:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's like we're not living in the same country.
Well, nobody I know is voting for Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, nobody I know is voting for Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Agreed! And when Bernie takes the nomination, we'll be expecting all you Clinton supporters to get in line
I mean, I know you're joking, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Clinton supporter who said he or she wouldn't support Sanders if he won the nomination. Like, ever.
posted by Justinian at 3:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
I mean, I know you're joking, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Clinton supporter who said he or she wouldn't support Sanders if he won the nomination. Like, ever.
posted by Justinian at 3:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
A relative with questionable taste lives up in Harlem and in '08 wore a "I'm for drilling! Sarah Palin" shirt all over the neighborhood.
He would have angry black men spin him around to demand an explanation and then say, "Oh, you mean like sex, ho ho ho" and slap him on the back.
I don't approve of any of it, but it makes for a tale.
posted by angrycat at 3:57 PM on May 12, 2016
He would have angry black men spin him around to demand an explanation and then say, "Oh, you mean like sex, ho ho ho" and slap him on the back.
I don't approve of any of it, but it makes for a tale.
posted by angrycat at 3:57 PM on May 12, 2016
Agreed! And when Bernie takes the nomination, we'll be expecting all you Clinton supporters to get in line ;)
lol i have yet to see a single hillyfan threaten to vote for trump or not vote at all if she didn't get the nom ;)
posted by poffin boffin at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
lol i have yet to see a single hillyfan threaten to vote for trump or not vote at all if she didn't get the nom ;)
posted by poffin boffin at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [13 favorites]
Are you sure? I guess I just assumed so much as there was so much hatred spewed towards Sanders, and his supporters.
posted by iamck at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by iamck at 3:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure, yes. In the unlikely event that Sanders gets the nomination, I will be campaigning for him just as hard as I can. I've said that from day one, for what it's worth.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I spend a lot of time in a private Facebook group for Hillary supporters. I do remember one post where someone had gotten so frustrated with a Bernie-related thing that she was going to have a hard time voting for him. Whereupon everyone else talked her down and she ended up at "yeah, I was frustrated, but that was a dumb thing to say, given Trump as my alternative." Everyone else is all in on "we want Hillary but we'll be first in line to vote for Bernie if he's the nominee." It may just be my bubble, but that's what I'm seeing, FWIW.
If Bernie's the nominee, I will gladly immediately switch my recurring campaign donations from Hillary to Bernie, and I'll vote for him no question, albeit with a tiny pang that it isn't Hillary.
posted by Stacey at 4:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
If Bernie's the nominee, I will gladly immediately switch my recurring campaign donations from Hillary to Bernie, and I'll vote for him no question, albeit with a tiny pang that it isn't Hillary.
posted by Stacey at 4:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Are you sure? I guess I just assumed so much as there was so much hatred spewed towards Sanders, and his supporters.
Nah, mostly annoyance. I don't even see hatred spewed toward them.
posted by msalt at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nah, mostly annoyance. I don't even see hatred spewed toward them.
posted by msalt at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
As far as Sanders supporters making the claim of voting for Trump, or Bernie or Bust, etc., I feel it's mostly reactionary to feeling sidelined throughout his candidacy. It's clear that he has not been the media favorite and was largely ignored throughout the primary, and most Sander supporters, myself included, have this collective sigh of "oh, this again, been here before."
I don't think these calls for Sanders to "drop out" are helping, and probably only fuel this divide. Let the convention happen, see who wins, and then the conversation will probably be more civil.
posted by iamck at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think these calls for Sanders to "drop out" are helping, and probably only fuel this divide. Let the convention happen, see who wins, and then the conversation will probably be more civil.
posted by iamck at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep hearing there's a "Hillary or Bust" crowd out there, and I'm willing to believe it's possible...but it's funny how I have seen absolutely zero evidence of such.
Almost like such a group is dramatically smaller and/or quieter than the Bernie or Bust crowd.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Almost like such a group is dramatically smaller and/or quieter than the Bernie or Bust crowd.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, of course. If he does.
Not only have I not expressed (or "spewed") hatred of Sanders and his supporters, I can't think of an example of a MeFi who has.
posted by bearwife at 4:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not only have I not expressed (or "spewed") hatred of Sanders and his supporters, I can't think of an example of a MeFi who has.
posted by bearwife at 4:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I spend a lot of time in a private Facebook group for Hillary supporters.
Also strange to exist in a time wherein we all live in bubbles. In my world, I don't even KNOW any real life Hillary supporters.
posted by iamck at 4:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also strange to exist in a time wherein we all live in bubbles. In my world, I don't even KNOW any real life Hillary supporters.
posted by iamck at 4:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I spend a lot of time in a private Facebook group for Hillary supporters. I do remember one post where someone had gotten so frustrated with a Bernie-related thing that she was going to have a hard time voting for him. Whereupon everyone else talked her down and she ended up at "yeah, I was frustrated, but that was a dumb thing to say, given Trump as my alternative."
This is literally exactly the same thing I saw play out on the Hillary Clinton subreddit just before the New York primary.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016
This is literally exactly the same thing I saw play out on the Hillary Clinton subreddit just before the New York primary.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016
Are you sure? I guess I just assumed so much as there was so much hatred spewed towards Sanders, and his supporters.
Yeah, I've seen and heard a lot of irritation--sometimes dislike-- expressed by Clinton supporters (sometimes, I am embarrassed to say, including by me) toward Sanders supporters, often in pretty uncivil ways, but for reals can't think of a single time I've seen that evolve into "if Clinton doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Trump."
posted by dersins at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I've seen and heard a lot of irritation--sometimes dislike-- expressed by Clinton supporters (sometimes, I am embarrassed to say, including by me) toward Sanders supporters, often in pretty uncivil ways, but for reals can't think of a single time I've seen that evolve into "if Clinton doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Trump."
posted by dersins at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, I know you're joking, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Clinton supporter who said he or she wouldn't support Sanders if he won the nomination. Like, ever.
To be fair, PUMAs were definitely a thing. That was when Hillary wasn't the inevitable nominee, though. Now that she is, there has been no incentive for any sort of neo-PUMA movement to materialize against the prospect of a Sanders win.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
To be fair, PUMAs were definitely a thing. That was when Hillary wasn't the inevitable nominee, though. Now that she is, there has been no incentive for any sort of neo-PUMA movement to materialize against the prospect of a Sanders win.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think Sanderites who talk of voting for Trump are trying to express "I hate this system and want to burn it down." Hopefully, by the time it is November, they won't still be looking for matches.
posted by corb at 4:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
PUMAs were a thing in 2008, I thought? A thing which did not actually happen?
posted by Justinian at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2016
Going To Maine: "It's like we're not living in the same country.
Well, nobody I know is voting for Trump."
Sigh, I wish I could say that.
posted by octothorpe at 4:11 PM on May 12, 2016
Well, nobody I know is voting for Trump."
Sigh, I wish I could say that.
posted by octothorpe at 4:11 PM on May 12, 2016
man the protest outside the Ryan/Trump meeting sounds crazy
posted by angrycat at 4:13 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by angrycat at 4:13 PM on May 12, 2016
At this point I'm pretty sure at this point some people would support a purge as long as it meant they could kill black people and Muslims.
C.f. Stand Your Ground laws.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:15 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In my world, I don't even KNOW any real life Hillary supporters.
You might be surprised there. Anecdotally, I know a fair number of Clinton supporters who have stopped advertising that fact, especially on social media, because inevitably a very small but very vocal contingent of Sanders supporters show up to "Well, actually..." them to death.
#NOTALLBERNIESUPPORTERS, I know-- but this very small group of dudes ended up making things pretty unpleasant on Facebook for several people I know.
posted by dersins at 4:16 PM on May 12, 2016 [23 favorites]
You might be surprised there. Anecdotally, I know a fair number of Clinton supporters who have stopped advertising that fact, especially on social media, because inevitably a very small but very vocal contingent of Sanders supporters show up to "Well, actually..." them to death.
#NOTALLBERNIESUPPORTERS, I know-- but this very small group of dudes ended up making things pretty unpleasant on Facebook for several people I know.
posted by dersins at 4:16 PM on May 12, 2016 [23 favorites]
Anecdotally, I know a fair number of Clinton supporters who have stopped advertising that fact, especially on social media, because inevitably a very small but very vocal contingent of Sanders supporters show up to "Well, actually..." them to death.
Don't forget the Republicans who come along with the image of a bumper sticker of "Liberalism is a Mental Illness". They just post it on its own as the reply.
If there's anything that white people love it's bumper stickers.
posted by Talez at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2016
Don't forget the Republicans who come along with the image of a bumper sticker of "Liberalism is a Mental Illness". They just post it on its own as the reply.
If there's anything that white people love it's bumper stickers.
posted by Talez at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2016
The New Yorker on Ryan/Trump meeting
Ryan's attitude of "well I just wanted to see what this nice man had to say for himself as I had no idea what sort of fellow was he" attitude reminds me why I used to want to punch Ryan in the face a lot
posted by angrycat at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ryan's attitude of "well I just wanted to see what this nice man had to say for himself as I had no idea what sort of fellow was he" attitude reminds me why I used to want to punch Ryan in the face a lot
posted by angrycat at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Here's a piece Michele Goldberg wrote that touches on some of the IRL manifestations of the phenomenon.
posted by dersins at 4:20 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by dersins at 4:20 PM on May 12, 2016
Most of the Clinton supporters I know (in which, at this point in the cycle, I include myself, despite voting for Sanders) are more supportive of Sanders' POLICIES than Clinton's, but feel that she would be a more effective politician, so getting the implementation of, say, 50% of a platform you 80% agree with is better than getting 30% of a platform you 90% agree with.*
*numbers pulled from ass
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
*numbers pulled from ass
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
If the GOP coalition is fracturing under Trump why is he polling at 40%+ nationally. That's not a fracture that's almost unanimous support.
I think the idea here is that Hillary trounces him in a landslide, a la unelectable Democratic candidates like McGovern and Mondale. The Republican party is then forced to have a come-to-jesus about the fact that red meat candidates like Trump cannot win national elections, and they will have to regroup so as to find candidates their base will tolerate but which can be elected on the national level.
Basically, the only thing that's going to keep the Republicans alive after 2016 is their own version of Bill Clinton.
posted by Sara C. at 4:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the idea here is that Hillary trounces him in a landslide, a la unelectable Democratic candidates like McGovern and Mondale. The Republican party is then forced to have a come-to-jesus about the fact that red meat candidates like Trump cannot win national elections, and they will have to regroup so as to find candidates their base will tolerate but which can be elected on the national level.
Basically, the only thing that's going to keep the Republicans alive after 2016 is their own version of Bill Clinton.
posted by Sara C. at 4:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Apppparently, screaming out loud "I swear to God Paul Ryan I will fucking cut you" gets you funny looks.
But, uh...I feel you, angrycat.
posted by corb at 4:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
But, uh...I feel you, angrycat.
posted by corb at 4:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yup. You may know Hillary supporters that you don't think you know. A lot of us are underground, quietly talking amongst ourselves, because we've seen what happens when we make any kind of public statement about being for Hillary, and it's not pretty, and we'd rather spend our efforts donating to or volunteering for our candidate than getting into endless circular social media battles about her. But at least in my personal variant of that, no one has any intention of not supporting Bernie should he be the nominee. (Nor do I remember seeing anything to that effect earlier in the primary, when the outcome was more up in the air.)
It is indeed a weird time to live in our bubbles. I guess it's just good all around to remember that the people we know are not necessarily representative at all of the larger picture of what's going on out in the rest of the country. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's terrifying.
posted by Stacey at 4:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
It is indeed a weird time to live in our bubbles. I guess it's just good all around to remember that the people we know are not necessarily representative at all of the larger picture of what's going on out in the rest of the country. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's terrifying.
posted by Stacey at 4:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [16 favorites]
If there's anything that white people love it's bumper stickers.
Nowhere in the world is this more in evidence than here in Portland, Oregon. Every other car on the road looks like this.
posted by dersins at 4:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nowhere in the world is this more in evidence than here in Portland, Oregon. Every other car on the road looks like this.
posted by dersins at 4:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anecdotally, I know a fair number of Clinton supporters who have stopped advertising that fact, especially on social media, because inevitably a very small but very vocal contingent of Sanders supporters show up to "Well, actually..." them to death.
Pretty much every single person I've seen in private Hillary groups has stopped posting on public Facebook because of harassment and criticism. I think age and gender probably play a role as well. That's in fact why those groups exist.
As a much-older-than-average standup comedian, I seriously worry about hurting my career (such as it is) by saying anything Bernie-skeptic on Facebook. There is a real sense of moral right vs. moral wrong among the vast pro-Sanders majority, and instant accusations of corruption/shillling/stupidity and ignorance levelled at any dissenters. It's cooled down a bit since the NY primary, though.
posted by msalt at 4:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
Pretty much every single person I've seen in private Hillary groups has stopped posting on public Facebook because of harassment and criticism. I think age and gender probably play a role as well. That's in fact why those groups exist.
As a much-older-than-average standup comedian, I seriously worry about hurting my career (such as it is) by saying anything Bernie-skeptic on Facebook. There is a real sense of moral right vs. moral wrong among the vast pro-Sanders majority, and instant accusations of corruption/shillling/stupidity and ignorance levelled at any dissenters. It's cooled down a bit since the NY primary, though.
posted by msalt at 4:26 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
PUMAs were a thing in 2008, I thought? A thing which did not actually happen?
Your statement, echoed by others here, was that you didn't know Clinton supporters who would never support Bernie. My response was that (a) there was a widely-publicized movement of Clinton supporters who said they'd never support Obama in the 2008 general and (b) the conditions for a large movement of Clinton supporters who would say they don't support Bernie in the 2016 general include the realistic possibility of Bernie being in the 2016 general, and that's clearly not the case, at least not as a Democrat.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Your statement, echoed by others here, was that you didn't know Clinton supporters who would never support Bernie. My response was that (a) there was a widely-publicized movement of Clinton supporters who said they'd never support Obama in the 2008 general and (b) the conditions for a large movement of Clinton supporters who would say they don't support Bernie in the 2016 general include the realistic possibility of Bernie being in the 2016 general, and that's clearly not the case, at least not as a Democrat.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because, and this is really going to shock people, the vast majority of Americans do not spend a lot of time discussing politics on social media, and those that do are not necessarily particularly representative of everybody that votes.
posted by zachlipton at 4:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 4:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
In real life, meaning the folks I talk to, here's a short list of people I know who have either explicitly supported or strongly implicitly stated interest in a candidate(s):
-2 Hillary Clinton supporters (both in my family, my mom and my college aged brother)
-2 Trump supporters (strangely neither are going to vote for him and one is my dad)
-1 older kinda-Bernie or Buster (who is more Anti-HRC than anything else it seems)
-1 Establishment Republican that doesn't like Clinton but has no idea what to do
-1 early 30s Bernie supporter
-1 young college aged Bernie supporter
posted by FJT at 4:30 PM on May 12, 2016
-2 Hillary Clinton supporters (both in my family, my mom and my college aged brother)
-2 Trump supporters (strangely neither are going to vote for him and one is my dad)
-1 older kinda-Bernie or Buster (who is more Anti-HRC than anything else it seems)
-1 Establishment Republican that doesn't like Clinton but has no idea what to do
-1 early 30s Bernie supporter
-1 young college aged Bernie supporter
posted by FJT at 4:30 PM on May 12, 2016
Most of the Clinton supporters I know (in which, at this point in the cycle, I include myself, despite voting for Sanders) are more supportive of Sanders' POLICIES than Clinton's, but feel that she would be a more effective politician, so getting the implementation of, say, 50% of a platform you 80% agree with is better than getting 30% of a platform you 90% agree with.*
This is me entirely. I don't actually like Clinton but we already had First Term Obama and I'd rather have a president who understands deep in her bones that the GOP wants her humiliated and dead than one under delusions of being able to work with them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
This is me entirely. I don't actually like Clinton but we already had First Term Obama and I'd rather have a president who understands deep in her bones that the GOP wants her humiliated and dead than one under delusions of being able to work with them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [22 favorites]
I have a pretty hard-core "don't argue about politics on Facebook" rule. In the past, it's been totally possible to post political things without violating it. It isn't possible to post pro-Hillary things on Facebook without having some Bernie supporter call you names, and I'm pretty sure that I would take the bait, so I don't post pro-Hillary things.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: iamck, you've asked, people have answered; repeating your objection is turning into a derail so let's move on.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:34 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:34 PM on May 12, 2016
Joe Goes To A DONALD TRUMP RALLY
Holy shit -_-
posted by Talez at 4:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Holy shit -_-
posted by Talez at 4:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
i don't think i know anyone irl who wouldn't be genuinely mystified by the idea of voting for anyone other than whoever gets the dem nom, regardless of who that person is.
posted by poffin boffin at 4:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 4:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Reload the thread and make sure you're not responding to deleted "but Hillary supporters!" "But Bernie supporters!" comments. And then don't make those comments.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
(So, yeah, that was more paragraphs of feelings than I thought I had.)
Thank you for saving me a lot of typing.
posted by bongo_x at 4:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thank you for saving me a lot of typing.
posted by bongo_x at 4:44 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
So far believe I am receiving 3 votes for President. Two relatives and a friend refuse to vote for either Clinton or Trump so they are writing me in. Since all live in California or Washington I haven't bothered to lobby them to vote for Clinton instead but maybe it will start a trend.
Justinian 2016.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Justinian 2016.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
well at least we'd have ONE candidate willing to take a stand against the goddamn Ostrogoths
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:47 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:47 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
what is your platform on replacing the majority of humanity with like 2 dozen dogs and a fat orange cat named butterscotch
posted by poffin boffin at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
I will admit, that a couple months ago I got so angered of by the negative campaigning that I was ready to say to hell with it, I won't vote if Sanders gets the nod. Now...I realIze that was a really destructive, non-constructive thing to do.
posted by happyroach at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
just in time for justinian
posted by pyramid termite at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 4:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
what is your platform on replacing the majority of humanity with like 2 dozen dogs and a fat orange cat named butterscotch
You have your proportions precisely backward.
Also, the cats are named Gary.
posted by dersins at 4:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
You have your proportions precisely backward.
Also, the cats are named Gary.
posted by dersins at 4:53 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know what's a fun thought exercise? Think of the least qualified person you would still vote for over Trump.
So far the only living person I can come up with who I would not choose over Trump is Justin Bieber (pretending for the moment he is not Canadian). Maybe when he grows up.
Putin...? I'm on the fence.
posted by sallybrown at 4:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
So far the only living person I can come up with who I would not choose over Trump is Justin Bieber (pretending for the moment he is not Canadian). Maybe when he grows up.
Putin...? I'm on the fence.
posted by sallybrown at 4:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Look, if your relatives aren’t voting #1 Quidnunc Kid they’re throwing their votes away.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
I legit think a Bieber administration would be substantially less catastrophic than a Trump administration.
posted by dersins at 4:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:57 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Putin...? I'm on the fence.
No way; a real strong man is a poor substitute for a fake. And if you haven’t, please enjoy reading Timothy Snyder’s brief article, “Trump’s Putin Fantasy”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
No way; a real strong man is a poor substitute for a fake. And if you haven’t, please enjoy reading Timothy Snyder’s brief article, “Trump’s Putin Fantasy”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would vote for Stephen fucking Harper* over Trump.
*(fuckharper)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
*(fuckharper)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:00 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who would I vote for rather than Trump? Well, now that we have determined that Ted Cruz is NOT the Zodiac Killer, I would likely consider Zodiac before Trump. After all, Zodiac hasn't done anything awful since 1974; Trump has been doing nothing BUT awful things all that time.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:17 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know what's a fun thought exercise? Think of the least qualified person you would still vote for over Trump.
I got nothin'. Because I'd even vote for Justin Bieber over Trump. I imagine Justin might well do damage to the White House, what with his penchant for street racing and all, but that's nothing compared to what The Donald would inflict.
posted by bearwife at 5:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I got nothin'. Because I'd even vote for Justin Bieber over Trump. I imagine Justin might well do damage to the White House, what with his penchant for street racing and all, but that's nothing compared to what The Donald would inflict.
posted by bearwife at 5:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
*looks at hand*
4 no trump
You better have at least 27 points, or we will have words after this rubber.
posted by dersins at 5:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
4 no trump
You better have at least 27 points, or we will have words after this rubber.
posted by dersins at 5:25 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
" I imagine Justin might well do damage to the White House, what with his penchant for street racing and all, but that's nothing compared to what The Donald would inflict."
You say that like Canadians aren't the our only enemies in history responsible for burning down the White House.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:34 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
You say that like Canadians aren't the our only enemies in history responsible for burning down the White House.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:34 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
I keep hearing there's a "Hillary or Bust" crowd out there, and I'm willing to believe it's possible...but it's funny how I have seen absolutely zero evidence of such.
Almost like such a group is dramatically smaller and/or quieter than the Bernie or Bust crowd.
posted by scaryblackdeath
Uhhhhh....or maybe ignored and/or silenced, like many things relating to women? GASP
posted by agregoli at 5:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Almost like such a group is dramatically smaller and/or quieter than the Bernie or Bust crowd.
posted by scaryblackdeath
Uhhhhh....or maybe ignored and/or silenced, like many things relating to women? GASP
posted by agregoli at 5:39 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
You better have at least 27 points, or we will have words after this rubber.
*checks sleeves*
we're good
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
*checks sleeves*
we're good
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd vote for every Kardashian over Trump, they've at least demonstrated actual business acumen.
Well, maybe not Rob.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, maybe not Rob.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
While one party is busy fighting about whether some kind of limited public option is good enough for now or whether a true single payer system is the only acceptable outcome, the other party is promising, among other things, to ban over a billion people from the country on the basis of their religion, the registration of 3.3 million Americans on the basis of their religion, the forced migration without due process of over 11 million people, many of whom are the immediate relatives of US citizens, and a massive wall to separate us from our neighbors.
The currently-Democratic Executive branch is already forcibly deporting immigrants, focusing on women and children who are fleeing violence in central america (violence quite often caused in the first place by the policies of that same Democratic Executive branch!)
posted by junco at 5:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
The currently-Democratic Executive branch is already forcibly deporting immigrants, focusing on women and children who are fleeing violence in central america (violence quite often caused in the first place by the policies of that same Democratic Executive branch!)
posted by junco at 5:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Thats true, but the previous raid they compare it to deported 100,000 times fewer people than Trump proposes, and the leading Democratic candidate has criticized these raids as the article says "Those raids, which resulted in the detention of 121 people, mostly women and children, sparked an outcry from immigration advocates and criticism from some Democrats, including the party's presidential election frontrunner Hillary Clinton."
Obama has at the same time tried to give more options to undocument immigrants and been stopped by the Republicans and courts repeatedly, so its a little complicated. Compare to Trump, who wants all of them out AND to ban anyone Muslim from even visiting.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama has at the same time tried to give more options to undocument immigrants and been stopped by the Republicans and courts repeatedly, so its a little complicated. Compare to Trump, who wants all of them out AND to ban anyone Muslim from even visiting.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:54 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Compare to Trump, who wants all of them out AND to ban anyone Muslim from even visiting.
#NotAllMuslims
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:59 PM on May 12, 2016
#NotAllMuslims
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:59 PM on May 12, 2016
Hah, yes he will allow A Few Good Muslims in. (And hurray to Sadiq Khan for responding perfectly)
posted by thefoxgod at 6:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 6:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given that as recently as 2014, Clinton wanted Honduran children deported, I tend to doubt that she would meaningfully change policy here. Certainly what Trump says he wants to do is worse, but please don't pretend that the Democrats as the lesser evil aren't doing lots of emphatically Evil things.
posted by junco at 6:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by junco at 6:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
(that last clause wasn't directed at you specifically, thefoxgod; more as a general admonition to Democratic party supporters.)
posted by junco at 6:24 PM on May 12, 2016
posted by junco at 6:24 PM on May 12, 2016
Does it really, in an electoral sense, matter at this point? When your choices are drowning in a vat of diarrhea or breathing in a room full of farts, it's pretty easy to avoid the diarrhea right now and worry about holding your breath next.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Speaking of Putin, you guys know that Trump's campaign is being run by Putin's favorite political operative, right? Yeah seriously!
Given Trump's longstanding friendship with Putin, and Putin's cheerleading for Trump, shouldn't we be seeing some "Trump is a Russian sleeper agent" stories?
posted by chrchr at 6:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Given Trump's longstanding friendship with Putin, and Putin's cheerleading for Trump, shouldn't we be seeing some "Trump is a Russian sleeper agent" stories?
posted by chrchr at 6:29 PM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Does it really, in an electoral sense, matter at this point?
In terms of this specific present election, probably not, but if people were honest with themselves that the choices presented are between the party of endless war, drone assassination, inhumane immigration policy, and ruination of the poor on the one hand, and the party of slightly less but still horrific amounts of endless war etc. on the other hand perhaps we could try making a country that doesn't do those things. (Certainly the Democrats are also better on domestic anti-discrimination issues, which is a good reason to vote for them, but that still doesn't obviate the fact that much of what they do is evil.)
posted by junco at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In terms of this specific present election, probably not, but if people were honest with themselves that the choices presented are between the party of endless war, drone assassination, inhumane immigration policy, and ruination of the poor on the one hand, and the party of slightly less but still horrific amounts of endless war etc. on the other hand perhaps we could try making a country that doesn't do those things. (Certainly the Democrats are also better on domestic anti-discrimination issues, which is a good reason to vote for them, but that still doesn't obviate the fact that much of what they do is evil.)
posted by junco at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But even with Sanders as the nominee, it would still maybe at best be marginally better, which would still mean voting for a "lesser evil".
posted by FJT at 6:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 6:41 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
So it's the usual "but both sides are basically the same" nonsense? Bah.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
Where do you see meaningful policy differences between the two in terms of unilateral use of force, use of torture (including solitary confinement), immigration control and enforcement (as it actually existed under the last Republican president), ownership of wealth and distribution of income (including and especially on so-called "free trade" agreements like the TTP and TTIP), and commitment to drastic action on global warming? Both parties do have substantively similar answers to all these policy areas.
posted by junco at 6:50 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by junco at 6:50 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton is going to approve TTP and TTIP and push for further such agreements; continue unilateral drone warfare anywhere the US Government decides it wants to bomb people; keep deporting undocumented immigrants and not make immigration meaningfully easier; continue the commitment of the last 30 years to an ever-expanding private-public carcereal apparatus; keep taxation and finance policies that continue to enrich the wealthy and immiserate everyone else; and continue to talk about non-binding climate change agreements without enacting hard policies to limit carbon emissions and keep oil in the ground. None of these things are even open for discussion in the Democratic party mainstream.
posted by junco at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by junco at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whaaaaa
posted by agregoli at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Almost none of those statements are correct. Unless you're arguing "Well, I don't believe anything Clinton says so these are her REAL THOUGHTS which I know because I am psychic."
posted by thefoxgod at 7:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 7:03 PM on May 12, 2016 [18 favorites]
Hillary will:
Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.
posted by chrchr at 7:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.
posted by chrchr at 7:04 PM on May 12, 2016 [11 favorites]
You are cherry picking issues. Of course you have to, since you're making the outlandish claim that both parties are the same and conveniently forgetting health care, gun control, and women's rights.
posted by FJT at 7:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by FJT at 7:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
(Oddly enough, BOTH Trump and Clinton are against the TPP. So its technically true they have the same position on TPP, just not the one you think)
posted by thefoxgod at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like, literally none are correct near as I can tell.
Climate change. Income inequality. Immigration. Wall Street.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Climate change. Income inequality. Immigration. Wall Street.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:07 PM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Or to put it another way: you made that all up out of whole cloth.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:08 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not to mention "not officially enforcing religious-based profiling and suggesting rounding American citizens up into camps."
posted by biogeo at 7:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 7:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Leonard Pitts: When Trump emboldens the violent, we must ask: Will there be blood? Violence, hate crimes and even terrorism from the radical right are not as unthinkable as we wish.
posted by homunculus at 7:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 7:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Of course you have to, since you're making the outlandish claim that both parties are the same and conveniently forgetting health care, gun control, LGBTQ rights, and women's rights.
That's absolutely untrue; I clearly said above that the Democrats are far better on domestic anti-discrimination issues, which is sufficient reason to vote for them. You're right that I should have included gun control.
Hillary will:
Sure, according to her campaign website. I think that the evidence of the past eight years of a Democratic president are likely more predictive, as are her actions and words as Secretary of State and a Senator. Like, you all literally think focus-tested advertising copy from a political campaign that is devoid of any sort of policy detail is a clearer indicator of what a Democratic president will do than what the previous Democratic president has done for eight years?
posted by junco at 7:13 PM on May 12, 2016
That's absolutely untrue; I clearly said above that the Democrats are far better on domestic anti-discrimination issues, which is sufficient reason to vote for them. You're right that I should have included gun control.
Hillary will:
Sure, according to her campaign website. I think that the evidence of the past eight years of a Democratic president are likely more predictive, as are her actions and words as Secretary of State and a Senator. Like, you all literally think focus-tested advertising copy from a political campaign that is devoid of any sort of policy detail is a clearer indicator of what a Democratic president will do than what the previous Democratic president has done for eight years?
posted by junco at 7:13 PM on May 12, 2016
Ohhh okay. She's telling the truth about some things (coincidentally, the ones you agree with), but she's lying about others (the ones you don't). Got it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:15 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Leonard Pitts: When Trump emboldens the violent, we must ask: Will there be blood? Violence, hate crimes and even terrorism from the radical right are not as unthinkable as we wish.
This kind of scares me because I don't want to fight. It's not because I don't have convictions in what I believe. It's because it's a complete fucking waste of life for me to meet their force with my force. We shoot each other and then what? We're both still dead.
posted by Talez at 7:16 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
This kind of scares me because I don't want to fight. It's not because I don't have convictions in what I believe. It's because it's a complete fucking waste of life for me to meet their force with my force. We shoot each other and then what? We're both still dead.
posted by Talez at 7:16 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Look, if your relatives aren’t voting #1 Quidnunc Kid they’re throwing their votes away.
Don't blame me, I voted for quonsar.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't blame me, I voted for quonsar.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:18 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that the evidence of the past eight years of a Democratic president are likely more predictive, as are her actions and words as Secretary of State and a Senator.
Yeah, the last eight years are predictive, but more for the opposition to the president's policies, and not to mention the questioning of the president even being president or born here.
But, I remain optimistic. I don't think the Republicans will doubt that Hillary Clinton was born in the US.
posted by FJT at 7:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the last eight years are predictive, but more for the opposition to the president's policies, and not to mention the questioning of the president even being president or born here.
But, I remain optimistic. I don't think the Republicans will doubt that Hillary Clinton was born in the US.
posted by FJT at 7:20 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ohhh okay. She's telling the truth about some things (coincidentally, the ones you agree with)
What? I don't see how that follows. I think her public statements prior to commencing a presidential campaign are closer to her actual views than what she puts in her political advertisements and in interviews while actively running a campaign, but that's not the same thing as saying "the things she says I agree with are true and those that aren't are false".
posted by junco at 7:20 PM on May 12, 2016
What? I don't see how that follows. I think her public statements prior to commencing a presidential campaign are closer to her actual views than what she puts in her political advertisements and in interviews while actively running a campaign, but that's not the same thing as saying "the things she says I agree with are true and those that aren't are false".
posted by junco at 7:20 PM on May 12, 2016
And again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. In our country we just absolutely cannot have a very far left utopia, it's never going to happen, our country is too diverse and huge with too many people with very disparate points of view, and that's ok. What I believe most Democrats want to do is elect a person who knows when to compromise and when to hold the line and most importantly is aware that they have a duty to represent everyone in the country, not just the people in their party. This is what we are pushing back against, a party that feels it only represents a percentage of the citizens and refuses to acknowledge that they have a duty to our country.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mod note: junco, what you're doing is a classic straw man argument and you need to stop.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:38 PM on May 12, 2016 [10 favorites]
On the question of taxation for supporting social programs: If you look at the places that do this successfully, it's basically two things: 1. High income tax on anyone who makes a bit more than average, and 2. High value-added taxes.
In Denmark, for example, everybody who makes more than 1.2 times the average income pays a 60% marginal rate. In Sweden, anybody who's making 1.5 times the average pays a 57% marginal rate. If you want well-funded social programs, you don't focus on soaking the rich. They're too fickle, to quick to leave town. Instead, you place the heaviest burden on those who are doing moderately well.
Value-added taxes are regressive, but they're also dependable. It's a lot harder to do accounting trickery that moves them to the Virgin Islands as parent-company profits.
So if you really want to pay for better social programs, the struggle is not to convince middle-class people to vote to raise taxes on the rich. The struggle is to convince middle-class people to raise taxes on themselves. You're a trucker making $70K? Your taxes go up. You're a lawyer making $200K? Your taxes go up. You're a computer programmer making $90K? Your taxes go up. You're anybody, buying something? 25% of the price goes to the government.
I'm not sure if that's a conversation that America is ready for.
posted by clawsoon at 7:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
In Denmark, for example, everybody who makes more than 1.2 times the average income pays a 60% marginal rate. In Sweden, anybody who's making 1.5 times the average pays a 57% marginal rate. If you want well-funded social programs, you don't focus on soaking the rich. They're too fickle, to quick to leave town. Instead, you place the heaviest burden on those who are doing moderately well.
Value-added taxes are regressive, but they're also dependable. It's a lot harder to do accounting trickery that moves them to the Virgin Islands as parent-company profits.
So if you really want to pay for better social programs, the struggle is not to convince middle-class people to vote to raise taxes on the rich. The struggle is to convince middle-class people to raise taxes on themselves. You're a trucker making $70K? Your taxes go up. You're a lawyer making $200K? Your taxes go up. You're a computer programmer making $90K? Your taxes go up. You're anybody, buying something? 25% of the price goes to the government.
I'm not sure if that's a conversation that America is ready for.
posted by clawsoon at 7:43 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe this is just me, but is anyone else physically getting nauseous every time something predictive of a possible Trump presidency comes up? Like this is not rhetorical, I actually want to vomit right now.
posted by corb at 7:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:51 PM on May 12, 2016 [15 favorites]
Right there with you on the nausea, corb. I keep telling myself I survived the GW Bush years, but this is something completely different.
And none of the "Trump can't possibly win and here's why" articles reassure me, because I've been reading those for 6 months saying he'll never get the nomination.
November seems so far away...
posted by mmoncur at 7:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
And none of the "Trump can't possibly win and here's why" articles reassure me, because I've been reading those for 6 months saying he'll never get the nomination.
November seems so far away...
posted by mmoncur at 7:55 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Corb: fwiw I just genuinely want to understand how he's so popular. My husband and I (fairly liberal folks) watched more than one of the republican debates and while we disagree with many if not most of the policies of all the candidates, we were especially put off by *competence* issues in some of the field, esp Trump. Like we would disagree with Kasich's positions but at least he wasn't terrifyingly ignorant and incompetent sounding. He would make an acceptable president and seemed (in debates) to have some clue about how good governance works. Trump sounded ignorant, incompetent and unaware of practical politics (eg how congress works) with a giant helping of undeserved confidence and arrogance which only makes him more terrifying. It was so painful to imagine him as president last fall when debates started.
It's surreal that he's going to be the nominee and that many people support him. Since I'm kind of in the Obama camp of believing the president is president of ALL and that America is a diverse place, it's important to accept that not only are there Americans that support Trump but that it's not even that uncommon (and has been this way for six months). Even assuming Clinton wins, she has to be president for the Americans that support Trump. What does that mean?
posted by R343L at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's surreal that he's going to be the nominee and that many people support him. Since I'm kind of in the Obama camp of believing the president is president of ALL and that America is a diverse place, it's important to accept that not only are there Americans that support Trump but that it's not even that uncommon (and has been this way for six months). Even assuming Clinton wins, she has to be president for the Americans that support Trump. What does that mean?
posted by R343L at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like this is not rhetorical, I actually want to vomit right now.
Thanks for sharing.
posted by JackFlash at 8:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thanks for sharing.
posted by JackFlash at 8:11 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
So if you really want to pay for better social programs, the struggle is not to convince middle-class people to vote to raise taxes on the rich. The struggle is to convince middle-class people to raise taxes on themselves.
You're not wrong, but the progressivity of the taxes is only half of the story. What matters is the net reduction in inequality counting taxes and transfers. Yes, more people pay more in, but more people also get more out. Americans have been beaten into submission for decades into thinking government can't do anything for them, so bootstrapping the process of increasing what we take and what we pay out is indeed challenging, but it does become easier when people know they're getting something back.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
You're not wrong, but the progressivity of the taxes is only half of the story. What matters is the net reduction in inequality counting taxes and transfers. Yes, more people pay more in, but more people also get more out. Americans have been beaten into submission for decades into thinking government can't do anything for them, so bootstrapping the process of increasing what we take and what we pay out is indeed challenging, but it does become easier when people know they're getting something back.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:36 PM on May 12, 2016 [9 favorites]
Putin, and Putin's cheerleading for Trump, shouldn't we be seeing some "Trump is a Russian sleeper agent" stories?
Trump is definitely no Matthew Rhys...
posted by sallybrown at 8:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is definitely no Matthew Rhys...
posted by sallybrown at 8:45 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
every Kardashian over Trump, they've at least demonstrated actual business acumen.
Well, maybe not Rob.
ok but Rob engineered or at least co-engineered the greatest inter-Kardashian revenge yet, conceiving the Kardashian heir with [Kylie's? Kendall's? Karla's?] boyfriend's ex. that level of pettiness is what the Trump Administration really needs.
posted by sallybrown at 8:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, maybe not Rob.
ok but Rob engineered or at least co-engineered the greatest inter-Kardashian revenge yet, conceiving the Kardashian heir with [Kylie's? Kendall's? Karla's?] boyfriend's ex. that level of pettiness is what the Trump Administration really needs.
posted by sallybrown at 8:49 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Corb: fwiw I just genuinely want to understand how he's so popular.
He's popular because he says the racist, misogynistic, nativist, and ignorant things that a lot of people think on the inside but know better than to say out loud.
posted by Justinian at 9:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
He's popular because he says the racist, misogynistic, nativist, and ignorant things that a lot of people think on the inside but know better than to say out loud.
posted by Justinian at 9:06 PM on May 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
On the question of taxation for supporting social programs: If you look at the places that do this successfully, it’s basically two things: 1. High income tax on anyone who makes a bit more than average, and 2. High value-added taxes.
…
I’m not sure if that's a conversation that America is ready for.
Interestingly, one of Ted Cruz’s big proposals was for a 19% VAT; This was seen as a difficulty. (Taxes on the upper class would, of course, be cut.) Further, in a sort-of-meh article, Vox did some polling and found that Sanders’ supporters were generally unwilling to pay enough to make his programs happen. So yeah - getting to that Nordic model is going to be a hard sell in practice. Sigh.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
…
I’m not sure if that's a conversation that America is ready for.
Interestingly, one of Ted Cruz’s big proposals was for a 19% VAT; This was seen as a difficulty. (Taxes on the upper class would, of course, be cut.) Further, in a sort-of-meh article, Vox did some polling and found that Sanders’ supporters were generally unwilling to pay enough to make his programs happen. So yeah - getting to that Nordic model is going to be a hard sell in practice. Sigh.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:28 PM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is popular because he gives the easy solutions in everyone's heads, no matter how bad they actually are in practice.
I mean, building a wall? That's DOING SOMETHING. OF COURSE we should do that! That SOLVES the problem. It's $25B? Well, of COURSE we can tax Mexico on money transfers! And we can deport all the Mexicans while we're at it!
Oh, we need to fix the national debt? PRINT MORE MONEY! Come on, every 7 year old knows that!
Dealing with Muslims? LET'S KEEP THEM OUT! Because that fixes the problem! I mean, what ISIS terrorist is going to claim to be a CHRISTIAN on their immigration form?
And so on. The ideas may be racist and xenophobic, but more importantly, they're easy and simple and exactly what your good-for-nothing relative has been saying for YEARS at family gatherings before someone asks him when he's going to get a job and stomps out to go get loaded at the tavern.
posted by dw at 9:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
I mean, building a wall? That's DOING SOMETHING. OF COURSE we should do that! That SOLVES the problem. It's $25B? Well, of COURSE we can tax Mexico on money transfers! And we can deport all the Mexicans while we're at it!
Oh, we need to fix the national debt? PRINT MORE MONEY! Come on, every 7 year old knows that!
Dealing with Muslims? LET'S KEEP THEM OUT! Because that fixes the problem! I mean, what ISIS terrorist is going to claim to be a CHRISTIAN on their immigration form?
And so on. The ideas may be racist and xenophobic, but more importantly, they're easy and simple and exactly what your good-for-nothing relative has been saying for YEARS at family gatherings before someone asks him when he's going to get a job and stomps out to go get loaded at the tavern.
posted by dw at 9:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [24 favorites]
He’s popular because he says the racist, misogynistic, nativist, and ignorant things that a lot of people think on the inside but know better than to say out loud.
So I’d actually be curious to see some more takes on how The Apprentice has ended up playing into Trump’s success. This NYRB piece makes the point, but it’s one of the most NYRB-ey pieces ever and doesn’t spend enough time on the topic.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I’d actually be curious to see some more takes on how The Apprentice has ended up playing into Trump’s success. This NYRB piece makes the point, but it’s one of the most NYRB-ey pieces ever and doesn’t spend enough time on the topic.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:31 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah man, one more, a different NYRB piece. Jeremy Bernstein, “The Trump Bomb”:
I recently offered to tutor Donald Trump on nuclear matters. To put things clearly, I went on his website and in the place where you could send comments, I began mine by saying that on these things he did not seem to know his ass from a wheel. I felt that as a person who seems to like straight talk he might appreciate my candor. I then went on to say that while I was not a supporter I would, as a physicist, be willing to tutor him so he would have a clearer understanding of the issue. I have not heard back and the interviews he gave on March 26 to two New York Times reporters—the transcript is available online—show that my services are badly needed.posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm changing my answer, right above Trump for the least qualified person to be President, is Dennis Rodman. Rodman is the last person I would vote for over Trump.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:10 PM on May 12, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wish here and elsewhere there were a bit less discussion via personal anecdote or personal experience. We all live in incredibly biased bubbles, and it is almost impossible to get out of them directly, or even to clearly perceive just how biased they are. What supporters of X or Y candidate say, believe or do is almost impossible to infer from personal experience, no matter how acutely you pay attention to your surroundings or the media. This is why political science has largely abandoned the argument-from-personal-experience approach to explaining national phenomena, whatever the weaknesses of quantitative methods.
So regarding the recurrent issue of whether Sanders or Clinton supporters will vote for the other, in one recent poll it was 25/14 (ie, 25% of Sanders voters said they would never vote for Clinton, and 14% vice versa); in the Indiana exit poll, it was 30/20; and in the NY exit poll, it was actually 12/17. Of course famously in 2008, at the height of the rancor, 54% of Hillary supporters said they would never vote for Obama. So it looks like slightly more Sanders supporters claim they would refuse to vote Clinton, but nearly as many say the reverse. And in reality, almost all of them will come round based on past experience. Or heck, just look at how far #NeverTrump has progressed (dissolved) in the last 72 hours. There is really no need to rehash what people you've encountered say about this; we have the data, and it says that both sides say it, and both sides rarely do it. There's nothing really to fear from disunity; unity will take care of itself.
Regarding whether Sanders supporters are motivated more by what he says or by latent misogyny, while this comment above is correct that we can't easily know what people think based just on what they tell us, there are observable implications. For instance, Sanders net approval among Democrats has risen along with his vote share, while Clinton's has remained relatively steady. This suggests that most new Sanders voters are choosing him because they approve of him more, not because they approve of Clinton less. That doesn't rule out various indirect effects of sexism, but at least it suggests it's less about hating Clinton than about liking Sanders. This holds even for female Democrats, who have remained steady in their support for Clinton while increasing their support for Sanders, a pattern that similarly seems somewhat inconsistent with misogyny as the main motive. None of which is to suggest it's not rampant in your particular circles, or on the internet or even among campaign staff. But when we're talking about the millions of voters necessary to move the polling needle -- the people who actually make or break elections -- then at least among Democrats, it's much more about liking than disliking. (Incidentally, the same goes for the African American vote: it's not so much that Sanders is disliked, as that Clinton is liked more. It's really a pretty positive party and primary, when you look at the bigger picture!)
Finally -- though a bit less empirically -- for those despairing over yet another rehash between two candidates one of whom has clearly lost, it does matter quite a lot right now. It matters because at this very moment, Clinton is deciding what kind of general campaign to run. To what degree will it be a campaign based on realistic gradualism, hard work, detailed policies, and an explicit extension of a successful Obama administration -- versus a campaign based on economic populism and a more general idealistic agenda with more left-wing proposals? Since Sanders never really had much of a chance, his entire purpose has been to nudge Clinton towards his style of campaign, which has had numerous effects including the public option yesterday. But the party has to decide right now just how much more of this to do, versus the more centrist, only-serious-adult-in-the-room approach Trump's candidacy invites. So duking these things out, alas, continues to matter quite a lot.
posted by chortly at 10:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
So regarding the recurrent issue of whether Sanders or Clinton supporters will vote for the other, in one recent poll it was 25/14 (ie, 25% of Sanders voters said they would never vote for Clinton, and 14% vice versa); in the Indiana exit poll, it was 30/20; and in the NY exit poll, it was actually 12/17. Of course famously in 2008, at the height of the rancor, 54% of Hillary supporters said they would never vote for Obama. So it looks like slightly more Sanders supporters claim they would refuse to vote Clinton, but nearly as many say the reverse. And in reality, almost all of them will come round based on past experience. Or heck, just look at how far #NeverTrump has progressed (dissolved) in the last 72 hours. There is really no need to rehash what people you've encountered say about this; we have the data, and it says that both sides say it, and both sides rarely do it. There's nothing really to fear from disunity; unity will take care of itself.
Regarding whether Sanders supporters are motivated more by what he says or by latent misogyny, while this comment above is correct that we can't easily know what people think based just on what they tell us, there are observable implications. For instance, Sanders net approval among Democrats has risen along with his vote share, while Clinton's has remained relatively steady. This suggests that most new Sanders voters are choosing him because they approve of him more, not because they approve of Clinton less. That doesn't rule out various indirect effects of sexism, but at least it suggests it's less about hating Clinton than about liking Sanders. This holds even for female Democrats, who have remained steady in their support for Clinton while increasing their support for Sanders, a pattern that similarly seems somewhat inconsistent with misogyny as the main motive. None of which is to suggest it's not rampant in your particular circles, or on the internet or even among campaign staff. But when we're talking about the millions of voters necessary to move the polling needle -- the people who actually make or break elections -- then at least among Democrats, it's much more about liking than disliking. (Incidentally, the same goes for the African American vote: it's not so much that Sanders is disliked, as that Clinton is liked more. It's really a pretty positive party and primary, when you look at the bigger picture!)
Finally -- though a bit less empirically -- for those despairing over yet another rehash between two candidates one of whom has clearly lost, it does matter quite a lot right now. It matters because at this very moment, Clinton is deciding what kind of general campaign to run. To what degree will it be a campaign based on realistic gradualism, hard work, detailed policies, and an explicit extension of a successful Obama administration -- versus a campaign based on economic populism and a more general idealistic agenda with more left-wing proposals? Since Sanders never really had much of a chance, his entire purpose has been to nudge Clinton towards his style of campaign, which has had numerous effects including the public option yesterday. But the party has to decide right now just how much more of this to do, versus the more centrist, only-serious-adult-in-the-room approach Trump's candidacy invites. So duking these things out, alas, continues to matter quite a lot.
posted by chortly at 10:24 PM on May 12, 2016 [20 favorites]
Clinton Aides notice Elizabeth Warren's impact on Trump
I would love to see Warren as VP pick, but the cynical side of me thinks Clinton should choose a male VP to combat some of the latent, invisible misogyny.
On the other hand I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would absolutely make Trump's head explode... and it might bring Clinton closer to Sanders' side of the party.
posted by mmoncur at 10:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would love to see Warren as VP pick, but the cynical side of me thinks Clinton should choose a male VP to combat some of the latent, invisible misogyny.
On the other hand I think a Clinton/Warren ticket would absolutely make Trump's head explode... and it might bring Clinton closer to Sanders' side of the party.
posted by mmoncur at 10:42 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
So duking these things out, alas, continues to matter quite a lot.
With your votes, maybe, but not so much in here - unless you want to debate the merits of tactical voting.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on May 12, 2016
With your votes, maybe, but not so much in here - unless you want to debate the merits of tactical voting.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on May 12, 2016
Clinton Aides notice Elizabeth Warren's impact on Trump
I think Warren is awesome, but that article is terrible and useless. One of the things the author cites as important evidence for Warren's strength as a potential running mate--and, in fact, spends 5 paragraphs discussing--is that she was viewed more positively than other potential candidates by....
a 12-person focus group.
SCIENCE!
Oh and by the way a third of the focus group were unable or unwilling to to find positive ways to describe her.
So, yeah. Can we please let her stay in the Senate, at least until Massachusetts elects a Democratic governor?
posted by dersins at 11:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Warren is awesome, but that article is terrible and useless. One of the things the author cites as important evidence for Warren's strength as a potential running mate--and, in fact, spends 5 paragraphs discussing--is that she was viewed more positively than other potential candidates by....
a 12-person focus group.
SCIENCE!
Oh and by the way a third of the focus group were unable or unwilling to to find positive ways to describe her.
So, yeah. Can we please let her stay in the Senate, at least until Massachusetts elects a Democratic governor?
posted by dersins at 11:09 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is popular because he gives the easy solutions in everyone's heads, no matter how bad they actually are in practice.
At the end of the day, Trump is popular for the simple reason that the right-wing faithful want him in power. He's good for white supremacists and big business, who are the ones who currently direct the Republican Party.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:22 PM on May 12, 2016
At the end of the day, Trump is popular for the simple reason that the right-wing faithful want him in power. He's good for white supremacists and big business, who are the ones who currently direct the Republican Party.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:22 PM on May 12, 2016
I wish here and elsewhere there were a bit less discussion via personal anecdote or personal experience. We all live in incredibly biased bubbles, and it is almost impossible to get out of them directly, or even to clearly perceive just how biased they are. What supporters of X or Y candidate say, believe or do is almost impossible to infer from personal experience, no matter how acutely you pay attention to your surroundings or the media.
Yes, and it's particularly important to keep in mind that the supporters of X candidate that you happen to interact with on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit are supporters that other people aren't friends with, that comment on people's timelines that other people don't follow, that post on subreddits that other people don't read, or whatever. The dominant consensus in these MeFi threads has been that Clinton supporters are scared of harassment by this surfeit of just awful Sanders supporters, when a recent survey found that, in reality, Clinton supporters are twice as likely to be "very aggressive" to others online. I was relieved to see so many people in this thread earlier tonight say they would vote for Sanders if he won the nomination and didn't know anyone else who wouldn't, because that's literally the exact opposite of what I read every day from the people with H> avatars who interact with the pro-Sanders people I follow on Twitter and talk about how he's a horrible old man whose supporters are all thugs and racists who can get fucked.
But that's the downside of the hyper-curated, choose your own content sources and then let an algorithm sort for you what we think you'll want to see trend in news and social media today - we're ever more often surrounded by people who reinforce and amplify the things we already believe. When it comes to abstract issues like what sports team you like best or whatever, the results are harmless. When it comes to political issues, in combination with clickbait headline style and the constant new outrage cycle of the media, it can lead to the epistemic closure. Which liberals all recognized as a bad thing five years ago when we thought it only applied to Republicans in a particular conservative bubble crafted by traditional media, Fox News and talk radio. But now it's making Clinton and Sanders supporters see each other, and each others' candidates, and sometimes by proxy each others' issues, with animosity because of our own bubbles crafted by social media and curated feeds.
I said it last thread and I'll say it again - Sanders and Clinton supporters agree about far more than they disagree about. Please be understanding with each other and not jump to "you aren't a real X" or "your candidate is a shill" or "your candidate only won because of Z people who are stupid/wrong/racist/whatever" when we really only differ by THIS much. Really it would be nice if we could try to reconcile peacefully after the convention - I mean this for both sides! As in for Sanders people, don't throw a tantrum and threaten to vote for Trump in November, especially if you're in a swing state, and vote for a third party if you want to but recognize that people who still like and vote for Clinton aren't the enemy and definitely don't harass them Facebook if they say something about it. And for Clinton people, maybe recognize the amazing support that Sanders had among independents and young Democrats of all demographics and help us to pivot the party in that direction as we move toward the general instead of saying who cares, they lost, and turning a blind eye to the traditional pandering to those theoretical moderate-right independents who might vote for a Democrat as long as you compromise a few liberal ideals and don't say anything too controversial.
Basically don't be sore losers and don't be sore winners. Who knows, soon enough we may even find ourselves working together instead of looking down on each other, to our mutual benefit! It's not so crazy to think
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
Yes, and it's particularly important to keep in mind that the supporters of X candidate that you happen to interact with on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit are supporters that other people aren't friends with, that comment on people's timelines that other people don't follow, that post on subreddits that other people don't read, or whatever. The dominant consensus in these MeFi threads has been that Clinton supporters are scared of harassment by this surfeit of just awful Sanders supporters, when a recent survey found that, in reality, Clinton supporters are twice as likely to be "very aggressive" to others online. I was relieved to see so many people in this thread earlier tonight say they would vote for Sanders if he won the nomination and didn't know anyone else who wouldn't, because that's literally the exact opposite of what I read every day from the people with H> avatars who interact with the pro-Sanders people I follow on Twitter and talk about how he's a horrible old man whose supporters are all thugs and racists who can get fucked.
But that's the downside of the hyper-curated, choose your own content sources and then let an algorithm sort for you what we think you'll want to see trend in news and social media today - we're ever more often surrounded by people who reinforce and amplify the things we already believe. When it comes to abstract issues like what sports team you like best or whatever, the results are harmless. When it comes to political issues, in combination with clickbait headline style and the constant new outrage cycle of the media, it can lead to the epistemic closure. Which liberals all recognized as a bad thing five years ago when we thought it only applied to Republicans in a particular conservative bubble crafted by traditional media, Fox News and talk radio. But now it's making Clinton and Sanders supporters see each other, and each others' candidates, and sometimes by proxy each others' issues, with animosity because of our own bubbles crafted by social media and curated feeds.
I said it last thread and I'll say it again - Sanders and Clinton supporters agree about far more than they disagree about. Please be understanding with each other and not jump to "you aren't a real X" or "your candidate is a shill" or "your candidate only won because of Z people who are stupid/wrong/racist/whatever" when we really only differ by THIS much. Really it would be nice if we could try to reconcile peacefully after the convention - I mean this for both sides! As in for Sanders people, don't throw a tantrum and threaten to vote for Trump in November, especially if you're in a swing state, and vote for a third party if you want to but recognize that people who still like and vote for Clinton aren't the enemy and definitely don't harass them Facebook if they say something about it. And for Clinton people, maybe recognize the amazing support that Sanders had among independents and young Democrats of all demographics and help us to pivot the party in that direction as we move toward the general instead of saying who cares, they lost, and turning a blind eye to the traditional pandering to those theoretical moderate-right independents who might vote for a Democrat as long as you compromise a few liberal ideals and don't say anything too controversial.
Basically don't be sore losers and don't be sore winners. Who knows, soon enough we may even find ourselves working together instead of looking down on each other, to our mutual benefit! It's not so crazy to think
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:33 PM on May 12, 2016 [21 favorites]
He's good for white supremacists and big business, who are the ones who currently direct the Republican Party.
I think that's a superficial generalization; my impression is that big business mostly really dislikes Trump. Jeb! was their guy, or failing that Marco!. Romney is like Mr Big Business and he's leading the mostly ineffective charge against Trump.
Big business saw the Republican masses as useful idiots who they could control. They have been proven wrong about the second part and half right about the first part.
posted by Justinian at 11:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think that's a superficial generalization; my impression is that big business mostly really dislikes Trump. Jeb! was their guy, or failing that Marco!. Romney is like Mr Big Business and he's leading the mostly ineffective charge against Trump.
Big business saw the Republican masses as useful idiots who they could control. They have been proven wrong about the second part and half right about the first part.
posted by Justinian at 11:35 PM on May 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
when a recent survey found that, in reality, Clinton supporters are twice as likely to be "very aggressive" to others online
It's an interesting poll, but I'm skeptical that this poll reflects reality. It's online poll of 1,017 likely voters. First, there isn't a breakdown of how many supporters of each candidate responded in the poll. But they did ask this question, because there's a little figure thrown in the infographic about how 35% of Trump supporters think Trump supporters are too aggressive. The breakdown of supporters would be an important figure to have, because it it affects the question related to aggressive behavior, because that question asks about the PERCEIVED aggressiveness of presidential candidate supporters. For example, if there were much more Democratic supporters on the poll, they would probably overwhelmingly perceive Trump supporters as more aggressive. Also, I'm also not sure how they measure "more" aggressive. If a Sanders supporter was on the receiving end of aggression from a Clinton supporter, but say later on was on the sidelines when observing a few incidents between Trump supporters fighting with Cruz supporters, which would they pick as more aggressive? Also, the poll points to Trump and Clinton supporters being the first and second most aggressive, but doesn't say who they are aggressive against. It's possible those that are saying Clinton supporters are perceived as aggressive are not Sanders supporters but Trump or Cruz supporters.
posted by FJT at 12:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's an interesting poll, but I'm skeptical that this poll reflects reality. It's online poll of 1,017 likely voters. First, there isn't a breakdown of how many supporters of each candidate responded in the poll. But they did ask this question, because there's a little figure thrown in the infographic about how 35% of Trump supporters think Trump supporters are too aggressive. The breakdown of supporters would be an important figure to have, because it it affects the question related to aggressive behavior, because that question asks about the PERCEIVED aggressiveness of presidential candidate supporters. For example, if there were much more Democratic supporters on the poll, they would probably overwhelmingly perceive Trump supporters as more aggressive. Also, I'm also not sure how they measure "more" aggressive. If a Sanders supporter was on the receiving end of aggression from a Clinton supporter, but say later on was on the sidelines when observing a few incidents between Trump supporters fighting with Cruz supporters, which would they pick as more aggressive? Also, the poll points to Trump and Clinton supporters being the first and second most aggressive, but doesn't say who they are aggressive against. It's possible those that are saying Clinton supporters are perceived as aggressive are not Sanders supporters but Trump or Cruz supporters.
posted by FJT at 12:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That survey tries to imply a lot of conclusions without providing much actual information. Or, y'know, data.
posted by dersins at 12:30 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by dersins at 12:30 AM on May 13, 2016
It's an interesting poll, but I'm skeptical that this poll reflects reality.Well, it certainly seems to reflect reality here, even here in this very thread. Which is remarkable, considering that most Sanders supporters have given up commenting in election threads entirely, due to aggressive pile ons from Clinton supporters.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:04 AM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
You raise some interesting issues with the poll FJT, many of which don't seem to be actual sources of error - for instance, it was an opinion poll, so I don't think they reviewed comments and rated which ones were "more" aggressive than others, but rather asked respondents whose supporters they found to be very aggressive/somewhat aggressive/not that aggressive.
But why are you skeptical that it reflects reality? Does it seem wrong that Trump supporters are the most frequently seen as very aggressive online?
Or dersins, do you have any "y'know, data" that contradicts the survey that someone conducted? Or does it just contradict your own personal impressions?
I spent a long time writing a comment about the risk of epistemic closure on the left and how it seems to be increasing friction between factions who should be allies, but several people ignored all of that and seized on a single sentence about a survey whose results feel wrong, one of whom responded in a dismissive and sarcastic tone. So... essentially a demonstration of exactly what I was talking about. Have fun guys
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:36 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
But why are you skeptical that it reflects reality? Does it seem wrong that Trump supporters are the most frequently seen as very aggressive online?
Or dersins, do you have any "y'know, data" that contradicts the survey that someone conducted? Or does it just contradict your own personal impressions?
I spent a long time writing a comment about the risk of epistemic closure on the left and how it seems to be increasing friction between factions who should be allies, but several people ignored all of that and seized on a single sentence about a survey whose results feel wrong, one of whom responded in a dismissive and sarcastic tone. So... essentially a demonstration of exactly what I was talking about. Have fun guys
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:36 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Shock-Jock Candidate
Almost every policy Donald Trump has championed is built around Pat Buchanan’s positions on trade, treaties, and immigration. Almost every tactic he’s used to best his competition—controversy, outrage, personal attacks—is borrowed from the repertory of Howard Stern. But by taking Buchanan’s positions, blending them with Stern’s tactics, and adding in his own talent, Trump has managed to produce a success that is all his own.posted by peeedro at 1:37 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is remarkable, considering that most Sanders supporters have given up commenting in election threads entirely, due to aggressive pile ons from Clinton supporters.
Wow, perceptions vary even in this thread we share. My perception is that Sanders supporters were wildly overbearing here untiil a couple of weeks before the New York primary, when they seemed to lose heart as his chances faded. It was rough being Bernie Skeptic here in February.
posted by msalt at 1:50 AM on May 13, 2016 [31 favorites]
Wow, perceptions vary even in this thread we share. My perception is that Sanders supporters were wildly overbearing here untiil a couple of weeks before the New York primary, when they seemed to lose heart as his chances faded. It was rough being Bernie Skeptic here in February.
posted by msalt at 1:50 AM on May 13, 2016 [31 favorites]
It was rough being Bernie Skeptic here in February.
Seconding this.
posted by zarq at 5:49 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Seconding this.
posted by zarq at 5:49 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh, you're going to be fine, msalt (and, on preview, zarq)! Clinton will secure the nomination, and I'm pretty sure she'll see off Trump in November. It's what happens after that that will be interesting.
One of the fundamental fears I have is that the energy and possibilities that were starting to manifest themselves during this primary campaign will be forcibly put back in their boxes. It's already starting to happen in this thread. We're all talking about "liberal policies" again rather than "left" ones and the moralizing logic of a certain kind of liberalism is being brought out to close off and stigmatize alternatives. People are extrapolating trends buried in the WV exit-poll data to suggest that Sanders supporters aren't really interested in all that socialist stuff, but were probably just racists and sexists. Others are calling out the Occupy movement as crypto-anti-semites. The white working class and people in flyover states—well, they're probably just bigots, aren't they? The new untouchables. This is the essentializing logic of liberalism that Mark Fisher called out in his much-derided Exiting the Vampire Castle piece. And the problem with it is that it not only closes off the possibility of rapprochement and coalition building with interest groups outside the narrow confines of hard liberalism (although it certainly does that), but that it also has the effect of stigmatising—marking as taboo—a whole set of political alternatives to our current set of reigning ideas. Because if Sanders supporters can be written off as racists and sexists—if we can dismiss the Green movement as "pants on head insane" because Jill Stein once said unkind things about Clinton—then we can close off whole areas of political action as suspect. There Is No Alternative, because those who suggest alternative routes are awful people, and there's no social capital to be gained by aligning ourselves with them.
The problem with that is that we're in a fundamentally unstable period in history. The ground is moving under our feet. The current Democratic coalition is inherently unstable, as are political groupings in other Western and anglophone democracies. The long emergencies of the twenty-first century—economic; demographic; above all, environmental—aren't going to disappear when Clinton wins the Presidency. We're going to have to explore the political and economic alternatives that the Sanders programme gave us a little glimpse of if we're going to have any chance at all of surviving. The Greens, likewise, aren't insane, marginal idiots whose insights we can just dismiss because they're a bit gauche. There's a strong possibility that it's the rest of us, who act like there are no constraints on growth, who are genuinely behaving like insane people. Similarly, there's an anti-establishment potential even within the Trump movement that the left would be foolish to ignore. Because if we don't acknowledge and seek to draw on that energy, other, less benign political movements certainly will.
I keep thinking about a student term paper I read a couple of years ago. It was about liberal journals in pre-revolutionary Russia. Now, the illustrations and articles in these small circulation magazines were frequently hilarious; they were certainly very clever. Both the Tsarists and the various amusingly uncouth political groupings emerging on the Left gave the contributors to these journals a lot of satirical material to work with. But the student was asked during one of her presentations—what became of the contributors to and readers of these journals? She replied, "I don't know; they're mostly untraceable after 1917." They were swallowed by history, caught up in and erased by events they refused to involve themselves with, because snarking (very cleverly) from the sidelines was easier—and certainly much more respectable—then getting involved in the struggle themselves. I fear, if we're not careful, that a similar future awaits us.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:27 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
One of the fundamental fears I have is that the energy and possibilities that were starting to manifest themselves during this primary campaign will be forcibly put back in their boxes. It's already starting to happen in this thread. We're all talking about "liberal policies" again rather than "left" ones and the moralizing logic of a certain kind of liberalism is being brought out to close off and stigmatize alternatives. People are extrapolating trends buried in the WV exit-poll data to suggest that Sanders supporters aren't really interested in all that socialist stuff, but were probably just racists and sexists. Others are calling out the Occupy movement as crypto-anti-semites. The white working class and people in flyover states—well, they're probably just bigots, aren't they? The new untouchables. This is the essentializing logic of liberalism that Mark Fisher called out in his much-derided Exiting the Vampire Castle piece. And the problem with it is that it not only closes off the possibility of rapprochement and coalition building with interest groups outside the narrow confines of hard liberalism (although it certainly does that), but that it also has the effect of stigmatising—marking as taboo—a whole set of political alternatives to our current set of reigning ideas. Because if Sanders supporters can be written off as racists and sexists—if we can dismiss the Green movement as "pants on head insane" because Jill Stein once said unkind things about Clinton—then we can close off whole areas of political action as suspect. There Is No Alternative, because those who suggest alternative routes are awful people, and there's no social capital to be gained by aligning ourselves with them.
The problem with that is that we're in a fundamentally unstable period in history. The ground is moving under our feet. The current Democratic coalition is inherently unstable, as are political groupings in other Western and anglophone democracies. The long emergencies of the twenty-first century—economic; demographic; above all, environmental—aren't going to disappear when Clinton wins the Presidency. We're going to have to explore the political and economic alternatives that the Sanders programme gave us a little glimpse of if we're going to have any chance at all of surviving. The Greens, likewise, aren't insane, marginal idiots whose insights we can just dismiss because they're a bit gauche. There's a strong possibility that it's the rest of us, who act like there are no constraints on growth, who are genuinely behaving like insane people. Similarly, there's an anti-establishment potential even within the Trump movement that the left would be foolish to ignore. Because if we don't acknowledge and seek to draw on that energy, other, less benign political movements certainly will.
I keep thinking about a student term paper I read a couple of years ago. It was about liberal journals in pre-revolutionary Russia. Now, the illustrations and articles in these small circulation magazines were frequently hilarious; they were certainly very clever. Both the Tsarists and the various amusingly uncouth political groupings emerging on the Left gave the contributors to these journals a lot of satirical material to work with. But the student was asked during one of her presentations—what became of the contributors to and readers of these journals? She replied, "I don't know; they're mostly untraceable after 1917." They were swallowed by history, caught up in and erased by events they refused to involve themselves with, because snarking (very cleverly) from the sidelines was easier—and certainly much more respectable—then getting involved in the struggle themselves. I fear, if we're not careful, that a similar future awaits us.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:27 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Here’s How Donald Trump’s Authoritarianism Would Actually Work
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:28 AM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:28 AM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
The white working class and people in flyover states—well, they're probably just bigots, aren't they? The new untouchables.? I live in the flyover states. I work at an unglamorous, not-very-well paid job in a flyover state. I've knocked doors in flyover states in every presidential election since Bush v. Gore, and I have been extremely involved in voter outreach in the past two elections cycles, as a neighborhood team leader, volunteer trainer, and staging location director. I don't think I'm the one snarking form the sidelines here, and I really don't appreciate attempts to silence me or dictate what I can and can't say about issues that I've thought a lot about and that affect me directly.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
> "It's already starting to happen in this thread."
Practically every example you gave seems to me to be a mischaracterization of what was said, so I am not at all sure you're right about that.
posted by kyrademon at 7:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Practically every example you gave seems to me to be a mischaracterization of what was said, so I am not at all sure you're right about that.
posted by kyrademon at 7:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow, perceptions vary even in this thread we share. My perception is that Sanders supporters were wildly overbearing here untiil a couple of weeks before the New York primary, when they seemed to lose heart as his chances faded. It was rough being Bernie Skeptic here in February.
Yeah this is literally the opposite of my perception. (shrug emoji).
posted by dis_integration at 7:04 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah this is literally the opposite of my perception. (shrug emoji).
posted by dis_integration at 7:04 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sonny Jim: Others are calling out the Occupy movement as crypto-anti-semites.
No, that's not what happened. I literally said I didn't want to inadvertently vilify OWS.
This was my comment:
posted by zarq at 7:16 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, that's not what happened. I literally said I didn't want to inadvertently vilify OWS.
This was my comment:
Because I don't want to inadvertently vilify OWS to prove a point: Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park. Also: When Did the Occupy Movement Start Hating Jews?Read the links.
posted by zarq at 2:11 PM on May 12
posted by zarq at 7:16 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump masqueraded as his own spokesman to brag about himself. Gory audio inside.
posted by localhuman at 7:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by localhuman at 7:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Scott Adams!
posted by beerperson at 7:27 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by beerperson at 7:27 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, that means any one of you....
*squints*
...could be Donald Trump.
Release the hounds!
posted by zarq at 7:29 AM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
*squints*
...could be Donald Trump.
Release the hounds!
posted by zarq at 7:29 AM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
the cynical side of me thinks Clinton should choose a male VP to combat some of the latent, invisible misogyny
Oh, I'm pretty sure we can count on plenty of blatant, visible misogyny.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:37 AM on May 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
As far as insight into non-stereotypical Trump supporters, I can offer something from a former coworker who insisted on talking politics at work despite my own policy of not doing that, so he talked a lot and I listened a lot.
Background: he was male, 45-50, Colombian immigrant to the USA, citizen of the USA for 10 years, native Spanish speaker with fluent but heavily accented English.
He supported Trump for three major reasons:
1) He really liked Trump's tough talk on illegal immigrants. Like a lot of legal immigrants he had a great deal of hostility and contempt for illegal immigrants, he's the only Latinx person I've ever encountered who actually used the term "wetback" though maybe I just don't know enough right wing Latinx people. He thought the wall was an excellent idea and thought making Mexico pay for it was perfectly workable and reasonable.
2) He was a massive fan of Trump's position on Muslims, and thought Trump didn't go far enough. He likened ISIS to FARC which he had personal experience with and reason to dislike, and maintained that until proven innocent all Muslims should be considered ISIS members. He took the position that all Muslims in the USA should be deported, regardless of their citizenship. He was also an *extremely* Catholic person, which may or may not have contributed to his general Islamophobia.
3) The point he kept coming around to and interwove with all the other reasons he liked Trump and thought he was the only person who could save America, was that he believed Trump to be, and I quote, "a genius" and on that basis believed Trump could solve any and all problems through his superior intellect. His reason for believing Trump was a genius was his wealth, he told me that you don't get that rich without being very smart.
He explained that he didn't know how Trump could build the border wall and make Mexico pay for it, but he though it was a great idea and he was sure Trump could do it because he believed Trump to be smarter than he was and therefore Trump could think of things he couldn't.
As per my policy on never talking politics at work, I never asked any of the questions I wanted to, beginning with "you stupid fucker, don't you realize that with your accent and skin color if Trump wins his followers will kick the shit out of you?"
I've also met plenty of white male Trump supporters who fit the standard liberal stereotype of Trump supporter perfectly. So I don't really think the stereotype is far from wrong, most Trump supporters are Trump supporters because racism.
posted by sotonohito at 7:46 AM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Background: he was male, 45-50, Colombian immigrant to the USA, citizen of the USA for 10 years, native Spanish speaker with fluent but heavily accented English.
He supported Trump for three major reasons:
1) He really liked Trump's tough talk on illegal immigrants. Like a lot of legal immigrants he had a great deal of hostility and contempt for illegal immigrants, he's the only Latinx person I've ever encountered who actually used the term "wetback" though maybe I just don't know enough right wing Latinx people. He thought the wall was an excellent idea and thought making Mexico pay for it was perfectly workable and reasonable.
2) He was a massive fan of Trump's position on Muslims, and thought Trump didn't go far enough. He likened ISIS to FARC which he had personal experience with and reason to dislike, and maintained that until proven innocent all Muslims should be considered ISIS members. He took the position that all Muslims in the USA should be deported, regardless of their citizenship. He was also an *extremely* Catholic person, which may or may not have contributed to his general Islamophobia.
3) The point he kept coming around to and interwove with all the other reasons he liked Trump and thought he was the only person who could save America, was that he believed Trump to be, and I quote, "a genius" and on that basis believed Trump could solve any and all problems through his superior intellect. His reason for believing Trump was a genius was his wealth, he told me that you don't get that rich without being very smart.
He explained that he didn't know how Trump could build the border wall and make Mexico pay for it, but he though it was a great idea and he was sure Trump could do it because he believed Trump to be smarter than he was and therefore Trump could think of things he couldn't.
As per my policy on never talking politics at work, I never asked any of the questions I wanted to, beginning with "you stupid fucker, don't you realize that with your accent and skin color if Trump wins his followers will kick the shit out of you?"
I've also met plenty of white male Trump supporters who fit the standard liberal stereotype of Trump supporter perfectly. So I don't really think the stereotype is far from wrong, most Trump supporters are Trump supporters because racism.
posted by sotonohito at 7:46 AM on May 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
kirkaracha I'll add to my list of almost always wrong political predictions, and predict that Clinton will chose white, Southern, very establishment, man to be her running mate. And, regrettably, I think that's probably a good idea, there's plenty of misogynist assholes out there who will be persuaded to vote Clinton if and only if she has a man on the ticket.
I also think Trump will pick a woman as his running mate (please, please, Carly Fiorina, it'd be so perfect if she was the VP for two failed Republican candidates in the same election) because she could attack Clinton with vicious misogyny and get a pass from the media on the grounds that she's a woman too so it totally couldn't be misogyny.
posted by sotonohito at 7:49 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also think Trump will pick a woman as his running mate (please, please, Carly Fiorina, it'd be so perfect if she was the VP for two failed Republican candidates in the same election) because she could attack Clinton with vicious misogyny and get a pass from the media on the grounds that she's a woman too so it totally couldn't be misogyny.
posted by sotonohito at 7:49 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: A few things removed, fuck's sake let's not get into another roundtable post-mortem on who is worse at liking a candidate.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
sotonohito: I can't help but wonder if the reason we aren't seeing much downticket damage for Republicans due to Trump yet is simply because the campaigning season hasn't really started so there haven't been many efforts to tie Representative whoever to Trump yet.
It'll be harder than simply shaking Trump - getting conservatives to come out and vote could be hard.
Best news I heard all day: a Trump ticket could hurt Republicans down-ticket across the country, even turning the House and Senate over to the Dems, says conservative blogger Erick Erickson (NPR Morning Edition, no transcript up yet). And he's not the first to say it
Voter turnout concerns as Trump becomes presumptive Republican nominee, experts say (Fox 13 Now, with a Utah-focus)
Saying ‘never Trump’ shouldn’t mean staying home on election day. The down-ticket races are arguably more important. (The Federalist)
posted by filthy light thief at 8:17 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It'll be harder than simply shaking Trump - getting conservatives to come out and vote could be hard.
Best news I heard all day: a Trump ticket could hurt Republicans down-ticket across the country, even turning the House and Senate over to the Dems, says conservative blogger Erick Erickson (NPR Morning Edition, no transcript up yet). And he's not the first to say it
Voter turnout concerns as Trump becomes presumptive Republican nominee, experts say (Fox 13 Now, with a Utah-focus)
Saying ‘never Trump’ shouldn’t mean staying home on election day. The down-ticket races are arguably more important. (The Federalist)
posted by filthy light thief at 8:17 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sony Jim, this sounds more like the usual "The Left can dish it out but they can't take it" situation. Such as spending six months doing little but criticizing the Democratic party as being corrupt warmongering tools of the 1%, and then being honestly surprised that they aren't being welcomed into the party with open arms
.
Maybe if the Sanders campaign had an online presence that was more focused on promoting a coherent platform rather than vehemently attacking one woman, it would be different, but as it is, I can't help but look askance at the claims of "The Democrats NEED us!"
posted by happyroach at 8:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
.
Maybe if the Sanders campaign had an online presence that was more focused on promoting a coherent platform rather than vehemently attacking one woman, it would be different, but as it is, I can't help but look askance at the claims of "The Democrats NEED us!"
posted by happyroach at 8:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Short story: Republican establishment looked at the last exit polls and said, "If we stay the angry white guy party, demographics mean we will never win again. Hmmm... Hispanics! Some of them already vote for us! Let's find a Hispanic to be the youthful face of the party."
A plurality of primary voters: "Nah, we're still the angry white guy party."
Party establishment, now: "Okay, fine."
posted by clawsoon at 8:21 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
A plurality of primary voters: "Nah, we're still the angry white guy party."
Party establishment, now: "Okay, fine."
posted by clawsoon at 8:21 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
This thread right here is why at the end of the day it needs to be WHO CARES JUST VOTE D PLEASE.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:24 AM on May 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:24 AM on May 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
So what you're saying is some Russian satirical political magazines *folded* during the revolution? Wow. That does give one pause.
posted by chrchr at 8:24 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 8:24 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall. The right knows their standard-bearer is a dumpster fire, so they're looking for wedge issues that will bring out their true believers despite their loathing for the biggest-ticket candidate. Obviously, not all the transphobic bullshit comes up for direct voting (aside from initiatives & such), but it'll still motivate people to go vote for the politicians pushing it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:34 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:34 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump masqueraded as his own spokesman to brag about himself. Gory audio inside.Trump's response to the Washington Post's story on this? To threaten to use the IRS to go after the Post's owner, Jeff Bezos, and antitrust to go after Bezos' company, Amazon:
“Every hour we’re getting calls from reporters from The Washington Post asking ridiculous questions and I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon,” Trump said in response to Hannity's question about how the paper has assigned some 20 reporters to dig deep into his life.Quoted from Politico, but lots of the tech press is terrified by this too.
Amazon is “getting away with murder, tax-wise,” said Trump. “He’s using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed."
posted by Llama-Lime at 8:41 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall.
Nah, they were doing that before it was obvious Trump was their guy. It may function that way, though.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nah, they were doing that before it was obvious Trump was their guy. It may function that way, though.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall.
Yup, just like SSM before this election. Point of order, though, they were trying to use this as a wedge issue before greasy ham man became the nominee.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yup, just like SSM before this election. Point of order, though, they were trying to use this as a wedge issue before greasy ham man became the nominee.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
> I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall.
Pardon my ignorance here - maybe this is one of the blind spots I have from not growing up in the US, or maybe I've just successfully tuned this out - but how did trans-phobia and "bathroom bills" become a wedge issue?
Usually I'm pretty good at figuring out the (tenuous) thread of reality behind these things - divorce and the crumbling social order, the black "superpredator", abortion and every life is sacred. But I don't understand how one makes a wedge issue out of regulating which bathroom a transgender school kid gets to use. What - what's the underlying logic here? Transgender boys will use the girls restroom for kicks? Isn't forcing them to use the wrong bathroom a worse outcome for ... everyone?
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:46 AM on May 13, 2016
Pardon my ignorance here - maybe this is one of the blind spots I have from not growing up in the US, or maybe I've just successfully tuned this out - but how did trans-phobia and "bathroom bills" become a wedge issue?
Usually I'm pretty good at figuring out the (tenuous) thread of reality behind these things - divorce and the crumbling social order, the black "superpredator", abortion and every life is sacred. But I don't understand how one makes a wedge issue out of regulating which bathroom a transgender school kid gets to use. What - what's the underlying logic here? Transgender boys will use the girls restroom for kicks? Isn't forcing them to use the wrong bathroom a worse outcome for ... everyone?
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:46 AM on May 13, 2016
I spent a long time writing a comment about the risk of epistemic closure on the left and how it seems to be increasing friction between factions who should be allies, but several people ignored all of that and seized on a single sentence about a survey whose results feel wrong, one of whom responded in a dismissive and sarcastic tone. So... essentially a demonstration of exactly what I was talking about. Have fun guy
Yes, before presenting that part of the comment you kind of topped it with a survey that you say reflects "reality", as if what was presented reflects an objective view that has no bias and just happens to show that, no, it's actually Clinton supporters that are the terrible ones.
I wrote I was skeptical, but I didn't say the survey was flat out wrong. The survey may reflect what's going on in the wider internet, but it also may not. Hell, for all of us that have been following this election and have been surprised at how inaccurate or unpredictive certain surveys and polls have been (especially online ones) I think expressing a little bit of skepticism at yet another survey should be expected.
posted by FJT at 8:50 AM on May 13, 2016
Yes, before presenting that part of the comment you kind of topped it with a survey that you say reflects "reality", as if what was presented reflects an objective view that has no bias and just happens to show that, no, it's actually Clinton supporters that are the terrible ones.
I wrote I was skeptical, but I didn't say the survey was flat out wrong. The survey may reflect what's going on in the wider internet, but it also may not. Hell, for all of us that have been following this election and have been surprised at how inaccurate or unpredictive certain surveys and polls have been (especially online ones) I think expressing a little bit of skepticism at yet another survey should be expected.
posted by FJT at 8:50 AM on May 13, 2016
Isn't forcing them to use the wrong bathroom a worse outcome for ... everyone?
The "values voters" conservatives think the "right restroom" is the one the doctor decided based on looking at the newborn's genitals for 1.5 seconds. Anything else is against God's Adam & Eveing.
posted by avalonian at 8:52 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
The "values voters" conservatives think the "right restroom" is the one the doctor decided based on looking at the newborn's genitals for 1.5 seconds. Anything else is against God's Adam & Eveing.
posted by avalonian at 8:52 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Amazon is “getting away with murder, tax-wise,” said Trump.
I have to say, I admire this turn of phrase. Let's see how else it can be used, shall we?
"The bank robber is getting away with murder, bank-asset-wise."
"The hacker is getting away with murder, computer-wise."
"The jaywalker is getting away with murder, street-crossing-wise."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have to say, I admire this turn of phrase. Let's see how else it can be used, shall we?
"The bank robber is getting away with murder, bank-asset-wise."
"The hacker is getting away with murder, computer-wise."
"The jaywalker is getting away with murder, street-crossing-wise."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Transgender boys will use the girls restroom for kicks?
You mean cis boys will use the girls restroom for kicks. And yes, that is more or less exactly what these blithering idiots think.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
You mean cis boys will use the girls restroom for kicks. And yes, that is more or less exactly what these blithering idiots think.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the bathroom bills are simply intended to whip up transphobia since homophobia isn't getting as much traction as it used to.
posted by puddledork at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by puddledork at 8:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall.
This is true. BUT. The gay rights struggle has prepared people to accept trans rights. The speed of progress on this issue is staggering compared to other recent civil rights struggles, and the Republican strategy that worked when they passed all those marriage bills isn't working on trans issues, not in the same way. Fewer people are willing to waffle on these issues now.
Cynically, I think this is actually the exact reason this is happening now - because Democrats, women, and young people overwhelmingly support trans rights, and this issue is not only a wedge for Republicans. It can be a wedge for Democrats, too. Especially when the Republican frontrunner WILL be saying all kinds of abhorrent shit about trans people.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:55 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is true. BUT. The gay rights struggle has prepared people to accept trans rights. The speed of progress on this issue is staggering compared to other recent civil rights struggles, and the Republican strategy that worked when they passed all those marriage bills isn't working on trans issues, not in the same way. Fewer people are willing to waffle on these issues now.
Cynically, I think this is actually the exact reason this is happening now - because Democrats, women, and young people overwhelmingly support trans rights, and this issue is not only a wedge for Republicans. It can be a wedge for Democrats, too. Especially when the Republican frontrunner WILL be saying all kinds of abhorrent shit about trans people.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:55 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imaginary bathroom predators, yeah.
I don't think it's that great a wedge issue, honestly; I'm in downstate Illinois and our students have had these protections for 5+ years, passed unanimously by a split school board (half GOP/half Dem) because it's JUST NOT THAT BIG A DEAL and we have had zero parent complaints. Other nearby districts, including ones considerably more rural and conservative than we are, have the same protections. It just gains no traction here. (Part of that, I think, is that as smaller communities where everyone knows everyone, it's hard to work up a bathroom panic about Sue-who-used-to-be-Joe-who-makes-the-church-sale-pies.)
I went to law school in North Carolina and I'd say 80% of my GOP friends who live down there are just fucking embarrassed and think the whole thing is a giant waste of money. Now, these are mostly lawyers and pastors so have more education than average, but still. I'm not sure it has the power to rile up the base that previous culture war issues had.
I mean, the anti-SSM people had at least SOME traction around here; the bathroom panic people have just none. You meet the rare stray who's worried about imaginary bathroom predators, but there's no group cohering around it or sharing values about it. (Also everyone I've personally talked to who is worried about The Bathroom Panic is a middle-aged conservative white man -- I have not talked to ANY women who are concerned about it. So these are people who a) were voting Republican anyway no matter what and b) are the scary men who make us have to have women's rooms in the first place and c) are the demographic that have, since the panic began last month, been the sole arrestees for being scary, inappropriate dudes in women's rooms as they barge in to PROTECT THE LADIES. FROM STRANGE DUDES WHO BARGE IN PLACES. I MEAN OTHER THAN ME.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:57 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think it's that great a wedge issue, honestly; I'm in downstate Illinois and our students have had these protections for 5+ years, passed unanimously by a split school board (half GOP/half Dem) because it's JUST NOT THAT BIG A DEAL and we have had zero parent complaints. Other nearby districts, including ones considerably more rural and conservative than we are, have the same protections. It just gains no traction here. (Part of that, I think, is that as smaller communities where everyone knows everyone, it's hard to work up a bathroom panic about Sue-who-used-to-be-Joe-who-makes-the-church-sale-pies.)
I went to law school in North Carolina and I'd say 80% of my GOP friends who live down there are just fucking embarrassed and think the whole thing is a giant waste of money. Now, these are mostly lawyers and pastors so have more education than average, but still. I'm not sure it has the power to rile up the base that previous culture war issues had.
I mean, the anti-SSM people had at least SOME traction around here; the bathroom panic people have just none. You meet the rare stray who's worried about imaginary bathroom predators, but there's no group cohering around it or sharing values about it. (Also everyone I've personally talked to who is worried about The Bathroom Panic is a middle-aged conservative white man -- I have not talked to ANY women who are concerned about it. So these are people who a) were voting Republican anyway no matter what and b) are the scary men who make us have to have women's rooms in the first place and c) are the demographic that have, since the panic began last month, been the sole arrestees for being scary, inappropriate dudes in women's rooms as they barge in to PROTECT THE LADIES. FROM STRANGE DUDES WHO BARGE IN PLACES. I MEAN OTHER THAN ME.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:57 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
guys, I need to get something off my chest:
among all the terrible things about Donald Trump, the one that drives me up the goddamn wall is how he constantly uses transitive verbs with no object
It's so weird and no native speaker talks that way
posted by theodolite at 9:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
among all the terrible things about Donald Trump, the one that drives me up the goddamn wall is how he constantly uses transitive verbs with no object
It's so weird and no native speaker talks that way
posted by theodolite at 9:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Y'all are overthinking it, I think. The logic is just that trans people are icky and an affront to God and should be forced to pretend they don't exist.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:01 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:01 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
what's the underlying logic here?
The logic from the people trying to push these bills is that child predators will dress in drag, go into the women's restroom, and molest your daughters.
Which is ridiculous on a lot of fronts.
One thing I'll say about the trans bathroom issue is that I have a lot of conservative Facebook friends (yay being from Louisiana!), and none of them seem particularly het up about this issue. I've seen some saying things like "Oh for chrissakes I'm not going to boycott Target over bathrooms!", but that tacit agreement that there is an issue there but that the individual doesn't care enough to boycott a big box store is about the most extreme conservative position I've seen in my feed.
I'm aware, because these folks are taking a stand about it at all (even to declare no stand), that there must be a lot of noise further to the right, and maybe just because I'm not seeing it among conservative friends doesn't mean it's not a powerful wedge issue. But compared to issues like SSM a decade ago, or abortion, or "Happy Holidays", this has little to no real support. Certainly not from the social panic standpoint the folks trying to engineer this were hoping for.
They're going to have to work a lot harder on the emotional component of this one to make it an effective GOTV mechanism. Maybe for 2018?
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
The logic from the people trying to push these bills is that child predators will dress in drag, go into the women's restroom, and molest your daughters.
Which is ridiculous on a lot of fronts.
One thing I'll say about the trans bathroom issue is that I have a lot of conservative Facebook friends (yay being from Louisiana!), and none of them seem particularly het up about this issue. I've seen some saying things like "Oh for chrissakes I'm not going to boycott Target over bathrooms!", but that tacit agreement that there is an issue there but that the individual doesn't care enough to boycott a big box store is about the most extreme conservative position I've seen in my feed.
I'm aware, because these folks are taking a stand about it at all (even to declare no stand), that there must be a lot of noise further to the right, and maybe just because I'm not seeing it among conservative friends doesn't mean it's not a powerful wedge issue. But compared to issues like SSM a decade ago, or abortion, or "Happy Holidays", this has little to no real support. Certainly not from the social panic standpoint the folks trying to engineer this were hoping for.
They're going to have to work a lot harder on the emotional component of this one to make it an effective GOTV mechanism. Maybe for 2018?
posted by Sara C. at 9:02 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
In news that may only be of interest to me, ABC via George Stephanopolous finally got tough on Trump this am in one of the regular phone interviews he does with them, and really went after him for not disclosing his tax returns. Clearly they were relying on part on the four Pinnochio article in WaPo I linked earlier in this thread. Among the gems the Donald produced were to inform them that the tax rate he pays is "none of your business."
It is my hope the media finally reveals to Trump what it is like to face relentless hard questions. I can dream, can't I?
posted by bearwife at 9:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
It is my hope the media finally reveals to Trump what it is like to face relentless hard questions. I can dream, can't I?
posted by bearwife at 9:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Amazon is “getting away with murder, tax-wise,” said Trump.
I have to say, I admire this turn of phrase. Let's see how else it can be used, shall we?
Trump is getting away with murder, free-publicity-wise, though he's pretty sure he would also get away with murder, shooting-someone-wise.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:05 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have to say, I admire this turn of phrase. Let's see how else it can be used, shall we?
Trump is getting away with murder, free-publicity-wise, though he's pretty sure he would also get away with murder, shooting-someone-wise.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:05 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've been waiting for the media to start pummeling Trump with actual hard questions. Now that he's the presumptive nominee, maybe the narrative momentum will shift.
posted by stolyarova at 9:05 AM on May 13, 2016
among all the terrible things about Donald Trump, the one that drives me up the goddamn wall is how he constantly uses transitive verbs with no objectYES OMG. You've put your finger on something that's been bothering me for MONTHS.
It's so weird and no native speaker talks that way
posted by stolyarova at 9:05 AM on May 13, 2016
I'm still not over his misunderstandings about what dogs do and don't do.
posted by sallybrown at 9:09 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 9:09 AM on May 13, 2016
Transitive verbs with no objects? Examples?
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is my hope the media finally reveals to Trump what it is like to face relentless hard questions. I can dream, can't I?
He already has. Remember when Megyn Kelly "had the temerity to question his long, gnarly history of misogyny" and he lashed out, calling her a “lightweight” and a “highly overrated” journalist, then said “There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever”? I do.
And then "fed up with the Republican front-runner’s attempts to commandeer an interview for his own talking points, MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough simply dumped Trump and went to commercial break Tuesday."
Except people keep calling him back. Why? Everybody loves aparade car wreck.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:10 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
He already has. Remember when Megyn Kelly "had the temerity to question his long, gnarly history of misogyny" and he lashed out, calling her a “lightweight” and a “highly overrated” journalist, then said “There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever”? I do.
And then "fed up with the Republican front-runner’s attempts to commandeer an interview for his own talking points, MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough simply dumped Trump and went to commercial break Tuesday."
Except people keep calling him back. Why? Everybody loves a
posted by filthy light thief at 9:10 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think the transgender bathroom fight is a strong enough wedge issue, both because Trump himself said people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice and because most people just don't seem to care that much...
The whole "kids these days and their safe spaces; let's return to a nation of greatness where we're free to sling racial slurs around and speak our minds" is a better fit for Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 9:12 AM on May 13, 2016
The whole "kids these days and their safe spaces; let's return to a nation of greatness where we're free to sling racial slurs around and speak our minds" is a better fit for Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 9:12 AM on May 13, 2016
The New Yorker, cover story, May 23, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nah, they were doing that before it was obvious Trump was their guy. It may function that way, though.
Fair, though looking at the whole field of 16 or whatever it was, there was pretty clearly nobody to be excited about from the start.
I'll grant that I don't know the full timeline on this. I asked about that over in the thread about the administration's Title IX letter, 'cause this nonsense surely has a point of origin that should be recognized.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:13 AM on May 13, 2016
Fair, though looking at the whole field of 16 or whatever it was, there was pretty clearly nobody to be excited about from the start.
I'll grant that I don't know the full timeline on this. I asked about that over in the thread about the administration's Title IX letter, 'cause this nonsense surely has a point of origin that should be recognized.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:13 AM on May 13, 2016
filthy light thief, they keep calling him back because he's great for ratings, and ratings = money. Also, their bosses want them to.
posted by stolyarova at 9:14 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464
Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.
Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.
"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said.
"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.
"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves.
posted by stolyarova at 9:14 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Also everyone I've personally talked to who is worried about The Bathroom Panic is a middle-aged conservative white man -- I have not talked to ANY women who are concerned about it. So these are people who a) were voting Republican anyway no matter what and b) are the scary men who make us have to have women's rooms in the first place and c) are the demographic that have, since the panic began last month, been the sole arrestees for being scary, inappropriate dudes in women's rooms as they barge in to PROTECT THE LADIES. FROM STRANGE DUDES WHO BARGE IN PLACES. I MEAN OTHER THAN ME.)
There are at least two women on Mefi that I can think of, who have talked about their concerns about trans predators in threads over the last few years, when the subject has come up. They do exist.
Addressing their concerns and showing with facts that their fears are ignorant/offensive/not based in reality is probably better than ignoring them.
posted by zarq at 9:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are at least two women on Mefi that I can think of, who have talked about their concerns about trans predators in threads over the last few years, when the subject has come up. They do exist.
Addressing their concerns and showing with facts that their fears are ignorant/offensive/not based in reality is probably better than ignoring them.
posted by zarq at 9:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves.
In a rational society this guy would be in fucking prison for blatantly manipulating elections like this.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
In a rational society this guy would be in fucking prison for blatantly manipulating elections like this.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Transitive verbs with no objects? Examples?
Here's one from today:
"It shows cash. It shows cash flows. It shows everything. You learn very little from tax returns but nevertheless, when the audit is complete, I will release."
posted by theodolite at 9:21 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Here's one from today:
"It shows cash. It shows cash flows. It shows everything. You learn very little from tax returns but nevertheless, when the audit is complete, I will release."
posted by theodolite at 9:21 AM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.
Tragedy of the commons.
posted by avalonian at 9:23 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tragedy of the commons.
posted by avalonian at 9:23 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.
it's uncanny how clearly I can see this quote used as the epigraph for a history textbook chapter
posted by theodolite at 9:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
it's uncanny how clearly I can see this quote used as the epigraph for a history textbook chapter
posted by theodolite at 9:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
you could put it next to "what's good for General Motors is good for America" to illustrate how 1950s corporate symbiosis turned into undisguised parasitism
posted by theodolite at 9:32 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 9:32 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't understand how one makes a wedge issue out of regulating which bathroom a transgender school kid gets to use. What - what's the underlying logic here? Transgender boys will use the girls restroom for kicks?
So this is one that got a lot of traction where I am now - honestly the Cruz campaign was practically salivating over attacking Trump over it before he walked it back, because it's such a big deal among certain conservatives. It mostly boils down to a few axes, not all of which everyone agrees with at all times, but these are the ones that people were natively pushing/suggesting people use:
1) Because all that is required is a self declaration, that boys will declare themselves girls in an asshole move to try to get into the girls' locker room, with no one able to say 'no that is bullshit' without 'challenging their self declaration'. I think the idea is that school administrators will be helpless to stop cis dudes they know are trolling, because they're using the right magic words. To be fair, this might be my feminist lens, but you generally can't go wrong assuming cis teen boys will be assholes who try to pull shitty trolly lols in order to get at teen girl nudity, or that MRA types fucking love magic words they think get them access to lady panties. I thought I saw somewhere that the Obama declaration involves parent identifying instead of kids which may help with that? But I could be wrong.
2) That it is not age-appropriate for children to see the genitalia of the other sex. I think they're trying to move to less open shower bays these days in general, but I know when I was a kid locker rooms were freewheeling places of nudity, likely many other people as well, and some schools do still have open bays - they are cheaper to design and not every district can afford a full bathroom remodel.
I think there is a much, much smaller set for whom it's a political thing - honestly kind of similar to the fuss over Heather Has Two Mommies when many of us were kids - the idea that the school backing or enforcing this will normalize it and make it a thing that more students want to do, which will destroy binary gender everywhere. Which....yes....but there is certainly a difference of opinion on whether that is good or bad.
posted by corb at 9:41 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
So this is one that got a lot of traction where I am now - honestly the Cruz campaign was practically salivating over attacking Trump over it before he walked it back, because it's such a big deal among certain conservatives. It mostly boils down to a few axes, not all of which everyone agrees with at all times, but these are the ones that people were natively pushing/suggesting people use:
1) Because all that is required is a self declaration, that boys will declare themselves girls in an asshole move to try to get into the girls' locker room, with no one able to say 'no that is bullshit' without 'challenging their self declaration'. I think the idea is that school administrators will be helpless to stop cis dudes they know are trolling, because they're using the right magic words. To be fair, this might be my feminist lens, but you generally can't go wrong assuming cis teen boys will be assholes who try to pull shitty trolly lols in order to get at teen girl nudity, or that MRA types fucking love magic words they think get them access to lady panties. I thought I saw somewhere that the Obama declaration involves parent identifying instead of kids which may help with that? But I could be wrong.
2) That it is not age-appropriate for children to see the genitalia of the other sex. I think they're trying to move to less open shower bays these days in general, but I know when I was a kid locker rooms were freewheeling places of nudity, likely many other people as well, and some schools do still have open bays - they are cheaper to design and not every district can afford a full bathroom remodel.
I think there is a much, much smaller set for whom it's a political thing - honestly kind of similar to the fuss over Heather Has Two Mommies when many of us were kids - the idea that the school backing or enforcing this will normalize it and make it a thing that more students want to do, which will destroy binary gender everywhere. Which....yes....but there is certainly a difference of opinion on whether that is good or bad.
posted by corb at 9:41 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Addressing their concerns and showing with facts that their fears are ignorant/offensive/not based in reality is probably better than ignoring them.
Except that all these claims about fearing hypothetical trans predators who do not actually exist is just a bullshit smokescreen.
This is not about predators.
This is about the inability or unwillingness of some people ( mostly older, conservative white dudes, though there are others, I assume) to accept that trans women are in fact women.
posted by dersins at 9:42 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Except that all these claims about fearing hypothetical trans predators who do not actually exist is just a bullshit smokescreen.
This is not about predators.
This is about the inability or unwillingness of some people ( mostly older, conservative white dudes, though there are others, I assume) to accept that trans women are in fact women.
posted by dersins at 9:42 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
dersins, none of what you're saying disagrees with anything I said in my comment?
posted by zarq at 9:44 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by zarq at 9:44 AM on May 13, 2016
that boys will declare themselves girls in an asshole move to try to get into the girls' locker room
That's something teenage boys would talk about doing, but not actually do.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's something teenage boys would talk about doing, but not actually do.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:45 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm cringing a little to say this but I didn't understand trans* until after a few years of Shut Up and Listen in Mefi threads. Like, years. I thought I understood it but some of the things I thought...I won't say because people would find them hurtful. But I'm like a good progressive and want passionately for everyone to feel accepted.
So...it's not sympathy for those who don't get it but a sense of understanding?
posted by zutalors! at 9:47 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
So...it's not sympathy for those who don't get it but a sense of understanding?
posted by zutalors! at 9:47 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm 100% convinced that all this transphobic bathroom bullshit is a ploy to drive right-wing voter turnout for the fall.
Bear in mind that the so-called "bathroom bill" lately in the news was only in the state of North Carolina; today's announcement was by the Obama administration's Justice and Education Departments. So I agree with showbiz_liz that Democrats probably perceive the issue working as much to their benefit as the Rs.
But it's also worth noting that if the Republicans do feel they need to rile up their base, it's a tell as to how unpopular they know their candidate is going to be, and that they're hoping at best to save the down-ballot elections. One hopes the Democrats are prepared to throw Republicans all kinds of anchors this election season.
posted by Gelatin at 9:48 AM on May 13, 2016
Bear in mind that the so-called "bathroom bill" lately in the news was only in the state of North Carolina; today's announcement was by the Obama administration's Justice and Education Departments. So I agree with showbiz_liz that Democrats probably perceive the issue working as much to their benefit as the Rs.
But it's also worth noting that if the Republicans do feel they need to rile up their base, it's a tell as to how unpopular they know their candidate is going to be, and that they're hoping at best to save the down-ballot elections. One hopes the Democrats are prepared to throw Republicans all kinds of anchors this election season.
posted by Gelatin at 9:48 AM on May 13, 2016
I don't think it's that great a wedge issue, honestly; I'm in downstate Illinois and our students have had these protections for 5+ years, passed unanimously by a split school board (half GOP/half Dem) because it's JUST NOT THAT BIG A DEAL and we have had zero parent complaints. Other nearby districts, including ones considerably more rural and conservative than we are, have the same protections. It just gains no traction here. (Part of that, I think, is that as smaller communities where everyone knows everyone, it's hard to work up a bathroom panic about Sue-who-used-to-be-Joe-who-makes-the-church-sale-pies.)
I went to law school in North Carolina and I'd say 80% of my GOP friends who live down there are just fucking embarrassed and think the whole thing is a giant waste of money. Now, these are mostly lawyers and pastors so have more education than average, but still. I'm not sure it has the power to rile up the base that previous culture war issues had.
That's great news for Illinois and I'm glad that trans people don't face that kind of harassment there, but it's not the case everywhere. In Gloucester, the school board fought a long, drawn out lawsuit to avoid making any kind of accommodation for Gavin Grimm. It's a rural area, not a lot of Harvard or Yale Law alumni up there, and they had no trouble getting their elected officials on board with being shitheads.
posted by indubitable at 9:49 AM on May 13, 2016
I went to law school in North Carolina and I'd say 80% of my GOP friends who live down there are just fucking embarrassed and think the whole thing is a giant waste of money. Now, these are mostly lawyers and pastors so have more education than average, but still. I'm not sure it has the power to rile up the base that previous culture war issues had.
That's great news for Illinois and I'm glad that trans people don't face that kind of harassment there, but it's not the case everywhere. In Gloucester, the school board fought a long, drawn out lawsuit to avoid making any kind of accommodation for Gavin Grimm. It's a rural area, not a lot of Harvard or Yale Law alumni up there, and they had no trouble getting their elected officials on board with being shitheads.
posted by indubitable at 9:49 AM on May 13, 2016
dersins, none of what you're saying disagrees with anything I said in my comment?
I mean, obviously we're like 99.99% in agreement here, but guess the point of departure would be that I think that ignoring the predator canard to focus on educating people about trans issues in general would not only be more productive, but would also avoid legitimizing the concern trolling about predators.
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, obviously we're like 99.99% in agreement here, but guess the point of departure would be that I think that ignoring the predator canard to focus on educating people about trans issues in general would not only be more productive, but would also avoid legitimizing the concern trolling about predators.
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
My suspicion is also that we're seeing some backlash of "I was okay with X but this has gone Too Far, What Is Next" from people who reluctantly came to an understanding of people being gay and that being fine, but who that in and of itself was a stretch. It's easy to forget how ridiculously swiftly this has all moved! I remember being in high school and marching when Matthew Shepherd was beat to death, and getting enormous backlash with adults arguing with straight faces that he brought it on himself and it was not an acceptable reason to miss school. In New York Fucking City. If you had told me twenty years ago where we would be now, I would have thought you were hopelessly naive.
posted by corb at 9:51 AM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:51 AM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
"I think the idea is that school administrators will be helpless to stop cis dudes they know are trolling, because they're using the right magic words. To be fair, this might be my feminist lens, but you generally can't go wrong assuming cis teen boys will be assholes who try to pull shitty trolly lols in order to get at teen girl nudity, or that MRA types fucking love magic words they think get them access to lady panties"
This is true, HOWEVER, a child harassing (or ogling) another child in the bathroom is getting suspended or expelled, full stop, the first time it happens, regardless of the genders of the children involved. So if pretending to be transgendered in order to see boobs is worth being EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL, then, yes, it will happen exactly one time and then that dude will have a two-year expulsion to serve, and when he is permitted to return, he will not have access to the bathrooms. He will also face criminal prosecution for harassment and sexual harassment of minors. It's possible he could end up on the sex offender database. If high school boys with their limited little brains think it's funny, that's fine, but it's only going to happen once, and there will be lifetime consequences for the moron who thought it was a good idea. (And, yes, you do have to have parent permission to have the change made on school records, and a lot of parents are going to say "HEY KID YOU'RE A DUMB FUCKING SHIT AND THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA OF A JOKE and also as this is the first we're hearing of this we have to make a bunch of appointments with psychiatrists and adolescent specialists and find out what's going on with you.")
Second, when a student declares him or herself transgendered, it's not JUST bathroom access -- it's gym class, it's sports, etc. An awful lot of dudebros who might think peeing in the girls' room is HILARIOUS and want to claim to be trans are going to be a lot less excited about it when they realize that they lose their spot on varsity boys' soccer when they declare themselves female (and, depending on their state's rules, may or may not be eligible for girls' play).
Third, boys ALREADY go in the girls' room a) for laughs or b) to have sex. They already get expelled for it. Boys sneaking into the girls' bathroom/lockerroom is not an unprecendented situation nobody knows how to handle.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
This is true, HOWEVER, a child harassing (or ogling) another child in the bathroom is getting suspended or expelled, full stop, the first time it happens, regardless of the genders of the children involved. So if pretending to be transgendered in order to see boobs is worth being EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL, then, yes, it will happen exactly one time and then that dude will have a two-year expulsion to serve, and when he is permitted to return, he will not have access to the bathrooms. He will also face criminal prosecution for harassment and sexual harassment of minors. It's possible he could end up on the sex offender database. If high school boys with their limited little brains think it's funny, that's fine, but it's only going to happen once, and there will be lifetime consequences for the moron who thought it was a good idea. (And, yes, you do have to have parent permission to have the change made on school records, and a lot of parents are going to say "HEY KID YOU'RE A DUMB FUCKING SHIT AND THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA OF A JOKE and also as this is the first we're hearing of this we have to make a bunch of appointments with psychiatrists and adolescent specialists and find out what's going on with you.")
Second, when a student declares him or herself transgendered, it's not JUST bathroom access -- it's gym class, it's sports, etc. An awful lot of dudebros who might think peeing in the girls' room is HILARIOUS and want to claim to be trans are going to be a lot less excited about it when they realize that they lose their spot on varsity boys' soccer when they declare themselves female (and, depending on their state's rules, may or may not be eligible for girls' play).
Third, boys ALREADY go in the girls' room a) for laughs or b) to have sex. They already get expelled for it. Boys sneaking into the girls' bathroom/lockerroom is not an unprecendented situation nobody knows how to handle.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
I mean, obviously we're like 99.99% in agreement here,
Yep.
but guess the point of departure would be that I think that ignoring the predator canard to focus on educating people about trans issues in general would not only be more productive, but would also avoid legitimizing the concern trolling about predators.
Ah. OK, I can see that. I'm in favor of calling out and debunking concern trolling out of hope that doing so can help prevent it from happening in the future. Especially when what's being said is horribly offensive.
posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on May 13, 2016
Yep.
but guess the point of departure would be that I think that ignoring the predator canard to focus on educating people about trans issues in general would not only be more productive, but would also avoid legitimizing the concern trolling about predators.
Ah. OK, I can see that. I'm in favor of calling out and debunking concern trolling out of hope that doing so can help prevent it from happening in the future. Especially when what's being said is horribly offensive.
posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on May 13, 2016
"I'm glad that trans people don't face that kind of harassment there, but it's not the case everywhere"
Oh, sure -- there's still harassment. I just don't think it's a political wedge issue that will drive significant turnout. I think you'll have pockets of people who were already going to vote Republican who get even angrier, but I don't think it's going to successfully gin up a ton of voter opposition. It just hasn't, so far, in most places where these issues have been debated. Some places, yes, it turns out to work as a hot-button (but those places are already pretty ultra-conservative). National wedge issue that drives turnout in favor of Republicans, especially in areas that are purple? I don't see it, I've followed this closely at the local and state levels, and there just isn't that kind of widespread opposition waiting to be tapped. Pockets of opposition, sure. But not a winning issue that gins up anybody but the already-avowed base.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:59 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, sure -- there's still harassment. I just don't think it's a political wedge issue that will drive significant turnout. I think you'll have pockets of people who were already going to vote Republican who get even angrier, but I don't think it's going to successfully gin up a ton of voter opposition. It just hasn't, so far, in most places where these issues have been debated. Some places, yes, it turns out to work as a hot-button (but those places are already pretty ultra-conservative). National wedge issue that drives turnout in favor of Republicans, especially in areas that are purple? I don't see it, I've followed this closely at the local and state levels, and there just isn't that kind of widespread opposition waiting to be tapped. Pockets of opposition, sure. But not a winning issue that gins up anybody but the already-avowed base.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:59 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Federal Judge Delays Releasing Names of Bridgegate Conspirators
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are at least two women on Mefi that I can think of, who have talked about their concerns about trans predators in threads over the last few years, when the subject has come up. They do exist.
Not sure if this is what you're thinking about, but bathrooms as a TERF talking point doesn't crossover particularly well to the religious right.
posted by Sara C. at 10:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not sure if this is what you're thinking about, but bathrooms as a TERF talking point doesn't crossover particularly well to the religious right.
posted by Sara C. at 10:00 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's a really privileged position to take, Eyebrows. Anti-SSM horseshit drove a lot of voters to the polls from 2000 onwards. This is no different; my only hope is that it drives Democrats to the voting booth.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:01 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:01 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is true, HOWEVER, a child harassing (or ogling) another child in the bathroom is getting suspended or expelled, full stop, the first time it happens, regardless of the genders of the children involved.
This was not the case when I was in school - is this the case in your district now? Is this a cultural or rules shift? You're a little more up on current school practices than I am. I know it used to take practically an act of God to expel a boy for "horseplay".
posted by corb at 10:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
This was not the case when I was in school - is this the case in your district now? Is this a cultural or rules shift? You're a little more up on current school practices than I am. I know it used to take practically an act of God to expel a boy for "horseplay".
posted by corb at 10:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm cringing a little to say this but I didn't understand trans* until after a few years of Shut Up and Listen in Mefi threads.
Similar situation here. What brought me around was the brain studies. For some people at least, a bit of education works.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Similar situation here. What brought me around was the brain studies. For some people at least, a bit of education works.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:03 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is true, HOWEVER, a child harassing (or ogling) another child in the bathroom is getting suspended or expelled, full stop, the first time it happens, regardless of the genders of the children involved.
This is a weirdly optimistic view of how women, especially in high school, are treated when harassed or assaulted by boys.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:05 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a weirdly optimistic view of how women, especially in high school, are treated when harassed or assaulted by boys.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:05 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
The brain studies helped, plus realizing that I never had to think about whether I was a girl/woman or not and society backed up my experience because I'm cis, and trans* people also have a firm belief in their correct gender, but society doesn't back them up in the same way.
posted by zutalors! at 10:06 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 10:06 AM on May 13, 2016
There's a somewhat more insidious reasoning behind the bathroom bills as well. Keep in mind that gender identity and sexual orientation are not strictly protected classes like race or gender or disability. In most of the country, you can still be fired from your job or otherwise be discriminated against on those counts. The excuse--same as it ever was--has generally been "state's rights". Conservatives have hated the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (and associated Constitutional amendments), also under the rubric of "state's rights." Actually, it's pretty clearly the driving force behind modern conservatism, and they've been clear in who they don't want voting or otherwise having a voice.
With the success of Shelby v Holder, which resulted in practically the entire former Confederacy pushing blatantly racist voter suppression bills within hours of the decision, they've already seen one major victory. If they can successfully portray this as an overreach of the Civil Rights Acts, then it's just a matter of time until they can call the entirety of civil rights into question. McCrory himself made this obvious a couple days ago, when he said "I think there's a time where the Republicans and the Democrats in this Congress need to revisit the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and revisit all this issue." He also claimed that Loretta Lynch is disrespecting the civil rights movement, which is pretty vile coming from a man from a Jim Crow state, who has himself supported all manner of racist shitbaggery, in response to a woman who grew up in that state under Jim Crow defending LGBT people. Both of those make it perfectly clear where they want to go with this, and I have almost zero doubt it will be prominent in the official GOP platform come convention time,
posted by zombieflanders at 10:07 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
With the success of Shelby v Holder, which resulted in practically the entire former Confederacy pushing blatantly racist voter suppression bills within hours of the decision, they've already seen one major victory. If they can successfully portray this as an overreach of the Civil Rights Acts, then it's just a matter of time until they can call the entirety of civil rights into question. McCrory himself made this obvious a couple days ago, when he said "I think there's a time where the Republicans and the Democrats in this Congress need to revisit the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and revisit all this issue." He also claimed that Loretta Lynch is disrespecting the civil rights movement, which is pretty vile coming from a man from a Jim Crow state, who has himself supported all manner of racist shitbaggery, in response to a woman who grew up in that state under Jim Crow defending LGBT people. Both of those make it perfectly clear where they want to go with this, and I have almost zero doubt it will be prominent in the official GOP platform come convention time,
posted by zombieflanders at 10:07 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not sure if this is what you're thinking about, but bathrooms as a TERF talking point doesn't crossover particularly well to the religious right.
I don't think that's the case. However, that's not what I was saying. Only that it can cross over with certain segments of socially conservative Republicans.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on May 13, 2016
I don't think that's the case. However, that's not what I was saying. Only that it can cross over with certain segments of socially conservative Republicans.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on May 13, 2016
Keep in mind that gender identity and sexual orientation are not strictly protected classes like race or gender or disability.
The federal government is now arguing that gender identity is protected as sex.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:08 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
The federal government is now arguing that gender identity is protected as sex.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:08 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right, but as of today it's not illegal to discriminate along those lines.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:10 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 10:10 AM on May 13, 2016
I know it used to take practically an act of God to expel a boy for "horseplay".
I think the difference is that informing the school administration that you are actually female despite the male body you were born into is not the same thing as "horseplay".
Eyebrows is right that A) that has much more wide-ranging consequences than just "now you get to look at boobies whenever", and B) this sort of thing is probably going to be sussed out pretty easily by adults. If anything I worry about actual trans people who get their choices questioned based on "OH REALLY. Sure. Are you trans or do you just want to look at boobies, amirite?"
Not to mention, wow, I have no idea what all went on in bathrooms and locker rooms at you guys' schools, but mine was a bastion of learning to take off your bra without first taking off your shirt. (Also I don't remember anyone actually using the showers. No way did we get that sweaty in gym class. Maybe on the varsity sports teams that had morning practices?)
posted by Sara C. at 10:13 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think the difference is that informing the school administration that you are actually female despite the male body you were born into is not the same thing as "horseplay".
Eyebrows is right that A) that has much more wide-ranging consequences than just "now you get to look at boobies whenever", and B) this sort of thing is probably going to be sussed out pretty easily by adults. If anything I worry about actual trans people who get their choices questioned based on "OH REALLY. Sure. Are you trans or do you just want to look at boobies, amirite?"
Not to mention, wow, I have no idea what all went on in bathrooms and locker rooms at you guys' schools, but mine was a bastion of learning to take off your bra without first taking off your shirt. (Also I don't remember anyone actually using the showers. No way did we get that sweaty in gym class. Maybe on the varsity sports teams that had morning practices?)
posted by Sara C. at 10:13 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
"That's a really privileged position to take, Eyebrows. Anti-SSM horseshit drove a lot of voters to the polls from 2000 onwards."
I'm not speaking from a position of privilege but from the position of a local government activist and lawyer who was active for more than 10 years in the fight for SSM in my state and was the first elected official in Illinois to successfully put trans protections in place in schools, in one of the first policies on this issue in the nation. This is my political terrain, I know it like the back of my hand, the anti-trans-bathroom stuff is not driving turnout, and it's definitely not driving turnout like anti-SSM did. I do not dispute there are many assholes making many people's lives miserable, and that is part of why I pushed so hard to get protections passed several years ago. But there is no evidence that this issue drives significant turnout in favor of Republicans and I do not think it will, in the end, be a successful campaign wedge issue.
Yes, in the meanwhile, it is going to hurt people who are dealing with this shit in North Carolina and elsewhere. But speaking in terms of national political wedge issues, from someone who has been highly active in these issues for more than 15 years, I don't think it sells. SSM was a successful wedge issue. I don't think this is. You can disagree with my political assessment of the situation without dismissing my deep and personal knowledge of the situation as "privileged" for having been involved in the politics of this for 15 years and having put my ass on the line for it as an elected official as very few officials in the US have personally done and for offering my assessment of the politics of the situation is unfair and obnoxious. You want to know what elected officials passing trans protections looks like and how it works in the US? I am one of a small handful of people who have done it and can tell you.
"This is a weirdly optimistic view of how women, especially in high school, are treated when harassed or assaulted by boys."
I spent five years of my life expelling kids for this sort of shit, I don't know what to tell you. Sexual harassment is very zero-tolerance these days. It's an imperfect world where people make bad decisions, but boys in the girls bathroom is pretty clearly a maximum suspension or an outright expulsion. Nobody wants to mess with that kind of liability.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:14 AM on May 13, 2016 [43 favorites]
I'm not speaking from a position of privilege but from the position of a local government activist and lawyer who was active for more than 10 years in the fight for SSM in my state and was the first elected official in Illinois to successfully put trans protections in place in schools, in one of the first policies on this issue in the nation. This is my political terrain, I know it like the back of my hand, the anti-trans-bathroom stuff is not driving turnout, and it's definitely not driving turnout like anti-SSM did. I do not dispute there are many assholes making many people's lives miserable, and that is part of why I pushed so hard to get protections passed several years ago. But there is no evidence that this issue drives significant turnout in favor of Republicans and I do not think it will, in the end, be a successful campaign wedge issue.
Yes, in the meanwhile, it is going to hurt people who are dealing with this shit in North Carolina and elsewhere. But speaking in terms of national political wedge issues, from someone who has been highly active in these issues for more than 15 years, I don't think it sells. SSM was a successful wedge issue. I don't think this is. You can disagree with my political assessment of the situation without dismissing my deep and personal knowledge of the situation as "privileged" for having been involved in the politics of this for 15 years and having put my ass on the line for it as an elected official as very few officials in the US have personally done and for offering my assessment of the politics of the situation is unfair and obnoxious. You want to know what elected officials passing trans protections looks like and how it works in the US? I am one of a small handful of people who have done it and can tell you.
"This is a weirdly optimistic view of how women, especially in high school, are treated when harassed or assaulted by boys."
I spent five years of my life expelling kids for this sort of shit, I don't know what to tell you. Sexual harassment is very zero-tolerance these days. It's an imperfect world where people make bad decisions, but boys in the girls bathroom is pretty clearly a maximum suspension or an outright expulsion. Nobody wants to mess with that kind of liability.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:14 AM on May 13, 2016 [43 favorites]
We're all still recovering from that epidemic of straight people getting gay-married for the tax benefits
posted by theodolite at 10:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 10:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
My state actually added gender identity to our anti-discrimination statute in 2007, which is something that most people don't realize. I've actually had a lot of luck pointing out to people that for the past ten years, trans people here have had the right to use the bathroom in accordance with their gender identity, and I've never met anyone who has reported any problems with it. I've said that to me, this is evidence that it's not a real problem, and as usual, everyone else has been freaking out and making an issue of it, while our state has just been quietly getting on with the live-and-let-live philosophy that serves us so well on this kind of issue. I think that plays pretty well locally, but I can't predict how this will play out elsewhere.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:15 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not to mention, wow, I have no idea what all went on in bathrooms and locker rooms at you guys' schools, but mine was a bastion of learning to take off your bra without first taking off your shirt.
Look, I watched a lot of teen comedies in the 80s, and this just doesn't track with that at all
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Look, I watched a lot of teen comedies in the 80s, and this just doesn't track with that at all
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I spent five years of my life expelling kids for this sort of shit, I don't know what to tell you. Sexual harassment is very zero-tolerance these days.
It's really not, as any perusal of how young women are treated in high schools all over North America will tell you. Perhaps you are in an enlightened district that actually takes things things seriously. Many, I'd argue the majority, of young women are not.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's really not, as any perusal of how young women are treated in high schools all over North America will tell you. Perhaps you are in an enlightened district that actually takes things things seriously. Many, I'd argue the majority, of young women are not.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sexual harassment is very zero-tolerance these days.
I certainly would like to believe this - it may actually be true for Illinois and possibly elsewhere. I had a couple of bitter experiences with my daughter when she was younger and was suffering sexual harassment from a "emotionally disturbed" student where they refused to punish, but that was also over five years ago, and it's totally possible the zeitgeist has shifted that fast.
posted by corb at 10:18 AM on May 13, 2016
I certainly would like to believe this - it may actually be true for Illinois and possibly elsewhere. I had a couple of bitter experiences with my daughter when she was younger and was suffering sexual harassment from a "emotionally disturbed" student where they refused to punish, but that was also over five years ago, and it's totally possible the zeitgeist has shifted that fast.
posted by corb at 10:18 AM on May 13, 2016
"suffering sexual harassment from a "emotionally disturbed" student where they refused to punish"
If he had an IEP, he was probably protected by federal law from suspension or expulsion for behaviors related to his disorder, and it can take 60 to 90 days to force a change of placement even if you expedite everything (and you still can't expel). This is a real problem, and a lot of schools handle it very badly because it's hard, there's a lot of paperwork, and you get sued a lot for civil-rights-violation complaints when you try to move boys with behavioral issues that lead them to behave "inappropriately" towards peer girls. There are a LOT of federal limitations, and a lot of schools don't know how to handle it to move a boy with these specific problems without running afoul of the law. We used a specialist law firm out of Chicago when we had these complaints, but we're a big district who could afford it and knew how to do it because we have a huge special ed population. A lot of smaller or less-sophisticated districts just punt. Sounds like that's what yours did. That's unfortunate and, unfortunately, not uncommon.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
If he had an IEP, he was probably protected by federal law from suspension or expulsion for behaviors related to his disorder, and it can take 60 to 90 days to force a change of placement even if you expedite everything (and you still can't expel). This is a real problem, and a lot of schools handle it very badly because it's hard, there's a lot of paperwork, and you get sued a lot for civil-rights-violation complaints when you try to move boys with behavioral issues that lead them to behave "inappropriately" towards peer girls. There are a LOT of federal limitations, and a lot of schools don't know how to handle it to move a boy with these specific problems without running afoul of the law. We used a specialist law firm out of Chicago when we had these complaints, but we're a big district who could afford it and knew how to do it because we have a huge special ed population. A lot of smaller or less-sophisticated districts just punt. Sounds like that's what yours did. That's unfortunate and, unfortunately, not uncommon.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:25 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honest question, Eyebrows*, but what state were you expelling people for going into the wrong restroom? I worked at a county expulsion facility in Texas for a few years, and we never had anything like that for an expulsion. Nothing regarding bathrooms or sexual harrassment. One year was the maximum length of expulsion and that was for a firearm. Notably this was about 5 years ago.
I totally get what you're saying and agree with your sentiment, but "2 years explusion!" and "no bathroom when you get back!" are not things remotely close to how this would be treated here.
*mixed up Eyebrows and Feckless
posted by avalonian at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016
I totally get what you're saying and agree with your sentiment, but "2 years explusion!" and "no bathroom when you get back!" are not things remotely close to how this would be treated here.
*mixed up Eyebrows and Feckless
posted by avalonian at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016
Ugh, but thanks for the really knowledgeable clarification! Kind of horrible, but it does mean that's probably not indicative of how districts would react to more normative asshole boy behavior.
posted by corb at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by corb at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016
Watch these kids mock Trump in an ad from New Zealand
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:34 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
avalonian, you're confusing me with Eyebrows McGee.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:35 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:35 AM on May 13, 2016
Yea, just saw that when I scrolled up and frantically scrolled back down to correct myself before you typed that. Eeep!
posted by avalonian at 10:36 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by avalonian at 10:36 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
This has gotten pretty deraily so I'll memail you.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:46 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:46 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
GMHC Statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton Meeting with HIV and AIDS Activists
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:51 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:51 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
that boys will declare themselves girls in an asshole move to try to get into the girls' locker room
That's something teenage boys would talk about doing, but not actually do.
Teaching experience says that yes, most of your offenders will talk a lot of shit but not actually do it...but there will inevitably be boys out there who will push hard enough on this to be a problem. Some kids (boys and girls alike) just really get excited about pushing boundaries.
However. The belief that teachers and administrators would be powerless against this is false. It doesn't hold up to a shred of common sense or experience in education. A boy who tries to troll his way into the girls' locker room based on insincere transgender claims will be pretty solidly thrown out, and that would be backed up at every level.
As a sub, I can see where I might get into some trouble on this if I had to block what I saw was harassment under the guise of transgenderism, and I turned out to be mistaken...but a regular faculty/staffer who knows the kids in question will already be aware of the issues.
And then I'm looking at how subs are supposed to enforce this in situations where it'll matter, but that's pretty far off into the weeds of policy.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:59 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's something teenage boys would talk about doing, but not actually do.
Teaching experience says that yes, most of your offenders will talk a lot of shit but not actually do it...but there will inevitably be boys out there who will push hard enough on this to be a problem. Some kids (boys and girls alike) just really get excited about pushing boundaries.
However. The belief that teachers and administrators would be powerless against this is false. It doesn't hold up to a shred of common sense or experience in education. A boy who tries to troll his way into the girls' locker room based on insincere transgender claims will be pretty solidly thrown out, and that would be backed up at every level.
As a sub, I can see where I might get into some trouble on this if I had to block what I saw was harassment under the guise of transgenderism, and I turned out to be mistaken...but a regular faculty/staffer who knows the kids in question will already be aware of the issues.
And then I'm looking at how subs are supposed to enforce this in situations where it'll matter, but that's pretty far off into the weeds of policy.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:59 AM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
There are at least two women on Mefi that I can think of, who have talked about their concerns about trans predators in threads over the last few years, when the subject has come up. They do exist.
I don't really think anyone's arguing that gross awful TERFs don't exist? Just because we had to deal with a longtime member mistakenly being allowed to use a sockpuppet to air their hateful views here doesn't belie the fact that the most strident voices in the current nationwide bathroom panic bullshit are conservative men.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:13 AM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't really think anyone's arguing that gross awful TERFs don't exist? Just because we had to deal with a longtime member mistakenly being allowed to use a sockpuppet to air their hateful views here doesn't belie the fact that the most strident voices in the current nationwide bathroom panic bullshit are conservative men.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:13 AM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
So I guess policy proposals during Presidential campaigns aren't a thing anymore:
posted by stolyarova at 11:17 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Yeah. It was a suggestion. Look, anything I say right now, I'm not the president," Trump said. "Everything is a suggestion, no matter what you say, it's a suggestion."
posted by stolyarova at 11:17 AM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Bathroom panic" is to the 2010s what "gay panic" was to the 90's. It's made up bullshit and is entirely about cis male fragility.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:18 AM on May 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
poffin boffin: I don't really think anyone's arguing that gross awful TERFs don't exist?
This is what I was responding to. (Emphasis mine):
(Also everyone I've personally talked to who is worried about The Bathroom Panic is a middle-aged conservative white man -- I have not talked to ANY women who are concerned about it. So these are people who a) were voting Republican anyway no matter what and b) are the scary men who make us have to have women's rooms in the first place and c) are the demographic that have, since the panic began last month, been the sole arrestees for being scary, inappropriate dudes in women's rooms as they barge in to PROTECT THE LADIES. FROM STRANGE DUDES WHO BARGE IN PLACES. I MEAN OTHER THAN ME.)
That's all. Neither person I was thinking of hid behind a sockpuppet. That's not the incident I'm referring to.
I'm not going to use names or call people out.
doesn't belie the fact that the most strident voices in the current nationwide bathroom panic bullshit are conservative men.
Sure. Neither did my comment.
posted by zarq at 11:22 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is what I was responding to. (Emphasis mine):
(Also everyone I've personally talked to who is worried about The Bathroom Panic is a middle-aged conservative white man -- I have not talked to ANY women who are concerned about it. So these are people who a) were voting Republican anyway no matter what and b) are the scary men who make us have to have women's rooms in the first place and c) are the demographic that have, since the panic began last month, been the sole arrestees for being scary, inappropriate dudes in women's rooms as they barge in to PROTECT THE LADIES. FROM STRANGE DUDES WHO BARGE IN PLACES. I MEAN OTHER THAN ME.)
That's all. Neither person I was thinking of hid behind a sockpuppet. That's not the incident I'm referring to.
I'm not going to use names or call people out.
doesn't belie the fact that the most strident voices in the current nationwide bathroom panic bullshit are conservative men.
Sure. Neither did my comment.
posted by zarq at 11:22 AM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
TERF = Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, in case anyone else was confused.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:22 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:22 AM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
So I guess policy proposals during Presidential campaigns aren't a thing anymore:
GREAT. Trump is basic, bad, & chaos. This (in my very uninformed opinion) is the message.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:23 AM on May 13, 2016
GREAT. Trump is basic, bad, & chaos. This (in my very uninformed opinion) is the message.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:23 AM on May 13, 2016
And, you know, racist and misogynistic. But the other points are more important.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:24 AM on May 13, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:24 AM on May 13, 2016
I think the anti-transgender attacks are piggybacking on an ideal of gender essentialism that's not uncommon, especially when it comes to children. Things like color coding the children's sections of toy stores, cancellingTV stores that appeal to the wrong gender, the push to define tech field and certain types of games as "male areas"...
It's less visible because now at least there's pushback, but I do see a strong undercurrent of "boys should be boys and girls should be girls" going on in our culture. And something that can capitalize on that ideal, like trans legislation, may get surprising amounts of support.
posted by happyroach at 11:26 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's less visible because now at least there's pushback, but I do see a strong undercurrent of "boys should be boys and girls should be girls" going on in our culture. And something that can capitalize on that ideal, like trans legislation, may get surprising amounts of support.
posted by happyroach at 11:26 AM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
GREAT. Trump is basic, bad, & chaos. This (in my very uninformed opinion) is the message.
"When I make a policy proposal," Humpty Donald said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Donald, "which is to be master - that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Donald began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
posted by peeedro at 11:44 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
"When I make a policy proposal," Humpty Donald said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Donald, "which is to be master - that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Donald began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
posted by peeedro at 11:44 AM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
CLINTON: I call him "Double Donny" because you never know which position he's gonna take!
TRUMP: Hillary carried out the Black Dahlia murder
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
TRUMP: Hillary carried out the Black Dahlia murder
posted by Krom Tatman at 11:53 AM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
ChurchHatesTucker: Thank you.
posted by yhbc at 12:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 12:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary's playing checkers, Trump is flipping over the board and shitting on the table.
"Trump is whatever you want to believe he is."
posted by tonycpsu at 12:07 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Trump is whatever you want to believe he is."
posted by tonycpsu at 12:07 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know it probably won't happen, but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump just took his pants off and walked offstage during the first debate with HRC.
posted by zutalors! at 12:08 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:08 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
OMG Can we please start calling Trump "Donny"?
There's just something about the name Donny that's so belittling and dismissive
(I may feel this way entirely because of Orphan Black.)
posted by Sara C. at 12:11 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's just something about the name Donny that's so belittling and dismissive
(I may feel this way entirely because of Orphan Black.)
posted by Sara C. at 12:11 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's just something about the name Donny that's so belittling and dismissive
For the first season, maybe.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
For the first season, maybe.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think there's a Lebowski/Trump mashup out there with a whole lot of "Shut the fuck up Donny!"
posted by peeedro at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
In a single day, Trump is in the news for:
- Having in the very recent past employed a butler who still says that Obama is a Muslim and should be hung from the White House rafters.
- Denying he posed as his own spokesman in an audio interview, after he had admitted it before.
- telling reporters that his tax returns are "none of their business".
Surely, this, this, and this.
posted by yhbc at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
- Having in the very recent past employed a butler who still says that Obama is a Muslim and should be hung from the White House rafters.
- Denying he posed as his own spokesman in an audio interview, after he had admitted it before.
- telling reporters that his tax returns are "none of their business".
Surely, this, this, and this.
posted by yhbc at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
For the first season, maybe.
I mean, he eventually gets to play against type, but he's always Donny, and never Don.
posted by Sara C. at 12:14 PM on May 13, 2016
I mean, he eventually gets to play against type, but he's always Donny, and never Don.
posted by Sara C. at 12:14 PM on May 13, 2016
This is what it must've felt like when Andrew Jackson was running for president.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 12:15 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 12:15 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fwd:Fwd:Re:Fwd:Re:Fwd:ISIS is getting extremely red and mad now that we call them Daesh. Take that, ISIS!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:17 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
yknow there really isn't going to be any "surely this" closure until November, no matter what stupid shit he does
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Surely, this, this, and this.
Someone needs to create a sockpuppet that only posts links to crazy shit Trump says or does, and they should name it 'Shirley Thiss'.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Someone needs to create a sockpuppet that only posts links to crazy shit Trump says or does, and they should name it 'Shirley Thiss'.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Sunlight Foundation's Libby Watson:
ultimately: if you view trump as genuinely frightening/a fascist, these sorts of incredibly lame nicknames just seem to... miss the pointposted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
like if you think he's the next mussolini, calling him Donald Duck seems like... weird
I think that was yhbc's point.
posted by futz at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think there's a Lebowski/Trump mashup out there with a whole lot of "Shut the fuck up Donny!"
I would lose my dang mind if Clinton described him as “a child who wanders into the middle of a movie”. Except, you know instead of asking what’s going on he just starts describing the plot.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would lose my dang mind if Clinton described him as “a child who wanders into the middle of a movie”. Except, you know instead of asking what’s going on he just starts describing the plot.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't be shocked if Trump just took his pants off and walked offstage during the first debate with HRC.
You joke (I assume), but sometimes he seems actually befuddled while he's speaking, as if he's lost the thread of what he was trying to say, and just kind of blusters his way through the rest of it.
(In many ways he often reminds me of this dude, but more confused.)
For serious I would be surprised but not totally shocked if, during a high stress moment in one of the debates, he had kind of a breakdown, and started crying or something in frustrated bewilderment.
And, if that did happen, I can totally see Clinton waiting a minute to see if it was some sort of ruse, but then actually comforting him once she realized it wasn't and OH MY GOD AM I WRITING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FANFIC I AM SO SORRY.
posted by dersins at 12:21 PM on May 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
You joke (I assume), but sometimes he seems actually befuddled while he's speaking, as if he's lost the thread of what he was trying to say, and just kind of blusters his way through the rest of it.
(In many ways he often reminds me of this dude, but more confused.)
For serious I would be surprised but not totally shocked if, during a high stress moment in one of the debates, he had kind of a breakdown, and started crying or something in frustrated bewilderment.
And, if that did happen, I can totally see Clinton waiting a minute to see if it was some sort of ruse, but then actually comforting him once she realized it wasn't and OH MY GOD AM I WRITING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FANFIC I AM SO SORRY.
posted by dersins at 12:21 PM on May 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
As long as you stay away from Cruz slashfic we'll be just fine.
posted by stolyarova at 12:24 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:24 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
For serious I would be surprised but not totally shocked if, during a high stress moment in one of the debates, he had kind of a breakdown, and started crying or something in frustrated bewilderment.
he seems more like the kind of guy who would just start screaming slurs and then have a massive fatal stroke, so, you know, fingers crossed.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
he seems more like the kind of guy who would just start screaming slurs and then have a massive fatal stroke, so, you know, fingers crossed.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm totally joking.
I mean Bush v Gore we had Gore being too wonky and smart and coming across as arrogant to the humble, aw shucks Bush and people are afraid Hillary will be another Gore.
But Trump is unpolished and bombastic, and I think Hillary is not repeating Gore's mistakes or even her own against Obama in 2008. So I think when she hits hard with all of her real knowledge on these topics, at some point he might just crack up.
The whole Republican field was just terrible and had made up issues they were debating - "sanctuary cities" "abolish the IRS." HRC will bring real things.
posted by zutalors! at 12:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean Bush v Gore we had Gore being too wonky and smart and coming across as arrogant to the humble, aw shucks Bush and people are afraid Hillary will be another Gore.
But Trump is unpolished and bombastic, and I think Hillary is not repeating Gore's mistakes or even her own against Obama in 2008. So I think when she hits hard with all of her real knowledge on these topics, at some point he might just crack up.
The whole Republican field was just terrible and had made up issues they were debating - "sanctuary cities" "abolish the IRS." HRC will bring real things.
posted by zutalors! at 12:25 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen: GMHC Statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton Meeting with HIV and AIDS Activists
Thanks for this link. It mentions that the GMHC sent out a survey back before the Iowa caucuses, asking the (then) 16 candidates for President to respond regarding HIV/AIDS. Only the 3 Dems responded: Sanders, O'Malley and Clinton. The report which includes their statements is here. (pdf)
Backstory on the meeting: After Clinton said those stupid, ignorant things about the Reagans and AIDS in March, Peter Staley apparently reached out to her, to set up a meeting with himself and other HIV/AIDS activists to discuss policy. The Sanders campaign then set up a similar meeting. Positives all around -- they get to discuss their concerns with the two candidates and push for reforms and funding, and the candidates focus on a problem that up until the meetings were announced they had mostly been ignoring.
Sanders' meeting was supposed to happen on May 3 but he cancelled and hasn't rescheduled. So the line in the statement about "kept her promise to meet with us" may have been a dig at him. I don't doubt that he'll reschedule. But for them to say that... well, he may have pissed some people off.
posted by zarq at 12:28 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Thanks for this link. It mentions that the GMHC sent out a survey back before the Iowa caucuses, asking the (then) 16 candidates for President to respond regarding HIV/AIDS. Only the 3 Dems responded: Sanders, O'Malley and Clinton. The report which includes their statements is here. (pdf)
Backstory on the meeting: After Clinton said those stupid, ignorant things about the Reagans and AIDS in March, Peter Staley apparently reached out to her, to set up a meeting with himself and other HIV/AIDS activists to discuss policy. The Sanders campaign then set up a similar meeting. Positives all around -- they get to discuss their concerns with the two candidates and push for reforms and funding, and the candidates focus on a problem that up until the meetings were announced they had mostly been ignoring.
Sanders' meeting was supposed to happen on May 3 but he cancelled and hasn't rescheduled. So the line in the statement about "kept her promise to meet with us" may have been a dig at him. I don't doubt that he'll reschedule. But for them to say that... well, he may have pissed some people off.
posted by zarq at 12:28 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it was when I read about him pretending to be his spokesperson that I thought, "I think this guy actually might be fucking crazy."
posted by angrycat at 12:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the hardest thing for Trump during the debates will be Clinton's tendency to laugh when she's surprised or incredulous. Being laughed at by a woman will emasculate him. Hopefully it'll be enough to make him fly off the handle.
By the way, poffin boffin, I'm still pretty new around here, but I want you to know that I love you.
posted by stolyarova at 12:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
By the way, poffin boffin, I'm still pretty new around here, but I want you to know that I love you.
posted by stolyarova at 12:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
like if you think he's the next mussolini, calling him Donald Duck seems like... weird
I understood that reference.
posted by FJT at 12:30 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I understood that reference.
posted by FJT at 12:30 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think massive bloated ego + dementia is probably more accurate, and more compassionate, than 'crazy.'
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:31 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:31 PM on May 13, 2016
I think Hillary is not repeating Gore's mistakes or even her own against Obama in 2008.
I hope you're right, but I don't see it yet.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope you're right, but I don't see it yet.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Didn't the dude HRC was debating for her senate seat walk up to her podium in this Serious Manly Challenge way and she just sort of gave him this bewildered but friendly "hello, what r u doing here?" kind of reaction and he ended up looking like a massive tool?
The debates are gonna be fine
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
The debates are gonna be fine
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
Metafilter: By the way, poffin boffin, I'm still pretty new around here, but I want you to know that I love you.
posted by zutalors! at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
Trump's performance during the primary was intended to play to a specific audience. Whether he'll be able to adjust that performance well enough to trick the general electorate remains to be seen, especially running against someone with a ton more skill, support, and resources than the likes of Ted Cruz, but the Republicans spent the last 6 months laughing at how he was out of control and going to bring himself down and look how well that went.
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think we should be laughing, but I think we need to be giving HRC some fucking credit.
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think massive bloated ego + dementia is probably more accurate, and more compassionate, than 'crazy.'
I'm not sure armchair diagnosis of mental illness is what we should be aiming for, fffm.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure armchair diagnosis of mental illness is what we should be aiming for, fffm.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Trump will take his pants off during the debate" is giving her credit? Okay then.
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:38 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:38 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure armchair diagnosis of mental illness is what we should be aiming for, fffm.
Dementia's a physical illness with mental effects, the dude is what, 71? It's not farfetched.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dementia's a physical illness with mental effects, the dude is what, 71? It's not farfetched.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Saying someone must have dementia because they're old is gross and ageist even when it's directed towards jerks.
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 12:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Saying someone must have dementia because they're old is gross and ageist even when it's directed towards jerks.
I'm saying it's possible based on how he actually acts, it's not ageist in the slightest, and I'm profoundly uninterested in continuing this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm saying it's possible based on how he actually acts, it's not ageist in the slightest, and I'm profoundly uninterested in continuing this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are lots of things that aren't farfetched, yet we don't do them because we're decent people. Throwing around accusations of dementia (with a caveat about it being a physical illness, hence ok?) is really gross.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mod note: A few things removed. Cut it out with the weird back-and-forth shit and just ignore each other if you already know you don't like talking to each other, or go do it somewhere else.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:49 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:49 PM on May 13, 2016
Mod note: And yes, let's cool it on the general diagnosis-by-internet stuff in here, people would be generally pretty uncool with that in almost any other context and it's not something that we're going to bring any light to the thread by returning to repeatedly or debating which version is less problematic.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:53 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:53 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
it sounds like cortex is experiencing some stress symptoms you guys
posted by poffin boffin at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
and I know JUST which candidate's supporters are stressing him out the most!!
KIDDING kidding kidding kidding pls don't hellban me
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:58 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
KIDDING kidding kidding kidding pls don't hellban me
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:58 PM on May 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
You know who hasn't posted in these threads in like a month? prize bull octorok. I hope he's okay.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
Watching TPTB moderate this has become my favorite part.
posted by kingless at 1:22 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by kingless at 1:22 PM on May 13, 2016
You know who hasn't posted in these threads in like a month? prize bull octorok. I hope he's okay.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who heard he flipped off the mods and then took a BND last month. I guess it's pretty serious.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who heard he flipped off the mods and then took a BND last month. I guess it's pretty serious.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
9 House Committee Chairs Endorse Donald Trump. That's nearly half of the House committee chairs. RIP #NeverTrump.
posted by zachlipton at 1:59 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 1:59 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
...So, if you're on the brave side and are looking for an interesting opportunity to protest at the GOP convention, Spencer Tunick is looking for volunteers for one of his works. (NSFW photos at link)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:04 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:04 PM on May 13, 2016
These "endorsements" all have the enthusiasm and verve of a North Korean detainee's televised apology
posted by theodolite at 2:26 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 2:26 PM on May 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
You know who hasn't posted in these threads in like a month? prize bull octorok.
It's 4H festival season, off getting blue ribbons donthca know.
posted by phearlez at 2:27 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's 4H festival season, off getting blue ribbons donthca know.
posted by phearlez at 2:27 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
This whole slow R march toward endorsement of their soon to be nominee is very revealing. I think everyone who is a serious student of history has to ask themselves what they would do if faced with the emergence and seizure of power by a racist, fascist, demagogue. (It was to show how difficult and brave a choice it is to stand against the tide that JFK wrote Profiles in Courage.) And it is both predictable and saddening that the frequent answer on the R side right now is -- think I'll cave.
posted by bearwife at 2:36 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 2:36 PM on May 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if, during a debate, Trump started shooting laser beams out of his butt
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Washington Post has a new story out on Trump's "publicist". Apparently, Post reporters were 45 minutes into a phone interview with him about finances when they asked him if he had ever hired a John Miller as a publicist. Trump hung up on them and refused to pick up the phone when they called back.
posted by zachlipton at 2:56 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 2:56 PM on May 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Speaking of old movies that remind us of Donald Trump, I heartily recommend A Face in the Crowd. It chronicles the rise of a populist demagogue (played by Andy Griffith) and it's absolutely fantastic.
Frank Conniff: "If Trump is ever caught on a hot mic saying something kind and compassionate, it will be considered his Lonesome Rhodes moment."
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:56 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Frank Conniff: "If Trump is ever caught on a hot mic saying something kind and compassionate, it will be considered his Lonesome Rhodes moment."
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:56 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is paramount that we coalesce around the Republican nominee, Mr. Donald J. Trump
Ew. Now I'm visualizing him wearing a fleshsuit made of liquefied and congealed committee chairs.
Disgusting as that image may be, I fully support any course of action which involves reducing Lamar Smith to a thick slurry.
posted by jackbishop at 3:03 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ew. Now I'm visualizing him wearing a fleshsuit made of liquefied and congealed committee chairs.
Disgusting as that image may be, I fully support any course of action which involves reducing Lamar Smith to a thick slurry.
posted by jackbishop at 3:03 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
>> It is paramount that we coalesce around the Republican nominee, Mr. Donald J. Trump
Ew. Now I'm visualizing him wearing a fleshsuit made of liquefied and congealed committee chairs.
Disgusting as that image may be, I fully support any course of action which involves reducing Lamar Smith to a thick slurry.
I dunno. This is already a more promising start than Hollywood's last attempt at an Akira remake.
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 4:00 PM on May 13, 2016
Ew. Now I'm visualizing him wearing a fleshsuit made of liquefied and congealed committee chairs.
Disgusting as that image may be, I fully support any course of action which involves reducing Lamar Smith to a thick slurry.
I dunno. This is already a more promising start than Hollywood's last attempt at an Akira remake.
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 4:00 PM on May 13, 2016
Trump In 2011: I’ll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases His Birth Certificate
Please, people in the press: ask him about this. Every time. Ask him every time.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11
In news that may only be of interest to me, ABC via George Stephanopolous finally got tough on Trump this am in one of the regular phone interviews he does with them, and really went after him for not disclosing his tax returns.
posted by bearwife at 9:03 AM on May 13
I came in to see if anyone had posted this today because while I don't really watch tv (why, when I have miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries on Netflix?) I have Good Morning America on while I'm getting ready in the morning. And every.time. they say they have Trump on the line to comment on a thing I tune out and go back to my makeup thinking of Obama's line "Because I think we can all agree that from the start he’s gotten the appropriate amount of coverage befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. Ha. I hope you all are proud of yourselves." but today when George kept pushing back on follow ups, it caught my attention and I think I even cracked a smile. Is this that journalism thing people used to talk about?
posted by sweetmarie at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Please, people in the press: ask him about this. Every time. Ask him every time.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:32 PM on May 11
In news that may only be of interest to me, ABC via George Stephanopolous finally got tough on Trump this am in one of the regular phone interviews he does with them, and really went after him for not disclosing his tax returns.
posted by bearwife at 9:03 AM on May 13
I came in to see if anyone had posted this today because while I don't really watch tv (why, when I have miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries on Netflix?) I have Good Morning America on while I'm getting ready in the morning. And every.time. they say they have Trump on the line to comment on a thing I tune out and go back to my makeup thinking of Obama's line "Because I think we can all agree that from the start he’s gotten the appropriate amount of coverage befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. Ha. I hope you all are proud of yourselves." but today when George kept pushing back on follow ups, it caught my attention and I think I even cracked a smile. Is this that journalism thing people used to talk about?
posted by sweetmarie at 4:49 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
The podcast The Gist with Mike Pesca imagines a focus group considering a controversial candidate for office, in a galaxy far, far away.
posted by chrchr at 6:02 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by chrchr at 6:02 PM on May 13, 2016
So, if you're on the brave side and are looking for an interesting opportunity to protest at the GOP convention,
I'm never sure about naked protests. Who doesn't like naked people? Sorta seems like a "free beer and ice cream" protest. Although maybe that would work...
posted by bongo_x at 6:09 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm never sure about naked protests. Who doesn't like naked people? Sorta seems like a "free beer and ice cream" protest. Although maybe that would work...
posted by bongo_x at 6:09 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump Taps Climate Change Skeptic As Key Energy Adviser
Surely this...
posted by mmoncur at 6:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Surely this...
posted by mmoncur at 6:47 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump Taps Climate Change Skeptic As Key Energy Adviser
Surely this...
I’m not sure that this is a “surely this…” moment; Kevin Cramer is a Republican Congressman with ten years of experience, and any Republican advisor is probably going to have to be a bear on Climate Change; we’d probably be having the same go-around if a Romney-type were the nominee . A Surely this… would maybe be Trump saying he was taking his energy advice from the maintenance guy at Trump Tower.
That said, Cramer seems to maybe be a markedly poor choice since he appears low ranking; his Wikipedia page (linked above) is actually out-of-date with his committee assignments; he looks to be the junior member of Energy and Commerce, assuming that people are listed by rank. (Since he’s been around for ten years, that seems kind of odd, but…) So: not a power player, not an anything. Trump is drawing the no-hopers praying for a shot at the ring.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Surely this...
I’m not sure that this is a “surely this…” moment; Kevin Cramer is a Republican Congressman with ten years of experience, and any Republican advisor is probably going to have to be a bear on Climate Change; we’d probably be having the same go-around if a Romney-type were the nominee . A Surely this… would maybe be Trump saying he was taking his energy advice from the maintenance guy at Trump Tower.
That said, Cramer seems to maybe be a markedly poor choice since he appears low ranking; his Wikipedia page (linked above) is actually out-of-date with his committee assignments; he looks to be the junior member of Energy and Commerce, assuming that people are listed by rank. (Since he’s been around for ten years, that seems kind of odd, but…) So: not a power player, not an anything. Trump is drawing the no-hopers praying for a shot at the ring.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:37 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump will probably ultimately pick Pauly Shore for his energy advisor because of his really amazing really tremendous research he did while living in Biodome.
posted by museum of fire ants at 11:03 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by museum of fire ants at 11:03 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair hemp really is an excellent source of photosyninthesis.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 11:29 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
When the reporters called back and reached Trump’s secretary, she said, “I heard you got disconnected. He can’t take the call now. I don’t know what happened.”
I really hope this secretary sounded just like the receptionist at the law offices of James McGill, esquire.
posted by snofoam at 3:51 AM on May 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
I really hope this secretary sounded just like the receptionist at the law offices of James McGill, esquire.
posted by snofoam at 3:51 AM on May 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
To get out of actually being elected president, Trump is forced to engineer the release of increasingly damaging past indiscretions. Next: Video of that time he climbed a tree and accidentally got in a fight with a squirrel.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:39 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:39 AM on May 14, 2016
Commentary: Why my autistic son must vote: As our son's legal guardians, my husband and I have the authority to make medical, financial and housing decisions for him. That doesn't give us the right to tell him how to vote. I'll do my best to explain some of the issues in simple terms he'll understand. Yes, my inherent biases will sway him. But just as labor unions tell their members how to vote, or special interest groups lobby voters for causes they believe in, I feel an obligation to help my son vote for the candidates who will best protect his interests.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:10 AM on May 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:10 AM on May 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm never sure about naked protests. Who doesn't like naked people? Sorta seems like a "free beer and ice cream" protest.
That's just exactly the problem for them: seeing naked strangers is a slippery slope to Satanic Orgies.
The GOP doesn't fear pain or horror. Obviously they'd be totally OK with the country, even the world falling into an Apocalyptic chaos (which you can infer by just how goddamn much they go on and on about the possibility.)
What they fear most is that they're missing out on all the fun and pleasure in life and they're only doing it because Dad said so and if they don't get any fun, heaven be damned no one else is going to either.
posted by an animate objects at 7:33 AM on May 14, 2016
That's just exactly the problem for them: seeing naked strangers is a slippery slope to Satanic Orgies.
The GOP doesn't fear pain or horror. Obviously they'd be totally OK with the country, even the world falling into an Apocalyptic chaos (which you can infer by just how goddamn much they go on and on about the possibility.)
What they fear most is that they're missing out on all the fun and pleasure in life and they're only doing it because Dad said so and if they don't get any fun, heaven be damned no one else is going to either.
posted by an animate objects at 7:33 AM on May 14, 2016
Donald Trump has repeatedly unnerved women in private encounters over 40 years. Here are their stories.
From NYT Breaking News
Surely this?
posted by readery at 7:56 AM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
From NYT Breaking News
Surely this?
posted by readery at 7:56 AM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
While I have no doubt that Trump is super shitty to women, and do not wish to diminish the stories of the women in that article, "unnerved" is not a wordI generally associate with breaking news.
posted by dersins at 8:24 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:24 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is very odd. It does seem thin, there's nothing there that I would not have assumed. His conversations with Howard Stern are creepier. He is notoriously vindictive, I wonder how many people are afraid of coming forward. He could and would ruin someone financially.
The article seems oddly truncated as if something was taken out.
posted by readery at 8:33 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The article seems oddly truncated as if something was taken out.
posted by readery at 8:33 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm never sure about naked protests. Who doesn't like naked people?
While notionally the human body is a beautiful thing that I treasure, in practice I don't want to see your butt.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
While notionally the human body is a beautiful thing that I treasure, in practice I don't want to see your butt.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:36 AM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
NYT: Adelson Might Spend As Much As $100 Million Supporting Trump
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:56 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:56 AM on May 14, 2016
That's actually a good sign though. Didn't Adelson spend shitpiles in 2012 only to come up with a goose egg? ISTR Jon Stewart talking about that a lot.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seconding that the article about Trump's interactions with women ends very abruptly. Given how quick Trump is to accuse news outlets of libel and threaten legal action against them, maybe the NYT had more but wasn't willing to print it. The chilling effect, perhaps.
posted by stolyarova at 9:29 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 9:29 AM on May 14, 2016
What emerges from the interviews is a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization.Considering that we already know some of his comments about women and the fact that he ran the Miss Universe pageant... this article is so weak it almost comes across as complimentary toward Trump. "We interviewed 50 women and all we came up with was this."
posted by mmoncur at 9:54 AM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Howard Stern, Donald Trump, My Dad: Lessons in How Men Talk About Women -
posted by sallybrown at 12:26 PM on May 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
The fact that Howard was not a teenage boy but a grown, married man with daughters of his own and millions of listeners opened up a new and disturbing line of questioning for me. Was he the one man who would really say what so many men were actually thinking? Was my dad, a man I loved, a man who spoke kindly to old women and taught me about literature, capable of seeing the world that way, too?in other, less election-thread-crazy circumstances, this would make a great FPP
Recently, I asked my dad why he allowed me to listen to Howard's sexist rants when I was just a teenager. He had no good answer. I think maybe he wanted me to understand that, no matter what I did, there were people who would judge me by values I couldn’t control. I remember a conversation around that time in which he told me that every man looked at every woman and decided within 30 seconds whether he wanted to have sex with her. “Boys are stupid,” he often said, “every single one of them.” I guess my dad figured that if I knew that (heterosexual) men were always ranking me and every other woman they met on a fuckability scale of 1 to 10, I could outsmart them. But however well-intentioned, these messages distort my sense of reality still: Don’t become an un-fuckable woman or you will never have any power over men. But don’t become a too-fuckable woman or no one will take you seriously. . . .
Howard wanted everybody to admit their fucked-up-ness, to say out loud what they said behind closed doors. He was repulsive, but by insisting on pulling back the blinds on himself and others, he might have helped destroy a certain kind of male privilege. He believed that his honesty about his own racism, sexism, and sexuality might at least make it crystal clear in more powerful people. He wasn’t entirely wrong; in the end, we have Howard to thank for capturing some of Trump’s rawest unapologetic objectification of women. And that is something I hope my own children never have to hear broadcast anywhere, least of all from the Oval Office.
posted by sallybrown at 12:26 PM on May 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
John Dickerson's "Never Goldwater" is a super interesting read about the dynamics of the 1964 GOP Presidential nomination fight, in light of what's happening right now. I was not at all familiar with what went down then.
The tension between Goldwater supporters and moderates led to confrontation at unexpected times. “You’re nigger lovers—communists!” someone yelled at James Brophy and family when they left the Georgia delegation for Goldwater and switched to support Scranton.It mentions a Lyndon Johnson campaign ad made to court non-Goldwater-supporting Republicans, the text of which could be pretty much copied and pasted into an ad for Hillary in the general:
Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the winner of the New Hampshire primary that year, was accosted by a man who said, “I voted for you in 1960, but never again, you’re terrible.” Lodge was seen as the quarterback behind the Taft defeat in 1952 and chief archetype of moderate Republicanism. Lodge replied, “You’re terrible, too.”
Ambassador Lodge had come back on a mission to save his party after a young captain in Vietnam asked him if he was going to return to “help Scranton.” In his suite visiting with Newsweek editor Osborn Elliott, Lodge asked, “What in God’s name has happened to the Republican Party? I hardly know any of these people.” . . .
Richard Nixon shared the lesson he’d taken away from the shift in party politics in a conversation with aide Pat Buchanan, saying, “Buchanan, if you ever hear of a group getting together to stop X, be sure to put your money on X.” Nixon’s argument was that anybody who has enough power from the people to require a movement to stop them has the power of the people, and that’s all you need in politics. But Barry Goldwater didn’t have all the people. He went on to lose to Lyndon Johnson in one of the most lopsided defeats in history.
I don't know just why they wanted to call this a confession, I simply don't feel guilty about being a Republican. I’ve always been a Republican. My father is, his father was. The whole family is a Republican family. I voted for Dwight Eisenhower, the first time I ever voted. I voted for Nixon the last time. But when we come to Senator Goldwater, now it seems to me we’re up against a very different kind of a man. This man scares me. Now maybe I'm wrong. A friend of mine has said to me, listen, just because a man sounds a little irresponsible during a campaign doesn't mean he's going to act irresponsibly. You know that theory, that the White House makes the man. I don't buy that. You know what I think makes a President? I mean aside from his judgment, his experience--are the men behind him, his advisors, the Cabinet. And so many men with strange ideas are working for Goldwater. You hear a lot about what these guys are against--they seem to be against almost everything--but what are they for? The hardest thing for me about this whole campaign is to sort out one Goldwater statement from another. A reporter will go to Senator Goldwater, will say "Now Senator, on such and such a day, you said, and I quote, 'blah blah blah,' whatever it is, end quote." And then Goldwater says, "Well I wouldn't put it that way." I can't follow that! Was he serious when he did put it that way? Is he serious when he says he wouldn't put it that way? I just don't get it. A President ought to mean what he says. President Johnson--Johnson at least is talking about facts. . . . But Goldwater, often, I can't figure out just what Goldwater means by the things he says. . . . When I read some of the things that Goldwater says about total victory, I get a little worried, you know? I wish I was as sure that Goldwater’s against war, as I am that he’s against some of these other things. I wish I could believe that he has the imagination to just shut his eyes and picture what this country would look like after a nuclear war. Sometimes I wish I'd been at that convention in San Francisco. I mean I wish I'd been a delegate, I really do. Because I would have fought, you know? I wouldn't have worried so much about party unity, because if you unite behind a man you don't believe in, it's a lie. I tell you, those people who got control of that convention, who are they? I mean, when the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups come out in favor of the candidate of my party, either they’re not Republicans or I’m not. I’ve thought about just not voting in this election, just staying home. But you can’t do that because that’s … that’s saying you … you don’t care who wins. And … and I do care. I think my party made a bad mistake in San Francisco. But I’m gonna have to vote against that mistake on the third of November.”posted by sallybrown at 1:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [24 favorites]
Regarding Donald Trump and white supremacism, Netflix just added a documentary called Welcome to Leith about the American white supremacist movement taking over a small town in North Dakota. It's excellent so far, though I'm only about 45 minutes in.
A brief visit (which has left me desperately in need of a shower and an internet history purge) to Vanguard News Network, their main forum, confirms that they are indeed Trump supporters who congratulate themselves that he's gotten this far.
posted by stolyarova at 1:19 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
A brief visit (which has left me desperately in need of a shower and an internet history purge) to Vanguard News Network, their main forum, confirms that they are indeed Trump supporters who congratulate themselves that he's gotten this far.
posted by stolyarova at 1:19 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
That campaign ad is incredible. Just replace Goldwater with Trump and it's the same script today.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:23 PM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:23 PM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
While notionally the human body is a beautiful thing that I treasure, in practice I don't want to see your butt.
Oh, please ignore the memail I sent earlier.
posted by bongo_x at 1:40 PM on May 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh, please ignore the memail I sent earlier.
posted by bongo_x at 1:40 PM on May 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Remember how in 2008, Obama paid for that that 30-minute ad in the final days of his campaign? I would love to see Hillary do that, but fill the entire time with Republicans (all ages, sexes, races, religions, classes, famous and no) talking to the camera about not voting for Trump -- how sad they are, how much better they want for their party, how much they love their country, and how, this time, they see it as their patriotic and party duty to save the country from Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 1:43 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 1:43 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
When I read that NYT article about Trump/women, at first I was like what this isn't truncated and then I reached the end and was like. . . what? It's really really wrong that Trump pressured Miss Universe to lose weight, but I assume that's the kind of shit that goes on in beauty pageants. The stuff where he's pestering other women to rate his other lovers--that shit is psycho.
Using the losing weight story as the sort of the nadir of his behavior makes it seem like, 'yeah that's the fucked up world of beauty pageants, which he was a part of, so whatever.'
It makes me wonder what shit his dad put in his head. Why on earth would somebody be so anxious about how hot their former spouses were?
posted by angrycat at 1:51 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Using the losing weight story as the sort of the nadir of his behavior makes it seem like, 'yeah that's the fucked up world of beauty pageants, which he was a part of, so whatever.'
It makes me wonder what shit his dad put in his head. Why on earth would somebody be so anxious about how hot their former spouses were?
posted by angrycat at 1:51 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
John Dickerson’s "Never Goldwater" is a super interesting read about the dynamics of the 1964 GOP Presidential nomination fight, in light of what's happening right now. I was not at all familiar with what went down then.
If you prefer your news spoken, this article is largely (perhaps entirely, been a while since I listened) taken from one episode of Dickerson’s Whistlestop podcast. If you want more descriptions of scenes from past elections, the podcast is pretty great.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you prefer your news spoken, this article is largely (perhaps entirely, been a while since I listened) taken from one episode of Dickerson’s Whistlestop podcast. If you want more descriptions of scenes from past elections, the podcast is pretty great.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
While notionally the human body is a beautiful thing that I treasure, in practice I don't want to see your butt.
Hey!!!
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hey!!!
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
[Trump is] also majorly pro fracking. Perfect choice!
I don't think fracking is nearly as unpopular as most Sanders supporters seem to think. Whatever the experience of the people who lived in fracked areas is, most Americans see our dependence on foreign oil cut drastically and much cheaper prices for energy, both home heating and at the gas pump.
You can even make an environmental case for it if you squint, since the harms are disputable and it results in natural gas replacing a lot of coal. The American coal industry has collapsed as a result.
posted by msalt at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think fracking is nearly as unpopular as most Sanders supporters seem to think. Whatever the experience of the people who lived in fracked areas is, most Americans see our dependence on foreign oil cut drastically and much cheaper prices for energy, both home heating and at the gas pump.
You can even make an environmental case for it if you squint, since the harms are disputable and it results in natural gas replacing a lot of coal. The American coal industry has collapsed as a result.
posted by msalt at 1:53 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
That campaign ad is incredible. Just replace Goldwater with Trump and it's the same script today.
Oh please I hope the Clinton campaign actually uses it...
...or maybe something like the Daisy ad too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on May 14, 2016
Oh please I hope the Clinton campaign actually uses it...
...or maybe something like the Daisy ad too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on May 14, 2016
You can even make an environmental case for it if you squint, since the harms are disputable and it results in natural gas replacing a lot of coal. The American coal industry has collapsed as a result.
I'm not an expert myself, but I've read (in Naomi Klein's most recent jeremiad, among other places) that the amount of natural gas that escapes (methane, especially) during the process pretty much cancels out any carbon emissions gained. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, and a far more powerful one than CO2.
I agree with your broader point - I know a number of people for whom fracking falls into the category of "necessary evil" - helps get us off of foreign sources of energy (at least from potentially hostile foreign places), creates jobs, etc. Its not exactly popular on its own merits, but people seem to see it as a step in the right direction. Those that, y'know, aren't actually setting their own tapwater on fire.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:01 PM on May 14, 2016
I'm not an expert myself, but I've read (in Naomi Klein's most recent jeremiad, among other places) that the amount of natural gas that escapes (methane, especially) during the process pretty much cancels out any carbon emissions gained. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, and a far more powerful one than CO2.
I agree with your broader point - I know a number of people for whom fracking falls into the category of "necessary evil" - helps get us off of foreign sources of energy (at least from potentially hostile foreign places), creates jobs, etc. Its not exactly popular on its own merits, but people seem to see it as a step in the right direction. Those that, y'know, aren't actually setting their own tapwater on fire.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:01 PM on May 14, 2016
Is there anywhere online where someone has compiled a list of all of the shitty things Trump has said, ideally in chronological order? There are just so many, it's getting hard to keep track of them. (I had my dad convinced to not vote for Trump in the primaries, but now that it's looking like it's going to be Trump or Clinton, he really really hates Clinton and I'm going to need some extra ammunition.)
posted by Weeping_angel at 2:16 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Weeping_angel at 2:16 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know a number of people for whom fracking falls into the category of "necessary evil" - helps get us off of foreign sources of energy (at least from potentially hostile foreign places), creates jobs, etc.
Exactly. You can make a strong case that fracking is what's allowing the US to NOT get more involved in various MidEast conflicts. Hopefully this is a short term bridge strategy until we can get more renewable energry online. But in any case, I'm very confident Trump will not lose a single vote by supporting fracking.
posted by msalt at 2:18 PM on May 14, 2016
Exactly. You can make a strong case that fracking is what's allowing the US to NOT get more involved in various MidEast conflicts. Hopefully this is a short term bridge strategy until we can get more renewable energry online. But in any case, I'm very confident Trump will not lose a single vote by supporting fracking.
posted by msalt at 2:18 PM on May 14, 2016
Is there anywhere online where someone has compiled a list of all of the shitty things Trump has said, ideally in chronological order?
Timeline: How Trump Took The Low Road To The Top Of The Republican Party
Here Is Every Crazy, Insane, Terrible, Genius, Infuriating Thing Donald Trump Did This Year
posted by tonycpsu at 3:36 PM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Timeline: How Trump Took The Low Road To The Top Of The Republican Party
Here Is Every Crazy, Insane, Terrible, Genius, Infuriating Thing Donald Trump Did This Year
posted by tonycpsu at 3:36 PM on May 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Those committee chairs who have endorsed Trump are interesting.
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
I wondered how this stacked up to primary results but that can't be it, with Cruz outperforming Trump in Texas 2:1. Then I realized I was looking from too far back.
Conaway, 11th District. Facing a (L) candidate in a district that is >90% white.
Sessions, 32nd district. Only 67.6% White.
Hensarling, 5th district. 77.5% White. Previously endorsed Cruz according to the wikipedia. Been primaried twice by Matt McCall who's of the "abolish the IRS" ilk.
Shuster, a PA district that is 96.9% White. I can feel the glow from here.
Price, wow what a piece of work this one is. Looks like a 73% white suburb of Atlanta.
Jeff Miller, 1st district. 80.0% White. Trump took 44% there and by himself got 50% more votes than Clinton and Sanders combined.
Candice Miller, 10th district, 91% white. Trump ran away with the 10th.
Chabot, 1st district, 72% white.
posted by phearlez at 4:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
I wondered how this stacked up to primary results but that can't be it, with Cruz outperforming Trump in Texas 2:1. Then I realized I was looking from too far back.
Conaway, 11th District. Facing a (L) candidate in a district that is >90% white.
Sessions, 32nd district. Only 67.6% White.
Hensarling, 5th district. 77.5% White. Previously endorsed Cruz according to the wikipedia. Been primaried twice by Matt McCall who's of the "abolish the IRS" ilk.
Shuster, a PA district that is 96.9% White. I can feel the glow from here.
Price, wow what a piece of work this one is. Looks like a 73% white suburb of Atlanta.
Jeff Miller, 1st district. 80.0% White. Trump took 44% there and by himself got 50% more votes than Clinton and Sanders combined.
Candice Miller, 10th district, 91% white. Trump ran away with the 10th.
Chabot, 1st district, 72% white.
posted by phearlez at 4:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
The President of America needs to be able to do shitty things and get away with them. Trump often does shitty things and gets away with them. Ergo...
posted by clawsoon at 4:05 PM on May 14, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 4:05 PM on May 14, 2016
In that link of "every crazy", etc thing Trump did in 2015 I had never seen the letter Randy Falco, head of Univision, after Univision dumped the pageants due to Trump's statements about Mexican immigrants. It is just unreal that this is a person who is running for the Republican ticket. The postscript! (!!!)
posted by R343L at 4:41 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by R343L at 4:41 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fracking supporters should be forced to drink the contaminated water they're demanding the people who live in areas where fracking is be fine have piped into their homes. There's nothing that isn't straight up evil about the practice and the industry around it, right down to only targeting poor areas to frack in since they can't afford to defend themselves in court.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:15 PM on May 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:15 PM on May 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
Those lists are both out of date and focused on his personal insults. I mean yeah he's rude and misogynistic, but that's not what makes him so dangerous. Here is my running list, which I plan to supplement with links and share to Facebook and spam out to Republican relatives when the moment seems right.
Trump violence and bad behavior:posted by OnceUponATime at 5:34 PM on May 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Threatening Cruz delegates
Supporters attacking Illma Gore
Threatening riots if he doesn't get the nomination...
Wants to kill the families of suspected terrorists.
"Bomb the shit out of" ISIS.
Reminisces fondly about the days when protesters were carried out of political rallies "on stretchers."
Praises Putin, who has had journalists disappeared.
Threatens to change laws (if elected) to make it easier to sue journalists, go after Jeff Bezos using the IRS if the newspaper he owns doesn't stop running negative stories about Trump
Has called for the death penalty for anyone who kills a cop (and it is a measure of his respect for the Constitution that he thinks he can do this as president despite the fact that most such killings are not federal crimes.)
Supports water boarding and says he would "do worse."
Not immediately disavowing David Duke.
Proposed deportations (which would have to be violent at proposed pace.)
Proposed ban on Muslims entering the country
Might support putting Muslims in camps like the Japanese were in during WWII?
Thinks all Muslims should be forced to register with the government.
Praises Putin, who has had journalists disappeared.
It goes much deeper.
posted by peeedro at 5:41 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
It goes much deeper.
posted by peeedro at 5:41 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
(I think I need to update my list with the stories about "renegotiating" the national debt and not knowing what the "nuclear triad" is...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:50 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:50 PM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scott Bauer at the Associated Press: “Donald who? Wisconsin Republicans largely avoid Trump”
GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - Mixed feelings about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump were on full display Saturday at the Wisconsin GOP convention, with Gov. Scott Walker and other officeholders not even speaking his name.posted by Going To Maine at 5:51 PM on May 14, 2016
Chaos at the 2016 Nevada Democratic convention. (YouTube link)
Reddit comment about what is going on (grain of salt etc):
The caucus has three tiers. This is the 3rd. The first was the day we all saw on the "primary day" and was won by Clinton. The 2nd was the county level and definitely won by Sanders. Today is the 3rd state level, and the Chair, who is a Clinton super delegate and the Democratic state party leader changed the rules illegally to "discount" the 2nd tier -- first, she tried to count before the caucus opened (!) and then she said they would change them by vote, which requires 2/3rds "Yes," but received literally a minute of deafening "No!" which was recorded and filmed, but she changed the rules anyway, in violation of the actual party rules and all reason -- and now they have been stringing state level delegates along since 9:30am (it's currently nearly 6pm in Nevada). They keep counting and recounting but never to her satisfaction and the numbers don't add up. She had no province to do anything she has done since she is unilaterally changing the rules in front of what appear to be thousands of people opposed to it behind armed security.
That's the short answer.
posted by futz at 6:16 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reddit comment about what is going on (grain of salt etc):
The caucus has three tiers. This is the 3rd. The first was the day we all saw on the "primary day" and was won by Clinton. The 2nd was the county level and definitely won by Sanders. Today is the 3rd state level, and the Chair, who is a Clinton super delegate and the Democratic state party leader changed the rules illegally to "discount" the 2nd tier -- first, she tried to count before the caucus opened (!) and then she said they would change them by vote, which requires 2/3rds "Yes," but received literally a minute of deafening "No!" which was recorded and filmed, but she changed the rules anyway, in violation of the actual party rules and all reason -- and now they have been stringing state level delegates along since 9:30am (it's currently nearly 6pm in Nevada). They keep counting and recounting but never to her satisfaction and the numbers don't add up. She had no province to do anything she has done since she is unilaterally changing the rules in front of what appear to be thousands of people opposed to it behind armed security.
That's the short answer.
posted by futz at 6:16 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Stupid. Exhibit 72b of the approximately four hundred reasons to eliminate caucuses.
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Reading those concise Trump chronologies and lists actually scares the shit out of me. Defying all experience and belief, each outrageous thing he's said or done begins to look like another small step closer to an inevitable, unspeakable result.
posted by klarck at 8:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by klarck at 8:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stupid. Exhibit 72b of the approximately four hundred reasons to eliminate caucuses.
You misspelled parties.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
You misspelled parties.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:00 PM on May 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
it can be two things
posted by Krom Tatman at 8:27 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 8:27 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
But no more than two, at least not in the U.S.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:23 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:23 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
really what it comes down to is how long before he's filmed on stage using a baby as a human shield
posted by poffin boffin at 10:29 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:29 PM on May 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The "Angel Mother" thing he did at the rally I watched streaming wasn't literally using a baby as a human shield, but was absolutely the moral equivalent.
The "Angel Mothers" were a group of women at the rally whose children had been murdered by illegal immigrants.
Trump pointed them out, talked about them a little, then promised retribution in the names of their dead children.
So that was kind of fucked up.
A few more banners and columns and I could have been watching a Leni Riefenstahl movie. I seriously do not understand why I haven't read about this in the media.
posted by dersins at 11:38 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
The "Angel Mothers" were a group of women at the rally whose children had been murdered by illegal immigrants.
Trump pointed them out, talked about them a little, then promised retribution in the names of their dead children.
So that was kind of fucked up.
A few more banners and columns and I could have been watching a Leni Riefenstahl movie. I seriously do not understand why I haven't read about this in the media.
posted by dersins at 11:38 PM on May 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
A friend of mine participated in the 2nd tier of the WA caucus system recently. Her description, edited to avoid some nerd jargon:
"Take the worst part of every [live-action roleplay fiasco], mix with an even worse knowledge of Roberts Rules, add conspiracy theorists, and bake in a 95 degree oven for 6 hours."
Her husband followed up by shouting POINT OF ORDER repeatedly like he had tried to survive the experience by going native.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:55 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Take the worst part of every [live-action roleplay fiasco], mix with an even worse knowledge of Roberts Rules, add conspiracy theorists, and bake in a 95 degree oven for 6 hours."
Her husband followed up by shouting POINT OF ORDER repeatedly like he had tried to survive the experience by going native.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:55 PM on May 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
If I'm understanding the Nevada controversy right, Bernie should have ~4 more delegates than Hillary should. Which means he's still 280 short of catching her.
This is what we've descended to: 12 hours of floor fights over around FOUR delegates in a race where that's ~1/70th of the margin needed to even talk about a superdelegate switch.
I've never believed in Dunning-Kruger, but I'm starting to come around after these ridiculous battles over small things.
posted by dw at 11:59 PM on May 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is what we've descended to: 12 hours of floor fights over around FOUR delegates in a race where that's ~1/70th of the margin needed to even talk about a superdelegate switch.
I've never believed in Dunning-Kruger, but I'm starting to come around after these ridiculous battles over small things.
posted by dw at 11:59 PM on May 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
A few more banners and columns and I could have been watching a Leni Riefenstahl movie. I seriously do not understand why I haven't read about this in the media.
You might enjoy Scott Carrier’s second-to-most-recent episode of Home of the Brave, “Trump and Sanders in South Bend, Indiana (Part 1)”
posted by Going To Maine at 12:19 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
You might enjoy Scott Carrier’s second-to-most-recent episode of Home of the Brave, “Trump and Sanders in South Bend, Indiana (Part 1)”
posted by Going To Maine at 12:19 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Talez, thanks for the link: Joe Goes To A DONALD TRUMP RALLY
Oh, wow. So much awesomeness in that video. I'm worried.
Check out 17:20: "It's not Musslim - The correct pronuncination is Mooslim."
Also, 21:45: "When Trump becomes president, orange will be officially the new black."
posted by sour cream at 5:09 AM on May 15, 2016
Oh, wow. So much awesomeness in that video. I'm worried.
Check out 17:20: "It's not Musslim - The correct pronuncination is Mooslim."
Also, 21:45: "When Trump becomes president, orange will be officially the new black."
posted by sour cream at 5:09 AM on May 15, 2016
KY Woman Beaten By Man Who Said She Looked Too Masculine…While Witnesses Stood And Watched!
Trump's America: You don't even have to be trans or gay to be a victim of transphobic or homophobic violence!
posted by Talez at 6:58 AM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump's America: You don't even have to be trans or gay to be a victim of transphobic or homophobic violence!
posted by Talez at 6:58 AM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Whatever you think about who should be the Democrat's nominee, the footage from Nevada is fairly horrifying. And to think about 16 hours without food, where they closed the bathrooms, and sold small water bottles for $5? That's messed up democracy.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:52 AM on May 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:52 AM on May 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Interestingly, the Latin word for "messed up democracy" is "caucus."*
____________________
*This is not actually true.
posted by dersins at 8:04 AM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
____________________
*This is not actually true.
posted by dersins at 8:04 AM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well Actually, "caucus" is an Algonquin word for "round table".
also not really
posted by clawsoon at 8:10 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
also not really
posted by clawsoon at 8:10 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Next you're going to tell me that the word "news" isn't derived from the four points of the compass from which all news comes - North, East, West, and South.
I actually had a high school math teacher tell us this in class. Why she thought it was an appropriate topic for a math class I still have no idea
posted by yhbc at 8:39 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually had a high school math teacher tell us this in class. Why she thought it was an appropriate topic for a math class I still have no idea
posted by yhbc at 8:39 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
caucus
...
ORIGIN
mid 18th cent. (originally US): perhaps from Algonquian cau'-cau'-as'u ‘adviser.’
Really.
posted by double block and bleed at 8:51 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why she thought it was an appropriate topic for a math class I still have no idea
She probably thought to tell you that because "MATH," like "NEWS," is also an acronym.
"MATH" was first coined in 1736 by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, in response to the long-delayed publication of Newton's Methodus Fluxionum et Serierum Infinitarum. It stands for "Mammon's Arms Taking Hold," and refers to the feeling of doom and eternal damnation experienced when, in order to master calculus, you surrender yourself to the demons of materiality .
posted by dersins at 8:55 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
She probably thought to tell you that because "MATH," like "NEWS," is also an acronym.
"MATH" was first coined in 1736 by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, in response to the long-delayed publication of Newton's Methodus Fluxionum et Serierum Infinitarum. It stands for "Mammon's Arms Taking Hold," and refers to the feeling of doom and eternal damnation experienced when, in order to master calculus, you surrender yourself to the demons of materiality .
posted by dersins at 8:55 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Do I need to say "not really?" Because, I mean, not really, obvs.)
posted by dersins at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by dersins at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2016
You didn't need to because I've been watching creepy conspiracy videos all morning (one of many rabbit holes reading about Trump can lead you down) and I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING ANYMORE.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:00 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 9:00 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually had a high school math teacher tell us this in class. Why she thought it was an appropriate topic for a math class I still have no idea
It's because she didn't have Metafilter to share it with. She needed to tell someone.
posted by clawsoon at 9:07 AM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's because she didn't have Metafilter to share it with. She needed to tell someone.
posted by clawsoon at 9:07 AM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Etymology comes from a Greek acrostic that roughly translates as "a bunch of men arguing over the origins of words but really they're drunk and bullshitting."
posted by dw at 9:30 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dw at 9:30 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can we please just end every caucus in the USA? They're so obviously and blatantly fucked up and broken.
posted by sotonohito at 9:33 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by sotonohito at 9:33 AM on May 15, 2016
The caucuses are a huge problem, but the primaries are as well. The whole system is messed up, dependent on what state you are in, your access to the polls, your employment status, etc.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:35 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:35 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every time I think Maureen Dowd can't sink any lower, by gum, she finds a way. Trump couldn't catapult the propaganda any better if he were doing it as his sock puppet.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we please just end every caucus in the USA?
But then what would we whine about? Closed primaries? Winner-take-all vs proportional?
I mean, it wouldn't be about the egregious acts of vote suppression that have happened since the Shelby County decision, that's for sure.
posted by dw at 9:38 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
But then what would we whine about? Closed primaries? Winner-take-all vs proportional?
I mean, it wouldn't be about the egregious acts of vote suppression that have happened since the Shelby County decision, that's for sure.
posted by dw at 9:38 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Every time I think Maureen Dowd can't sink any lower, by gum, she finds a way. Trump couldn't catapult the propaganda any better if he were doing it as his sock puppet.
She has some kind of ancient grudge with the Clintons (and I believe Hillary in particular), the origins of which I'm not sure of. She also has a weakness for cartoonish people in general. I'm sure this will get worse as we get closer to the election.
posted by sallybrown at 10:11 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
She has some kind of ancient grudge with the Clintons (and I believe Hillary in particular), the origins of which I'm not sure of. She also has a weakness for cartoonish people in general. I'm sure this will get worse as we get closer to the election.
posted by sallybrown at 10:11 AM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some facts and figures on Dowd's coverage of Clinton's career.
The list at the end of pop culture comparisons she's used to describe Clinton is amusing - "The Flying Dutchman, a fictional ghost ship that is doomed to sail forever." Never stop not making sense, Maureen Dowd...
posted by sallybrown at 10:22 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The list at the end of pop culture comparisons she's used to describe Clinton is amusing - "The Flying Dutchman, a fictional ghost ship that is doomed to sail forever." Never stop not making sense, Maureen Dowd...
posted by sallybrown at 10:22 AM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
But then what would we whine about? Closed primaries? Winner-take-all vs proportional?
The lack of decent biscuits and gravy in yankeeland? The kids these days with the music and the pants?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:22 AM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
The lack of decent biscuits and gravy in yankeeland? The kids these days with the music and the pants?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:22 AM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maureen Dowd has some real personal issues as revealed by her repeated depictions of Al Gore as a lactating male and Hillary Clinton as a castrating female. It seems that in Trump she has at last found the troglodyte of her dreams.
posted by JackFlash at 10:30 AM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 10:30 AM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
So, I was talking with my close friends and I was surprised that they don't really seem to be threatened by Donald Trump. One of them pretty much said he has little chance of getting elected and even if he did, he couldn't get any of his policies enacted anyways. And I couldn't convince him either by saying that Trump is dangerous because he is shifting the Overton window on nativist populism and xenophobia and even if he couldn't do everything he's promised he was sure going try and definitely make things worse for foreigners, because Trump does have a history of mistrusting foreigners (like the Japanese in the 80s). The same friend also said Cruz was more dangerous (at least when he was still running).
So, now I'm asking myself if I got into one of those situations where the thing you follow or observe effects your judgment of that thing. Whether or not I'm overestimating Trump, or if my friend is underestimating him. I mean, I asked my friend point blank how many Trump supporters he knows, and he admitted none and I know three in real life, but again my friend discounted my view since he said I was living in a conservative county.
Another friend thought Hillary Clinton was controlling Trump and that Trump never wanted to run for president. I at least did bring up a good point that the Clintons know a lot of people in general and Trump has been wanting to run for president since the 80s (his Oprah interview) and even tried to with the Reform Party in 2000 (where he knew about David Duke).
posted by FJT at 10:41 AM on May 15, 2016
So, now I'm asking myself if I got into one of those situations where the thing you follow or observe effects your judgment of that thing. Whether or not I'm overestimating Trump, or if my friend is underestimating him. I mean, I asked my friend point blank how many Trump supporters he knows, and he admitted none and I know three in real life, but again my friend discounted my view since he said I was living in a conservative county.
Another friend thought Hillary Clinton was controlling Trump and that Trump never wanted to run for president. I at least did bring up a good point that the Clintons know a lot of people in general and Trump has been wanting to run for president since the 80s (his Oprah interview) and even tried to with the Reform Party in 2000 (where he knew about David Duke).
posted by FJT at 10:41 AM on May 15, 2016
The last discussion of the NV caucuses can be found here, if your computer can handle it. That's the county level conventions where Bernie supporters used the rules to elect more delegates than he had received at the initial caucus and Bernie was declared to have won Nevada. If you're curious about people's shifting views on whether it's okay to use convention rules to manipulate results in support of your favored candidate - regardless of whether those outcomes reflect the original vote - this would be the place to look.
posted by one_bean at 10:44 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by one_bean at 10:44 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who has a stake in keeping caucuses around in these states? It's not just inertia that's preventing the switch from caucus system to primary, right? It is local officials who feel like it gives the local "in" group more control over the system? Locals who want to keep it because that's just the way it's done?
posted by sallybrown at 11:04 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 11:04 AM on May 15, 2016
Trump Predicts Refugees With ISIS Phones Will Commit 9/11 Size Attack In The U.S.
posted by Talez at 11:58 AM on May 15, 2016
“I mean you look at it, they have cell phones,” said Trump. “So they don’t have money, they don’t have anything. They have cell phones. Who pays their monthly charges, right? They have cell phones with the flags, the ISIS flags on them. And then we’re supposed to say, ‘isn’t this wonderful that we’re taking them in?’ We’re led by people that are either incompetent or they don’t have the best interest of our country at heart.”And the ship that these refugees arrived on? MV Tampa!
posted by Talez at 11:58 AM on May 15, 2016
Yeah, well I heard the ISISPhone is just a re-branded ObamaPhone.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:20 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:20 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Re: ISIS phones, what? I can't parse that paragraph at all. Phones with ISIS flags on them? And they're coming across the border from Mexico? Where's the evidence for literally any single one of those claims?
posted by stolyarova at 12:25 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 12:25 PM on May 15, 2016
He doesn't need evidence. Evidence is for losers. That's the point of this whole fucking mess.
posted by double block and bleed at 12:28 PM on May 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 12:28 PM on May 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
That rambling, incoherent screed is sufficient justification to remind my fellow MeFites of how much Donald Trump sounds like your drunk neighbor (SLYT).
posted by stolyarova at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, I see you're still stuck in the phase where you think Trump has to make claims that have any basis in reality. I'm pretty sure his speeches are written by a Markov bot seeded with base-riling keywords. Grammatical sense and evidence are for effete liberal elites.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump Is About To Start Getting Intelligence Briefings
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:30 PM on May 15, 2016
Donald Trump Is About To Start Getting Intelligence Briefings
See Spot.
See Spot run.
Run, Spot, run.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
See Spot.
See Spot run.
Run, Spot, run.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
oh you meant... oh
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:32 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Infuriating scenario in the horizon: Trump drops classified info into his campaign speeches, Republicans try to argue that Clinton's email issues are still the real threat.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:35 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:35 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Serious question: If Trump did disclose classified information publicly, what consequences could he potentially face? How hard is he able to hint before it counts as disclosure?
posted by stolyarova at 12:39 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 12:39 PM on May 15, 2016
what consequences could he potentially face?
None whatsoever. Let's say he does. First, it would be a bad idea, operationally speaking, to confirm that he had done so. So hands are tied there. Second, can you imagine the hay he would make out of "Obama's trying to silence me! First Amendment!"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
None whatsoever. Let's say he does. First, it would be a bad idea, operationally speaking, to confirm that he had done so. So hands are tied there. Second, can you imagine the hay he would make out of "Obama's trying to silence me! First Amendment!"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
(I'm not saying he shouldn't face consequences, just that there are good security reasons, and understandable political reasons, why he won't)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:42 PM on May 15, 2016
Why is he getting intelligence briefings?
posted by bardophile at 12:46 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by bardophile at 12:46 PM on May 15, 2016
Mod note: fffm, throttle back the serial commenting, we just talked to you about this.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 12:48 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 12:48 PM on May 15, 2016
bardophile, because he's the unchallenged Republican nominee.
posted by stolyarova at 12:48 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 12:48 PM on May 15, 2016
So it's a time thing? As in, he's one of the two people who may be POTUS come January, so he should start getting up to speed on stuff now?
posted by bardophile at 12:50 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by bardophile at 12:50 PM on May 15, 2016
Yep. But the idea of making him privy to classified information before he's elected is absolutely terrifying.
posted by stolyarova at 12:51 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:51 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
It also gives him cover to make any outlandish claim he wants to make. He just has to say, "Remember, I get the classified briefings now" after he talks about secret ISIS tattoos on migrants streaming over the border.
posted by peeedro at 12:55 PM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 12:55 PM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yep, no way Trump could use classified intelligence to his advantage. It's sort of mildly terrifying and that mild terror is just a glimpse into what President Trump could manage.
I also want to say that NV footage is also terrifying. That's not what Democracy should look like.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 12:58 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I also want to say that NV footage is also terrifying. That's not what Democracy should look like.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 12:58 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
It also gives him cover to make any outlandish claim he wants to make. He just has to say, "Remember, I get the classified briefings now" after he talks about secret ISIS tattoos on migrants streaming over the border.
I mean, President Obama can refute that without breaking the CIA privacy, right? Not that many Trump voters would believe him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on May 15, 2016
I mean, President Obama can refute that without breaking the CIA privacy, right? Not that many Trump voters would believe him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on May 15, 2016
Traditionally, the nominees get one day-long briefing after the convention that focuses on the state of the world and the broad-strokes strategic situations and involves a lot of intelligence officials telling them "SO DON'T SAY THIS FUCKING STUPID THING THAT WILL GET AMERICANS KILLED." They don't get information about how information was gathered or who gathered it, and while there is room for flexibility, traditionally they don't get regular briefings until after the election and they become the president-elect.
Trump keeps saying how much he's looking forward to his "regular" briefings now that he's the GOP nominee, and the intelligence agencies keep issuing mild statements about how it's really a day-long seminar with a high-level survey of major issues and occasional updates as events warrant, and the weekly briefings don't start until after the election. And then a bunch of low-level intelligence officials issue statements of varying anonymity about how they don't trust Trump with classified information so, yeah, I think if he starts making outlandish claims based on his "regular briefings" there will be significant pushback.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:04 PM on May 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump keeps saying how much he's looking forward to his "regular" briefings now that he's the GOP nominee, and the intelligence agencies keep issuing mild statements about how it's really a day-long seminar with a high-level survey of major issues and occasional updates as events warrant, and the weekly briefings don't start until after the election. And then a bunch of low-level intelligence officials issue statements of varying anonymity about how they don't trust Trump with classified information so, yeah, I think if he starts making outlandish claims based on his "regular briefings" there will be significant pushback.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:04 PM on May 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
Who pays their monthly charges, right?
Wrong.
On the rest of the planet, the GSM system permits open market on telco service provider through the simple purchase of a SIM of your choice - yes, registration with ID is required - but topping up - that is, purchasing vouchers for airtime minutes - that is, the time available for a call, or the charge for a text message, or the data bundle for browsing - can be done in advance. This facility is now increasingly available directly through your phone. Often by a system called USSD which is text based and available on any type of phone - feature phone or smartphone. This business model is called prepaid or pay as you go, though the latter is far more prevalent. Postpaid, that is, a monthly subscription plan, is not that popular outside of the OECD world, and even then - many prefer this method to control their expenses.
will I live to see my 51st birthday?
posted by infini at 1:28 PM on May 15, 2016
Wrong.
On the rest of the planet, the GSM system permits open market on telco service provider through the simple purchase of a SIM of your choice - yes, registration with ID is required - but topping up - that is, purchasing vouchers for airtime minutes - that is, the time available for a call, or the charge for a text message, or the data bundle for browsing - can be done in advance. This facility is now increasingly available directly through your phone. Often by a system called USSD which is text based and available on any type of phone - feature phone or smartphone. This business model is called prepaid or pay as you go, though the latter is far more prevalent. Postpaid, that is, a monthly subscription plan, is not that popular outside of the OECD world, and even then - many prefer this method to control their expenses.
will I live to see my 51st birthday?
posted by infini at 1:28 PM on May 15, 2016
Trump isn't being called on false statements regarding events that are public knowledge; I don't imagine that media will take him to task just because he lies about something that was allegedly part of a secret briefing. And where will the impetus for this come from? Not from the government side, probably: they don't want to appear partisan. So it will have to be a reporter asking a government spokesperson, who will need to get an authorised statement about an issue of national security that doesn't reveal other classified information. At the end of all this it's going to be an inside-baseball sort of thing where a State Department wonk carefully words something about how a particular item was not part of Trump's briefing. And Trump will ignore that, or say that they didn't actually deny it was true, and that you can see how Hillary's supporters in the State Department are scared of him being elected.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:30 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo article about the NV Democratic convention chaos
Video of Barbara Boxer getting alternately booed / cheered by different factions
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:06 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Video of Barbara Boxer getting alternately booed / cheered by different factions
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:06 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Traditionally, the nominees get one day-long briefing after the convention that focuses on the state of the world and the broad-strokes strategic situations and involves a lot of intelligence officials telling them "SO DON'T SAY THIS FUCKING STUPID THING THAT WILL GET AMERICANS KILLED." They don't get information about how information was gathered or who gathered it, and while there is room for flexibility, traditionally they don't get regular briefings until after the election and they become the president-elect.
On a recent episode of Slate’s Trumpcast, Jacob Weisberg talks about this with former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin about how this will be handled.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
On a recent episode of Slate’s Trumpcast, Jacob Weisberg talks about this with former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin about how this will be handled.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:25 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Infini - not to mention that by the time a refugee has even made it over to this country, they have spent nearly a year being vetted, screened, evaluated, scrutinized, processed, and placed by our federal government, and part of their arrival process involves matching them with an NGO or aid organization that will work on getting them a job or placing them with a friend or family member who is already here. So those cell phones Trump sees refugees with, they're probably paying for it with money they earned at their job, with their paychecks, from which they even had taxes withheld and everything.
I bet a refugee would even let us see his tax return if we asked him, how about you, Donald?
I'm working with an NGO that has been rehousing refugees in this country since the 1940's and Trump makes us all want to spit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:29 PM on May 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
I bet a refugee would even let us see his tax return if we asked him, how about you, Donald?
I'm working with an NGO that has been rehousing refugees in this country since the 1940's and Trump makes us all want to spit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:29 PM on May 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Trump qualified for a tax break for New Yorkers making $500K or less
posted by zachlipton at 2:39 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 2:39 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted: STOP BICKERING ABOUT WHOSE SUPPORTERS ARE WORSE NEXT GUY TO DO IT GETS THE DAY OFF. And when you flag shitty comments for deletion, it is doubly shitty to respond to them instants after flagging them.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 2:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 2:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump qualified for a tax break for New Yorkers making $500K or less
This is pretty dang amazing, actually. Relatedly, and in the same section of Crain’s, we have “Donald Trump’s Unlikely Accountant”:
This is pretty dang amazing, actually. Relatedly, and in the same section of Crain’s, we have “Donald Trump’s Unlikely Accountant”:
“Every year they audit me,” he said at a recent presidential debate. Trump has said he has a “big accounting firm—one of the most highly respected” to manage his books.
So what’s the name of this mighty accounting firm? The answer: WeiserMazars.
Who?
Though it may be highly respected, Manhattan-based WeiserMazars is by no means big. It is the 24th-largest accounting firm in the nation, according to trade publication Accounting Today, with 109 partners and $158 million in annual revenue. For perspective, KPMG, the smallest of the so-called Big Four accounting firms, has 1,813 partners and $6.9 billion in annual revenue.
WeiserMazars clients tend to be small and mid-sized companies based in the New York metro area. In recent years they have included taxi-medallion lender Medallion Financial, online retailer Bluefly and Inter Parfums, a Manhattan-based fragrance maker with $500 million in annual revenue. A WeiserMazars spokeswoman had no comment and wouldn’t confirm that Trump is a client. A Trump spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.posted by Going To Maine at 3:02 PM on May 15, 2016
Donald Trump Is About To Start Getting Intelligence Briefings
Wait'll he starts bragging about it.
"You won't believe the things I've seen in these briefings. First of all, I'm like a very smart guy, so I knew most of this going in. Most of it. The CIA guys say I'm the best they've ever briefed. But these guys know everything. They know what underwear Angela Merkel wears. How our leaders can't get the deals I can with this kind of information, I don't know. Something's fishy there."
"Hey, you guys wanna know what kinda porn Kim Jong-Un likes?"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:52 PM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wait'll he starts bragging about it.
"You won't believe the things I've seen in these briefings. First of all, I'm like a very smart guy, so I knew most of this going in. Most of it. The CIA guys say I'm the best they've ever briefed. But these guys know everything. They know what underwear Angela Merkel wears. How our leaders can't get the deals I can with this kind of information, I don't know. Something's fishy there."
"Hey, you guys wanna know what kinda porn Kim Jong-Un likes?"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:52 PM on May 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ben Carson has stated that Trump's VP shortlist is Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, and Palin.
Oh, dear.
I've maintained since February that Trump would want Palin as his VP; she'd be no threat to his ego, but he'd perceive her as giving him a boost with women.
posted by stolyarova at 4:12 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, dear.
I've maintained since February that Trump would want Palin as his VP; she'd be no threat to his ego, but he'd perceive her as giving him a boost with women.
posted by stolyarova at 4:12 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
She really would help bring in the evangelical vote too. Trump isn't really fooling anyone when he claims to be part of that tribe. But Palin can talk the talk.
I would think Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio have criticized him too loudly and too publicly to have any credibility defending him. Is he just trying to make them look like hypocrites?
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:18 PM on May 15, 2016
I would think Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio have criticized him too loudly and too publicly to have any credibility defending him. Is he just trying to make them look like hypocrites?
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:18 PM on May 15, 2016
That list leaves Newt Gingrich off, which surprises me. He's such an opportunist and a slick political operator. He and Trump would be a slime sandwich made in Heaven.
I don't think Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio would consider accepting (well, maybe Cruz - the temptation of power for the transdimensional entity inside of him might be too strong).
posted by stolyarova at 4:19 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio would consider accepting (well, maybe Cruz - the temptation of power for the transdimensional entity inside of him might be too strong).
posted by stolyarova at 4:19 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ben Carson has stated that Trump's VP shortlist is Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, and Palin.
That doesn’t seem to be what the article is saying:
posted by Going To Maine at 4:21 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That doesn’t seem to be what the article is saying:
[Carson] had just explained to the reporter riding along that he wanted no role in a Trump administration when news arrived of a new poll naming him as the best liked of a list of potential running mates.
“Who else was on the list?” he asked quietly, maintaining his usual inscrutable calm. The most favorably regarded contenders after himself, he was told, were John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin and Chris Christie.
“Those are all people on our list,” he said.In other words, these were all possible running mates named in a survey by Morning Consult, and some of those names are on Trump’s list.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:21 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whoops. At the very least, it establishes that Sarah Palin is definitely on Trump's VP shortlist.
posted by stolyarova at 4:23 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 4:23 PM on May 15, 2016
Ben Carson has stated that Trump's VP shortlist is Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Christie, and Palin.
Why would anyone believe what Ben Carson has to say about anything?
posted by indubitable at 4:29 PM on May 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why would anyone believe what Ben Carson has to say about anything?
posted by indubitable at 4:29 PM on May 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
From the linked WaPo article, it sounds like there was a bunch of rules-lawyering that the Sanders campaign was unsuccessful in getting through, and that pissed them off. But here's the crux of it:
posted by Anonymous at 4:32 PM on May 15, 2016
Thanks to Clinton's victory in Nevada on Saturday, hard-fought on the carpeted floor of the Paris hotel and casino in Las Vegas, her lead over Sanders extends to 282, per delegate-counter Daniel Nichanian. Had Sanders's supporters been successful on Saturday, that margin would have been 278 — a number that still demands that the senator win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead.I live in Philly and was looking forward to the convention. Not so much any more. Never in a million years did I think I'd be worried about riots at the Democratic convention, while Trump sailed through the Republican.
What probably worries Clinton supporters at the moment, though, isn't their candidate losing the nomination. It's the prospect of a scene like that in Las Vegas playing out before a national television audience in July in Philadelphia.
posted by Anonymous at 4:32 PM on May 15, 2016
Why would anyone believe what Ben Carson has to say about anything?
I'd probably believe what Ben Carson told me about brain surgery. But if he then told me it was Monday I'd check the calendar.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'd probably believe what Ben Carson told me about brain surgery. But if he then told me it was Monday I'd check the calendar.
posted by Justinian at 4:45 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
If it is clear that Clinton has the nomination sewn up by the convention (which it will be) I don't think there will be a problem. Sanders wouldn't want a fiasco and he'll tell his supporters not to do anything too radical.
posted by Justinian at 4:47 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:47 PM on May 15, 2016
Whoops. At the very least, it establishes that Sarah Palin is definitely on Trump's VP shortlist.
"Please baby please baby please baby baby baby please."
posted by kirkaracha at 4:57 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whoops. At the very least, it establishes that Sarah Palin is definitely on Trump's VP shortlist.
No, it doesn't establish that at all.
All it says is that someone mentioned a couple of names in a taxi and Carson said that those are all people on their "list".
We don't know how long this list is. It might be dozens of names.
Also, we don't know if Carson actually heard all those names. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time he overhears a name.
Also, when he says “Those are all people on our list,” we don't know if "all people" means literally all people that were mentioned or perhaps all mentioned give or take one or two. Maybe Palin is not on the list but Carson simply didn't bother to point that out. After all "Those are all people on our list, except for Sarah Palin," would be a very odd statement. Why squish speculation? Speculation gives attention, which is good. Also, it would a particularly odd statement for Carson.
And finally, we don't even know for sure if the conversation actually did take place as told in the article. The reporter might have misremembered the names mentioned, for example.
So in short, this doesn't establish that at all.
But it does accomplish something else: It works to have everyone imagine a Trump presidency. If people start to ponder "I could live with Kasich, but God help us if Cruz or Palin become VP," they have silently acknowledged that Trump is acceptable as president. It's hard to imagine better advertising for a Trump ticket. One has to wonder what an article like that is doing in the Washington Post. Wasn't there some mini-feud going on between Trump and Bezos? Is this just the WaPo's way to say "we're sorry" to Trump?
posted by sour cream at 5:14 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, it doesn't establish that at all.
All it says is that someone mentioned a couple of names in a taxi and Carson said that those are all people on their "list".
We don't know how long this list is. It might be dozens of names.
Also, we don't know if Carson actually heard all those names. Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time he overhears a name.
Also, when he says “Those are all people on our list,” we don't know if "all people" means literally all people that were mentioned or perhaps all mentioned give or take one or two. Maybe Palin is not on the list but Carson simply didn't bother to point that out. After all "Those are all people on our list, except for Sarah Palin," would be a very odd statement. Why squish speculation? Speculation gives attention, which is good. Also, it would a particularly odd statement for Carson.
And finally, we don't even know for sure if the conversation actually did take place as told in the article. The reporter might have misremembered the names mentioned, for example.
So in short, this doesn't establish that at all.
But it does accomplish something else: It works to have everyone imagine a Trump presidency. If people start to ponder "I could live with Kasich, but God help us if Cruz or Palin become VP," they have silently acknowledged that Trump is acceptable as president. It's hard to imagine better advertising for a Trump ticket. One has to wonder what an article like that is doing in the Washington Post. Wasn't there some mini-feud going on between Trump and Bezos? Is this just the WaPo's way to say "we're sorry" to Trump?
posted by sour cream at 5:14 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Reading more thoroughly about the Nevada shenanigans has been instructive. Now I'm not so sure about my previous confidence re: the Democratic convention. It sounds like a lot of the Sanders supporters who show up don't necessarily understand the process that well, don't understand parliamentary procedure, and think that passion should be enough to win the day over numbers. Which could be a problem in Philly. You don't get what you want just because you care a lot, you have to follow the proper procedures.
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on May 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:16 PM on May 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ah yes, following the proper procedures, that old cornerstone of politics.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:24 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:24 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is this just the WaPo's way to say "we're sorry" to Trump?
This is overthinking a bit. We know Trump is the nominee, so everything is about his VP and staff picks. That's simply the state of the race. The op-eds can and will continue to vent about his fitness, and investigations of Trump's past can and will go on, but we're at the veepstakes now, so that's the news we're getting
posted by Going To Maine at 5:26 PM on May 15, 2016
This is overthinking a bit. We know Trump is the nominee, so everything is about his VP and staff picks. That's simply the state of the race. The op-eds can and will continue to vent about his fitness, and investigations of Trump's past can and will go on, but we're at the veepstakes now, so that's the news we're getting
posted by Going To Maine at 5:26 PM on May 15, 2016
i've been avoiding this subject, but i voted for bernie and it would appear that he's losing fair and square in spite of the dubiousness of the nomination process
that's just how it goes
it's not the worst thing to happen this year - it's not even the worst thing to happen in this election
*looks at trump with wonder and disgust*
posted by pyramid termite at 6:10 PM on May 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
that's just how it goes
it's not the worst thing to happen this year - it's not even the worst thing to happen in this election
*looks at trump with wonder and disgust*
posted by pyramid termite at 6:10 PM on May 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
Reince Priebus is saying the loss of the White House could mean not just a loss of those eight years, but "potentially 100 years on the Supreme Court" (cite); what kind of math is that? Even if every single justice got replaced by somebody else who was only 40, they'd all not going to live another 100 years so? Is this TrumpMath or something?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:40 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:40 PM on May 15, 2016
Priebus is as idiotic as his name, but I think he is trying to say that Supreme Court precedents last a long time.
posted by bearwife at 6:42 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bearwife at 6:42 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump called Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" in an interview with Maureen Dowd.
Surely this...
who am I kidding, this won't even register as racism for 90% of Americans, let alone his supporters
posted by stolyarova at 6:49 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Surely this...
who am I kidding, this won't even register as racism for 90% of Americans, let alone his supporters
posted by stolyarova at 6:49 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is this TrumpMath or something?
Trump will bring the Singularity and we will all live forever unless we are killed by the evil robot overlords.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:58 PM on May 15, 2016
Trump will bring the Singularity and we will all live forever unless we are killed by the evil robot overlords.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:58 PM on May 15, 2016
Nice to see that he's having trouble making a nickname stick to Warren. What was it the other day, "Goofy Elizabeth Warren"? Now he's trying "Pocahontas" (which is supposed to imply... what?) He's clearly not satisfied with himself, though I'm sure the Republican machine will be working overtime over the next four years to paint Warren in a way that'll lend itself to a pithy Trump nickname. I'm sure they recognize the future threat she poses.
posted by clawsoon at 7:01 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 7:01 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
in an interview with Maureen Dowd.
Please don't dignify Maureen Dowd by calling that an "interview." Calling someone up on the phone and unquestioningly printing whatever they happen to say with no follow-up or independent thinking involved is not an interview.
p.s. the backstory to the "Pocahontas" thing is explained over here and has been a GOP talking point, albeit usually with more respectful language, since 2012. This commentary from Simon Moya-Smith, Culture Editor at Indian Country Today is also an interesting perspective.
posted by zachlipton at 7:08 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Please don't dignify Maureen Dowd by calling that an "interview." Calling someone up on the phone and unquestioningly printing whatever they happen to say with no follow-up or independent thinking involved is not an interview.
p.s. the backstory to the "Pocahontas" thing is explained over here and has been a GOP talking point, albeit usually with more respectful language, since 2012. This commentary from Simon Moya-Smith, Culture Editor at Indian Country Today is also an interesting perspective.
posted by zachlipton at 7:08 PM on May 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
She once claimed to be part Native American (on the basis of family oral tradition, I think) but it turned out she couldn't prove it. She not sure if he's racistly mocking her for actually being part Native American, or trying to allude to the in incident to shame her or accuse her of lying...
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:08 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:08 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
if you think he's the next mussolini, calling him Donald Duck seems like... weird
how about Il Duce Donald? Or even Il Duce Donnie to hit him from both sides?
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:10 PM on May 15, 2016
how about Il Duce Donald? Or even Il Duce Donnie to hit him from both sides?
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:10 PM on May 15, 2016
Whoops. At the very least, it establishes that Sarah Palin is definitely on Trump's VP shortlist.
Like I said upthread: Trump will want a VP so odious that it will make Congress think twice about ever impeaching him for anything, ever. "You want President Palin? Because that's how you get President Palin!"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:22 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like I said upthread: Trump will want a VP so odious that it will make Congress think twice about ever impeaching him for anything, ever. "You want President Palin? Because that's how you get President Palin!"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:22 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm partial to Il Douche, but it's really unfair to Mussolini to compare him to Trump. I'm about as anti-fascist as you get, but Mussolini was an intellectual with a coherent ideology. Trump has about as much coherent philosophy as an angry toddler.
posted by stolyarova at 7:25 PM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 7:25 PM on May 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ugh never mind I just realized how misogynistic using "douche" that way is. Sorry, grew up with moderately religious, racist parents and still working on purging so much of what that implies (including internalized misogyny ughhhhhhh).
posted by stolyarova at 7:27 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 7:27 PM on May 15, 2016
I think metafilter has decided that douche is not misogynistic at all. As it has been explained on the site, it makes sense. Don't fret. Do a MeTa search.
posted by futz at 7:35 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:35 PM on May 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ugh never mind I just realized how misogynistic using "douche" that way is
I dunno. Douches are unhealthy things created by the patriarchy in an attempt to make women feel bad about themselves. Seems more apropos than misogynistic to draw the comparison to Trump.
posted by dersins at 7:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I dunno. Douches are unhealthy things created by the patriarchy in an attempt to make women feel bad about themselves. Seems more apropos than misogynistic to draw the comparison to Trump.
posted by dersins at 7:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Put that way, I feel better about the nickname Il Douche. To someone without any biological knowledge (and a lot of internalized shame), douching might seem like a good idea, but it has no good consequences. Thanks to dersins and futz for the reassurance. Deprogramming is hard. :\
posted by stolyarova at 7:48 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 7:48 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
(memail me if you want to talk more about it but rest assured that there is no need to beat yourself up.)
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:50 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Douche:
1. Does more harm than good.
2. A thing that I don't want anywhere near my vagina.
Seems apropos.
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
1. Does more harm than good.
2. A thing that I don't want anywhere near my vagina.
Seems apropos.
posted by Weeping_angel at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Lots of crow for dinner tonight. Trump tweeted:
posted by stolyarova at 8:23 PM on May 15, 2016
The @washingtonpost report on potential VP candidates is wrong. Marco Rubio and most others mentioned are NOT under consideration.
posted by stolyarova at 8:23 PM on May 15, 2016
Donald Trump Is About To Start Getting Intelligence Briefings
One briefing. Nominees get one briefing only, though I'm sure Trump would like people to think otherwise.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:23 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
One briefing. Nominees get one briefing only, though I'm sure Trump would like people to think otherwise.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:23 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a reminder: Being (Western) Cherokee* is not like being a member of any other tribe. The (Western) Cherokees don't look at blood quantum; they look at if one of your relatives is on the Dawes Rolls.
So, it really wouldn't be hard for Warren to prove she was Cherokee** -- just pull out the family tree and map it to a relative on the Dawes Rolls. It's frustrating she's relying on "great-great grandparents with high cheekbones" given that's just about every white person in Oklahoma who has a couple generations in the state/territory.
That said, the "Pocahontas" comment is just about as racist as it comes. Trump will win Oklahoma regardless, but if he was planning on endearing himself to the state congressional delegation -- the people who are pushing to get Jackson off the $20 -- he's in for an Innnnnteresting conversation.
* - Only the Western Cherokee, aka the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, are different. The Eastern band and the United Keetoowah Cherokee rely on blood quantum.
** - Western Cherokee. It is a little harder with the Keetoowah since they are so small and pretty much know each other. Of course, if she was Keetoowah we wouldn't be having this conversation.
posted by dw at 8:55 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, it really wouldn't be hard for Warren to prove she was Cherokee** -- just pull out the family tree and map it to a relative on the Dawes Rolls. It's frustrating she's relying on "great-great grandparents with high cheekbones" given that's just about every white person in Oklahoma who has a couple generations in the state/territory.
That said, the "Pocahontas" comment is just about as racist as it comes. Trump will win Oklahoma regardless, but if he was planning on endearing himself to the state congressional delegation -- the people who are pushing to get Jackson off the $20 -- he's in for an Innnnnteresting conversation.
* - Only the Western Cherokee, aka the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, are different. The Eastern band and the United Keetoowah Cherokee rely on blood quantum.
** - Western Cherokee. It is a little harder with the Keetoowah since they are so small and pretty much know each other. Of course, if she was Keetoowah we wouldn't be having this conversation.
posted by dw at 8:55 PM on May 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The @washingtonpost report on potential VP candidates is wrong. Marco Rubio and most others mentioned are NOT under consideration.
Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust Trump to be honest about his own picks nor gamblers to predict the moves of a madman, the current BetFair odds point at Gingrich.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:20 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bearing in mind that I wouldn’t trust Trump to be honest about his own picks nor gamblers to predict the moves of a madman, the current BetFair odds point at Gingrich.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:20 PM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maureen Dowd's continuing employment baffles me.
* She's always wrong, about everything.
* She always says the same exact thing in every column.
* She's not even clever or witty about it.
If she had even ONE of those, I could see her sticking around, but nope, nothing.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
* She's always wrong, about everything.
* She always says the same exact thing in every column.
* She's not even clever or witty about it.
If she had even ONE of those, I could see her sticking around, but nope, nothing.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
One briefing. Nominees get one briefing only, though I'm sure Trump would like people to think otherwise.
Not necessarily so. It's actually pretty interesting and I fell down the rabbit hole of reading this CIA publication: Getting to Know the President: CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates, 1952-1992 [pdf warning]. If you like presidential history and CIA inside baseball, a not-so-brief timeline might be fun.
Otherwise and TL;DR, it's basically up to whatever the candidate or nominee asks for, at the discretion of the president. Its importance has waned since the Cold War and with historical distance from Pearl Harbor, the process depends on the personality of the politicians involved, the focus of their campaign, their ability to schedule time for the meetings, and the level of trust between the candidate and the outgoing administration. Hope this doesn't stray too far into GYOFB territory:
1952 - Truman begins the practice (as Truman came into office not knowing about the development of the atomic bomb), offering weekly CIA briefings to nominees Eisenhower and Stevenson in the summer of ’52. Eisenhower and Stevenson each receive four intelligence briefings between their conventions and the election.
1956 - Stevenson receives four intelligence briefings between his convention and the election.
1960 - Kennedy receives three pre-election briefings, VP nominee Johnson receives one separately.
But Kennedy spills the beans! In the debates with Nixon, Kennedy cites classified CIA information about Soviet economic growth and missile capabilities to score points. He also publicly supports training Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro, which was already underway as a top-secret CIA project; there's disagreement on the extent to which Kennedy was briefed on the Cuban operations, if this is just an unlucky coincidence or a facepalm-worthy leak of covert activities, either way Eisenhower and Nixon are pissed.
Up to this point, the pre-election briefings provided by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations are only lightly filtered, but afterwards "the Agency's practice came to be one of delaying briefings even on established covert action programs, as well as on sensitive technical and human-source collection programs, until after the election had determined who would be president." Even so, Eisenhower was reluctant to fully brief President-elect Kennedy, wishing to keep his remaining deliberations confidential. "Records of the Eisenhower White House suggest that [DCI] Dulles discussed, or at least was authorized to discuss, only a narrow agenda with the President-elect".
Relations between President Kennedy and the CIA are strained, one of the post-Bay of Pigs reforms is the daily publication of the President's Intelligence Checklist, the forerunner of the President's Daily Brief, this document is not shared with Johnson until he was sworn in as president.
1964 - Goldwater declines to receive any intelligence briefings.
1968 - Nixon and Agnew receive one pre-election "general review of the international situation" from President Johnson, his Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence, and the number-two negotiator in the Vietnam peace talks.
1972 - McGovern schedules a pre-election briefing session with Kissinger, with the expectation of regular follow-ons from the CIA. McGovern is forced to cancel because of the Eagleton affair, the briefing and any follow-ons are not rescheduled.
1974 - The CIA sees the writing on the wall for Nixon's future and reaches out to Vice President Ford to both to prepare Ford for the presidency and as a political move to get out from under Kissinger's thumb (Kissinger had isolated the president from the CIA, the PDB was vetted first through his office as National Security Advisor, and later concurrently serving as Secretary of State). The CIA provides PDB directly to Vice President Ford beginning July 1, 1974, six weeks before Nixon resigns. Kissinger is described as "furious" and President Ford asks Kissinger to step down as National Security Advisor to only wear one hat as Secretary of State.
1976 - Carter requests briefing sessions with the CIA before officially becoming the democratic presidential nominee. DCI Bush provides a day-long brief to Carter before the convention. After the convention, Carter and Mondale have two day-long extended briefings with Bush and one more with Kissinger. Separate CIA briefings are also given to both VP candidates Dole and Mondale. The CIA also briefs Carter via telephone regarding a "donnybrook" in the Korean DMZ involving the removal of a tree, known as the axe murder incident.
1980 - Independent candidate John Anderson receives a two-hour pre-election brief. Regan receives one pre-election intelligence brief, described as a one-hour "circus". The "CIA participants had the feeling that the Reagan camp had accepted the briefing simply because it had been offered and they had to do it. There was no evidence that anyone had the expectation that the Governor would engage in an in-depth review of the substantive issues." "Reagan brought to the presidency deep convictions about key national security issues and felt the need for only limited, very general intelligence information." For example, after reading a four-page memorandum on the Palestinian movement discussing "the complex array of backgrounds, personalities, ideologies, tactics, and strategies that divided the Palestinian people and characterized the many groups inside and out-side the Palestine Liberation Organization", Regan simply asked, "But they are all terrorists, aren't they?"
In regards to the hostages in Iran, senior CIA officers at the briefing "had been struck—and remembered their reaction clearly in 1993—that there had been no discussion whatever of the hostage issue during their briefing of the candidate."
1988 - Dukakis "was offered intelligence support and agreed to receive one briefing on worldwide developments", VP nominee Lloyd Bentsen was present for the briefing. "The briefing was delivered on 22 August by CIA Director William Webster and his Deputy, Robert Gates, whose most vivid memory of the occasion involved the difficulty the two had in reaching the Dukakis home" due to a Red Sox game.
1992 - Clinton and Gore receive one pre-election intelligence session, and nothing more until PDBs begin shortly after the election. No mention of Perot, but it's safe to assume he was not provided any CIA support.
And that's where the document ends, which is a shame because it would be interesting to know how W. and Obama were briefed before their elections.
TL;DR part two, here's how the CIA describes the process of briefing presidential candidates: "This support, endorsed by each of the sitting presidents, has been designed primarily to acquaint the incoming president with developments abroad that will require his decisions and actions as president. A second goal has been to establish a solid working relationship with each new president and his advisers so the Agency could serve him well, once in office." So there's no reason, in spirit or in practice, that Trump or Clinton are limited to one briefing each, but I wouldn't expect either of them would ask for additional support -- Trump due to his temperament as the colossus of ignorance and Clinton due to her ongoing familiarity with world affairs.
posted by peeedro at 10:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [78 favorites]
Not necessarily so. It's actually pretty interesting and I fell down the rabbit hole of reading this CIA publication: Getting to Know the President: CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates, 1952-1992 [pdf warning]. If you like presidential history and CIA inside baseball, a not-so-brief timeline might be fun.
Otherwise and TL;DR, it's basically up to whatever the candidate or nominee asks for, at the discretion of the president. Its importance has waned since the Cold War and with historical distance from Pearl Harbor, the process depends on the personality of the politicians involved, the focus of their campaign, their ability to schedule time for the meetings, and the level of trust between the candidate and the outgoing administration. Hope this doesn't stray too far into GYOFB territory:
1952 - Truman begins the practice (as Truman came into office not knowing about the development of the atomic bomb), offering weekly CIA briefings to nominees Eisenhower and Stevenson in the summer of ’52. Eisenhower and Stevenson each receive four intelligence briefings between their conventions and the election.
1956 - Stevenson receives four intelligence briefings between his convention and the election.
1960 - Kennedy receives three pre-election briefings, VP nominee Johnson receives one separately.
But Kennedy spills the beans! In the debates with Nixon, Kennedy cites classified CIA information about Soviet economic growth and missile capabilities to score points. He also publicly supports training Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro, which was already underway as a top-secret CIA project; there's disagreement on the extent to which Kennedy was briefed on the Cuban operations, if this is just an unlucky coincidence or a facepalm-worthy leak of covert activities, either way Eisenhower and Nixon are pissed.
Up to this point, the pre-election briefings provided by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations are only lightly filtered, but afterwards "the Agency's practice came to be one of delaying briefings even on established covert action programs, as well as on sensitive technical and human-source collection programs, until after the election had determined who would be president." Even so, Eisenhower was reluctant to fully brief President-elect Kennedy, wishing to keep his remaining deliberations confidential. "Records of the Eisenhower White House suggest that [DCI] Dulles discussed, or at least was authorized to discuss, only a narrow agenda with the President-elect".
Relations between President Kennedy and the CIA are strained, one of the post-Bay of Pigs reforms is the daily publication of the President's Intelligence Checklist, the forerunner of the President's Daily Brief, this document is not shared with Johnson until he was sworn in as president.
1964 - Goldwater declines to receive any intelligence briefings.
1968 - Nixon and Agnew receive one pre-election "general review of the international situation" from President Johnson, his Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence, and the number-two negotiator in the Vietnam peace talks.
1972 - McGovern schedules a pre-election briefing session with Kissinger, with the expectation of regular follow-ons from the CIA. McGovern is forced to cancel because of the Eagleton affair, the briefing and any follow-ons are not rescheduled.
1974 - The CIA sees the writing on the wall for Nixon's future and reaches out to Vice President Ford to both to prepare Ford for the presidency and as a political move to get out from under Kissinger's thumb (Kissinger had isolated the president from the CIA, the PDB was vetted first through his office as National Security Advisor, and later concurrently serving as Secretary of State). The CIA provides PDB directly to Vice President Ford beginning July 1, 1974, six weeks before Nixon resigns. Kissinger is described as "furious" and President Ford asks Kissinger to step down as National Security Advisor to only wear one hat as Secretary of State.
1976 - Carter requests briefing sessions with the CIA before officially becoming the democratic presidential nominee. DCI Bush provides a day-long brief to Carter before the convention. After the convention, Carter and Mondale have two day-long extended briefings with Bush and one more with Kissinger. Separate CIA briefings are also given to both VP candidates Dole and Mondale. The CIA also briefs Carter via telephone regarding a "donnybrook" in the Korean DMZ involving the removal of a tree, known as the axe murder incident.
1980 - Independent candidate John Anderson receives a two-hour pre-election brief. Regan receives one pre-election intelligence brief, described as a one-hour "circus". The "CIA participants had the feeling that the Reagan camp had accepted the briefing simply because it had been offered and they had to do it. There was no evidence that anyone had the expectation that the Governor would engage in an in-depth review of the substantive issues." "Reagan brought to the presidency deep convictions about key national security issues and felt the need for only limited, very general intelligence information." For example, after reading a four-page memorandum on the Palestinian movement discussing "the complex array of backgrounds, personalities, ideologies, tactics, and strategies that divided the Palestinian people and characterized the many groups inside and out-side the Palestine Liberation Organization", Regan simply asked, "But they are all terrorists, aren't they?"
In regards to the hostages in Iran, senior CIA officers at the briefing "had been struck—and remembered their reaction clearly in 1993—that there had been no discussion whatever of the hostage issue during their briefing of the candidate."
"Ironically, in light of the highly charged politics of the hostage issue that would ensue in succeeding years, the only discussion of the issue that occurred during CIA's formal briefings in the preelection period in 1980 occurred not with Reagan but with third party candidate John Anderson. On Sunday afternoon, 5 October, [DCI] Turner and three senior Agency officers spent two hours providing Anderson the same briefing on the Middle East that had been given to Reagan the previous day. In 1993, Turner recounted that on that occasion Anderson reported to him that he had been approached by an Iranian intermediary who raised the possibility of an arms-for-hostages exchange with Iran. The DCI promptly reported this approach to the State Department and took no further action himself."1984 - Mondale receives one "overview of developments abroad" by National Security Advisor McFarlane. Mondale later "observed that he should have asked for a series of CIA briefings but laughingly conceded that he 'never really thought (he) stood much of a chance against Reagan, which probably kept (him) from even thinking about preparing seriously for the presidency!'"
1988 - Dukakis "was offered intelligence support and agreed to receive one briefing on worldwide developments", VP nominee Lloyd Bentsen was present for the briefing. "The briefing was delivered on 22 August by CIA Director William Webster and his Deputy, Robert Gates, whose most vivid memory of the occasion involved the difficulty the two had in reaching the Dukakis home" due to a Red Sox game.
1992 - Clinton and Gore receive one pre-election intelligence session, and nothing more until PDBs begin shortly after the election. No mention of Perot, but it's safe to assume he was not provided any CIA support.
And that's where the document ends, which is a shame because it would be interesting to know how W. and Obama were briefed before their elections.
TL;DR part two, here's how the CIA describes the process of briefing presidential candidates: "This support, endorsed by each of the sitting presidents, has been designed primarily to acquaint the incoming president with developments abroad that will require his decisions and actions as president. A second goal has been to establish a solid working relationship with each new president and his advisers so the Agency could serve him well, once in office." So there's no reason, in spirit or in practice, that Trump or Clinton are limited to one briefing each, but I wouldn't expect either of them would ask for additional support -- Trump due to his temperament as the colossus of ignorance and Clinton due to her ongoing familiarity with world affairs.
posted by peeedro at 10:43 PM on May 15, 2016 [78 favorites]
* always wrong, about everything.
* always says the same exact thing in every column.
* not even clever or witty about it.
Sounds like the standard qualifications for a New York Times columnist. Have you READ David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman or Russ Douthat?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:04 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
* always says the same exact thing in every column.
* not even clever or witty about it.
Sounds like the standard qualifications for a New York Times columnist. Have you READ David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman or Russ Douthat?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:04 PM on May 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
That Dowd column just encapsulates everything that's wrong with the press in this election cycle. She just typed what he said; you could just have replaced her with an off-the-shelf voice recognition program and the column would have been exactly the same. Google Voice does just as good a job transcribing voice mail messages as she's done here.
posted by octothorpe at 4:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 4:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
NYT: The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:35 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:35 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders wouldn't want a fiasco and he'll tell his supporters not to do anything too radical.
I don't think he has that much control any more, if he even cares. I'm seeing a huge amount of visceral, personal hate out there, and it can't all be Republican operatives.
I think the upcoming caucuses are going to be incredibly ugly, and the Democratic party will have a give amount of trouble mending fences after the convention. I'm not quite giving the election to Trump at this time, but it's going to be a more uphill battle than it was.
posted by happyroach at 5:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think he has that much control any more, if he even cares. I'm seeing a huge amount of visceral, personal hate out there, and it can't all be Republican operatives.
I think the upcoming caucuses are going to be incredibly ugly, and the Democratic party will have a give amount of trouble mending fences after the convention. I'm not quite giving the election to Trump at this time, but it's going to be a more uphill battle than it was.
posted by happyroach at 5:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:41 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
In the face of Republican activity aimed at undermining its liberal support, the Clinton campaign has been publicly circumspect. Asked for a comment, it would only note that in a Quinnipiac University poll last month, Mrs. Clinton led her closest opponent, Mr. Sanders, by 46 points among voters who consider themselves “very liberal.”hahaha that poll is from April 23rd last year, not last month. C'mon, Times, click the links.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:41 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
hahaha that poll is from April 23rd last year, not last month. C'mon, Times, click the links.
I should take my own advice. The New York Times article is itself from May 16th last year. Regret the error.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:00 AM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I should take my own advice. The New York Times article is itself from May 16th last year. Regret the error.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:00 AM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
The New York Times article is itself from May 16th last year. Regret the error.
Ack. Completely missed that. Mea culpa.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:10 AM on May 16, 2016
Ack. Completely missed that. Mea culpa.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:10 AM on May 16, 2016
Sounds like the standard qualifications for a New York Times columnist
Yeah if there was ever any proof of the adage that shit flows uphill it would be the NYT columnist roster. I mean they had William Kristol on there for years.
posted by dis_integration at 6:11 AM on May 16, 2016
Yeah if there was ever any proof of the adage that shit flows uphill it would be the NYT columnist roster. I mean they had William Kristol on there for years.
posted by dis_integration at 6:11 AM on May 16, 2016
Ralph Nader's opinion, in case you have lingering doubts about him.
posted by bongo_x at 12:13 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by bongo_x at 12:13 PM on May 16, 2016
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect? I'll find myself using "tremendous" where I might previously have said "enormous" or "fantastic." I use the word "problem" more often. Fortunately, English has no shortage of synonyms and now that I've noticed this habit, I can break it, but it's like I don't want to use his words because every time I do he wins a little bit.
Maybe I need to take a break from the campaign season for a week or two.
posted by stolyarova at 12:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe I need to take a break from the campaign season for a week or two.
posted by stolyarova at 12:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes. Someone caught me out referring to something as a "disaster."
posted by zutalors! at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect? I'll find myself using "tremendous" where I might previously have said "enormous" or "fantastic."
Yes. Someone caught me out referring to something as a "disaster."
Oh god, it's like Pontypool only more horrifying.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes. Someone caught me out referring to something as a "disaster."
Oh god, it's like Pontypool only more horrifying.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Now that you mention it, I have been ending a lot of thoughts with an emphatic Sad!.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I realize that treating Trump as a buffoon and not a serious national threat is questionable, but Trump’s Secret Steak Recipe is pretty tremendous.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect?
Sad!
On preview, someone beat me to the joke. Sad!
posted by Sreiny at 12:56 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sad!
On preview, someone beat me to the joke. Sad!
posted by Sreiny at 12:56 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Another Trumpism I've caught myself using is referring to a situation (or a person) as "a mess."
posted by stolyarova at 1:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 1:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was using the terms "disaster", "tremendous", and "a mess" BEFORE it was popular. #hipstertrump
posted by happyroach at 1:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 1:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I remembered the talk earlier about Trump crushing Clinton, 54-25, in the Military Times poll. So I checked on their polling in prior years, and they had Romney beating Obama among their respondents 66-26. (link to third-party site because the MT article is link-rotted)
So the Democratic numbers held steady and the GOP took a nosedive. Sounds good!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
So the Democratic numbers held steady and the GOP took a nosedive. Sounds good!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
I've caught myself answering the phone "Zach Lipton's office. John Miller speaking?" Does that count?
posted by zachlipton at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sure, Trump pretended to be someone else, but it's because he's basically James Madison.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:48 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 1:48 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, Trump pretended to be someone else, but it's because he's basically James Madison.
Oh come on it's like these people are setting me up.
[Ivana Trump]
Look at where I am
Look at where I started
The fact that I'm alive is a miracle
Just shut up, that would be enough
And if your ex could share a bit less of your time
If you could stay out of her mind
Would that be enough?
[Hillary Clinton]
Donald Trump joins forces with John Miller and John Barron to conduct a series of phone interviews defending himself, entitled The Trump Interviews. The plan was to spread gossip and boost the man's ego, the work divided evenly among the three men. In the end, they answered dozens of phone calls over the span of two decades. John Miller died after doing zero. John Barron never answered the phone. Trump answered the other fifty-one!
How do you lie like you’re
Running out of time?
lie day and night like you’re
Running out of time?
posted by zachlipton at 2:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Oh come on it's like these people are setting me up.
[Ivana Trump]
Look at where I am
Look at where I started
The fact that I'm alive is a miracle
Just shut up, that would be enough
And if your ex could share a bit less of your time
If you could stay out of her mind
Would that be enough?
[Hillary Clinton]
Donald Trump joins forces with John Miller and John Barron to conduct a series of phone interviews defending himself, entitled The Trump Interviews. The plan was to spread gossip and boost the man's ego, the work divided evenly among the three men. In the end, they answered dozens of phone calls over the span of two decades. John Miller died after doing zero. John Barron never answered the phone. Trump answered the other fifty-one!
How do you lie like you’re
Running out of time?
lie day and night like you’re
Running out of time?
posted by zachlipton at 2:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect?
i don't have an asshole to english translator enabled so all i hear when he speaks is wet_fart_noise.mp3
posted by poffin boffin at 2:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
i don't have an asshole to english translator enabled so all i hear when he speaks is wet_fart_noise.mp3
posted by poffin boffin at 2:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect?
Someone made me watch one of those minutes long supercuts of Trump just saying China over and over and it definitely had a negative impact on me. That's pretty much the only Trump video I've ingested lately, though -- I refuse to watch any video coverage. Just can't. Gotta preserve my sanity by avoiding as much election info as I can.
posted by palomar at 2:55 PM on May 16, 2016
Someone made me watch one of those minutes long supercuts of Trump just saying China over and over and it definitely had a negative impact on me. That's pretty much the only Trump video I've ingested lately, though -- I refuse to watch any video coverage. Just can't. Gotta preserve my sanity by avoiding as much election info as I can.
posted by palomar at 2:55 PM on May 16, 2016
Palomar, now I had to watch that too...
I hate you now
But, I have friends in China
posted by Windopaene at 4:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hate you now
But, I have friends in China
posted by Windopaene at 4:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
After the Nevada debacle, I'm now really worried the Democrats will self-immolate in Philly. Back to looking at countries I can move to, I guess.
posted by dw at 4:28 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by dw at 4:28 PM on May 16, 2016
Has anyone else noticed their language contaminated by Trump's dialect?
I think the linguistic term is "Chode Switching".
posted by tonycpsu at 4:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [38 favorites]
I think the linguistic term is "Chode Switching".
posted by tonycpsu at 4:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [38 favorites]
Philly is an eternity away in Internet / campaign time. While I don't doubt the Bernie hardcore will still have their grievances then, I hope Bernie himself has appeared with Hillary by then, and I hope the convention will give up at least a few planks of their platform. It's not like many people pay attention to the platform, especially with Trump stealing all the attention, so seems like an easy move for the DNC to ensure the peace & Bernie's people voting for the Democrat in November.
I'm feeling optimistic. Besides, I think Trump's shenanigans and the potential chaos in Cleveland will overshadow a few shouting matches in Philadelphia.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm feeling optimistic. Besides, I think Trump's shenanigans and the potential chaos in Cleveland will overshadow a few shouting matches in Philadelphia.
posted by honestcoyote at 4:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
FWIW (hardly anything), I have a pretty big number of Republican friends for a blue state resident and only 2 will admit to even considering voting for Trump (both young men). Most say they will protest by not voting. 3 or 4 planning to grudgingly vote for Clinton. All the Republicans I know who know their stuff in regards to the economy are dead set against him after the "negotiating the debt" debacle. One fed gov't employee, otherwise conservative, who is adamantly pissed that he could end up working for The Donald.
I have yet to meet a single woman--whether friend, family, frenemy, coworker, acquaintance, my ex's new fling, or stranger on the street--who says anything kinder than "He is disgusting" about Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have yet to meet a single woman--whether friend, family, frenemy, coworker, acquaintance, my ex's new fling, or stranger on the street--who says anything kinder than "He is disgusting" about Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also note that the Democratic Convention is the week after the GOP Convention -- so, to the extent that the GOP's is a horrorshow (99% chance), the Dems will be poised to make a lot of hay out of that.
posted by sallybrown at 4:49 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:49 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I just spent some time in the Donald Trump subreddit, which is one of the most active on that entire website. Oh my god, it's so bizarre. Ugly, but fascinating and a really interesting look into this subculture.
posted by cell divide at 5:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cell divide at 5:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It IS totally bizarre. Trump is their lord and savior and they refer to him as such.
posted by futz at 5:13 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by futz at 5:13 PM on May 16, 2016
It's worth checking out /r/subredditdrama, because as you'd expect, there's been a lot of it relating to /r/the_donald - there was some shenanigans about a moderator buying top mod position, being somehow removed, and the current moderator possibly being a sockpuppet of that first guy - it's fascinating if you like the structure and intricacies of internet communities.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Koch brothers have a sad because they were shocked -- shocked! -- to discover "Despite his [Charles's} remarkable business career and decades-long involvement in other philanthropic initiatives, questions centered around one topic: his putative role as the GOP’s puppet master." Even though "The Kochs’ communications department had long warned that their conspicuous political spending would erode the corporate brand."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Kochs’ communications department had long warned that their conspicuous political spending would erode the corporate brand.
Cry me a river, you literal scum
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Cry me a river, you literal scum
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't look at reddit much but I've been checking out /r/politics and /r/sandersforpresident. It's kind of depressing and I hope (and believe) they aren't representative of much because they are essentially #anyonebuthillary. That includes Trump.
posted by Justinian at 6:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dedicated politics sites (and especially dedicated candidate forums) are always going to be the worst of the worst. They attract the super-dedicated who often tend to be the super-crazy at the same time. 99% of the people you see everyday don't pay attention to more than "there's an election going on" and "this is who I'll vote for from the available candidates". Anyone hanging out in a political subreddit or a Daily Kos comment section or something isn't representative of anything.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Speaking of that, here's an article by Ben Shapiro about Trump's followers and Breitbart's use of the term "renegade Jew" to describe Bill Kristol:
Breitbart, ‘Renegade Jews,’ And The Anti-Semitic Wing Of The Trump Movement
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:08 PM on May 16, 2016
Breitbart, ‘Renegade Jews,’ And The Anti-Semitic Wing Of The Trump Movement
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:08 PM on May 16, 2016
Hillary Clinton says she'll put Bill 'in charge' of fixing economy
During a speech in Kentucky Sunday she referred to "my husband, who I will put in charge of revitalizing the economy 'cause he knows what he's doing."
...Earlier this month in another speech in Kentucky she said, "I told my husband he's got to come out of retirement and be in charge of this because you know he's got more ideas a minute that anybody I know."
posted by futz at 7:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
During a speech in Kentucky Sunday she referred to "my husband, who I will put in charge of revitalizing the economy 'cause he knows what he's doing."
...Earlier this month in another speech in Kentucky she said, "I told my husband he's got to come out of retirement and be in charge of this because you know he's got more ideas a minute that anybody I know."
posted by futz at 7:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The volume of the Trumpeters on reddit is really unreal. I've seen posts on even more academic-minded subreddits be totally derailed into political fights and related nonsense. Their overwhelming presence on the site has shone a lot of light on the increasingly discredited idea of hiding in sane corners there. I have to think, though, that all of this is heading full speed towards a massive public repudiation at the polls. Trump is cruising along just as he was, doing basically the same things, and it's being treated as an act of genius because the same circus surrounds him and continues to loudly sing his praises, and it's true that he'll win that circus handily, but every point he scores with those extremists is another paper cut at the motivation of the party's critical core workforce and it's a long way to election day.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've caught out "pro-Sanders" Bern-or-Busters who are pretty blatant Trump supporters in sheep's clothing at /r/politics -- racist comments, discussing conservative websites and TV shows, account started right after the New Hampshire primary.
I don't know if it's professional (ie paid) or just activists rallying to the cause but there seems to be an automatic 5,000 up votes for any topic that slams Hillary or pushes Bernie - and very few of those people make comments. It has some signs of bot upvoting.
posted by msalt at 9:03 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know if it's professional (ie paid) or just activists rallying to the cause but there seems to be an automatic 5,000 up votes for any topic that slams Hillary or pushes Bernie - and very few of those people make comments. It has some signs of bot upvoting.
posted by msalt at 9:03 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump's a mob guy right? Not personally, but he's not unfamiliar with greasing a few wheels when needed. He ran a casino that lost money in Atlantic City. If you had a ton of illegal money at your disposal, why wouldn't you pay a few thousand people off the books to make noise and harass others?
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:08 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:08 PM on May 16, 2016
So here's a new story to take our minds off of Trump. A guy named Mike Webb is running for Congress in Virginia's 8th district. That's Alexandria and Alexandria, about as Northern Virginia as you can get. The Democratic incumbent won last time, in a midterm, with 63% of the vote. Anyway, Webb is running as an independent apparently, because nobody else will have him, and because he doesn't think the GOP candidate is conservative enough for him. So we're kind of talking about a fringe candidate here.
Webb says he wants to talk directly to the people and will do all his own social media (presumably because he doesn't have anyone else). So he proceeds to share a screenshot on Facebook, forgetting to close the porn tabs in his browser.
After receiving national media attention for this, he posts something resembling an explanation (apparently his campaign's previous newsmaking was limited to missing an FEC filing deadline):
He also went on to thank the Lord for all the attention this has brought him on social media.
posted by zachlipton at 9:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Webb says he wants to talk directly to the people and will do all his own social media (presumably because he doesn't have anyone else). So he proceeds to share a screenshot on Facebook, forgetting to close the porn tabs in his browser.
After receiving national media attention for this, he posts something resembling an explanation (apparently his campaign's previous newsmaking was limited to missing an FEC filing deadline):
Curious by nature, I wanted to test the suggestion that somehow, lurking out in the pornographic world there is some evil operator waiting for the one in a gazillion chance that a candidate for federal office would go to that particular website and thereby be infected with a virus that would cause his or her FEC data file to crash the FECfile application each time that it was loaded on the day of the filing deadline, as well as impact other critical campaign systems. Well, the Geek Squad techs testified to me, after servicing thousands of computers at the Baileys Crossroads location that they had never seen any computer using their signature virus protection for the time period to acquire over 4800 viruses, 300 of which would require re-installation of the operating system. We are currently awaiting their attempt at recovery of files on that machine accidentally deleted when they failed to backup files before re-installation, a scenario about which Matthew Wavro speculated openly to me before we were informed by the Geek Squad that that had indeed occurred.While I doubt the Geek Squad techs actually testified to anything, I do have a pretty good idea what sort of online activities might have been the source of those 4,800 viruses.
He also went on to thank the Lord for all the attention this has brought him on social media.
posted by zachlipton at 9:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Robert Reich on the Democratic National Convention
"Apparently Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t care if she alienates Bernie followers. The Sanders campaign had been hoping for a significant role at the Democratic convention, but Wasserman Schultz has picked 75 members of the convention’s key committees -- rules, credentials and platform – and accepted only 3 of Bernie’s choices, failing to acknowledge the proportion of the vote Bernie has won in the primaries and caucuses. Negotiations with the DNC have failed to add any additional Bernie picks to any of the standing committees. Worse yet, she’s named as chairs Hillary backers known for their harsh criticism of Bernie (among them Barnie Frank, as co-chair of the influential Rules Committee).
This is insider politics run amok, at the very time and in the very election that insider politics is disdained – and at the very moment it’s vitally important to unite the Democratic Party. How Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC be so obtuse?
What do you think?"
posted by futz at 9:11 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Apparently Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t care if she alienates Bernie followers. The Sanders campaign had been hoping for a significant role at the Democratic convention, but Wasserman Schultz has picked 75 members of the convention’s key committees -- rules, credentials and platform – and accepted only 3 of Bernie’s choices, failing to acknowledge the proportion of the vote Bernie has won in the primaries and caucuses. Negotiations with the DNC have failed to add any additional Bernie picks to any of the standing committees. Worse yet, she’s named as chairs Hillary backers known for their harsh criticism of Bernie (among them Barnie Frank, as co-chair of the influential Rules Committee).
This is insider politics run amok, at the very time and in the very election that insider politics is disdained – and at the very moment it’s vitally important to unite the Democratic Party. How Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC be so obtuse?
What do you think?"
posted by futz at 9:11 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
DWS is one of those people who I can’t tell at times if I dislike because of misogynistic tendencies aimed at strong women or if she is really that bull-headed. A major player, but man! She does remind one that politics ain’t beanbag.
I do sort of wonder what Reich means by insider politics “run amok”, though. From my know-nothing viewpoint, it looks like insider-politics-as-usual. What would he consider to be an appropriate level of politicking?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do sort of wonder what Reich means by insider politics “run amok”, though. From my know-nothing viewpoint, it looks like insider-politics-as-usual. What would he consider to be an appropriate level of politicking?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: We've had a little discursion back to Bernie-supporters-Hillary-supporters stuff; this is officially a friendly reminder that we're trying not to go down that road again.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:29 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:29 PM on May 16, 2016
I think the big three day parade for the parties leading the previous symbol out and welcoming in anew the current hope with great ceremony and cheer and Pharrell is a little silly for everyone involved. Even if the convention isn't contested, that doesn't mean I'm looking for a fucking pageant of the grand Lord lightbearer - to which I am ever sworn. During the past few cycles the party nomination has become a commercial. Not "serious business". If one positive of this election is the end of those then some good'll've been done dadgummit.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:32 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:32 PM on May 16, 2016
Whereas the right's prejudice would and often does gladly see to the abandonment of due process in favor of their ideals, most Sanders supporters actually want to build a fair government whether they're in charge of it or not. "Insider politics as usual" is a huge, huge problem for everyone and shrugging it off just confirms the fears of borderline Bernie-or-Busters whose votes we might actually need.
posted by an animate objects at 9:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by an animate objects at 9:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
welcoming in anew the current hope with great ceremony and cheer and Pharrell is a little silly for everyone involved.
Is Pharrell playing at the DNC this year? Not sure if typo or exciting PR news.
“Insider politics as usual” is a huge, huge problem for everyone and shrugging it off just confirms the fears of borderline Bernie-or-Busters whose votes we might actually need.
I do wonder what things look like on the actual inside of the party this year. To return to the endorsement chart I love, despite all of the popular support Sanders has never come close to giving the party insiders any kind of pause. That could have played out differently if the voting had gone differently, of course - see the election of 2008. But as is, I do rather understand the Democratic urge to make this into a big moment for Clinton. I’m not there, on the inside track - instead I’m here on MetaFilter, which leans to the left on so many of these issues that it can be hard to remember that other wings of the party exist, and where that kind of high-handedness annoys. (But, of course one of the people it’s annoying is Robert Reich, who doesn’t particularly seem like an outsider…)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:51 PM on May 16, 2016
Is Pharrell playing at the DNC this year? Not sure if typo or exciting PR news.
“Insider politics as usual” is a huge, huge problem for everyone and shrugging it off just confirms the fears of borderline Bernie-or-Busters whose votes we might actually need.
I do wonder what things look like on the actual inside of the party this year. To return to the endorsement chart I love, despite all of the popular support Sanders has never come close to giving the party insiders any kind of pause. That could have played out differently if the voting had gone differently, of course - see the election of 2008. But as is, I do rather understand the Democratic urge to make this into a big moment for Clinton. I’m not there, on the inside track - instead I’m here on MetaFilter, which leans to the left on so many of these issues that it can be hard to remember that other wings of the party exist, and where that kind of high-handedness annoys. (But, of course one of the people it’s annoying is Robert Reich, who doesn’t particularly seem like an outsider…)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:51 PM on May 16, 2016
I do wonder what things look like on the actual inside of the party this year. To return to the endorsement chart I love, despite all of the popular support Sanders has never come close to giving the party insiders any kind of pause.
It may be even worse than that -- Bernie's wins have been concentrated in caucuses and open primaries. He has yet to win a fully closed primary (Oregon would be his first). So he's managed to do very well in situations where the rank-and-file Democrats are either not attending, or where the rank-and-file are diluted by independents.
I think it really comes down to him starting his campaign slow. By the time his campaign was at full steam, Hillary had already outflanked him with party endorsements and minority outreach. The super-delegates were never that relevant to the equation, but Hillary wasn't going to let 2008 happen again, so she made sure to nail down those early endorsements.
posted by dw at 11:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
It may be even worse than that -- Bernie's wins have been concentrated in caucuses and open primaries. He has yet to win a fully closed primary (Oregon would be his first). So he's managed to do very well in situations where the rank-and-file Democrats are either not attending, or where the rank-and-file are diluted by independents.
I think it really comes down to him starting his campaign slow. By the time his campaign was at full steam, Hillary had already outflanked him with party endorsements and minority outreach. The super-delegates were never that relevant to the equation, but Hillary wasn't going to let 2008 happen again, so she made sure to nail down those early endorsements.
posted by dw at 11:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
It may be even worse than that -- Bernie's wins have been concentrated in caucuses and open primaries. He has yet to win a fully closed primary (Oregon would be his first). So he's managed to do very well in situations where the rank-and-file Democrats are either not attending, or where the rank-and-file are diluted by independents.
To go back to another 538 article, “Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party”.
I think it really comes down to him starting his campaign slow. By the time his campaign was at full steam, Hillary had already outflanked him with party endorsements and minority outreach. The super-delegates were never that relevant to the equation, but Hillary wasn't going to let 2008 happen again, so she made sure to nail down those early endorsements.
That’s true. She had about double what Obama had going into Iowa back in 2008, but that was kind of peanuts compared to this year - plus the tacit endorsement of the current President. That’s a lot of machinery on your side.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:38 PM on May 16, 2016
To go back to another 538 article, “Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party”.
I think it really comes down to him starting his campaign slow. By the time his campaign was at full steam, Hillary had already outflanked him with party endorsements and minority outreach. The super-delegates were never that relevant to the equation, but Hillary wasn't going to let 2008 happen again, so she made sure to nail down those early endorsements.
That’s true. She had about double what Obama had going into Iowa back in 2008, but that was kind of peanuts compared to this year - plus the tacit endorsement of the current President. That’s a lot of machinery on your side.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:38 PM on May 16, 2016
It seems to me that not only did Sanders start his campaign slowly, he also didn't actually put that much concentration in winning endorsements. It seems like there assumption that with enough of a "revolutionary movement" and popular support, the party would have to fall in line. And well, if he HAD gotten enough popular support, things would be different.
Also, honestly, the campaign network didn't really help. Calling the institution corrupt is not a good way to get the members of that institution to support you. The focus on attacking Clinton and relatedly, the DNC, was a counterproductive strategy. One can say that Sanders did not actually support those attacks, but that means the campaign had problems with message control.
posted by happyroach at 11:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also, honestly, the campaign network didn't really help. Calling the institution corrupt is not a good way to get the members of that institution to support you. The focus on attacking Clinton and relatedly, the DNC, was a counterproductive strategy. One can say that Sanders did not actually support those attacks, but that means the campaign had problems with message control.
posted by happyroach at 11:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Aren't these just tone arguments, though? If Sanders had been nicer (on our terms), we might've deigned to take him a bit more seriously? To my mind, though, it really does come down to politics. Sanders ran a Left campaign; the party itself and most of its members are liberals (and, when it comes down to it, actually quite hostile to leftism in important ways). Sanders and his supporters want a new New Deal; the party itself and its donors most certainly do not. Liberals and left-wingers are not at all the same thing, and this primary season is really acting to showcase some of the basic differences between them, both in policy and basic worldview. Young voters, who have just watched the liberals sell out and dismiss their class interests, I suspect, will be taking note. Perhaps they'll be less likely to make the category error "liberal=left" in the future, based on what they have just witnessed?
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
I’m here on MetaFilter, which leans to the left on so many of these issues that it can be hard to remember that other wings of the party existThis is kind of what I mean. Metafilter is not a "left" site, by and large; instead it's "very liberal." There's an important distinction.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
Voted just before 7 am here in KY. (Bernie Sanders/Sellus Wilder/Mary Jo Kemper.) My precinct is at a church with 3 other precincts and it was pretty quiet. Partly because the Republicans are not turning out as their choices are pretty default? (Trump/Rand Paul.) It'll be interesting to see the overall turnout numbers tonight.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CincyBlues at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. As utterly fascinating as we may be, let's avoid getting further into another "how left and/or liberal is Mefi?" thing. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:51 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:51 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Aren't these just tone arguments, though? If Sanders had been nicer (on our terms), we might've deigned to take him a bit more seriously? To my mind, though, it really does come down to politics. Sanders ran a Left campaign; the party itself and most of its members are liberals (and, when it comes down to it, actually quite hostile to leftism in important ways).
I think you're conflating Sanders' appeals to voters and his appeal (or lack thereof) to the party apparatus. happyroach's comment reads to me as saying that Sanders had two basic strategies -- (a) work within the establishment to gain support, and/or (b) make enough of an appeal directly to the voters that the establishment has to follow the will of the people. The problem is, he didn't get enough results from (b) to overcome his weaknesses with (a), which has led to many WTF moments where he's engaged in tactics counter to his messaging earlier in the campaign, e.g. flip-flopping on suprdelegates, doing better in counter-majoritarian caucuses than the much more democratic primaries that would, in theory, help a candidate who supposedly has a more popular base of support among voters.
The simple fact is that Sanders wouldn't have been relevant without using the Democratic party as a host organism within which to operate as a legislator and candidate, so he needed to do some amount of sweet talk, OR he had to have an even more successful campaign than he did. Neither of these happened. It's not a "tone" argument to acknowledge his failures to do enough sweet talking with the party masters so that he could use their own tools to try to dismantle their house.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
I think you're conflating Sanders' appeals to voters and his appeal (or lack thereof) to the party apparatus. happyroach's comment reads to me as saying that Sanders had two basic strategies -- (a) work within the establishment to gain support, and/or (b) make enough of an appeal directly to the voters that the establishment has to follow the will of the people. The problem is, he didn't get enough results from (b) to overcome his weaknesses with (a), which has led to many WTF moments where he's engaged in tactics counter to his messaging earlier in the campaign, e.g. flip-flopping on suprdelegates, doing better in counter-majoritarian caucuses than the much more democratic primaries that would, in theory, help a candidate who supposedly has a more popular base of support among voters.
The simple fact is that Sanders wouldn't have been relevant without using the Democratic party as a host organism within which to operate as a legislator and candidate, so he needed to do some amount of sweet talk, OR he had to have an even more successful campaign than he did. Neither of these happened. It's not a "tone" argument to acknowledge his failures to do enough sweet talking with the party masters so that he could use their own tools to try to dismantle their house.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
Good luck, Kentucky and Oregon voters. Thanks for hanging in there all year.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:09 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:09 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Young voters, who have just watched the liberals sell out and dismiss their class interests, I suspect, will be taking note.
I think young people deserve more credit than to be portrayed as this unreasonable, You're-Either-With-Bernie-Or-Against-Me-You-Sellout bloc. Many people who voted against Bernie did so because they think his policies would have harmed the economy and left young people even worse off than they are now, not because they don't care about young people. (I mean, a lot of people who chose Hillary over Bernie are the parents of these young voters, they're not just like "screw my kids' futures! Enjoy the poorhouse!")
posted by sallybrown at 5:12 AM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think young people deserve more credit than to be portrayed as this unreasonable, You're-Either-With-Bernie-Or-Against-Me-You-Sellout bloc. Many people who voted against Bernie did so because they think his policies would have harmed the economy and left young people even worse off than they are now, not because they don't care about young people. (I mean, a lot of people who chose Hillary over Bernie are the parents of these young voters, they're not just like "screw my kids' futures! Enjoy the poorhouse!")
posted by sallybrown at 5:12 AM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Interesting 538 on Pennsylvania as a possible tipping point state this fall.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:53 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 6:53 AM on May 17, 2016
More from The Guardian, if additional Trump vs. Clinton anxiety is your bag:
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:04 AM on May 17, 2016
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.Can Hillary Clinton convince in the age of the goldfish?, Jill Abramson, Guardian (17 May 2016).
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:04 AM on May 17, 2016
Interesting 538 on Pennsylvania as a possible tipping point state this fall.
That article also says that if Pennsylvania is the "tipping point" state, Trump would also have to have won both Florida and Ohio in order to amass an Electoral College win. While the article identifies some trends that might make Pennsylvania favorable ground for Trump, Clinton could afford to lose it; conversely, the likelihood of which Trump also winning both Ohio and Florida is ... remote.
posted by Gelatin at 7:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
That article also says that if Pennsylvania is the "tipping point" state, Trump would also have to have won both Florida and Ohio in order to amass an Electoral College win. While the article identifies some trends that might make Pennsylvania favorable ground for Trump, Clinton could afford to lose it; conversely, the likelihood of which Trump also winning both Ohio and Florida is ... remote.
posted by Gelatin at 7:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
sallybrown, well in a way that comes back to DWS. She's clearly very hostile towards Sanders voters and their priorities. He's just barely 200 delegates short of victory (real delegates that is) and while that certainly doesn't mean he should be given everything, the fact is that the party establishment with DWS as the face of that establishment, seems stubbornly determined to pretend that he simply doesn't exist and that the goals and policies and priorities of his voters are utterly and completely irrelevant.
Would it really have hurt to have given his supporters, say 1/3 of the seats on various committees? It wouldn't have given them a majority, but it would have been a gesture indicating that the Party recognizes their presence, their concerns, and considers them to be valuable members and voters.
Instead the Party chose to give Sanders supporters the bird with an insultingly low "here have some scraps peasant" number of seats on a tiny handful of mostly irrelevant committees.
Tone does matter, and the tone from the Party has been, from the beginning, that voters on the Left simply don't matter and that is not merely annoying to me as a person on the Left, but also deeply worrying to me as a person who sees the Democratic Party as the only real hope for preventing a Fascist future.
It's why I'm horrified that Clinton said she wanted to put Bill in charge of the economy. Leaving aside the argument over how harmful NAFTA and Welfare Reform and so on were, the simple fact is that the economic policies Bill Clinton is most known for are broadly seen as pro-elitist and anti-working class. Again, I don't expect Clinton to be a Leftist, but basically telling Leftists to fuck off like that seems like a bad way to build the sort of coalition she needs for success.
And worse, it seems to me that sort of unambiguously pro-economic elite policy advocacy and rhetoric fuels the populist right that haunts my nightmares. Trump is largely a result of racist white people finally realizing that they've been economically abused by the elites and being successfully steered into blaming the usual laundry list of enemies of the Right rather than the economic elites who are truly harming them. I don't think she or any Democrat will ever get the votes of the racist white people, but I do think that to counter them she needs the populist left, and Clinton and the entire Democratic Party seem not merely disinterested in gaining any support from the populist left but interested in actively driving out and demonizing the populist left.
I get that the Democratic Party is, when you get right down to it, a very uneasy coalition of what in a proper government would be thee or five parties and that currently the neo-liberal business ueber alles faction is dominant.
But shouldn't the fact that the populist Left faction came within a hair's breadth of winning count for something? Shouldn't we be getting a hand extended in our direction and some massive concessions to shore up our support? Because right now DWS, and Clinton, and the whole of the Democratic Party establishment seems mostly to view us as scumvermin to be driven out rather than valued members of the party.
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
Would it really have hurt to have given his supporters, say 1/3 of the seats on various committees? It wouldn't have given them a majority, but it would have been a gesture indicating that the Party recognizes their presence, their concerns, and considers them to be valuable members and voters.
Instead the Party chose to give Sanders supporters the bird with an insultingly low "here have some scraps peasant" number of seats on a tiny handful of mostly irrelevant committees.
Tone does matter, and the tone from the Party has been, from the beginning, that voters on the Left simply don't matter and that is not merely annoying to me as a person on the Left, but also deeply worrying to me as a person who sees the Democratic Party as the only real hope for preventing a Fascist future.
It's why I'm horrified that Clinton said she wanted to put Bill in charge of the economy. Leaving aside the argument over how harmful NAFTA and Welfare Reform and so on were, the simple fact is that the economic policies Bill Clinton is most known for are broadly seen as pro-elitist and anti-working class. Again, I don't expect Clinton to be a Leftist, but basically telling Leftists to fuck off like that seems like a bad way to build the sort of coalition she needs for success.
And worse, it seems to me that sort of unambiguously pro-economic elite policy advocacy and rhetoric fuels the populist right that haunts my nightmares. Trump is largely a result of racist white people finally realizing that they've been economically abused by the elites and being successfully steered into blaming the usual laundry list of enemies of the Right rather than the economic elites who are truly harming them. I don't think she or any Democrat will ever get the votes of the racist white people, but I do think that to counter them she needs the populist left, and Clinton and the entire Democratic Party seem not merely disinterested in gaining any support from the populist left but interested in actively driving out and demonizing the populist left.
I get that the Democratic Party is, when you get right down to it, a very uneasy coalition of what in a proper government would be thee or five parties and that currently the neo-liberal business ueber alles faction is dominant.
But shouldn't the fact that the populist Left faction came within a hair's breadth of winning count for something? Shouldn't we be getting a hand extended in our direction and some massive concessions to shore up our support? Because right now DWS, and Clinton, and the whole of the Democratic Party establishment seems mostly to view us as scumvermin to be driven out rather than valued members of the party.
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
Can Hillary Clinton convince in the age of the goldfish?
I've noticed that much commentary about HRC is phrased this way - Can she do this, how will she do this, what is she doing wrong...on MSNBC last night the commentator was saying how embarrassing it would be for her to lose Kentucky. Very little about her policies and proposals...even on Rachel Maddow, she brings a lot of people on to nervously talk about what Hillary Clinton is probably doing wrong and how Donald Trump can do lots of things wrong and no one cares. I think overall that's pretty toxic.
There is much to be excited about in her policies and campaign, but no I guess it's not more exciting than watching a watermelon explode.
posted by zutalors! at 7:15 AM on May 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
Did anyone else catch the new ads from the Clinton super PAC that Maddow aired last night?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:18 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:18 AM on May 17, 2016
much commentary about HRC is phrased this way - Can she do this, how will she do this, what is she doing wrong...on MSNBC last night the commentator was saying how embarrassing it would be for her to lose Kentucky. Very little about her policies and proposals
Coverage of policies and proposals is difficult and boring! Not so much for audiences -- though that may well be true -- but for the so-called "elite political media" that much, much prefers horse-race coverage and personality journalism. Feh.
posted by Gelatin at 7:19 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Coverage of policies and proposals is difficult and boring! Not so much for audiences -- though that may well be true -- but for the so-called "elite political media" that much, much prefers horse-race coverage and personality journalism. Feh.
posted by Gelatin at 7:19 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Did anyone else catch the new ads from the Clinton super PAC that Maddow aired last night?
I did. I liked the one with the Trump shirts.
posted by zutalors! at 7:20 AM on May 17, 2016
And while it might be "embarrassing" for Clinton to lose Kentucky, given that she's made some effort to contest the primary, as opposed to none at all for the others going on now, it won't matter a whit. Kentucky's going Republican in the general regardless, and a win there still won't help Sanders amass enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
posted by Gelatin at 7:20 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 7:20 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry, here's a link to the segment.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Four False Things You Might Believe About Donald Trump
False: "Donald Trump is one of America’s top businessmen". False: "He is financing his own campaign rather than selling out to special interests" False: "He was against invading Iraq" False: "His Muslim immigration ban is just temporary."
Would like to see this spread around, since I think the first two, especially, are a huge part of his appeal. How can we get the word out that he is an average-to-sucky businessman and that he is paying himself back for his campaign expenditures out of big donations?
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:27 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
False: "Donald Trump is one of America’s top businessmen". False: "He is financing his own campaign rather than selling out to special interests" False: "He was against invading Iraq" False: "His Muslim immigration ban is just temporary."
Would like to see this spread around, since I think the first two, especially, are a huge part of his appeal. How can we get the word out that he is an average-to-sucky businessman and that he is paying himself back for his campaign expenditures out of big donations?
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:27 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
How can we get the word out that he is an average-to-sucky businessman
By hammering him to release his tax returns, and implying that he's too scared to do so.
posted by Gelatin at 7:28 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
By hammering him to release his tax returns, and implying that he's too scared to do so.
posted by Gelatin at 7:28 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
The thing I find scariest about Trump is that he's a meme candidate. What I mean by this is, like a meme, Trumpism infects the brain as soon as a person seriously finds his candidacy acceptable. He's a viral mimetic infection. Once someone has been infected with Trumpism (which doesn't care about the well-being of the host, only its own perpetuation), it's too late. There is no cure for Trumpism. All you can do is inoculate your loved ones against the contagion by making sure they never, ever, ever consider Trump.
Once they do, the defense mechanism walls ("I can't be wrong about this, that would be terrible, now that Trump is my guy I have to defend him") and the Us vs. Them narrative that Trump has sold them will make previous reluctant supporters into rabid Trumpists.
posted by stolyarova at 7:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Once they do, the defense mechanism walls ("I can't be wrong about this, that would be terrible, now that Trump is my guy I have to defend him") and the Us vs. Them narrative that Trump has sold them will make previous reluctant supporters into rabid Trumpists.
posted by stolyarova at 7:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Another example: It's like parents who defend spanking because they were spanked as children.
posted by stolyarova at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Appeal on ID of BRIDGEGATE unindicted co-conspirators will be heard by 3rd Circuit Federal Appellate Court--where TRUMP'S SISTER IS A JUDGE.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Conspiracy concept aside, what does "appeal on ID" mean?
posted by phearlez at 7:34 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by phearlez at 7:34 AM on May 17, 2016
Would it really have hurt to have given his supporters, say 1/3 of the seats on various committees? It wouldn't have given them a majority, but it would have been a gesture indicating that the Party recognizes their presence, their concerns, and considers them to be valuable members and voters.
This is one of those questions where the precise right answer is kind of hard to identify. What is an appropriate gesture? 1/3? 1/5, since after all Sanders benefitted from being the only not-Clinton on the ballot for most of the race? Or something else entirely? I really have no idea. The key thing is that Sanders, his proxies, & his voters need to not feel slighted. Will they?
posted by Going To Maine at 7:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is one of those questions where the precise right answer is kind of hard to identify. What is an appropriate gesture? 1/3? 1/5, since after all Sanders benefitted from being the only not-Clinton on the ballot for most of the race? Or something else entirely? I really have no idea. The key thing is that Sanders, his proxies, & his voters need to not feel slighted. Will they?
posted by Going To Maine at 7:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Conspiracy concept aside, what does "appeal on ID" mean?
Bridgegate: News media says 'John Doe' should have come forward sooner: "John Doe," the unnamed alleged uninidicted Bridgegate co-conspirator, missed his chance to argue his case to keep his name anonymous, a consortium of news media organizations said in a federal court filing Monday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:37 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bridgegate: News media says 'John Doe' should have come forward sooner: "John Doe," the unnamed alleged uninidicted Bridgegate co-conspirator, missed his chance to argue his case to keep his name anonymous, a consortium of news media organizations said in a federal court filing Monday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:37 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get that the Democratic Party is, when you get right down to it, a very uneasy coalition of what in a proper government would be three or five parties and that currently the neo-liberal business uber alles faction is dominant.This is an excellent point, and jibes with observations Australian economist John Quiggin has recently been making:
There are three major political forces in contemporary politics in developed countries: tribalism, neoliberalism and leftism (defined in more detail below). Until recently, the party system involved competition between different versions of neoliberalism. Since the Global Financial Crisis, neoliberals have remained in power almost everywhere, but can no longer command the electoral support needed to marginalise both tribalists and leftists at the same time. So, we are seeing the emergence of a three-party system, which is inherently unstable ...
Democrats may think that, with Sanders bested, the left flank will go back to quietude. Perhaps it will. But we're not living in 1992 anymore; those surpluses and savings were burned through years ago. There's something a bit cargo-cultic in expecting the Third Way to keep on working even though the environmental advantages that produced it have more or less disappeared. The trees have thinned out, the watering holes have dried up, and there are harsh savannahs opening up all around us. We're not going to survive if we refuse to adapt to the new landscapes—economic, geopolitical, environmental—that now confront us.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:38 AM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Conspiracy concept aside, what does "appeal on ID" mean?
It means nothing because you only quoted half the phrase - it's an appeal on the identity of the co-conspirators.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:38 AM on May 17, 2016
It means nothing because you only quoted half the phrase - it's an appeal on the identity of the co-conspirators.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:38 AM on May 17, 2016
I like that watermelon comparison. But I wonder if there's something it captures about the choice to nominate Trump that doesn't work when it comes down to choosing the President. For the last 3 years and change, people have been prepared for Hillary Clinton as the Dem nominee, that it was finally her time - "her" as in the image/celebrity/meme/Halloween costume/90s throwback version rather than the specifics of her platform. She is as familiar to many of us as Mickey Mouse at this point. Trump is fascinating to watch from an entertainment perspective, and so many millions of people are used to seeing him play the role of the boss (The Apprentice) and the bully (his famous feuds with Rosie O'Donnell and the like) and the rich guy (his image through the 80s/90s before he became even more cartoonish) - all things that have an air of villainy and plotting. Is it possible that people, because they feel somewhat certain of the outcome of this election (a President Clinton), are choosing to nominate Trump at least partly out of feelings of amusement and novelty and a desire to throw a weird clown wrench into a scenario that feels predictable, stale, old news? Like, "let's fuck around with this by sending in That Guy before we get down to business and make the boring adult choice"?
People will tune in to watch the watermelon explode out of curiosity and amusement, but they're not going to tune in to watch the watermelon explode if the choice is between that and putting out a fire in their house, or going to an important job interview.
This is why I have a hard time believing that so many people, when they step into the voting booth, are going to be able to think of nuclear weapons and ISIS and our intricate economic system and national disasters and vote for Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 7:38 AM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
People will tune in to watch the watermelon explode out of curiosity and amusement, but they're not going to tune in to watch the watermelon explode if the choice is between that and putting out a fire in their house, or going to an important job interview.
This is why I have a hard time believing that so many people, when they step into the voting booth, are going to be able to think of nuclear weapons and ISIS and our intricate economic system and national disasters and vote for Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 7:38 AM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
that's well said, sallybrown.
posted by zutalors! at 7:53 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 7:53 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Going To Maine I hope I'm wrong, but from where I'm standing it appears that the Democratic establishment is going *far* out of its way to deliberately slight Leftists and Sanders supporters. Call it hippie punching, call it an attempt to browbeat us into our proper silent subordination to their dominance, call it whatever, but I'm not seeing any effort at all to avoid slights. I'm seeing the Democratic establishment treating our existence as an affront that must be stamped out rather than a sign that the coalition is cracking and they need to offer some concessions to keep it together.
Again, to me this seems to be horribly, disastrously, short sighted. At a time when populism is rising, when politics that benefit the economic elites and hurt everyone else are really starting to cause pain to a large number of Americans, when the populist right is on the rise, the Democrats seem perversely determined to continue offering more of the same, and to work actively to drive out anyone who isn't part of the neo-liberal pro-business movement. Rather than working against the rising tide of Fascism, the Democratic establishment seems perversely determined to help fuel it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:55 AM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Again, to me this seems to be horribly, disastrously, short sighted. At a time when populism is rising, when politics that benefit the economic elites and hurt everyone else are really starting to cause pain to a large number of Americans, when the populist right is on the rise, the Democrats seem perversely determined to continue offering more of the same, and to work actively to drive out anyone who isn't part of the neo-liberal pro-business movement. Rather than working against the rising tide of Fascism, the Democratic establishment seems perversely determined to help fuel it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:55 AM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Is it possible that people, because they feel somewhat certain of the outcome of this election (a President Clinton), are choosing to nominate Trump at least partly out of feelings of amusement and novelty and a desire to throw a weird clown wrench into a scenario that feels predictable, stale, old news? Like, "let's fuck around with this by sending in That Guy before we get down to business and make the boring adult choice"?
To paraphrase Mel Brooks, “Tragedy is when the Republicans think they can beat Clinton with Ted Cruz. Comedy is when they think they can beat her with Trump.” But it’s a hell of a risk to take for a gag.
However, to lean a bit into that idea, I think that the party’s giving up on fighting Trump all the way through California, and its finally giving him majority wins as opposed to pluralities does -perhaps- reflect a bit of resignation, on the part of the party. This is our guy, let’s get it over with.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
To paraphrase Mel Brooks, “Tragedy is when the Republicans think they can beat Clinton with Ted Cruz. Comedy is when they think they can beat her with Trump.” But it’s a hell of a risk to take for a gag.
However, to lean a bit into that idea, I think that the party’s giving up on fighting Trump all the way through California, and its finally giving him majority wins as opposed to pluralities does -perhaps- reflect a bit of resignation, on the part of the party. This is our guy, let’s get it over with.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
On Monday, counsel for the Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to members of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, filing a formal complaint against the campaign of Bernie Sanders after Saturday's state convention devolved into chaos.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on May 17, 2016
Going To Maine I hope I'm wrong, but from where I'm standing it appears that the Democratic establishment is going far out of its way to deliberately slight Leftists and Sanders supporters.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing, and if Robert Reich is posting angry Facebook messages that seems like an issue. I just don’t know where the line for representation is. Maybe there’s nothing now and then Sanders gets some high-ranking committee appointment. Maybe some prominent Sanders proxies get cabinet positions. Or maybe, yeah - the left wing gets nothing, which I would consider to be short-sighted. If they feel like Sanders has no choice but to get in line, because he surely won’t want Trump in the white house - well, heck, that’s a problem, and a real opportunity for them to twist the knife.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:04 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I’m not disagreeing, and if Robert Reich is posting angry Facebook messages that seems like an issue. I just don’t know where the line for representation is. Maybe there’s nothing now and then Sanders gets some high-ranking committee appointment. Maybe some prominent Sanders proxies get cabinet positions. Or maybe, yeah - the left wing gets nothing, which I would consider to be short-sighted. If they feel like Sanders has no choice but to get in line, because he surely won’t want Trump in the white house - well, heck, that’s a problem, and a real opportunity for them to twist the knife.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:04 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the DNC approach is more about "Do whatever the hell we can to appear to be the no-drama, total unity, adults-in-the-room, happy happy joy joy convention," which means excluding dissent, drama, vicious anti-Clintonites, people who will create scenes on camera, etc from the convention hall by whatever means possible.
I think viewing it as exclusion for the sake of inflicting pain on the Bernie supporters is part of the weird image of DWS as some kind of all-powerful witch cackling over her crafty pro-Hillary tricks.
posted by sallybrown at 8:04 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think viewing it as exclusion for the sake of inflicting pain on the Bernie supporters is part of the weird image of DWS as some kind of all-powerful witch cackling over her crafty pro-Hillary tricks.
posted by sallybrown at 8:04 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
That might be the motivation, but she seems to perhaps be whiffing on the execution… Also, the whole thing reminds of the weird fun & games that kept Lessig off the debate stage waaaaaay back when.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:11 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 8:11 AM on May 17, 2016
Mod note: One deleted. Once again, let's really not go in the direction of Clinton-supporters-are bad, Bernie-supporters-are-bad.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:28 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:28 AM on May 17, 2016
It means nothing because you only quoted half the phrase - it's an appeal on the identity of the co-conspirators.
That's still not really a meaningful phrase. An appeal for them to have one? To suppress it? To reveal it? Cause someone else to disclose it? Thankfully roomthreeseventeen explained (and linked, thank grodd)
posted by phearlez at 8:33 AM on May 17, 2016
That's still not really a meaningful phrase. An appeal for them to have one? To suppress it? To reveal it? Cause someone else to disclose it? Thankfully roomthreeseventeen explained (and linked, thank grodd)
posted by phearlez at 8:33 AM on May 17, 2016
#WeAreWithYou Video Campaign Kickoff
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:36 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:36 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Aw, I love that video!
my god does Joe Kennedy III have a magnificent head of hair
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
my god does Joe Kennedy III have a magnificent head of hair
posted by sallybrown at 8:44 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is again, an example of how I consider the Sanders campaign to have dropped the ball in working with the Democratic establishment. There seems to be an attitude that Sanders supporters are entitled to a major portion of the influence and rule-making just for showing up, which in my experience is not how hidebound bureaucratic non-business organizations work. They favor continuity and stability over rapid change.
From the Left's view, they are being snubbed; from the DNC's POV, they may see it as a lot of people who will misuse Roberts Rules of Order to throw procedural bombs while yelling that the whole process is corrupt.
As I said, it's difficult to loudly say the system is corrupt, while also wanting to have influence in the establishment. It's not impossible, but it requires more political deftness and message control then the Sanders campaign has exhibited.
posted by happyroach at 8:46 AM on May 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
From the Left's view, they are being snubbed; from the DNC's POV, they may see it as a lot of people who will misuse Roberts Rules of Order to throw procedural bombs while yelling that the whole process is corrupt.
As I said, it's difficult to loudly say the system is corrupt, while also wanting to have influence in the establishment. It's not impossible, but it requires more political deftness and message control then the Sanders campaign has exhibited.
posted by happyroach at 8:46 AM on May 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
Trump not actually bringing in new voters: While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
On Monday, counsel for the Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to members of the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, filing a formal complaint against the campaign of Bernie Sanders after Saturday's state convention devolved into chaos.
Fun times.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
"If frustration over rules changes and credentialing can spur death threats and vandalism over a four-delegate difference, imagine what the final nomination vote might engender."Whoo boy. Remember a few weeks ago when we were all salivating at the prospect of chaos at the GOP convention and Hillary and Bernie forming a pragmatic détente in order to squash Trump? Instead, we're seeing violence and incrimination within the ranks of the Democrats, while establishment Republicans and so-called NeverTrumpers are coming together to sing Kumbaya, exchange cake recipes, and throw their full support behind their vulgarian TV slumlord all in the spirit of party unity.
Fun times.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoo boy. Remember a few weeks ago when we were all salivating at the prospect of chaos at the GOP convention and Hillary and Bernie forming a pragmatic détente in order to squash Trump? Instead, we're seeing violence and incrimination within the ranks of the Democrats, while establishment Republicans and so-called NeverTrumpers are coming together to sing Kumbaya, exchange cake recipes, and throw their full support behind their vulgarian TV slumlord all in the spirit of party unity.
Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to believe there are seven parties in the US and they can circular firing squad their way to victory. Pragmatism? What does that mean?
posted by Talez at 9:09 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to believe there are seven parties in the US and they can circular firing squad their way to victory. Pragmatism? What does that mean?
posted by Talez at 9:09 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
The best thing about the Oregon vote-by-mail system: They get the counting done fast. Once the boxes close at 8, they go right to the counting, and they've usually counted most of what's already there.
Sadly, Washington goes by postmark, so all the day-of ballots aren't even in the office until the next day.
posted by dw at 9:20 AM on May 17, 2016
Sadly, Washington goes by postmark, so all the day-of ballots aren't even in the office until the next day.
posted by dw at 9:20 AM on May 17, 2016
that's interesting, I don't know much about how the vote by mail system works. So everything has to be received by 8pm, no matter the postmark?
posted by zutalors! at 9:25 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 9:25 AM on May 17, 2016
In Oregon, yes. Get in the ballot box by 8pm or it's not valid.
In Washington, it's either get it postmarked Election Day (6:30-ish) or into the ballot box by midnight.
posted by dw at 9:28 AM on May 17, 2016
In Washington, it's either get it postmarked Election Day (6:30-ish) or into the ballot box by midnight.
posted by dw at 9:28 AM on May 17, 2016
while establishment Republicans and so-called NeverTrumpers are coming together to sing Kumbaya, exchange cake recipes, and throw their full support behind their vulgarian TV slumlord all in the spirit of party unity.
Let’s not exaggerate too much here. Republicans are acknowledging that they will be nominating Trump. That isn’t quite the same thing as being overjoyed about the prospect. Indeed, for a party that is as famously lock-step about messaging as the GOP, it’s pretty weak sauce.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:28 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Let’s not exaggerate too much here. Republicans are acknowledging that they will be nominating Trump. That isn’t quite the same thing as being overjoyed about the prospect. Indeed, for a party that is as famously lock-step about messaging as the GOP, it’s pretty weak sauce.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:28 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
> This is why I have a hard time believing that so many people, when they step into the voting booth, are going to be able to think of nuclear weapons and ISIS and our intricate economic system and national disasters and vote for Trump.
I hope you're right, but I fear the average potential Trump voter's thoughts regarding these issues is more along the lines of "Trump would finally nuke ISIS and fix the economy!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:29 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I hope you're right, but I fear the average potential Trump voter's thoughts regarding these issues is more along the lines of "Trump would finally nuke ISIS and fix the economy!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:29 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I dunno that a dust-up such as occurred in Nevada is very likely in Philadelphia. First of all, the Sanders folks who caused the stir were not actual delegates (although they wanted to be actual delegates). So they won't be there in Philadelphia to cause a scene inside the hall.
But the bigger reason, and I've mentioned this before, is that the Sanders' campaign's strong finish is conceivably part of Sanders' negotiation strategy. For Clinton/the DNC to give something he wants (and who knows what that is), he has to have something they want (a quiescent Sanders Bloc; his campaign email-list and etc). Nevada is a reminder of the value of his offer.
posted by notyou at 9:32 AM on May 17, 2016
But the bigger reason, and I've mentioned this before, is that the Sanders' campaign's strong finish is conceivably part of Sanders' negotiation strategy. For Clinton/the DNC to give something he wants (and who knows what that is), he has to have something they want (a quiescent Sanders Bloc; his campaign email-list and etc). Nevada is a reminder of the value of his offer.
posted by notyou at 9:32 AM on May 17, 2016
I feel like the Nevada thing is being taken all out of proportion so the Democratic side can be shown to be as wildncrazy as the Republicans. it wasn't a great look but not symptomatic of a trend in my view.
posted by zutalors! at 9:50 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:50 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would totally buy that the DNC wants solidarity happiness at Philly, and thus is risking ticking people off now with the hope that all will be settled in July. I mean, it's not democracy yay! but I at least understand how it could not be motivated by a leftists fuck u sentiment.
OTOH, WTH is HRC doing talking about putting Bill in charge of anything? Dude has a fine mind and we had a good run in the nineties, but no, do not make this campaign about Bill, no
posted by angrycat at 9:52 AM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
OTOH, WTH is HRC doing talking about putting Bill in charge of anything? Dude has a fine mind and we had a good run in the nineties, but no, do not make this campaign about Bill, no
posted by angrycat at 9:52 AM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is again, an example of how I consider the Sanders campaign to have dropped the ball in working with the Democratic establishment. There seems to be an attitude that Sanders supporters are entitled to a major portion of the influence and rule-making just for showing upTo me that sounds like goalpost shifting. For years I've heard an endless litany from the establishment types right here on Metafilter of "where are the votes". Well, we brought the votes this time and now it turns out that, like magic, the votes aren't enough. Now we need the votes and, I dunno, a secret handshake or something?
Fuck that noise.
WE HAVE A SHIT TON OF VOTES.
I don't give a damn about how many cocktail parties or secret handshakes or whatever the fuck else it is people now say we need. If Clinton and the DNC are too pig headed or stupid or whatever to notice all these fucking votes and do something about it then the system is probably irrevocably broken and can't be repaired.
What produces shit like happened in Nevada is not a bunch of smelly hippies who just have no respect for the proper decorum and secret handshakes and cocktail party connections, it's the establishment blatantly shutting them out and telling them to take their votes and fuck off.
Yes, there are Sanders supporters who are assholes. I wish they'd STFU and stop being assholes. But it isn't a few asshole Sanders supporters who are the problem here, the problem is that the Nevada Democratic primary, for four measly delegates, was fucking over the many many votes that the Left brought and trying to pretend that somehow there really weren't a lot of Leftists out there who need and demand representation and concessions.
Maybe Clinton has a master plan and maybe at the Convention she will do something to offer the Left concessions and positions. I devoutly hope so.
But so far it doesn't look like that is in the works, specifically because of DWS and her slap in the face to the Left. We got nearly half the damn votes, and for that she's giving us 3 seats out of 75 on the critical committees?
Sanders has won 45% of the real delegates awarded so far, that should mean that he's gotten roughly 45% of the votes so far. And for that the Left is given 4% of the seats on the critical committees?
if that isn't Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and through her the entire Democratic Establishment, telling us to fuck off I don't know what is.
You bet your ass that feels like we're being snubbed. Because we are. We're not stupid, we recognize a naked insult when it is offered.
But you can bet that if Clinton loses it will be the Left that gets the blame.
posted by sotonohito at 9:53 AM on May 17, 2016 [23 favorites]
PA is looking to suspend their alcohol rules for the Democratic Convention:
HARRISBURG — All work and no play a dull political convention make.posted by octothorpe at 9:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Few understand that better than state legislators, who on Monday took the first step in granting Philadelphia-area hotels, restaurants, bars and other venues hosting events for the Democratic National Convention what amounts to a four-day reprieve from Pennsylvania’s stringent — some say antiquated — liquor laws.
And for that the Left is given 4% of the seats on the critical committees?
First you said they were "tiny handful of mostly irrelevant committees" and now you're saying they're critical committees? I'm a little puzzled.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on May 17, 2016
First you said they were "tiny handful of mostly irrelevant committees" and now you're saying they're critical committees? I'm a little puzzled.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on May 17, 2016
PA is looking to suspend their alcohol rules for the Democratic Convention:
Oh lord.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh lord.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
To me that sounds like goalpost shifting. For years I've heard an endless litany from the establishment types right here on Metafilter of "where are the votes". Well, we brought the votes this time and now it turns out that, like magic, the votes aren't enough. Now we need the votes and, I dunno, a secret handshake or something?
Clinton and DWS didn't just now invent these rules to fuck with Sanders. The rules might suck, but they have existed for ages and are not a targeted attack on Sanders specifically, yet people keep insisting that they must be.
Also, Clinton is winning the popular vote in the primary as well as winning more delegates. You can't really say "magically the votes aren't enough" when she has more of them anyway.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:00 AM on May 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
Clinton and DWS didn't just now invent these rules to fuck with Sanders. The rules might suck, but they have existed for ages and are not a targeted attack on Sanders specifically, yet people keep insisting that they must be.
Also, Clinton is winning the popular vote in the primary as well as winning more delegates. You can't really say "magically the votes aren't enough" when she has more of them anyway.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:00 AM on May 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
Even if we go by popular vote percentage, 4% is on the low side no?
posted by kyp at 10:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kyp at 10:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
She's got the majority of the votes, so she should be the nominee and her picks should have the majority of seats on the important committees. That doesn't mean she should then get to tell the Left to STFU and just sit meekly by and take whatever shit she feels like giving them.
When the Left can get 45% of the votes that means we're important and if the DNC had any sense at all it would be falling over itself to try and offer us concessions. Not everything, Clinton did after all get 55% of the votes. But we should be getting at least something more than "fuck off hippie, the grown ups have real work to do."
And by all reports it looks like in Nevada at least, yes the Nevada Democratic Party did actually invent new rules just specifically to fuck with Sanders and Leftists. But if we don't suck it up and vote Clinton then we're horrible people.
And there's no rule saying DWS had to tell us to fuck off with her insulting choice in committee appointments. That is entirely on her and the DNC.
FJT Three seats on the real committees and a handful of others on unimportant and irrelevant committees. Two separate issues, sorry I wasn't clear in separating them.
posted by sotonohito at 10:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
When the Left can get 45% of the votes that means we're important and if the DNC had any sense at all it would be falling over itself to try and offer us concessions. Not everything, Clinton did after all get 55% of the votes. But we should be getting at least something more than "fuck off hippie, the grown ups have real work to do."
And by all reports it looks like in Nevada at least, yes the Nevada Democratic Party did actually invent new rules just specifically to fuck with Sanders and Leftists. But if we don't suck it up and vote Clinton then we're horrible people.
And there's no rule saying DWS had to tell us to fuck off with her insulting choice in committee appointments. That is entirely on her and the DNC.
FJT Three seats on the real committees and a handful of others on unimportant and irrelevant committees. Two separate issues, sorry I wasn't clear in separating them.
posted by sotonohito at 10:07 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
You bet your ass that feels like we're being snubbed. Because we are. We're not stupid, we recognize a naked insult when it is offered.
I think viewing it this way overestimates how much the Establishment cares about the Sanders supporters, and underestimates how much it cares about the appearance of party unity. The insult here (imo) is in the party not giving a shit about the Sanders supporters, rather than in the party trying to intentionally offend them - they have about 4958495734 better things to do right now than go around trying to insult the Sanders people. They're over it and ignoring it / trying to shut it down in the hopes it goes away. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by poor strategizing.
posted by sallybrown at 10:12 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think viewing it this way overestimates how much the Establishment cares about the Sanders supporters, and underestimates how much it cares about the appearance of party unity. The insult here (imo) is in the party not giving a shit about the Sanders supporters, rather than in the party trying to intentionally offend them - they have about 4958495734 better things to do right now than go around trying to insult the Sanders people. They're over it and ignoring it / trying to shut it down in the hopes it goes away. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by poor strategizing.
posted by sallybrown at 10:12 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
And I would just ask again that we try if possible to avoid attributing super personal extreme malice, poor faith, and evilness to people we don't know, because this persistent way of characterizing Debbie Wasserman Schultz in particular is uncomfortably reminiscent to many of us of sexism.
posted by sallybrown at 10:15 AM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:15 AM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
And I would just ask again that we try if possible to avoid attributing super personal extreme malice, poor faith, and evilness to people we don't know, because this persistent way of characterizing Debbie Wasserman Schultz in particular is uncomfortably reminiscent to many of us of sexism.
Thank you.
posted by zutalors! at 10:25 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
attributing super personal extreme malice, poor faith, and evilness to people we don't know, because this persistent way of characterizing Debbie Wasserman Schultz in particular is uncomfortably reminiscent to many of us of sexism.
Do you think it's that different to how people attribute it to Trump, the Bushes, Bill Clinton or the Koch brothers?
posted by jaduncan at 10:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do you think it's that different to how people attribute it to Trump, the Bushes, Bill Clinton or the Koch brothers?
posted by jaduncan at 10:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you read the Nevada stuff in detail, it sounds like a bunch of Sanders county delegates just didn't show up. Like 400 plain did not show up. Not, were rules lawyered out of getting seated, but just weren't there. Apparently there were issues around ~60 more which can be argued the Nevada party may be pulling rules-lawyery stuff (since manipulatable rules matter for stuff like addresses and registration and such). But if Sanders has fewer delegates to the national convention than expected it's because a bunch of seats he controlled just weren't filled. The caucuses are stupid. I think the multi-level nature of them and that votes aren't really votes confuses people (since some delegates are only allocated at thes state convention). But it's not new. Getting your delegates to the state convention is important if you want the county level votes to count and it's something both campaigns knew (and in fact both campaigns have understandably tried to use confusing caucus process to their advantage in states that have them). That the Nevada convention then turned into something raucous and there were threats, etc. is sadly stuff that happens when people feel disenfranchised and that feeling is understandable -- somebody is going to go too far even if most folks are being reasonable. But, this is also the kind of thing Sanders is responsible (as the leader of his movement!) for chilling folks out on. As in very clear statements that it is absolutely unacceptable to send threats to party leaders. Hopefully we'll see them soon because it'd be really great if the news wasn't constantly all "some democrats threatening democratic party leaders!" for the next month. This election is depressing enough. :(
posted by R343L at 10:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by R343L at 10:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
FTA: but nearly 60 Sanders delegates were rejected for not being registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline
The party argues that six of those 64 delegates were seated -- and that a committee comprised of five Clinton and five Sanders supporters agreed to reject the delegates' credentials.
These tidbits, combined with the threats against chairwoman Roberta Lange, paint a really ugly picture. The party is not turning its back on Sanders and his supporters. The party has rules, and a bunch of new members have to abide by the existing rules. The delegates were not registered, a committee made up of half Sanders supporters rejected them, and they threw a fucking fit, vandalizing building and sending messages to Lange like "someone will hurt you." These tactics are not the moves of people who have a serious commitment to working with the existing members and changing the Democratic Party from within.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
The party argues that six of those 64 delegates were seated -- and that a committee comprised of five Clinton and five Sanders supporters agreed to reject the delegates' credentials.
These tidbits, combined with the threats against chairwoman Roberta Lange, paint a really ugly picture. The party is not turning its back on Sanders and his supporters. The party has rules, and a bunch of new members have to abide by the existing rules. The delegates were not registered, a committee made up of half Sanders supporters rejected them, and they threw a fucking fit, vandalizing building and sending messages to Lange like "someone will hurt you." These tactics are not the moves of people who have a serious commitment to working with the existing members and changing the Democratic Party from within.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
The Nevada Democratic Party did not invent new rules to fuck with Sanders voters. They engaged in a perfectly boring credentialing process. Sanders voters didn't bother staying registered democrats, or providing enough info to the party for them to be verified. That's on them, not the Party. Every convention has a credentialing process.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
Sanders was quite happy to reap the rewards of competing for the Democratic nomination. By accepting those rewards, he forfeited any moral high ground from which to criticize the Calvinball procedures that govern delegate selection, convention committee appointments, etc. He's free to say what he wants, but it's their party, and their rules (or lack thereof). He's been in politics long enough to know this, even as an outsider.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do you think it's that different to how people attribute it to Trump, the Bushes, Bill Clinton or the Koch brothers?
I do, yes. It has a much more intensely vilifying feel about it, to me.
posted by sallybrown at 10:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do, yes. It has a much more intensely vilifying feel about it, to me.
posted by sallybrown at 10:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
And I think an atmosphere in which talking about DWS this way has been not just allowed to flourish, but encouraged, goes some way to explaining why supposedly progressive people feel comfortable making threats of violence toward Roberta Lange.
posted by sallybrown at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
This seems like a good take from Josh Marshall. Trump is very thin skinned, riling him is key.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2016
I even feel a little oogy when Trump says he's going to "Beat Hillary very badly." I know what he means but the phrasing - it just seems to bring up a domestic violence image that could be avoided.
posted by zutalors! at 10:46 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 10:46 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also the hate for Debbie Wasserman Schultz is ridiculous. She recommends 25 at-large committee members in addition to all the state-chosen rules members. That's not even a third of the members of the committee.
posted by corb at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been listening to Slate's Tumpcast and the most recent edition had Jacon Weisberg describe what it was like to sit near Trump the night that Obama mocked him at the 2011 White House correspondents’ dinner.
He does not take perceived slights well, but also he is not afraid of hitting back hard whether it is truthful or not. The trick is to encompass truthiness, to pick up on a general perception and nail someone with it. Lyin' Ted. Crooked Hillary. Unfortunately simple memes stick. He'll have an epithet for Bill Clinton soon that I'm sure will be vile.
posted by readery at 10:55 AM on May 17, 2016
He does not take perceived slights well, but also he is not afraid of hitting back hard whether it is truthful or not. The trick is to encompass truthiness, to pick up on a general perception and nail someone with it. Lyin' Ted. Crooked Hillary. Unfortunately simple memes stick. He'll have an epithet for Bill Clinton soon that I'm sure will be vile.
posted by readery at 10:55 AM on May 17, 2016
Do you think it's that different to how people attribute it to Trump, the Bushes, Bill Clinton or the Koch brothers?
I do, yes. It has a much more intensely vilifying feel about it, to me.
I don’t. But then, I’m a dude. What I would say is different is that Trump is being held account for specific statements, the Kochs for their work on pushing a political agenda via outside action, and Clinton for particular actions towards women. DWS is being held accountable for dealing with arcane party rules. (Of course, people also criticize Clinton for particular legislative decisions and compromises, so this is a mixed thing.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on May 17, 2016
I do, yes. It has a much more intensely vilifying feel about it, to me.
I don’t. But then, I’m a dude. What I would say is different is that Trump is being held account for specific statements, the Kochs for their work on pushing a political agenda via outside action, and Clinton for particular actions towards women. DWS is being held accountable for dealing with arcane party rules. (Of course, people also criticize Clinton for particular legislative decisions and compromises, so this is a mixed thing.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on May 17, 2016
yeah a comparison of DWS to the Koch brothers seems really out there to me.
posted by zutalors! at 10:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 10:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
He'll have an epithet for Bill Clinton soon that I'm sure will be vile.
I don't think anything is ever going to catch on as well as Slick Willie for Bill Clinton.
posted by sallybrown at 10:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think anything is ever going to catch on as well as Slick Willie for Bill Clinton.
posted by sallybrown at 10:58 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know about anyone else, but my distrust of DWS comes from a number of other places:
-support and protection of payday lenders (one of the most predatory businesses in the US)
-under-the-table deals with Florida GOP candidates to sabotage efforts to recruit good Dem candidates to defeat horrible GOP incumbents
-an unshakeable hate-on for Cuban reconciliation
-multiple attempts to shut down the Iran deal for pretty shitty reasons (including the above covering for Florida GOP members).
I don't think she's evil, but she's clearly not the best person to be running a large part of the Democratic political machine either.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
-support and protection of payday lenders (one of the most predatory businesses in the US)
-under-the-table deals with Florida GOP candidates to sabotage efforts to recruit good Dem candidates to defeat horrible GOP incumbents
-an unshakeable hate-on for Cuban reconciliation
-multiple attempts to shut down the Iran deal for pretty shitty reasons (including the above covering for Florida GOP members).
I don't think she's evil, but she's clearly not the best person to be running a large part of the Democratic political machine either.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:02 AM on May 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
I guess the tl;dr is that she doesn't accurately represent the Democratic party, and even calling her the representative of the "establishment" is going out on a limb, given how many times she's bucked the rest of the party on important issues to play footsie with GOP nutjobs.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:05 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 11:05 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
yeah totally, I'm not a huge fan of DWS either, but I see the larger point of some of this outsize cricitism of her, HRC, Boxer, even Warren because she didn't endorse Sanders as tied to sexism.
posted by zutalors! at 11:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 11:06 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I even feel a little oogy when Trump says he's going to "Beat Hillary very badly." I know what he means but the phrasing - it just seems to bring up a domestic violence image that could be avoided.
He's not saying it accident, though. Even without the explicit and implicit misogyny of most of modern conservatism, we're talking about a guy whose helped his campaign manager weasel his way out of being convicted of assaulting a woman by encouraging a tidal wave of sexist comments in the press and social media.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
He's not saying it accident, though. Even without the explicit and implicit misogyny of most of modern conservatism, we're talking about a guy whose helped his campaign manager weasel his way out of being convicted of assaulting a woman by encouraging a tidal wave of sexist comments in the press and social media.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
under-the-table deals with Florida GOP candidates to sabotage efforts to recruit good Dem candidates to defeat horrible GOP incumbents
This is new to me. Could I hear some background?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2016
This is new to me. Could I hear some background?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2016
I guess the tl;dr is that she doesn't accurately represent the Democratic party, and even calling her the representative of the “establishment” is going out on a limb, given how many times she’s bucked the rest of the party on important issues to play footsie with GOP nutjobs.
She represents the establishment because she has power. That’s pretty much the be-all, end-all. If she can buck the party for GOP nut jobs in order to keep her seat and still have an important seat at the table - well, that’s arguably an even better signifier of her strength.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
She represents the establishment because she has power. That’s pretty much the be-all, end-all. If she can buck the party for GOP nut jobs in order to keep her seat and still have an important seat at the table - well, that’s arguably an even better signifier of her strength.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Megyn Kelly's Donald Trump interview could be a big moment for both of them
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on May 17, 2016
Worked fine for me...
posted by bardophile at 11:37 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by bardophile at 11:37 AM on May 17, 2016
This is new to me. Could I hear some background?
Democrats torn between party, GOP friends
Democrats torn between party, GOP friends
This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.posted by zombieflanders at 11:38 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.
The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.
[...]
Wasserman Schultz said the PAC support played no role in her decision, but she acknowledges she's closer to the Republican incumbents on Cuba issues than she is to the Democratic challengers, who favor easing restrictions on family travel to the island.
Wasserman Schultz has courted the Cuban-American community since she came to Washington: As a freshman legislator, she helped found the Cuba Democracy Caucus, a bipartisan group of pro-embargo legislators that works to thwart efforts to ease the embargo. She worked last year, Ros-Lehtinen says, ''like a tiger'' to help quash a push to ease travel and trade restrictions, delivering pro-travel advocates one of their biggest losses.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that she's also a friend of the private prison lobby.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 11:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Jon Ralston (Nevada political writer) has been writing a bunch on the Nevada convention debacle.
The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel
Sample of voicemails left for state Democratic Chairwoman Roberta Lange
NV Democrats file complaint against Sanders campaign to DNC
Business state Democratic chairwoman oversees targeted by Berners
posted by dw at 11:43 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel
Sample of voicemails left for state Democratic Chairwoman Roberta Lange
NV Democrats file complaint against Sanders campaign to DNC
Business state Democratic chairwoman oversees targeted by Berners
posted by dw at 11:43 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
On a completely different note, here's a story about a candidate for Congress from Delaware who is a military veteran and has chosen to disclose his struggle with PTSD.
posted by bardophile at 11:45 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 11:45 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
My only knowledge of Wasserman Schultz prior to this campaign was as the person who introduced the bill to terminate rapists' parental rights over children conceived as a result of rape. So all this other information has been quite starkly in contrast to that.
posted by bardophile at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump not actually bringing in new voters: While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in state after state, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.
This isn't actually as comforting it starts out being.
I think the primary threat to a Dem win is that the Dem campaign ends up being just another New Democrat effort, and putting Bill in charge of the economy sounds like exactly that sort of DLC dog whistle to the business community.
It is mind boggling that anyone thinks that sort of politics will do anything to reach out to people "casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time".
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:54 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This isn't actually as comforting it starts out being.
I think the primary threat to a Dem win is that the Dem campaign ends up being just another New Democrat effort, and putting Bill in charge of the economy sounds like exactly that sort of DLC dog whistle to the business community.
It is mind boggling that anyone thinks that sort of politics will do anything to reach out to people "casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time".
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:54 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
New York Times Stenographers Uncritically Retransmit "Populist" Trump Spin
Donald Trump is not Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump is not a left-wing progressive. But if the press persuades moderate and liberal voters that he is, the race will be close and he might win. A dangerous demagogue is lying to us in order to get elected, and Parker and Martin are helping him do it.posted by tonycpsu at 11:57 AM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
The so-called "liberal media" uncritically repeats Republican framing? You don't say!
posted by Gelatin at 12:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 12:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I am disappointed that Sanders hasn't said anything about the convention and the ongoing harassment of Roberta Lange. We rightly call out Trump for inciting violence at his rallies, but when some Sanders supporters (yes, not all Sanders supporters...) are throwing chairs and making death threats, a response from the candidate is called for.
posted by zachlipton at 12:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 12:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Wait WHAT? Raul Martinez? RAUL MARTINEZ? RAUL FUCKING MARTINEZ?
Jesus fuck, that guy is teflon. I had just assumed that Hialeah had gotten the politician it wanted, despite all good sense, and that eventually he'd fade away. I can't believe he got that close to unseating Diaz-Balart.
posted by phearlez at 12:13 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jesus fuck, that guy is teflon. I had just assumed that Hialeah had gotten the politician it wanted, despite all good sense, and that eventually he'd fade away. I can't believe he got that close to unseating Diaz-Balart.
posted by phearlez at 12:13 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and in case it's not obvious - I STRONGLY dispute the suggestion that that piece of corrupt, violent garbage could qualify as a good Dem candidate.
posted by phearlez at 12:14 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by phearlez at 12:14 PM on May 17, 2016
And, by the way, the media has been completely failing to understand the difference in Sanders' and Trumps' respective messages. Mostly by not reporting on Sanders'. I doubt either outcome is accidental.
posted by Gelatin at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's gonna be so good when the standard response to opposition to free-trade deals becomes "Trump talking points much???"
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:36 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:36 PM on May 17, 2016
The Sanders campaign just released a press release with their take of what went down at the Nevada Convention. At the very least it serves as a counterpoint to the line the state party is taking.
Their main grievances:
posted by kyp at 12:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Their main grievances:
Having read this and reports from both sides, they seem like legitimate complaints to me.
- The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
- The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
- The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them. The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
posted by kyp at 12:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
He makes good points, but I do also think that he should have come down hard on the people sending threats to and harassing Roberta Lange.
Even if they are correct in their assumption that she was a Clinton lackey who shut out legitimate complaints she doesn't deserve death and rape threats and an ongoing harassment campaign.
posted by sotonohito at 12:46 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Even if they are correct in their assumption that she was a Clinton lackey who shut out legitimate complaints she doesn't deserve death and rape threats and an ongoing harassment campaign.
posted by sotonohito at 12:46 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Having read this and reports from both sides, they seem like legitimate complaints to me.
People are right to be skeptical when DNC leadership is involved.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
People are right to be skeptical when DNC leadership is involved.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heh, I just flipped past CNN and they appear to have written an app for their wall display thingie to represent Trump's opinions on issues, with each issue positioned on a slider between liberal and conservative, so that the presenter can grab it and move it back and forth as they describe the history of the things he's said on the topic.
posted by XMLicious at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, again, I find myself disappointed by the candidate I supported. He failed badly on many counts and he's continuing to fail with is refusal to confront the misogyny from the Bernie Bro contingent of his supporters.
I get anger at the way the entire Democratic establishment is basically trying to shut up everyone and make everyone go along with Clinton, I've expressed quite a bit of that myself. I get anger at the utterly undisguised way that major Party functionaries tried to rig things for Clinton, I've expressed quite a bit of that myself too.
But a) she won legitimately, and b) anger at bad process shouldn't turn into harassment and threats even to the people directly and personally responsible for that bad process.
Especially not when that anger has a really ugly misogynist edge to it.
posted by sotonohito at 12:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [31 favorites]
I get anger at the way the entire Democratic establishment is basically trying to shut up everyone and make everyone go along with Clinton, I've expressed quite a bit of that myself. I get anger at the utterly undisguised way that major Party functionaries tried to rig things for Clinton, I've expressed quite a bit of that myself too.
But a) she won legitimately, and b) anger at bad process shouldn't turn into harassment and threats even to the people directly and personally responsible for that bad process.
Especially not when that anger has a really ugly misogynist edge to it.
posted by sotonohito at 12:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [31 favorites]
@sotonohito Yea, agreed that the Sanders campaign should have also spoken against the some of the virulent harassment she has been receiving.
posted by kyp at 12:52 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kyp at 12:52 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
He was given a chance to respond to it today, but took a powder.
Weak, Bernie.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Weak, Bernie.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah I'm not all that impressed. Here's the relevant paragraph:
posted by zachlipton at 1:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.Obviously it doesn't "go without saying" because it desperately needs to be said at this point. And yes, someone shot at a Nevada campaign office and that's obviously and unquestionably wrong, but it's really not fair to equate a random crime committed by someone, for some reason, with the ongoing harassment of the state party chairwoman, which is being committed right now by Sanders supporters for a reasons we're all perfectly aware of.
posted by zachlipton at 1:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
a lungful of dragon That's horrifying. Clearly the voice vote was far too close and it was necessary to switch to actual counting. But I guess when the DNC wants to include Christian propaganda there's no need to actually follow the rules or anything.
posted by sotonohito at 1:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
That statement from the Sanders campaign is either disingenuous as fuck, or their campaign is ignorant as shit about the way credentialing works.
posted by corb at 1:03 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:03 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
One thing that's getting glossed over here in the entire fiasco at the Nevada convention; Clinton won the state in the actual voting. So what is going on is Sanders delegates attempting to use anti-Democratic rules and parliamentary procedures to overturn the will of the voters. And then near-rioting when they are stopped using anti-Democratic rules and parliamentary procedures. It's rank hypocrisy.
Remember, Clinton delegates did not somehow conspire to get too many delegates; the final results are exactly in line with the voting.
posted by Justinian at 1:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
Remember, Clinton delegates did not somehow conspire to get too many delegates; the final results are exactly in line with the voting.
posted by Justinian at 1:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
@corb What specifically do you take issue with? My impression is that those whose credentials were tossed out had legitimate challenges but were not allowed to be heard.
posted by kyp at 1:06 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kyp at 1:06 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Sanders statement is really good in the fact that it addresses the fact that if the party doesn't reconcile this situation, and their differences soon, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chris Hayes is on MSNBC making tons of sense. His point is essentially:
1) Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC is clearly and obviously in favor of Hillary Clinton. The establishment really does vastly prefer her over Sanders.
2) Completely separate from that, Hillary Clinton is winning the votes and is preferred by more voters.
He is making the absolutely true points which I and others have made here that both of those things can be simultaneously true.
posted by Justinian at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
1) Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC is clearly and obviously in favor of Hillary Clinton. The establishment really does vastly prefer her over Sanders.
2) Completely separate from that, Hillary Clinton is winning the votes and is preferred by more voters.
He is making the absolutely true points which I and others have made here that both of those things can be simultaneously true.
posted by Justinian at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
And, again, we're talking about FOUR delegates. FOUR. That were in play in this whole debacle. This is an awful lot of anger over something that is so, so small in the overall picture.
Hell, Hillary could just hand them the entire Nevada delegation and still win going away. This is Trotskyist insanity going on here.
posted by dw at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hell, Hillary could just hand them the entire Nevada delegation and still win going away. This is Trotskyist insanity going on here.
posted by dw at 1:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Every minute that Bernie and his campaign apparatus are making these procedural arguments about the corruptness of the Democratic party's internal rules is a minute that's not being spent on anything that will actually push Hillary to the left on the issues. The rules are indeed corrupt, and if you didn't know this when you chose to abide by them for the purpose of running a campaign for the party's nomination, you were a fool.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
@corb, I'd say its more that the whole godawful caucus system is so horribly and irredeemably broken that it can be gamed by the Party to literally swap delegates from one candidate to another.
Yes, on the one hand it doesn't actually matter. Clinton has the thing won in all but name, four delegates one direction or another don't matter for crap.
But given that, why did the pro-Clinton establishment in Nevada feel the need to steal for Sanders delegates? What possible point was there other than just to mess with the dirty fucking hippies who had dared to try and change things and grind their faces in the fact that not only did they lose, but that the winners were bullies who could, and would, abuse them as much as possible?
Was Clinton really so desperately in need of four delegates that the Nevada Democratic Party had to act like dickbags and blatantly steal them? I don't think so.
Again, the response from the asshole branch of the Sanders supporters isn't proper either. But really, why did the Clintonites in Nevada feel the need to steal four delegates? What point was there other than a sheer exercise in power for the sake of power? A display of force to demonstrate to the hippies that they shouldn't even try to get above their station and change things?
In Nevada I see a microcosm of the whole problem. The establishment standing aloof and sneering at the mere peasants who had the temerity to imagine that they could change things.
Justinian And on the grounds of the first, I'd say that if Clinton has a lick of sense she'll be trying very hard to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Left, and offering incentives to them. I get that until she is officially the candidate it isn't the right time for her personally to be offering positions and concessions. But you'd think she'd be urging the Establishment to stop making her job harder and to stop provoking the Left.
The whole business of giving 3 out of 75 seats to the Left was a perfect example of the establishment making Clinton's eventual job of building connections with the Left harder. What possible good did that sort of petty, meanspirited, gesture do? If DWS had given the Left even 20 or 25 seats it would have felt like a vaguely fair arrangement. But three was just petty and vengeful.
posted by sotonohito at 1:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, on the one hand it doesn't actually matter. Clinton has the thing won in all but name, four delegates one direction or another don't matter for crap.
But given that, why did the pro-Clinton establishment in Nevada feel the need to steal for Sanders delegates? What possible point was there other than just to mess with the dirty fucking hippies who had dared to try and change things and grind their faces in the fact that not only did they lose, but that the winners were bullies who could, and would, abuse them as much as possible?
Was Clinton really so desperately in need of four delegates that the Nevada Democratic Party had to act like dickbags and blatantly steal them? I don't think so.
Again, the response from the asshole branch of the Sanders supporters isn't proper either. But really, why did the Clintonites in Nevada feel the need to steal four delegates? What point was there other than a sheer exercise in power for the sake of power? A display of force to demonstrate to the hippies that they shouldn't even try to get above their station and change things?
In Nevada I see a microcosm of the whole problem. The establishment standing aloof and sneering at the mere peasants who had the temerity to imagine that they could change things.
Justinian And on the grounds of the first, I'd say that if Clinton has a lick of sense she'll be trying very hard to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Left, and offering incentives to them. I get that until she is officially the candidate it isn't the right time for her personally to be offering positions and concessions. But you'd think she'd be urging the Establishment to stop making her job harder and to stop provoking the Left.
The whole business of giving 3 out of 75 seats to the Left was a perfect example of the establishment making Clinton's eventual job of building connections with the Left harder. What possible good did that sort of petty, meanspirited, gesture do? If DWS had given the Left even 20 or 25 seats it would have felt like a vaguely fair arrangement. But three was just petty and vengeful.
posted by sotonohito at 1:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the petty rules lawyering baffles me considering that the stakes are so low. Why pull procedural shenanigans and generate all kinds of animosity from people you theoretically need down the road, just to score an inconsequential number of delegates in a race that Hillary's campaign has already basically won?
posted by indubitable at 1:16 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 1:16 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
a lungful of dragon That's horrifying. Clearly the voice vote was far too close and it was necessary to switch to actual counting. But I guess when the DNC wants to include Christian propaganda there's no need to actually follow the rules or anything.
I think the problem bit at the time was less article 1 (God, etc.) and more article 2 (Jerusalem is the capital of Israel), which would be a sticking point for, you know, supporters of Palestinian rights. But either way, one of those quite memorable moments from the last go round & a reminder of who’s in charge. Either way, very bleh. The Daily Show at the time.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:17 PM on May 17, 2016
I think the problem bit at the time was less article 1 (God, etc.) and more article 2 (Jerusalem is the capital of Israel), which would be a sticking point for, you know, supporters of Palestinian rights. But either way, one of those quite memorable moments from the last go round & a reminder of who’s in charge. Either way, very bleh. The Daily Show at the time.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:17 PM on May 17, 2016
But really, why did the Clintonites in Nevada feel the need to steal four delegates?
That's not what happened! Steal delegates? Nevada awarded its delegates in line with the voting. It was Sanders' campaign attempting to use parliamentary rules to steal delegates. This is all an issue because they failed.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
That's not what happened! Steal delegates? Nevada awarded its delegates in line with the voting. It was Sanders' campaign attempting to use parliamentary rules to steal delegates. This is all an issue because they failed.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
Yeah, the petty rules lawyering baffles me considering that the stakes are so low. Why pull procedural shenanigans and generate all kinds of animosity from people you theoretically need down the road, just to score an inconsequential number of delegates in a race that Hillary's campaign has already basically won?
Because insisting that people abide by the rules now makes it better for people who will run in 20, 50, 100 years.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because insisting that people abide by the rules now makes it better for people who will run in 20, 50, 100 years.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
tonycpsu , that I'm not in agreement with. I think addressing hte structural corruption and cronyism of the Democratic party is an essential part of being able to actually fix it so that it has a better chance of blocking the coming Fascist future.
As long as the Democratic party elites can keep playing the cocktail party game and pretending that it's ok to punch hippies for sport then the party can never be strong enough to stop what is coming.
posted by sotonohito at 1:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
As long as the Democratic party elites can keep playing the cocktail party game and pretending that it's ok to punch hippies for sport then the party can never be strong enough to stop what is coming.
posted by sotonohito at 1:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
OK, this is probably going to sound stupid but here goes. I saw Captain America Civil War over the weekend and one of the characters said that the way to defeat your enemies is to get them to destroy themselves from the inside, instead of you trying to destroy them yourself from the outside. Isn't that pretty much what's going on here with the Dems? We're sniping and fighting each other, threatening each other with violence and letting Trump just run amok over all the airwaves for free.
Whatever legitimate criticisms I have about the GOP, one thing they do well is put the party before their own personal wish/grudge list.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Whatever legitimate criticisms I have about the GOP, one thing they do well is put the party before their own personal wish/grudge list.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
dirty fucking hippies
Can we avoid this language. No one here is saying "hippies" about Sanders voters.
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
Can we avoid this language. No one here is saying "hippies" about Sanders voters.
posted by zutalors! at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
Okay. So I'm assuming that Democratic credentialing is roughly similar to Republican credentialing, which I'm pretty familiar with. There may be some differences, but it seems much the same most places.
In every place I've seen, credentialing closes at 9AM, when the meeting begins. You are told long in advance to check your credentialing information, and to credential early. Essentially, you make sure your shit is okay in advance, then credentialing the next day is easy.
You're also not even listed, in most cases, to the credentialing committee as delegates for your candidate. It would be a lot of work to try to deny specifically Sanders delegates, and if they were doing that, there would be more than 58 of them.
What I would bet happened is this: Sanders supporters didn't bother verifying that the address on voting record with the Democratic Party was their current legal address. So when the credentialing committee checked the rolls, they found that many delegates were not eligible as delegates in the precincts they were selected for. That makes them completely ineligible. You can't just switch to a different precinct. They showed up, were uncredentialed, and came too late to prove/verify their address.
posted by corb at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
In every place I've seen, credentialing closes at 9AM, when the meeting begins. You are told long in advance to check your credentialing information, and to credential early. Essentially, you make sure your shit is okay in advance, then credentialing the next day is easy.
You're also not even listed, in most cases, to the credentialing committee as delegates for your candidate. It would be a lot of work to try to deny specifically Sanders delegates, and if they were doing that, there would be more than 58 of them.
What I would bet happened is this: Sanders supporters didn't bother verifying that the address on voting record with the Democratic Party was their current legal address. So when the credentialing committee checked the rolls, they found that many delegates were not eligible as delegates in the precincts they were selected for. That makes them completely ineligible. You can't just switch to a different precinct. They showed up, were uncredentialed, and came too late to prove/verify their address.
posted by corb at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
We're sniping and fighting each other, threatening each other with violence and letting Trump just run amok over all the airwaves for free.
Hear hear!
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hear hear!
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whatever legitimate criticisms I have about the GOP, one thing they do well is put the party before their own personal wish/grudge list.
I mean, that's how Trump is going to get the nomination, with so many people putting the party ahead of their own wishes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:21 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, that's how Trump is going to get the nomination, with so many people putting the party ahead of their own wishes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:21 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'd say that if Clinton has a lick of sense she'll be trying very hard to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Left, and offering incentives to them.
I'm curious what Clinton could say or offer to "the Left," at this point, that wouldn't elicit a loud cry of "DON'T BELIEVE HER LIES!"
punch hippies for sport
did somebody actually get punched or are we just trying to make everything seem as awful as possible
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm curious what Clinton could say or offer to "the Left," at this point, that wouldn't elicit a loud cry of "DON'T BELIEVE HER LIES!"
punch hippies for sport
did somebody actually get punched or are we just trying to make everything seem as awful as possible
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Justinian I disagree very strongly. From my POV the Nevada party cheated and played games with the rules for no good reason and basically in a naked display of power and contempt for the Left. I believe you and roomthreeseventeen are in factual error about what happened.
This wasn't abiding by the rules, it was the Nevada party overturning earlier pro-Sanders votes on spurious and rushed grounds.
Sanders won those votes in the first round. Using later procedural dickery to cheat him out of them later is cheating, stealing, and it is pointless and meanspirited and serves no purpose other than to punish those who voted for him.
posted by sotonohito at 1:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
This wasn't abiding by the rules, it was the Nevada party overturning earlier pro-Sanders votes on spurious and rushed grounds.
Sanders won those votes in the first round. Using later procedural dickery to cheat him out of them later is cheating, stealing, and it is pointless and meanspirited and serves no purpose other than to punish those who voted for him.
posted by sotonohito at 1:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean, that's how Trump is going to get the nomination, with so many people putting the party ahead of their own wishes.
No it isn't! The party leadership hates Trump and wanted people to vote for anyone else. Trump's success is due to a breakdown in party loyalty. He couldn't stay on message to save his life, and he's a disaster for driving turnout and getting people elected downticket.
I think (hope, pray) the Republicans are going to lose, and it will be because this time they did NOT treat politics like a team sport.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:24 PM on May 17, 2016
No it isn't! The party leadership hates Trump and wanted people to vote for anyone else. Trump's success is due to a breakdown in party loyalty. He couldn't stay on message to save his life, and he's a disaster for driving turnout and getting people elected downticket.
I think (hope, pray) the Republicans are going to lose, and it will be because this time they did NOT treat politics like a team sport.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:24 PM on May 17, 2016
And, again, it was over four damn delegates. Why steal four delegates when Clinton has already won other than to punish the Left?
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:25 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whatever legitimate criticisms I have about the GOP, one thing they do well is put the party before their own personal wish/grudge list.
There's a phrase attributed to Bill Clinton, although he credited someone else: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
posted by Gelatin at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's a phrase attributed to Bill Clinton, although he credited someone else: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
posted by Gelatin at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
No it isn't! The party leadership hates Trump and wanted people to vote for anyone else.
But Trump is only down about 3 points nationally, as of this morning. That's a lot of people who are voting Republican.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016
But Trump is only down about 3 points nationally, as of this morning. That's a lot of people who are voting Republican.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016
Sonohito: why do you think those delegates specifically were turned away, rather than all the other Sanders delegates?
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
prize bull octorok Hippie Punching Also hippie punching. More.
The TL;DR is that the term "hippie punching" has long been used by the left to describe the practice of supposed liberals or Democrats attacking those to their left in an effort to gain credibility or praise from the center or the right.
posted by sotonohito at 1:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The TL;DR is that the term "hippie punching" has long been used by the left to describe the practice of supposed liberals or Democrats attacking those to their left in an effort to gain credibility or praise from the center or the right.
posted by sotonohito at 1:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
sotonohito: Because you're flat-out wrong about what happened in the first round?
In the initial voting Clinton won 20 delegates to Sanders 15. You can verify this yourself very easily. After May 14th the delegates were awarded.... 20-15.
This is what I'm seeing all over. Very passionate people who don't understand what actually happened.
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
In the initial voting Clinton won 20 delegates to Sanders 15. You can verify this yourself very easily. After May 14th the delegates were awarded.... 20-15.
This is what I'm seeing all over. Very passionate people who don't understand what actually happened.
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is what I'm seeing all over. Very passionate people who don't understand what actually happened.
Right, and then the Clinton folks didn't show up for their convention. The whole thing is a mess, over 4 delegates.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016
Right, and then the Clinton folks didn't show up for their convention. The whole thing is a mess, over 4 delegates.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016
Sorry, hit post too fast. May 14th the delegates were awarded 7-5 which is the same as 20-15 proportionally.
posted by Justinian at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, by the way, the media has been completely failing to understand the difference in Sanders' and Trumps' respective messages.
True, but we shouldn't underestimate Trump either. He's peeking over the fence and sees the infighting and knows Sanders at this point is busy managing his own primary campaign and won't focus too much attention on Trump's attempts to woo some of Sanders voters. Trump also sees that there are probably some voters that will just support whoever's message is "Things are screwed up!" and says it as loudly and angrily as possible.
At this point, there's no reason for Trump not to attempt to go fishing or stir the pot on the Dem side. Even if he wins over none of Sanders voters, he might nudge a bigger and uglier version of Chicago or Costa Mesa to happen at the Philly convention.
posted by FJT at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
True, but we shouldn't underestimate Trump either. He's peeking over the fence and sees the infighting and knows Sanders at this point is busy managing his own primary campaign and won't focus too much attention on Trump's attempts to woo some of Sanders voters. Trump also sees that there are probably some voters that will just support whoever's message is "Things are screwed up!" and says it as loudly and angrily as possible.
At this point, there's no reason for Trump not to attempt to go fishing or stir the pot on the Dem side. Even if he wins over none of Sanders voters, he might nudge a bigger and uglier version of Chicago or Costa Mesa to happen at the Philly convention.
posted by FJT at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, the point of Sanders' (very good) statement, though, is that his voters feel disenfranchised over this. And if DNC can't figure out how to smooth it over, it risks losing these people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:33 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:33 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
But Trump is only down about 3 points nationally, as of this morning. That's a lot of people who are voting Republican.
That doesn't have anything to do with "how Trump became the nominee" though.
Though yes, it's driven by people identifying as Republican and feeling like voting for Hillary Clinton might as well be voting for the literal devil.
But, I mean, if Democrats can't similarly rally around their nominee, like her or not... And if in spite of the divisive nomination process Trump then wins because Republicans were once again more unified...
I don't see how that would be an argument in support of the notion that "partly loyalty gives us villains like Trump." It seems more like an argument that "party loyalty wins elections."
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
That doesn't have anything to do with "how Trump became the nominee" though.
Though yes, it's driven by people identifying as Republican and feeling like voting for Hillary Clinton might as well be voting for the literal devil.
But, I mean, if Democrats can't similarly rally around their nominee, like her or not... And if in spite of the divisive nomination process Trump then wins because Republicans were once again more unified...
I don't see how that would be an argument in support of the notion that "partly loyalty gives us villains like Trump." It seems more like an argument that "party loyalty wins elections."
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hippie punching is a very real phenomenon, but I believe its use here is being used as an appeal to emotion in an attempt to garner sympathy for a particular interpretation of a very murky picture with respect to what happened with the delegate count. Being more progressive doesn't automatically make you any more correct with respect to matters of fact.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:35 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:35 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
The TL;DR is that the term "hippie punching" has long been used by the left to describe the practice of supposed liberals or Democrats attacking those to their left in an effort to gain credibility or praise from the center or the right.
yeah I'm familiar with the term, but it doesn't seem to describe what was happening in Nevada, except to introduce a somewhat hyperbolically inflammatory violent metaphor which is sort of ironic considering who ended up getting actual threats of harm afterwards
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
yeah I'm familiar with the term, but it doesn't seem to describe what was happening in Nevada, except to introduce a somewhat hyperbolically inflammatory violent metaphor which is sort of ironic considering who ended up getting actual threats of harm afterwards
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
There's a phrase attributed to Bill Clinton, although he credited someone else: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
There's also the immortal line from Will Rogers: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
All of this has happened before and will happen again (well, maybe not the chair-throwing, but you never know). And FWIW the Democrats are still more unified at this point than they were in 2008, so let's not get too ahead of ourselves with the "OMG Trump is making the Dems self-destruct!" stuff just yet. It just feeds into the media narrative that he's some kind of supergenius that they use to gin up ratings.
But Trump is only down about 3 points nationally, as of this morning. That's a lot of people who are voting Republican.
Come on now, the idea that national polling is in any way indicative of how an election will go this far out is preposterous. Or any polling before Labor Day, for that matter. And even if we do listen to the polling, state-by-state is telling us a completely different story. For instance, if Trump is barely holding on in AZ, a state that Romney won by 9%, that's not a good sign for him.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
There's also the immortal line from Will Rogers: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
All of this has happened before and will happen again (well, maybe not the chair-throwing, but you never know). And FWIW the Democrats are still more unified at this point than they were in 2008, so let's not get too ahead of ourselves with the "OMG Trump is making the Dems self-destruct!" stuff just yet. It just feeds into the media narrative that he's some kind of supergenius that they use to gin up ratings.
But Trump is only down about 3 points nationally, as of this morning. That's a lot of people who are voting Republican.
Come on now, the idea that national polling is in any way indicative of how an election will go this far out is preposterous. Or any polling before Labor Day, for that matter. And even if we do listen to the polling, state-by-state is telling us a completely different story. For instance, if Trump is barely holding on in AZ, a state that Romney won by 9%, that's not a good sign for him.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Nevada is a three-stage process like Washington. The main difference is that in Washington delegates are awarded at every stage, where Nevada it's not locked in. Thus the Sanders gains on the second tier.
I can see the Sanders argument -- we played by the rules and we beat you -- and the party's argument -- yes, but now we're disenfranchising a percentage of Hillary voters, so we need to switch it back.
But again... FOUR delegates. There are 4766 total delegates. Hillary's pledged delegate lead stands at north of 280. This is barely a drop in a bucket.
The Sanders campaign needs to stop hiding behind "people feel disenfranchised." They complain about the system, then game it to gain more delegates. They complain about super-delegates, then lean on them as their primary strategy to getting the nomination. They are shocked, shocked there is gaming in this establishment.
The way the Democrats nominate needs reform. What it does not need is Gamergate-like tactics in a time when we're about to face the most misogynist campaign cycle in American history.
posted by dw at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
I can see the Sanders argument -- we played by the rules and we beat you -- and the party's argument -- yes, but now we're disenfranchising a percentage of Hillary voters, so we need to switch it back.
But again... FOUR delegates. There are 4766 total delegates. Hillary's pledged delegate lead stands at north of 280. This is barely a drop in a bucket.
The Sanders campaign needs to stop hiding behind "people feel disenfranchised." They complain about the system, then game it to gain more delegates. They complain about super-delegates, then lean on them as their primary strategy to getting the nomination. They are shocked, shocked there is gaming in this establishment.
The way the Democrats nominate needs reform. What it does not need is Gamergate-like tactics in a time when we're about to face the most misogynist campaign cycle in American history.
posted by dw at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
What I would bet happened is this:
corb, but that's just speculation on your part right? Why dismiss the legitimate concerns of voters and Sanders supporters without looking at what both sides are saying?
posted by kyp at 1:43 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
corb, but that's just speculation on your part right? Why dismiss the legitimate concerns of voters and Sanders supporters without looking at what both sides are saying?
posted by kyp at 1:43 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can see the Sanders argument -- we played by the rules and we beat you -- and the party's argument -- yes, but now we're disenfranchising a percentage of Hillary voters, so we need to switch it back.
dw: But you're buying the argument that the rules were bent in the third stage to award Clinton some Sanders delegates. That doesn't appear to be the case to me. What happened appears fully in line with the rules. The Sanders people are upset that the rules meant they ended up with fewer delegates in the third step than the second while ignoring the fact that they ended up with more delegates in the second step than the first.
posted by Justinian at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
dw: But you're buying the argument that the rules were bent in the third stage to award Clinton some Sanders delegates. That doesn't appear to be the case to me. What happened appears fully in line with the rules. The Sanders people are upset that the rules meant they ended up with fewer delegates in the third step than the second while ignoring the fact that they ended up with more delegates in the second step than the first.
posted by Justinian at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Greg Sargent: Sorry, Donald Trump: Sanders supporters won’t embrace your ‘populism’
posted by zombieflanders at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016
And, again, it was over four damn delegates. Why steal four delegates when Clinton has already won other than to punish the Left?
There's no real reason to think that either the stuff at the statewide convention or the county conventions earlier was at the behest of either candidate or their national campaigns, instead of just being the sort of thing that half-cocked true believers do of their own volition.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's no real reason to think that either the stuff at the statewide convention or the county conventions earlier was at the behest of either candidate or their national campaigns, instead of just being the sort of thing that half-cocked true believers do of their own volition.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:45 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also the Sanders side didn't send 400 delegates they could have to state. It's all so petty. And foolish.
posted by R343L at 1:47 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by R343L at 1:47 PM on May 17, 2016
Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Ok, enough, let's cool it off, and let's stop with the Hillary-supporters-suck, Bernie-supporters-suck stuff. I get that people have strong feelings, you've had a chance to vent those, now let's allow the conversation to move on.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:50 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:50 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every time I read anything about caucus proceedings, including the mess in Nevada, I ask myself why the heck we aren't going to primaries everywhere. Particularly since I was struck by the elitism and exclusiveness of our own caucuses in my state -- my husband and I were able to attend because 1) we have a car 2) we don't have to work on Saturday and can spare several hours; and 3) we got there very early before the parking spots were all taken. It's crazy to impose all those requirements, many income-related, on exercise of the franchise.
posted by bearwife at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
I found this a good, thorough write-up about what went down at the Nevada Convention by someone who seems quite familiar with the process. The author says a lot of the chaos and anger on Saturday was because of misunderstanding, not the NSDP shitting on anyone.
posted by chaoticgood at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by chaoticgood at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
That write-up is worth reading and, I think, supports the view that the rioty people at the convention either did not understand the rules or did not care about them.
posted by Justinian at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
corb, but that's just speculation on your part right? Why dismiss the legitimate concerns of voters and Sanders supporters without looking at what both sides are saying?
Because the Sanders camp has yet to say "Here are the illegitimate reasons our delegates were disqualified." Which means it's more likely that it's perfectly legitimate reasons, and they're just showboating.
posted by corb at 1:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because the Sanders camp has yet to say "Here are the illegitimate reasons our delegates were disqualified." Which means it's more likely that it's perfectly legitimate reasons, and they're just showboating.
posted by corb at 1:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently, Megyn Kelly will also be interviewing Laverne Cox tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:58 PM on May 17, 2016
corb: I think you are right. For example here is a screencap of a Sanders delegate who was turned away posting that he had changed his party registration away from Democrat a few weeks ago on "a spur of disgust" for the Democratic party. Yes, if you aren't a registered Democrat you aren't allowed to be a delegate at the Democratic convention...
posted by Justinian at 2:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:00 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
By the way since its getting lost in the Nevada stuff, Kentucky and Oregon are voting today!
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Technically, Oregon's been voting lazily for the last couple weeks, though I'm sure a lot of us are getting around to it close to the deadline. Mail voting is kinda great (and I don't think I've actually mailed one in years, just head to a drop box at the library or whatnot).
posted by cortex at 2:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex at 2:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Justinian and corb, there are also people who have claim that they were legitimately disenfranchised with screenshots of credentials:
"Nevada Democrats have no record of me being a county delegate, which in turn excludes me from the state level despite me having proof."
posted by kyp at 2:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Nevada Democrats have no record of me being a county delegate, which in turn excludes me from the state level despite me having proof."
posted by kyp at 2:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
ThinkProgress: "Malone is one of more than 140,000 Kentuckians who are permanently disenfranchised because of felony convictions. The commonwealth is one of three states with the strictest felon disenfranchisement laws. Just over five percent of Kentucky’s voting-age population cannot vote because of a felony convictions, but for African Americans, that number is 16.7 percent."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
dw: But you're buying the argument that the rules were bent in the third stage to award Clinton some Sanders delegates.
OK, more I read what happened, yeah, very little is on the party. The worst thing they did was not go to a roll call vote after a voice vote. That's unusual, but IIRC it's up to the chair to determine whether the vote requires a roll call. (But I haven't cracked Robert's Rules since high school Student Council, so.)
For example here is a screencap of a Sanders delegate who was turned away posting that he had changed his party registration away from Democrat a few weeks ago on "a spur of disgust" for the Democratic party.
That dovetails nicely with a friend of mine getting a campaign flier in the mail for someone campaigning to be a Sanders delegate to the Washington state convention.
posted by dw at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, more I read what happened, yeah, very little is on the party. The worst thing they did was not go to a roll call vote after a voice vote. That's unusual, but IIRC it's up to the chair to determine whether the vote requires a roll call. (But I haven't cracked Robert's Rules since high school Student Council, so.)
For example here is a screencap of a Sanders delegate who was turned away posting that he had changed his party registration away from Democrat a few weeks ago on "a spur of disgust" for the Democratic party.
That dovetails nicely with a friend of mine getting a campaign flier in the mail for someone campaigning to be a Sanders delegate to the Washington state convention.
posted by dw at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
And, again, can we **PLEASE** end the utter insanity of caucuses? They're so horribly stupid and open to abuse like this.
A nice, straightforward, primary is all we need. There's no need for this bullshit.
I'd become a total Clinton fanboy if she'd use her clout to get something passed at the convention so the national party mandated that all state parties were required to use a nice simple primary and were forbidden from having caucuses.
posted by sotonohito at 2:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
A nice, straightforward, primary is all we need. There's no need for this bullshit.
I'd become a total Clinton fanboy if she'd use her clout to get something passed at the convention so the national party mandated that all state parties were required to use a nice simple primary and were forbidden from having caucuses.
posted by sotonohito at 2:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
I will be live tweeting my interview with @megynkelly on the Fox Network tonight at 8! Enjoy! Welcome to 2016, folks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:25 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:25 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
sotonohito: I completely agree with you re: caucuses. They are crap and responsible for a lot of what we are seeing here.
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Nevada Democrats have no record of me being a county delegate, which in turn excludes me from the state level despite me having proof."
So, maybe I'm confused here, but I think that in Nevada the county conventions elect the delegates to the state convention, which means that merely being a delegate at the county convention wouldn't automatically make one a delegate at the state convention. Am I misunderstanding something? The rules are here, in case someone with better reading comprehension than mine wants to take a look and correct me.
posted by dersins at 2:29 PM on May 17, 2016
So, maybe I'm confused here, but I think that in Nevada the county conventions elect the delegates to the state convention, which means that merely being a delegate at the county convention wouldn't automatically make one a delegate at the state convention. Am I misunderstanding something? The rules are here, in case someone with better reading comprehension than mine wants to take a look and correct me.
posted by dersins at 2:29 PM on May 17, 2016
And yet caucuses are why Bernie even has a leg to stand on in this election.
I still favor a national, non-partisan jungle primary. Let the parties nominate who they want, and then they can run them in the national primary. We then elect a president six weeks later.
posted by dw at 2:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I still favor a national, non-partisan jungle primary. Let the parties nominate who they want, and then they can run them in the national primary. We then elect a president six weeks later.
posted by dw at 2:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
sotonohito I keep clicking favorite on your comments because of stuff like this: "The Clintonists would be well served by being just a tiny bit gracious in victory"... and then on consideration removing the favorite because I don't want to endorse stuff like this: "people who hate me and want to kick me when I'm down for their own sheer sadistic pleasure."
Like I get your frustration, and I think the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic Party, could do a lot more to show their respect and support for Sanders' wing of the party. When I say I'm in favor of party unity, I think that means both factions moving toward each other, not just Sanders supporters moving into the centrist fold.
But I really, really don't think this stuff happened because the party is full sadists who just totally hate Leftists and get off on insulting them.
I read ChaoticGood's link and it seems to me that it was mostly a matter of misunderstandings which are kind of inevitable with such a Byzantine process and so many people who are new to participating in it.
And, I mean, to your point about "they voted 47% for Sanders"... isn't the outcome actually consistent with that? I mean, my understanding is that the 4 delegates they "lost" at the state level just cancel out the 4 delegates they "gained" at the county-level, which were over and above those they would have been entitled to based on that 47% if delegates were just awarded proportionally. So the end result is they get delegates proportional with their share of the vote after all? Is that not right?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like I get your frustration, and I think the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic Party, could do a lot more to show their respect and support for Sanders' wing of the party. When I say I'm in favor of party unity, I think that means both factions moving toward each other, not just Sanders supporters moving into the centrist fold.
But I really, really don't think this stuff happened because the party is full sadists who just totally hate Leftists and get off on insulting them.
I read ChaoticGood's link and it seems to me that it was mostly a matter of misunderstandings which are kind of inevitable with such a Byzantine process and so many people who are new to participating in it.
And, I mean, to your point about "they voted 47% for Sanders"... isn't the outcome actually consistent with that? I mean, my understanding is that the 4 delegates they "lost" at the state level just cancel out the 4 delegates they "gained" at the county-level, which were over and above those they would have been entitled to based on that 47% if delegates were just awarded proportionally. So the end result is they get delegates proportional with their share of the vote after all? Is that not right?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Technically, Oregon's been voting lazily for the last couple weeks, though I'm sure a lot of us are getting around to it close to the deadline.
That does remind me my totally pointless Washington primary ballot is due in next Tuesday. Pointless in that Trump has essentially clinched and the Democrats aren't even looking at the primary numbers to assign delegates.
posted by dw at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2016
That does remind me my totally pointless Washington primary ballot is due in next Tuesday. Pointless in that Trump has essentially clinched and the Democrats aren't even looking at the primary numbers to assign delegates.
posted by dw at 2:36 PM on May 17, 2016
But hey, you had a caucus in which about 5% of registered voters participated. Democracy!
posted by dersins at 2:38 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dersins at 2:38 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Harper's Magazine: Trump's People
TW: Trump's People
posted by tonycpsu at 2:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
TW: Trump's People
posted by tonycpsu at 2:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump's a mob guy right? Not personally, but he's not unfamiliar with greasing a few wheels when needed.
Indeed.
posted by homunculus at 2:44 PM on May 17, 2016
Indeed.
posted by homunculus at 2:44 PM on May 17, 2016
Marshall:
Losing is hard. If you pump people up with bogus arguments that they're losing because they got cheated and the system was rigged, you get people who are really angry, genuinely angry, even though they're upset that their efforts to reverse the result of the actual election didn't work.posted by tonycpsu at 2:48 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes! When you constantly tell people the system is rigged they will get angry that they lost because the system is rigged even when they didn't lose because the system is rigged.
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
The more-or-less open and often repeated notion that Sanders should just give up is one reason why people feel upset about being disenfranchised. For those who don't want Trump elected — myself included — please consider figuring out better ways to invite swing-state voters into the tent, because what is happening now seems to be alienating people, making some of them further disillusioned and unwilling to participate in the way you want them to. You can either blame them or invite them in, but either way, unless you want Trump in office a better plan is needed than continued disenfranchisement and marginalization.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:03 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:03 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The more-or-less open and often repeated notion that Sanders should just give up is one reason why people feel upset about being disenfranchised.
The alternative to giving up when the mathematics of the delegate count are where they are is what we're seeing in Nevada -- to try to overturn the will of voters, which deserves the label of "disenfranchisement" far more than whatever your complaints are. Same goes for Sanders sudden love of superdelegates because now they're the only way he could win the nomination. As a Bernie voter, this shit offends me, so yeah, I want my guy to accept the will of the voters, work some backroom deals for platform planks / progressive cabinet appointments / whatever and then go back to being the issues-oriented gadfly he was six months ago.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:09 PM on May 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
The alternative to giving up when the mathematics of the delegate count are where they are is what we're seeing in Nevada -- to try to overturn the will of voters, which deserves the label of "disenfranchisement" far more than whatever your complaints are. Same goes for Sanders sudden love of superdelegates because now they're the only way he could win the nomination. As a Bernie voter, this shit offends me, so yeah, I want my guy to accept the will of the voters, work some backroom deals for platform planks / progressive cabinet appointments / whatever and then go back to being the issues-oriented gadfly he was six months ago.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:09 PM on May 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
That does remind me my totally pointless Washington primary ballot is due in next Tuesday.
So, send it in. There have already been a LOT more ballots returned for the primary for the D side than caucus votes cast. Wouldn't it be interesting if, as in Nebraska, Hillary Clinton won the "meaningless" primary after losing the caucus? I think we need to make the case everywhere that primaries are worlds more democratic and that people do indeed vote in them.
If you are an R, which I doubt, then the ballot absolutely does count in terms of whether Trump wins the Washington delegates.
posted by bearwife at 3:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, send it in. There have already been a LOT more ballots returned for the primary for the D side than caucus votes cast. Wouldn't it be interesting if, as in Nebraska, Hillary Clinton won the "meaningless" primary after losing the caucus? I think we need to make the case everywhere that primaries are worlds more democratic and that people do indeed vote in them.
If you are an R, which I doubt, then the ballot absolutely does count in terms of whether Trump wins the Washington delegates.
posted by bearwife at 3:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Business state Democratic chairwoman oversees targeted by Berners
This belong in a collection of confusing headlines, though it's not as amusing as "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms" or as mystifying as "Infant sealed in concrete by a Brooklyn couple charged with enslaving hooker mom was beaten to death"
posted by msalt at 3:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This belong in a collection of confusing headlines, though it's not as amusing as "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms" or as mystifying as "Infant sealed in concrete by a Brooklyn couple charged with enslaving hooker mom was beaten to death"
posted by msalt at 3:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Sanders camp is getting ripped on MSNBC for the Nevada shenanigans. I think the prevailing view is starting to turn against them on these issues. Which is probably an accurate view of what happened but will likely serve to alienate them further.
For instance Joy Reid is talking about how the Sanders folks didn't understand the procedure, didn't show up when and how they were supposed to, and now are complaining about it. Uh, and now Eugene Robinson is talking about it... and Chris Matthews.
posted by Justinian at 3:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
For instance Joy Reid is talking about how the Sanders folks didn't understand the procedure, didn't show up when and how they were supposed to, and now are complaining about it. Uh, and now Eugene Robinson is talking about it... and Chris Matthews.
posted by Justinian at 3:18 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"They are taking the process to be unfair because they don't understand it" is the money quote from Joy.
posted by Justinian at 3:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The more-or-less open and often repeated notion that Sanders should just give up is one reason why people feel upset about being disenfranchised.
I don't think Sanders should give up on life, any of the policies he's been fighting for, trying to reform the system, drawing attention to the influence of money in politics, etc... But yes, I think he should give up on trying to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. Because the only way he can do that at this point is by convincing hundreds of party officials who have all supported Clinton to switch their support to him and override the hundreds of actual delegates and the millions of actual voters by which he is behind.
Sanders has done something pretty incredible in this election, and he and his supporters can and should continue to fight for their policies. But at the end of the day, voting and losing, while never fun, is not the same as being disenfranchised.
posted by zachlipton at 3:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
I don't think Sanders should give up on life, any of the policies he's been fighting for, trying to reform the system, drawing attention to the influence of money in politics, etc... But yes, I think he should give up on trying to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. Because the only way he can do that at this point is by convincing hundreds of party officials who have all supported Clinton to switch their support to him and override the hundreds of actual delegates and the millions of actual voters by which he is behind.
Sanders has done something pretty incredible in this election, and he and his supporters can and should continue to fight for their policies. But at the end of the day, voting and losing, while never fun, is not the same as being disenfranchised.
posted by zachlipton at 3:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
"They are taking the process to be unfair because they don't understand it" is the money quote from Joy.
This is a danger when people only show up to participate every four years (at best). Obviously that's not true of all--or even most--Sanders supporters, but I feel like there have been some very loud noises made by a relatively small number of folks who are shocked, shocked that the inner workings of the Democratic Party's nomination process turned out to be a lot more baroque than they thought it would be.
A strong argument can--and probably should-- be made that those inner workings ought to be made substantially less baroque, but to make those kinds of systemic changes requires a lot of work put in over a long period of time, beginning by getting involved in the party at the local level as a precinct committee person or equivalent.
Quadrennial tantrums don't cut it.
posted by dersins at 3:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is a danger when people only show up to participate every four years (at best). Obviously that's not true of all--or even most--Sanders supporters, but I feel like there have been some very loud noises made by a relatively small number of folks who are shocked, shocked that the inner workings of the Democratic Party's nomination process turned out to be a lot more baroque than they thought it would be.
A strong argument can--and probably should-- be made that those inner workings ought to be made substantially less baroque, but to make those kinds of systemic changes requires a lot of work put in over a long period of time, beginning by getting involved in the party at the local level as a precinct committee person or equivalent.
Quadrennial tantrums don't cut it.
posted by dersins at 3:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
I've used this metaphor before, so I'll use it again.
It's like being down by 20 points with about three minutes to go in the basketball game. When you're getting beat like that, you should keep trying and finish strong, but there comes a point where fouling the other team and putting them at the line is not only tedious, it's irritating to everyone watching. Eventually you just have to shut it down and let the clock run.
Right now Bernie's odds of coming away with the nomination are 1% or less. It would essentially take a deus ex machina for him to pull it off. No one wants him to stop competing. We just want him to stop fouling. The game is essentially over.
posted by dw at 3:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
It's like being down by 20 points with about three minutes to go in the basketball game. When you're getting beat like that, you should keep trying and finish strong, but there comes a point where fouling the other team and putting them at the line is not only tedious, it's irritating to everyone watching. Eventually you just have to shut it down and let the clock run.
Right now Bernie's odds of coming away with the nomination are 1% or less. It would essentially take a deus ex machina for him to pull it off. No one wants him to stop competing. We just want him to stop fouling. The game is essentially over.
posted by dw at 3:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
No one wants him to stop competing. We just want him to stop fouling.
This is an excellent analogy. I am totes stealing it from you.
posted by dersins at 3:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is an excellent analogy. I am totes stealing it from you.
posted by dersins at 3:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But yes, I think he should give up on trying to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2016.
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008, despite also facing similar, very long odds. The problem with the slow winnowing of the democratic primary process is that it’s really hard to convince people to get out of a race because something is mathematically impossible.
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008, despite also facing similar, very long odds. The problem with the slow winnowing of the democratic primary process is that it’s really hard to convince people to get out of a race because something is mathematically impossible.
- Everyone loves a come-from-behind victory.
- Everyone hates being told by a bunch of so-and-sos that they need to get in line.
- It’s really easy to think about the race being in terms of states, not expected performance or delegate tallies. We put the fact that someone has won a state in the big headline, and the number of delegates that person won somewhere down below, and the amount they were expected to win even further down, if nowhere at all. Getting the general public to give up those notions is going to be hard, especially since doing so requires you to tell campaign supporters that they should be less enthusiastic about the race.
It sounds like a big part of the issue in Nevada is the sheer number of people their Democratic nominating process requires. It's a caucus, so turnout is low anyway, and then you need a significant percentage of people who turned out to be county delegates, and then 10,000 state delegates. With this many people required, it's no wonder that there'll be a lot of confusion about how it works, devolving into chaos.
posted by zachlipton at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008, despite also facing similar, very long odds.
And she should have quit then as well.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
And she should have quit then as well.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
A strong argument can--and probably should-- be made that those inner workings ought to be made substantially less baroque, but to make those kinds of systemic changes requires a lot of work put in over a long period of time, beginning by getting involved in the party at the local level as a precinct committee person or equivalent.
I know anecdotes != representative of party politics everywhere, but a few years ago in my old city I tried to get involved with some Young Democrats activities in a non-presidential election year (for what it's worth, I've always been cut from pretty left-activist cloth, but also think people with my politics should be involved in party politics if at all possible to push the Dems to the left from the local politics-up). The reception I received at the first event I attended was so stupidly unfriendly and obnoxious (I was a total outsider and apparently had no good political connections) I lost all appetite for getting involved more, despite having knocked on plenty of doors for Obama the previous year.
I'm now in a place where I might give it a shot again, but quite frankly I find my activist/community advocacy organizations more rewarding to be involved in. So this "get involved at local levels" is great as long as the local party people actually intentionally create a welcoming environment that integrates new people. Unfortunately that hasn't been my experience, and as a Sanders voter who will ultimately vote for Clinton (swing stater here), it really makes me think the party doesn't give a shit about people like me.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
I know anecdotes != representative of party politics everywhere, but a few years ago in my old city I tried to get involved with some Young Democrats activities in a non-presidential election year (for what it's worth, I've always been cut from pretty left-activist cloth, but also think people with my politics should be involved in party politics if at all possible to push the Dems to the left from the local politics-up). The reception I received at the first event I attended was so stupidly unfriendly and obnoxious (I was a total outsider and apparently had no good political connections) I lost all appetite for getting involved more, despite having knocked on plenty of doors for Obama the previous year.
I'm now in a place where I might give it a shot again, but quite frankly I find my activist/community advocacy organizations more rewarding to be involved in. So this "get involved at local levels" is great as long as the local party people actually intentionally create a welcoming environment that integrates new people. Unfortunately that hasn't been my experience, and as a Sanders voter who will ultimately vote for Clinton (swing stater here), it really makes me think the party doesn't give a shit about people like me.
posted by mostly vowels at 3:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
They're talking about the awful misogyny that Boxer was met with now. I didn't realize it was so ugly.
posted by Justinian at 3:39 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:39 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, I have my Vote-By-Mail Ballot for the California Primary three weeks from now, and it has 5 names on the Democratic Presidential list besides Bernie and Hillary (none of whom I have ever heard of, during the campaign or otherwise). So, should I vote for (1) Henry Hewes, (2) Keith Judd, (3) Michael Steinberg, (4) Willie Wilson or (5) Roque de la Fuente? I like the two with alliterative names, but something tells me I really should "Roque" the Vote.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:39 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:39 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008, despite also facing similar, very long odds.
And she should have quit then as well.
Sure, But you’re dealing with the egos of people who want to lead the most powerful nation on Earth, who are trying to earn concessions from one of the two major political parties in the strongest nation on Earth. These aren’t quitters. It’s going to take at least a few more election cycles worth of data to convince them to pack it in earlier.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:41 PM on May 17, 2016
And she should have quit then as well.
Sure, But you’re dealing with the egos of people who want to lead the most powerful nation on Earth, who are trying to earn concessions from one of the two major political parties in the strongest nation on Earth. These aren’t quitters. It’s going to take at least a few more election cycles worth of data to convince them to pack it in earlier.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:41 PM on May 17, 2016
Well, I have my Vote-By-Mail Ballot for the California Primary three weeks from now, and it has 5 names on the Democratic Presidential list besides Bernie and Hillary (none of whom I have ever heard of, during the campaign or otherwise). So, should I vote for (1) Henry Hewes, (2) Keith Judd, (3) Michael Steinberg, (4) Willie Wilson or (5) Roque de la Fuente? I like the two with alliterative names, but something tells me I really should "Roque" the Vote.
Willie Nelson, because he is a national treasure.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Willie Nelson, because he is a national treasure.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
And she should have quit then as well.
Yup.
She made up for it at the convention. Hope this one turns out similarly.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yup.
She made up for it at the convention. Hope this one turns out similarly.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:42 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
The reception I received at the first event I attended was so stupidly unfriendly and obnoxious (I was a total outsider and apparently had no good political connections) I lost all appetite for getting involved more, despite having knocked on plenty of doors for Obama the previous year.
Changing a large bureaucracy from within is fucking hard-- bureaucracies by their nature are resistant to change. If you want to try again, your best bet might well be to begin by organizing outside the party, and then get involved in the party not by yourself, but as part of a group of like-minded folks. Just remember that what you are doing is campaigning for change, which means winning people over to your vision, not trying to force them to comply with it.
posted by dersins at 3:47 PM on May 17, 2016
Changing a large bureaucracy from within is fucking hard-- bureaucracies by their nature are resistant to change. If you want to try again, your best bet might well be to begin by organizing outside the party, and then get involved in the party not by yourself, but as part of a group of like-minded folks. Just remember that what you are doing is campaigning for change, which means winning people over to your vision, not trying to force them to comply with it.
posted by dersins at 3:47 PM on May 17, 2016
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008, despite also facing similar, very long odds.
Well, for 3 more days. Obama clinched a majority of the pledged delegates May 20 by winning Oregon. Hillary could get every vote in Oregon tonight and still be short of the pledged delegate majority thanks to California going next to last.
After May 20 there was no reason for Hillary to continue. Sadly, that equivalent date for Bernie is June 7.
posted by dw at 3:48 PM on May 17, 2016
Well, for 3 more days. Obama clinched a majority of the pledged delegates May 20 by winning Oregon. Hillary could get every vote in Oregon tonight and still be short of the pledged delegate majority thanks to California going next to last.
After May 20 there was no reason for Hillary to continue. Sadly, that equivalent date for Bernie is June 7.
posted by dw at 3:48 PM on May 17, 2016
Willie Nelson, because he is a national treasure.
Not Willie Nelson, Willie Wilson. And he deserves your vote. 12th most SBs all time and a fixture in those great KC Royals teams of the early 80s.
posted by dw at 3:52 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not Willie Nelson, Willie Wilson. And he deserves your vote. 12th most SBs all time and a fixture in those great KC Royals teams of the early 80s.
posted by dw at 3:52 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, Chris Matthews is at the desk all night, which is why Ralston is getting so much air time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:57 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:57 PM on May 17, 2016
So, should I vote for (1) Henry Hewes, (2) Keith Judd, (3) Michael Steinberg, (4) Willie Wilson or (5) Roque de la Fuente? I like the two with alliterative names, but something tells me I really should "Roque" the Vote.
Definitely Keith -
posted by sallybrown at 3:58 PM on May 17, 2016
Definitely Keith -
In 1999 Judd was convicted of two counts of "mailing a threatening communication with intent to extort money or something of value"[5] and sentenced to 210 months (17½ years) in federal prison. . . . His actual crime involved postcards that stated “Send the money back now, Keith Judd, Last Chance or Dead.” and a package containing a semen stained Playboy, a knife inside the magazine, a key chain, and his father’s military discharge papers. He also sent letters to jurors after his trial.[8] He has appealed his conviction no fewer than 36 times, but each appeal has been dismissed for various reasonsThis is the guy who won 41% of the 2012 WV Democratic primary.
posted by sallybrown at 3:58 PM on May 17, 2016
My arcane, but very worthwhile, suggestion is for folks to visit the library to check out a copy of William Greider's book, Who Will Tell the People and at least read the chapter entitled, "Who Owns the Democrats." Then remember he wrote that in 1992--prior to the election of Bill Clinton. Then consider what has happened since then.
Last week I was talking with a Sanders staffer and I kept hammering at the idea of "what comes after" this campaign. That's always been a weakness of the segment (or should I say fragments) of Democratic party voters who consider themselves to be a bit ignored within the party. Personally, I'm hoping for a contentious convention, especially if the outcome is one which helps coalesce that part of the left which has been consistently let down over the past few decades. Let's vote for Clinton, but let's not forget that in all likelihood that the next president will have to deal with a recession. And that will be the moment for a more organized left to insist on a more human set of economic policies. No more bailouts, no more corporate giveaways, no more shitting on the working class by the elite insiders who have been shitting on the working class for a couple of decades now.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Last week I was talking with a Sanders staffer and I kept hammering at the idea of "what comes after" this campaign. That's always been a weakness of the segment (or should I say fragments) of Democratic party voters who consider themselves to be a bit ignored within the party. Personally, I'm hoping for a contentious convention, especially if the outcome is one which helps coalesce that part of the left which has been consistently let down over the past few decades. Let's vote for Clinton, but let's not forget that in all likelihood that the next president will have to deal with a recession. And that will be the moment for a more organized left to insist on a more human set of economic policies. No more bailouts, no more corporate giveaways, no more shitting on the working class by the elite insiders who have been shitting on the working class for a couple of decades now.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton campaign says she will not make any appearance tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2016
So, should I vote for (1) Henry Hewes, (2) Keith Judd, (3) Michael Steinberg, (4) Willie Wilson or (5) Roque de la Fuente? I like the two with alliterative names, but something tells me I really should "Roque" the Vote.
Keith Judd is the felon who got more votes than Obama did in some parts of West Virginia. Don't vote for him.
The other four are essentially random rich dudes who decided to dabble in politics. Henry Hewes is a pro-life activist, Michael Steinberg has a platform that's so boring my eyes glazed over several times while attempting to read it, Willie Wilson is almost certainly the most overtly religious of your potential options, Rocky de la Fuente certainly has a slick website, and if you're dead set on voting for a wealthy real estate developer in 2016, he's better than the alternative.
posted by Copronymus at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2016
Keith Judd is the felon who got more votes than Obama did in some parts of West Virginia. Don't vote for him.
The other four are essentially random rich dudes who decided to dabble in politics. Henry Hewes is a pro-life activist, Michael Steinberg has a platform that's so boring my eyes glazed over several times while attempting to read it, Willie Wilson is almost certainly the most overtly religious of your potential options, Rocky de la Fuente certainly has a slick website, and if you're dead set on voting for a wealthy real estate developer in 2016, he's better than the alternative.
posted by Copronymus at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2016
It’s worth remembering that Clinton was still in the race at this point in 2008.
The 2008 Democratic primary race was much tighter than this 2016 race. Obama and Clinton finished less than 100 delegates apart. At no point did either candidate have a commanding lead. Clinton had won California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida -- all of the big states except Obama's home state of Illinois. Clinton won 7 of the last 10 primaries. But Obama still won because the only thing that mattered at the end is that he had won more delegates.
The same thing is happening in 2016. The person winning the most primary delegates will win, but the margin will be several times greater than the margin in 2008.
posted by JackFlash at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 2008 Democratic primary race was much tighter than this 2016 race. Obama and Clinton finished less than 100 delegates apart. At no point did either candidate have a commanding lead. Clinton had won California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida -- all of the big states except Obama's home state of Illinois. Clinton won 7 of the last 10 primaries. But Obama still won because the only thing that mattered at the end is that he had won more delegates.
The same thing is happening in 2016. The person winning the most primary delegates will win, but the margin will be several times greater than the margin in 2008.
posted by JackFlash at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Michael Steinberg has a platform that's so boring my eyes glazed over several times while attempting to read it,
ok but he also made sure to put his campaign website font in 100% bold and he has a photo sitting behind the desk of a replica Oval Office, so...
posted by sallybrown at 4:06 PM on May 17, 2016
ok but he also made sure to put his campaign website font in 100% bold and he has a photo sitting behind the desk of a replica Oval Office, so...
posted by sallybrown at 4:06 PM on May 17, 2016
If you want to try again, your best bet might well be to begin by organizing outside the party, and then get involved in the party not by yourself, but as part of a group of like-minded folks.
FWIW, it's not my style to show up for the first time to a group as the change agent. I literally went to a happy hour to meet folks and see if I was interested in getting more involved, and as soon as people found out I didn't work in politics, they went off to talk to folks who they knew had those connections. If that's how you're supposed to grow a big tent, then the party is well and truly screwed.
posted by mostly vowels at 4:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
FWIW, it's not my style to show up for the first time to a group as the change agent. I literally went to a happy hour to meet folks and see if I was interested in getting more involved, and as soon as people found out I didn't work in politics, they went off to talk to folks who they knew had those connections. If that's how you're supposed to grow a big tent, then the party is well and truly screwed.
posted by mostly vowels at 4:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
Donald Trump responds to Hillary PAC's ad mocking his comments about women by saying that one of the lines was misquoted. I guess he stands by all of the others.
It's OK, though, he obviously has no problem with women because his own wife endorsed him.
posted by mmoncur at 4:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's OK, though, he obviously has no problem with women because his own wife endorsed him.
posted by mmoncur at 4:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Melania Trump wants everyone to know her husband is not Hitler.
This might be the first time I've ever seen a political campaign Godwin itself.
posted by mmoncur at 4:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
This might be the first time I've ever seen a political campaign Godwin itself.
posted by mmoncur at 4:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Kentucky has been ruled too close to call right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2016
The Guardian link for tracking KY and OR results for the lazy.
posted by kyp at 4:20 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by kyp at 4:20 PM on May 17, 2016
Kentucky is looking like a seesaw. Louisville isn't coming through as strong for Hillary as expected.
posted by dw at 4:32 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 4:32 PM on May 17, 2016
The Guardian link for tracking KY and OR results for the lazy.
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
posted by dersins at 4:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
posted by dersins at 4:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Melania Trump wants everyone to know her husband is not Hitler.
Fact check rating: TRUE
posted by Chrysostom at 4:41 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fact check rating: TRUE
posted by Chrysostom at 4:41 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
MSNBC talking about how the uncommitted vote is unusually high in Eastern Kentucky. Trump voters who are ancestral Democrats.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:46 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:46 PM on May 17, 2016
SHOTGUN WILLIE/TRIGGER 2016
posted by Lyme Drop at 4:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 4:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
In 2008, Hillary won Harlan County 85%-9%. Tonight she lost 63%-26%. What a difference 8 years makes.
posted by dw at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2016
never hitler your own candidate
that is a rookie mistake
posted by indubitable at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
that is a rookie mistake
posted by indubitable at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
SHOTGUN WILLIE/TRIGGER 2016
Now Donald J. Trump was working for the Ku Klux Klan
Six foot two Donald was a hell of a man
Made a lotta money selling sheets with his miniature hands
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Now Donald J. Trump was working for the Ku Klux Klan
Six foot two Donald was a hell of a man
Made a lotta money selling sheets with his miniature hands
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
I love the cartoon scissorlift Bernie saying "If the environment were a bank it would have been saved by now." Pithy! It's kind of mesmerizing.
posted by sallybrown at 4:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love the cartoon scissorlift Bernie saying "If the environment were a bank it would have been saved by now." Pithy! It's kind of mesmerizing.
posted by sallybrown at 4:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2008, Hillary won Harlan County 85%-9%. Tonight she lost 63%-26%. What a difference 8 years makes.
Last time she was running against a black man. This time she's running against a white man. The bigot hierarchy appears to be white man > white woman > black man. One assumes black woman comes next.
posted by Justinian at 4:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Last time she was running against a black man. This time she's running against a white man. The bigot hierarchy appears to be white man > white woman > black man. One assumes black woman comes next.
posted by Justinian at 4:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
In 2008, Hillary won Harlan County 85%-9%. Tonight she lost 63%-26%. What a difference 8 years makes.
Or the race of her opponent.
posted by bearwife at 4:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Or the race of her opponent.
posted by bearwife at 4:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Now I want a Christine O'Donnell style confessional ad from Donald - "I'm not Hitler. I'm you!"
(never forget)
posted by sallybrown at 4:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
(never forget)
posted by sallybrown at 4:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Made a lotta money selling sheets steaks with his miniature hands
posted by Going To Maine at 4:58 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:58 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
In 2008, Hillary won Harlan County 85%-9%. Tonight she lost 63%-26%. What a difference 8 years makes.
More like, what a difference telling a coal miner his job's going away makes in the epicenter of coal country.
posted by klarck at 5:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
More like, what a difference telling a coal miner his job's going away makes in the epicenter of coal country.
posted by klarck at 5:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
never hitler your own candidate
SIR. SIR, YOU BEHITLER YOURSELF.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
SIR. SIR, YOU BEHITLER YOURSELF.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:02 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
In 2008, Hillary won Harlan County 85%-9%. Tonight she lost 63%-26%. What a difference 8 years makes.
In Wayne County, not that far away and with similar demographics (poor, white), Clinton won 56-39%. I'm sure there's no lack of people in Kentucky voting today who are motivated by sexism and racism, but the way her supporters seem to assume that it's the only important factor makes me very fearful about the general election.
posted by junco at 5:07 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
In Wayne County, not that far away and with similar demographics (poor, white), Clinton won 56-39%. I'm sure there's no lack of people in Kentucky voting today who are motivated by sexism and racism, but the way her supporters seem to assume that it's the only important factor makes me very fearful about the general election.
posted by junco at 5:07 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, spoiler alert, Kentucky is going to vote for Trump in the general.
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:09 PM on May 17, 2016
Well, spoiler alert, Kentucky is going to vote for Trump in the general.
And if the Democratic party continues to write off huge swaths of the country as irredeemably stupid and racist, sexist, etc., and therefore deserving of their poverty, that's never going to change.
posted by junco at 5:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
And if the Democratic party continues to write off huge swaths of the country as irredeemably stupid and racist, sexist, etc., and therefore deserving of their poverty, that's never going to change.
posted by junco at 5:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
Megyn Kelly is interviewing Donald Trump right now and now I want her and Gwen Ifill to co-moderate every debate forever and ever amen.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:16 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mostly vowels at 5:16 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, spoiler alert, Kentucky is going to vote for Trump in the general.
I miss the 50 state strategy. Also, Kentucky just had a Democratic governor (who sadly is now gone), so....
posted by mostly vowels at 5:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I miss the 50 state strategy. Also, Kentucky just had a Democratic governor (who sadly is now gone), so....
posted by mostly vowels at 5:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And if the Democratic party continues to write off huge swaths of the country as irredeemably stupid and racist, sexist, etc., and therefore deserving of their poverty,
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow "deserve poverty," however.
posted by dersins at 5:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow "deserve poverty," however.
posted by dersins at 5:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Remember when folks were calling for Sanders to drop out after all those primaries down south? I do. They'll be going Republican, too.
Of course, the problem of identity politics is that that hammer makes everything look like a nail. Meanwhile, Harlan County and coal country in general was the locus for some of the most vicious labor/management battles over unionization this country has seen.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Of course, the problem of identity politics is that that hammer makes everything look like a nail. Meanwhile, Harlan County and coal country in general was the locus for some of the most vicious labor/management battles over unionization this country has seen.
posted by CincyBlues at 5:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I miss the 50 state strategy.
The 50 state strategy was about down ballot races never the Presidential race!
posted by Justinian at 5:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The 50 state strategy was about down ballot races never the Presidential race!
posted by Justinian at 5:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
25 minutes into Kelly/Trump so far and we've not even touched on a single policy issue.
posted by zachlipton at 5:25 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by zachlipton at 5:25 PM on May 17, 2016
The 50 state strategy was about down ballot races never the Presidential race!
EXACTLY, which is why it's so shitty to see Democratic orgs leaving candidates in "write-off" states on their own.
Case in point, from Kentucky. I'm sure this happens in lots of other states that aren't on the coasts.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
EXACTLY, which is why it's so shitty to see Democratic orgs leaving candidates in "write-off" states on their own.
Case in point, from Kentucky. I'm sure this happens in lots of other states that aren't on the coasts.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
On the topic of what drives support for Trump, this Salon piece is really good:
posted by sallybrown at 5:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
“Economic anxiety” doesn’t fully explain support for Trump(emphasis mine)
One of the common reasons given to explain the rise of Trump is the idea that his supporters are motivated by economic anxiety. . . . there is an ongoing debate as to whether Trump supporters have a higher or lower income than other Republicans.
This debate, while interesting, doesn’t get to the core of Trump support. (Family income isn’t a predictor of Trump support in any of our models.) More importantly this narrative is difficult to square with the reality that although Blacks and Hispanics have significantly worse economic outcomes than whites, few have rushed to support Trump. In addition, we find that variables connected to economic anxiety do not predict Trump support after other factors are controlled for. (A recent Washington Post analysis finds that racial concerns are stronger predictors of Trump support than economic ones.) Rather, we find that what drives support for Trump is the mistaken belief that the government serves the interests of Blacks, rather than whites. Political scientist Brian McKenzie finds that, “whites who feel the Obama administration is looking out for the economic interests of blacks are more likely to express frustration with their own financial position.”
posted by sallybrown at 5:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
And if the Democratic party continues to write off huge swaths of the country as irredeemably stupid and racist, sexist, etc., and therefore deserving of their poverty,
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow “deserve poverty,” however.
I don’t know that I’ve fully organized my thoughts on it, but Freddie deBoer’s “What do you owe people who are guilty of being wrong?” is an interesting note on that particular straw man.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow “deserve poverty,” however.
I don’t know that I’ve fully organized my thoughts on it, but Freddie deBoer’s “What do you owe people who are guilty of being wrong?” is an interesting note on that particular straw man.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looks to me like Clinton is going to squeak out a win in Kentucky.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on May 17, 2016
Bill Carter on the Kelly/Trump interview: "If it had been any softer, it would come on a cone w a swirl."
posted by sallybrown at 5:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 5:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dunno Donald kinda choked for a second with a brief fleeting look of panic when Megyn called him out on the bimbo comments and didn't break gaze. I think we just got a preview of how this shithead can be disarmed in the coming debates. Every woman who's learned how to disarm a blowhard dude knows what this looks like and it's pretty satisfying to watch another woman carry it out even if you don't share her politics.
posted by mostly vowels at 5:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 5:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
an interesting note on that particular straw man
There is nothing at all interesting about burning a straw man.
de Boer, just like Emmit Rensin, isn't engaging with the actual conversation liberals are having in the public sphere, because that would involve the hard work of citing actual attacks on people and connecting those to political ideology. They are also hand-waving away the very real tradeoffs involved in crafting a message that would resonate with the demographics Democrats aren't doing well with. As the tent gets bigger and bigger, it becomes hard to keep the people in it from leaving because they don't have enough in common with the new arrivals in terms of what they want from policymakers.
Nobody I'm aware of that has any influence within liberalism is cackling with glee as rural whites increasingly turn to drugs and suicide to escape their problems, or as they blame their problems on other segments of the population. Liberals want to help anyone who needs help, but at some point, when you're offering help and nobody wants to take it, you don't have much choice other than to instead offer the help to those who will.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:44 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
There is nothing at all interesting about burning a straw man.
de Boer, just like Emmit Rensin, isn't engaging with the actual conversation liberals are having in the public sphere, because that would involve the hard work of citing actual attacks on people and connecting those to political ideology. They are also hand-waving away the very real tradeoffs involved in crafting a message that would resonate with the demographics Democrats aren't doing well with. As the tent gets bigger and bigger, it becomes hard to keep the people in it from leaving because they don't have enough in common with the new arrivals in terms of what they want from policymakers.
Nobody I'm aware of that has any influence within liberalism is cackling with glee as rural whites increasingly turn to drugs and suicide to escape their problems, or as they blame their problems on other segments of the population. Liberals want to help anyone who needs help, but at some point, when you're offering help and nobody wants to take it, you don't have much choice other than to instead offer the help to those who will.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:44 PM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Charles Pierce: It's Time for Bernie's People to Calm Down
posted by homunculus at 5:49 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:49 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Huh, Sanders is back up 100 votes in Kentucky with 93% in! Wow.
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 50 state strategy was about down ballot races never the Presidential race!
The Democratic establishment will never forgive Howard Dean for 2006.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:57 PM on May 17, 2016
The Democratic establishment will never forgive Howard Dean for 2006.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:57 PM on May 17, 2016
The frustrating thing is that Kentucky is in every important respect a tie, but the whole narrative about it is going to hinge on who ends up eking out a victory by a few hundred votes margin. I'm so sick of dumb political reporting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:57 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Right, a 200 vote difference in Kentucky could mean either CLINTON STOPS SANDERS MOMENTUM COLD and SANDERS STEAMROLLS ANOTHER STATE!
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Guardian link for tracking KY and OR results for the lazy.
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
Really? Because I thought it was jaw-droppingly stupid the first time. As in, my jaw actually dropped and I stared at the screen in wonder and disgust.
posted by bongo_x at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2016
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
Really? Because I thought it was jaw-droppingly stupid the first time. As in, my jaw actually dropped and I stared at the screen in wonder and disgust.
posted by bongo_x at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2016
Ah, the outstanding precincts in KY are almost all in Louisville.
posted by Justinian at 6:03 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:03 PM on May 17, 2016
Melania Trump Says Jewish Reporter Who Got Death Threats from Pro-Trump Neo-Nazis Had it Coming
posted by zachlipton at 6:04 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 6:04 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you want to watch local KET commentary on this election, you can.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by CincyBlues at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2016
Right, a 200 vote difference in Kentucky could mean either CLINTON STOPS SANDERS MOMENTUM COLD and SANDERS STEAMROLLS ANOTHER STATE!
Or the classic "Sanders Suffers Another Devastating Victory".
posted by clawsoon at 6:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Or the classic "Sanders Suffers Another Devastating Victory".
posted by clawsoon at 6:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm wondering if the Clinton campaign will have the proper takeaway from this closed primary. So close for party members, but what of independents? Had they been able to vote, Sanders probably wins significantly. So, how does the Clinton campaign attract independents for the general? It'll be interesting to see what develops over the next few months.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CincyBlues at 6:10 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Re: California Primary Ballot
The other four are essentially random rich dudes who decided to dabble in politics.
Not surprising. Way upthread I'd noted how a Democratic candidate for Senator proudly called himself an "Andrew Jackson Democrat"
Who says the Nixon Southern Strategy pulled all the racists away from the Democratic Party?
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow “deserve poverty,” however.
I can think of one who deserves to be absolutely financially destitute, an old fart with orange hair and small hands...
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The other four are essentially random rich dudes who decided to dabble in politics.
Not surprising. Way upthread I'd noted how a Democratic candidate for Senator proudly called himself an "Andrew Jackson Democrat"
Who says the Nixon Southern Strategy pulled all the racists away from the Democratic Party?
Somewhere north of 10 million Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.
I have yet to hear anyone but a straw man argue that those people somehow “deserve poverty,” however.
I can think of one who deserves to be absolutely financially destitute, an old fart with orange hair and small hands...
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Louisville came in and Clinton is ahead by 2000 votes. I think that's done it.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on May 17, 2016
Only precincts left to report are in/around Louisville. I think Hillary just won-only-not-since-it's-a-statistical-dead-heat.
Regardless, Bernie could count it as a win since he held what should have been a 6-8 point win to less than 1%, but it's also a loss for him since he's now down another net delegate.
posted by dw at 6:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regardless, Bernie could count it as a win since he held what should have been a 6-8 point win to less than 1%, but it's also a loss for him since he's now down another net delegate.
posted by dw at 6:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yup. I don't know how they assign delegates, and it's an odd number, so someone is going to end up ahead by at least one delegate, but for all intents and purposes: tie. But wait for the stupid "Hillary stops Bernie's momentum" narrative, because stupid reporting is stupid.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Hillary just won-only-not-since-it's-a-statistical-dead-heat.
In the context of the delegate race -- the thing that actually matters -- this is most definitely a win for Clinton. Unless Sanders is winning by 30 to 40 point margins every primary is just moving the race closer to a Clinton victory.
posted by chrchr at 6:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the context of the delegate race -- the thing that actually matters -- this is most definitely a win for Clinton. Unless Sanders is winning by 30 to 40 point margins every primary is just moving the race closer to a Clinton victory.
posted by chrchr at 6:26 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm proceeding from the assumption that the actual race is over, Hillary is the nominee, and basically all that matters here is the optics.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Guardian link for tracking KY and OR results for the lazy.
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
Really? Because I thought it was jaw-droppingly stupid the first time. As in, my jaw actually dropped and I stared at the screen in wonder and disgust.
Sad!
posted by sallybrown at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there a way to turn off the stupid scissorlift animations? It was cute the first 8,347 times, but I'm kinda over it now.
Really? Because I thought it was jaw-droppingly stupid the first time. As in, my jaw actually dropped and I stared at the screen in wonder and disgust.
Sad!
posted by sallybrown at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary is the nominee, and basically all that matters here is the optics
I think that's contradictory with your previous comment though. Who wins the state does matter for the optics. What it doesn't matter for is the math.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that's contradictory with your previous comment though. Who wins the state does matter for the optics. What it doesn't matter for is the math.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Hillary just won-only-not-since-it's-a-statistical-dead-heat.
There's no statistics about it. This isn't a sampling poll. It's a vote and the votes have been counted. It's not even within the margin for an automatic recount.
posted by JackFlash at 6:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's no statistics about it. This isn't a sampling poll. It's a vote and the votes have been counted. It's not even within the margin for an automatic recount.
posted by JackFlash at 6:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kentucky's breakdown: 60 total delegate votes - 37 district / 12 at large; 6 Pledged PLEOs; 5 Unpledged PLEOs
So they'll split the 12 at-large and likely the 6 pledged PLEOs. The other 37 will be by district. So it could still be a pledged delegate win for Bernie, only not much of one.
posted by dw at 6:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
So they'll split the 12 at-large and likely the 6 pledged PLEOs. The other 37 will be by district. So it could still be a pledged delegate win for Bernie, only not much of one.
posted by dw at 6:29 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who wins the state does matter for the optics. What it doesn't matter for is the math.
And it shouldn't matter for the optics either. Those optics are distorted! It's an optical illusion!
posted by chrchr at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it shouldn't matter for the optics either. Those optics are distorted! It's an optical illusion!
posted by chrchr at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, but it matters for the optics that the reporting is dumb. The fixation on the winner of each state is driving a particularly un-nuanced media narrative.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The thing about optics is that they aren't necessarily amenable to cold logic.
posted by Justinian at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2016
Would you all please stop saying gummi
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there evidence someplace that Sanders does better in open primaries? What I'm seeing here is that he won open primaries in Indiana, Wisconsin, Idaho, Michigan, Vermont and lost them in Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas. Clinton has a delegate lead in open primary states. So how is it that Sanders is hurt by closed primaries?
posted by chrchr at 6:46 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chrchr at 6:46 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Isn't Clinton 11 for 11 in closed primaries?
posted by Chrysostom at 6:48 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 6:48 PM on May 17, 2016
I think it's because Sanders hasn't yet won a closed primary, although he'll probably win Oregon.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2016
Even in the MSM the main questions are now (1) when is Sanders going to drop out; (2) what is he going to ask for from Clinton in order to agree to fire up / hand over the data on his supporters; and (3) what lessons for her general campaign should Clinton draw from this. For all three of these, it now matters much less whether Sanders won or lost by a hair, even in the dim brains of the TV media. Either way, they will conclude (A) Clinton is winning and continues to be winning, and (B) a lot of people are voting for Sanders. What B means for 1-3, though, no longer depends as much on who "won," even for the optics folks.
posted by chortly at 6:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by chortly at 6:55 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is there evidence someplace that Sanders does better in open primaries?
They're all listed here. If you sort you can see he's won one fully closed primary (Democrats Abroad) but won quite a few more open primaries.
The numbers are thrown off by the Southern primaries, which were mostly open. Outside of the South, Bernie has gone 4-for-6 (with Missouri being a tight loss).
posted by dw at 7:03 PM on May 17, 2016
They're all listed here. If you sort you can see he's won one fully closed primary (Democrats Abroad) but won quite a few more open primaries.
The numbers are thrown off by the Southern primaries, which were mostly open. Outside of the South, Bernie has gone 4-for-6 (with Missouri being a tight loss).
posted by dw at 7:03 PM on May 17, 2016
Weird. The NYT lists 7pm as the closing time for Oregon polls, but they don't close til 8.
posted by dw at 7:07 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 7:07 PM on May 17, 2016
Ralston is on MSNBC reporting that some of the Sanders folks came to the Nevada convention already intending to disrupt it and denouncing their behavior as outrageous.
posted by Justinian at 7:09 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:09 PM on May 17, 2016
Mod note: Can we please not with the ironic (or not) one-liner accusations of cheating?
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:15 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Boy do I wish people would stop doing this:
The numbers are thrown off by the Southern primaries
posted by chrchr at 7:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
The numbers are thrown off by the Southern primaries
posted by chrchr at 7:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
chrchr: "In the context of the delegate race -- the thing that actually matters -- this is most definitely a win for Clinton. Unless Sanders is winning by 30 to 40 point margins every primary is just moving the race closer to a Clinton victory."
That's been the real story for months now. Every tie or even close Sanders win just pushes Clinton that much closer to the delegate target. As it looks right now, they're going to split KY right down the middle giving both of them 25 delegates which means that she's that much nearer 2383 and he has even less than the already minuscule chance of catching her. Even if he wins Oregon by a huge margin, he's probably only close the gap by about twenty delegates which is pretty meaningless against his almost 300 delegate deficit.
posted by octothorpe at 7:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's been the real story for months now. Every tie or even close Sanders win just pushes Clinton that much closer to the delegate target. As it looks right now, they're going to split KY right down the middle giving both of them 25 delegates which means that she's that much nearer 2383 and he has even less than the already minuscule chance of catching her. Even if he wins Oregon by a huge margin, he's probably only close the gap by about twenty delegates which is pretty meaningless against his almost 300 delegate deficit.
posted by octothorpe at 7:23 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, is Clinton within 125 now of clinching? (I admit I am counting her super delegates, as they are certain to vote on the first convention ballot.)
posted by bearwife at 7:38 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by bearwife at 7:38 PM on May 17, 2016
yes, she should be within 125 now. At the end of the night it will probably be under 100.
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2016
I can't wait until we can just agree that the lady won the Democratic nomination.
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
She is closer to winning the Democratic nomination than Trump is to winning the Republican nomination. The only reason that she isn't being called the presumptive nominee is to avoid hurting feelings among her opponents voters. Really. Maybe that's a good idea but that's the only reason.
posted by Justinian at 8:04 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:04 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
4 minutes past 8 and the first county reports in from Oregon.
I so want Washington to end the "postmark" rule on ballots. In the box by 8pm or no vote.
posted by dw at 8:04 PM on May 17, 2016
I so want Washington to end the "postmark" rule on ballots. In the box by 8pm or no vote.
posted by dw at 8:04 PM on May 17, 2016
The media will start calling her the presumptive nominee any moment now. I don't think that has anything to do with her opponents.
posted by futz at 8:07 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by futz at 8:07 PM on May 17, 2016
7 past. 20% of the vote counted. And I think we can call it for Bernie shortly.
posted by dw at 8:08 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 8:08 PM on May 17, 2016
I disagree; I don't think they will start calling her the presumptive nominee until California or so.
posted by Justinian at 8:08 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:08 PM on May 17, 2016
You may be right but I disagree with your reasoning why. Media does what it wants to do.
posted by futz at 8:10 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by futz at 8:10 PM on May 17, 2016
Oh I see, you mean the media doesn't care about hurting his supporter's feelings. You may be right about that, I meant by other Democrats.
posted by Justinian at 8:10 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:10 PM on May 17, 2016
So as the Oregon results come in:
Before the Kentucky results, Sanders needed 66% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. After losing in Kentucky, Sanders now needs 67% of remaining pledged delegates. Sanders needs to win Oregon with at least 67% to keep from falling farther behind.
posted by JackFlash at 8:11 PM on May 17, 2016
Before the Kentucky results, Sanders needed 66% of the remaining pledged delegates to win. After losing in Kentucky, Sanders now needs 67% of remaining pledged delegates. Sanders needs to win Oregon with at least 67% to keep from falling farther behind.
posted by JackFlash at 8:11 PM on May 17, 2016
Nope. Media still pushing Sanders Can Win. At least MSNBC. But I do think it's about supporters' feelings.
Even Rachel Maddow acknowledges she'll get hate mail after every broadcast.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 PM on May 17, 2016
Even Rachel Maddow acknowledges she'll get hate mail after every broadcast.
posted by zutalors! at 8:14 PM on May 17, 2016
Oregon is closer than expected so far -- 52-46 Bernie. He needed a solid blowout like he got in Washington, and he's not getting it.
That said, nothing in from Linn County yet, home to UO.
posted by dw at 8:15 PM on May 17, 2016
That said, nothing in from Linn County yet, home to UO.
posted by dw at 8:15 PM on May 17, 2016
Maddow and Hayes did both indicate they get hate mail from Sanders supporters pretty much constantly.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on May 17, 2016
I have had the opposite experience. CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc always end their statements by saying that the math is impossible.
posted by futz at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by futz at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2016
And yet, here is Bernie Sanders live saying he will win California and that the establishment says that "Californians don't have the right to vote" which no one said.
posted by zutalors! at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sanders is being defiant in his speech, talking about staying in until the last ballot is cast.
posted by Justinian at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2016
zulators, Not sure what that means in relation to the media?
On preview, all politicians say the till the very last moment; being defiant.
posted by futz at 8:22 PM on May 17, 2016
On preview, all politicians say the till the very last moment; being defiant.
posted by futz at 8:22 PM on May 17, 2016
Yet again, Sanders mentions lots of kinds of justice (racial! economic!) but nothing about women.
It's just alarming to be considered crony establishment and yet get excited that women are mentioned in every stump speech (by Hillary).
posted by zutalors! at 8:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's just alarming to be considered crony establishment and yet get excited that women are mentioned in every stump speech (by Hillary).
posted by zutalors! at 8:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Looks like Bernie will win Oregon, but this has to be a major disappointment for his campaign to only win by 5-7%.
posted by dw at 8:26 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 8:26 PM on May 17, 2016
yeah, no one said they can't! A majority of Democrats want Sanders to stay in the race, and yet he's getting his crowd to boo the party.
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 8:30 PM on May 17, 2016
he's getting his crowd to boo the party. I mean, really?
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Right now Trump has 66.6% of the vote. Oregonians might be on to something?
posted by localhuman at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by localhuman at 8:32 PM on May 17, 2016
he's not getting his crowd to boo the party. I mean, really?
He's not saying "BOO THE PARTY", no, but he's using rhetoric he knows will result in booing the party. That's substantially the same thing.
posted by Justinian at 8:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
He's not saying "BOO THE PARTY", no, but he's using rhetoric he knows will result in booing the party. That's substantially the same thing.
posted by Justinian at 8:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
he's not getting his crowd to boo the party. I mean, really?
He's not saying "BOO THE PARTY", no, but he's using rhetoric he knows will result in booing the party. That's substantially the same thing.
Especially right after the Nevada stuff, which he didn't feel like addressing, it feels pretty shabby.
posted by zutalors! at 8:36 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
well Boxer did say that Sanders folks had boo'd themselves out of the party so I guess it is a done deal
posted by futz at 8:37 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by futz at 8:37 PM on May 17, 2016
Stop it, Bernie. Really, why run as a Democrat if you're going to invite trashing of the very party you want to nominate you?
I want to warm to him and I certainly am fine with him staying in to the end of the primaries, but I worry about how helpful he will be against Trump and on down ballot races.
posted by bearwife at 8:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I want to warm to him and I certainly am fine with him staying in to the end of the primaries, but I worry about how helpful he will be against Trump and on down ballot races.
posted by bearwife at 8:37 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
MSNBC called Oregon for Sanders. Looks like about... a 5 point margin maybe?
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on May 17, 2016
Stop it, Bernie. Really, why run as a Democrat if you're going to invite trashing of the very party you want to nominate you?
Yeah, this is really startling to me. I mean, I was a baby voter during Howard Dean's run, but he didn't bash the legitimacy of the party.
I would totally get it if he was running Independent but he's not. He's not encouraging people to be Democrats. So what is he doing?
posted by zutalors! at 8:58 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think he never expected to be where he is so his playbook is still that of an insurgent protest candidate rather than a guy getting 45% of the vote for the Democratic nomination.
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:01 PM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
It seems less like he wants to win, and more like he wants Hillary Clinton to lose.
posted by zutalors! at 9:06 PM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:06 PM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
Nobody would accuse me of carrying water for Sanders and I don't agree with that. I think he just doesn't have experience in this situation and doesn't know how to handle it correctly.
posted by Justinian at 9:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:22 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jeez dude, everyone loves you, even people who didn't vote for you, even people in the other party. Don't blow that.
posted by bongo_x at 9:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bongo_x at 9:24 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't mean to be the Talking Points Memo RSS feed, but Marshall unloads on Sanders here.
I have to say, I am becoming concerned by recent developments. I was fine with Sanders hanging on until the election, figuring he'd really work on selling his ideas. Maybe pull Clinton a bit more left, definitely help sow the seeds for future progressives. But this is really seeming destructive.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
I have to say, I am becoming concerned by recent developments. I was fine with Sanders hanging on until the election, figuring he'd really work on selling his ideas. Maybe pull Clinton a bit more left, definitely help sow the seeds for future progressives. But this is really seeming destructive.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:40 PM on May 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
I don't mean to be the TPM RSS feed either, but I just want to quote this over and over:
posted by mmoncur at 9:50 PM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
It is worth noting the big picture here. Every day the Sanders and Clinton camps spend going apeshit at each other rather than beginning the work of unifying Democrats and progressives of all stripes into a coalition to keep Donald Trump out of the White House is a lost day.If Trump wins this election I'm not going to blame the republicans, I'm going to blame the democrats, and the reason is that we have had way too many of these lost days.
posted by mmoncur at 9:50 PM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
Clinton isn't going apeshit though. Maybe her "camp" is, but she hasnt mentioned Sanders in weeks. Meanwhile Sanders is drawing boos for the entire party, which implicates downballot candidates.
This is about more than Trump.
Personally, I still think people are underestimating the power of the Obama coalition and minority and female votes. But it's hard to see how Sanders is advocating for anything "left" if he's advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices for decades.
posted by zutalors! at 9:59 PM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is about more than Trump.
Personally, I still think people are underestimating the power of the Obama coalition and minority and female votes. But it's hard to see how Sanders is advocating for anything "left" if he's advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices for decades.
posted by zutalors! at 9:59 PM on May 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yowch, you weren't kidding about Marshall unloading on Sanders. Maybe zutalors was right after all.
posted by Justinian at 10:20 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 10:20 PM on May 17, 2016
The good news is we get a couple weeks off on the Democratic side -- nothing until the June 4 Virgin Islands primary. Maybe things will calm down. Maybe.
posted by dw at 10:26 PM on May 17, 2016
posted by dw at 10:26 PM on May 17, 2016
If Trump wins this election I'm not going to blame the republicans, I'm going to blame the democrats,
I won't blame democrats. I will give Sanders some serious fucking side-eye, though.
posted by dersins at 10:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I won't blame democrats. I will give Sanders some serious fucking side-eye, though.
posted by dersins at 10:34 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
But it's hard to see how Sanders is advocating for anything "left" if he's advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices for decades.
Sanders' message to me is, "Yeah, the DNC advocates but they need to get off their ass and actually reform shit that makes a difference to people earning < 50k year..."
That includes everyone regardless of identity.
The party isn't left enough. Let's start expecting a whole loaf of the bread we bake rather than the crumbs...
posted by mikelieman at 10:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders' message to me is, "Yeah, the DNC advocates but they need to get off their ass and actually reform shit that makes a difference to people earning < 50k year..."
That includes everyone regardless of identity.
The party isn't left enough. Let's start expecting a whole loaf of the bread we bake rather than the crumbs...
posted by mikelieman at 10:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
The ideological categories are getting more and more fractured - there's definitely a divide between the "economic justice" left and the "social justice" left (which goes far to explain the "Bernie Bros"). The old "Political Compass" is no longer an "x/y" chart now, but at least an "x/y/z"
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:12 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, Sanders has failed in committing enough to minority outreach. That is one if his political sins that will lead to the electoral loss of his campaign. That is inevitable. But to call accuse him of "advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices"? Are we seriously going to question his commitment? Are Democrats going to be played like the Republican base, except substitute identity politics for religious conservatism? It's not that the Democrats haven't acted in favor of minorities and females. It's that they've neither acted enough, nor have they acted enough in the economic interests of Americans as a whole.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:14 PM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Are Democrats going to be played like the Republican base, except substitute identity politics for religious conservatism?
Yes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But it's hard to see how Sanders is advocating for anything "left" if he's advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices for decades.
Sanders’ message to me is, "Yeah, the DNC advocates but they need to get off their ass and actually reform shit that makes a difference to people earning < 50k year...”
Yes, Sanders has failed in committing enough to minority outreach. That is one if his political sins that will lead to the electoral loss of his campaign. That is inevitable. But to call accuse him of "advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices"? Are we seriously going to question his commitment?
I wouldn’t consider it an accusation so much as an attempt to understand messaging. Right now, the Democrats can legitimately claim to be more representative of those different identity groups. Sanders can argue (compellingly, I think) that economic issues should be a more unifying factor that brings people together. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, he’s fighting a losing battle against the candidate that has been effectively chosen. Sanders might have the facts, but he doesn’t have the mandate.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders’ message to me is, "Yeah, the DNC advocates but they need to get off their ass and actually reform shit that makes a difference to people earning < 50k year...”
Yes, Sanders has failed in committing enough to minority outreach. That is one if his political sins that will lead to the electoral loss of his campaign. That is inevitable. But to call accuse him of "advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices"? Are we seriously going to question his commitment?
I wouldn’t consider it an accusation so much as an attempt to understand messaging. Right now, the Democrats can legitimately claim to be more representative of those different identity groups. Sanders can argue (compellingly, I think) that economic issues should be a more unifying factor that brings people together. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, he’s fighting a losing battle against the candidate that has been effectively chosen. Sanders might have the facts, but he doesn’t have the mandate.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:30 PM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have been off and on trying to find exit polls for Asian and Asian-American voters for months. Most of the time, it was lucky just to get the percentage of Asian American voters participating. I finally found a breakdown for Chinese and Chinese-American voters that participated in the NY primary:
-513 surveyed around NYC's Chinatown (not a very big or geographically broad sample)
-84% registered Democrats, 8% registered Republicans
-For Democrats, they backed Clinton over Sanders 54% to 43% (which was a drop from 2008 when Clinton won 70% to 90% of the Asian American vote)
-For Republicans, 60% favored Trump
-Survey was done by the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, which has an infographic of the survey here.
Also in the first link they mentioned that it was during Clinton's primary campaign through NYC that she also got to try Taiwanese Bubble Tea for the first time. She calls it a "chewy tea".
posted by FJT at 11:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
-513 surveyed around NYC's Chinatown (not a very big or geographically broad sample)
-84% registered Democrats, 8% registered Republicans
-For Democrats, they backed Clinton over Sanders 54% to 43% (which was a drop from 2008 when Clinton won 70% to 90% of the Asian American vote)
-For Republicans, 60% favored Trump
-Survey was done by the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, which has an infographic of the survey here.
Also in the first link they mentioned that it was during Clinton's primary campaign through NYC that she also got to try Taiwanese Bubble Tea for the first time. She calls it a "chewy tea".
posted by FJT at 11:47 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
hey hey HEY. We're a culture, not a cuisine
posted by Apocryphon at 11:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:56 PM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The party isn't left enough. Let's start expecting a whole loaf of the bread we bake rather than the crumbs...
But remember that because we have a first-past-the-post two party system and not a parliamentary one the leftmost major party will not be far enough left for fully half of the voters of that party, and will not be even close to being left enough for a quarter to a third of its members. That's structurally intrinsic to the system. If the party moved far enough left to satisfy the leftmost third of its members it would cease to be a major party.
posted by Justinian at 12:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
But remember that because we have a first-past-the-post two party system and not a parliamentary one the leftmost major party will not be far enough left for fully half of the voters of that party, and will not be even close to being left enough for a quarter to a third of its members. That's structurally intrinsic to the system. If the party moved far enough left to satisfy the leftmost third of its members it would cease to be a major party.
posted by Justinian at 12:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
...which explains how the Republican Party became so marginalized when it kept moving rightward... (Overton. Making fine windows since 1960.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:11 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:11 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
But to call accuse him of "advocating against a party that has spoken for minority and female voices"? Are we seriously going to question his commitment?
I'm actually not sure WHAT his commitment is to at this point. Is it to rape and death threats? To throwing chairs? Is it to a campaign that's sounding more and more like GamerGate? Even if his commitment is there, I have to seriously question his judgement and leadership at this point.
Seriously, I can respect wanting more than crumbs, but is this REALLY the best way to get the whole loaf of bread?
posted by happyroach at 12:27 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm actually not sure WHAT his commitment is to at this point. Is it to rape and death threats? To throwing chairs? Is it to a campaign that's sounding more and more like GamerGate? Even if his commitment is there, I have to seriously question his judgement and leadership at this point.
Seriously, I can respect wanting more than crumbs, but is this REALLY the best way to get the whole loaf of bread?
posted by happyroach at 12:27 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Re: Hillary's lower vote totals in Kentucky vs. 2008. Was it race and gender?
More like, what a difference telling a coal miner his job's going away makes in the epicenter of coal country.
Because Bernie was so reassuring about how he'll maintain the future of the coal industry? I don't think that explanation makes sense.
posted by msalt at 12:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
More like, what a difference telling a coal miner his job's going away makes in the epicenter of coal country.
Because Bernie was so reassuring about how he'll maintain the future of the coal industry? I don't think that explanation makes sense.
posted by msalt at 12:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oregon is closer than expected so far -- 52-46 Bernie. He needed a solid blowout like he got in Washington, and he's not getting it. That said, nothing in from Linn County yet, home to UO.
To be precise, Linn County is the home of more conservative Corvallis and Oregon State University. The University of Oregon, aka Oregon or U of O (but rarely if ever described as UO) is in Eugene = Lane County, though only 20 miles away. /pedantic
posted by msalt at 12:32 AM on May 18, 2016
To be precise, Linn County is the home of more conservative Corvallis and Oregon State University. The University of Oregon, aka Oregon or U of O (but rarely if ever described as UO) is in Eugene = Lane County, though only 20 miles away. /pedantic
posted by msalt at 12:32 AM on May 18, 2016
The optics of Hillary Clinton advocating for solar in coal country really did suck, though...
FWIW, I do feel it's more "White Man > ...." .
And when I get stressed out about all this, I remember this one simple fact... "Trust the Computer. The Computer is Your Friend...."
Nothing can possilby go wrong...
posted by mikelieman at 12:33 AM on May 18, 2016
FWIW, I do feel it's more "White Man > ...." .
And when I get stressed out about all this, I remember this one simple fact... "Trust the Computer. The Computer is Your Friend...."
Nothing can possilby go wrong...
posted by mikelieman at 12:33 AM on May 18, 2016
Because Bernie was so reassuring about how he'll maintain the future of the coal industry? I don't think that explanation makes sense.
I'll try to bring more scope to the matter. I know a bit about Appalachia as I did a lot of business in that region when I was a suit. And I know and count as friends many folks from the mountains as they come to Lexington all the time to seek out better opportunities. I consider it an honor to have done business with people out there because they are among the most set-upon, put down cultures in this country. Yet, the folks up in the mountains are proud and independent because they have to be to eke out an existence in a generally unfavorable area for economic development. If you are ever in the area, drive down to the Cumberland Gap, maybe hang a left and head on up around Pine Mountain. Visit other parts of Appalachia, note that you really can't farm there on any scale; note that the geography is inimical to heavy industry and not even favorable to light industry. Consider that resource extraction has been the main driver of what little economy they have there.
And when you think about resource extraction, consider that that sector of the economy has always been exploitative of the workers in really harsh, third world-ish ways. It was true back in the days of the Molly Maguires up in PA, true in West VA, true in the mountains of eastern Virginia, and certainly true in eastern KY. So, for well over 100 years, these people have been put upon in ways that would make many of us here cry at night, if we had to experience this crap for a mere couple of months.
Hell, it was barely a month ago when Don Blankenship of Massey Energy was convicted for his morally reprehensible and criminal behavior. The sentence? One year. One year. One year. Ain't that a slap in the face to the families of those he has rendered asunder by actively ignoring fundamental safety in his mines. And, as I said, he's not the only person to have taken his boot and placed it ever so firmly on the neck of the people he exploits. It's fucking historical.
Imagine the people skills one has to develop just to survive in such an environment. Imagine how downright clever one might have to be to have a chance of preventing another kick in the ass amidst a long series of ass kickings over the years. Among the tools in the mental framework among folks in the mountains is a finely-tuned bullshit meter. These people may be poor but they aren't stupid. They may talk funny but they aren't ignorant when it comes to many of the basics of human interaction. Believe me or not, they can suss out and detect the difference between honest concern and pandering. Between fair dealing and just another glad-handing person whose intent is to take advantage of them. Their stereotype is one of backwards hillbillies but they do know the difference between someone who is sincere and a lackey.
All the hundreds of pages of well-intended plans for their community mean nothing if you dis their fundamental sense of identity. Now compare that to a person who is able to meet the "look each other in the eye" test and you tell me why Clinton did so poorly.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:02 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'll try to bring more scope to the matter. I know a bit about Appalachia as I did a lot of business in that region when I was a suit. And I know and count as friends many folks from the mountains as they come to Lexington all the time to seek out better opportunities. I consider it an honor to have done business with people out there because they are among the most set-upon, put down cultures in this country. Yet, the folks up in the mountains are proud and independent because they have to be to eke out an existence in a generally unfavorable area for economic development. If you are ever in the area, drive down to the Cumberland Gap, maybe hang a left and head on up around Pine Mountain. Visit other parts of Appalachia, note that you really can't farm there on any scale; note that the geography is inimical to heavy industry and not even favorable to light industry. Consider that resource extraction has been the main driver of what little economy they have there.
And when you think about resource extraction, consider that that sector of the economy has always been exploitative of the workers in really harsh, third world-ish ways. It was true back in the days of the Molly Maguires up in PA, true in West VA, true in the mountains of eastern Virginia, and certainly true in eastern KY. So, for well over 100 years, these people have been put upon in ways that would make many of us here cry at night, if we had to experience this crap for a mere couple of months.
Hell, it was barely a month ago when Don Blankenship of Massey Energy was convicted for his morally reprehensible and criminal behavior. The sentence? One year. One year. One year. Ain't that a slap in the face to the families of those he has rendered asunder by actively ignoring fundamental safety in his mines. And, as I said, he's not the only person to have taken his boot and placed it ever so firmly on the neck of the people he exploits. It's fucking historical.
Imagine the people skills one has to develop just to survive in such an environment. Imagine how downright clever one might have to be to have a chance of preventing another kick in the ass amidst a long series of ass kickings over the years. Among the tools in the mental framework among folks in the mountains is a finely-tuned bullshit meter. These people may be poor but they aren't stupid. They may talk funny but they aren't ignorant when it comes to many of the basics of human interaction. Believe me or not, they can suss out and detect the difference between honest concern and pandering. Between fair dealing and just another glad-handing person whose intent is to take advantage of them. Their stereotype is one of backwards hillbillies but they do know the difference between someone who is sincere and a lackey.
All the hundreds of pages of well-intended plans for their community mean nothing if you dis their fundamental sense of identity. Now compare that to a person who is able to meet the "look each other in the eye" test and you tell me why Clinton did so poorly.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:02 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Among the tools in the mental framework among folks in the mountains is a finely-tuned bullshit meter.
I guess that doesn't apply to the registered Republicans; Trump won there with 156,245 votes, 77%.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
I guess that doesn't apply to the registered Republicans; Trump won there with 156,245 votes, 77%.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
Well, golly. What exactly does that say about disenfranchised communities that went for Clinton? That they are stupid? That they lack this magical sincerity-sussing, pandering-avoiding ability?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Kos slammed the Sanders camp today for their response to the Nevada fiasco. Kos and Josh Marshall were the vanguard of the liberal blogosphere and they're both clearly way over this thing now.
posted by Justinian at 3:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
A Sanders superdelegate just switched to Clinton.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kos slammed the Sanders camp today for their response to the Nevada fiasco.
That bit about the insinuation that Clinton supporters shot at his office and burglarized campaign workers' homes has me really worried. If he has proof that they did it, he should release it and the cops should be able to verify it. If he doesn't, then it was way out of line to mention it. That's the kind of thing that makes people feel violent retribution is justified, and I would be appalled if any member of a campaign said it, let alone the candidate themselves.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
That bit about the insinuation that Clinton supporters shot at his office and burglarized campaign workers' homes has me really worried. If he has proof that they did it, he should release it and the cops should be able to verify it. If he doesn't, then it was way out of line to mention it. That's the kind of thing that makes people feel violent retribution is justified, and I would be appalled if any member of a campaign said it, let alone the candidate themselves.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
To be precise, Linn County is the home of more conservative Corvallis and Oregon State University.
Corvallis is in Benton County, and pretty liberal. Linn county is conservative and next door.
posted by snofoam at 4:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Corvallis is in Benton County, and pretty liberal. Linn county is conservative and next door.
posted by snofoam at 4:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
31 Kentucky counties report election fraud Tuesday
The whole system is a mess. How do we do this better?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The whole system is a mess. How do we do this better?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
For instance, if Trump is barely holding on in AZ, a state that Romney won by 9%, that's not a good sign for him.
But it's good news for John McCain!
In the same way everything the media portrayed as good news for him during the 2008 election was.
posted by Gelatin at 5:10 AM on May 18, 2016
But it's good news for John McCain!
In the same way everything the media portrayed as good news for him during the 2008 election was.
posted by Gelatin at 5:10 AM on May 18, 2016
31 Kentucky counties report election fraud Tuesday
Is there any more detail than this? Any specifics at all? It is hard to draw conclusions from so little.
How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
posted by Anonymous at 5:10 AM on May 18, 2016
Is there any more detail than this? Any specifics at all? It is hard to draw conclusions from so little.
How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
posted by Anonymous at 5:10 AM on May 18, 2016
Is there any more detail than this? Any specifics at all? It is hard to draw conclusions from so little.
Here's an article with details about specific complaints.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's an article with details about specific complaints.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ideological categories are getting more and more fractured - there's definitely a divide between the "economic justice" left and the "social justice" left (which goes far to explain the "Bernie Bros"). The old "Political Compass" is no longer an "x/y" chart now, but at least an "x/y/z"
I think the idea that you can separate economic justice from social justice (and environmental justice) and then run on one of those planks, or a subsection of it, is flawed. One without the other is always going to be in danger of rollback by reactionary elements, i.e. Trumpism.
It reminds me of the whole microtrends thing from 2008 -- that you can boil social issues down to interest groups, and then cobble together enough of them to get elected.
It isn't a disregard for identity politics -- if Trump decides to round up the deviants I'll be right there in the camps with everybody else -- it's that a comprehensive Left program is the best solution to the problems that not only fuel Trump's proto-Fascism, but also is the best solution to problems facing modern society in the long run.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the idea that you can separate economic justice from social justice (and environmental justice) and then run on one of those planks, or a subsection of it, is flawed. One without the other is always going to be in danger of rollback by reactionary elements, i.e. Trumpism.
It reminds me of the whole microtrends thing from 2008 -- that you can boil social issues down to interest groups, and then cobble together enough of them to get elected.
It isn't a disregard for identity politics -- if Trump decides to round up the deviants I'll be right there in the camps with everybody else -- it's that a comprehensive Left program is the best solution to the problems that not only fuel Trump's proto-Fascism, but also is the best solution to problems facing modern society in the long run.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Here's an article with details about specific complaints.
So, 76 total complaints out of about 700,000 votes cast, going off of what Google is showing. 0.01% of voters reporting an issue isn't too bad, I think.
posted by damayanti at 5:32 AM on May 18, 2016
So, 76 total complaints out of about 700,000 votes cast, going off of what Google is showing. 0.01% of voters reporting an issue isn't too bad, I think.
posted by damayanti at 5:32 AM on May 18, 2016
Making blanket statements about the coal industry gives those that may not agree with you in a myriad of ways a place to hang their hat. Downstate Illinois touts its 'Clean Coal' and hates Obama for not putting resources in to the coal industry. Hillary is saying the same; it's the the future we should be backing. We want the Chinese to stop ramping up coal power plants, then we need to lead on renewable energy.
Hillary said that out loud in an election year. It's a wonder she got barely any votes in coal country. And I don't doubt that it hurts. Appalachia is not a place where it's easy to grow other industries and solar farms are not going to be nestled in to misty mountains.
posted by readery at 5:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary said that out loud in an election year. It's a wonder she got barely any votes in coal country. And I don't doubt that it hurts. Appalachia is not a place where it's easy to grow other industries and solar farms are not going to be nestled in to misty mountains.
posted by readery at 5:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
bit about the insinuation that Clinton supporters shot at his office and burglarized campaign workers' homes has me really worried.
This is straight up insane. The people who think shooting at candidates is an appropriate solution aren't going to be working for Hillary "Gun Control" Clinton.
posted by corb at 6:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is straight up insane. The people who think shooting at candidates is an appropriate solution aren't going to be working for Hillary "Gun Control" Clinton.
posted by corb at 6:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gelatin: "But it's good news for John McCain!"
McCain has bigger problems than the general:
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Arizona finds Sen. John McCain leading a multi-candidate primary field with 39%, followed by Kelli Ward at 26%, Alex Meluskey at 4%, Scott McBean at 3%, and Clair Van Steenwyk at 2%. Another 27% are undecided.
In a head-to-head match up, McCain and Ward are tied at 41%.
Key finding: “Only 35% of GOP voters approve of the job McCain is doing to 50% who disapprove.”
posted by Chrysostom at 6:40 AM on May 18, 2016
McCain has bigger problems than the general:
A new Public Policy Polling survey in Arizona finds Sen. John McCain leading a multi-candidate primary field with 39%, followed by Kelli Ward at 26%, Alex Meluskey at 4%, Scott McBean at 3%, and Clair Van Steenwyk at 2%. Another 27% are undecided.
In a head-to-head match up, McCain and Ward are tied at 41%.
Key finding: “Only 35% of GOP voters approve of the job McCain is doing to 50% who disapprove.”
posted by Chrysostom at 6:40 AM on May 18, 2016
Well, honestly, I can believe someone could be unhinged enough to shoot up a place even in Clinton's name, whatever the politics. But that's the point: if some of your supporters are so unhinged as to think violence and threats of violence are okay, then you need to condemn that clearly. If it's really a small number and not something you want, then it's easy to clearly condemn that minority behavior. Instead with Sanders we have a statement that's: stump speech, rejection of the mere idea that any of his supporters could be violent, generic condemnation of violence, insinuation that Clinton's supporters were violent first, laundry list of complaints about process and then more stump speech. That's not how you actually reject violent behavior being shown by a very small number of supporters. That's how you embolden people so inclined while being able to claim you don't support violence. If Trump had given a similar statement after one of the incidents at his events we'd all rightly say he clearly isn't serious about discouraging violence. Though of course Trump's response to violence related to campaign events has apparently lowered our expectations.
posted by R343L at 6:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by R343L at 6:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
TPM: It Comes From the Very Top: Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yuck, that Sanders response is awful from start to finish. My primary hasn't happened yet and sorry buddy, you have lost my vote.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is the video that the Clinton campaign sent to an HIV decriminalization conference. Good for them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
TPM: It Comes From the Very Top: Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that.
The context really is the key in that link:
The context really is the key in that link:
But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It's not Weaver. It's not driven by people around him. It's right from him. And what I understand from knowledgable sources is that in the last few weeks anyone who was trying to rein it in has basically stopped trying and just decided to let Bernie be Bernie.posted by zombieflanders at 7:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Sanders speech tonight was right in line with his statement out this afternoon. He identified the Democratic party as an essentially corrupt, moribund institution which is now on notice that it must let 'the people' in. What about the coalitions Barack Obama built in 2008 and 2012, the biggest and most diverse presidential coalitions ever constructed?
Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that. This, as I said earlier, is the problem with lying to your supporters. Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can't. He's suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.
Bernie, the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn campaign. Let's talk about the real issues facing the American people.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Vox: Why I think Bernie Sanders has stayed in the race so long
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
It seems like the Sanders campaign has completely flipped in tone in the last couple months. When I voted for him in our primary in March I was voting for an intelligent, principled man who held ideals that were more closely aligned to mine than HRC does. The Dem debates were calm conversations between 2 people who respected each other and their different views but ultimately could work together down the line to achieve Dem party goals and win elections.
This guy, though, is a really different person and if Josh Marshall is correct (I suspect he is), then I feel duped. I'm starting to wonder if the guy who said “Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.” is going to start bringing them up himself. Or Beghazi. This Bernie Sanders isn't who I voted for.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
This guy, though, is a really different person and if Josh Marshall is correct (I suspect he is), then I feel duped. I'm starting to wonder if the guy who said “Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.” is going to start bringing them up himself. Or Beghazi. This Bernie Sanders isn't who I voted for.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
God damn it. He kept acting like he was going to pivot back to talking about the issues, which delighted me, and then walking back on that, and I just straight-up do not get it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
My worry is that Clinton and Trump are both going to get personal during the general and not talk about the issues, either.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
That Vox article made me feel better, so thanks r317!
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016
The whole system is a mess. How do we do this better?
- Get rid of voter ID laws
- Nonpartisan election commissions which also handle primaries
- Paper ballots with pencils to fill them in
- People to count them with scrutineers watching
- Sane opening hours for polling stations (I'd argue 7am-9pm)
- For the general election, a national mandatory holiday (America Day, Freedom Day, Patriot Day, take your pick)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
- Get rid of voter ID laws
- Nonpartisan election commissions which also handle primaries
- Paper ballots with pencils to fill them in
- People to count them with scrutineers watching
- Sane opening hours for polling stations (I'd argue 7am-9pm)
- For the general election, a national mandatory holiday (America Day, Freedom Day, Patriot Day, take your pick)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think she will talk issues and let other people get personal on her behalf. She's absolutely not the kind to wrestle with pigs.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:49 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:49 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Feckless, that sounds like you're saying, "Let Elections Canada run American elections." I ... can't say I'm opposed, especially as that could mean full employment in Canada.
posted by frimble at 7:52 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by frimble at 7:52 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Appalachia is not a place where it's easy to grow other industries and solar farms are not going to be nestled in to misty mountains.
Well, to be fair, they have a lot less of those now thanks to the coal industry.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, to be fair, they have a lot less of those now thanks to the coal industry.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders campaign manager calls DNC Chair a 'divider' (video autoplay)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 AM on May 18, 2016
- Paper ballots with pencils to fill them in
- People to count them with scrutineers watching
Nah, that's not necessary and it adds more errors. Voting absolutely does need to be done in a way that creates a 100% reversible process - you need to be able to look back all the way to the voter's first action and they need to be able to see that it's recorded the way they want. Touch-screen voting that records the vote in an invisible register clearly fails that, though you could if you really wanted to have touch screen that printed onto a ticker or something.
But really the simple thing is optical recognition. People tick marks on a ballot, machine instantly tabulates the vote, ballot saved for later re-checks. It's never possible to completely disregard a vote and you can always go back and just rescan (or even hand-examine) the whole stack. You can always create a unit test to feed into the scanners to help validate accuracy as well.
- Sane opening hours for polling stations (I'd argue 7am-9pm)
- For the general election, a national mandatory holiday (America Day, Freedom Day, Patriot Day, take your pick)
No reason this needs to happen in the course of just one day. I still think a 21 day window is best if your goal is to maximize participation from people who want to vote. And the reality of modern life is that you can't have a 'holiday' where the most vulnerable to being disenfranchised aren't likely to be expected to work. Even if you could legally force all shops and food service operations to close you'd be creating all sorts of discomfort for other vulnerable people.
I think you also leave out the idea of more permanent and professional polling stations. This thing where a 98% volunteerish group of people handle this stuff is prone to error. There's nothing wrong with volunteers but the highly sporadic nature of elections makes it hard to do staffing well.
posted by phearlez at 8:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
- People to count them with scrutineers watching
Nah, that's not necessary and it adds more errors. Voting absolutely does need to be done in a way that creates a 100% reversible process - you need to be able to look back all the way to the voter's first action and they need to be able to see that it's recorded the way they want. Touch-screen voting that records the vote in an invisible register clearly fails that, though you could if you really wanted to have touch screen that printed onto a ticker or something.
But really the simple thing is optical recognition. People tick marks on a ballot, machine instantly tabulates the vote, ballot saved for later re-checks. It's never possible to completely disregard a vote and you can always go back and just rescan (or even hand-examine) the whole stack. You can always create a unit test to feed into the scanners to help validate accuracy as well.
- Sane opening hours for polling stations (I'd argue 7am-9pm)
- For the general election, a national mandatory holiday (America Day, Freedom Day, Patriot Day, take your pick)
No reason this needs to happen in the course of just one day. I still think a 21 day window is best if your goal is to maximize participation from people who want to vote. And the reality of modern life is that you can't have a 'holiday' where the most vulnerable to being disenfranchised aren't likely to be expected to work. Even if you could legally force all shops and food service operations to close you'd be creating all sorts of discomfort for other vulnerable people.
I think you also leave out the idea of more permanent and professional polling stations. This thing where a 98% volunteerish group of people handle this stuff is prone to error. There's nothing wrong with volunteers but the highly sporadic nature of elections makes it hard to do staffing well.
posted by phearlez at 8:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wasn't voting for Sanders for other reasons, but I watched his speech last night in Carson and I'm terribly disappointed. First, Carson's population is 25% black. As far as I could see, there was one black woman behind him. That's not just bad Optics, it's ignorance. Second, I was so disappointed by his outsidering of himself and his base. How do you bring the party together if you are still not identifying as a member of the party. Really disappointed. I liked Bernie a lot when this all started.
posted by Sophie1 at 8:08 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Sophie1 at 8:08 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
People complain about long campaigns and primary season, but this Nevada case demonstrates why it might not be such a bad idea. Right up until this week I would have been perfectly happy with either Clinton or Sanders as President. I would have been perfectly happy with both of them contesting right up to the last primary in June.
But this incident and the Sanders response has finally revealed that Sanders is unfit to be President. He doesn't have the temperament or the integrity. He is full of resentments and conspiracies. He is lying to his supporters. He is transmitting those resentments and conspiracies and lies to his supporters just like Donald Trump and it is a toxic result.
Sanders should go home. He is done.
posted by JackFlash at 8:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [27 favorites]
But this incident and the Sanders response has finally revealed that Sanders is unfit to be President. He doesn't have the temperament or the integrity. He is full of resentments and conspiracies. He is lying to his supporters. He is transmitting those resentments and conspiracies and lies to his supporters just like Donald Trump and it is a toxic result.
Sanders should go home. He is done.
posted by JackFlash at 8:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [27 favorites]
Nah, that's not necessary and it adds more errors.
As someone who has actually worked as a poll worker... nope. No it does not. Adding machinery to the process increases the number of failure points, up to and including failure of the machinery itself.
This thing where a 98% volunteerish group of people handle this stuff is prone to error.
Again, nope. The core staff stays the same, volunteers (who up here at least are paid) are only the front line--checking name, handing out ballots, counting--and are under the supervision of the permanent staff at all times. (Plus scrutineers during the counting process).
He is transmitting those resentments and conspiracies and lies to his supporters just like Donald Trump and it is a toxic result.
This could go some distance towards explaining the otherwise perplexing "If not Sanders then Trump" contingent. Which, yes, is small.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
As someone who has actually worked as a poll worker... nope. No it does not. Adding machinery to the process increases the number of failure points, up to and including failure of the machinery itself.
This thing where a 98% volunteerish group of people handle this stuff is prone to error.
Again, nope. The core staff stays the same, volunteers (who up here at least are paid) are only the front line--checking name, handing out ballots, counting--and are under the supervision of the permanent staff at all times. (Plus scrutineers during the counting process).
He is transmitting those resentments and conspiracies and lies to his supporters just like Donald Trump and it is a toxic result.
This could go some distance towards explaining the otherwise perplexing "If not Sanders then Trump" contingent. Which, yes, is small.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think she will talk issues and let other people get personal on her behalf. She's absolutely not the kind to wrestle with pigs.
I suspect she'll get juuust personal enough to throw him off, then go on with issues while he raves at her about how big his hands are.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I suspect she'll get juuust personal enough to throw him off, then go on with issues while he raves at her about how big his hands are.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't understand why people think Clinton will get as personal as Trump will, or that their campaign styles in the general will be at all similar.
posted by zutalors! at 8:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 8:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Brief, Personal Meditation on the 2016 Democratic Primary
With respect to the latter, it’s not clear to me that the arguments that have emerged from the Sanders camp (and more broadly, from his supporters) are any worse than the arguments that came from Clinton supporters in 2008. Never forget the Whitey Tape, the Eeyores, the Pumas, and every other bit of nonsense that came out of the waning days of that campaign; it was truly dreadful, and probably, on balance, stupider that what’s coming out of the Sanders camp now. That said, the Clintonistas from 2008 had a better case in purely electoral terms than the Sanders folks do now; Clinton probably won the popular vote, and did not rely on caucus results to pad her delegate totals.posted by tonycpsu at 8:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the problem with both of these is that it just goes on. And on. And on. Every system for nominating a Presidential candidate sucks in its own way, but I’m hard pressed to think of a way to generate bad arguments and create emotional exhaustion that the one that the Democrats have settled on. In the last two contested cycles, we’ve effectively known who the nominee would be about a third of the way in; everything after that point is just bitter recrimination, and pundits needing to imagine ways in which the inevitable might not happen. From a political perspective there doesn’t appear to be anything particular destructive about this (at least from 2008; we’ll see about 2016), but from a personal perspective it’s just… very… difficult.
And so yeah. I just want it to be over.
In the last two contested cycles, we’ve effectively known who the nominee would be about a third of the way in; everything after that point is just bitter recrimination ... And so yeah. I just want it to be over.
You know, the Republicans came to that same conclusion after the 2012 clown show debacle and changed the rules to reduce the long drawn out primary season. They wanted a leader of the field like Romney to be able to wrap things up early and put away the clowns. So they changed from proportional delegates to winner takes all from each state -- and the unexpected result was Donald Trump who would not be where he is now without the winner takes all system.
It can take a long time to sort out the candidates. It has taken until now to really smoke out Sanders' weaknesses.
posted by JackFlash at 8:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
You know, the Republicans came to that same conclusion after the 2012 clown show debacle and changed the rules to reduce the long drawn out primary season. They wanted a leader of the field like Romney to be able to wrap things up early and put away the clowns. So they changed from proportional delegates to winner takes all from each state -- and the unexpected result was Donald Trump who would not be where he is now without the winner takes all system.
It can take a long time to sort out the candidates. It has taken until now to really smoke out Sanders' weaknesses.
posted by JackFlash at 8:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's really interesting, JackFlash. Does anybody know what the results would be so far on the Democratic side if it was winner-take-all by state?
posted by clawsoon at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2016
It can take a long time to sort out the candidates. It has taken until now to really smoke out Sanders' weaknesses.
It can take a long time, but with a shorter calendar, the process of figuring things out can begin earlier, long before any votes are cast. The problem with the drawn-out calendar is that how voters in Iowa and South Carolina vote affects how voters in Pennsylvania and California vote. That's not how it should work. The ideal end state is a single day, weekend, week, whatever by which time everyone has had debates, run their campaign ads, knocked on doors, etc. and then the voters pick who they like. None of this "momentum" shit, none of the media trying to fluff up challengers because it makes for good #content.
The closer we get to that, the better, and if it means that in some particular instances some candidates don't get a long enough time to show that they deserve the nomination (or to show that they're unfit for the office) then that's a risk worth taking.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
It can take a long time, but with a shorter calendar, the process of figuring things out can begin earlier, long before any votes are cast. The problem with the drawn-out calendar is that how voters in Iowa and South Carolina vote affects how voters in Pennsylvania and California vote. That's not how it should work. The ideal end state is a single day, weekend, week, whatever by which time everyone has had debates, run their campaign ads, knocked on doors, etc. and then the voters pick who they like. None of this "momentum" shit, none of the media trying to fluff up challengers because it makes for good #content.
The closer we get to that, the better, and if it means that in some particular instances some candidates don't get a long enough time to show that they deserve the nomination (or to show that they're unfit for the office) then that's a risk worth taking.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
All things considered, Hillary has been remarkably unflappable this entire campaign. Some absolutely stupid gaffes, but no real blowups.
Remarkable given how she was in 2008 even when she was leading.
posted by dw at 8:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Remarkable given how she was in 2008 even when she was leading.
posted by dw at 8:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
As someone who has actually worked as a poll worker...
You mean me, right? So maybe peddle that claim to superior personal authority somewhere else and let's just stick to facts and discussion, thanks.
Human tabulation absolutely introduces more errors than machine tabulation. You are welcome to not believe that if you like but the evidence is incontrovertible. Yes, a machine is a possible failure point in go/nogo - not in accuracy - but the nice thing about optical scanning of human-readable ballots is that they're always optional and you can fall back and validate via a statistical sampling or full recount. To demand completely removing them from the process is a no-value increase in effort and inaccuracy.
Again, nope. The core staff stays the same, volunteers (who up here at least are paid) are only the front line--checking name, handing out ballots, counting--and are under the supervision of the permanent staff at all times.
Volunteers here are paid as well but the only people who I have ever encountered doing it for the money are the people who are basically unemployable anywhere else and who just end up being there to fill out the warm body total staffing requirement. There are not election board staff at every polling station. Among the volunteers are precinct captains who get the gig based on longevity and commitment and demonstrated competency, but they all do other things the other 363 days a year. Which is really the issue, not the volunteer aspect; most everyone I worked with were devoted and intelligent people committed to doing the job well. But there's only so well you can do anything that you only practice twice a year, and getting people back in to refresher training is enough of a challenge that the board doesn't require it from volunteers, only captain and assistant captains.
Adding only one paid professional from the election board at every polling station in my aprox 30 square mile county would require 52 more employees. I'm not clear where you'll pull them from or what they'd do the rest of the year - that would double the board staff here in Arlington - but more on point it would be such a sea change in how things are approached from a staff/expenditure standpoint that I don't see why you'd want to just keep everything else the same. We'd be better off putting permanent "resource offices" or something like that in, say, every fire station and running elections out of there.
Either way, this would be a change that would require some willingness to question the existing structure and actually invest in it (which pretty well describes a lot of our infrastructure now). So we may as well argue about whether Hulk is stronger than Superman.
posted by phearlez at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
You mean me, right? So maybe peddle that claim to superior personal authority somewhere else and let's just stick to facts and discussion, thanks.
Human tabulation absolutely introduces more errors than machine tabulation. You are welcome to not believe that if you like but the evidence is incontrovertible. Yes, a machine is a possible failure point in go/nogo - not in accuracy - but the nice thing about optical scanning of human-readable ballots is that they're always optional and you can fall back and validate via a statistical sampling or full recount. To demand completely removing them from the process is a no-value increase in effort and inaccuracy.
Again, nope. The core staff stays the same, volunteers (who up here at least are paid) are only the front line--checking name, handing out ballots, counting--and are under the supervision of the permanent staff at all times.
Volunteers here are paid as well but the only people who I have ever encountered doing it for the money are the people who are basically unemployable anywhere else and who just end up being there to fill out the warm body total staffing requirement. There are not election board staff at every polling station. Among the volunteers are precinct captains who get the gig based on longevity and commitment and demonstrated competency, but they all do other things the other 363 days a year. Which is really the issue, not the volunteer aspect; most everyone I worked with were devoted and intelligent people committed to doing the job well. But there's only so well you can do anything that you only practice twice a year, and getting people back in to refresher training is enough of a challenge that the board doesn't require it from volunteers, only captain and assistant captains.
Adding only one paid professional from the election board at every polling station in my aprox 30 square mile county would require 52 more employees. I'm not clear where you'll pull them from or what they'd do the rest of the year - that would double the board staff here in Arlington - but more on point it would be such a sea change in how things are approached from a staff/expenditure standpoint that I don't see why you'd want to just keep everything else the same. We'd be better off putting permanent "resource offices" or something like that in, say, every fire station and running elections out of there.
Either way, this would be a change that would require some willingness to question the existing structure and actually invest in it (which pretty well describes a lot of our infrastructure now). So we may as well argue about whether Hulk is stronger than Superman.
posted by phearlez at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The whole system is a mess. How do we do this better?
I've said this before, but Oregon makes voting so fucking easy. So easy, in fact, that we just had around 45% voter turnout in a primary election in which both major party top-ticket contests are already essentially over. That's higher than every state so far except New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and those primaries took place when both the Dem and Republican races were still highly competitive.
Everyone in Oregon is automatically registered when they get (or update, or renew) their driver's license (unless they opt out, but the default is that you are registered), and all voting is by mail.
Your ballot comes in the mail 2-3 weeks before the election (ballots are mailed out 20 days before election day). You can fill it out at your leisure, consulting the handy voter's guide that also comes in the mail (or whatever other resources you choose to consult) and either drop it in the mail up to about a week before election day, or take it to at any one of a ton of official drop locations (there are about 30 in Multnomah County alone).
For those who are homeless, or can't (or prefer not to) receive their ballot at home, the registration form has separate fields for home address--which can be any identifiable physical location (e.g. "under the west side of the Burnside bridge" is totally acceptable)--and for ballot-mailing address, which can be General Delivery at a post office or the county election office or anywhere else that you can receive mail.
Seriously, it's the best.
posted by dersins at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
I've said this before, but Oregon makes voting so fucking easy. So easy, in fact, that we just had around 45% voter turnout in a primary election in which both major party top-ticket contests are already essentially over. That's higher than every state so far except New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and those primaries took place when both the Dem and Republican races were still highly competitive.
Everyone in Oregon is automatically registered when they get (or update, or renew) their driver's license (unless they opt out, but the default is that you are registered), and all voting is by mail.
Your ballot comes in the mail 2-3 weeks before the election (ballots are mailed out 20 days before election day). You can fill it out at your leisure, consulting the handy voter's guide that also comes in the mail (or whatever other resources you choose to consult) and either drop it in the mail up to about a week before election day, or take it to at any one of a ton of official drop locations (there are about 30 in Multnomah County alone).
For those who are homeless, or can't (or prefer not to) receive their ballot at home, the registration form has separate fields for home address--which can be any identifiable physical location (e.g. "under the west side of the Burnside bridge" is totally acceptable)--and for ballot-mailing address, which can be General Delivery at a post office or the county election office or anywhere else that you can receive mail.
Seriously, it's the best.
posted by dersins at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm hesitant to fully endorse vote-by-mail because it undermines the secrecy of the ballot, but it has so many other advantages that it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be better than the status quo.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
(I should add vis a vis registration that you do NOT have to have a driver's license or go to the DMV to register. You can register online or fill out a paper form , which can be dropped in the mail or taken to a county election office.)
posted by dersins at 8:54 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by dersins at 8:54 AM on May 18, 2016
HRCs campaign was much more condescending and haughty in 2008 and turned me off. I was pretty split between the two and then moved toward Obama. I thought she should have dropped out earlier. Then she did drop out, gave an amazing speech at the convention, and threw her support behind Obama, and later worked in his administration.
That's why while I get the reasoning behind "well Hillary did this..." I mean, it's been eight years and certain specific things happened during that time that brought more people over to her side.
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's why while I get the reasoning behind "well Hillary did this..." I mean, it's been eight years and certain specific things happened during that time that brought more people over to her side.
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Here's a fun sentence as it appears in the platform approved by delegates to the state GOP convention last week:
Homosexuality - Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Homosexuality - Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump further walked back his controversial abortion comments, now clarifying that “women punish themselves” for abortion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on May 18, 2016
Nonreligious Oregon State House Candidates Victorious in Democratic Primary
posted by audi alteram partem at 9:03 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by audi alteram partem at 9:03 AM on May 18, 2016
Homosexuality - Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Saying it again: Sanders, Clinton, a three-week-old ham sandwich, who cares. Just vote D. Please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Saying it again: Sanders, Clinton, a three-week-old ham sandwich, who cares. Just vote D. Please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
OnceUponATime Like I get your frustration, and I think the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic Party, could do a lot more to show their respect and support for Sanders' wing of the party. When I say I'm in favor of party unity, I think that means both factions moving toward each other, not just Sanders supporters moving into the centrist fold.
But I really, really don't think this stuff happened because the party is full sadists who just totally hate Leftists and get off on insulting them.
I'll be the first to admit that I take politics personally. I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing. This is a quote from a fictional terrorist, but I think it's pretty good at explaining my thinking here:
When my job is cut so that an executive can add a couple of zeros to their bank account that's a personal attack on me, even if the executive doesn't think of it that way. When my voice is silenced, my views stifled, my politics shunned, that's a personal attack on me even if the people doing it want to pretend that it's just business, that it's nothing personal.
Any rule system as Byzantine as the Nevada Primaries is, by default and automatically, corrupt and stacked against the good guys. I have become convinced that what happened in Nevada was permitted by Party rules, but that does't make it right. That doesn't make it any less of a completely petty and pointless theft of votes and voices.
Maybe the Party chair in Nevada just wanted a few extra votes for Clinton. Maybe she even imagined that she was being perfectly fair and "just following the rules" (rules designed specifically to harm me and mine, rules that are by definition corrupt and awful). Her intentions don't mater. the reality is, it was an attack on me and mine. Nothing more or less than a way to reaffirm our subordination and the superiority of the Party machinery. If that attack followed the rules than it's even worse than if it hadn't, because it reaffirms that the rules are there to benefit the establishment and by extension to hurt me and my cause.
I do not attempt to excuse or justify the attacks on Roberta Lange. I don't think we've yet reached the point where it is proper or justified to attack the public face of the machinery that grinds us down.
But I do take her actions personally. I can do nothing else.
And, frankly, I'm perfectly content to see Sanders attacking the Democratic Party. It needs to be attacked. It is a corrupt organization that serves the power elites of our society. It just happens to also be marginally better than the Republicans who are full on cartoon villain evil.
The Establishment has been saying for decades now that the only acceptable way to be a Leftist is to fight hard during the primaries and then support whatever Esablishment tool the Democrats nominate in the general.
Well, we're fighting hard during the primaries and now, like magic, it turns out that the Establishment has declared that fighting hard during the primaries also isn't considered acceptable now. What a surprise. Suddenly the Establishment declares that fighting hard in the primaries is forbidden and it is now the responsibility and duty of Sanders to fold and surrender and bow out gracefully so the Beige Dictatorship candidate can step forward into her rightful place.
Well fuck them.
To my mind, the enemy is not just Trump. Yes, he's awful and yes I'll support the Beige Dictatorship candidate over his screaming racist evil.
But that doesn't mean I like the Beige Dictatorship or its anointed candidate.
there are several axes of issues and things that matter. And on the axis of not being an evil bigot, Clinton is clearly the only reasonable choice.
But on the other axes she's purely in line with the Beige Dictatorship. She is the ally of the economic elites, and therefore (I take it personally) trying to harm me on all matters economic. She is the ally of the power elites, and therefore (I take it personally) trying to harm me on all matters relating to power.
Trump is worse by far not simply because he's more in line with the Beige Dictatorship, but because he wants to blow up the whole system and set himself up as the head of an actual Fascist Dictatorship. I'll take Beige over Fascist any time.
But in the interim, I fight against the Beige forces and I take their attacks personally. Because I don't know what else to do and how else to try and be effective. Since the fighting isn't (yet, and may it never be) involving physical violence there's a bit of a fine line. I think the people attacking Lange have both done something morally wrong and something that is a tactical error. And I find Sander's continuing refusal to admit that head on distressing.
But I don't think it is wrong to see what happened in Nevada as a personal attack. I don't think it is wrong to view DWS and the entire Democratic Establishment as personally attacking me when they try to rig things for Clinton. The political is personal. And to declare it to be just business is adding insult to injury.
I'll agree with Justinian's earlier two points. The entire Party establishment clearly and wrong from the beginning was cheating for Clinton and on her side, **AND** Clinton is actually winning the popular vote. But the second doesn't make the direct, personal, attack on me from the first vanish. It doesn't make what happened in Nevada any less of a brutal display of power for its own sake to remind me and mine that we're losers who get no quarter or respect, especially if it happened by the rules and even if Lange didn't intend it that way. The political is personal despite the protestations to the contrary.
So yes. I'm fully in favor of Sanders sticking with it to the convention. I hope the Establishment views him as a threat, as a danger, because then and only then will they take him and us seriously. We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf through the threat to the power structure we've shown ourselves to be simply by voting. And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey and pretending that the Democratic establishment isn't the corrupt enemy we know it to be.
posted by sotonohito at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
But I really, really don't think this stuff happened because the party is full sadists who just totally hate Leftists and get off on insulting them.
I'll be the first to admit that I take politics personally. I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing. This is a quote from a fictional terrorist, but I think it's pretty good at explaining my thinking here:
“The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes - between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.”The political is personal. Business is personal.
When my job is cut so that an executive can add a couple of zeros to their bank account that's a personal attack on me, even if the executive doesn't think of it that way. When my voice is silenced, my views stifled, my politics shunned, that's a personal attack on me even if the people doing it want to pretend that it's just business, that it's nothing personal.
Any rule system as Byzantine as the Nevada Primaries is, by default and automatically, corrupt and stacked against the good guys. I have become convinced that what happened in Nevada was permitted by Party rules, but that does't make it right. That doesn't make it any less of a completely petty and pointless theft of votes and voices.
Maybe the Party chair in Nevada just wanted a few extra votes for Clinton. Maybe she even imagined that she was being perfectly fair and "just following the rules" (rules designed specifically to harm me and mine, rules that are by definition corrupt and awful). Her intentions don't mater. the reality is, it was an attack on me and mine. Nothing more or less than a way to reaffirm our subordination and the superiority of the Party machinery. If that attack followed the rules than it's even worse than if it hadn't, because it reaffirms that the rules are there to benefit the establishment and by extension to hurt me and my cause.
I do not attempt to excuse or justify the attacks on Roberta Lange. I don't think we've yet reached the point where it is proper or justified to attack the public face of the machinery that grinds us down.
But I do take her actions personally. I can do nothing else.
And, frankly, I'm perfectly content to see Sanders attacking the Democratic Party. It needs to be attacked. It is a corrupt organization that serves the power elites of our society. It just happens to also be marginally better than the Republicans who are full on cartoon villain evil.
The Establishment has been saying for decades now that the only acceptable way to be a Leftist is to fight hard during the primaries and then support whatever Esablishment tool the Democrats nominate in the general.
Well, we're fighting hard during the primaries and now, like magic, it turns out that the Establishment has declared that fighting hard during the primaries also isn't considered acceptable now. What a surprise. Suddenly the Establishment declares that fighting hard in the primaries is forbidden and it is now the responsibility and duty of Sanders to fold and surrender and bow out gracefully so the Beige Dictatorship candidate can step forward into her rightful place.
Well fuck them.
To my mind, the enemy is not just Trump. Yes, he's awful and yes I'll support the Beige Dictatorship candidate over his screaming racist evil.
But that doesn't mean I like the Beige Dictatorship or its anointed candidate.
there are several axes of issues and things that matter. And on the axis of not being an evil bigot, Clinton is clearly the only reasonable choice.
But on the other axes she's purely in line with the Beige Dictatorship. She is the ally of the economic elites, and therefore (I take it personally) trying to harm me on all matters economic. She is the ally of the power elites, and therefore (I take it personally) trying to harm me on all matters relating to power.
Trump is worse by far not simply because he's more in line with the Beige Dictatorship, but because he wants to blow up the whole system and set himself up as the head of an actual Fascist Dictatorship. I'll take Beige over Fascist any time.
But in the interim, I fight against the Beige forces and I take their attacks personally. Because I don't know what else to do and how else to try and be effective. Since the fighting isn't (yet, and may it never be) involving physical violence there's a bit of a fine line. I think the people attacking Lange have both done something morally wrong and something that is a tactical error. And I find Sander's continuing refusal to admit that head on distressing.
But I don't think it is wrong to see what happened in Nevada as a personal attack. I don't think it is wrong to view DWS and the entire Democratic Establishment as personally attacking me when they try to rig things for Clinton. The political is personal. And to declare it to be just business is adding insult to injury.
I'll agree with Justinian's earlier two points. The entire Party establishment clearly and wrong from the beginning was cheating for Clinton and on her side, **AND** Clinton is actually winning the popular vote. But the second doesn't make the direct, personal, attack on me from the first vanish. It doesn't make what happened in Nevada any less of a brutal display of power for its own sake to remind me and mine that we're losers who get no quarter or respect, especially if it happened by the rules and even if Lange didn't intend it that way. The political is personal despite the protestations to the contrary.
So yes. I'm fully in favor of Sanders sticking with it to the convention. I hope the Establishment views him as a threat, as a danger, because then and only then will they take him and us seriously. We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf through the threat to the power structure we've shown ourselves to be simply by voting. And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey and pretending that the Democratic establishment isn't the corrupt enemy we know it to be.
posted by sotonohito at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
That said, I'll not only vote for Clinton in November, but after the convention I'll sign up and volunteer for her campaign in the general election. I'll do that with varying degrees of enthusiasm based on what concessions she grants the Left (as embodied by Sanders) for his endorsement. But I consider the stability of the Beige Dictatorship to be sufficiently better than the awful of a Trump Dictatorship that I'll volunteer for Clinton's general election work even if she literally kicks Sanders in he nuts and shoves him off stage with an insult.
posted by sotonohito at 9:22 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 9:22 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
So yes. I'm fully in favor of Sanders sticking with it to the convention. I hope the Establishment views him as a threat, as a danger
I see him as a danger because he blows off misogynist attacks on women from his own representatives as not worth his time. Those aren't my values, sorry.
posted by zutalors! at 9:24 AM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
All things considered, Hillary has been remarkably unflappable this entire campaign.
This all makes me think about romance. I fell hard and permanently for Barack Obama, the day I watched him give his kickoff campaign speech in Springfield for the 2008 nomination. There were things I liked about Hillary but she did at times seem to me to be putting on an act. (Which totally sold all those awesome so called bullshit detectors in coal country, btw.)
But Hillary is like a person you know for years and see mature, and gradually come to deeply respect and care about. She won me for good in the last Benghazi hearings. Wow. I am in complete agreement with George Clooney that when she is the nominee, she'll be the only grownup in the room.
I haven't shared the big crush so many people seem to have had on Bernie. I sure like his aspirations but have been looking for his roadmap and history of meaningful leadership for awhile now. I also have found his consistent appeals to anger disturbing and off putting. Maybe he's like those folks you think are the greatest until you realize you fell for an idealized version of who they really are.
Anyway, I can't express how much I am hoping that Bernie people start looking at Hillary's many merits and the remarkable opportunity that the R's disastrous nomination of Trump has opened up.
posted by bearwife at 9:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
This all makes me think about romance. I fell hard and permanently for Barack Obama, the day I watched him give his kickoff campaign speech in Springfield for the 2008 nomination. There were things I liked about Hillary but she did at times seem to me to be putting on an act. (Which totally sold all those awesome so called bullshit detectors in coal country, btw.)
But Hillary is like a person you know for years and see mature, and gradually come to deeply respect and care about. She won me for good in the last Benghazi hearings. Wow. I am in complete agreement with George Clooney that when she is the nominee, she'll be the only grownup in the room.
I haven't shared the big crush so many people seem to have had on Bernie. I sure like his aspirations but have been looking for his roadmap and history of meaningful leadership for awhile now. I also have found his consistent appeals to anger disturbing and off putting. Maybe he's like those folks you think are the greatest until you realize you fell for an idealized version of who they really are.
Anyway, I can't express how much I am hoping that Bernie people start looking at Hillary's many merits and the remarkable opportunity that the R's disastrous nomination of Trump has opened up.
posted by bearwife at 9:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I'll do that with varying degrees of enthusiasm based on what concessions she grants the Left (as embodied by Sanders) for his endorsement.
My fear is that she's not going to give any at all. "It's me or the orange guy, like it or lump it." Four more years of the same neoliberal course we're on now.
posted by bink at 9:39 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
My fear is that she's not going to give any at all. "It's me or the orange guy, like it or lump it." Four more years of the same neoliberal course we're on now.
posted by bink at 9:39 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
sotonohito - in the same vein of the personal being political, it strikes me that an individual who chose to protest this systemic problem by throwing chairs was perhaps choosing an unwise course of action; and Sanders did have the opportunity to put a stop to that kind of behavior in stronger terms, but didn't.
I know that it was only one guy and Sanders can't be held accountable for everyone's actions and yadda yadda yadda, but - that kind of thing is the flip side of "the personal is political", and again, Sanders could have said something much stronger to combat that than he did. I voted for Sanders in the NY State primary, but I was really disappointed he didn't take a stronger stance against that kind of thing.
This isn't a "tone argument" thing either; my feeling is more like "Bernie, dude, you're starting to come across like Nader right now, and dammit I want people to take you seriously."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:40 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I know that it was only one guy and Sanders can't be held accountable for everyone's actions and yadda yadda yadda, but - that kind of thing is the flip side of "the personal is political", and again, Sanders could have said something much stronger to combat that than he did. I voted for Sanders in the NY State primary, but I was really disappointed he didn't take a stronger stance against that kind of thing.
This isn't a "tone argument" thing either; my feeling is more like "Bernie, dude, you're starting to come across like Nader right now, and dammit I want people to take you seriously."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:40 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I also have found his consistent appeals to anger disturbing and off putting.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage. If you're angry, then you're paying too much attention – that's what I say.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
This isn't a "tone argument" thing either; my feeling is more like "Bernie, dude, you're starting to come across like Nader right now, and dammit I want people to take you seriously."
Precisely. The power behind Bernie's message is too valuable to squander on this Hail Mary attempt to steal the Democratic nomination and/or burn down the party apparatus. Neither of those things is going to happen, and it's fucking offensive that those issues are taking precedence over income inequality, the environment, and all of the other issues Bernie could take meaningful steps toward improving if he weren't so drunk on the idea that he could be President.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
Precisely. The power behind Bernie's message is too valuable to squander on this Hail Mary attempt to steal the Democratic nomination and/or burn down the party apparatus. Neither of those things is going to happen, and it's fucking offensive that those issues are taking precedence over income inequality, the environment, and all of the other issues Bernie could take meaningful steps toward improving if he weren't so drunk on the idea that he could be President.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage.
But outrage doesn't always lead to martyrdom or terrorism either. Anger can also lead to constructive action.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
But outrage doesn't always lead to martyrdom or terrorism either. Anger can also lead to constructive action.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's sort of rich to go from quoting (and apparently identifying with) a fictional terrorist saying "If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference" to "I do not attempt to excuse or justify the attacks on Roberta Lange."
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Come on, I feel the burn too. No one who cares about social justice is feeling all complacent and happy. And if you have mistaken Clinton's steely calm for contentment with the status quo, I don't think you know enough about her yet.
Feeling some righteous anger and passion isn't the same thing as consistent playing on and appealing to people's anger. The latter is dangerous and breeds violence.
posted by bearwife at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Feeling some righteous anger and passion isn't the same thing as consistent playing on and appealing to people's anger. The latter is dangerous and breeds violence.
posted by bearwife at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Did you just quote Takeshi Kovacs at us, sotonohito? Niiiice.
posted by Justinian at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been reading a book about game theory. Game theory says your best move in the (non-iterated) Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect. Rat on your partner in crime and hope he doesn't rat on you in turn. Game theory suggests that a nuclear Doomsday Machine, which launches nukes automatically by means which are out of your control in the event of an attack on your country, might actually be a good idea (!) if your goal is to deter attacks from an enemy who has a larger conventional army than you. Game theory says that lying is the right move if the game is set up to favor liars.
I've wondered in a couple of foreign policy-related threads recently, "Where does this 'maintain credibility by following through on every threat, and retaliate immediately in kind against any attack' consensus in the foreign policy world come from?" and I'm starting to realize the answer is "game theory." Tit for Tat is a well established game theory strategy for "winning" repeated contests.
So anyway, yeah, I guess I can see where if you're a Leftist who sees the Sanders campaign as "Us" and the Clinton campaign as "Them," then this view makes sense in game theory terms: "We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf through the threat to the power structure we've shown ourselves to be simply by voting. And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey and pretending that the Democratic establishment isn't the corrupt enemy we know it to be."
But my problem with the kind of Machiavellian "game theory" approach to foreign policy is the same as my problem with this approach to domestic politics... It relies on having strict definitions of "us" and "them." Maintaining those tribal identities strikes me as a way of creating conditions for a lot of conflict that guarantee there will be losers as well as winners. These game theory strategies rely on the assumption that politics (international or internecine) is a zero-sum game. But I don't think it has to be! Game theory also teaches us about "the tragedy of the commons," (which could also be put forward as an explanation of why socialism is hard to implement well in practice!) If everyone acts in their own self interest, common resources get depleted, and everyone ends up screwed. But in reality humans are, in many circumstances, able to share common resources. It works best if they are considered the property of "us," our "tribe", because humans are very capable of sacrificing their own individual interests for the sake of their "tribe." They don't behave like game theory algorithms or economics models all the time.
I guess what I'm saying is I wish the Sanders camp could come to see the Democratic party (at least) as their own tribe, as part of "Us." Not as an enemy to be beaten. But as a tribe to participate in. (I admit, my ultimate goal is to expand the definition of "us" as much as possible, to ultimately include other political parties and even other countries... Otherwise I think we're going to "tragedy of the commons" ourselves out of a planet.) But I think it's pretty reasonable to hope that the left wing of the Democratic party could at least learn to see itself as a part of the Democratic party. If we can't even manage that, it kind of dims my hopes for humanity...
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've wondered in a couple of foreign policy-related threads recently, "Where does this 'maintain credibility by following through on every threat, and retaliate immediately in kind against any attack' consensus in the foreign policy world come from?" and I'm starting to realize the answer is "game theory." Tit for Tat is a well established game theory strategy for "winning" repeated contests.
So anyway, yeah, I guess I can see where if you're a Leftist who sees the Sanders campaign as "Us" and the Clinton campaign as "Them," then this view makes sense in game theory terms: "We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf through the threat to the power structure we've shown ourselves to be simply by voting. And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey and pretending that the Democratic establishment isn't the corrupt enemy we know it to be."
But my problem with the kind of Machiavellian "game theory" approach to foreign policy is the same as my problem with this approach to domestic politics... It relies on having strict definitions of "us" and "them." Maintaining those tribal identities strikes me as a way of creating conditions for a lot of conflict that guarantee there will be losers as well as winners. These game theory strategies rely on the assumption that politics (international or internecine) is a zero-sum game. But I don't think it has to be! Game theory also teaches us about "the tragedy of the commons," (which could also be put forward as an explanation of why socialism is hard to implement well in practice!) If everyone acts in their own self interest, common resources get depleted, and everyone ends up screwed. But in reality humans are, in many circumstances, able to share common resources. It works best if they are considered the property of "us," our "tribe", because humans are very capable of sacrificing their own individual interests for the sake of their "tribe." They don't behave like game theory algorithms or economics models all the time.
I guess what I'm saying is I wish the Sanders camp could come to see the Democratic party (at least) as their own tribe, as part of "Us." Not as an enemy to be beaten. But as a tribe to participate in. (I admit, my ultimate goal is to expand the definition of "us" as much as possible, to ultimately include other political parties and even other countries... Otherwise I think we're going to "tragedy of the commons" ourselves out of a planet.) But I think it's pretty reasonable to hope that the left wing of the Democratic party could at least learn to see itself as a part of the Democratic party. If we can't even manage that, it kind of dims my hopes for humanity...
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's really interesting, JackFlash. Does anybody know what the results would be so far on the Democratic side if it was winner-take-all by state?
Clinton would be significantly further ahead because she has won more of the big states.
posted by Justinian at 9:49 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton would be significantly further ahead because she has won more of the big states.
posted by Justinian at 9:49 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The political is personal despite the protestations to the contrary.
I don't think that taking things personally means saying that somehow "politics isn't personal". It clearly is. But I do think it means being aware of it when making decisions and judging when others make them. That the people on the other side are people, who are very well making decisions not necessarily based on even any conscious bias or malevolence but out of stress or fear, or just due to human limits. It's not a very personally satisfying view, because it means it harder to completely decide someone is harmful and then fighting against them. And I can personally attest it's not a very easy perspective to maintain.
Because I admit I can relate to taking things Sanders or his supporters have said and done personally. I can also admit to still mistrusting Sanders on certain things. But I always try to rein in my own feelings, because I don't want my own grievances get in the way of supporting Sanders (whether before it was to potentially vote for him or in the future of constructively engaging with).
posted by FJT at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think that taking things personally means saying that somehow "politics isn't personal". It clearly is. But I do think it means being aware of it when making decisions and judging when others make them. That the people on the other side are people, who are very well making decisions not necessarily based on even any conscious bias or malevolence but out of stress or fear, or just due to human limits. It's not a very personally satisfying view, because it means it harder to completely decide someone is harmful and then fighting against them. And I can personally attest it's not a very easy perspective to maintain.
Because I admit I can relate to taking things Sanders or his supporters have said and done personally. I can also admit to still mistrusting Sanders on certain things. But I always try to rein in my own feelings, because I don't want my own grievances get in the way of supporting Sanders (whether before it was to potentially vote for him or in the future of constructively engaging with).
posted by FJT at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
My fear is that she's not going to give any at all. "It's me or the orange guy, like it or lump it." Four more years of the same neoliberal course we're on now.
Clinton's positions on women, on QUILTBAG people, on children, on healthcare, on sexual assault, on campaign finance reform, on paid family leave, on immigration, on racism, on voting rights... the list goes on. She is some of the same, sure, but she's not just same old same old. Many of her positions (e.g., the ones I have just listed; there are more) are very recognizably Left.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Clinton's positions on women, on QUILTBAG people, on children, on healthcare, on sexual assault, on campaign finance reform, on paid family leave, on immigration, on racism, on voting rights... the list goes on. She is some of the same, sure, but she's not just same old same old. Many of her positions (e.g., the ones I have just listed; there are more) are very recognizably Left.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:50 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
But outrage doesn't always lead to martyrdom or terrorism either. Anger can also lead to constructive action.
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage. If you're angry, then you're paying too much attention – that's what I say.
I favorited both of these comments, and for a reason: the outcome of anger is highly contingent on how it is channeled. It could be a force for constructive action; it could also be a force for destructive action. Right now, I don't get the sense that Bernie and his supporters are channeling their anger in a constructive way.
That said, I think it's a bit premature to really say that Bernie is taking things too far. We'll see what happens after California.
posted by breakin' the law at 9:51 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage. If you're angry, then you're paying too much attention – that's what I say.
I favorited both of these comments, and for a reason: the outcome of anger is highly contingent on how it is channeled. It could be a force for constructive action; it could also be a force for destructive action. Right now, I don't get the sense that Bernie and his supporters are channeling their anger in a constructive way.
That said, I think it's a bit premature to really say that Bernie is taking things too far. We'll see what happens after California.
posted by breakin' the law at 9:51 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
And if you have mistaken Clinton's steely calm for contentment with the status quo, I don't think you know enough about her yet.
My first vote was for her husband. After a quarter of a century of her as a public figure, I'm not sure how much familiar with her I need to be before I'm allowed to dislike her and her politics.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:52 AM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
My first vote was for her husband. After a quarter of a century of her as a public figure, I'm not sure how much familiar with her I need to be before I'm allowed to dislike her and her politics.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:52 AM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
My point is that she is certainly not satisfied with the status quo. Dislike her and her policies all you like, that's all up to you. No one is "allowing" you to do anything.
posted by bearwife at 9:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 9:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
On equal pay, family leave, reproductive rights, and childcare provisions she is absolutely not satisfied with the status quo. Those things get swallowed in all the criticism of her, which is why I don't buy the idea that identity politics need to take a back seat in this election. She's the only candidate who has consistently brought those issues up and I think that is in fact very "Left."
posted by zutalors! at 9:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Bernie's Sister Souljah moment arrived this week in a glittering carriage with trumpets and fireworks and birds flitting around carrying "Bernie, this is your Sister Souljah moment" banners with their beaks, and Bernie was like nah
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
One problem is that if you base your anger on mistaken and unchallenged assumptions it ends up being counterproductive and aimed wrong. Every single attempt I've read to objectively look at what happened in Nevada reveals that it was the Sanders delegates and not the chair or the Clinton delegates who were attempting to subvert the system. But it's impossible to convince people who think Sanders was cheated in Nevada of that. Because as I said earlier when you spend so much time convincing people the system is corrupt and cheating them they'll take any setbacks as a corrupt system cheating them.
posted by Justinian at 9:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
Being angry is not the same thing is being violent, or of choosing to vent that anger by harming others, especially when that anger comes out as calling a female state party representative a bitch or a cunt. You think Dr. King wasn't angry?
posted by sallybrown at 9:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think it's a bit premature to really say that Bernie is taking things too far.
Well, hell, some of his supporters certainly are. And Sanders' statement in response to that news didn't exactly condemn them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, hell, some of his supporters certainly are. And Sanders' statement in response to that news didn't exactly condemn them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:04 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
But it's impossible to convince people who think Sanders was cheated in Nevada of that. Because as I said earlier when you spend so much time convincing people the system is corrupt and cheating them they'll take any setbacks as a corrupt system cheating them.
I have to say, this is the kind of thing that worries me more than anything. Maybe I've been spending too much time online these last couple of days, but it seems like there's this self-reinforcing echo chamber out there that has taken it for fact that what happened in Nevada was just the natural result of disenfranchised people (who were also really hangry or something) trying to overturn a corrupt system. And every pushback with actual facts and numbers (as in, percentages of delegates that actually showed up, numbers of delegates who *did* show up who weren't seated) is treated as a blatant lie by the Clinton Machine.
I don't what to do about this. How do you convince people that we're all part of the same team when the rhetoric has swung so strongly to the idea that the very game is rigged? This isn't just "I'm bitter my candidate is losing, but I'll get over it," noise. This is venturing into conspiracy bullshit. It depresses me that we're on the verge of having the first woman candidate of a major party and there's apparently a huge chunk of people on both the right *and* the left who won't view her candidacy as legitimate.
posted by Salieri at 10:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
I have to say, this is the kind of thing that worries me more than anything. Maybe I've been spending too much time online these last couple of days, but it seems like there's this self-reinforcing echo chamber out there that has taken it for fact that what happened in Nevada was just the natural result of disenfranchised people (who were also really hangry or something) trying to overturn a corrupt system. And every pushback with actual facts and numbers (as in, percentages of delegates that actually showed up, numbers of delegates who *did* show up who weren't seated) is treated as a blatant lie by the Clinton Machine.
I don't what to do about this. How do you convince people that we're all part of the same team when the rhetoric has swung so strongly to the idea that the very game is rigged? This isn't just "I'm bitter my candidate is losing, but I'll get over it," noise. This is venturing into conspiracy bullshit. It depresses me that we're on the verge of having the first woman candidate of a major party and there's apparently a huge chunk of people on both the right *and* the left who won't view her candidacy as legitimate.
posted by Salieri at 10:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
Any time there's a discussion about the value of anger in a political context I am reminded of the spoken-word part at the beginning of that one Alabama 3 song and how totally righteous and kick-ass it sounds until you realize who they're sampling.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:17 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:17 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some chilling stuff in here:
We Called Up Bernie Fans Who Threatened Nevada Dem State Chair and Asked Them to Explain Themselves
We Called Up Bernie Fans Who Threatened Nevada Dem State Chair and Asked Them to Explain Themselves
The person who sent that one is a 26-year-old named Ethan with a Wisconsin area code, although he assured me the number was fake (and, I assume, the name was as well).posted by tonycpsu at 10:21 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Do you know what the concept of Anonymous is?" he asked me, immediately.
[...]
"She is very much a top person," Ethan said, referring to Lange. "The establishment and people like her have been on the internet themselves writing posts that try to incite hate. Try to incite frustration. They pay off trolls to start problems and stuff like that." (For example, a pro-Hillary PAC spent $1 million to hire people to "correct" Facebook and Reddit commenters.)
[...]
"I created a character, a scary-kind of a Jason kind of character," he explained. "Looking at what the establishment is afraid of, a scary Joker-like character who's like the boogeyman under their bed."
I told him I thought anyone would probably be alarmed by those texts; that I, as someone who voted Sanders, found them alarming and wrong-headed and a generally bad response to a convention that didn't break Sanders' way.
"I understand where you're coming from," he replied. "But people are getting frustrated and I only have $300 to my name. I have no ability to get anymore help than I can. I've been working and breaking my back over this," he said, meaning supporting Sanders.
Ethan has "bad disabilities," he explained, one of which makes it impossible for him to work. "I heard people tell me I'm lazy, I'm useless. I can't even go to college."
In the midst of all that, he said, "my intent was to give her back what she and the establishment have been doing for the last few days."
I told Ethan that to me he sounded frustrated and disaffected and a little lonely. I asked if maybe Lange had come to stand in for a whole bunch of things that weren't working well, personally and politically.
"It's not that," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're in Nevada or in Washington. If you're working for the government, you need to understand that people are frustrated." The threats, he said, were "a warning."
"If you don't listen to the people, this is going to happen," he said. "People get so frustrated. They'll find out where some of these people live and it'll be a huge bloody revolt. You need to listen before it turns into that."
I don't what to do about this. How do you convince people that we're all part of the same team when the rhetoric has swung so strongly to the idea that the very game is rigged? This isn't just "I'm bitter my candidate is losing, but I'll get over it," noise. This is venturing into conspiracy bullshit.
Part of the problem is that we no longer have news media we (think we) can trust or believe. People (incl. in this thread) are more than happy to accept that the media created Trump's success, that the media will spend the summer tearing Clinton down and boosting Trump up to make it seem like a close race, etc. It's not that far of a stretch to believe that the media is also creating a false narrative of the Democratic party race as well. Especially when that media is owned by large corporations that have a vested interest in opposing a candidate with strong views on labor rights. It's not like casting leftist candidates as "dangerous" is a new thing.
I'm not even saying that this is, in fact, what is or has happened. But it's not patently absurd to believe it. If one thinks the media is manipulating the perception of the race between Trump and Clinton, why would one not consider the possibility that they are also manipulating the perception of the race between Sanders and Clinton?
posted by melissasaurus at 10:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Part of the problem is that we no longer have news media we (think we) can trust or believe. People (incl. in this thread) are more than happy to accept that the media created Trump's success, that the media will spend the summer tearing Clinton down and boosting Trump up to make it seem like a close race, etc. It's not that far of a stretch to believe that the media is also creating a false narrative of the Democratic party race as well. Especially when that media is owned by large corporations that have a vested interest in opposing a candidate with strong views on labor rights. It's not like casting leftist candidates as "dangerous" is a new thing.
I'm not even saying that this is, in fact, what is or has happened. But it's not patently absurd to believe it. If one thinks the media is manipulating the perception of the race between Trump and Clinton, why would one not consider the possibility that they are also manipulating the perception of the race between Sanders and Clinton?
posted by melissasaurus at 10:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
TL;DR version of my previous comment, addressing sotonohito...
"We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf [...] And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey." This is also the logic of capitalists trying to take market share from their competitors and of war hawks justifying military actions against other countries "to protect American interests." It's sound logic as far as it goes.
Refusing to play nicey nicey is indeed sometimes a good way to make more money or maintain your strategic position in the world economy or to increase your power within a political movement. But it's a little ironic to hear that logic from the followers of a Socialist, since the basic premise of Socialism is "We'd all be a lot better off if we all stopped competing with each other so much and tried playing nicey nicey with each other instead."
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
"We may not win this round, but maybe we can get half a loaf [...] And we won't get that by playing nicey nicey." This is also the logic of capitalists trying to take market share from their competitors and of war hawks justifying military actions against other countries "to protect American interests." It's sound logic as far as it goes.
Refusing to play nicey nicey is indeed sometimes a good way to make more money or maintain your strategic position in the world economy or to increase your power within a political movement. But it's a little ironic to hear that logic from the followers of a Socialist, since the basic premise of Socialism is "We'd all be a lot better off if we all stopped competing with each other so much and tried playing nicey nicey with each other instead."
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I created a character, a scary-kind of a Jason kind of character," he explained. "Looking at what the establishment is afraid of, a scary Joker-like character who's like the boogeyman under their bed."
So his excuse for making threats is "I was trolling?" Awesome. What a dipshit.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
So his excuse for making threats is "I was trolling?" Awesome. What a dipshit.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: “But outrage doesn't always lead to martyrdom or terrorism either. Anger can also lead to constructive action.”
Maybe, but sometimes it's just bitterness – bitterness that betrays a naivete about how politics works, and bitterness that leads to ultimate defeat. Serenity is a hallmark of the privileged largely because only the privileged have the easy opportunities for serenity; but that doesn't change the fact that serenity is a form of power. If the world is to become better, serenity must be seized by those who aren't privileged.
All that aside: this statement on Nevada from Bernie Sanders is the finally nail in the coffin for him, as far as I'm concerned. It's a statement that all but accuses the Democratic Party of abject corruption, and blames his (initial) loss in Nevada on that corruption. When he loses the nomination to Hillary Clinton, it's hard to imagine him not releasing the same sort of statement. And a statement like that is likely to do a good deal of damage to the Democratic Party.
We're stuck with a lackluster candidate. Hillary Clinton is one of the least popular major-party Presidential candidates in history. If Bernie Sanders actually wanted to prevent a President Trump, he would have dropped out and commenced campaigning for her weeks ago. I begin to have an awful premonition that he never will - or that, if he does drop out, it'll be with a bitter little "truth bomb" and no consideration whatsoever for what will happen if Trump actually wins the election.
posted by koeselitz at 10:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Maybe, but sometimes it's just bitterness – bitterness that betrays a naivete about how politics works, and bitterness that leads to ultimate defeat. Serenity is a hallmark of the privileged largely because only the privileged have the easy opportunities for serenity; but that doesn't change the fact that serenity is a form of power. If the world is to become better, serenity must be seized by those who aren't privileged.
All that aside: this statement on Nevada from Bernie Sanders is the finally nail in the coffin for him, as far as I'm concerned. It's a statement that all but accuses the Democratic Party of abject corruption, and blames his (initial) loss in Nevada on that corruption. When he loses the nomination to Hillary Clinton, it's hard to imagine him not releasing the same sort of statement. And a statement like that is likely to do a good deal of damage to the Democratic Party.
We're stuck with a lackluster candidate. Hillary Clinton is one of the least popular major-party Presidential candidates in history. If Bernie Sanders actually wanted to prevent a President Trump, he would have dropped out and commenced campaigning for her weeks ago. I begin to have an awful premonition that he never will - or that, if he does drop out, it'll be with a bitter little "truth bomb" and no consideration whatsoever for what will happen if Trump actually wins the election.
posted by koeselitz at 10:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I know, it's really hard to believe that there could be any corruption in politics.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
CNN, MSNBC, NPR etc always end their statements by saying that the math is impossible.
Not quite. This morning NPR talked to conservative economic hack Stephen Moore, and while interviewer Mary Louise Kelly did point out that Trump's tax cuts, even the revised ones, still increase the deficit, she allowed Moore:
There are all kinds of ways Kelly could have pointed out that Moore's math is impossible, but she failed to do so, or to challenge his flawed premises.
posted by Gelatin at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not quite. This morning NPR talked to conservative economic hack Stephen Moore, and while interviewer Mary Louise Kelly did point out that Trump's tax cuts, even the revised ones, still increase the deficit, she allowed Moore:
- to admit that the resulting deficit will be used as an excuse for further spending cuts, with no follow up,
- to claim that said spending cuts are necessary to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse," with no follow up, and
- to claim that tax cuts will lead to more economic growth, in a rehash of the same supply-side snake oil that Republicans have been peddling since Reagan (which George H. W. Bush rightly dubbed "voodoo economics, and which has made hash of the economy of Kansas, among other things), with no follow-up.
There are all kinds of ways Kelly could have pointed out that Moore's math is impossible, but she failed to do so, or to challenge his flawed premises.
posted by Gelatin at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know, it's really hard to believe that there could be any corruption in politics.
Of course there is corruption in politics. But what we're seeing now is a group of people who attribute every setback to corruption. When the media reports on the inaccurate nature of that analysis it is seen as further evidence of corruption. How do you deal with a group of people who will see any evidence that they are wrong as further proof they are right?
posted by Justinian at 10:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Of course there is corruption in politics. But what we're seeing now is a group of people who attribute every setback to corruption. When the media reports on the inaccurate nature of that analysis it is seen as further evidence of corruption. How do you deal with a group of people who will see any evidence that they are wrong as further proof they are right?
posted by Justinian at 10:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, sometimes people don't disagree with you just because they're shills. Sometimes they actually disagree, even without being paid to do so by some big corporation or billionaire.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
This morning NPR talked to conservative economic hack Stephen Moore
God, did this piss me off. Moore is the founder of Club for Growth, and is the biggest hack out there. And he talked about the tax plan as 'what if loopholes were capped at $50,000.00?'. That doesn't even come from Trump. And again with the hand wavey getting 'inefficiencies out of government'. Trump is also relying on Larry Kudlow, a complete idiot that was telling people in 2008 to invest in property, there was no bubble.
Moore says Trump will not release his tax returns because 'it's none of our business'.
Now I am angry again.
posted by readery at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
God, did this piss me off. Moore is the founder of Club for Growth, and is the biggest hack out there. And he talked about the tax plan as 'what if loopholes were capped at $50,000.00?'. That doesn't even come from Trump. And again with the hand wavey getting 'inefficiencies out of government'. Trump is also relying on Larry Kudlow, a complete idiot that was telling people in 2008 to invest in property, there was no bubble.
Moore says Trump will not release his tax returns because 'it's none of our business'.
Now I am angry again.
posted by readery at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Bernie FB group I'm in is full of people insisting that the media is lying about everything - the fact that Sanders now has basically no chance included. And if he loses it'll be because of the media, and the DNC, and basically everything other than the fact that more people wanted Clinton to be the candidate.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:53 AM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
"I created a character, a scary-kind of a Jason kind of character," he explained. "Looking at what the establishment is afraid of, a scary Joker-like character who's like the boogeyman under their bed."
...
"I understand where you're coming from," he replied. "But people are getting frustrated and I only have $300 to my name. I have no ability to get anymore help than I can. I've been working and breaking my back over this," he said, meaning supporting Sanders.
...
In the midst of all that, he said, "my intent was to give her back what she and the establishment have been doing for the last few days."
And that's Gamergate in a nutshell right there.
posted by dw at 10:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
...
"I understand where you're coming from," he replied. "But people are getting frustrated and I only have $300 to my name. I have no ability to get anymore help than I can. I've been working and breaking my back over this," he said, meaning supporting Sanders.
...
In the midst of all that, he said, "my intent was to give her back what she and the establishment have been doing for the last few days."
And that's Gamergate in a nutshell right there.
posted by dw at 10:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
From TPM: What Exactly Did Sanders Supporters Do At The Nevada Dem Convention?
posted by Justinian at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
"If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage. If you're angry, then you're paying too much attention – that's what I say.
There is a TON of privilege in this statement.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
There is a TON of privilege in this statement.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
How do you deal with a group of people who will see any evidence that they are wrong as further proof they are right?
Elect them.
posted by beerperson at 11:00 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Elect them.
posted by beerperson at 11:00 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
BREAKING: Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump releases list of 11 potential nominees to U.S. Supreme Court. (Although I don't see a list yet.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:03 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:03 AM on May 18, 2016
Holy crap, Justinian. I wasn't aware of some of what down. It is absurd and so disheartening.
posted by defenestration at 11:05 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by defenestration at 11:05 AM on May 18, 2016
This is particularly ridiculous:
"#TeamBernie voted out of the party platform to oppose voter ID laws. How can you support voter ID laws and be a democrat? #nvdemconvention"
"AND IN THE MOST IRONIC TURN OF ALL #TeamBernieNV voted to take out of the @nvdems party platform support for overturning #CitizensUnited"
So petty and obstructionist.
posted by defenestration at 11:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
"#TeamBernie voted out of the party platform to oppose voter ID laws. How can you support voter ID laws and be a democrat? #nvdemconvention"
"AND IN THE MOST IRONIC TURN OF ALL #TeamBernieNV voted to take out of the @nvdems party platform support for overturning #CitizensUnited"
So petty and obstructionist.
posted by defenestration at 11:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Among the tweets speculating on possible names are those suggesting it will be 7 dwarves and four horsemen, and that Gary Busey, Ted Nugent, and Chuck Norris will be on the list.
posted by bearwife at 11:07 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bearwife at 11:07 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
A tweet from @mikepfarr included in the TPM linked just now by Justinian:
AND IN THE MOST IRONIC TURN OF ALL #TeamBernieNV voted to take out of the @nvdems party platform support for overturning #CitizensUnited
That's not how you work with the party to move things in your desired direction. That's just fucked up.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:08 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
AND IN THE MOST IRONIC TURN OF ALL #TeamBernieNV voted to take out of the @nvdems party platform support for overturning #CitizensUnited
That's not how you work with the party to move things in your desired direction. That's just fucked up.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:08 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's the list of potential Trump Supreme Court nominees.
Trump's picks include Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.posted by stolyarova at 11:11 AM on May 18, 2016
Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
BREAKING: Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump releases list of 11 potential nominees to U.S. Supreme Court.
I like to think he chose the number eleven as a subtle shout out to Negativland (in the wake of the recent death of Richard Lyons).
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like to think he chose the number eleven as a subtle shout out to Negativland (in the wake of the recent death of Richard Lyons).
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
My understanding, based on this article, is that the Bernie folks caused the entire "Government Ethics" section to be taken out of the state party platform for no particularly good reason. I presume those items were in that section, but they weren't voted down one-by-one.
posted by zachlipton at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's some background of Sykes and Pryor.
posted by readery at 11:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by readery at 11:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, that is a nightmarish list. How nice of Trump to tell us again how bad it will be if he is elected.
posted by bearwife at 11:19 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by bearwife at 11:19 AM on May 18, 2016
That's not even funny, Atom Eyes.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:24 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:24 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
That noise is more important than you are, a box and a stick and a string and a bear
posted by phearlez at 11:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by phearlez at 11:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
In case there is any doubt, Trump's list of potential justices are all really smart and really awful. Really. Awful.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:31 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:31 AM on May 18, 2016
That's not how you work with the party to move things in your desired direction. That's just fucked up.
Really, really shitty optics. And it tells you how out of control that mob had become.
Anecdotal, but I'm seeing a number of Bernie friends pulling away from him after Nevada. Others are doubling and tripling down.
posted by dw at 11:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really, really shitty optics. And it tells you how out of control that mob had become.
Anecdotal, but I'm seeing a number of Bernie friends pulling away from him after Nevada. Others are doubling and tripling down.
posted by dw at 11:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Others are doubling and tripling down.
Because when people, particularly political partisans, are exposed to facts which contradict their pre-existing beliefs they do not tend to change their beliefs but rather to believe even more strongly. How Facts Backfire. You can see it in action over the last 24 hours right in this thread.
posted by Justinian at 11:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Because when people, particularly political partisans, are exposed to facts which contradict their pre-existing beliefs they do not tend to change their beliefs but rather to believe even more strongly. How Facts Backfire. You can see it in action over the last 24 hours right in this thread.
posted by Justinian at 11:43 AM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
clawsoon: "That's really interesting, JackFlash. Does anybody know what the results would be so far on the Democratic side if it was winner-take-all by state?"
This is from April 28, so a bit different now, but she'd be way more ahead.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:43 AM on May 18, 2016
This is from April 28, so a bit different now, but she'd be way more ahead.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:43 AM on May 18, 2016
what we're seeing now is a group of people who attribute every setback to corruption. When the media reports on the inaccurate nature of that analysis it is seen as further evidence of corruption. How do you deal with a group of people who will see any evidence that they are wrong as further proof they are right?
I should point out that this mindset is pretty much exactly what I see embodied in modern movement conservatism. Republicans created the myth of the "liberal media" to give themselves and their voters an excuse to disbelieve inconvenient facts. And hoo boy, did they run with it, and the list of policy disasters that has resulted is too long to recount.
On issues from taxation to sex education to global warming, conservatives are wrong, wrong, wrong, but they've created an entire alternate media bubble to convince themselves not only that they're right, but that the evidence of their wrongness is part of some conspiracy.
Republicans like to mock liberals for their belief in empirical data -- in part by creating hackish "think tanks" that can supply junk science and phony statistics on demand -- and Ford knows Democrats are capable of proposing some lousy policies too, but if one's definition of a progressive revolution includes ignoring empirical reality in favor of a comforting fantasy, I can only say, as one who remembers the George W. Bush administration, count me out.
posted by Gelatin at 11:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
I should point out that this mindset is pretty much exactly what I see embodied in modern movement conservatism. Republicans created the myth of the "liberal media" to give themselves and their voters an excuse to disbelieve inconvenient facts. And hoo boy, did they run with it, and the list of policy disasters that has resulted is too long to recount.
On issues from taxation to sex education to global warming, conservatives are wrong, wrong, wrong, but they've created an entire alternate media bubble to convince themselves not only that they're right, but that the evidence of their wrongness is part of some conspiracy.
Republicans like to mock liberals for their belief in empirical data -- in part by creating hackish "think tanks" that can supply junk science and phony statistics on demand -- and Ford knows Democrats are capable of proposing some lousy policies too, but if one's definition of a progressive revolution includes ignoring empirical reality in favor of a comforting fantasy, I can only say, as one who remembers the George W. Bush administration, count me out.
posted by Gelatin at 11:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
me: “'If you're not angry, you're not paying attention' is the philosophy of zealots, martyrs, and suicide bombers. Knowledge should not lead to outrage. If you're angry, then you're paying too much attention – that's what I say.”
roomthreeseventeen: “There is a TON of privilege in this statement.”
And there's no privilege whatsoever in the demand that everyone must be as worked up about presidential party politics as we are?
posted by koeselitz at 11:57 AM on May 18, 2016
roomthreeseventeen: “There is a TON of privilege in this statement.”
And there's no privilege whatsoever in the demand that everyone must be as worked up about presidential party politics as we are?
posted by koeselitz at 11:57 AM on May 18, 2016
And there's no privilege whatsoever in the demand that everyone must be as worked up about presidential party politics as we are?
I don't believe so. For many people, this election is life or death. Maybe not between Clinton and Sanders, but otherwise, sure.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't believe so. For many people, this election is life or death. Maybe not between Clinton and Sanders, but otherwise, sure.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
No. Because everyone is affected by who sits in the Oval Office.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:59 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:59 AM on May 18, 2016
roomthreeseventeen: “Maybe not between Clinton and Sanders, but...”
Ay, there's the rub.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 PM on May 18, 2016
Ay, there's the rub.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 PM on May 18, 2016
But I mean, that's my privilege coming into say that. I don't speak for other people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Bernie FB group I'm in is full of people insisting that the media is lying about everything - the fact that Sanders now has basically no chance included.
But all he needs to do is win California by like 50 points!
posted by dersins at 12:02 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
But all he needs to do is win California by like 50 points!
posted by dersins at 12:02 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Judge on Trump's new SCOTUS shortlist has repeatedly mocked Trump on Twitter
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
By the way did anyone see the Sanders Nevada delegate on MSNBC yesterday who explained that a big reason the delegates got so unruly was that they were hungry and drunk? And didn't seem to realize that didn't make it better? I didn't want to be running a liveblog of what I was watching on TV but really it was hilarious.
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
hungry and drunk?
+ angry =
hdrangry
notify urban dictionary
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
+ angry =
hdrangry
notify urban dictionary
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
drungy, surely.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:11 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
John Cole: Screw Him and His Diehards
But this should not be surprising. This is what the campaign and Bernie have been doing for months. The Bernie coalition is young, naive newcomers, grizzled old progressives with longstanding issues with Clinton and the DNC, and independents who have no real allegiance to the Democratic party. It’s very easy to lie to the young and the independents, who simply don’t know better and haven’t been in the political process and know how primaries and caucuses work, and the middle group are the nihilists who think we need a revolution and are still kvetching about the fact that Obama didn’t give us single payer.posted by tonycpsu at 12:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
That’s why these people can convince themselves that closed primaries for the Democratic nominee (where Bernie loses) are undemocratic while the actually very undemocratic caucuses (where Bernie wins) are the people’s will. That’s why they think polling about the general election is what matters when choosing a nominee, and not who the people actually voted for (at this point, three million more have chosen Hillary over Bernie).
It’s why they can, with a straight face, argue that the SuperDelegates are evil and undemocratic, and then argue that they should switch to Bernie even though he has fewer votes, fewer earned delegates, and not realize that what they are proposing would be stealing the election from Hillary and giving it to the loser. Because that is the Sanders team argument. I’m not making that up . That is their plan.
That’s why they think trying to snag a few delegates in Nevada in an attempt to minimize the popular vote choice and being thwarted is a coup led by none other than the odious DWS. It’s a coalition that Bernie and Weaver and Devine are lying to daily, and half of them don’t realize they are being lied to and the rest just don’t care.
No. Because everyone is affected by who sits in the Oval Office.
Everyone is affected by SO MANY THINGS.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Everyone is affected by SO MANY THINGS.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
John Cole: Screw Him and His Diehards
Imma really going to read this, but headlines like this don't help unite.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Imma really going to read this, but headlines like this don't help unite.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Neither does soft-pedaling the damage being done here by Bernie.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I love those Justice WIllett tweets. Unless it is a spoof account, this is yet another indicator that Trump in fact researches nothing.
posted by bearwife at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Neither does soft-pedaling the damage being done here by Bernie.
Totally true. But I don't think those things have anything to do with each other. Or the general election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Totally true. But I don't think those things have anything to do with each other. Or the general election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
headlines like this don't help unite.
Considering the way Sanders' supporters are being described in the essay, it's safe to say that's not Cole's intent.
posted by zarq at 12:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Considering the way Sanders' supporters are being described in the essay, it's safe to say that's not Cole's intent.
posted by zarq at 12:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Neither does soft-pedaling the damage being done here by Bernie.
sometimes you just have to wait people out and let them get over it
posted by pyramid termite at 12:19 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
sometimes you just have to wait people out and let them get over it
posted by pyramid termite at 12:19 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Or the general election.
It seems to me that Hillary's strength in the general election depends in large part on getting Bernie voters to redirect their support to her. Bernie is doing immediate and possibly irreparable damage to that effort with every day he engages in this kitchen sink attack on Clinton and the party he ostensibly wants to represent in November.
sometimes you just have to wait people out and let them get over it
How can that happen when the leader of the movement is stoking the fires? I'm not blaming the supporters here, I'm blaming the candidate. The one I gave money to and voted for. He's the problem now, not his supporters.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
It seems to me that Hillary's strength in the general election depends in large part on getting Bernie voters to redirect their support to her. Bernie is doing immediate and possibly irreparable damage to that effort with every day he engages in this kitchen sink attack on Clinton and the party he ostensibly wants to represent in November.
sometimes you just have to wait people out and let them get over it
How can that happen when the leader of the movement is stoking the fires? I'm not blaming the supporters here, I'm blaming the candidate. The one I gave money to and voted for. He's the problem now, not his supporters.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [19 favorites]
I feel like it's unfair to insist Hillary needs to win the Sanders supporters over when Bernie is telling them they will win California and still attacking her.
posted by zutalors! at 12:26 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:26 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I feel like it's unfair to insist Hillary needs to win the Sanders supporters over when Bernie is telling them they will win California and still attacking her.
I guess my opinion is there are ways to reach Sanders supporters. I haven't been shy about my vote for Bernie Sanders. But you know what? As a Jewish queer woman, I am terrified of Donald Trump, and Clinton's campaign stance that we need to get rid of laws that criminalize people for transmitting HIV is SUPER, SUPER liberal. If she's going to pivot to the left of Sanders on some things, I can see getting on board.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I guess my opinion is there are ways to reach Sanders supporters. I haven't been shy about my vote for Bernie Sanders. But you know what? As a Jewish queer woman, I am terrified of Donald Trump, and Clinton's campaign stance that we need to get rid of laws that criminalize people for transmitting HIV is SUPER, SUPER liberal. If she's going to pivot to the left of Sanders on some things, I can see getting on board.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Judge on Trump's new SCOTUS shortlist has repeatedly mocked Trump on Twitter
The real headline here is that there's a state Supreme Court justice who mocks anybody on Twitter. That's kind of significant in and of itself.
Of course it's Texas, where the court is elected and the judges all have to basically be politicians, so that explains a lot.
posted by zachlipton at 12:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
The real headline here is that there's a state Supreme Court justice who mocks anybody on Twitter. That's kind of significant in and of itself.
Of course it's Texas, where the court is elected and the judges all have to basically be politicians, so that explains a lot.
posted by zachlipton at 12:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
God, I'm sorry Sanders supporters. This must be hard to watch.
posted by angrycat at 12:37 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:37 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
This article in Newsweek is pretty angry.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:39 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:39 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like it's unfair to insist Hillary needs to win the Sanders supporters over when Bernie is telling them they will win California and still attacking her.
If she can win the general without the Sanders bloc, it doesn't matter. If not... well, that's how democracy works. If you have a fairer system, then tell us about it.
posted by indubitable at 12:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she can win the general without the Sanders bloc, it doesn't matter. If not... well, that's how democracy works. If you have a fairer system, then tell us about it.
posted by indubitable at 12:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
God, I'm sorry Sanders supporters. This must be hard to watch.
I think it's like when your favorite show goes on a season too long and ends up looking terrible instead of going out on top and leaving people wanting more.
posted by Justinian at 12:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think it's like when your favorite show goes on a season too long and ends up looking terrible instead of going out on top and leaving people wanting more.
posted by Justinian at 12:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I realized a long time ago that a number of Bernie Sanders supporters are simply not in the "likely Democratic voter" camp for the general and probably never were. There's a strong backbone of people who are otherwise apolitical, people who weren't even registered as Democrats until this primary season, people who don't understand how the American political process works, etc.
I'm hoping that those people can be brought into the Democratic Party fold by November, but without Sanders himself showing an inclination in that direction, I don't have much hope.
posted by Sara C. at 12:42 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm hoping that those people can be brought into the Democratic Party fold by November, but without Sanders himself showing an inclination in that direction, I don't have much hope.
posted by Sara C. at 12:42 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
If she can win the general without the Sanders bloc, it doesn't matter. If not... well, that's how democracy works. If you have a fairer system, then tell us about it.
He could do what Hillary did and back the frontrunner.
posted by zutalors! at 12:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
God, I'm sorry Sanders supporters. This must be hard to watch.
I find it hard to watch, but probably not for the same reasons you're thinking.
posted by kyp at 12:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
I find it hard to watch, but probably not for the same reasons you're thinking.
posted by kyp at 12:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's hard because at this point, it's at least another 4 years of being fucked by banks and health insurance companies.
posted by mikelieman at 12:47 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:47 PM on May 18, 2016
And my kids sure as fuck ain't going to college if it means graduating owing -- a fucking mortgage...
posted by mikelieman at 12:48 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:48 PM on May 18, 2016
The day after California, Sanders needs to say these words, loudly, so that all his supporters can hear it:
We lost, fair and square.
That's it. He could even be even-handed about it and say We lost by more than Clinton lost to Obama in 2008.
If he can't bring himself to acknowledge reality, and gracefully concede before the convention, he's lost all credibility and needs to be labelled a crank. He's been railing against the superdelegates right up until the point it became obvious he would need them to overturn a Clinton victory; putting all his hopes on a convention upset is something even Ted Cruz wouldn't do.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:50 PM on May 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
We lost, fair and square.
That's it. He could even be even-handed about it and say We lost by more than Clinton lost to Obama in 2008.
If he can't bring himself to acknowledge reality, and gracefully concede before the convention, he's lost all credibility and needs to be labelled a crank. He's been railing against the superdelegates right up until the point it became obvious he would need them to overturn a Clinton victory; putting all his hopes on a convention upset is something even Ted Cruz wouldn't do.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:50 PM on May 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
He could do what Hillary did and back the frontrunner.
OK, that's one vote. What about his supporters? I mean you can't just have him turn around and say, "oh yeah btw I was wrong about wanting x, y and z policies that are probably the reason you supported me in the first place. You will now vote for Hillary!" and then use his mind control ray to like, drive us to the voting booths. There have to be some compromises from Hillary on policy.
posted by indubitable at 12:53 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
OK, that's one vote. What about his supporters? I mean you can't just have him turn around and say, "oh yeah btw I was wrong about wanting x, y and z policies that are probably the reason you supported me in the first place. You will now vote for Hillary!" and then use his mind control ray to like, drive us to the voting booths. There have to be some compromises from Hillary on policy.
posted by indubitable at 12:53 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
He has to do way more than say that he lost fair and square.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:55 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:55 PM on May 18, 2016
I mean... yeah that's kind of how it's supposed to work if you believe in party politics at all. One person wins the nomination, and the other person concedes politely and publicly supports the winner. The presumption is that the loser's supporters are still party members and as such will probably support the nominee.
If you don't believe in party politics, do whatever you've done in previous election years I guess.
posted by Sara C. at 12:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you don't believe in party politics, do whatever you've done in previous election years I guess.
posted by Sara C. at 12:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean you can't just have him turn around and say, "oh yeah btw I was wrong about wanting x, y and z policies that are probably the reason you supported me in the first place. You will now vote for Hillary!" and then use his mind control ray to like, drive us to the voting booths. There have to be some compromises from Hillary on policy.
Why? Clinton did exactly the above in 2008. And that's one of the reasons she gets so much institutional support. If you want support from the team you have to be a team player.
posted by Justinian at 12:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
Why? Clinton did exactly the above in 2008. And that's one of the reasons she gets so much institutional support. If you want support from the team you have to be a team player.
posted by Justinian at 12:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
He could do what Hillary did and back the frontrunner.
OK, that's one vote.
No, that's not correct. Backing the frontrunner is a very clear way to tell your supporters that you'd like them to vote for that person also. It's not about "mind control," it's about supporting the candidate most likely to win for the party. He can also point out a lot of their similarities, of which there are many.
posted by zutalors! at 12:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
OK, that's one vote.
No, that's not correct. Backing the frontrunner is a very clear way to tell your supporters that you'd like them to vote for that person also. It's not about "mind control," it's about supporting the candidate most likely to win for the party. He can also point out a lot of their similarities, of which there are many.
posted by zutalors! at 12:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
angrycat:
posted by charred husk at 12:59 PM on May 18, 2016 [31 favorites]
"God, I'm sorry Sanders supporters. This must be hard to watch."It is. All my friends and I are Bernie supporters but we're of the "a Hillary is fine, too" variety. We mainly wanted the Overton Window moving to the left and made that known with our votes. It's like we're safely watching from our lifeboats as the S.S.Bernie sinks with hundreds of screaming people on board who refuse to use the remaining lifeboats...
posted by charred husk at 12:59 PM on May 18, 2016 [31 favorites]
If Hillary Clinton *really* wants *my* support, she can start with universal medicare and using sales tax on the sale of stocks and bonds to fund public colleges.
posted by mikelieman at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 1:00 PM on May 18, 2016
Actually. I strike "start with" and if that's all she does, she has my support 100%. I don't think that's unreasonable.
posted by mikelieman at 1:01 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 1:01 PM on May 18, 2016
I should point out that this mindset is pretty much exactly what I see embodied in modern movement conservatism. Republicans created the myth of the "liberal media" to give themselves and their voters an excuse to disbelieve inconvenient facts. And hoo boy, did they run with it, and the list of policy disasters that has resulted is too long to recount. On issues from taxation to sex education to global warming, conservatives are wrong, wrong, wrong, but they've created an entire alternate media bubble to convince themselves not only that they're right, but that the evidence of their wrongness is part of some conspiracy.This is very important, I think. Discrediting "mainstream media" is a very deliberate strategy to remove one of the main institutions in society that stand as a bulwark against raw political power. The conservative movement has made similar (and largely successful) attempts to undermine other independent institutions including science, the Supreme Court, political parties themselves, and even mainstream churches that can resist their ideology.
It's disturbing and dangerous to see elements of the left joining in this effort.
posted by msalt at 1:02 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
No, that's not correct. Backing the frontrunner is a very clear way to tell your supporters that you'd like them to vote for that person also. It's not about "mind control," it's about supporting the candidate most likely to win for the party. He can also point out a lot of their similarities, of which there are many.
I'm saying that Sanders supporters have agency, if that was unclear to you. If you subscribe the model that Hillary must "win over" her primary opponent's supporters, then it follows that she must offer them reasons to support her. Those would be policy concessions; words of support from Sanders have little substance.
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on May 18, 2016
I'm saying that Sanders supporters have agency, if that was unclear to you. If you subscribe the model that Hillary must "win over" her primary opponent's supporters, then it follows that she must offer them reasons to support her. Those would be policy concessions; words of support from Sanders have little substance.
posted by indubitable at 1:03 PM on May 18, 2016
I mean you can't just have him turn around and say, "oh yeah btw I was wrong about wanting x, y and z policies that are probably the reason you supported me in the first place. You will now vote for Hillary!"
If Hillary Clinton *really* wants *my* support, she can start with universal medicare and using sales tax on the sale of stocks and bonds to fund public colleges.
Okay, but if you vote for Hillary you'll probably get something approximating a public option under Obamacare in at least some states and increased funding to Pell Grants and so on. If you don't vote for Hillary, and Trump wins, there is a good chance Obamacare will be repealed, and you may be one of the people who ends up without health insurance at all. And federal funding for education will be slashed.
So... You could send a message to Hillary by staying home... And hope that the Democrats will try to court you next time instead of deciding to try to peel off some centrist Republicans instead... Or you could actually vote for the closest approximation of the policies you support and continue to work within the party for more movement in the same direction in years to come. Why wouldn't you do the latter? And why wouldn't Bernie encourage all his supporters to do the latter?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
If Hillary Clinton *really* wants *my* support, she can start with universal medicare and using sales tax on the sale of stocks and bonds to fund public colleges.
Okay, but if you vote for Hillary you'll probably get something approximating a public option under Obamacare in at least some states and increased funding to Pell Grants and so on. If you don't vote for Hillary, and Trump wins, there is a good chance Obamacare will be repealed, and you may be one of the people who ends up without health insurance at all. And federal funding for education will be slashed.
So... You could send a message to Hillary by staying home... And hope that the Democrats will try to court you next time instead of deciding to try to peel off some centrist Republicans instead... Or you could actually vote for the closest approximation of the policies you support and continue to work within the party for more movement in the same direction in years to come. Why wouldn't you do the latter? And why wouldn't Bernie encourage all his supporters to do the latter?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
Clinton didn't concede for nothing! She got Secretary of State and her DLC chums got assignments in Obama's operation.
Sanders will concede when he's satisfied with the offer or loses his leverage. Given the mass assault from the Party faithful ATM, he still has some leverage to work with.
posted by notyou at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders will concede when he's satisfied with the offer or loses his leverage. Given the mass assault from the Party faithful ATM, he still has some leverage to work with.
posted by notyou at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh man, charred husk just reminded me of something.
I'm a "both are fine"/somewhat undecided primary voter registered in California. I had previously decided to vote Sanders as a vote for the progressive sector of the Democratic party and as a leftward shift in the Overton window.
But now he's really bumming me out.
Who am I even supposed to vote for now?
posted by Sara C. at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm a "both are fine"/somewhat undecided primary voter registered in California. I had previously decided to vote Sanders as a vote for the progressive sector of the Democratic party and as a leftward shift in the Overton window.
But now he's really bumming me out.
Who am I even supposed to vote for now?
posted by Sara C. at 1:04 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is very important, I think. Discrediting "mainstream media" is a very deliberate strategy to remove one of the main institutions in society that stand as a bulwark against raw political power.
The mainstream media has done an excellent job of discrediting themselves.
It's disturbing and dangerous to see elements of the left joining in this effort.
If you don't think the six companies that control 90% of the US media are shaping the narrative in a way that furthers their interests, I'm not sure what to tell you.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
The mainstream media has done an excellent job of discrediting themselves.
It's disturbing and dangerous to see elements of the left joining in this effort.
If you don't think the six companies that control 90% of the US media are shaping the narrative in a way that furthers their interests, I'm not sure what to tell you.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
there is a good chance Obamacare will be repealed,
Not a chance in hell with all the bank Health Insurance companies are making off the individual mandate!
Golden rule, man. He with the gold, maketh the rules...
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 PM on May 18, 2016
Not a chance in hell with all the bank Health Insurance companies are making off the individual mandate!
Golden rule, man. He with the gold, maketh the rules...
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 PM on May 18, 2016
I'm saying that Sanders supporters have agency, if that was unclear to you. If you subscribe the model that Hillary must "win over" her primary opponent's supporters, then it follows that she must offer them reasons to support her. Those would be policy concessions; words of support from Sanders have little substance.
I'm saying she needs both to win over their voters AND needs Sanders' explicit support. What I originally said is that it's not fair to expect her to wrench them away while he is getting people into a frenzy over the entire party, her included but all the way down to House and State reps by implication.
posted by zutalors! at 1:07 PM on May 18, 2016
I'm saying she needs both to win over their voters AND needs Sanders' explicit support. What I originally said is that it's not fair to expect her to wrench them away while he is getting people into a frenzy over the entire party, her included but all the way down to House and State reps by implication.
posted by zutalors! at 1:07 PM on May 18, 2016
If you don't think the six companies that control 90% of the US media are shaping the narrative in a way that furthers their interests, I'm not sure what to tell you.
There's a big difference between the general observation that companies want to make money and the specific claim that, for example, the media is lying about what happened in Nevada because of corruption. Which is the type of thing we're seeing now.
posted by Justinian at 1:09 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
There's a big difference between the general observation that companies want to make money and the specific claim that, for example, the media is lying about what happened in Nevada because of corruption. Which is the type of thing we're seeing now.
posted by Justinian at 1:09 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I mean you can't just have him turn around and say, "oh yeah btw I was wrong about wanting x, y and z policies that are probably the reason you supported me in the first place.
Who said anything about admitting he was wrong about wanting things? On the other hand, he could point out, accurately, that Trump would be far worse when it comes to the priorities Sanders advocates, and Clinton far more persuadable by the fact that a significant caucus of Sanders supporters is among the Democratic coalition. And he should.
There have to be some compromises from Hillary on policy.
Well, sure, but there will be none at all from Trump -- or, more significantly, from the Republican clown show running Congress, which, as I keep mentioning, is almost certain to be completely in Republican hands if Trump takes the election. Is there any doubt he'd sign whatever nonsense bills they put in front of him?
Seriously, listen to that NPR interview with Trump economic advisor and Club for Growth hack Stephen Moore. He's quite candid about the fact that the Republicans plan to cut taxes for the rich, again, and use the resulting deficits to call for cuts to government spending, again. Say what you will about her, Clinton simply isn't likely to sign on to that agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 1:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Who said anything about admitting he was wrong about wanting things? On the other hand, he could point out, accurately, that Trump would be far worse when it comes to the priorities Sanders advocates, and Clinton far more persuadable by the fact that a significant caucus of Sanders supporters is among the Democratic coalition. And he should.
There have to be some compromises from Hillary on policy.
Well, sure, but there will be none at all from Trump -- or, more significantly, from the Republican clown show running Congress, which, as I keep mentioning, is almost certain to be completely in Republican hands if Trump takes the election. Is there any doubt he'd sign whatever nonsense bills they put in front of him?
Seriously, listen to that NPR interview with Trump economic advisor and Club for Growth hack Stephen Moore. He's quite candid about the fact that the Republicans plan to cut taxes for the rich, again, and use the resulting deficits to call for cuts to government spending, again. Say what you will about her, Clinton simply isn't likely to sign on to that agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 1:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
posted by mikelieman at 1:11 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 1:11 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Once the $other_candidate is demonized, policies are irrelevant, I guess?
posted by mikelieman at 1:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 1:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a "both are fine"/somewhat undecided primary voter registered in California.
This was the situation I am in, basically. I've mentioned in other threads that I'd be happy about either, but plan on voting for Sanders in DC. Which I am no longer doing, because of Sanders' behavior lately. So I will be voting for Clinton, and voting for the most progressive options I have in lower positions.
Change is not going to come through yelling and threats at a convention. Change is going to come through supporting progressive candidates downballot, getting them elected so they are able to enact progressive policies and get their feet in the door to be future leaders of the party.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
This was the situation I am in, basically. I've mentioned in other threads that I'd be happy about either, but plan on voting for Sanders in DC. Which I am no longer doing, because of Sanders' behavior lately. So I will be voting for Clinton, and voting for the most progressive options I have in lower positions.
Change is not going to come through yelling and threats at a convention. Change is going to come through supporting progressive candidates downballot, getting them elected so they are able to enact progressive policies and get their feet in the door to be future leaders of the party.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 1:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
Like what?
posted by agregoli at 1:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 1:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Once the $other_candidate is demonized, policies are irrelevant, I guess?
I feel like policies have been irrelevant this entire primary season, so.
posted by zutalors! at 1:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I feel like policies have been irrelevant this entire primary season, so.
posted by zutalors! at 1:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's a big difference between the general observation that companies want to make money and the specific claim that, for example, the media is lying about what happened in Nevada because of corruption. Which is the type of thing we're seeing now.
Just for the record, I am not. I don't even know much about what is going on in NV. But I will readily assert that the media coverage has been biased in favor of Clinton from the get-go, which impacted the results.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just for the record, I am not. I don't even know much about what is going on in NV. But I will readily assert that the media coverage has been biased in favor of Clinton from the get-go, which impacted the results.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Who am I even supposed to vote for now?
Addressed upthread.
I think it's like when your favorite show goes on a season too long and ends up looking terrible instead of going out on top and leaving people wanting more.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's "Heroes" too long or "X-Files" too long. But if he's still campaigning right up to the convention, it'll be well into "Family Guy" range...
Sanders' behavior is less surprising considering he has spent 30+ years as a "Not Democrat" (albeit most of it caucusing with the Ds in order not to be totally alone). He has never been enamored with the Democratic Party organization and four years ago, might not have qualified with all the other elected officials to be a superdelegate himself.
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
Is it unreasonable to think it's too early for that?
if you vote for Hillary you'll probably get something approximating a public option under Obamacare in at least some states and increased funding to Pell Grants and so on
Not necessarily if the Republicans are still controlling both houses of Congress.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:16 PM on May 18, 2016
Addressed upthread.
I think it's like when your favorite show goes on a season too long and ends up looking terrible instead of going out on top and leaving people wanting more.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's "Heroes" too long or "X-Files" too long. But if he's still campaigning right up to the convention, it'll be well into "Family Guy" range...
Sanders' behavior is less surprising considering he has spent 30+ years as a "Not Democrat" (albeit most of it caucusing with the Ds in order not to be totally alone). He has never been enamored with the Democratic Party organization and four years ago, might not have qualified with all the other elected officials to be a superdelegate himself.
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
Is it unreasonable to think it's too early for that?
if you vote for Hillary you'll probably get something approximating a public option under Obamacare in at least some states and increased funding to Pell Grants and so on
Not necessarily if the Republicans are still controlling both houses of Congress.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:16 PM on May 18, 2016
There's a strong backbone of people who are otherwise apolitical, people who weren't even registered as Democrats until this primary season, people who don't understand how the American political process works, etc.
I.e., Millennials. Which I don't think is a glib statement, seeing as how polls show that they are overwhelmingly the backbone of his campaign.
posted by kyp at 1:17 PM on May 18, 2016
I.e., Millennials. Which I don't think is a glib statement, seeing as how polls show that they are overwhelmingly the backbone of his campaign.
posted by kyp at 1:17 PM on May 18, 2016
Not a chance in hell with all the bank Health Insurance companies are making off the individual mandate!
Uh...have you not been paying attention for the last five years? It doesn't matter what the insurance companies say, it matters what the GOP believes. And right now they believe that the ACA is actual socialism (or maybe worse!) that must be removed completely.
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
It's not a zero-sum game, so let's not pretend it is. In reality, 1) their policies line up waaaay more than they differ, and 2) there isn't 40%-50% of the party that "doesn't want her policies." Something like 85% of Sanders supporters would support her as well, and that's from polling done in the midst of the primary.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
Uh...have you not been paying attention for the last five years? It doesn't matter what the insurance companies say, it matters what the GOP believes. And right now they believe that the ACA is actual socialism (or maybe worse!) that must be removed completely.
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
It's not a zero-sum game, so let's not pretend it is. In reality, 1) their policies line up waaaay more than they differ, and 2) there isn't 40%-50% of the party that "doesn't want her policies." Something like 85% of Sanders supporters would support her as well, and that's from polling done in the midst of the primary.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
But I will readily assert that the media coverage has been biased in favor of Clinton from the get-go, which impacted the results.
I agree that they have never given Sanders much of a shot to win the nomination. Whether that amounts to "bias in favor" depends on a lot of complicated factors.
posted by Justinian at 1:18 PM on May 18, 2016
I agree that they have never given Sanders much of a shot to win the nomination. Whether that amounts to "bias in favor" depends on a lot of complicated factors.
posted by Justinian at 1:18 PM on May 18, 2016
If you subscribe the model that Hillary must "win over" her primary opponent's supporters
Does anyone who is a rank and file party member, or, for that matter, an upper level DNC wonk, actually subscribe to this model?
I have literally never heard this idea floated before. It's not a thing. Fine if non-Democratic Sanders supporters personally feel this way and decide to stay home in November over it, but that's far outside the scope of how the Democratic party works, or how presidential elections have ever worked in the US.
posted by Sara C. at 1:19 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does anyone who is a rank and file party member, or, for that matter, an upper level DNC wonk, actually subscribe to this model?
I have literally never heard this idea floated before. It's not a thing. Fine if non-Democratic Sanders supporters personally feel this way and decide to stay home in November over it, but that's far outside the scope of how the Democratic party works, or how presidential elections have ever worked in the US.
posted by Sara C. at 1:19 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you're not willing to vote for Trump or Clinton and can't be bothered to care about downballot races, you can still bring change with your ballot.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
the media is lying about what happened in Nevada because of corruption.
It's not that the media is lying because of corruption. It's that the media's financial interest is in ratings/pageviews and not in accurate reporting of facts. I don't know if they're reporting things accurately, because whether something is reported accurately does not significantly impact their bottom line. Like Trump, our news media is modeled on a scripted reality show with no accountability for past inaccuracies.
What is the incentive for the media to not misrepresent events in this election cycle (no matter which candidate benefits from the misrepresentation)? Conflict makes money. Suspense makes money. Danger makes money. Unpredictability makes money. The Truth is boring and therefore does not make money. Not telling The Truth has little to no financial consequence.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not that the media is lying because of corruption. It's that the media's financial interest is in ratings/pageviews and not in accurate reporting of facts. I don't know if they're reporting things accurately, because whether something is reported accurately does not significantly impact their bottom line. Like Trump, our news media is modeled on a scripted reality show with no accountability for past inaccuracies.
What is the incentive for the media to not misrepresent events in this election cycle (no matter which candidate benefits from the misrepresentation)? Conflict makes money. Suspense makes money. Danger makes money. Unpredictability makes money. The Truth is boring and therefore does not make money. Not telling The Truth has little to no financial consequence.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mod note: One comment removed; let's not start digging into "yeah but several decades ago they did x" re-re-re-vetting stuff, it's not like folks haven't talked both candidates' closet skeletons to death already. And more generally, I get that there's sort of a bump of actual campaign head-butting recently that bears some discussion thereof as sort of electoral news, but let's try and yet again crank back a bit on the intra-party and inter-user griping stuff, especially if it's something where you're stating your personal opinion on something for the dozenth or three-dozenth time in a MeFi thread about the election.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not a chance in hell with all the bank Health Insurance companies are making off the individual mandate!
The only thing that has prevented the 30(?) attempts at repeal has been Obama's veto pen, more or less. Trump wouldn't veto.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
The only thing that has prevented the 30(?) attempts at repeal has been Obama's veto pen, more or less. Trump wouldn't veto.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like Trump, our news media is modeled on a scripted reality show with no accountability for past inaccuracies.
And one of the major media entities, NBC, gave Trump his scripted reality show with which he created his deeply dishonest public image. NBC, a Division of Comcast, which needs a compliant FCC to achieve its goal of a national Cable Monopoly. Coincidence?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
And one of the major media entities, NBC, gave Trump his scripted reality show with which he created his deeply dishonest public image. NBC, a Division of Comcast, which needs a compliant FCC to achieve its goal of a national Cable Monopoly. Coincidence?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scratch that, the Senate did actually pass one vote symbolically so he did have to veto one attempt IIRC. Sorry. But they wouldn't have passed it if Obama hadn't been president so the point remains.
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This has been an interesting exchange given that MeFis are definitely left to very left. We have lots of Sanders supporters here, and I am seeing just what seems to be happening in the real world . . . a good number of Bernie supporters who are also loyal Democrats are planning to vote for and support Hillary, and those who have felt disconnected from the Democratic party or never really belonged to it at all are doubling down.
This isn't like Obama-Clinton in 08 in at least two respects. First, I think the people who are in the Bernie or bust camp are not going to change their minds and and come under the big tent. And asking them to do so just makes them more hostile. There isn't much point in continuing to argue that Clinton will move the U.S. a long way further toward what they want than Trump because I think for some people nothing will do but promising everything Bernie has, and even then the promise wouldn't be believed by some. (There are also not enough of the BoBs to move the election, any more than there were enough insane right wing Rs to defeat Obama in 08 or 12.) Second, I will be delightfully surprised and shocked if Bernie does much of anything to fight Trump or support HRC. I don't think he's interested in anything he doesn't direct.
It would be nice to be wrong. It was a pretty great thing to see the Clintons rally behind Obama in 2008.
posted by bearwife at 1:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
This isn't like Obama-Clinton in 08 in at least two respects. First, I think the people who are in the Bernie or bust camp are not going to change their minds and and come under the big tent. And asking them to do so just makes them more hostile. There isn't much point in continuing to argue that Clinton will move the U.S. a long way further toward what they want than Trump because I think for some people nothing will do but promising everything Bernie has, and even then the promise wouldn't be believed by some. (There are also not enough of the BoBs to move the election, any more than there were enough insane right wing Rs to defeat Obama in 08 or 12.) Second, I will be delightfully surprised and shocked if Bernie does much of anything to fight Trump or support HRC. I don't think he's interested in anything he doesn't direct.
It would be nice to be wrong. It was a pretty great thing to see the Clintons rally behind Obama in 2008.
posted by bearwife at 1:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Change is going to come through supporting progressive candidates downballot, getting them elected so they are able to enact progressive policies and get their feet in the door to be future leaders of the party.
Amen. I wish the avowed young progressives out there would put even half the effort into local and district races that they are putting into the Sanders campaign. Then we might get somewhere. Of course, that doesn't have the big-screen drama of the Presidential race, nor the compelling cults of personality.
If you are left of center and want real change, work as hard as you can to defeat tea-party-ish Senators and Congressional representatives.
posted by aught at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Amen. I wish the avowed young progressives out there would put even half the effort into local and district races that they are putting into the Sanders campaign. Then we might get somewhere. Of course, that doesn't have the big-screen drama of the Presidential race, nor the compelling cults of personality.
If you are left of center and want real change, work as hard as you can to defeat tea-party-ish Senators and Congressional representatives.
posted by aught at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
The actual veto is irrelevant. Obama's veto pen is the thing that stopped Senate Republicans from destroying the filibuster so they could repeal the ACA.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obama has never vetoed a single repeal of Obamacare.
He's had enough Democrats in the Senate to block passage, and knowing Obama would veto it anyway limits the value of the Republicans fighting too hard to put it on his desk. If the Republicans retain the Senate and Trump is president, Senate Republicans will be under much more pressure -- including and especially the threat of primary challenge from the right -- to send it along, and there's no reason at all to think Trump won't sign it.
posted by Gelatin at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's had enough Democrats in the Senate to block passage, and knowing Obama would veto it anyway limits the value of the Republicans fighting too hard to put it on his desk. If the Republicans retain the Senate and Trump is president, Senate Republicans will be under much more pressure -- including and especially the threat of primary challenge from the right -- to send it along, and there's no reason at all to think Trump won't sign it.
posted by Gelatin at 1:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
First of all, yes Obama has vetoed a repeal of Obamacare.
Second, this is a Gaussian Distribution, also known as a bell curve. It's a very common statistical distribution whenever there is some random variation around some average value. Right?
I'm pretty sure that political views are distributed more or less like this on the economic left-right axis. Basically most people are pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum, so there is a big hump in the middle. And then there are increasingly tiny fringes to the extreme left and to the extreme right.
Duverger's law makes it likely that, with a first past the post system like we have in the US, we will almost always end up eventually with two political parties, and the dividing line between the political parties will be pretty much in the center of this spectrum of political opinions. If the center of the spectrum moves leftwards or rightwards so that one party has a big majority for a while, the other party will shift its platform until they each get roughly half the voters again. (Incidentally I think this is actually a nice checks-and-balances feature of the two party system. It guarantees that no one party will ever become so strong that you end up with a de facto one-party-system.)
So here's the thing about "If the Democrats want my support, they have to move leftward." If you are a person out there on the leftward fringe of the distribution? Then you are one of not all that many people who have your views. There aren't that many people out on the edges. But there's a huge pile of people in the center. So if the Democratic party moves leftward to pick up you and your relatively few left-edge friends, they risk losing a huge pile of voters from the middle.
Conversely, if they lose an election (even if it's because the left edge folks stayed home) and they want to pick up new voters? It may be much easier to do that by moving just a tiny bit rightward and picking up a bunch of Republicans who were near the left edge of that party.
Especially since the Republicans on the far right edge have been succeeding in pushing their party toward its own right fringe, and have therefore been losing a bunch of voters in the middle already... They have a structural advantage in that the electoral college and House districts give extra weight to rural voters, but whenever there is large turnout they lose elections because of this. So the Democrats stand to gain a lot more votes by moving rightward than leftward, if they are short...
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:32 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Second, this is a Gaussian Distribution, also known as a bell curve. It's a very common statistical distribution whenever there is some random variation around some average value. Right?
I'm pretty sure that political views are distributed more or less like this on the economic left-right axis. Basically most people are pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum, so there is a big hump in the middle. And then there are increasingly tiny fringes to the extreme left and to the extreme right.
Duverger's law makes it likely that, with a first past the post system like we have in the US, we will almost always end up eventually with two political parties, and the dividing line between the political parties will be pretty much in the center of this spectrum of political opinions. If the center of the spectrum moves leftwards or rightwards so that one party has a big majority for a while, the other party will shift its platform until they each get roughly half the voters again. (Incidentally I think this is actually a nice checks-and-balances feature of the two party system. It guarantees that no one party will ever become so strong that you end up with a de facto one-party-system.)
So here's the thing about "If the Democrats want my support, they have to move leftward." If you are a person out there on the leftward fringe of the distribution? Then you are one of not all that many people who have your views. There aren't that many people out on the edges. But there's a huge pile of people in the center. So if the Democratic party moves leftward to pick up you and your relatively few left-edge friends, they risk losing a huge pile of voters from the middle.
Conversely, if they lose an election (even if it's because the left edge folks stayed home) and they want to pick up new voters? It may be much easier to do that by moving just a tiny bit rightward and picking up a bunch of Republicans who were near the left edge of that party.
Especially since the Republicans on the far right edge have been succeeding in pushing their party toward its own right fringe, and have therefore been losing a bunch of voters in the middle already... They have a structural advantage in that the electoral college and House districts give extra weight to rural voters, but whenever there is large turnout they lose elections because of this. So the Democrats stand to gain a lot more votes by moving rightward than leftward, if they are short...
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:32 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well now we're into hypothetical counterfactuals which seems of dubious utility so I'll agree that if things had gone very differently things might have gone very differently.
posted by Justinian at 1:32 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:32 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you subscribe the model that Hillary must "win over" her primary opponent's supportersDoes anyone who is a rank and file party member, or, for that matter, an upper level DNC wonk, actually subscribe to this model?
I have literally never heard this idea floated before. It's not a thing.
Hillary Clinton got a cabinet position out of her last run for president and also got a bunch of her people appointed to positions in the Obama administration, as pointed out by notyou. That was her price for conceding and supporting. Whatever it is that Bernie wants (and I doubt it's a position in her administration), Clinton has been so far unwilling to offer it. My guess is that it's policy.
posted by indubitable at 1:33 PM on May 18, 2016
Hillary Clinton conceded way before she was offered the State Department.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think we're all basically in agreement regarding the prospects of Obamacare repeal going nowhere under Obama, but I also think we're basically in agreement that the political calculus changes dramatically -- about Obamacare repeal and a host of other awful legislation -- if you have a President Trump and a solidly Republican Congress.
posted by Gelatin at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary Clinton conceded way before she was offered the State Department.
I think that's probably not true.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think that's probably not true.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is it unreasonable to think that if Hillary Clinton wants the support of the ~ 40-50% of the Democratic party who don't want her policies, to adopt *some* of the policies endorsed by that wing?
it is unreasonable, because candidates are more than their policies. People will vote for or against someone based on trust, their past decisions/records, and as a way to express higher ideals and directions they want the people/country/society to pursue. And even then, it might not be specifically a rejection against an opponent but rather they like both (as a whole or a specific thing), but just one more than the other.
posted by FJT at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
it is unreasonable, because candidates are more than their policies. People will vote for or against someone based on trust, their past decisions/records, and as a way to express higher ideals and directions they want the people/country/society to pursue. And even then, it might not be specifically a rejection against an opponent but rather they like both (as a whole or a specific thing), but just one more than the other.
posted by FJT at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Looking back it is amazing how close Obama and Clinton's positions really were. The major differences were her initial vote for the war in Iraq (which Obama wisely opposed... but wasn't in a position of power where he might pay a price for that opposition at the time) and Obama's opposition to the individual health care mandate which Clinton supported.
And then Obama's health care plan included (correctly) a mandate!
Amazingly close in their positions.
posted by Justinian at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
And then Obama's health care plan included (correctly) a mandate!
Amazingly close in their positions.
posted by Justinian at 1:36 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not that the media is lying because of corruption. It's that the media's financial interest is in ratings/pageviews and not in accurate reporting of facts.
This is an interesting and complex point, which does not break cleanly in favor of either Bernie or Hillary. It's kind of like quarterly capitalism; the short term interest of the press lies in page views (just as companies need to keep current stock price up), but long term they have to maintain viability (accuracy/market share and profitability).
In general, these structural incentives have favored Bernie. A competitive race with a surprising, off-beat character is a great story and he has received tons of positive coverage. Outlets have dismissed Bernie's chances of winning the nomination though because, well, they never really were that good, and a credulous endorsement of his odds could come back to bite them in the long run.
The press has largely given Bernie a pass on scandals including his flip-flop on releasing his tax returns, and the inside dealing and alleged fraud by his wife that just bankrupted a college. This fits their incentives, by keeping the race closer, and neither Hillary or Trump has pushed the issue. The chaos and allegations of fraud are getting lots of play for similar reasons.
posted by msalt at 1:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is an interesting and complex point, which does not break cleanly in favor of either Bernie or Hillary. It's kind of like quarterly capitalism; the short term interest of the press lies in page views (just as companies need to keep current stock price up), but long term they have to maintain viability (accuracy/market share and profitability).
In general, these structural incentives have favored Bernie. A competitive race with a surprising, off-beat character is a great story and he has received tons of positive coverage. Outlets have dismissed Bernie's chances of winning the nomination though because, well, they never really were that good, and a credulous endorsement of his odds could come back to bite them in the long run.
The press has largely given Bernie a pass on scandals including his flip-flop on releasing his tax returns, and the inside dealing and alleged fraud by his wife that just bankrupted a college. This fits their incentives, by keeping the race closer, and neither Hillary or Trump has pushed the issue. The chaos and allegations of fraud are getting lots of play for similar reasons.
posted by msalt at 1:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't know if we know that those people voted for Sanders in the primary and wouldn't vote for HRC in the general because they "Don't like" HRC's policies. I think it would take more polling to understand that.
I'm not sure if it would be wise for HRC to make major policy commitments based on just assuming that people voting for Sanders are a monolith.
posted by zutalors! at 1:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if it would be wise for HRC to make major policy commitments based on just assuming that people voting for Sanders are a monolith.
posted by zutalors! at 1:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whatever it is that Bernie wants (and I doubt it's a position in her administration), Clinton has been so far unwilling to offer it. My guess is that it's policy.
You have no way of knowing if that's true or not, unless you're somehow a confidante of either (or both) of them. Which leads us to:
I think that's probably not true.
If it isn't, that just proves my point. Assuming that there were backchannel discussions before the official record then, yet claiming that it's definitely not true now makes zero sense.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
You have no way of knowing if that's true or not, unless you're somehow a confidante of either (or both) of them. Which leads us to:
I think that's probably not true.
If it isn't, that just proves my point. Assuming that there were backchannel discussions before the official record then, yet claiming that it's definitely not true now makes zero sense.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Outlets have dismissed Bernie's chances of winning the nomination though because, well, they never really were that good, and a credulous endorsement of his odds could come back to bite them in the long run.
Note also that the media dismissed Trump's chances and his status as a candidate to a much greater degree. Sanders they acknowledged was a serious political person just not one with a good chance to win. Trump was a joke.
And now Trump is the nominee.
So clearly the media is not the reason Sanders didn't win.
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Note also that the media dismissed Trump's chances and his status as a candidate to a much greater degree. Sanders they acknowledged was a serious political person just not one with a good chance to win. Trump was a joke.
And now Trump is the nominee.
So clearly the media is not the reason Sanders didn't win.
posted by Justinian at 1:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Hillary Clinton conceded way before she was offered the State Department.
I think that's probably not true."
It's a federal felony to offer a cabinet appointment in exchange for an endorsement. (18 USC § 599) If you think Obama was committing felonies by offering cabinet appointments in exchange for her concession, I feel like you're going to need pretty strong evidence.
The fact that some Bernie supporters don't want him to drop out until he's given similar guarantees for a Cabinet position (or the right to appoint some of them) makes me facepalm so hard. I haven't been impressed with his campaign staff lately, but BERNIE's at least been around the block enough times to know how illegal that would be.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
I think that's probably not true."
It's a federal felony to offer a cabinet appointment in exchange for an endorsement. (18 USC § 599) If you think Obama was committing felonies by offering cabinet appointments in exchange for her concession, I feel like you're going to need pretty strong evidence.
The fact that some Bernie supporters don't want him to drop out until he's given similar guarantees for a Cabinet position (or the right to appoint some of them) makes me facepalm so hard. I haven't been impressed with his campaign staff lately, but BERNIE's at least been around the block enough times to know how illegal that would be.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
It's a federal felony to offer a cabinet appointment in exchange for an endorsement. (18 USC § 599) If you think Obama was committing felonies by offering cabinet appointments in exchange for her concession, I feel like you're going to need pretty strong evidence.
I'm not saying he offered itin those words, or that he talked to her himself. But it's pretty naive to think that she conceded the election without knowing she was going to be given some position.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm not saying he offered itin those words, or that he talked to her himself. But it's pretty naive to think that she conceded the election without knowing she was going to be given some position.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Note also that the media dismissed Trump's chances and his status as a candidate to a much greater degree. Sanders they acknowledged was a serious political person just not one with a good chance to win. Trump was a joke.
The media dismissed Trump’s chances, yes, but it covered Trump like he was the nominee. He got more free coverage than Clinton! That has most assuredly been a factor in his success.
Sanders, I would argue, actually benefitted from extra coverage, even though Clinton got more. The race was Clinton’s to lose, so it’s more satisfying to beef up her opponent rather than to suggest that the nomination is a done deal and we should all stop paying attention.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The media dismissed Trump’s chances, yes, but it covered Trump like he was the nominee. He got more free coverage than Clinton! That has most assuredly been a factor in his success.
Sanders, I would argue, actually benefitted from extra coverage, even though Clinton got more. The race was Clinton’s to lose, so it’s more satisfying to beef up her opponent rather than to suggest that the nomination is a done deal and we should all stop paying attention.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton conceded in early June, after a face to face meeting with Obama. What do you think they discussed, the Nationals' relief pitching?
posted by notyou at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by notyou at 1:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Note also that the media dismissed Trump's chances and his status as a candidate to a much greater degree. Sanders they acknowledged was a serious political person just not one with a good chance to win. Trump was a joke.True, though as many here (and Nate Silver himself) have noted, the data always favored Trump winning. People just talked themselves out of admitting that based on the naive hope that responsible Republicans would prevent it, even if it meant sacrificing their personal interests.
posted by msalt at 1:47 PM on May 18, 2016
Amen. I wish the avowed young progressives out there would put even half the effort into local and district races that they are putting into the Sanders campaign. Then we might get somewhere. Of course, that doesn't have the big-screen drama of the Presidential race, nor the compelling cults of personality.
On a related note, an NYT Magazine article by Greg Howard from just before the Baltimore Democratic Primary: “DeRay Mckesson Won’t Be Elected Mayor of Baltimore. So Why Is He Running?”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
On a related note, an NYT Magazine article by Greg Howard from just before the Baltimore Democratic Primary: “DeRay Mckesson Won’t Be Elected Mayor of Baltimore. So Why Is He Running?”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I'm not saying he offered itin those words, or that he talked to her himself. But it's pretty naive to think that she conceded the election without knowing she was going to be given some position."
It is a crime even when done as you suggest. It's a broad statute -- promises can be made "directly or indirectly" and can include promising to use "influence" rather than a specific appointment. It can be "willful" (longer sentence) or unwillful. There's not a lot of room to have these conversations. And can you really imagine the GOP wouldn't have pushed that like crazy for the last 8 years if there was even a little truth to it?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
It is a crime even when done as you suggest. It's a broad statute -- promises can be made "directly or indirectly" and can include promising to use "influence" rather than a specific appointment. It can be "willful" (longer sentence) or unwillful. There's not a lot of room to have these conversations. And can you really imagine the GOP wouldn't have pushed that like crazy for the last 8 years if there was even a little truth to it?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Amen. I wish the avowed young progressives out there would put even half the effort into local and district races that they are putting into the Sanders campaign. Then we might get somewhere. Of course, that doesn't have the big-screen drama of the Presidential race, nor the compelling cults of personality.
I said this before and it feels truer now, that this is a chicken and egg problem: you need a progressive challenging the status quo at the highest level to get people excited about politics again. Sanders is doing that, and just for that I want him to stay in the race. I encourage all his supporters to carry the excitement downticket and volunteer for and elect people who want campaing finance reform, single payer healthcare, free public education, etc.
I was and continue to be energized by the Sanders campaign, and am starting to get more involved downticket beyond just dollars. Based on what I'm seeing I'm not the only one. My sincere hope is that we will all be pleasantly surprised come 2018.
posted by kyp at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I said this before and it feels truer now, that this is a chicken and egg problem: you need a progressive challenging the status quo at the highest level to get people excited about politics again. Sanders is doing that, and just for that I want him to stay in the race. I encourage all his supporters to carry the excitement downticket and volunteer for and elect people who want campaing finance reform, single payer healthcare, free public education, etc.
I was and continue to be energized by the Sanders campaign, and am starting to get more involved downticket beyond just dollars. Based on what I'm seeing I'm not the only one. My sincere hope is that we will all be pleasantly surprised come 2018.
posted by kyp at 1:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, good grief. This whole thing about concessions and when they happened in 2008 and who said what in secret meetings but they're totally different now and so forth is ridiculous.
If you don't know what Sanders and Clinton have or haven't been talking about, there's no point in expounding on what amounts to conspiracy-theory rambling, which is a bad look for either campaign. If you somehow do know what they've been talking about, best to keep it to yourself lest you make both of them look like they're committing a serious electoral crime that you're an accessory to.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you don't know what Sanders and Clinton have or haven't been talking about, there's no point in expounding on what amounts to conspiracy-theory rambling, which is a bad look for either campaign. If you somehow do know what they've been talking about, best to keep it to yourself lest you make both of them look like they're committing a serious electoral crime that you're an accessory to.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary Clinton conceded in early June, after a face to face meeting with Obama. What do you think they discussed, the Nationals' relief pitching?
What would she possibly have to gain by not conceding at that point?
What does Bernie have to gain?
The loser can hurt the winner, but they can't really benefit themselves by staying in the race, past the point where they clearly can't win.
And the closer it is to the convention, the less value "I'll stop campaigning against you if you do what I want" has, as leverage. Because after the convention, the loser doesn't really have a campaign anyway.
So there's really not much point in "Staying in it to the convention" if you know you're going to lose. Which is why most politicians don't. Maybe you extract policy promises in return for ending your campaign earlier rather than later, but typically it's a matter of when, not if. Because again, what would they have to gain by not conceding?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
What would she possibly have to gain by not conceding at that point?
What does Bernie have to gain?
The loser can hurt the winner, but they can't really benefit themselves by staying in the race, past the point where they clearly can't win.
And the closer it is to the convention, the less value "I'll stop campaigning against you if you do what I want" has, as leverage. Because after the convention, the loser doesn't really have a campaign anyway.
So there's really not much point in "Staying in it to the convention" if you know you're going to lose. Which is why most politicians don't. Maybe you extract policy promises in return for ending your campaign earlier rather than later, but typically it's a matter of when, not if. Because again, what would they have to gain by not conceding?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The hypothesis that Clinton must have been subtly offered something in order to concede when she did doesn't make much sense to me. IIRC, she was mathematically eliminated from getting a majority of pledged delegates at that point, even though Obama would still need the supers to reach the magic number. (If she wasn't eliminated, her chances were extremely slim.)
If Obama had failed to make an offer she wanted, or made no offer at all, and if she chose to hold out through the summer, she would likely have gravely damaged her political reputation. Keeping her powder dry for another run was all the motivation she needed to support him.
Sanders seems not to care too damn much about maintaining good relations with the Democrats. If he wants to run for the Senate again in 2018, he may expect that he won't face a strong primary challenger. He has every reason to blow up shit now. Clinton didn't blow up shit, and she didn't need to be explicitly bribed to prevent her from blowing up shit.
posted by maudlin at 1:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Obama had failed to make an offer she wanted, or made no offer at all, and if she chose to hold out through the summer, she would likely have gravely damaged her political reputation. Keeping her powder dry for another run was all the motivation she needed to support him.
Sanders seems not to care too damn much about maintaining good relations with the Democrats. If he wants to run for the Senate again in 2018, he may expect that he won't face a strong primary challenger. He has every reason to blow up shit now. Clinton didn't blow up shit, and she didn't need to be explicitly bribed to prevent her from blowing up shit.
posted by maudlin at 1:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Because again, what would they have to gain by not conceding?
As a primary candidate, he has outsized reach and continues to galvanize young people and voters (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) with his progressive message. He has everything to gain by not conceding, setting aside whatever he hopes to accomplish at the convention.
posted by kyp at 2:02 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
As a primary candidate, he has outsized reach and continues to galvanize young people and voters (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) with his progressive message. He has everything to gain by not conceding, setting aside whatever he hopes to accomplish at the convention.
posted by kyp at 2:02 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
kyp: “As a primary candidate, he has outsized reach and continues to galvanize young people and voters (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) with his progressive message. He has everything to gain by not conceding, setting aside whatever he hopes to accomplish at the convention.”
What in god's name has anybody ever accomplished at a contested convention? Sincerely, I want to know. The Democratic Party hasn't come close to a contested convention without losing the general in - what - half a century? And even just in the microcosmic, it only hurts everybody, and it is absolutely not a space for dialogue or change or anything like that. It doesn't work like that. The best Bernie can hope for is to replicate Nevada in Philadelphia. Which would be... bad, I think?
posted by koeselitz at 2:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
What in god's name has anybody ever accomplished at a contested convention? Sincerely, I want to know. The Democratic Party hasn't come close to a contested convention without losing the general in - what - half a century? And even just in the microcosmic, it only hurts everybody, and it is absolutely not a space for dialogue or change or anything like that. It doesn't work like that. The best Bernie can hope for is to replicate Nevada in Philadelphia. Which would be... bad, I think?
posted by koeselitz at 2:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's a federal felony to offer a cabinet appointment in exchange for an endorsement. (18 USC § 599) If you think Obama was committing felonies by offering cabinet appointments in exchange for her concession, I feel like you're going to need pretty strong evidence.
I don't think *anyone* is suggesting a quid-pro-quo here... But when everyone is a Team Player, the unspoken rules don't have to be spoken, do they?
But I'm jaded and bitter. I knew that Obama was a contender when he flip-flopped on AT&T's unlawful domestic surveillance in July of 08. At that moment, he signaled he was Team Player.
posted by mikelieman at 2:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think *anyone* is suggesting a quid-pro-quo here... But when everyone is a Team Player, the unspoken rules don't have to be spoken, do they?
But I'm jaded and bitter. I knew that Obama was a contender when he flip-flopped on AT&T's unlawful domestic surveillance in July of 08. At that moment, he signaled he was Team Player.
posted by mikelieman at 2:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
For my part, I trust Bernie; I believe he means what he says. I believe he cannot be bought. I believe he means to take on the Democratic Party, as part of the corrupt party system, by any means necessary. I believe he means to stand in the highest halls of power and demand satisfaction for all the wrongs of a crooked bureaucracy. I believe he means to take this fight as far as he possibly can. I believe he means it when he says that Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, will have to win over Sanders' supports if Clinton is the eventual nominee. I believe he means it when he says that the Democratic Party is broken. And I believe that his repeated implications that he will not get in line, will not stand on orders, will not hold the line for the DNC and for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I think he's going to push this all the way, and when his campaign fails to earn the necessary superdelegates, he will not go quietly. He will make his displeasure felt, for the sake of all those who have been wronged on the way. And I really, really do not see him stumping for someone he has even the faintest sense is corrupt. He's not that sort of guy. That's why his supporters like him so much, after all.
posted by koeselitz at 2:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 2:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Note: I'd like to believe, and have supported Bernie Sanders *explicitly* because I do not believe he is a Team Player, and I think we need a few more golden apples thrown into the mix to shake up expectations.
posted by mikelieman at 2:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 2:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Note 2: I also subscribe to the William Kennedy school of politics. When The Machine *works* it's a thing of beauty. Too bad it never works...
posted by mikelieman at 2:17 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 2:17 PM on May 18, 2016
So I just had a pretty vitriolic conversation with a Bernie-or-Bust bro on my Facebook where they're insisting that the nominee has to be Bernie because they see Trump vs. Clinton as a foregone Trump victory. I tried to convince them not to give up so easily, but they seemed to think that Trump would change the dialogue and steamroll Clinton in the general.
He also eventually admitted that a small, dark part of him wants to see Clinton lose and Rome fall. So there's that.
posted by stolyarova at 2:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
He also eventually admitted that a small, dark part of him wants to see Clinton lose and Rome fall. So there's that.
posted by stolyarova at 2:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Huh Dean on NPR is like "Hey we love Bernie and know that he won't bring the party down," and with all the love talk he slips in that Sanders "doesn't lose gracefully."
posted by angrycat at 2:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 2:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
What in god's name has anybody ever accomplished at a contested convention?
As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another (not that I don't care, it's just that I've read opinions from both sides and remain undecided).
My point was that the race gives him a giant platform to continue pushing his progressive pillars to millions of Americans, and it is for everyone's benefit that he continues to stay in the race. Even Clinton's; a more progressive and energized Democratic base will surely help her in the general election (which means I also reject the notion that "BernieBros" or "BernieOrBust" are in any way representative of the vast majority of his supporters).
posted by kyp at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another (not that I don't care, it's just that I've read opinions from both sides and remain undecided).
My point was that the race gives him a giant platform to continue pushing his progressive pillars to millions of Americans, and it is for everyone's benefit that he continues to stay in the race. Even Clinton's; a more progressive and energized Democratic base will surely help her in the general election (which means I also reject the notion that "BernieBros" or "BernieOrBust" are in any way representative of the vast majority of his supporters).
posted by kyp at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Note: I'd like to believe, and have supported Bernie Sanders *explicitly* because I do not believe he is a Team Player, and I think we need a few more golden apples thrown into the mix to shake up expectations.
There's nothing wrong with this, but part of being on Team Not a Team Player is knowing how to work with The Team in order to accomplish your goals. Bernie was willing enough to work with The Team in order to compete for its nomination, so obviously he understands this dynamic to a certain extent, but now he wants to blow the whole thing up if he doesn't get his way.
I feel like Elizabeth Warren is a good example of what I was hoping for from him -- enough of a thorn in the side to push things leftward, but understanding that killing the host organism serves neither the host organism's interests nor yours. I don't know for a fact that she'd show more restraint if she were in his position -- maybe the allure of winning the nomination is just too strong -- but everything I've seen from him lately makes me think he's lost sight of why he got into this in the first place.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
There's nothing wrong with this, but part of being on Team Not a Team Player is knowing how to work with The Team in order to accomplish your goals. Bernie was willing enough to work with The Team in order to compete for its nomination, so obviously he understands this dynamic to a certain extent, but now he wants to blow the whole thing up if he doesn't get his way.
I feel like Elizabeth Warren is a good example of what I was hoping for from him -- enough of a thorn in the side to push things leftward, but understanding that killing the host organism serves neither the host organism's interests nor yours. I don't know for a fact that she'd show more restraint if she were in his position -- maybe the allure of winning the nomination is just too strong -- but everything I've seen from him lately makes me think he's lost sight of why he got into this in the first place.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:23 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I guess that I don't think there's a thing I can do about the Bernie or Bust crowd, and thinking about them gets my blood pressure up and doesn't actually accomplish anything. So I'm going to concentrate on working together with people who share my values to save my country from the profound threat of a Trump presidency. And people who choose to sit out that fight are kind of irrelevant to me.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [39 favorites]
God, I'm sorry Sanders supporters. This must be hard to watch.
It is and I don't like the turn, but I also hate the glee/schadenfreude I'm seeing from a bunch of Clinton supporters about it. Not so much here (although there is more of that upthread than I'd like to see), but in general. It reminds me of Democrats who love watching all the horrible things Trump says and does because they know it might hurt the GOP. Bad things are bad things.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
It is and I don't like the turn, but I also hate the glee/schadenfreude I'm seeing from a bunch of Clinton supporters about it. Not so much here (although there is more of that upthread than I'd like to see), but in general. It reminds me of Democrats who love watching all the horrible things Trump says and does because they know it might hurt the GOP. Bad things are bad things.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
As a primary candidate, he has outsized reach and continues to galvanize young people and voters (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) with his progressive message. He has everything to gain by not conceding, setting aside whatever he hopes to accomplish at the convention.
The only thing actually to be accomplished at the convention is nominating someone as the Democratic candidate for President. What else is there to do? Nobody cares about the platform, and any real changes to the party's structure or the primary rules have to be built from the bottom up starting in the off-cycle. The only thing that leaves is an ugly fight that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
What Sanders could do right now though is turn that progressive message into a long-standing institution that outlives this campaign. He can drum up millions of people to support progressive causes at the drop of an email, raise funds $27 at a time to back progressive candidates for office at all levels of government, promote state-level free public college plans, tour the country to hold events for campaign finance reform, etc... This is not a new concept: Howard Dean did it when he started Democracy for America out of the ashes of his campaign, which supports and trains progressive candidates from local elections to Sanders himself. There is no reason to think Sanders and his supporters cannot form an effective organization that grows and supports the left wing of the party for years to come.
But all of that can't happen if Sanders destroys all the goodwill he's created except for the most adamant of Bernie or Busters, and as we've seen today, that's happening incredibly rapidly right now. And that saddens me, because I'd like to see all the energy and enthusiasm Sanders has generated, all the new young voters who once again suddenly care, channeled into something that lasts past Philadelphia.
posted by zachlipton at 2:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
The only thing actually to be accomplished at the convention is nominating someone as the Democratic candidate for President. What else is there to do? Nobody cares about the platform, and any real changes to the party's structure or the primary rules have to be built from the bottom up starting in the off-cycle. The only thing that leaves is an ugly fight that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
What Sanders could do right now though is turn that progressive message into a long-standing institution that outlives this campaign. He can drum up millions of people to support progressive causes at the drop of an email, raise funds $27 at a time to back progressive candidates for office at all levels of government, promote state-level free public college plans, tour the country to hold events for campaign finance reform, etc... This is not a new concept: Howard Dean did it when he started Democracy for America out of the ashes of his campaign, which supports and trains progressive candidates from local elections to Sanders himself. There is no reason to think Sanders and his supporters cannot form an effective organization that grows and supports the left wing of the party for years to come.
But all of that can't happen if Sanders destroys all the goodwill he's created except for the most adamant of Bernie or Busters, and as we've seen today, that's happening incredibly rapidly right now. And that saddens me, because I'd like to see all the energy and enthusiasm Sanders has generated, all the new young voters who once again suddenly care, channeled into something that lasts past Philadelphia.
posted by zachlipton at 2:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
And people who choose to sit out that fight are kind of irrelevant to me.
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall. Good luck with that strategy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall. Good luck with that strategy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
ArbitraryandCapricious, what a wise comment. I'd favorite it a 100 times if I could.
posted by bearwife at 2:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 2:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall. Good luck with that strategy.
There’s a difference between “shoving” and “ignoring”.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
There’s a difference between “shoving” and “ignoring”.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm not shoving anyone. I'm working with the people who are willing to work with me and not worrying about the people who aren't. This election is going to be hard enough without engaging in unnecessary, draining arguments.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall.
The comment you quoted was explicitly about people who have already declared they will not take part in the election under any circumstances but Bernie being the nominee. Since thats not going to happen, there is little to be gained from worrying about them.
There are other Sanders supporters who absolutely should be welcomed/encouraged into the Democratic campaign/message/etc. Most of them, I'd say. But the BernieOrBust group (which is small but vocal) is a lost cause.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
The comment you quoted was explicitly about people who have already declared they will not take part in the election under any circumstances but Bernie being the nominee. Since thats not going to happen, there is little to be gained from worrying about them.
There are other Sanders supporters who absolutely should be welcomed/encouraged into the Democratic campaign/message/etc. Most of them, I'd say. But the BernieOrBust group (which is small but vocal) is a lost cause.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall. Good luck with that strategy.
That is one of the most gratuitous misrepresentations I've ever seen, even without your quoting it that made it an even more blatant bullying tactic.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
That is one of the most gratuitous misrepresentations I've ever seen, even without your quoting it that made it an even more blatant bullying tactic.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
alternate topic choice: shit the people on Trump's SCOTUS list have been tweeting
posted by angrycat at 2:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 2:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
In November HRC will win every west coast state with vote totals in each one that will eclipse the primary vote.
posted by bearwife at 2:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 2:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes, can we please take the conversation away from the divisiveness on the (D) side? Talking about it just makes it worse. I've had enough threatening intimations of catastrophe from Bernie-or-Busters on Facebook for now. Once Clinton is the nominee, we'll see what happens.
posted by stolyarova at 2:45 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 2:45 PM on May 18, 2016
It is and I don't like the turn, but I also hate the glee/schadenfreude I'm seeing from a bunch of Clinton supporters about it.
As a Clinton supporter, it makes me mad too. We shouldn't be happy or gleeful the Sanders campaign is imploding. We should be livid it got to this point. And we should be doing what we can to keep this from turning into a Trump-ian dumpster fire.
I'm of the same mood of ArbitraryandCapricious, though. Those on the Sanders campaign who come over to support Hillary are always welcome aboard, but I don't feel any compulsion to bring the angry mob in Las Vegas into the tent. And I'll risk them showing up in the Trump crowd if they choose to go that way. I'd rather win with a broad base.
posted by dw at 2:46 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
As a Clinton supporter, it makes me mad too. We shouldn't be happy or gleeful the Sanders campaign is imploding. We should be livid it got to this point. And we should be doing what we can to keep this from turning into a Trump-ian dumpster fire.
I'm of the same mood of ArbitraryandCapricious, though. Those on the Sanders campaign who come over to support Hillary are always welcome aboard, but I don't feel any compulsion to bring the angry mob in Las Vegas into the tent. And I'll risk them showing up in the Trump crowd if they choose to go that way. I'd rather win with a broad base.
posted by dw at 2:46 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
There’s a difference between “shoving” and “ignoring”.
Eh. People are marginalized, either way, with the goal of getting compliance out of the rest. And I'm looking at the list of people Trump wants to nominate for Supreme Court, and people like my husband and I would not do well under a Trump presidency. So I really hope your strategy works, because a handful of votes in a swing state could decide this and the stakes are kind of high to throw away votes at this early stage.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:49 PM on May 18, 2016
Eh. People are marginalized, either way, with the goal of getting compliance out of the rest. And I'm looking at the list of people Trump wants to nominate for Supreme Court, and people like my husband and I would not do well under a Trump presidency. So I really hope your strategy works, because a handful of votes in a swing state could decide this and the stakes are kind of high to throw away votes at this early stage.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:49 PM on May 18, 2016
A single civilian on a forum can marginalize or seek to force compliance from a subset of Sanders supporters by stating that she won't interact with that subset of Sanders supporters?
I think I'm going to go ride my bike now.
posted by maudlin at 2:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think I'm going to go ride my bike now.
posted by maudlin at 2:57 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Shoving Sanders people out for not falling in line is why Hillary will have a very tough time beating Trump this fall. Good luck with that strategy.
As opposed to the "Give us whatever we want and maybe we'll stop threatening and harassing women" strategy?
Honestly, the Sanders supporters are doing a fine job of marginalizing themselves.
posted by happyroach at 2:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
As opposed to the "Give us whatever we want and maybe we'll stop threatening and harassing women" strategy?
Honestly, the Sanders supporters are doing a fine job of marginalizing themselves.
posted by happyroach at 2:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
So I really hope your strategy works
Me too.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Me too.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've only read parts of all of these threads, but I seem to recall that ArbirtaryandCapricious does actual political work in real life.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:01 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:01 PM on May 18, 2016
a handful of votes in a swing state could decide this
No, I don't think there is any chance of that. Trump is a combination of laughable and horrifying. He is already motivating minority voters to register just to make sure he doesn't win. And the demographics have been moving against the Rs anyway. Not only is it extremely likely that Clinton will carry every state Obama did in 08 and 12, I think she has a shot at turning states like Texas and Arizona blue.
Do what you like. Stay home if you want another Scalia on the court, insane lower court appointments, and all the other good things Trump could bring you. Or if you don't care if your state legislature is red, your governor is red, and Congress is red and able to stymie progressive policies.
I do believe every vote counts, that voting should be made much easier, and that voting is a key aspect of citizenship. And I think this year presents a historic opportunity to take action to correct many of the structural injustices in the U.S., including gerrymandering and other infringements on the right to vote, income inequality, lack of economic opportunity, and social injustice. Why that, as well as a real shot at electing a very smart, very qualified, liberal candidate who will also be the first woman President, isn't good enough is beyond me, but at this point A&C and I are in agreement that I'm focused on working with the people who want to make that happen.
posted by bearwife at 3:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
No, I don't think there is any chance of that. Trump is a combination of laughable and horrifying. He is already motivating minority voters to register just to make sure he doesn't win. And the demographics have been moving against the Rs anyway. Not only is it extremely likely that Clinton will carry every state Obama did in 08 and 12, I think she has a shot at turning states like Texas and Arizona blue.
Do what you like. Stay home if you want another Scalia on the court, insane lower court appointments, and all the other good things Trump could bring you. Or if you don't care if your state legislature is red, your governor is red, and Congress is red and able to stymie progressive policies.
I do believe every vote counts, that voting should be made much easier, and that voting is a key aspect of citizenship. And I think this year presents a historic opportunity to take action to correct many of the structural injustices in the U.S., including gerrymandering and other infringements on the right to vote, income inequality, lack of economic opportunity, and social injustice. Why that, as well as a real shot at electing a very smart, very qualified, liberal candidate who will also be the first woman President, isn't good enough is beyond me, but at this point A&C and I are in agreement that I'm focused on working with the people who want to make that happen.
posted by bearwife at 3:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I've volunteered pretty intensely in the past couple of elections and will volunteer in some capacity this go round, but I've never been a paid staffer and am definitely not speaking for anyone but myself.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thank You, Reddit! | Bernie Sanders
I mean, say what you will about the Sanders campaign, but he knows his base.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, say what you will about the Sanders campaign, but he knows his base.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
A single civilian on a forum can marginalize or seek to force compliance from a subset of Sanders supporters by stating that she won't interact with that subset of Sanders supporters?
I think one of my least favorite memes of the last, eh, say twenty years has been the one that goes along the lines of "enacting social consequences against somebody on the basis of the things they say is censorship".
Not only is it extremely likely that Clinton will carry every state Obama did in 08 and 12, I think she has a shot at turning states like Texas and Arizona blue.
I would be much more inclined to believe this if the national Democratic Party didn't seem so hellbent on ignoring any place they don't think they can easily win. Texas should be within our grasp, but the state party is a goddamned shitshow and the national party does fuck-all about it. We should be dumping money and expertise on the state party while replacing their leadership with promising local talent instead of just going "welp, hard red state, whatchagonnado".
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think one of my least favorite memes of the last, eh, say twenty years has been the one that goes along the lines of "enacting social consequences against somebody on the basis of the things they say is censorship".
Not only is it extremely likely that Clinton will carry every state Obama did in 08 and 12, I think she has a shot at turning states like Texas and Arizona blue.
I would be much more inclined to believe this if the national Democratic Party didn't seem so hellbent on ignoring any place they don't think they can easily win. Texas should be within our grasp, but the state party is a goddamned shitshow and the national party does fuck-all about it. We should be dumping money and expertise on the state party while replacing their leadership with promising local talent instead of just going "welp, hard red state, whatchagonnado".
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
Texas should be within our grasp, but the state party is a goddamned shitshow and the national party does fuck-all about it.
Elaborate, please. Sounds exciting.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:36 PM on May 18, 2016
Elaborate, please. Sounds exciting.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:36 PM on May 18, 2016
I'd like to know more so us non-Tx folks can lean on the DNC. They do like asking us for money.
posted by bearwife at 3:39 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by bearwife at 3:39 PM on May 18, 2016
I've also heard repeatedly that, demographics being what they are, Texas could be purple within the next few electoral cycles, even without Trump.
The DNC absolutely should be mobilizing in states where POC are about to become a majority of the electorate. The main thing they have going for them right now is that the Republicans suck at attracting non-whites and women.
posted by Sara C. at 3:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The DNC absolutely should be mobilizing in states where POC are about to become a majority of the electorate. The main thing they have going for them right now is that the Republicans suck at attracting non-whites and women.
posted by Sara C. at 3:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the thing that's frustrating is, thanks in part to demographics, that polical bell curve IS moving leftward. With good rhetoric (like Bernie was providing earlier in the campaign) it should be possible to shift it leftward that much faster.
Move the party left relative to the population and the result is that you will win fewer elections. But if you can move the population left relative to the parties, you will win MORE elections, and eventually drag BOTH parties to the left to follow the population average.
That's why I wish instead of targeting the Democratic party, Bernie and his supporters were targetting moderate voters of both parties, making their case for a more European style system. Move the Overton window and hope the voters follow. I promise the parties will follow the voters.
That's what I originally thought Bernie was trying to do.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:56 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Move the party left relative to the population and the result is that you will win fewer elections. But if you can move the population left relative to the parties, you will win MORE elections, and eventually drag BOTH parties to the left to follow the population average.
That's why I wish instead of targeting the Democratic party, Bernie and his supporters were targetting moderate voters of both parties, making their case for a more European style system. Move the Overton window and hope the voters follow. I promise the parties will follow the voters.
That's what I originally thought Bernie was trying to do.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:56 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I haven't seen anything to suggest Texas is even close to a toss-up this time. Arizona, OTOH, certainly looks like a toss-up.
posted by dw at 3:56 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by dw at 3:56 PM on May 18, 2016
What in god's name has anybody ever accomplished at a contested convention? Sincerely, I want to know.
ronald reagan got a good head start on 1980 by contesting in 1976
of course, that hasn't got a chance of working out for bernie - he needs to tone it down and tell his supporters to chill the hell out
one thing no one's mentioned here is that bernie still has a purpose in this race - being the back up candidate in case hillary gets indicted on the e-mail thing
it's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but we need to admit it's a possibility
what needs to happen is that hillary and bernie need to sit down and talk about what the left side of the party wants and what she's willing to give them - and she needs to give something - perhaps a trump presidency will be scary enough to keep people in line, but she'll need more than that in 2018
posted by pyramid termite at 3:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
ronald reagan got a good head start on 1980 by contesting in 1976
of course, that hasn't got a chance of working out for bernie - he needs to tone it down and tell his supporters to chill the hell out
one thing no one's mentioned here is that bernie still has a purpose in this race - being the back up candidate in case hillary gets indicted on the e-mail thing
it's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but we need to admit it's a possibility
what needs to happen is that hillary and bernie need to sit down and talk about what the left side of the party wants and what she's willing to give them - and she needs to give something - perhaps a trump presidency will be scary enough to keep people in line, but she'll need more than that in 2018
posted by pyramid termite at 3:58 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
it's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but we need to admit it's a possibility
I mean, it’s possible. But I think the odds of Sanders actually getting the nomination are higher.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:06 PM on May 18, 2016
I mean, it’s possible. But I think the odds of Sanders actually getting the nomination are higher.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:06 PM on May 18, 2016
i don't need/want people to shut up/fall in line, just not the violence and threats, but i don't know what HRC could put up as a greater unifying force than Trump. I mean, it's almost along the lines of, 'there's me or there's this black hole in which not even light can exist.' I wish Sanders would play things different so he could more effectively pull her left, because if he implodes, I mean, HRC or the black hole are our choices. Aside from a credible primary threat, Clinton could call me at night and confide to torturing kittens and (so many apologies to kittens) I'd probably still vote for her, given Trump's Trumpness
posted by angrycat at 4:06 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 4:06 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Poll: Voters want an independent to run against Clinton, Trump
Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is likely to be elected president in November, but voters are yearning for another option.
A Clinton presidency is “the most likely scenario,” given the real estate mogul’s problems in key demographics and battleground states, according to the results of a Data Targeting poll released Wednesday.
Both candidates, however, have high unfavorability ratings — 56 percent for Clinton and 55 percent for Trump, and nearly six in 10 voters surveyed are dissatisfied with the option of choosing between just Clinton and Trump in November.
Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.
posted by futz at 4:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is likely to be elected president in November, but voters are yearning for another option.
A Clinton presidency is “the most likely scenario,” given the real estate mogul’s problems in key demographics and battleground states, according to the results of a Data Targeting poll released Wednesday.
Both candidates, however, have high unfavorability ratings — 56 percent for Clinton and 55 percent for Trump, and nearly six in 10 voters surveyed are dissatisfied with the option of choosing between just Clinton and Trump in November.
Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.
posted by futz at 4:10 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Single polls are kind of meh indicators. 538’s “Americans’ Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking” provides some better aggregate numbers that still show them both as off-the-charts.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh God, please let it be a right wing ego-maniac and not a left wing one who decides to capitalize on the opportunity to be this generation's Ross Perot.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
onceuponatime, your wish has already been granted and has orange hair
posted by pyramid termite at 4:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 4:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know GTM. It has been mentioned many many times in these threads.
posted by futz at 4:20 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by futz at 4:20 PM on May 18, 2016
If people really want an independent, the clock is ticking. The Texas deadline has passed, so 38 EVs are not available. Another 4 states with 51 EVs will have deadlines in June.
As is, of course people want a third choice. But when you actually GIVE them a choice, support isn't all that great.
posted by dw at 4:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
As is, of course people want a third choice. But when you actually GIVE them a choice, support isn't all that great.
posted by dw at 4:21 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, it probably won't happen. Too many obstacles.
posted by futz at 4:22 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 4:22 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Poll: Voters want an independent to run against Clinton, Trump
Sure, and if I polled 10 people near me 6 of them would say that they want to get a pizza for lunch. But it's choosing what toppings which is the sticking point, not whether they want a pizza.
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
Sure, and if I polled 10 people near me 6 of them would say that they want to get a pizza for lunch. But it's choosing what toppings which is the sticking point, not whether they want a pizza.
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
Do... do I need to explain that the toppings are a metaphor for which independent candidate No? Good.
posted by Justinian at 4:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:30 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
your wish has already been granted and has orange hair
If Trump were running as a third party or independent candidate I would feel much better about the future of the country.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Trump were running as a third party or independent candidate I would feel much better about the future of the country.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:31 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would definitely consider voting for Unspecified Independent Third Party Candidate, they'd be just the person to shake things up in Washington in ways I don't really have to concretely grapple with, and I like that about them an awful lot. Also, I have heard literally no negative things about them!
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:33 PM on May 18, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:33 PM on May 18, 2016 [31 favorites]
I mean we all know that "Unspecified Third Party Candidate" is basically a rorschach of whoever the subject wishes would run, right? Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, etc.
Not to mention that there are plenty of third party candidates running, but nobody wants to vote for those candidates, they want to vote for their own private unicorn.
posted by Sara C. at 4:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not to mention that there are plenty of third party candidates running, but nobody wants to vote for those candidates, they want to vote for their own private unicorn.
posted by Sara C. at 4:41 PM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do... do I need to explain that the toppings are a metaphor for which independent candidate No? Good.
posted by Justinian at 4:30 PM on May 18
WHICH ONE IS OLIVES?
posted by gc at 4:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:30 PM on May 18
WHICH ONE IS OLIVES?
posted by gc at 4:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hey, maybe you want a private unicorn. Us more civilized folk want a public option.
posted by defenestration at 4:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 4:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
As mentioned above regarding polls:
You should never take individual polls seriously. You should always take a macro view while taking a micro view on methods.
On a macro level, polls are very predictive. On a micro level, they're snapshots of a moment in time of a particular group of people you were able to round up into a box.
and
...because sampling math is glorious and wonderful and almost as good a proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy as beer is. Short answer: 1000 people is a very good sample of 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or a million billion trillion kazillion schmillion. Population size doesn't matter and is usually assumed to be infinite anyway.
This poll seems decent to me. YMMV.
posted by futz at 4:47 PM on May 18, 2016
You should never take individual polls seriously. You should always take a macro view while taking a micro view on methods.
On a macro level, polls are very predictive. On a micro level, they're snapshots of a moment in time of a particular group of people you were able to round up into a box.
and
...because sampling math is glorious and wonderful and almost as good a proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy as beer is. Short answer: 1000 people is a very good sample of 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or a million billion trillion kazillion schmillion. Population size doesn't matter and is usually assumed to be infinite anyway.
This poll seems decent to me. YMMV.
posted by futz at 4:47 PM on May 18, 2016
Those youth numbers are pretty stark.
I bet the Washington political and media establishment has no clue where it's coming from.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:54 PM on May 18, 2016
I bet the Washington political and media establishment has no clue where it's coming from.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:54 PM on May 18, 2016
I was thinking about this comment by bearwife above:
But Hillary is like a person you know for years and see mature, and gradually come to deeply respect and care about. She won me for good in the last Benghazi hearings. Wow. I am in complete agreement with George Clooney that when she is the nominee, she'll be the only grownup in the room.
It seems to be, again, part of the Accepted Facts of the Democratic Primary that people don't actually *like* Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I know all about the polls which show that there's some definite dislike for her out there - whether it's due to her actual policies and personality, or historical baggage carried over for decades, or a combination of the two.
But disliked != not liked by anyone, and it's discouraging to see the two treated as equivalent. Because there are a lot of us that genuinely like her and are excited for her candicacy and aren't just supporting her grudgingly as the at-least-she's-not-Trump candidate. I don't know, maybe we're not as loud about it, but it's a mistake to believe that Sanders is the only candidate with genuine excitement behind him.
For me, it was the 2008 primary. I think I'd always been sort of "ugh, Hillary, whatever," about her prior to that point, but seeing her in action on a national stage, and seeing her passion for the nuts-and-bolts of politics and her years-long dedication to women's issues...well, crush initiated. I was heartbroken when she wasn't the nominee, but I really respected her pragmatism and dedication to the party. I'm not saying I've agreed 100% with every decision she's made since then, but I really dig her wonkery and deep smarts and mental toughness and the dorky sense of humor that comes out every once in a while. That shit is catnip to me.
I understand what it's like to feel inspired by someone and then let down when it seems like everyone else doesn't see the same awesomeness that you do. I'm really hoping we can all pull together on the same team, but it's because I know that Clinton has genuine fans of her own that I *do* have hope.
posted by Salieri at 5:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
But Hillary is like a person you know for years and see mature, and gradually come to deeply respect and care about. She won me for good in the last Benghazi hearings. Wow. I am in complete agreement with George Clooney that when she is the nominee, she'll be the only grownup in the room.
It seems to be, again, part of the Accepted Facts of the Democratic Primary that people don't actually *like* Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I know all about the polls which show that there's some definite dislike for her out there - whether it's due to her actual policies and personality, or historical baggage carried over for decades, or a combination of the two.
But disliked != not liked by anyone, and it's discouraging to see the two treated as equivalent. Because there are a lot of us that genuinely like her and are excited for her candicacy and aren't just supporting her grudgingly as the at-least-she's-not-Trump candidate. I don't know, maybe we're not as loud about it, but it's a mistake to believe that Sanders is the only candidate with genuine excitement behind him.
For me, it was the 2008 primary. I think I'd always been sort of "ugh, Hillary, whatever," about her prior to that point, but seeing her in action on a national stage, and seeing her passion for the nuts-and-bolts of politics and her years-long dedication to women's issues...well, crush initiated. I was heartbroken when she wasn't the nominee, but I really respected her pragmatism and dedication to the party. I'm not saying I've agreed 100% with every decision she's made since then, but I really dig her wonkery and deep smarts and mental toughness and the dorky sense of humor that comes out every once in a while. That shit is catnip to me.
I understand what it's like to feel inspired by someone and then let down when it seems like everyone else doesn't see the same awesomeness that you do. I'm really hoping we can all pull together on the same team, but it's because I know that Clinton has genuine fans of her own that I *do* have hope.
posted by Salieri at 5:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
The Washington political and media establishment is in the process of being replaced by the Reality TV Establishment. Mark Burnett is the new Dick Cheney (and my prediction for Trump's running mate).
That's why Kanye West's threat to run in 2020 seems less ridiculous to me; his Kardashian connection makes him an obvious choice to run against President Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's why Kanye West's threat to run in 2020 seems less ridiculous to me; his Kardashian connection makes him an obvious choice to run against President Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kanye is going to have a tough time against Comacho in 2020.
posted by bongo_x at 5:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 5:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I typically suuuuuper side-eye any psychoanalyzing-from-afar, but I thought "The Mind of Donald Trump" was REALLY interesting - insightful, had a bunch of stuff I hadn't read before, nuanced, fairly non-partisan...just a really cool essay. He nails Trump in a fair, deep way.
posted by sallybrown at 5:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 5:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
That is an interesting article. My favorite pull quote focuses on:
the broad social reputation Trump has garnered as a remarkably disagreeable person, based upon a lifetime of widely observed interactions. People low in agreeableness are described as callous, rude, arrogant, and lacking in empathy. If Donald Trump does not score low on this personality dimension, then probably nobody does.
Other fascinating but not surprising observations are that Trump is likely to be reckless, is extremely narcissistic, is belligerent, and is very comparable to Andrew Jackson.
posted by bearwife at 5:42 PM on May 18, 2016
the broad social reputation Trump has garnered as a remarkably disagreeable person, based upon a lifetime of widely observed interactions. People low in agreeableness are described as callous, rude, arrogant, and lacking in empathy. If Donald Trump does not score low on this personality dimension, then probably nobody does.
Other fascinating but not surprising observations are that Trump is likely to be reckless, is extremely narcissistic, is belligerent, and is very comparable to Andrew Jackson.
posted by bearwife at 5:42 PM on May 18, 2016
That seems unfair to both Jackson and Trump. Jackson because he was actually very competent at a great many things, personally brave, and an accomplished and professional soldier... all qualities well out of Trump's grasp. And to Trump because Jackson was also a slaveholding genoicider. Trump is a lot of things but a slaveholding genocider is not one of them.
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really liked his analysis of Bush's policy choices through the lens of his recovery from alcoholism and mid-life Evangelical rebirth, and basically the entire last section tracing Trump's childhood experiences to his view of life as a series of battles, and showing how though he might fit a "warrior" archetype, his extreme narcissism has left him without a purpose in being a warrior. Just very thought-provoking.
posted by sallybrown at 5:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sallybrown at 5:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That seems unfair to both Jackson and Trump.
On its face the comparison may seem ridiculous, but I suggest reading the article before dismissing it - he makes a good case and doesn't overstate the similarity.
posted by sallybrown at 5:50 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
On its face the comparison may seem ridiculous, but I suggest reading the article before dismissing it - he makes a good case and doesn't overstate the similarity.
posted by sallybrown at 5:50 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because there are a lot of us that genuinely like her and are excited for her candicacy and aren't just supporting her grudgingly as the at-least-she's-not-Trump candidate.
Sure there are. The problem is her negatives are over 50%, so she needs those at-least-she's-not-Trump voters. A lot of whom have converged around Bernie. If they can't figure out how to manage that, and I've see no signs of that recently, it can go tits up yet.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure there are. The problem is her negatives are over 50%, so she needs those at-least-she's-not-Trump voters. A lot of whom have converged around Bernie. If they can't figure out how to manage that, and I've see no signs of that recently, it can go tits up yet.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I’m not going to talk about issues or policies. I’m going to talk about the way Trump does business,"
Everything I've seen about his business dealings indicate that every penny he has above and beyond what he inherited... he STOLE. And his Presidential Administration's economic goals will be twofold: (1) to do what he couldn't do in the private sector; make himself the richest man in America and (2) to punish everyone he feels has 'dissed' him over the years. His casual bigotry and willingness to ally himself with the GOP right-wing will have some major negative social effects, but otherwise, his rule will be pure Kleptocracy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:07 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Everything I've seen about his business dealings indicate that every penny he has above and beyond what he inherited... he STOLE. And his Presidential Administration's economic goals will be twofold: (1) to do what he couldn't do in the private sector; make himself the richest man in America and (2) to punish everyone he feels has 'dissed' him over the years. His casual bigotry and willingness to ally himself with the GOP right-wing will have some major negative social effects, but otherwise, his rule will be pure Kleptocracy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:07 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
FiveThirtyEight has this fun 2016 Swing-The-Election toy which lets you play with turnout and vote breakdown for various demographics to see the changes in electoral votes.
posted by chrchr at 6:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chrchr at 6:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
And his Presidential Administration's economic goals will be twofold: (1) to do what he couldn't do in the private sector; make himself the richest man in America and (2) to punish everyone he feels has 'dissed' him over the years.
So we're getting the Baby Doc administration?
posted by Sara C. at 6:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
So we're getting the Baby Doc administration?
posted by Sara C. at 6:20 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, Baby Hands
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:22 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:22 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
A lot of whom have converged around Bernie.
Any real numbers on this? At this point I think it would be hard to use facts to argue that anyone is "converging" around Bernie. He doesn't have the numbers to win and each week of primaries puts him further behind on his targets. We're not seeing previously undecided Democrats rushing to vote for Bernie in bigger numbers at this stage in the race.
I get that a lot of Sanders supporters don't want to vote for Hillary, but I haven't seen anything empirical that shows that Democrats in general prefer Sanders to Clinton, that Sanders is suddenly getting some kind of critical mass of votes, or that he has anything but a snowball's chance of hell to become the Democratic candidate.
posted by Sara C. at 6:24 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Any real numbers on this? At this point I think it would be hard to use facts to argue that anyone is "converging" around Bernie. He doesn't have the numbers to win and each week of primaries puts him further behind on his targets. We're not seeing previously undecided Democrats rushing to vote for Bernie in bigger numbers at this stage in the race.
I get that a lot of Sanders supporters don't want to vote for Hillary, but I haven't seen anything empirical that shows that Democrats in general prefer Sanders to Clinton, that Sanders is suddenly getting some kind of critical mass of votes, or that he has anything but a snowball's chance of hell to become the Democratic candidate.
posted by Sara C. at 6:24 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch
But Mr. Sanders has sharpened his language of late, saying Tuesday night that the party faced a choice to remain “dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy” or “welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change.”posted by Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 18, 2016
Mr. Sanders’s street-fighting instincts have been encouraged by his like-minded campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, who has been blistering against the Clinton camp and the party establishment. On Wednesday, he took to CNN to accuse Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the Democratic national chairwoman, of “throwing shade on the Sanders campaign from the very beginning.”
For weeks, some current and former Sanders campaign workers have privately acknowledged feeling disheartened about Mr. Weaver’s determination to go after the Democratic National Committee, fearing a pitched battle with the party they hope to support in the general election. The intraparty fighting has affected morale, they say, and raised concerns that Mr. Weaver, a longtime Sanders aide who more recently ran a comic book store, was not devoted to achieving Democratic unity. Several described the campaign’s message as having devolved into a near-obsession with perceived conspiracies on the part of Mrs. Clinton’s allies.
here's a conspiracy theory: one of the stories last week about John Miller/Barron the fake Trump publicist (I think on Rachel Maddow?) had an interview with the woman definitely-not-Trump is talking to in the recordings. And she said that she never sent the recordings to the Washington Post or anyone else. And the Washington Post guy refused to name his source. So who else would have the recordings? Donald Trump. Why would he leak this bizarre and embarrassing thing from 20 years ago and then deny it? Hold on a sec. [bubbles, coughing] Well, the other big Trump thing that day (or maybe the day before) was his refusal to release his tax returns or even mention what rate he pays. The fake-publicist story is a distraction - some catnip for Twitter and the cable news, something way more fun than boring old taxes. So what is it in his tax returns that is so unspeakably horrible that it cannot see the light of day? It's impossible to imagine anything bad enough to sink his campaign at this point. He's past Teflon, he's the evil black sphere from Fifth Element that just gets stronger when you nuke it. But try on THIS pair of trousers: he's completely broke. Millions, maybe billions of dollars of debt. It's not a big deal when his companies go bankrupt, but he's used the reputation of his billions of dollars of personal wealth to obtain generous credit all over the place. Once the secret is out, his creditors will all descend on him like a skeevy 1910s Oxford dropout aristocrat with a gambling problem. His doesn't really give a shit about the election, but if his taxes come out, he'll be ruined financially, and that's what scares him
posted by theodolite at 6:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 6:38 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
At this point I think it would be hard to use facts to argue that anyone is "converging" around Bernie.
do flies count?
i voted for him and i'm really really sorry but he's not going to win
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on May 18, 2016
do flies count?
i voted for him and i'm really really sorry but he's not going to win
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on May 18, 2016
It's an interesting conspiracy theory, and it's certainly not unplausible that Trump leaked the John Miller tape for whatever reason he does anything, but I'm not sure it fully holds up. He presumably should have had to disclose such a massive amount of debt in his FEC filings already. And tax returns don't actually show your net worth, so while they're informative, it wouldn't tell us that he's broke.
Ultimately, I think the simplest explanation is that his tax returns would reveal both a somewhat embarrassingly low income (I mean, nothing most all of us wouldn't be rather happy with, but comparatively) for someone who boasts about his wealth so much and a truly embarrassingly low tax rate.
posted by zachlipton at 6:50 PM on May 18, 2016
Ultimately, I think the simplest explanation is that his tax returns would reveal both a somewhat embarrassingly low income (I mean, nothing most all of us wouldn't be rather happy with, but comparatively) for someone who boasts about his wealth so much and a truly embarrassingly low tax rate.
posted by zachlipton at 6:50 PM on May 18, 2016
do flies count?
To be fair to Sanders, I looked it up just to see what the numbers actually look like, and while, no, Democrats are not converging on Sanders, he also isn't doing measurably worse than he was before the New York primary. Which I think was the point at which Clinton became the presumptive nominee. He's been doing just slightly less than necessary since about Super Tuesday. Less than necessary ultimately means he can't win, but his numbers haven't really changed from that basic "not good enough" pattern. Which is interesting.
posted by Sara C. at 6:54 PM on May 18, 2016
To be fair to Sanders, I looked it up just to see what the numbers actually look like, and while, no, Democrats are not converging on Sanders, he also isn't doing measurably worse than he was before the New York primary. Which I think was the point at which Clinton became the presumptive nominee. He's been doing just slightly less than necessary since about Super Tuesday. Less than necessary ultimately means he can't win, but his numbers haven't really changed from that basic "not good enough" pattern. Which is interesting.
posted by Sara C. at 6:54 PM on May 18, 2016
It's not slightly, though. He's getting blown out. It doesn't seem like that because he wins states... but he generally wins states closely and those states aren't worth nearly as many delegates as the states Clinton wins big.
Clinton is winning the nomination roughly 57-43. That's not close, it's near-landslide. As someone said on... 538 I think? That's what a blowout looks like in a proportional system.
posted by Justinian at 7:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton is winning the nomination roughly 57-43. That's not close, it's near-landslide. As someone said on... 538 I think? That's what a blowout looks like in a proportional system.
posted by Justinian at 7:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
As former GOP Senator Bob Bennett lay dying earlier this year, he repeatedly expressed remorse, worry, and apologies about xenophobia against Muslims and the rise of Donald Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 7:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean, I know that's not the prevailing media narrative but as others have said they love a horserace. But you can check the numbers yourself; in any other context a 57-43 race wouldn't be seen as particularly close. Because it isn't.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders seems not to care too damn much about maintaining good relations with the Democrats.
Well they need him more than he needs them in the Senate, for cloture votes.
posted by phearlez at 7:09 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well they need him more than he needs them in the Senate, for cloture votes.
posted by phearlez at 7:09 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Agreed, Justinian, though I do think it's interesting that Sanders is holding steady at the "practically a blowout" numbers he has had for a while now. My expectation would be that once one candidate is the presumptive nominee and the other basically cannot win, you'd start seeing a shift away from the "loser" candidate. But that clearly isn't the case here.
I wonder what Clinton's numbers were like late in the game in 2008?
posted by Sara C. at 7:09 PM on May 18, 2016
I wonder what Clinton's numbers were like late in the game in 2008?
posted by Sara C. at 7:09 PM on May 18, 2016
Clinton won 6 of the last 9 primaries; PA, IN, WV, KY, PR, and SD. Obama won NC, OR, and MT in there.
posted by Justinian at 7:13 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:13 PM on May 18, 2016
Well, she was winning the popular vote, right?
Well they need him more than he needs them in the Senate, for cloture votes.
I am kind of wondering if they'll run someone against him in the primary in 2018. I suppose it depends on how much support he provides after the convention. I wouldn't blame them if they did. He's been piggybacking off of their goodwill and funding his entire Congressional career. You don't get to do that, stab your benefactor in the back, and then not expect some form of retribution.
posted by Anonymous at 7:14 PM on May 18, 2016
Well they need him more than he needs them in the Senate, for cloture votes.
I am kind of wondering if they'll run someone against him in the primary in 2018. I suppose it depends on how much support he provides after the convention. I wouldn't blame them if they did. He's been piggybacking off of their goodwill and funding his entire Congressional career. You don't get to do that, stab your benefactor in the back, and then not expect some form of retribution.
posted by Anonymous at 7:14 PM on May 18, 2016
It's more complicated since she was on the ballot in a pretty big state from which the DNC had stripped the delegates and Obama was not. So she got hundreds of thousands of additional votes there. Certainly she wasn't particularly losing the popular vote, though, and Sanders is losing it badly.
posted by Justinian at 7:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Michigan! It was Michigan. She got 300k+ votes to Obama's 0.
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of astonished how many new scandals concerning Sanders keep coming out. The one I found out about today is the Sierra Blanca nuclear waste dump proposal.
Remember that Texas Nuclear Waste commission that Jane Sanders earned $5,000 in 2014 for being an alternate on? In the late 1990s they proposed a nuclear dump at Sierra Blanca, a poor, 2/3rds Mexican American town in Texas. Astonishingly, the commission had earlier produced a study that openly suggested targeting " 'Hispanics, particularly those with little formal education and low incomes,' but cautioned against 'increasing the level of knowledge' of those same Hispanics too much, lest they turn against the dump like everyone else."
Bernie co-sponsored the bill and played a major role getting it through Congress despite opposition by Jim Hightower and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, voting to strip Wellstone's amendments protecting locals out of the bill. Activists traveled to Vermont to try to dissuade him, and met with him, but "were astonished by the 'independent' congressman’s vehement and unrelenting support for shipping nuclear waste 2400 miles to West Texas. It was the best site geologically, he claimed, much better than having nuclear waste scattered across the country, and besides, how dare we accuse Bernie Sanders of environmental racism? "
The project wasn't finished but the commission completetd a later one in Texas for Vermont's Yankee plant's ruins. Now Bernie and Jane are enjoying $5,000 a year to supervise it which sure feels like a bit of a payoff.
posted by msalt at 7:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Remember that Texas Nuclear Waste commission that Jane Sanders earned $5,000 in 2014 for being an alternate on? In the late 1990s they proposed a nuclear dump at Sierra Blanca, a poor, 2/3rds Mexican American town in Texas. Astonishingly, the commission had earlier produced a study that openly suggested targeting " 'Hispanics, particularly those with little formal education and low incomes,' but cautioned against 'increasing the level of knowledge' of those same Hispanics too much, lest they turn against the dump like everyone else."
Bernie co-sponsored the bill and played a major role getting it through Congress despite opposition by Jim Hightower and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, voting to strip Wellstone's amendments protecting locals out of the bill. Activists traveled to Vermont to try to dissuade him, and met with him, but "were astonished by the 'independent' congressman’s vehement and unrelenting support for shipping nuclear waste 2400 miles to West Texas. It was the best site geologically, he claimed, much better than having nuclear waste scattered across the country, and besides, how dare we accuse Bernie Sanders of environmental racism? "
The project wasn't finished but the commission completetd a later one in Texas for Vermont's Yankee plant's ruins. Now Bernie and Jane are enjoying $5,000 a year to supervise it which sure feels like a bit of a payoff.
posted by msalt at 7:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm kind of astonished how many new scandals concerning Sanders keep coming out. The one I found out about today is the Sierra Blanca nuclear waste dump proposal.
Is this like a month or two ago when a few Sanders supporters were digging up anything and everything about Clinton and dropping them in the thread just as another reminder of how awful she is? I thought that was pretty shitty to do. No matter if it is indeed awful (which some of this stuff posted above about Sanders is and some of the stuff about Clinton posted before was - neither of them seem to be "good" people but maybe you have to sell your soul to survive in Washington). At a certain point it's just gloating though.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is this like a month or two ago when a few Sanders supporters were digging up anything and everything about Clinton and dropping them in the thread just as another reminder of how awful she is? I thought that was pretty shitty to do. No matter if it is indeed awful (which some of this stuff posted above about Sanders is and some of the stuff about Clinton posted before was - neither of them seem to be "good" people but maybe you have to sell your soul to survive in Washington). At a certain point it's just gloating though.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
how many
Let’s not forget the total number of scandals (and non-scandals) that have come out about Clinton over the course of her career, or the number that surround Trump.
It’s been said before, but Sanders has had a largely untouched career. I mean, Vermonters got up in arms that his opponent would even think of researching his out-of-wedlock child. (And good on them!) But that just seems to suggest that even if there’s only a small amount of muck to be raked it’ll reek to high heaven, solely due to the contrast with his perceived character.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:44 PM on May 18, 2016
Let’s not forget the total number of scandals (and non-scandals) that have come out about Clinton over the course of her career, or the number that surround Trump.
It’s been said before, but Sanders has had a largely untouched career. I mean, Vermonters got up in arms that his opponent would even think of researching his out-of-wedlock child. (And good on them!) But that just seems to suggest that even if there’s only a small amount of muck to be raked it’ll reek to high heaven, solely due to the contrast with his perceived character.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:44 PM on May 18, 2016
I hear what you're saying, downtohisturtles, but gloating is not my intention. Given that Sanders keeps insisting that he is more electable in a general election though, I think it's relevant to that discussion that there is a lot of dirt that has not surfaced.
I an somewhat of a collector of presidential scandals and had not heard anything about this, aside from noting the income from this commission and wondering what the heck that was about. It also is a sharp departure from his environmental positions which made it even more surprising.
posted by msalt at 7:51 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I an somewhat of a collector of presidential scandals and had not heard anything about this, aside from noting the income from this commission and wondering what the heck that was about. It also is a sharp departure from his environmental positions which made it even more surprising.
posted by msalt at 7:51 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think that was your intention, msalt. Sorry for not being clear. But I'm sure you understand how tiring it can be from seeing it from the other side for all this time.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:53 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:53 PM on May 18, 2016
I do. As someone who leans Hillary, believe me I do. I don't think people appreciate how amazingly scandal-free Obama has been.
posted by msalt at 7:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by msalt at 7:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
A lot of my frustration as being a fair weather Sanders fan is that for as much as I can tell, everyone in the Clinton camp and on Clinton's side is looking at 45% of the Democratic electorate and saying it doesn't matter why they voted the way they voted, and it was probably just sexism anyway, and they should stop and they shouldn't have started in the first place, and politics is hard and we were here first and you're not real Democrats and if you don't like the rules you shouldn't play the game and so on.
I look at Sanders' campaign and I see that finally, incredibly, the people have funded a competitive progressive candidate for President. We have done the impossible! Look at all this money! Look at all the votes this coalition represents! Talk to them! Tell them straight, "I hear you. Let's work together! This system doesn't work for you, let's work together, let's make it better."
I don't know if nobody's saying that or it's getting drowned out or what. I do know politics probably isn't for me, because this is all ugly and everybody's mean. I'll find other means of activism.
posted by an animate objects at 8:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I look at Sanders' campaign and I see that finally, incredibly, the people have funded a competitive progressive candidate for President. We have done the impossible! Look at all this money! Look at all the votes this coalition represents! Talk to them! Tell them straight, "I hear you. Let's work together! This system doesn't work for you, let's work together, let's make it better."
I don't know if nobody's saying that or it's getting drowned out or what. I do know politics probably isn't for me, because this is all ugly and everybody's mean. I'll find other means of activism.
posted by an animate objects at 8:13 PM on May 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
How, pray tell, will you end what is perceived to be corruption by many, but is not not illegal corruption, this thing called lobbying? How can you end the lecture circuit payments, or "reputation management" by PR firms (lobbying under an other name), the 501c4s and and all that, via a contested convention and "blowing shit up" in the Democratic Party? Will you eventually just start going on a witch hunt and shooting lobbyists, current or former, in the streets, no matter who they work for now? Or will you just settle for having someone worse in the White House AND the states than what you have now, and about the same in the Democratic Party once Trump wins and the Dems have dig themselves up and start all over again? Will having an even greater majority in the House and Senate, once the public is so appalled by what is going on at the Dem. convention, be perfectly OK with you?
I'm all for lessening the power of lobbying, but much of that lies with the courts, unfortunately, and upon getting a Democratic caucusing majority in Congress, as well as getting better people in state government. (The latter is also essential to better times for the middle class, since so many states are running auesterity regimes right now, because ideology, not because evidence and need.)
posted by raysmj at 8:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm all for lessening the power of lobbying, but much of that lies with the courts, unfortunately, and upon getting a Democratic caucusing majority in Congress, as well as getting better people in state government. (The latter is also essential to better times for the middle class, since so many states are running auesterity regimes right now, because ideology, not because evidence and need.)
posted by raysmj at 8:15 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch - Patrick Healy, NYT
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 8:16 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 8:16 PM on May 18, 2016
This is a very interesting and I think important project by the Wall Street Journal -- Blue Feed Red Feed. They show on a several political topics what stories you'd see on Facebook. You can guess they're very different but it's important to keep this always in mind.
I'm sure there's also Sanders Feed Clinton Feed. In fact it's kind of amazing how much anti Hillary stuff there is, whether you're on the liberal or conservative feed, and how little anti Bernie.
posted by msalt at 8:18 PM on May 18, 2016
I'm sure there's also Sanders Feed Clinton Feed. In fact it's kind of amazing how much anti Hillary stuff there is, whether you're on the liberal or conservative feed, and how little anti Bernie.
posted by msalt at 8:18 PM on May 18, 2016
I have to wonder why we are spending so much time on winning over the stronghold Bernie people. Are their numbers stronger than general election white women, minority women, and minorities overall? General population numbers would suggest not.
Hispanics overwhelmingly dislike Trump. Women overwhelmingly dislike Trump. Black women, a huge voting block, have already voted for Clinton in large numbers and won't vote Trump.
I'm not sure the numbers really bear out that Trump will win if HRC doesn't capitulate to some vague assumptions on what Sanders primary voters want. It just seems like another way to sidestep the concerns and wants of minority and women voters in the general. The lack of faith in those voters is disheartening and shocking to me. This is an electorate that helped elect Barack Obama twice.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hispanics overwhelmingly dislike Trump. Women overwhelmingly dislike Trump. Black women, a huge voting block, have already voted for Clinton in large numbers and won't vote Trump.
I'm not sure the numbers really bear out that Trump will win if HRC doesn't capitulate to some vague assumptions on what Sanders primary voters want. It just seems like another way to sidestep the concerns and wants of minority and women voters in the general. The lack of faith in those voters is disheartening and shocking to me. This is an electorate that helped elect Barack Obama twice.
posted by zutalors! at 8:18 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The last general election poll shows Trump with a lead over Clinton for the first time. Obviously that doesn't mean a lot yet; the Dem primary is ongoing, too far out, etc etc. But the safest thing is to get as many voters as possible from as many demographics as possible to support Clinton.
Sure, give Sanders influence on the platform. I think that'd be fine. After the last week I'm just not sure it's what he's trying for. I have no idea what he's trying for and I'm no longer sure he knows either.
posted by Justinian at 8:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sure, give Sanders influence on the platform. I think that'd be fine. After the last week I'm just not sure it's what he's trying for. I have no idea what he's trying for and I'm no longer sure he knows either.
posted by Justinian at 8:28 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
So for months we've had this argument that the real victory of Sanders making a good showing will come in seeing his influence on the platform at the convention. Can anyone lay out how that actually works? Like, what difference would it make if he dropped out today, or after California, vs. if he stays in 'til the convention? Are those fundamentally different outcomes?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:33 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:33 PM on May 18, 2016
After the last week I'm just not sure it's what he's trying for. I have no idea what he's trying for and I'm no longer sure he knows either.
I think this is all the more reason to be wary about giving over policy positions to Sanders. They're not even all that clear, nor is it clear that that's what all of his voters want.
I'm all for bringing demographics, I'm just not convinced that Bernie or Bust, or Bernie or Give Us Bernie's Policies Because We're The Real Left, is that big of a demographic.
posted by zutalors! at 8:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is all the more reason to be wary about giving over policy positions to Sanders. They're not even all that clear, nor is it clear that that's what all of his voters want.
I'm all for bringing demographics, I'm just not convinced that Bernie or Bust, or Bernie or Give Us Bernie's Policies Because We're The Real Left, is that big of a demographic.
posted by zutalors! at 8:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
zutalors!, I think there are a lot of Bernie supporters happy to vote Clinton that would still like their positions acknowledged and validated. If it's not obvious, the Bernie or Bust crowd is tiny, and for Clinton's camp to dismiss 45% of D-primary voters as basically a lost cause is really not a great look.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
everyone in the Clinton camp and on Clinton's side is looking at 45% of the Democratic electorate and saying it doesn't matter why they voted the way they voted, and it was probably just sexism anyway, and they should stop and they shouldn't have started in the first place
There's still a race going on. So, even though Clinton can start to pivot to the general, her camp is still locked in battle with Sanders and his camp. It's kind of difficult if not impossible to both lay down your arms and still fight at the same time. Also, just like how it's going to take time for some of Sanders supporters to come around, it's probably the same for some Clinton supporters. I really don't fault either side for not instantly wanting to hold hands and go out for ice cream cones.
posted by FJT at 8:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's still a race going on. So, even though Clinton can start to pivot to the general, her camp is still locked in battle with Sanders and his camp. It's kind of difficult if not impossible to both lay down your arms and still fight at the same time. Also, just like how it's going to take time for some of Sanders supporters to come around, it's probably the same for some Clinton supporters. I really don't fault either side for not instantly wanting to hold hands and go out for ice cream cones.
posted by FJT at 8:45 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm fine with acknowledging Sanders voters, for example by making sure the platform reflects our common objectives. I am pretty finished with trying to woo the hard core people who never get tired of trashing HRC and her supporters. I do not believe they are winnable. That's why I thought A&C's comment above was so wise.
posted by bearwife at 8:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 8:49 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the real test of whether Sanders intends to help stop Trump or not is whether he publicly concedes after Clinton locks up the most pledged delegates after California. If he does, then he's probably on board. If he doesn't he's ready to burn shit down whether he realizes it or not.
posted by Justinian at 9:02 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by Justinian at 9:02 PM on May 18, 2016
zutalors!, I think there are a lot of Bernie supporters happy to vote Clinton that would still like their positions acknowledged and validated. If it's not obvious, the Bernie or Bust crowd is tiny, and for Clinton's camp to dismiss 45% of D-primary voters as basically a lost cause is really not a great look.
This is really different than "find a way to appeal to hardcore Bernie voters or lose to Trump" though. Also, i don't think anyone is being dismissed, much less 45% of primary voters. At least not to the degree that Southern minority voters were dismissed by the Sanders campaign for voting Clinton because they were too ignorant to know that Sanders was better for them.
posted by zutalors! at 9:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is really different than "find a way to appeal to hardcore Bernie voters or lose to Trump" though. Also, i don't think anyone is being dismissed, much less 45% of primary voters. At least not to the degree that Southern minority voters were dismissed by the Sanders campaign for voting Clinton because they were too ignorant to know that Sanders was better for them.
posted by zutalors! at 9:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is it fair to draw again upon distinctions of identity and principle? Because I think Bernie's a principles candidate, and Hillary's an identity candidate. I feel like we've discussed this before. I think the difference sources a ton of tension, misunderstanding and disjointed priorities from presumably likeminded people.
I understand the frustration, even anger with the vocal cohort of Bernie supporters who've put principles above everything else, even decency. I don't know how anyone who's not going to vote for Trump or Hillary now is going to change their mind because of Sanders' campaign or vice versa. Many of my Bernie friends (everyone I know) will probably consider me weak for being willing to vocalize a "Hillary is fine too" perspective before the final curtain in the nomination process but I still share their principles, I still think corruption of a very deeply woven nature is undoing the whole country. I don't know how we could possibly continue the present course and expect a solvent democracy 10, 20, 50 years from now. It doesn't grok. There's too much hoarding, too must unrest, too little shared prosperity.
From an identity perspective, we're going to need outsider candidates who aren't from the dominant elite structures to take up the mantle. People like Hillary Clinton simply can't play the Mockingjay. They can't. People like Sanders, the fiesty outsiders, people like Trump. They can. They do.
The left is awakened right now and I don't see it falling back in line for the crumbs from the liberal center except under exceptional circumstances, such as perhaps if the Republicans were to run a populist fascist. But when Hillary wins, it better be made damn clear that the blue center owes it to the red, blue and grey left to turn this ship away from the iceberg.
That's all I'm really looking for in terms of concessions right now. "Yes, this system is fucking broken and even if my candidate benefits I will see to it that we work together to change how we do things." I just need to hear that. You tell me things are the way they are, whatever. You're not an ally so don't complain when I have to step on your toes.
posted by an animate objects at 9:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I understand the frustration, even anger with the vocal cohort of Bernie supporters who've put principles above everything else, even decency. I don't know how anyone who's not going to vote for Trump or Hillary now is going to change their mind because of Sanders' campaign or vice versa. Many of my Bernie friends (everyone I know) will probably consider me weak for being willing to vocalize a "Hillary is fine too" perspective before the final curtain in the nomination process but I still share their principles, I still think corruption of a very deeply woven nature is undoing the whole country. I don't know how we could possibly continue the present course and expect a solvent democracy 10, 20, 50 years from now. It doesn't grok. There's too much hoarding, too must unrest, too little shared prosperity.
From an identity perspective, we're going to need outsider candidates who aren't from the dominant elite structures to take up the mantle. People like Hillary Clinton simply can't play the Mockingjay. They can't. People like Sanders, the fiesty outsiders, people like Trump. They can. They do.
The left is awakened right now and I don't see it falling back in line for the crumbs from the liberal center except under exceptional circumstances, such as perhaps if the Republicans were to run a populist fascist. But when Hillary wins, it better be made damn clear that the blue center owes it to the red, blue and grey left to turn this ship away from the iceberg.
That's all I'm really looking for in terms of concessions right now. "Yes, this system is fucking broken and even if my candidate benefits I will see to it that we work together to change how we do things." I just need to hear that. You tell me things are the way they are, whatever. You're not an ally so don't complain when I have to step on your toes.
posted by an animate objects at 9:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Matthews tried to get some Sanders surrogates to agree in principle to a deal to reform the primary process on his show today; eliminate both superdelegates and caucuses. Make it one person one vote, period. They wouldn't even agree that was a good idea in principle. So I dunno if the Sanders camp is on board with reform that doesn't benefit outsiders directly.
posted by Justinian at 9:28 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by Justinian at 9:28 PM on May 18, 2016
We had a big outsider candidate actually win in the 1970s. More centrist than Bernie. One of his big issues turned out to be bringing too many outsiders in government, who had no understanding of the way D.C. worked. And if you think things are more corrupt now, please go read any of Robert Caro's volumes on L.B.J. The system was on its way to being reformed in the 1970s, thanks to Watergate and the Federal Election Campaign Act. Before, people were just bringing around big bags of cash. And some of the same companies, or forerunners of current ones (especially energy companies, in LBJ's case), were consistently involved. The Supreme Court has more or less nullified the intent of FECA updates in 1974, and the more recent update of it (itself a legislative win for the battle against lobbying influence) known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
posted by raysmj at 9:33 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by raysmj at 9:33 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I understand the frustration, even anger with the vocal cohort of Bernie supporters who've put principles above everything else, even decency.
I can see this might be impossible to believe, but lots of people voted for Clinton out of principles that they believe in and believe she shares. They may have even liked Sanders' ideas, but didn't think he was a good Presidential candidate.
It would be great if we could stop having people insist that only people who ticked Sanders in the booth have any right to Left politics or progressive values. That's just not how it works.
posted by zutalors! at 9:33 PM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
If anyone believes Trump voters were also anti-corruption, meanwhile, please go check out what Trump is up to now. He doesn't give a shit. His supporters won't either. It was all about seeming to be an Outsider, and anti-establishment, and dominant in a retro masculine way.
posted by raysmj at 9:37 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by raysmj at 9:37 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can see this might be impossible to believe, but lots of people voted for Clinton out of principles that they believe in and believe she shares. They may have even liked Sanders' ideas, but didn't think he was a good Presidential candidate.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing but this is what I meant: liking sanders ideas but not thinking he's a good candidate is an identity perspective. For me the ideas he represents are more important because I think the president is mostly a figurehead anyway. If nobody can get anything done, I'd rather put a "We're going to shoot for the moon" candidate in the office right now, because I think that'll bring more people to the table and it'll diffuse all the populist rage that's fueling the Trump Bonfire.
posted by an animate objects at 10:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not necessarily disagreeing but this is what I meant: liking sanders ideas but not thinking he's a good candidate is an identity perspective. For me the ideas he represents are more important because I think the president is mostly a figurehead anyway. If nobody can get anything done, I'd rather put a "We're going to shoot for the moon" candidate in the office right now, because I think that'll bring more people to the table and it'll diffuse all the populist rage that's fueling the Trump Bonfire.
posted by an animate objects at 10:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
it'll diffuse all the populist rage that's fueling the Trump Bonfire.
I don't see that as possible, unless Sanders goes down the dark path of adopting some of Trump's "suggestions".
posted by FJT at 10:25 PM on May 18, 2016
I don't see that as possible, unless Sanders goes down the dark path of adopting some of Trump's "suggestions".
posted by FJT at 10:25 PM on May 18, 2016
For me the ideas he represents are more important because I think the president is mostly a figurehead anyway. If nobody can get anything done, I'd rather put a "We're going to shoot for the moon" candidate in the office right now
Whereas I don't think it's true that "nobody can get anything done". Obama faced one of the most obstructionist legislative branches in recent memory and still came away with Obamacare and a couple of Supreme Court justices. I mean, could he have done more without eight years of the Tea Party throwing a tantrum? Hell yeah. But now we at least have a few years of a health care system that, while nowhere near perfect, is one step closer to something truly universal.
Incremental politics aren't fun for those who are suffering, and they're not satisfying when you see a broken system and want to fix it now. But it's a perfectly legitimate - and principled, even progressive! - approach, which is why it's so frustrating to see Hillary Clinton being painted as a closet conservative who just wants to maintain the status quo. Maybe her ideas aren't as fast and radical as Sanders' propositions, but I have more faith that she'd actually manage to move us further down the road.
It's precisely because I believe that we *can* change things and she wouldn't be just a figurehead that I want to see her as President.
posted by Salieri at 10:53 PM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
Whereas I don't think it's true that "nobody can get anything done". Obama faced one of the most obstructionist legislative branches in recent memory and still came away with Obamacare and a couple of Supreme Court justices. I mean, could he have done more without eight years of the Tea Party throwing a tantrum? Hell yeah. But now we at least have a few years of a health care system that, while nowhere near perfect, is one step closer to something truly universal.
Incremental politics aren't fun for those who are suffering, and they're not satisfying when you see a broken system and want to fix it now. But it's a perfectly legitimate - and principled, even progressive! - approach, which is why it's so frustrating to see Hillary Clinton being painted as a closet conservative who just wants to maintain the status quo. Maybe her ideas aren't as fast and radical as Sanders' propositions, but I have more faith that she'd actually manage to move us further down the road.
It's precisely because I believe that we *can* change things and she wouldn't be just a figurehead that I want to see her as President.
posted by Salieri at 10:53 PM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
I'm fine with acknowledging Sanders voters, for example by making sure the platform reflects our common objectives.
An open, unresolved question is what "triangulation" on major issues allows in terms of space for common objectives. Much of what we've heard so far from the DNC's front-runner is strident opposition to issues such as universal healthcare and a living wage, to give just a couple notable examples. If a place at the table is being offered, it deserves to have influence proportional to the significant number of voters behind it, and factually-speaking, that simply isn't happening at this point in time.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
An open, unresolved question is what "triangulation" on major issues allows in terms of space for common objectives. Much of what we've heard so far from the DNC's front-runner is strident opposition to issues such as universal healthcare and a living wage, to give just a couple notable examples. If a place at the table is being offered, it deserves to have influence proportional to the significant number of voters behind it, and factually-speaking, that simply isn't happening at this point in time.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:44 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Much of what we've heard so far from the DNC's front-runner is strident opposition to issues such as universal healthcare and a living wage,
This is factually inaccurate on both counts, as I'm sure you're aware. As evidence for my assertion, I cite literally everything Clinton has said about either of those two issues.
posted by dersins at 12:12 AM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
This is factually inaccurate on both counts, as I'm sure you're aware. As evidence for my assertion, I cite literally everything Clinton has said about either of those two issues.
posted by dersins at 12:12 AM on May 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
Perhaps she has changed her views since expressing them, but her opposition to single payer in January is on record, as one example, which is a clear and open statement against universal healthcare that was likely made to placate insurance companies. In any case, it is a known stance on a major campaign position that complicates the notion of "commonality", one among several. It's perfectly fine if we disagree on how important these things are — I'm not writing this to expect to convince anyone on how important an issue it should be to him or her — but I think I am reasonably correct to assume that this is one of several issues of importance to those who support Sanders, and given their numbers, it seems like this kind of issue would get more compromise amenable to those potential voters.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:28 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:28 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
The World Values Survey of 2011 included a stunning figure. It found that 34% of Americans approved of “having a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections”, the figure rising to 42% among those with no education beyond high school. It’s worth reading that again, to let it sink in. It means that one in three US voters would prefer a dictator to democracy. Those Americans are not repudiating this or that government, but abandoning the very idea of democracy itself...Welcome to the Age of Trump, Jonathan Freedland, Guardian (19 May 2016).
...
And so voters’ faith in democracy has been shaken. You might have imagined that the crash would have channelled the fury in a different direction, that the backlash would have been against capitalism rather than democracy. Yet perhaps too many voters believe the economic system cannot be changed, that there is no viable alternative to capitalism. For all Sanders’ success, the word “socialism” remains a tough sell in the US and in much of Europe. And the “third way” alternatives associated with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are also deemed to have failed. Technocratic and non-ideological, they promised loyalty only to “what works”. But given the way inequality was allowed to soar in that New Labour/New Democrat period, too many have concluded that “what works” didn’t work either. So now we live in an age when fundamental change to the economic system has come to seem all but impossible. No wonder voters turn their ire on democracy instead.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:29 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
her opposition to single payer in January is on record
"Universal heathcare" and "single payer" do not mean the same thing. Single payer is one form of universal healthcare, but far from the only one. This is not a matter up for debate, or matter of opinion; it is, if you look at the variety of universal healthcare systems in operation in the world today, a matter of empirically-verifiable fact.
Anyone who claims Clinton's opposition to single payer means she opposes universal healthcare, demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issues at hand, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
posted by dersins at 12:40 AM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
"Universal heathcare" and "single payer" do not mean the same thing. Single payer is one form of universal healthcare, but far from the only one. This is not a matter up for debate, or matter of opinion; it is, if you look at the variety of universal healthcare systems in operation in the world today, a matter of empirically-verifiable fact.
Anyone who claims Clinton's opposition to single payer means she opposes universal healthcare, demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issues at hand, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
posted by dersins at 12:40 AM on May 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
As I said, I cannot and will not convince you that it is important to you — that's up to you, of course — but I can say with some certainty that it is one major issue that will be difficult to reach commonality on, given what has already been said publicly.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:44 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:44 AM on May 19, 2016
what
posted by dersins at 12:47 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by dersins at 12:47 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
Okay: If a place at the table is genuinely being offered on issues of importance, that place deserves to be one that has influence proportional to the significant number of voters behind it. That kind of inclusion doesn't seem to be offered at this point in time for several issues of importance, universal healthcare and living wages being a couple of them.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:58 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:58 AM on May 19, 2016
If the situation were flipped and Bernie were the nominee, would you think he should be making similar policy concessions to Clinton supporters?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:02 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:02 AM on May 19, 2016
Definitely. The situation was inverted in 2008 and I would say that it was obvious that Obama reached out to Clinton the candidate as well as to Clinton supporters, commensurate to their numbers, and to their mutual benefit, given what followed in the eight years hence: signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law and making improvements in pay equality, ACA provisions that helped women, assistance to women-run small business owners, nominating Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, making Clinton as Secretary of State, etc. And we didn't end up with Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney in positions of power! To me, that all seems like a pretty good deal, at the end of the day.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
What a fascinating list of concessions! Are you implying that had it not been for Clinton, Obama would only have considered male Supreme Court nominees? That literally any attention to half the population can only be read as a concession, not as a thing that the president cared about independently?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
What a fascinating list of concessions!
I do not know why you call them concessions. I know that I did not.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:51 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do not know why you call them concessions. I know that I did not.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:51 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do not know why you call them concessions. I know that I did not.
A&C was asking if you thought Bernie would make concessions. You said "Definitely," and then proceeded to discuss the Fair Pay Act and female Supreme Court Justices and whatnot. The implication is that those are concessions.
Why is it not OK to support universal healthcare that is not single-payer? There are plenty of non-single-payer universal healthcare systems, including in Europe.
posted by Anonymous at 1:55 AM on May 19, 2016
A&C was asking if you thought Bernie would make concessions. You said "Definitely," and then proceeded to discuss the Fair Pay Act and female Supreme Court Justices and whatnot. The implication is that those are concessions.
Why is it not OK to support universal healthcare that is not single-payer? There are plenty of non-single-payer universal healthcare systems, including in Europe.
posted by Anonymous at 1:55 AM on May 19, 2016
I was actually asking a fairly specific question: you claim that Hillary needs to concede single payer and a living wage to Bernie supporters. If the situation were flipped, what would you think that Bernie should concede to Hillary supporters?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:00 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:00 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
you claim that Hillary needs to concede single payer and a living wage to Bernie supporters
Representation of progressive views on several major issues in the Democratic Party is not commensurate with the numbers of voters who hold those same views. Maybe she has a strategy that gets her a win without ~42-43% of voters who have so far participated in the Democratic caucuses, who have not voted for her. As I pointed out in a previous comment, partnerships of mutual interest between campaigns (and their voting base) have seemed to work out very well in the past, and there's no reason that couldn't happen here, though the gulf between those issues is currently large enough that it will now be somewhat difficult.
It is going to be difficult to go from a "triangulation" that includes language like "never", to something approaching compromise. That leaves aside how little recognition that proportion of voters has received so far by the party, not to mention by the media. We'll see how that goes, I guess, depending on how well Trump does in the coming months. Hopefully it won't be too late to mend fences.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:33 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Representation of progressive views on several major issues in the Democratic Party is not commensurate with the numbers of voters who hold those same views. Maybe she has a strategy that gets her a win without ~42-43% of voters who have so far participated in the Democratic caucuses, who have not voted for her. As I pointed out in a previous comment, partnerships of mutual interest between campaigns (and their voting base) have seemed to work out very well in the past, and there's no reason that couldn't happen here, though the gulf between those issues is currently large enough that it will now be somewhat difficult.
It is going to be difficult to go from a "triangulation" that includes language like "never", to something approaching compromise. That leaves aside how little recognition that proportion of voters has received so far by the party, not to mention by the media. We'll see how that goes, I guess, depending on how well Trump does in the coming months. Hopefully it won't be too late to mend fences.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:33 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, so your answer is that Bernie would not need to make any concessions to Clinton?
posted by Anonymous at 2:37 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by Anonymous at 2:37 AM on May 19, 2016
OK, so your answer is that Bernie would not need to make any concessions to Clinton?
I am hopeful that the Sanders team, if the numbers were inverted, would be in a position to make policy appeals to liberal and centrist voters on the basis of wanting the Democratic Party be representative of a broader, inclusive left. Given the ~42% voter number, it is kind of a hypothetical at this point. But it would be nice to see that happen from the other half that is in an actual position to act on that ideal, though!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:52 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am hopeful that the Sanders team, if the numbers were inverted, would be in a position to make policy appeals to liberal and centrist voters on the basis of wanting the Democratic Party be representative of a broader, inclusive left. Given the ~42% voter number, it is kind of a hypothetical at this point. But it would be nice to see that happen from the other half that is in an actual position to act on that ideal, though!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:52 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the situation were flipped, what would you think that Bernie should concede to Hillary supporters?
if the situation were flipped, i'd expect hillary's supporters to come up with what they wanted, not bernie's
posted by pyramid termite at 2:57 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
if the situation were flipped, i'd expect hillary's supporters to come up with what they wanted, not bernie's
posted by pyramid termite at 2:57 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it's hard to pick healthcare and minimum wage as the issues where Hillary Clinton needs to move left, because she's already pretty far left on those issues from the point of view of the electorate at large.
Consider, why not a $50 per hour minimum wage? Because we all agree that at some point it probably does begin to drive unemployment... as some small businesses go under because they can't meet payroll, some large businesses automate (like Wendy's says it will) and a lot of companies see a bigger incentive for off-shoring and outsourcing. (Which we can try to stop by legislation to some extent, but remember that outsourcing just means buying your supplies or services from another company rather than making them yourself. It's hard to legislate against that, even when the other company is Chinese, unless you arr gonna make it completely illegal ti buy stuff from China..)
If your goal is to help people who are earning minimum wage, a $50 per hour wage would probably backfire and leave a lot of them unemployed. Well, in a lot of places with few employers and already high unemployment, that might be true of $15 per hour too. And it would be less likely to pass at the national level than $12. The higher it goes, the more people will fight to keep it from passing.
Similarly, health care. Please remember that Clinton already got burned on a universal health care policy proposal in the 1990s. With the full support of the president she led the team to craft and put forward for vote real, workable legislation... and it got shot down, with the issue then laying dormant for two decades until, for one brief shining moment, Dems had a coalition that controlled both houses and the presidency, with a filibuster proof majority in the senate. That lasted only a very short period of time, and even while it lasted, the coalition included, for instance, Joe Lieberman. His vote was needed to pass this. And he, along with some of his colleagues, wouldn't even vote for it if it included a public option, much less single payer! Since then legislation repealing that system has been vetoed by the oresident, with promises from the Republicans that if they get control of the presidency again, they will repeal that compromise legislation that took basically a miracle to pass in the first place.
Clinton is right that there is no realistic political path to single payer in the US in the next eight years, so how can she make that promise to Sanders supporters? Plus she has constituents of her own (like me) who prefer the multi-payer approach to universal health care, because we like having a choice. Should she betray her promises to her own supporters to spend her political capital on a doomed effort which she doesn't even personally support?
I do think Clinton could politically afford to move Sanders' direction on regulation of Wall Street and breaking up banks. That's where I would like to see her reach a hand out. I don't think she's seen as being "far left" on those issues nationally right now (as she already is on minimum wage and health care) and I don't think her supporters will feel deceived if she moves leftward there.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:39 AM on May 19, 2016 [20 favorites]
Consider, why not a $50 per hour minimum wage? Because we all agree that at some point it probably does begin to drive unemployment... as some small businesses go under because they can't meet payroll, some large businesses automate (like Wendy's says it will) and a lot of companies see a bigger incentive for off-shoring and outsourcing. (Which we can try to stop by legislation to some extent, but remember that outsourcing just means buying your supplies or services from another company rather than making them yourself. It's hard to legislate against that, even when the other company is Chinese, unless you arr gonna make it completely illegal ti buy stuff from China..)
If your goal is to help people who are earning minimum wage, a $50 per hour wage would probably backfire and leave a lot of them unemployed. Well, in a lot of places with few employers and already high unemployment, that might be true of $15 per hour too. And it would be less likely to pass at the national level than $12. The higher it goes, the more people will fight to keep it from passing.
Similarly, health care. Please remember that Clinton already got burned on a universal health care policy proposal in the 1990s. With the full support of the president she led the team to craft and put forward for vote real, workable legislation... and it got shot down, with the issue then laying dormant for two decades until, for one brief shining moment, Dems had a coalition that controlled both houses and the presidency, with a filibuster proof majority in the senate. That lasted only a very short period of time, and even while it lasted, the coalition included, for instance, Joe Lieberman. His vote was needed to pass this. And he, along with some of his colleagues, wouldn't even vote for it if it included a public option, much less single payer! Since then legislation repealing that system has been vetoed by the oresident, with promises from the Republicans that if they get control of the presidency again, they will repeal that compromise legislation that took basically a miracle to pass in the first place.
Clinton is right that there is no realistic political path to single payer in the US in the next eight years, so how can she make that promise to Sanders supporters? Plus she has constituents of her own (like me) who prefer the multi-payer approach to universal health care, because we like having a choice. Should she betray her promises to her own supporters to spend her political capital on a doomed effort which she doesn't even personally support?
I do think Clinton could politically afford to move Sanders' direction on regulation of Wall Street and breaking up banks. That's where I would like to see her reach a hand out. I don't think she's seen as being "far left" on those issues nationally right now (as she already is on minimum wage and health care) and I don't think her supporters will feel deceived if she moves leftward there.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:39 AM on May 19, 2016 [20 favorites]
I suspect that pretty soon we'll be reading retrospectives on the Carter/Kennedy contested election in 1980. And I think that'll be a good thing for all Democrats to read through. I'm sure stuff coming down the line by journos will be more detailed, but a few observations from my memory:
--Kennedy was in a worse position, delegate-wise, than Sanders is in now;
--Lots of wonks came out of that election, names we know now as solid Dem operatives;
--Bad blood between the candidates that lasted for a long time;
--Kennedy gave a great speech at the convention. I think he was upholding/saddled with the family heritage and that was a factor;
--But, Kennedy failed to fully embrace Carter on the big stage and that hurt in the general.
What should happen now? I think that folks should just accept that until one or the other candidate actually crosses the delegate threshold, there will still be a lot of contention. And that means that if Clinton doesn't get enough pledged delegates before the convention, then it'll have to be settled at the convention when super-delegates cast actual votes. That's just politics.
But, M.T. Upsarsin-style, I think it reasonable to say that Clinton is going to be the candidate. That being the case, it'll be important for the Sanders camp to get behind Clinton--better than Kennedy did in 1980. (And Kennedy did campaign pretty hard post-convention, iirc. What really hurt then was the Iran hostage crisis.)
I think people might consider re-framing the "Principles" vs. "Identity" bifurcation. Not sure what the best way to do this would be but from my perspective, it's always been old-school Dems vs new-school Dems or Economy-focused vs Identity-focused politics. Stated that way makes it possible for both orientations to find some common ground. Plus, while I think that Clinton represents the status quo, and I have definite opinions about that, I wouldn't claim that she is completely unprincipled. Same goes for supporters, etc... .
Nor do I think that the Sanders camp ought to get "proportional" concessions. Politics doesn't really work like that. Rather than do a tit-for-tat, one from this column and one from that column, kind of negotiation, it's better (and more effective both policy-wise and campaigning-wise) to pick some things that both camps agree on fully and really get behind them. For example:
Student Loans: If we can bail out the banks and set up home loan modification programs, then we can surely set up a student loan modification program. Allow anyone who has a student loan portfolio to refinance and consolidate at a very low fixed rate. And this should be global--open to all holders of student loans, not just a sub-class who loans are deemed onerous. (Well, they are all onerous, but you get what I mean.)
Reproductive Rights: States are closing down clinics all over the place. It's an incredibly serious issue that needs to be addressed. We need to address this at the federal level, to impose upon states a set of laws that stop this craziness. That'd be a really hard fight but one well worth expending political capital upon.
Jobs and economy: A serious commitment to rebuilding our infrastructure. And I mean a re-do of a lot of the projects from the 30s through the 50s as these are now crumbling. Bridges, water supply, electrical grid, etc... . Add in newer stuff, too: lessening reliance on fossil fuels, fiber everywhere--including last mile installations wherever it's possible. More hospitals in rural areas. Big laundry list of worthwhile things to do. Put people to work. If the private sector can't create enough jobs, then a modern WPA with a selection of efforts that aren't mere make-work.
Education: I was flabbergasted the other day when I encountered a young adult who could not multiply 3x18. The person didn't even have a clue with regard to even beginning to find a way to approach the problem. That's an outlier (I pray and hope) but by goodness, if we don't invest in our youth, then the US is truly fucked. Buckets of money for institutions, teachers, and kids. Science, Civics, History, Art, Music.
And while this is a topic for another time, all of this can be paid for.
Lots more, but
/rant
posted by CincyBlues at 4:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [31 favorites]
--Kennedy was in a worse position, delegate-wise, than Sanders is in now;
--Lots of wonks came out of that election, names we know now as solid Dem operatives;
--Bad blood between the candidates that lasted for a long time;
--Kennedy gave a great speech at the convention. I think he was upholding/saddled with the family heritage and that was a factor;
--But, Kennedy failed to fully embrace Carter on the big stage and that hurt in the general.
What should happen now? I think that folks should just accept that until one or the other candidate actually crosses the delegate threshold, there will still be a lot of contention. And that means that if Clinton doesn't get enough pledged delegates before the convention, then it'll have to be settled at the convention when super-delegates cast actual votes. That's just politics.
But, M.T. Upsarsin-style, I think it reasonable to say that Clinton is going to be the candidate. That being the case, it'll be important for the Sanders camp to get behind Clinton--better than Kennedy did in 1980. (And Kennedy did campaign pretty hard post-convention, iirc. What really hurt then was the Iran hostage crisis.)
I think people might consider re-framing the "Principles" vs. "Identity" bifurcation. Not sure what the best way to do this would be but from my perspective, it's always been old-school Dems vs new-school Dems or Economy-focused vs Identity-focused politics. Stated that way makes it possible for both orientations to find some common ground. Plus, while I think that Clinton represents the status quo, and I have definite opinions about that, I wouldn't claim that she is completely unprincipled. Same goes for supporters, etc... .
Nor do I think that the Sanders camp ought to get "proportional" concessions. Politics doesn't really work like that. Rather than do a tit-for-tat, one from this column and one from that column, kind of negotiation, it's better (and more effective both policy-wise and campaigning-wise) to pick some things that both camps agree on fully and really get behind them. For example:
Student Loans: If we can bail out the banks and set up home loan modification programs, then we can surely set up a student loan modification program. Allow anyone who has a student loan portfolio to refinance and consolidate at a very low fixed rate. And this should be global--open to all holders of student loans, not just a sub-class who loans are deemed onerous. (Well, they are all onerous, but you get what I mean.)
Reproductive Rights: States are closing down clinics all over the place. It's an incredibly serious issue that needs to be addressed. We need to address this at the federal level, to impose upon states a set of laws that stop this craziness. That'd be a really hard fight but one well worth expending political capital upon.
Jobs and economy: A serious commitment to rebuilding our infrastructure. And I mean a re-do of a lot of the projects from the 30s through the 50s as these are now crumbling. Bridges, water supply, electrical grid, etc... . Add in newer stuff, too: lessening reliance on fossil fuels, fiber everywhere--including last mile installations wherever it's possible. More hospitals in rural areas. Big laundry list of worthwhile things to do. Put people to work. If the private sector can't create enough jobs, then a modern WPA with a selection of efforts that aren't mere make-work.
Education: I was flabbergasted the other day when I encountered a young adult who could not multiply 3x18. The person didn't even have a clue with regard to even beginning to find a way to approach the problem. That's an outlier (I pray and hope) but by goodness, if we don't invest in our youth, then the US is truly fucked. Buckets of money for institutions, teachers, and kids. Science, Civics, History, Art, Music.
And while this is a topic for another time, all of this can be paid for.
Lots more, but
/rant
posted by CincyBlues at 4:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [31 favorites]
CincyBlues, I have been tremendously enjoying your comments in the election threads, while simultaneously finding them immensely frustrating. They make me want to go and read a bunch of history books at a time in my life when there is just very little time to read anything complex. /
posted by bardophile at 5:26 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 5:26 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
3x18? Easy-peasy. 3x10 + 3x8. Or 3x20 - 3x2.
This is the kind of math that some of the people on my FB page get so mad about.
posted by box at 5:31 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is the kind of math that some of the people on my FB page get so mad about.
posted by box at 5:31 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Representation of progressive views on several major issues in the Democratic Party is not commensurate with the numbers of voters who hold those same views.
You don't learn very much about that from elections.
People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, but relatively few clearly on the basis of policy. More people are likely voting for the candidate they like better or trust better or because of which social groups they think of themselves are part of. Even for people voting on policy grounds in this primary seasons, I would bet a shiny penny that many of them are voting on the basis of Iraq and then, to the extent that they take positions on other issues, simply re-stating the positions they believe are consistent with their chosen candidate.
(this is part of why "mandates" are just made-up PR nonsense)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
You don't learn very much about that from elections.
People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, but relatively few clearly on the basis of policy. More people are likely voting for the candidate they like better or trust better or because of which social groups they think of themselves are part of. Even for people voting on policy grounds in this primary seasons, I would bet a shiny penny that many of them are voting on the basis of Iraq and then, to the extent that they take positions on other issues, simply re-stating the positions they believe are consistent with their chosen candidate.
(this is part of why "mandates" are just made-up PR nonsense)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Leading up to my first chance to vote for president in 1980, I was interested in the Socialist Party. I had been working with a United Farm Workers outreach project and met kindred spirits and attended some meetings and pot luck social nights. I'm still a left leaning Dem, but voted for Hillary over Bernie. A lot of that decision was made remembering the way Socialists were back in the day and the fear that the intransigence and superior thinking would be a hindrance to getting things done. I'm worried that Bernie is like one of those righteous dudes that acted like Reagan is what the stupid country deserved back in 1980. And the righteous dudes could keep on be holier than thou.
I get that Bernie has done a lot of great things and had broken out of the Socialist all talk no action trap, but it was my fear of the intransigence that kept me from voting for him
posted by readery at 5:38 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
I get that Bernie has done a lot of great things and had broken out of the Socialist all talk no action trap, but it was my fear of the intransigence that kept me from voting for him
posted by readery at 5:38 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why is it not OK to support universal healthcare that is not single-payer? There are plenty of non-single-payer universal healthcare systems, including in Europe.
This is true. Would you argue that the Affordable Care Act, as it exists today, is a universal healthcare system? If not, and you'd like to see a universal healthcare system implemented here, then what reforms would you like to see the government put into place?
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:30 AM on May 19, 2016
This is true. Would you argue that the Affordable Care Act, as it exists today, is a universal healthcare system? If not, and you'd like to see a universal healthcare system implemented here, then what reforms would you like to see the government put into place?
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:30 AM on May 19, 2016
1) public option 2) exapnded medicaid everywhere 3) lower deductibles and higher subsidies
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos Sanders could have said something much stronger to combat that than he did. I voted for Sanders in the NY State primary, but I was really disappointed he didn't take a stronger stance against that kind of thing.
This isn't a "tone argument" thing either; my feeling is more like "Bernie, dude, you're starting to come across like Nader right now, and dammit I want people to take you seriously."
Sorry I'm late with this, but I am fully, 100%, in agreement with you here.
I've always supported Sanders less because I like Sanders and more because he seemed like he only actual Leftist in the field and I want to see the Left gain more power and influence in the Democratic party.
From the very beginning it was quite clear that the dominant neo-liberal/business/whatever faction of the Party was firmly in the Clinton camp and was quite willing to do whatever it could to tilt things her way, and as a Leftist, since I believe the political is personal, I also see that as an attack on me personally.
But I do also think that the misogynist attacks and harassment campaign are morally indefensible, completely reprehensible, and I'm appalled that Sanders hasn't come down on them hard.
He should have made a statement that didn't mention the DNC as the enemy (much as I think that is 100% true) and simply denounced all that and directly called on his supporters to stop it.
I really do hope he's playing the game here to get concessions, because that's all he can get right now. And I reallly don't want to see the rise of the Left chopped short by Sanders screwing it up for us.
Even if the DNC still won't admit that 45% of the Democratic voters are Leftists and that we deserve representation and respect in the party, I think we've recognized our own size and strength and if Sanders doesn't blow it I think we can exert influence on Clinton after she's elected and continue to exert influence on the Party in future elections.
And his refusal to denounce the Bros for their sexism and misogyny seems like it will damage the ability of the Left to further our cause in the future.
Part of the problem here is that there just aren't that many elected Leftists out there. Heck, our list of "most liberal Senators" includes Chuck Schumer, the man who thinks Wall Street is properly our lords and masters and never met a bank he didn't think should have more power and less regulation.
I think the idea that the USA has, basically, three big political factions: the neoliberals, the Left, and the bigots, is about right. The Republicans are the home to the bigots, with enough neoliberals thrown in to keep them relevant, and the Democrats are the home of the neoliberals with the Leftists trying to make a place there. Problem is that the Left is getting a lot less comfortable with the neoliberal agenda as time passes and the economics of the neoliberals keep making the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
So we're stuck with some less than ideal Leftist candidates, like Sanders. Hopefully we can recognize our numbers now and start reversing that.
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
This isn't a "tone argument" thing either; my feeling is more like "Bernie, dude, you're starting to come across like Nader right now, and dammit I want people to take you seriously."
Sorry I'm late with this, but I am fully, 100%, in agreement with you here.
I've always supported Sanders less because I like Sanders and more because he seemed like he only actual Leftist in the field and I want to see the Left gain more power and influence in the Democratic party.
From the very beginning it was quite clear that the dominant neo-liberal/business/whatever faction of the Party was firmly in the Clinton camp and was quite willing to do whatever it could to tilt things her way, and as a Leftist, since I believe the political is personal, I also see that as an attack on me personally.
But I do also think that the misogynist attacks and harassment campaign are morally indefensible, completely reprehensible, and I'm appalled that Sanders hasn't come down on them hard.
He should have made a statement that didn't mention the DNC as the enemy (much as I think that is 100% true) and simply denounced all that and directly called on his supporters to stop it.
I really do hope he's playing the game here to get concessions, because that's all he can get right now. And I reallly don't want to see the rise of the Left chopped short by Sanders screwing it up for us.
Even if the DNC still won't admit that 45% of the Democratic voters are Leftists and that we deserve representation and respect in the party, I think we've recognized our own size and strength and if Sanders doesn't blow it I think we can exert influence on Clinton after she's elected and continue to exert influence on the Party in future elections.
And his refusal to denounce the Bros for their sexism and misogyny seems like it will damage the ability of the Left to further our cause in the future.
Part of the problem here is that there just aren't that many elected Leftists out there. Heck, our list of "most liberal Senators" includes Chuck Schumer, the man who thinks Wall Street is properly our lords and masters and never met a bank he didn't think should have more power and less regulation.
I think the idea that the USA has, basically, three big political factions: the neoliberals, the Left, and the bigots, is about right. The Republicans are the home to the bigots, with enough neoliberals thrown in to keep them relevant, and the Democrats are the home of the neoliberals with the Leftists trying to make a place there. Problem is that the Left is getting a lot less comfortable with the neoliberal agenda as time passes and the economics of the neoliberals keep making the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
So we're stuck with some less than ideal Leftist candidates, like Sanders. Hopefully we can recognize our numbers now and start reversing that.
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump brings out "Bill Clinton is a rapist" in response to his own treatment of women.
posted by Talez at 7:59 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by Talez at 7:59 AM on May 19, 2016
Hopefully we can recognize our numbers now and start reversing that.
What exactly does that mean? Having a candidate that's 50% "neoliberal" and 50% "Left"? And what policy and platforms would this theoretical candidate have?
And would this Frankenstein's monster of a candidate satisfy everyone, or would this candidate be chased out of both villages?
posted by FJT at 8:08 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
What exactly does that mean? Having a candidate that's 50% "neoliberal" and 50% "Left"? And what policy and platforms would this theoretical candidate have?
And would this Frankenstein's monster of a candidate satisfy everyone, or would this candidate be chased out of both villages?
posted by FJT at 8:08 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Per Ivanka's book, as opposed to all the walking back of it she's done since she wrote it, if Trump wants to see a rapist he need only look in the mirror.
posted by bearwife at 8:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 8:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
[Regarding running a dem against Sanders in the Senate in the next election] I wouldn't blame them if they did.
Me either; if VT dems want someone who signs on to be a dem then they absolutely should run one. I'm not 100% sure Sanders would 'blame' them either. I'm sure he'd rather not have an opponent on the left but I don't get the sense he expects deference from the Ds just because he caucuses with them. See below.
He's been piggybacking off of their goodwill and funding his entire Congressional career.
I think that's bunk, at least phrased as "piggybacking" and I think you need to show your work with regards to funding.
You don't get to do that, stab your benefactor in the back, and then not expect some form of retribution.
I guess you're welcome to think that the D party is a benefactor rather than an ally, but I'd say it's clear Sanders does not. When he ran for reelection to the Senate in 2012 he did it as an independent. When he went after the seat initially it was democrats that circulated petitions to get him on their ballot and he stated up-front that if he won that nomination he'd decline it, leaving the slot empty.
Sanders has problems with the democratic party and he's no bones about it. Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with them on a lot of things, or even vote with them most of the time. In that he's not different than a lot of folks who call themselves independent, myself included. You can call that opportunist if you like but I'd call it a personal choice and rejecting a party identity. I certainly wouldn't call it a stab in the back. Sanders as Senator has been up-front about what allegiance he'll sign on to. If anyone is stupid in that arrangement it's the D operators in VT who opt to run him as their candidate in the face of his repeated statements that he won't be a D.
I wonder to what extent this past behavior he's received in VT about this plays into the campaign's whining about access in primaries? In the last decade he's been in a situation where D voters have opted to pick him over a party loyalist; he may have come to wrongly see it as his due.
There's some stuff in how the papers get filed that you could opt to call shitty but personally I so loathe the way the 2 party system is baked into our ballot access laws that I'd give anyone a pass on that. I don't think Sanders is a perfect person, candidate, or elected official by any means. But this talking about him as some sort of bad actor who owes the D party something or deserves retribution because he rejects being drafted is horsehockey.
posted by phearlez at 8:15 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
Me either; if VT dems want someone who signs on to be a dem then they absolutely should run one. I'm not 100% sure Sanders would 'blame' them either. I'm sure he'd rather not have an opponent on the left but I don't get the sense he expects deference from the Ds just because he caucuses with them. See below.
He's been piggybacking off of their goodwill and funding his entire Congressional career.
I think that's bunk, at least phrased as "piggybacking" and I think you need to show your work with regards to funding.
You don't get to do that, stab your benefactor in the back, and then not expect some form of retribution.
I guess you're welcome to think that the D party is a benefactor rather than an ally, but I'd say it's clear Sanders does not. When he ran for reelection to the Senate in 2012 he did it as an independent. When he went after the seat initially it was democrats that circulated petitions to get him on their ballot and he stated up-front that if he won that nomination he'd decline it, leaving the slot empty.
Sanders has problems with the democratic party and he's no bones about it. Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with them on a lot of things, or even vote with them most of the time. In that he's not different than a lot of folks who call themselves independent, myself included. You can call that opportunist if you like but I'd call it a personal choice and rejecting a party identity. I certainly wouldn't call it a stab in the back. Sanders as Senator has been up-front about what allegiance he'll sign on to. If anyone is stupid in that arrangement it's the D operators in VT who opt to run him as their candidate in the face of his repeated statements that he won't be a D.
I wonder to what extent this past behavior he's received in VT about this plays into the campaign's whining about access in primaries? In the last decade he's been in a situation where D voters have opted to pick him over a party loyalist; he may have come to wrongly see it as his due.
There's some stuff in how the papers get filed that you could opt to call shitty but personally I so loathe the way the 2 party system is baked into our ballot access laws that I'd give anyone a pass on that. I don't think Sanders is a perfect person, candidate, or elected official by any means. But this talking about him as some sort of bad actor who owes the D party something or deserves retribution because he rejects being drafted is horsehockey.
posted by phearlez at 8:15 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
Per Ivanka's book, as opposed to all the walking back of it she's done since she wrote it, if Trump wants to see a rapist he need only look in the mirror.
And that accusation and subsequent walkback also makes Trump's claims about Clinton settlements and big money payouts particularly gross, doesn't it?
posted by phearlez at 8:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
And that accusation and subsequent walkback also makes Trump's claims about Clinton settlements and big money payouts particularly gross, doesn't it?
posted by phearlez at 8:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Three big political factions: the neoliberals, the Left, and the bigots, is about right. The Republicans are the home to the bigots, with enough neoliberals thrown in to keep them relevant
Again, this is very "Us and Them" to me. Republicans aren't just bigots (with a few neoliberals sprinkled in.)
I mean, some of them are, but most of them are people who 1) Believe that if you work hard you will be (and should be) rewarded and 2) Are deeply afraid of government tyranny, to the point where they start to fear the government in general. That's pretty much the recipe for an economic conservative.
Social conservatives often share those assumptions, but also have cultural differences. In other countries (and for a long time in Western history), families were more likely to live together in multigenerational households or compounds, with strong family/clan loyalties, and well-defined hierarchical roles for everyone within the family, often encoded in religious traditions. Societies which are still like this now are actually considered more collectivist, but the "collective" is the family/clan, not the nation-state. Many social conservatives live in or come from subcultures like this within the United States.
It's a different way of life and not what I would prefer (since many people don't end up liking their assigned roles, especially if they aren't cis/het, or aren't y'know, male) but it has some advantages. You are required to make sacrifices for the family and to accept your assigned role, but the family will in turn provide a lot of support and care to you. Eg if you're a young woman you'll be stuck caring for children and elderly people instead of having a glamorous career. But in turn, when you're an elderly person, you'll probably get to stay in your home and be cared for by a family member rather than going to a nursing home. If you're homeless, someone in the family will take you in. You won't have to go to a shelter. Etc.
People come from different cultures and have different life experiences, different philosophies and different fears. It's not "good guys vs. bad guys" here. It's "different people want different things."
And there are a lot of Republicans out there who sincerely don't believe that the social safety is a good idea at all, because they think it encourages dependence on government and that once the government has us all dependent, it will naturally become tyrannical, like the Capital in the Hunger Games. I think they're very wrong, but I recognize that there are just as many people like this in the US as there are far left "socialists". And since this is a democracy, we can't just ignore them. We have to engage them, convince them, reassure them, compromise with them. Like it or not. It's not Us vs. Them. It's all of Us trying to agree on what society should look like in spite of our differences..
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:25 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Again, this is very "Us and Them" to me. Republicans aren't just bigots (with a few neoliberals sprinkled in.)
I mean, some of them are, but most of them are people who 1) Believe that if you work hard you will be (and should be) rewarded and 2) Are deeply afraid of government tyranny, to the point where they start to fear the government in general. That's pretty much the recipe for an economic conservative.
Social conservatives often share those assumptions, but also have cultural differences. In other countries (and for a long time in Western history), families were more likely to live together in multigenerational households or compounds, with strong family/clan loyalties, and well-defined hierarchical roles for everyone within the family, often encoded in religious traditions. Societies which are still like this now are actually considered more collectivist, but the "collective" is the family/clan, not the nation-state. Many social conservatives live in or come from subcultures like this within the United States.
It's a different way of life and not what I would prefer (since many people don't end up liking their assigned roles, especially if they aren't cis/het, or aren't y'know, male) but it has some advantages. You are required to make sacrifices for the family and to accept your assigned role, but the family will in turn provide a lot of support and care to you. Eg if you're a young woman you'll be stuck caring for children and elderly people instead of having a glamorous career. But in turn, when you're an elderly person, you'll probably get to stay in your home and be cared for by a family member rather than going to a nursing home. If you're homeless, someone in the family will take you in. You won't have to go to a shelter. Etc.
People come from different cultures and have different life experiences, different philosophies and different fears. It's not "good guys vs. bad guys" here. It's "different people want different things."
And there are a lot of Republicans out there who sincerely don't believe that the social safety is a good idea at all, because they think it encourages dependence on government and that once the government has us all dependent, it will naturally become tyrannical, like the Capital in the Hunger Games. I think they're very wrong, but I recognize that there are just as many people like this in the US as there are far left "socialists". And since this is a democracy, we can't just ignore them. We have to engage them, convince them, reassure them, compromise with them. Like it or not. It's not Us vs. Them. It's all of Us trying to agree on what society should look like in spite of our differences..
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:25 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
FTJ I was hoping to start electing actual Leftists at the state and local level, then moving on to the national level. We're 45% of the party, more in some areas, we should be able to field some Leftist candidates and win. Start in the deeply blue parts of the country and expand from there. Start shifting the Overton Window.
The Beige Dictatorship doesn't have to win, we do have free, fair, and open elections, and there's a lot of us. It'll take a long hard slog, but hell if the Tea Party can elect the total wingnuts they've been electing then it isn't impossible for the Left to start getting real Leftists elected.
And, I still maintain that breaking the Beige Dictatorship with Leftists is the only real chance we have to avoid a Fascist future. Trump should be a wake up call to the Beige people that their system is failing and will be overthrown by violence from the populist right soon.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Beige people have the ability to wake up. Among other things, I think they think they'll be safe in the event of a populist right revolution and that they can flee to tax havens or whatever. I'd be extremely surprised if most of the billionaires don't have plans in place to bail in the event of a populist right revolution. So what do they care if, in the process of getting yet more money for their high score contest, they make America's economic problems bad enough that a genuine Fascist rises to power? They can escape to Bermuda or whatever leaving only us little people to be victims to the populist right's purges and death camps.
For that matter, the whole Beige Dictatorship may well view itself as a mobile parasite, use up one host, let it fall into the Fascism that their policies of economic inequality inevitably bring, and move on to a different host when that happens.
I really, genuinely, no exaggeration, do believe that there are only two possible future outcomes: either we break the lock on power by the Beige Dictatorship and redistribute some wealth, or there will be a populist right uprising that results in Fascism.
My entire basis for support of Sanders is that he isn't Beige. Clinton is.
Trump is (I desperately hope) too early, and I don't think America is yet ready to embrace a populist right uprising that will result in pogroms, purges, and a Fascist dictatorship. But the fact that 34% of Americans say they're basically looking for a dictator to get behind is terrifying.
But if the Beige Dictatorship keeps going, then ultimately the economic misery they bring will result in a populist right uprising.
posted by sotonohito at 8:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Beige Dictatorship doesn't have to win, we do have free, fair, and open elections, and there's a lot of us. It'll take a long hard slog, but hell if the Tea Party can elect the total wingnuts they've been electing then it isn't impossible for the Left to start getting real Leftists elected.
And, I still maintain that breaking the Beige Dictatorship with Leftists is the only real chance we have to avoid a Fascist future. Trump should be a wake up call to the Beige people that their system is failing and will be overthrown by violence from the populist right soon.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Beige people have the ability to wake up. Among other things, I think they think they'll be safe in the event of a populist right revolution and that they can flee to tax havens or whatever. I'd be extremely surprised if most of the billionaires don't have plans in place to bail in the event of a populist right revolution. So what do they care if, in the process of getting yet more money for their high score contest, they make America's economic problems bad enough that a genuine Fascist rises to power? They can escape to Bermuda or whatever leaving only us little people to be victims to the populist right's purges and death camps.
For that matter, the whole Beige Dictatorship may well view itself as a mobile parasite, use up one host, let it fall into the Fascism that their policies of economic inequality inevitably bring, and move on to a different host when that happens.
I really, genuinely, no exaggeration, do believe that there are only two possible future outcomes: either we break the lock on power by the Beige Dictatorship and redistribute some wealth, or there will be a populist right uprising that results in Fascism.
My entire basis for support of Sanders is that he isn't Beige. Clinton is.
Trump is (I desperately hope) too early, and I don't think America is yet ready to embrace a populist right uprising that will result in pogroms, purges, and a Fascist dictatorship. But the fact that 34% of Americans say they're basically looking for a dictator to get behind is terrifying.
But if the Beige Dictatorship keeps going, then ultimately the economic misery they bring will result in a populist right uprising.
posted by sotonohito at 8:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rolling Stone: R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chicago Trib, regarding the Hannity/Trump exchange: In response to the exchange, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement: "Trump is doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that's the kind of campaign he wants to run, that's his choice."
This won't end well.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
This won't end well.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Really, the Clintons just need to say, "No comment" to personal attacks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:38 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:38 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
OnceUponATime Based on my life experience being around Republicans, I disagree. Or at least I think your hypothetical principled rightists are an extreme minority. Yes, many/most Republicans will offer up principled rightism as a justification, but once you scratch the surface you find it is just bigotry with a thin veneer of respectability.
I have literally literally, not metaphorically literally, never had a long conversation with a single Republican that didn't eventually get around to bigotry. Mostly it isn't even that hidden.
Another example from my workplace: there's a right wing chap I work with, knows his stuff well enough, not cackling evil or a member of the Klan or anything, but his whole political outlook is clearly based on bigotry and xenophobia. He told me once that regulations on business were bad, because making money was clearly a good thing. Then a few hours later he got off the phone with a tech support person from India and while mocking his accent he complained that those Indians were just after money. White people making money are good, brown people making money are evil, why? Because brown people are, in his view, inherently bad.
That Colombian immigrant Trump supporter who used to work here? The man with a very thick Spanish accent? Yeah, he joined my white co-worker in mocking Indians with accents.
Bigotry plain and simple. Nothing more or less than a belief that only people like us count, that only people like us can be good people or deserving of success.
Same as, eventually, every single conversation I've had with a so-called "Pro-Life" person eventually turned into a misogynist statement that pregnant women deserve it because if they didn't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have had sex (typically some variant of "she made her choice when she spread her legs" statement, at least 90% of the time the phrase "spread her legs" was involved).
The Republican party is quite clearly composed mainly of bigots. That may not be **ALL** they are, in other contexts they may be something other than bigots, but their bigotry is the part that unifies them politically. The Beige Dictatorship latched onto that and has been using it to steer votes their way since at least the 1960's.
roomthreeseventeen I remain convinced that Clinton will ruin Trump with a dismissive chuckle and slight smile at his bullshit. For all that I'm not a Clintonista, I do look forward to seeing her goad him into a screaming temper tantrum on national television with nothing more than an arched eyebrow. Like I said, I'll take Beige over Fascist any day, and in a Trump/Clinton contest I am unreservedly and unhesitatingly on the side of Clinton.
posted by sotonohito at 8:42 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
I have literally literally, not metaphorically literally, never had a long conversation with a single Republican that didn't eventually get around to bigotry. Mostly it isn't even that hidden.
Another example from my workplace: there's a right wing chap I work with, knows his stuff well enough, not cackling evil or a member of the Klan or anything, but his whole political outlook is clearly based on bigotry and xenophobia. He told me once that regulations on business were bad, because making money was clearly a good thing. Then a few hours later he got off the phone with a tech support person from India and while mocking his accent he complained that those Indians were just after money. White people making money are good, brown people making money are evil, why? Because brown people are, in his view, inherently bad.
That Colombian immigrant Trump supporter who used to work here? The man with a very thick Spanish accent? Yeah, he joined my white co-worker in mocking Indians with accents.
Bigotry plain and simple. Nothing more or less than a belief that only people like us count, that only people like us can be good people or deserving of success.
Same as, eventually, every single conversation I've had with a so-called "Pro-Life" person eventually turned into a misogynist statement that pregnant women deserve it because if they didn't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have had sex (typically some variant of "she made her choice when she spread her legs" statement, at least 90% of the time the phrase "spread her legs" was involved).
The Republican party is quite clearly composed mainly of bigots. That may not be **ALL** they are, in other contexts they may be something other than bigots, but their bigotry is the part that unifies them politically. The Beige Dictatorship latched onto that and has been using it to steer votes their way since at least the 1960's.
roomthreeseventeen I remain convinced that Clinton will ruin Trump with a dismissive chuckle and slight smile at his bullshit. For all that I'm not a Clintonista, I do look forward to seeing her goad him into a screaming temper tantrum on national television with nothing more than an arched eyebrow. Like I said, I'll take Beige over Fascist any day, and in a Trump/Clinton contest I am unreservedly and unhesitatingly on the side of Clinton.
posted by sotonohito at 8:42 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why is it not OK to support universal healthcare that is not single-payer? There are plenty of non-single-payer universal healthcare systems, including in Europe.
Would it be okay to support universal healthcare that isn't single payer? Sure. But none of the candidates has proposed that yet.
When we speak about supporting universal healthcare, we should be clear that Clinton does not have a universal healthcare plan. Her plan would expand the ACA. That is not universal coverage. Currently approximately 33 million people (10.4% of the US population) remain uninsured. That number will likely decrease over time, but unless true government-funded healthcare is expanded as an option to all citizens under the ACA, it will not be universal coverage.
For true universal coverage, single payer remains the best option for Americans. Especially for women, considering the current political climate. It would remove restrictions from coverage such as a marriage requirement. It could help prevent family planning care including contraceptives, abortion and pregnancy care, from being treated as controlled additions to basic health care. It would also control medical costs and also reduce financial incentives for useless procedures and treatments.
posted by zarq at 8:51 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Would it be okay to support universal healthcare that isn't single payer? Sure. But none of the candidates has proposed that yet.
When we speak about supporting universal healthcare, we should be clear that Clinton does not have a universal healthcare plan. Her plan would expand the ACA. That is not universal coverage. Currently approximately 33 million people (10.4% of the US population) remain uninsured. That number will likely decrease over time, but unless true government-funded healthcare is expanded as an option to all citizens under the ACA, it will not be universal coverage.
For true universal coverage, single payer remains the best option for Americans. Especially for women, considering the current political climate. It would remove restrictions from coverage such as a marriage requirement. It could help prevent family planning care including contraceptives, abortion and pregnancy care, from being treated as controlled additions to basic health care. It would also control medical costs and also reduce financial incentives for useless procedures and treatments.
posted by zarq at 8:51 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump surrogate and Buffalo, New York Congressman Chris Collins says that Trump's wall will be "virtual" and any deportations will be "rhetorical."
What does a rhetorical deportation look like, you ask?
However, don't get your hopes up that Trump is moderating his stances:
posted by stolyarova at 8:59 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
What does a rhetorical deportation look like, you ask?
“They go out that door, they go in that room, they get their work papers, Social Security number, then they come in that door, and they’ve got legal work status but are not citizens of the United States,” Collins said. “So there was a virtual deportation as they left that door for processing and came in this door.”
Collins added: “We’re not going to put them on a bus, and we’re not going to drive them across the border.”
However, don't get your hopes up that Trump is moderating his stances:
After making those comments, Collins said Trump would surely disagree with them.
“I’m not speaking for Donald,” Collins said. “Those were my opinions.”
posted by stolyarova at 8:59 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
FTJ I was hoping to start electing actual Leftists at the state and local level, then moving on to the national level. We're 45% of the party, more in some areas,
I do believe that there are in fact a significant number of what you call "Leftists" (a term which, by the way, people keep using in this thread without actually defining) in the Democratic party.
However, I would suggest that treating Sanders' primary/caucus vote share as an indicator of the actual percentage almost certainly overstates the numbers. People vote for (or against ) candidates for a lot of reasons, and a lot of people who vote in general elections simply don't vote in primaries or caucuses (especially caucuses, a low-turnout format in which Sanders has consistently overperformed).
To cite one just example, I can't imagine you believe that more than half of Democrats in West Virginia are "Leftists," despite the fact that 51% of them voted for Sanders in the primary last week.
In exit polls, more than half of West Virginia Democratic primary voters described themselves as "moderate or conservative," and Sanders performed better with those more conservative voters than he did with self-described "liberals."
posted by dersins at 8:59 AM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
I do believe that there are in fact a significant number of what you call "Leftists" (a term which, by the way, people keep using in this thread without actually defining) in the Democratic party.
However, I would suggest that treating Sanders' primary/caucus vote share as an indicator of the actual percentage almost certainly overstates the numbers. People vote for (or against ) candidates for a lot of reasons, and a lot of people who vote in general elections simply don't vote in primaries or caucuses (especially caucuses, a low-turnout format in which Sanders has consistently overperformed).
To cite one just example, I can't imagine you believe that more than half of Democrats in West Virginia are "Leftists," despite the fact that 51% of them voted for Sanders in the primary last week.
In exit polls, more than half of West Virginia Democratic primary voters described themselves as "moderate or conservative," and Sanders performed better with those more conservative voters than he did with self-described "liberals."
posted by dersins at 8:59 AM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
In exit polls, more than half of West Virginia Democratic primary voters described themselves as "moderate or conservative," and Sanders performed better with those more conservative voters than he did with self-described "liberals."
Could have something to do with Sanders being a man. Clinton, as we've already discussed above, did much better than Obama in those regions in 2008. Hierarchy of acceptability in WV goes white man > white woman > black man, I guess.
posted by stolyarova at 9:03 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Could have something to do with Sanders being a man. Clinton, as we've already discussed above, did much better than Obama in those regions in 2008. Hierarchy of acceptability in WV goes white man > white woman > black man, I guess.
posted by stolyarova at 9:03 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
I suspect misogyny/prejudice/bigotry may have been part of it (it almost certainly was in the 2012 primary when some dude in prison nobody had heard of got more than 40% of the vote for being the name on the ballot that wasn't "Barack Obama").
In this case, however, I'd guess a larger part was probably Clinton's very vocal opposition to the coal industry, which is a huge part of WV's economy.
But none of that contradicts my larger point, which is that people vote for Sanders for all sorts of reasons, not just because they are "Leftists."
posted by dersins at 9:09 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
In this case, however, I'd guess a larger part was probably Clinton's very vocal opposition to the coal industry, which is a huge part of WV's economy.
But none of that contradicts my larger point, which is that people vote for Sanders for all sorts of reasons, not just because they are "Leftists."
posted by dersins at 9:09 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Could have something to do with Sanders being a man.
Not just a man, but a man who is not taking a stand for major gun control reforms.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not just a man, but a man who is not taking a stand for major gun control reforms.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Or pushing for renewable energies to replace coal.
posted by stolyarova at 9:11 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 9:11 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
But none of that contradicts my larger point, which is that people vote for Sanders for all sorts of reasons, not just because they are "Leftists."
This. Also, there's just very little evidence that many people vote based on policy. I think looking at the numbers of people who voted for Sanders and rushing to make a bunch of policy decisions based on what those people presumably want wouldn't be a very smart strategy.
posted by zutalors! at 9:14 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope that the Leftist-Socialist wing of the party revives after this election. But I hope that what comes in its wake is not more Bernies. He's caustic, crusty, and too didactic. I don't want more Bernies. I want more people who get shit done and understand the value of good compromise.
posted by dw at 9:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dw at 9:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it was something else going on in West Virginia, too, a sort of "pox on both their houses" reaction in a reliably red state. Just judging from the exit polls, the people responding looked to me like cross over Republican leaning independents who knew there was no point voting in the Republican primary with Cruz and Kasich out. The state allows "unaffiliated voters" -- and there are a lot of them -- to vote in the primary they choose. The final vote was basically 51-36, meaning about 13% of the "Democratic" voters weren't willing to vote for either D candidate.
posted by bearwife at 9:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 9:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Clinton's strong (and brave, and necessary, and principled) stance on fossil fuels and especially on coal has massively skewed results from coal producing areas. Another area where Sanders failed IMO, he should have been right up there with Clinton on phasing coal out and the need to find something else to replace the coal industry with in coal country.
It would have fit his socialist/leftist agenda perfectly, he could have tied it in with how Don Blankenship got barely one year in prison for killing 29 miners for his profits.
Instead he chose to downplay his theoretical opposition to coal in order to gain support from people Clinton had alienated with the truth.
dw: I think the value of compromise has been vastly overstated, and I can't help but notice that every time that word gets tossed around in Washington circles it inevitably means giving the Republicans everything and getting jack shit in return.
I believe compromise is what you settle for when you can't simply steamroll the opposition and get 100% of what you want. It is not, IMO, what you start out looking for.
posted by sotonohito at 9:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would have fit his socialist/leftist agenda perfectly, he could have tied it in with how Don Blankenship got barely one year in prison for killing 29 miners for his profits.
Instead he chose to downplay his theoretical opposition to coal in order to gain support from people Clinton had alienated with the truth.
dw: I think the value of compromise has been vastly overstated, and I can't help but notice that every time that word gets tossed around in Washington circles it inevitably means giving the Republicans everything and getting jack shit in return.
I believe compromise is what you settle for when you can't simply steamroll the opposition and get 100% of what you want. It is not, IMO, what you start out looking for.
posted by sotonohito at 9:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
We didn't compromise with the bigots on marriage equality, we crushed their sorry asses first with Loving then with Obergefell.
We didn't compromise with the bigots on civil rights, LBJ strong armed the Civil Rights Act through over their screams of protest and he enforced it at gunpoint with the National Guard.
Compromise is what got us Jim Crow and the failure of Reconstruction. You don't compromise with evil, you stamp it out and dance on its grave when it has failed.
posted by sotonohito at 9:22 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
We didn't compromise with the bigots on civil rights, LBJ strong armed the Civil Rights Act through over their screams of protest and he enforced it at gunpoint with the National Guard.
Compromise is what got us Jim Crow and the failure of Reconstruction. You don't compromise with evil, you stamp it out and dance on its grave when it has failed.
posted by sotonohito at 9:22 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
I want more people who get shit done and understand the value of good compromise.
Elizabeth Warren 2024. (Or 2020 if Trump wins aaagh please no)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:25 AM on May 19, 2016
Elizabeth Warren 2024. (Or 2020 if Trump wins aaagh please no)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:25 AM on May 19, 2016
Unfortunately, I don't think the Beige people have the ability to wake up.
This missive, bookended by other posts going on about intrinsic bigotry and othering being the only thing defining the republican party, is pretty rich.
posted by phearlez at 9:26 AM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
This missive, bookended by other posts going on about intrinsic bigotry and othering being the only thing defining the republican party, is pretty rich.
posted by phearlez at 9:26 AM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
compromise also gets us stuff like "funding for beneficial but unsexy programs" etc
it's basically one of those political terms, like "independent," that doesn't carry much meaning on its own, but soaks up whatever we want to imbue it with, like a chunk of rhetorical angel food cake
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
it's basically one of those political terms, like "independent," that doesn't carry much meaning on its own, but soaks up whatever we want to imbue it with, like a chunk of rhetorical angel food cake
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
We didn't compromise with the bigots on civil rights, LBJ strong armed the Civil Rights Act through over their screams of protest and he enforced it at gunpoint with the National Guard.
The actual story is not nearly that simple.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
The actual story is not nearly that simple.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
prize bull octorok, I know what I'm baking this weekend. It smells like DEMOCRACY.
posted by stolyarova at 9:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 9:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
A blunt anti-Trump opinion piece from conservative Robert Kagan in the Washington Post: This is how fascism comes to America
posted by exogenous at 9:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by exogenous at 9:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
stolyarova, SAUCE IT WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS*
*a strawberry reduction
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:31 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
*a strawberry reduction
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:31 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it was something else going on in West Virginia, too, a sort of "pox on both their houses" reaction in a reliably red state. Just judging from the exit polls, the people responding looked to me like cross over Republican leaning independents who knew there was no point voting in the Republican primary with Cruz and Kasich out. The state allows "unaffiliated voters" -- and there are a lot of them -- to vote in the primary they choose. The final vote was basically 51-36, meaning about 13% of the "Democratic" voters weren't willing to vote for either D candidate.Yet, West Virginia was pretty much reliably Democratic in presidential elections right up until 2000—it went 51–36 for Bill Clinton in 1996, even. Who knows—perhaps there's a cohort of working- and former-middle-class voters in WV who is open to a candidate who talks in plain terms about economic justice and jobs and industry? There certainly seems to have been one there before Gore came along.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:31 AM on May 19, 2016
prize bull octorok, 'tis the season (for strawberries and tyrants).
posted by stolyarova at 9:32 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 9:32 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
We didn't compromise on marriage equality, and it got the supporters' asses handed to them for a generation. Meanwhile, Washington systematically pushed through LGBT rights legislation as the Democratic party brought in more LGBT and LGBT ally legislators, eventually ended with a civil union law -- one that included a clause that gave 65+ hetero couples the ability to form the same civil unions as a compromise extended to some more moderate and conservative legislators.
And then in 2012 Washington overwhelmingly affirmed legalizing gay marriage at the ballot box as one of the four states that did so during that cycle.
That's what the hard work of politics looks like: Grab every inch and keep pulling. Sometimes you have to make messy compromises. (All those 65+ couples had to actually get married after the 2012 vote; ditto gay couples in civil unions.) But our system is built on compromise. That was the intention of the Constitution -- force the powers to work together or face a failed state.
The end of Reconstruction wasn't a compromise, anyway. It was a power grab.
posted by dw at 9:33 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
And then in 2012 Washington overwhelmingly affirmed legalizing gay marriage at the ballot box as one of the four states that did so during that cycle.
That's what the hard work of politics looks like: Grab every inch and keep pulling. Sometimes you have to make messy compromises. (All those 65+ couples had to actually get married after the 2012 vote; ditto gay couples in civil unions.) But our system is built on compromise. That was the intention of the Constitution -- force the powers to work together or face a failed state.
The end of Reconstruction wasn't a compromise, anyway. It was a power grab.
posted by dw at 9:33 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
That is an excellent piece by Kagan. I want to say "yes!" to every word. Here's one of the insightful comments in it:
[W]hat [Trump] has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
posted by bearwife at 9:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
[W]hat [Trump] has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
posted by bearwife at 9:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
The actual story is not nearly that simple.
Thanks for posting the Caro article. This is a must read for those wanting to know how the sausage is made.
posted by dougzilla at 9:36 AM on May 19, 2016
Thanks for posting the Caro article. This is a must read for those wanting to know how the sausage is made.
posted by dougzilla at 9:36 AM on May 19, 2016
perhaps there's a cohort of working- and former-middle-class voters in WV who is open to a candidate who talks in plain terms about economic justice and jobs and industry?
That would have to be a white male pro-coal candidate. WV last went blue 16 years ago, barely, and its racism was not even thinly veiled in 08 and 12.
posted by bearwife at 9:38 AM on May 19, 2016
That would have to be a white male pro-coal candidate. WV last went blue 16 years ago, barely, and its racism was not even thinly veiled in 08 and 12.
posted by bearwife at 9:38 AM on May 19, 2016
Trump surrogate and Buffalo, New York Congressman Chris Collins
Just to note that Collins no longer represents Buffalo or any of the inlying suburbs, and his district at this point is a few outlying suburbs/exurbs like Hamburg, Clarence, and East Aurora along with smaller, more rural towns like Lockport, Batavia, and Geneseo. Collins represents western-New-York-that-isn't-Buffalo-or-Rochester.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:43 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to note that Collins no longer represents Buffalo or any of the inlying suburbs, and his district at this point is a few outlying suburbs/exurbs like Hamburg, Clarence, and East Aurora along with smaller, more rural towns like Lockport, Batavia, and Geneseo. Collins represents western-New-York-that-isn't-Buffalo-or-Rochester.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:43 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good piece from 538 today on Sanders voters.
posted by bearwife at 9:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bearwife at 9:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Good morning, this is your daily reminder not to make this personal, not to go for the "but YOU PEOPLE like such-and-such bad thing" framing, and generally to keep it cool in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
perhaps there's a cohort of working- and former-middle-class voters in WV who is open to a candidate who talks in plain terms about economic justice and jobs and industry?
Also from the exit polls, something like 40% of people who voted for Sanders in the WV primary said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the general election.
I think that might give you a better idea of where they're coming from.
posted by dersins at 9:54 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also from the exit polls, something like 40% of people who voted for Sanders in the WV primary said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the general election.
I think that might give you a better idea of where they're coming from.
posted by dersins at 9:54 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
What does a rhetorical deportation look like, you ask?
Wait, what? The deportation plan is to make them guest workers?
posted by nubs at 10:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
“They go out that door, they go in that room, they get their work papers, Social Security number, then they come in that door, and they’ve got legal work status but are not citizens of the United States,” Collins said. “So there was a virtual deportation as they left that door for processing and came in this door.”
Collins added: “We’re not going to put them on a bus, and we’re not going to drive them across the border.”
Wait, what? The deportation plan is to make them guest workers?
posted by nubs at 10:10 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
phearlez This missive, bookended by other posts going on about intrinsic bigotry and othering being the only thing defining the republican party, is pretty rich.
???
You do realize that "Beige" here refers not to skin color or anything intrensic but rather to the servants and leaders of the billionaire class and general corporate interests, yes?
I refer not to any inherent mental inability to realize the problems they're creating, but rather as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
What the Beige Dictatorship and is servants don't, won't, can't realize is that they are laying the foundations for a populist right uprising resulting in a Fascist dictatorship. They don't realize this not because they're stupid, but because their salary depends on not realizing it.
posted by sotonohito at 10:14 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
???
You do realize that "Beige" here refers not to skin color or anything intrensic but rather to the servants and leaders of the billionaire class and general corporate interests, yes?
I refer not to any inherent mental inability to realize the problems they're creating, but rather as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
What the Beige Dictatorship and is servants don't, won't, can't realize is that they are laying the foundations for a populist right uprising resulting in a Fascist dictatorship. They don't realize this not because they're stupid, but because their salary depends on not realizing it.
posted by sotonohito at 10:14 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
nubs, according to that one guy's hopeful imaginings, which he himself admits that Trump would probably reject.
posted by stolyarova at 10:14 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 10:14 AM on May 19, 2016
Q: What is "deportation?"
A: Established in the early years of the First Trumpire, the "deportation" was a ritual intended to numb the will and dampen the spirit of persons about to be permanently assigned to the Serf caste.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
A: Established in the early years of the First Trumpire, the "deportation" was a ritual intended to numb the will and dampen the spirit of persons about to be permanently assigned to the Serf caste.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
nubs, according to that one guy's hopeful imaginings, which he himself admits that Trump would probably reject.
Ok, thanks. I was wondering just how far NewSpeak had gone while I was asleep.
posted by nubs at 10:17 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ok, thanks. I was wondering just how far NewSpeak had gone while I was asleep.
posted by nubs at 10:17 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) doesn't support Trump's plan. He said he's confident that Trump's idea is more talk than serious policy.
"He's not gonna deport 11 million people," Gardner said with a laugh.
All right, so looking at all these Republicans who are sure Trump doesn't really mean what he says, I think it's a good time to repost the first mention the NYT ever made of a certain future Führer in 1922.
Hitler's program is of less interest than his person and movement. His program consists chiefly of half a dozen negative ideas clothed in generalities. He is "against the Jews, Communists, Bolshevism, Marxian socialism, Separatists, the high cost of living, existing conditions, the weak Berlin Government, and the Versailles Treaty." Positively, he stands only for "a strong united Germany under a strong Government."
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The key-note of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are popularly nicknamed "the Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Dug up by Jon Ostrower on Twitter. Transcribed from the grainy PDF by me. Original article here.
Image mirror of the entire article here.
posted by stolyarova at 10:23 AM on May 19, 2016 [38 favorites]
We didn't compromise with the bigots on civil rights, LBJ strong armed the Civil Rights Act through over their screams of protest and he enforced it at gunpoint with the National Guard.
This statement ignores the hard political work that had been going on for over a century before that was passed.
Yes, you can better believe there were fucking compromises. The history of the Civil Rights movement is one of compromises, of rights struggled for bit by bit by bit.
posted by Anonymous at 10:23 AM on May 19, 2016
This statement ignores the hard political work that had been going on for over a century before that was passed.
Yes, you can better believe there were fucking compromises. The history of the Civil Rights movement is one of compromises, of rights struggled for bit by bit by bit.
posted by Anonymous at 10:23 AM on May 19, 2016
You do realize that "Beige" here refers not to skin color or anything intrensic but rather to the servants and leaders of the billionaire class and general corporate interests, yes?
I don't think anyone interpreted that as racial. I suspect the objection had more to do with the kind of shitty ad hominem rhetoric that characterizes political opponents (in this case what is strongly implied is "Clinton supporters") as being either "beige" (a word with strong pejorative connotations) dictators or lackeys to those who are. What's next, "capitalist running dogs?"
posted by dersins at 10:28 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't think anyone interpreted that as racial. I suspect the objection had more to do with the kind of shitty ad hominem rhetoric that characterizes political opponents (in this case what is strongly implied is "Clinton supporters") as being either "beige" (a word with strong pejorative connotations) dictators or lackeys to those who are. What's next, "capitalist running dogs?"
posted by dersins at 10:28 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Home Depot worker's 'America was never great' hat sparks social media rage
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:29 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:29 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can think of no better example of how little the media narrative serves us than MSNBC cutting away from the White House Press secretary talking about Puerto Rico bailout negotiations to continue to harass transportation and security professionals about whether the EgyptAir tragedy was terrorism. And then to go over and over what little they know.
Meanwhile Trump has announced it is terrorism, which his supporters will never unlearn.
posted by zutalors! at 10:41 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile Trump has announced it is terrorism, which his supporters will never unlearn.
posted by zutalors! at 10:41 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's late, but:
Metafilter: like a chunk of rhetorical angel food cake.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:50 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: like a chunk of rhetorical angel food cake.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:50 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
@Trillburne:
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:09 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Robert Kagan, who believes waging ideological wars abroad is good because it forces domestic political consensus, is worried about fascism
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:09 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
@realDonaldTrumpWait, what is he trying to say here? Can anybody help me parse this out of Trumpese?
"In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue." This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!
posted by stolyarova at 11:09 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile Trump has announced it is terrorism, which his supporters will never unlearn.
It doesn't matter if it is, because no matter what actually happened, he will use it as a "teachable moment" to talk about the dangers we face from terrorism. Meanwhile:
posted by zarq at 11:10 AM on May 19, 2016
It doesn't matter if it is, because no matter what actually happened, he will use it as a "teachable moment" to talk about the dangers we face from terrorism. Meanwhile:
Hillary Clinton on Thursday suggested that an act of terrorism is responsible for the Egyptian plane that went missing.
“It does appear that it was an act of terrorism,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “Exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine.”
Clinton added that it “shines a very bright light” on threats the world faces from organized terrorist groups, including the Islamic State.
posted by zarq at 11:10 AM on May 19, 2016
Ugh, gross HRC.
posted by zutalors! at 11:11 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 11:11 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
So many tweets pointing out taht he could have made appropriately diplomatic & leader of the free world like noises of sympathy on the tragedy.
posted by infini at 11:14 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 11:14 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, what is he trying to say here? Can anybody help me parse this out of Trumpese?
I think he is assuming that Obama is accusing him of being ignorant, but I give the odds of my interpretation being correct as 60-40.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think he is assuming that Obama is accusing him of being ignorant, but I give the odds of my interpretation being correct as 60-40.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:16 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well you know maybe he just likes ignorance
posted by angrycat at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd kind of assumed that he meant that ignorance is a good thing and saying otherwise makes Obama a bad president. Hard-line anti-intellectualism is kind of his schtick.
posted by stolyarova at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2016
Wait, what is he trying to say here? Can anybody help me parse this out of Trumpese?
Don't even try, you will sprain a lobe trying to think down to his level.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't even try, you will sprain a lobe trying to think down to his level.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama delivers commencement speech at Rutgers: 'Ignorance is not a virtue'
posted by readery at 11:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by readery at 11:19 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
First-rate satire on the same note:
Obama Alienates Millions with Incendiary Pro-Knowledge Remarks
posted by stolyarova at 11:22 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Obama Alienates Millions with Incendiary Pro-Knowledge Remarks
posted by stolyarova at 11:22 AM on May 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Just noting regarding the EgyptAir tragedy: per the CBC, the Civil Aviation Minister of Egypt has said it's more likely to be an attack than a technical failure.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:24 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:24 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama said "Ignorance is not a virtue". Trump's audience thinks Obama is the most ignorant president in history. So Trump is saying Obama is a bad president because he's so ignorant and based on Obama's saying that Obama's admitting he's a bad president. It's a dumb way to try and turn it around. I know you are but what am I sort of thing.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:27 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just noting regarding the EgyptAir tragedy: per the CBC, the Civil Aviation Minister of Egypt has said it's more likely to be an attack than a technical failure.
Yeah, but US Intelligence is saying "there may be an explosion" at the most, which is like, responsible since that's literally all that's known.
posted by zutalors! at 11:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but US Intelligence is saying "there may be an explosion" at the most, which is like, responsible since that's literally all that's known.
posted by zutalors! at 11:30 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
"In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue." This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!" - @realDonaldTrump
The I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I retort. Well played.
posted by klarck at 11:34 AM on May 19, 2016
The I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I retort. Well played.
posted by klarck at 11:34 AM on May 19, 2016
I guess I missed that because I have trouble imagining President Obama as ignorant. Sure, critique his policies (NSA, drone strikes, whatever) - but he's a very intelligent man.
posted by stolyarova at 11:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 11:35 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would be funny if a piano fell directly onto Andy Borowitz while he was taking a walk, turning him into a perfectly flat disk that waddled around in circles.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:36 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
"So, then, what can a single poll tell us in a long election cycle that itself has become an unpredictable freak show? Nothing—but it can serve as a much-needed reminder that this election is closer than it has any right to be. And the proper response to that fact—to Trump’s almost incomprehensible rise from birther-conspiracist celebrity half-wit to presumptive nominee sitting within striking distance of a former secretary of state—is fear. A bigoted know-nothing could truly be our next president. To argue that Americans should be anything less than terrified is itself irresponsible."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:39 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:39 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
TPM: Sanders Camp Flirts with Going Full "Burn It Down"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on May 19, 2016
:(
posted by defenestration at 11:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by defenestration at 11:45 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know nothing about Sanders's personal life, but does the man not have children and/or grandchildren that he loves?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:48 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:48 AM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Atom Eyes, IIRC, he has four kids and seven grandchildren.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I note that the "burn it all down" link goes to a blog, not to an actual article. The author at that link is also very careful to state a couple times that he is engaging in speculation.
But in this particular climate, I still question exactly how wise speculation might be, even when you have fairly good evidence. We've got speculation up the ying-yang, what we need are facts and hard data.
Shit, what we need is journalism.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
But in this particular climate, I still question exactly how wise speculation might be, even when you have fairly good evidence. We've got speculation up the ying-yang, what we need are facts and hard data.
Shit, what we need is journalism.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on May 19, 2016 [9 favorites]
While we do need journalism and facts, I don't think its entirely wrong at this point to speculate that Sanders really ought to either bail out or at least focus on issues, and that his failure to do either is rooted in delusion and is hurting the cause.
A Sanders campaign that recognizes that Clinton has won, but stays in the race to keep pulling her in a Leftward direction would be, IMO, a very good thing. Doubly so if it laid the groundwork for a 2018 election season with further inroads by Leftist candidates.
A Sanders campaign that tries to cash in all its chips now would, IMO, be a good thing. He'd lose the Bros, but he should lose them anyway, they're scumbags.
A Sanders campaign persisting in the delusion that somehow, if everyone just claps hard enough, it can win is actively harmful not merely to Leftism, but also to the important cause of preventing a Trump victory. Beige is always better than Fascist.
And a Sanders campaign hoping to win on Superdelegates is just plain obscene, and actively harms the potential good he could do by using what clout he has to push for ending the stupid, harmful, and corrupt DNC practices.
posted by sotonohito at 12:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
A Sanders campaign that recognizes that Clinton has won, but stays in the race to keep pulling her in a Leftward direction would be, IMO, a very good thing. Doubly so if it laid the groundwork for a 2018 election season with further inroads by Leftist candidates.
A Sanders campaign that tries to cash in all its chips now would, IMO, be a good thing. He'd lose the Bros, but he should lose them anyway, they're scumbags.
A Sanders campaign persisting in the delusion that somehow, if everyone just claps hard enough, it can win is actively harmful not merely to Leftism, but also to the important cause of preventing a Trump victory. Beige is always better than Fascist.
And a Sanders campaign hoping to win on Superdelegates is just plain obscene, and actively harms the potential good he could do by using what clout he has to push for ending the stupid, harmful, and corrupt DNC practices.
posted by sotonohito at 12:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Mind of Trump: a psychological examination of He, Trump, based on his public statements.
It's not quite a hit piece, but I doubt the nominee will respond well.
posted by suelac at 12:08 PM on May 19, 2016
It's not quite a hit piece, but I doubt the nominee will respond well.
posted by suelac at 12:08 PM on May 19, 2016
I think a lot of people, including Marshall, are getting swept up in the inside-baseball political cycle and letting it frighten them into panic. All "Has Sanders gone crazy?" speculation is fueled by Sanders still trying to win contests and because he has few connections to the Beltway industry. Not to mention a lot of slamming of Jeff Weaver, who I know personally almost nothing about, but who is apparently now evil because he owned a comic book store. Shades of the Very Serious People Sally Quinn sort of stuff there, I think.
I still maintain this season has been far tamer than the 2008 season.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I still maintain this season has been far tamer than the 2008 season.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Shit, what we need is journalism.
No kidding. Up until just now I had no idea Sanders had more than just the one son who occasionally gets mentioned.
And yeah, I realize it's not hard for me to do my own research there, but it just feels like there's astonishingly little coverage of the candidates beyond just the day to day horse race bullshit. I feel like there was a lot more "who are these people, let us get to know them" reporting in elections past.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
No kidding. Up until just now I had no idea Sanders had more than just the one son who occasionally gets mentioned.
And yeah, I realize it's not hard for me to do my own research there, but it just feels like there's astonishingly little coverage of the candidates beyond just the day to day horse race bullshit. I feel like there was a lot more "who are these people, let us get to know them" reporting in elections past.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
That opinion piece at TPM is from Josh Marshall, who is a journalist with connections in the Sanders camp, not just some blogger. The fact that he is careful to identify speculation is a reassuring sign of his professionalism.
posted by maudlin at 12:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by maudlin at 12:11 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
> It's a dumb way to try and turn it around. I know you are but what am I sort of thing.
Dumb to you, maybe, but this horseshit works on his fourth-grade level supporters.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:14 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dumb to you, maybe, but this horseshit works on his fourth-grade level supporters.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:14 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
FWIW, the only current US Senator to endorse Sanders also thinks the idea of depending on superdelegates switching is pretty ridiculous:
posted by zombieflanders at 12:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) told the Washington Post on Wednesday that Sanders should bow out if Clinton wins a higher number of pledged delegates as well as the popular vote.This lends at least some credence to Marshall's description of two opposing camps within the Sanders campaign.
“When a nominee wins a majority of both those categories, it is time for us to come together, link arms and go forward,” Merkley said. “It would be inconsistent, given the commentary on super-delegates, to depend on super-delegates to turn over those first two categories of evaluating party members’ support.”
While the Sanders campaign and its supporters initially criticized superdelegates—party insiders who can change their allegiance to a particular candidate—as undemocratic, top aides are now betting the future of the campaign on convincing those delegates to join their side.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:18 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
That opinion piece at TPM is from Josh Marshall, who is a journalist with connections in the Sanders camp, not just some blogger. The fact that he is careful to identify speculation is a reassuring sign of his professionalism.
Yeah, but it's being quoted in here as if it is an article, not as if it is an opinion piece.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:20 PM on May 19, 2016
Yeah, but it's being quoted in here as if it is an article, not as if it is an opinion piece.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:20 PM on May 19, 2016
Trump surrogate and Buffalo, New York Congressman Chris Collins
It took me way too long to figure out that Buffalo wasn't some new spin on RINO/PUMA/etc.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
It took me way too long to figure out that Buffalo wasn't some new spin on RINO/PUMA/etc.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
it's a juggalo that works out. hth
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on May 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on May 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
Shining a light on the SC vacancy, Trump's nominee list, and future important cases the Oklahoma Senate today made performing abortion a felony.
posted by chaoticgood at 12:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chaoticgood at 12:25 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
We didn't compromise with the bigots on civil rights, LBJ strong armed the Civil Rights Act through over their screams of protest and he enforced it at gunpoint with the National Guard.
Reminder that HBO's "All the Way" is about to open. I saw the play, which was an excellent, entertaining and funny dissection of the sausage making involved in getting the Civil Rights Act passed.
And yes, there was a TON of compromise involved.
posted by msalt at 12:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reminder that HBO's "All the Way" is about to open. I saw the play, which was an excellent, entertaining and funny dissection of the sausage making involved in getting the Civil Rights Act passed.
And yes, there was a TON of compromise involved.
posted by msalt at 12:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not everybody knows that Chris Collins is a literal Buffalo
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Up until just now I had no idea Sanders had more than just the one son who occasionally gets mentioned.
He doesn't, unless you count stepkids. Jane has three children from a previous relationship, two of whom are female. Interesting detail from People Magazine: none of these has ever called him Dad, not even his son Levi.
posted by msalt at 12:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
He doesn't, unless you count stepkids. Jane has three children from a previous relationship, two of whom are female. Interesting detail from People Magazine: none of these has ever called him Dad, not even his son Levi.
posted by msalt at 12:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Levi's defense, who doesn't want someone in their life they can call Bernie?
posted by avalonian at 12:34 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by avalonian at 12:34 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, but it's being quoted in here as if it is an article, not as if it is an opinion piece.
There's a difference between writing that is purely opinion (implicitly of little value) and pieces which combine research, opinion and analysis. TPM does label this section "Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors", so that's how I'm reading it, too.
Marshall quotes a Times story that includes quotes from the Sanders campaign, he refers to what he has heard from his sources in the Sanders campaign, and then he tries to make sense of it all while also being clear that he is speculating. And he makes this really good, really scary point:
posted by maudlin at 12:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
There's a difference between writing that is purely opinion (implicitly of little value) and pieces which combine research, opinion and analysis. TPM does label this section "Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors", so that's how I'm reading it, too.
Marshall quotes a Times story that includes quotes from the Sanders campaign, he refers to what he has heard from his sources in the Sanders campaign, and then he tries to make sense of it all while also being clear that he is speculating. And he makes this really good, really scary point:
Jeet Heer makes the argument at TNR that as toxic as this process has become, it pales in comparison to 2008 when Clinton and her most dead-end followers acted atrociously in the latter part of the campaign. He makes a decent argument....That said, I'd love to see more solid reporting on the issues, too. But I can't dismiss this piece as just another opinion piece. (You want opinions? John Cole has opinions!)
But there's a part Jeet leaves out. Both sides in the 2008 struggle had profound personal and professional connections to and investment in the Democratic party. That put real limits on how far the acrimony would go. Even if you insist on seeing Clinton's actions at the end of the 2008 primary process through the most cynical prism possible, it's clear she was not willing to destroy her own future political relevance or her husband's political legacy by not getting behind Obama in the general. Sanders and Jeff Weaver have no such investment on the line. Indeed, their own political background is one as dissidents whose political posture is one of resisting and opposing institutional politics. Dissident politics has a glorious history of its own. But it's not one that leads to Kumbaya moments at national party conventions.
So even if the acrimony or darkness is comparable, indeed perhaps worse in 2008, the structural reality is a bit different.
posted by maudlin at 12:40 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
Okay, reading the 1922 profile of Hitler and the current profiles of Trump, I am now more confident that The Orange One is not going to become "another Hitler". His personal Egomania clearly outweighs his hatred for any others and his disloyalty toward others is not the formula for building an army of "Good Nazis" (just ask half of his 'former partners'). Obviously, he's bad for Democracy - a CEO has a lot more power than a President; but Congress, even at its most partisan, is no Board of Directors.
And to provide a little support to my previous claim that Trump's main goal for his Presidency would be to make himself richer, "Trump’s business booms as he runs for president".
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:43 PM on May 19, 2016
And to provide a little support to my previous claim that Trump's main goal for his Presidency would be to make himself richer, "Trump’s business booms as he runs for president".
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:43 PM on May 19, 2016
BTW, where can I get one of those "America Was Never Great" hats? As an old white dude, I would survive wearing it in public, and if assaulted, I'm on Medicare (one of the things that makes America "good" for us old white dudes, just not "great").
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Shining a light on the SC vacancy, Trump's nominee list, and future important cases the Oklahoma Senate today made performing abortion a felony.
Assholes.
Oklahoma's been attempting to deny women the right to have an abortion for years. I remember posting something to mefi about it back in 2010.
A very stark reminder of what's at stake in this election.
posted by zarq at 12:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Assholes.
Oklahoma's been attempting to deny women the right to have an abortion for years. I remember posting something to mefi about it back in 2010.
A very stark reminder of what's at stake in this election.
posted by zarq at 12:50 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Greg Sargent: Hillary Clinton signals possible endgame for Dem primary battle
The cynical view of these comments is that Clinton isn’t actually prepared to make any meaningful concessions towards Sanders and his supporters. Some press reports indicate that Democrats are increasingly fearful about turbulence at the Philadelphia convention, as loosely knit groups of Sanders backers appear to be hinting that something is afoot. Perhaps Clinton is preemptively trying to mollify Sanders and his angrier supporters without actually intending to give them anything. Meanwhile, from the other side, you’ll probably hear some pro-Clinton voices saying something like: Why should anyone make any concessions to the guy who lost??? Sanders and his supporters are out of control!!! Screw ’em!!!posted by zombieflanders at 12:58 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
So here’s a suggestion: It’s possible the Clinton camp might actually conclude it’s in her best interests to make some real concessions towards Sanders, which is to say, this wouldn’t be about giving away stuff to the undeserving, demanding loser that some Clinton supporters keep seeing in hiim. Meanwhile, he might conclude it’s in his interests not to ask for too much, in order to make resolution possible.
There’s a fair amount of angst out there among liberals today about this New York Times piece, which darkly warns that Sanders might be willing to “do some harm” to Clinton in the quest to win California on June 7th. The piece also says:Advisers to Mr. Sanders said on Wednesday that he was newly resolved to remain in the race, seeing an aggressive campaign as his only chance to pressure Democrats into making fundamental changes to how presidential primaries and debates are held in the future.This will irritate some pro-Clinton folks. But it’s actually not a crazy thing to push for. It is not as if the Democratic Party’s handling of the process has been perfect. The process in setting the debate schedule was flawed, which the DNC essentially conceded when it added more debates. Even if you don’t think the number of debates matters that much, or think claims of a rigged debate schedule are overblown, surely a more transparent, rational, confidence-inspiring process could be created for establishing their number and timing. Doing that would give Sanders the sort of moral and process victory he appears to want and benefit the party over the long term.
Oklahoma's been attempting to deny women the right to have an abortion for years. I remember posting something to mefi about it back in 2010.
A very stark reminder of what's at stake in this election.
A very stark reminder of what WAS at stake in the 2010 election. (I hope you've seen this before)
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
A very stark reminder of what's at stake in this election.
A very stark reminder of what WAS at stake in the 2010 election. (I hope you've seen this before)
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:59 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not everybody knows that Chris Collins is a literal Buffalo
So he's a Buffalo buffalo? Is he one of those Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, or is he the other kind, the kind that buffalo Buffalo buffalo?
posted by dersins at 1:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
So he's a Buffalo buffalo? Is he one of those Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, or is he the other kind, the kind that buffalo Buffalo buffalo?
posted by dersins at 1:00 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really, the Clintons just need to say, "No comment" to personal attacks.
I don't know that that's true. A bunch of the Republicans tried that and it did not go well. At all. Now the general election electorate isn't the primary electorate but the primary is still the only data point we have and, in the primary, ignoring Trump meant a Trump victory.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know that that's true. A bunch of the Republicans tried that and it did not go well. At all. Now the general election electorate isn't the primary electorate but the primary is still the only data point we have and, in the primary, ignoring Trump meant a Trump victory.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I like the response they gave, which was effectively "no comment" without the primly evasive connotations of a literal "no comment"
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:05 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
All Hillary needs to do is make subtle reference to the fact she doesn't think Trumps hands are small. Why, they're just about the same size as hers, and no one has ever told her her hands were small!
posted by avalonian at 1:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by avalonian at 1:06 PM on May 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
Wait, what is he trying to say here? Can anybody help me parse this out of Trumpese
Like all of his tweets it means "Other guy bad. Me good. Smash smash. Money money."
posted by emjaybee at 1:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Like all of his tweets it means "Other guy bad. Me good. Smash smash. Money money."
posted by emjaybee at 1:09 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
That Sargent piece irritates me. When if ever will we take HRC at her word? She wants to unify and reach out to Sanders supporters and that doesn't preclude a healthy argument at the convention. Or, as the woman actually remarked:
Clinton said the party would unify.
“That doesn’t mean we won’t have some vigorous discussion and debate about issues, about the platform, about all of the process of a convention. I welcome that. I think that’s healthy. I think bringing people into the party giving them a voice at the end is going to help us in the fall. I think as I said I will certainly do my part and more to reach out and bring in Senator Sanders’ supporters and I have every reason to expect he’ll do the same,” she said.
posted by bearwife at 1:10 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton said the party would unify.
“That doesn’t mean we won’t have some vigorous discussion and debate about issues, about the platform, about all of the process of a convention. I welcome that. I think that’s healthy. I think bringing people into the party giving them a voice at the end is going to help us in the fall. I think as I said I will certainly do my part and more to reach out and bring in Senator Sanders’ supporters and I have every reason to expect he’ll do the same,” she said.
posted by bearwife at 1:10 PM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really, the Clintons just need to say, "No comment" to personal attacks.
I don't know that that's true. A bunch of the Republicans tried that and it did not go well. At all. Now the general election electorate isn't the primary electorate but the primary is still the only data point we have and, in the primary, ignoring Trump meant a Trump victory.
I think there's power in her being able to say that the Republicans have been attacking her for 25 years, so this is nothing new. The Republicans could never do that.
posted by zutalors! at 1:12 PM on May 19, 2016
I don't know that that's true. A bunch of the Republicans tried that and it did not go well. At all. Now the general election electorate isn't the primary electorate but the primary is still the only data point we have and, in the primary, ignoring Trump meant a Trump victory.
I think there's power in her being able to say that the Republicans have been attacking her for 25 years, so this is nothing new. The Republicans could never do that.
posted by zutalors! at 1:12 PM on May 19, 2016
Melissa McEwan points out that it's not really fair for Sanders to complain about the same Democratic favoritism that helped keep him in power in Vermont.
posted by emjaybee at 1:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 1:17 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
And a Sanders campaign hoping to win on Superdelegates is just plain obscene
And the argument is self-contradictory. Take Shaun King going on about "this won't be settled before the convention." This leaves out the problem that Hillary will end the primary season with a majority of pledged delegates, so she'll only need a minority of super-delegates to clinch, and Sanders will need something like a supermajority to pull it off.
But yet "it won't be settled." No, it'll be settled. It's essentially settled now in the way Trump's is -- she doesn't have the majority, but she will when we reach California. Just like Trump.
Bernie needs to back the hell off. Hillary's people need to give him a safe place to land. Otherwise, Sanders may get absolutely routed on June 7 ,followed by a bunch of convention insanity. And that's a bad way to end this.
posted by dw at 1:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the argument is self-contradictory. Take Shaun King going on about "this won't be settled before the convention." This leaves out the problem that Hillary will end the primary season with a majority of pledged delegates, so she'll only need a minority of super-delegates to clinch, and Sanders will need something like a supermajority to pull it off.
But yet "it won't be settled." No, it'll be settled. It's essentially settled now in the way Trump's is -- she doesn't have the majority, but she will when we reach California. Just like Trump.
Bernie needs to back the hell off. Hillary's people need to give him a safe place to land. Otherwise, Sanders may get absolutely routed on June 7 ,followed by a bunch of convention insanity. And that's a bad way to end this.
posted by dw at 1:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Oh sorry, that's Shakesville poster Aphra Behn, not McEwan that wrote that piece)
posted by emjaybee at 1:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 1:19 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, at over 2500 comments this thread is becoming a pain to load, and the latency in the edit window is painful. I CAN HAZ NEW THREADZ?
posted by dw at 1:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dw at 1:20 PM on May 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
But it’s actually not a crazy thing to push for. It is not as if the Democratic Party’s handling of the process has been perfect. The process in setting the debate schedule was flawed
Heck yes. If that ends up being the kind of concession Sanders demands, I think Clinton 100% can and should promise to take that issue up at the convention and do whatever is in her power to address this. Push to standardize a process for setting debate schedules and assigning rules committee seats and so on, going forward. She has nothing much to lose by making that kind of concession, as opposed to big changes to her already-established policy positions.
But would this really satisfy disaffected Sanders voters? Sanders fans in this thread -- would this make you feel the system is less rigged, going forward? Or would it be seen as too little too late?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Heck yes. If that ends up being the kind of concession Sanders demands, I think Clinton 100% can and should promise to take that issue up at the convention and do whatever is in her power to address this. Push to standardize a process for setting debate schedules and assigning rules committee seats and so on, going forward. She has nothing much to lose by making that kind of concession, as opposed to big changes to her already-established policy positions.
But would this really satisfy disaffected Sanders voters? Sanders fans in this thread -- would this make you feel the system is less rigged, going forward? Or would it be seen as too little too late?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:24 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I CAN HAZ NEW THREADZ?
Yes, yes! Would some kind soul put one up?
posted by bearwife at 1:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, yes! Would some kind soul put one up?
posted by bearwife at 1:31 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I think the only difference between me and other DMs is that I'm more honest and my NPC women are more beautiful." -- from Dungeons & Donalds on Twitter.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:32 PM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I CAN HAZ NEW THREADZ?
Speaking to mods now. Give me 30 minutes.
posted by Wordshore at 1:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking to mods now. Give me 30 minutes.
posted by Wordshore at 1:35 PM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like Clinton best when she's speaking truth to power. I want more "women's rights are human rights" kind of stuff. "Glass ceiling" talk is too passive for my taste -- women aren't prevented from achieving economic and political power because of architectural features, they are actively pushed out of power by a system composed of sexist and misogynistic people and those who stand idly by. If she came out and was like "You know what, Bernie's right, there are some things we need to burn down, starting with the patriarchy" and gave an epic speech on institutional misogyny a la Obama's 2008 speech on race, it would be SO AWESOME.
I'm sick of starting from the assumption that everything is neutral until proven otherwise. When you're in a white supremacist patriarchy, everything is sexist and racist until proven otherwise. The latter statement is not "politically correct" but is "factually correct" and could be how Clinton crafts her own version of "telling it like it is."
posted by melissasaurus at 1:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm sick of starting from the assumption that everything is neutral until proven otherwise. When you're in a white supremacist patriarchy, everything is sexist and racist until proven otherwise. The latter statement is not "politically correct" but is "factually correct" and could be how Clinton crafts her own version of "telling it like it is."
posted by melissasaurus at 1:38 PM on May 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
Here you go - a new 2016 US election thread.
posted by Wordshore at 1:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 1:41 PM on May 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
House Dems Outraged After GOPers Switch Votes To Defeat LGBT Measure
This is why elections matter.
posted by zachlipton at 1:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is why elections matter.
posted by zachlipton at 1:42 PM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
...it's not really fair for Sanders to complain about the same Democratic favoritism that helped keep him in power in Vermont
Both sides in the 2008 struggle had profound personal and professional connections to and investment in the Democratic party. That put real limits on how far the acrimony would go.
These things contradict each other.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Both sides in the 2008 struggle had profound personal and professional connections to and investment in the Democratic party. That put real limits on how far the acrimony would go.
These things contradict each other.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, either he has a lot of personal and professional connections to the Democratic party, which helped keep him in power in Vermont, or he doesn't and they didn't.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:48 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I now realize I wasn't clear about why I was quoting the second part: its author was using that as evidence that Sanders is particularly likely to go scorched-earth at the convention even though the 2008 primary was similarly heated and intense.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:51 PM on May 19, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 8:51 PM on May 19, 2016
Ah-- I understand the connection you were making now. But aren't those quotes from two different articles on two different sites written by two different people?
posted by dersins at 9:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 9:28 PM on May 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
en forme de poire: It also might be helpful to realize that the state party apparatus and the DNC aren't necessarily the same.
Sanders has a TON of clout on a state level, and it sounds like he has since first running as a wild card third-party candidate in 1980. For 35+ years, the Vermont Democratic party has felt like it would be preferable to have a self-described socialist who caucuses with the Democrats than to risk throwing the seat to a Republican. And, after a certain number of terms in office, a senator from a small state is going to have a lot of local political clout, regardless. Sanders is a huge fish in a small pond in Vermont.
Conversely, on the national level, he's just one of 100 senators, from a small state that hasn't been an electoral battleground in recent memory. They're basically like, "Bernie who?" On top of which he's not a member of the Democratic party and has made no inroads to be a "team player", as people were describing it upthread. So nationally, he's a small and unreliable fish in a big pond full of dedicated party line-toe-ers.
posted by Sara C. at 9:58 AM on May 20, 2016
Sanders has a TON of clout on a state level, and it sounds like he has since first running as a wild card third-party candidate in 1980. For 35+ years, the Vermont Democratic party has felt like it would be preferable to have a self-described socialist who caucuses with the Democrats than to risk throwing the seat to a Republican. And, after a certain number of terms in office, a senator from a small state is going to have a lot of local political clout, regardless. Sanders is a huge fish in a small pond in Vermont.
Conversely, on the national level, he's just one of 100 senators, from a small state that hasn't been an electoral battleground in recent memory. They're basically like, "Bernie who?" On top of which he's not a member of the Democratic party and has made no inroads to be a "team player", as people were describing it upthread. So nationally, he's a small and unreliable fish in a big pond full of dedicated party line-toe-ers.
posted by Sara C. at 9:58 AM on May 20, 2016
dersins, I of course understand that. I'm saying that both criticisms of Sanders can't really be simultaneously true.
Sara C, I also understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also think it's kind of beside the point. Influence in the state party certainly isn't the same as influence at a national level, but if Sanders were to completely torch his goodwill with Democrats entirely, he would still be putting his relationship with VT Dem leadership in jeopardy and would alienate a lot of his voter base (the majority of whom in VT are registered Dems). Any future political goals he may have are going to depend on support from Democrats. That's why I think it's alarmist to talk about how there's nothing holding him back from going scorched-earth at the convention — just because he is less embedded in the party than Clinton was in '08 doesn't mean he has nothing to lose.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:25 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sara C, I also understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also think it's kind of beside the point. Influence in the state party certainly isn't the same as influence at a national level, but if Sanders were to completely torch his goodwill with Democrats entirely, he would still be putting his relationship with VT Dem leadership in jeopardy and would alienate a lot of his voter base (the majority of whom in VT are registered Dems). Any future political goals he may have are going to depend on support from Democrats. That's why I think it's alarmist to talk about how there's nothing holding him back from going scorched-earth at the convention — just because he is less embedded in the party than Clinton was in '08 doesn't mean he has nothing to lose.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:25 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting: Sanders Running Out of Cash as Campaign Vastly Outspends Clinton
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:42 PM on May 21, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:42 PM on May 21, 2016
Good lord these election threads need some pagination. I can't get the most recent one to load at all.
posted by malocchio at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by malocchio at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older Et si? | Oh, no. Mormons! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:02 AM on May 9, 2016 [5 favorites]