The last primary
June 13, 2016 1:18 PM   Subscribe

 
Then, Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.

DEMOCRATGANEBOWL

GET HYPE
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [41 favorites]


Thank you, roomthreeseventeen!

So when Clinton says 9/12, this is the atmosphere I feel like she's invoking (SLYT).
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


I completely get where she's coming from, but I'm equally sure that for people who were on the receiving end, when thinking of a "9/12 mentality" it's tough (at best) to separate the politicians calling for peace and tolerance from the vocally racist assholes who created a need for such calls.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Then, Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.

"This is your last chance to concede, Hillary. I'm willing to offer you a cabinet position- OK vice president, but that's my final offer."
posted by happyroach at 1:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


Thanks r317! I thought Clinton's statement hit just the right tone. 9/12 was very different from several weeks and indeed, a decade later.
posted by bardophile at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


3 days before D.C. primary, Sanders calls for statehood

"From one quixotic campaign to another: Help a brother out!"
#formerdcresident
posted by psoas at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think it's not so much a failure of sentiment, but a failure of phrasing. For one thing, 9/11 sucked, so thinking "things should be like they were on 9/12" feels bad because everyone felt bad that day. Yes, there was a general sense of coming together, but there was also a general sense of fear and a lack of being able to predict in even the most basic way what life would be like going forward. Secondly, "post-nine-eleven" as a phrase has been a thing for the last 14 years, and it has a specific meaning that bears no relation to what Clinton means with the phrase. Thirdly, yeah, the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is a total rorschach test of where you were and what was going on around you at the time. I remember a spirit of coming together, but I also remember overhearing two women on a subway platform talking about how all Muslims should be exterminated. It's not exactly the best part of America's psyche to evoke.

On the other hand, I don't think this is a huge gaffe on Clinton's part, just a phrase that fell flat. I get what she means but I don't think she expressed it well.
posted by Sara C. at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's naked electioneering at this point, but D.C. statehood isn't wrong.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [31 favorites]


I sort of forgot that Bernie was still hanging around. Does he really think that he'll do well in DC?
posted by octothorpe at 1:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Y'know, I get that people think putting Sanders on the ticket as VP would bring the factions together. Thing is, I kinda feel like we'd still hear the all same people screaming about how he's a sellout. A minority of his supporters, sure, but a vocal one.

And it's also unfair to ask Clinton to take on someone who has frankly been shitty to her lately as her VP. I keep wondering if anyone would ask the same if it was a man leading the race and not her. But then, as has been said, we probably wouldn't even be at this point in the race regardless.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


Shorter Trump: Gay people are horrible monsters who should be denied marriage and I strongly support this guy over here who wants them executed! Vote for me gay people because I hate Muslims!
posted by sotonohito at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.

Wait, hasn't he done so before? I thought he had spoken out in favor of it when Clinton called for DC statehood last month.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


If we're going to be nominating people to the VP for the sake of symbolic value then I hope after the election is won the VP then steps down and accepts a more useful cabinet position. And then Biden becomes VP.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Part of me wants to get in line at the last possible second to see if I can be the last voter in this ridiculous primary season. The other part of me wants to make dinner at a reasonable time and that part will probably win.

Honestly, I'm turning out more for city council elections than anything else.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


It's interesting to me how differently MeFi took Clinton's "radical islam" statement than well... My entire social media feed. Like, 180 degrees opposite even. I'm not talking about bernie bros here either, just people i know in general going "this is why i don't trust her".

It's really hard sometimes to not see this as a place where just about everything she says or does is positive. Because i have... complicated mixed feelings about accepting this weekends fucked up attack as Islamic Radicalism.

Did she elaborate on her point? Yea, but that headline is all anyone is going to remember in a week.
posted by emptythought at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


I feel sorry for DC because Sanders is going to lose by heavy double digits, and his late-game endorsement of DC statehood is going to make it look like the primary was a failed referendum on what is actually a very good proposal.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016


And then Biden becomes VP.

A++ would vote for again.

Seriously, though, Biden is great, and I hope he stays in public service, if he wants to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.
posted by easily confused at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wouldn't it make more sense to have a VP who's young enough to run for president in eight years? Sanders will be over eighty by then.
posted by octothorpe at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


his late-game endorsement of DC statehood is going to make it look like the primary was a failed referendum

As zarq posted, Clinton also supports statehood.

I think most Democrats do. Its the Republicans who will block it forever because it would be a solidly blue state.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


you know, I wonder what Clinton's calculus is regarding how to respond to this. She's more hawkish than I wish, but I wonder if she feels because of gender reasons and because Trump is powered by xenophobia like she needs to project how the U.S. was post 9/11 before everything went to shit: powerful and pissed off. I'm not saying she's gonna bomb Syria yay; I'm saying she needs to act like she would if she had to (and I don't want her to bomb anybody, to be clear)

She could spend some time getting angry at gun laws, but that wouldn't play like the 9/12 shorthand, would it.

Also I want to call Bernie Sanders a jerk to his face for his response to this. Jerk. Big jerky Sanders.
posted by angrycat at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I get that people think putting Sanders on the ticket as VP would bring the factions together.

Perhaps it would. Still, I think that Sanders should go back to the Senate, where his heightened presence would do a lot more to promote his agenda*. Same reason why Warren should stay put, too, rather than get the V.P. nod. Both would be far more effective actually legislating.

*Promote, probably not implement, because... yeah.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


[Try not to just straight-up continue the fights from the last thread and while I know emotions are high today, don't skip right to calling people racist. Thanks.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


I was just listening to Hamilton again and suddenly got a whole new take on "Here comes the general ..."
posted by kristi at 1:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yay new thread! Because I found it healing I am going to double myself and repeat here the email I got today (about an hour and a half ago) from the HRC campaign, signed by Hillary.

On Sunday, Americans woke up to a nightmare: Another act of terrorism in a place no one expected it, a man with a gun in his hands and hate in his heart, apparently consumed by rage against LGBT Americans -- and, by extension, against the openness and diversity that define our way of life.

No matter how many times we endure attacks like this, the horror never fades. The murder of innocent people always breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security, and makes us furious.

So many of us are praying for everyone who was killed, for the wounded and those still missing, and for all the loved ones grieving today. As a mother, I can’t imagine what those families are going through.

But we owe their memories and their families more than prayer. We must also take decisive action to strengthen our international alliances and combat acts of terror, to keep weapons of war off our streets, and to affirm the rights of LGBT Americans -- and all Americans -- to feel welcome and safe in our country.

Here’s what we absolutely cannot do: We cannot demonize Muslim people.

Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror. It’s no coincidence that hate crimes against American Muslims and mosques tripled after Paris and San Bernardino. Islamophobia goes against everything we stand for as a nation founded on freedom of religion, and it plays right into the terrorists’ hands.

We’re a big-hearted, fair-minded country. We teach our children that this is one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all -- not just for people who look a certain way, or love a certain way, or worship a certain way.

I want to say this to all the LGBT people grieving today in Florida and across our country: You have millions of allies who will always have your back. I am one of them. From Stonewall to Laramie and now Orlando, we’ve seen too many examples of how the struggle to live freely, openly, and without fear has been marked by violence. We have to stand together. Be proud together. There is no better rebuke to the terrorists and all those who hate.

This fundamentally American idea -- that we’re stronger together -- is why I’m so confident that we can overcome the threats we face, solve our challenges at home, and build a future where no one’s left out or left behind. We can do it, if we do it together.

Thank you for standing together in love, kindness, and the best of what it means to be American.

posted by bearwife at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [56 favorites]


Looking online, it looks like Sanders was one of six Senators who cosigned a DC statehood bill last June. He's probably mentioned it between now and then, but searching is mostly turning up references to his current statement.
posted by zarq at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016


Bulgaroktonos: "Part of me wants to get in line at the last possible second to see if I can be the last voter in this ridiculous primary season. The other part of me wants to make dinner at a reasonable time and that part will probably win."

The anti-Dixville Notch!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I feel like a lot of the DC voters I know, including me, were initially planning to vote for Bernie and now are feeling really excited to vote for Hillary. I just feel so disappointed by him; I thought he was something different and special and it turns out he's just another white man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone. The fact that I had time to see him unravel is the only good thing about the travesty that is DC's say in federal politics. We are more directly affected by Congress than the rest of the country and have literally zero say. It's maddening. Like Bulgaroktonos*, I'm mostly going for the council races although there's an extent to which I am also using my vote to express my support for Clinton and distaste for the way Sanders has conducted himself as the campaign neared the end.

*Who is goddamn well going to have dinner on the table at a reasonable hour, the hell with your stunty political shenanigans, thank you my darling!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [53 favorites]


Did she elaborate on her point? Yea, but that headline is all anyone is going to remember in a week.

Is anyone even going to remember that headline in a week? People picking apart a Politico headline about Clinton's response to Trump's response to a mass shooting right now are issuing hot takes. That's a fun thing to do, but it bears no resemblance to what even those very people who are issuing those hot takes will think about anything even 24 hours from now.

I can see my Bernie supporter friends processing and making their peace and figuring things out almost in real time on Facebook. It's really hard to say what things will look like a week from now.
posted by Sara C. at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [19 favorites]


If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.

I wouldn't. I don't see a lot of upside in being Hillary Clinton's VP. I'd much rather see Warren right where she is, doing what she does.

As for the VP slot, I don't know. Maybe it should become a consolation prize for people who come really close to being the next James Bond, but then aren't. Like Tom Hiddleston would make a pretty good Vice President. Did you see him in The Night Manager?
posted by Naberius at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [14 favorites]


Wouldn't it make more sense to have a VP who's young enough to run for president in eight years? Sanders will be over eighty by then.

Sanders For Futurama Nixon 20
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


(seems obvious to me that "9/12" is shorthand for "the immediate aftermath of 9/11" - the days of "we are all new yorkers" and silent vigils on the streets of tehran.)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.

(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


LOL.

Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has the Trump campaign jumped on the Orlando bandwagon to the extent of making slogan-beating swag for hypothetical LGBT Trump supporters, taco-bowl fashion, yet? I can totally see them coming up with a "I'm Gay For Trump (but not in that way!)" T-shirt/bumper sticker.
posted by acb at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016


If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP

But that means if they win, it gives the GOP at least a short period with a new GOP senator (as the governor of MA is a Republican, and can put in an interim senator of his choosing), without a true assurance that a Dem will eventually win the special election to fill Warren's seat.

What would be BETTER would be to keep Warren in the Senate, and push to try to win the Senate back, vaulting Warren into a leadership role and possibly a chairmanship of an important committee (chairmanship being an elected position, rather than strictly based on seniority).

Another option would be to make her an important Cabinet member too, but getting the senate back really should be paramount.
posted by tittergrrl at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [20 favorites]


My standards for the media are so rock bottom at this point that I don't even know what their response to that is going to be? I feel like they should enter full on attack mode, because surely this is the final and most obvious sign that Trump will curtail freedom of the press and totally fuck them over. On the other hand, those sweet sweet pageviews and ratings.
posted by yasaman at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


taco-bowl fashion

I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.

How long before he announces TrumpNews™?

"It'll be all the best news about me, and everything else Trump. Fabulous, top-quality news, printed on luxuriously thick paper. Better than all those biased losers who think they're doing real journalism. TrumpNews™. You're gonna love it." *shudder*
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


WaPo has been in full-on attack mode for months already, so I'm waiting with bated breath for their response. Other papers....we'll see.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016


Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.

I guess they've just given him one too many Pinocchios.

It takes chutzpah of an uncommon order to run for the honor of swearing to protect and defend the Constitution, while taking steps to violate the first amendment to the document.
posted by bearwife at 1:59 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump and the taco bowl, on Cinco de Mayo.
posted by current resident at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.
(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13 [3 favorites +] [!]

LOL.
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13 [+] [!]


Wait, isn't this the same guy who's not going to fundraise because he gets so much free media you won't believe it, I guarantee you we're going to get so much free media and exposure that we won't need to buy ads?

If he kicks the free media out of his campaign, how is he going to crazyeddieheadexplodes.gif
posted by Existential Dread at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


You know what would be cool, is if we constitutionally amended it so that the VP has more senatorial roles beyond tie-breaking, so it becomes a hybrid-executive/legislative job that's more meaningful than "ceremonial stand-in/backup president."
posted by Apocryphon at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


acb: Has the Trump campaign jumped on the Orlando bandwagon to the extent of making slogan-beating swag for hypothetical LGBT Trump supporters, taco-bowl fashion, yet?

murphy slaw: I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.

Trump Defends Hispanic-Pandering Taco Bowl Tweet: ‘People Loved It!’

His tweet:
Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI
posted by filthy light thief at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was all about Bernie, but with this thing having been pretty much decided, I'm sorta nervously hoping he throws in behind Clinton to start the push against Trump pretty soon. Even a small possibility that man could become President needs to be treated like an open container of Ebola.
posted by Mooski at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


IF YOU LIVE IN DC, THIS PRIMARY STILL MATTERS. PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW.

The presidential race has effectively been decided, but DC has a few council positions open, including one at-large seat. Given that Democratic nominees virtually always end up winning the general election in DC, the Democratic Primary is the election that really matters.

Unfortunately, this quirk ends up being exploited in extremely-low-turnout elections, and the Council ends up full of politicians who virtually nobody voted for, because it's really easy to win a low-turnout primary.

Worse still, DC's past few off-cycle elections have suffered from one of the most clear-cut cases of vote-splitting I've ever seen in in modern politics. For whatever reason, the primaries tend to boil down to two similar "Liberal" candidates, and one "Conservative" candidate. In these elections, the "Liberal" votes get split between the two candidates, and the "Conservative" candidate wins with ~30% of the overall vote.

Vincent Orange, in particular, has managed to squeeze out a rather prolific political career by "winning" one low-turnout election after another, without ever managing anything even close to a majority of votes. Tomorrow is DC's chance to finally fire him from the Council, and for the first time in ages, he only has one highly-credible opponent, Robert White.

[Yes. This is all kinds of fucked-up, and I'm not at all happy about it. The primary election should not be a proxy for the general election, and DC seriously needs to rectify this problem, given that the Other Major Party is going to be unfathomably toxic to DC's electorate for the foreseeable future. If you live in DC, you should register as a Democrat, simply because it's the only practical way to have a voice in local politics.]
posted by schmod at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [24 favorites]


The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring. Democrats hold super-majorities in both houses of the MA legislature; they could easily pass a law stating that Gov. Baker has to nominate a Democrat (a la Wyoming's law), or that they need to approve nominees, or whatever. It's not a choice of Warren or some New England equivalent of Tom Coburn.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016


Time to update Donald Trump's Media Enemies List
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


LOL.

Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.

Artw

I think this is one of the fundamental errors people make about Trump, and in part explains why people have been so wrong about him. The opposite in fact is true:

The media needs Trump. Trump doesn't need any particular element of the media.

Media entities in today's fractured media landscape are desperate for eyeballs and clicks. Trump is guaranteed attention generator. If he says or Tweets or does something outrageous, which he reliably will, a million places will carry it because it draws attention. If you don't, you lose, because no one place matters enough to hold out.

Trump will do just fine without WaPo because everyone else will slavishly follow him. Can WaPo do without Trump?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:04 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.

I would point out that the dress rehearsal we had for Trump in Canada, Rob Ford, refused to speak to Toronto's largest (and least right wing) daily newspaper, the Toronto Star, for his entire time in office. Because hissy fits.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:05 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


they're not, like, forbidden to write about him now or anything
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [33 favorites]


Speaking of a campaign based on direct violation of citizens' first amendment rights, Trump has again called for surveillance of U.S. mosques.

Dear me, it is only Monday. Imagine how many more Trumpisms Rs will be racing to disavow by this weekend, while still telling us they have to support him because somehow HRC would be worse.
posted by bearwife at 2:07 PM on June 13, 2016


I voted in the DC primary about a week ago. It was an entirely pleasant experience; just me and a dozen poll workers. What could be better than voting for a presidential pick that has already lost, voting against a corrupt council member (who I bet will keep his seat), and writing in Bill Nye and the long-dead Buckminster Fuller for the unopposed shadow-people races?

I did it for the sticker.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 2:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


What would be BETTER would be to keep Warren in the Senate...

On the other hand, the entire ticket could be Clinton and her Anger Translator, so there's that.

OMG that would be amazing.
posted by fatbird at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


I need a script or app that replaces anything after the phrase "Trump says" with pictures of hot dudes or puppies or hot dudes holding puppies. Can one of you app writing types get on that please.
posted by emjaybee at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring. Democrats hold super-majorities in both houses of the MA legislature; they could easily pass a law stating that Gov. Baker has to nominate a Democrat (a la Wyoming's law), or that they need to approve nominees, or whatever. It's not a choice of Warren or some New England equivalent of Tom Coburn.

...and they haven't, yet. Are they planning to pass that law? Do they want to pass that law?

As long as the law is the law, picking Warren for VP means losing a Democratic senator (Harry Reid's suggestions that there are loopholes in the existing law nonwithstanding); that's not a red herring by any stretch of the term.

She would be a fantastic pick otherwise, though, and if the state law does change then that calculus changes too.
posted by cjelli at 2:13 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.

Given the specific history of Warren's Senate seat, I wouldn't take that for granted.

Scott Brown famously usurped Ted Kennedy's seat in 2010, which was unfathomable at the time. He damn near kept it in 2012 when Warren ran against him.

Let's not replace one of the strongest voices in the Senate with another R. We need Senator Warren right where she is.
posted by schmod at 2:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [27 favorites]


Why do so many people fail to get that, except in very rare circumstances, VP is a no- to low-power job? Warren would be utterly wasted as VP unless you're counting on something happening to Clinton. She has done so much good, let's not promote her to a place of near-uselessness because we all have a crush on her. Let's not kill her with our love, people.
posted by emjaybee at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [73 favorites]


Chrysostom:The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring. Democrats hold super-majorities in both houses of the MA legislature; they could easily pass a law stating that Gov. Baker has to nominate a Democrat (a la Wyoming's law), or that they need to approve nominees, or whatever. It's not a choice of Warren or some New England equivalent of Tom Coburn.

No, that's true, but MA legislative leaders apparently are very hesitant to do that again, because it would be the third time in twelve years that would have done that exact same thing.

Regardless, Warren would probably have a lot more influence in the Senate or Cabinet than as a VP, IMO. Not that I would MIND her being VP either... it'd be awesome. I just think she'd work better as a Senator for the time being. The Dems have a really good shot at retaking the Senate, and they shouldn't jeopardize that.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let's not replace one of the strongest voices in the Senate with another R. We need Elizabeth Warren right where she is.

I wouldn't want her on the ticket even if we could guarantee she were replaced by another strong progressive. She's more than just a reliable D vote -- she's specifically very good on the Wall Street regulatory issues that Hillary's questionable on. That's going to be important if Hillary does win.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


[People are finishing up the 9/12 conversation in the last election thread, that seems to be the consensus decision.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why do so many people fail to get that, except in very rare circumstances, VP is a no- to low-power job? Warren would be utterly wasted as VP unless you're counting on something happening to Clinton.

Maybe because a lot of people here seem to care more about delivering epic mic drops against Donald Trump than, say, financial reform.
posted by mcmile at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


We are more directly affected by Congress than the rest of the country and have literally zero say. It's maddening.

I've raged about this in basically every politics thread and here I am, doing it again. To the people who live in actual states: please, please, please remember that there are nearly 700,000 Americans in the nation's capital who do not have voting senators and representatives* to elect in and out, to write to when we have problems, to lobby when we need action, to advocate for us when we need our voices heard. We have less than nothing: our rights are used as bargaining chips by the people you vote for. Remember that.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


The argument for Warren as VP would be if it helps Clinton get elected. As much as I want the Dems to take the Senate, its far far more important to deny Trump the Presidency. The calculus of who, if anyone, would help Clinton as a VP pick is complicated and full of things no one can really know at this point, but that would be the reason to choose her.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


this is 2016 it's not about meaningful reform it's about sick burns, faves and retweets brah
posted by entropicamericana at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]




AND DANK MEMES DON'T FORGET DANK MEMES
posted by dersins at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


@goldietaylor: Reminder: @washingtonpost pretty much forced him to mail that million dollar check to a vets charity.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


She's more hawkish than I wish, but I wonder if she feels because of gender reasons and because Trump is powered by xenophobia like she needs to project how the U.S. was post 9/11 before everything went to shit: powerful and pissed off.

She absolutely feels like she needs to project a certain hawkishness, especially to win over right-center defectors fleeing Trump. She's also by pretty nearly every indication actually fairly hawkish.
posted by atoxyl at 2:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


The argument for Warren as VP would be if it helps Clinton get elected.

Which argument seems to boil down to "It would be a nice sop to progressive voters." See also accusations about the Left's tendency to prefer symbolic acts to practical results.
posted by happyroach at 2:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]


Trump said he raised $6 million for veterans. Now his campaign says it was less. (WaPo, May 21)
Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients.
...
In recent weeks, Trump and his campaign repeatedly declined to give new details about how much they have given away.

“Why should I give you records?” Trump said in an interview with The Post this month. “I don’t have to give you records.”

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Trump’s refusal to divulge how much of the money he had distributed raised questions about whether the candidate intended the fundraiser primarily as a public-relations effort for himself.

“That’s just shady. Right? No matter how you cut it, that’s just shady,” Rieckhoff said. “If he was going to make it right, a couple of weeks before Memorial Day would be a good time to do it. It behooves him, not just politically but ethically, to come forward and account for this money.”
...
In the past few days, The Post has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump’s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump.

Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds?

“The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said.

To whom did Trump give, and in what amounts?

“He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.
Good job, Washington Post. This isn't calling bullshit on his ramblings and rants, it's making him pay out like he said he would.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


Don't forget the strategic importance of making sure the Democrats win Massachusetts.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie is also hawkish. He voted for the Libyan no fly zone, Afghanistan, NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, etc. He voted against war with Iraq, but for everything else.
posted by humanfont at 2:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.

In response, Bezos has cancelled Trump's Amazon Prime account.

This may also be what prompted his ire. How dare they report his crooked business practices that he's been keeping everyone quiet on for 40 years...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


But that wasn't the end -- Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group (WaPo, May 24)
The candidate refused to provide details. On Monday, a Post reporter used Twitter — Trump’s preferred social-media platform — to search publicly for any veterans groups that had received Trump’s money.

By Monday afternoon, The Post had found none. But it seems to have caught the candidate’s attention.

Later Monday evening, Trump called the home of James K. Kallstrom, a former FBI official who is chairman of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The charity aids families of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers.

Trump told Kallstrom that he would give the entire $1 million to the group, according to Kallstrom’s wife. Sue Kallstrom said she was not sure whether the money had been transferred yet.
Recipient of Trump’s $1 million donation: ‘It’s arrived, and it’s in the bank’ (WaPo, May 25)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


oneswellfoop: This may also be what prompted his ire. How dare they report his crooked business practices that he's been keeping everyone quiet on for 40 years...

I like to think that by barring WaPo from Trump's publicity tent, The Post can spend more time digging up dirt on him.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Maybe he'll block them on Twitter.
posted by Artw at 2:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, I wasn't going to say THAT, but I was thinking it. I'm thinking a lot of things, like what I'd like to buy from Amazon (using MeFi's affiliate code) to show support.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016


Speaking of the Senate, Rubio may be preparing to use the Orlando attacks as an excuse to jump back in the Senate race he promised not to jump back into.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I still think he's hiding his biggest shame, that he's an over leveraged, broke-ass fool. That's what drives him and makes him make a presidential campaign secondary to fear of losing a lawsuit where he may have to pay back people he ripped off and another bottom feeding money grab (Trump University). I worked across the river from Chicago Trump Tower, a hotel and high end condo complex that was completed in 2008. I watched when the sun hit a certain way in the evenings in 2010-2012 that allowed you to see the light streaming thru empty floors. Was there a worse year to to market real estate? He must have lost a bundle, it cost $850 M.

Yeah, good going Washington Post, he would have held out on that money for a looonngg time. That's why he hates them. As they say, follow the money.
posted by readery at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


Rubio can go fuck himself, the homophobic shitbag.
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on June 13, 2016 [25 favorites]


Politifact:
Trump said there is "no system to vet" refugees from the Middle East.

While there are concerns about information gaps, a system does exist and has existed since 1980. It involves multiple federal intelligence and security agencies as well as the United Nations. Refugee vetting typically takes one to two years and includes numerous rounds of security checks.

We rate Trump’s claim False.
In case anyone was wondering exactly how wrong Trump's statements today were.
posted by cjelli at 2:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


In case anyone was wondering exactly how wrong Trump's statements today were.

My money's pretty much always on "utterly."
posted by dersins at 2:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]


From the Washington Post article:
Trump also steered the company toward deals with the rest of the Trump-brand empire. Between 2006 and 2009, the company bought $1.7 million of Trump-brand merchandise, including $1.2 million of Trump Ice bottled water, the analysis shows.
This explains a lot. The vanity projects weren't just ego boosts, but ways to siphon cash out of his companies and into his pockets. It's the classic real estate developer scam of charging ridiculously high management fees and ensuring your cronies control the condo board so they won't be challenged, except with water and steaks and magazines. It couldn't have made him that much money, but every dollar of other people's money that he could convert to his was a victory.
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


An inconsistent triad: Trump, Sanders, Clinton, and the radical mismatch in the theater of politics
When one looks at the three personages that have been dominating this election, one is struck by a strange disconnect not only in their views, but also in the way they understand the process they participate in. This disconnect is not an accidental feature of the situation. From a sufficient amount of distance, and with a heavy dose of hyperbole, we might say that Clinton, Sanders and Trump represent the whole menu of Europe's recent political history: liberal democracy, communism, and fascism; we have the full works. Of course, Sanders is no communist. And he is much closer in outlook to Clinton than to Trump. While Trump views the election simply as a popularity contest, and tries to get elected by force of personality and attitude, Sanders and Clinton both sees it in terms of ideas; and their ideas are not all that different either. But there are interesting contrasts elsewhere: Sanders is not an ordinary Democrat. The way he presents his program reflects not only a difference in personal style, but also a difference in his understanding of the political process.
Am I back in an HoI playthrough?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


David Remnick:
In the rhetoric of Donald Trump, mendacity and cynicism compete for equal time. It is hard to say which prevailed today as the Republican Party standard-bearer, a man who pretends to the most powerful political office in the land, tweeted this at his followers: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism.”
...
It feels indecent on such a day to engage these comments of Trump’s at all. But their velocity, vapidity, and sheer ugliness reflect his character, his emptiness, and, most of all, the shape of the election campaign to come. Since Trump has ascended, it’s been clear that his demagogic instincts could be tested precisely by the sort of tragedy suffered in Orlando. And, when faced with the path of modesty and the path of dark opportunism, he has chosen the latter. That’s what he is about. It’s who he is.
...
The horror in Orlando was unspeakable. And we will learn much more about it in the days ahead. But today the event was made that much worse by a Presidential candidate who seeks to lead the country in complicated times and in its darker moments with self-aggrandizing tweets and hollow words.
posted by cjelli at 2:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


Is there really any doubt that Trump sees his Great Wall as nothing more than a way to put money in his pocket, and if he can't get Mexico to pay for it, well, American Government money is as good as any. That, and having a Personal Monument to feed hisravenous ego...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:54 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


And then Biden becomes VP.


Well, it'll save having to send the sheriffs around to Observatory Circle to haul out his blacklight posters, waterbed, sensory deprivation tank, fiberglass big hand chair, and hi-fi system.


And tow his bitchin' Camaro out of the driveway.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]


Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.
posted by jabes at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


This is ALL a way to put money in his pocket. The R presumptive nominee is a flimflam man, plain and simple. This election campaign is his way to get other people to pay for the biggest name branding effort we've ever seen. Lying, making promises he has no intention of delivering on, and callously inciting hatred are all tried and true techniques of his. He is certain to have a lasting, lucrative name for years and years after 2016 is over. It is likely true that you can only fool some of the people all the time, but what a nice income that will guarantee.

I doubt very much that Trump thinks he'll win the presidency. It is the free ride he is enjoying.
posted by bearwife at 2:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Vincent Orange, in particular, has managed to squeeze out a rather prolific political career by "winning" one low-turnout election after another. . . and for the first time in ages, he only has one highly-credible opponent, Robert White.

Wait, so you're saying White may be the new Orange? Seriously, every headline writer in DC begs you to make this happen.
posted by The Bellman at 3:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Bernie is also hawkish. He voted for the Libyan no fly zone, Afghanistan, NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, etc. He voted against war with Iraq, but for everything else.

I'm not here to argue about Sanders versus Clinton - Bernie ain't the candidate anyway! I'm just saying at some point you are who you pretend to be.
posted by atoxyl at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The question on my mind is "When will Deez Nuts make another appearance during this campaign cycle?" Unsatisfied by the performance of the presumptive nominees of the major party, America wants to see Deez Nuts again! Deez Nuts won't flip-flop, or pander. Deez Nuts can be counted on!
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016


I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak? Does she nod her head in honest agreement, or is it one of those "yeah, that Dad, what a character, he's all talk," things? How much is family loyalty and how much is being a true believer?

Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.

I find the possibly cynical angle more disappointing and disgusting, personally, because it fits what's happening with the majority of the Republican party. This racist, misogynistic, unprofessional loudmouth is our party standard bearer, but we'll line up like sheep behind him and shake our heads sadly and say that we'll vote for him without - God forbid - endorsing him, because that will clear our consciences while still allowing us to pocket donations and endorsements!

I never would have thought I'd admire Mitt Romney, of all people, but I have to give him some credit for standing his ground. The people out there who should fucking know better who are giving Trump a pass out of blind loyalty make me sick.
posted by Salieri at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


I doubt very much that Trump thinks he'll win the presidency. It is the free ride he is enjoying.

I doubt that he did, starting out. But then he starting winning and I'm certain he wants it now.
posted by atoxyl at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


jabes: Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.
Candidate Trump erases the old standards. Nothing that Franken said decades ago would be remotely as incendiary as the insults Trump spews as a matter of campaign strategy. And Trump’s presence demands new rhetorical weaponry. As Trump himself might say, Franken’s “classy” and “elegant” wit is just what the ticket needs to avoid the kind of brawl that drags everyone down to Trump’s level. Clinton will want to stay above the fray, and Franken can provide the buffer.
Interesting piece, thanks!
posted by filthy light thief at 3:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The question on my mind is "When will Deez Nuts make another appearance during this campaign cycle?"

Most likely scenario: Trump holds a television special to let the public pick who his VP should be. One mass internet-led write-in and a lack of contract oversight later, the TRUMP/NUTS '16 platform is born.
posted by cjelli at 3:04 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I strongly suspect that if someone ever dumps Trump financial data into the public record which technically I guess is kinda doxxing so probably ethically bad we are going to find out that Trump is really not worth that much and most of what he does have is tied up in non-liquid assets.

Yes he might own some very fancy real estate but he's probably extremely leveraged on those positions and his cash assets are extremely limited.

This is not a great financier who is independent of the demands of millionaires and billionaires but a well-heeled grifter running an exceptionally long and bold con and the truth of the matter is that he's not even really that good at it.

The fact that he's scamming veterans and not paying contractors and under lots of civil law suits, and is on god know how many bankruptcies should be a warning that what this man is selling is not something that you should be buying.

But like so many dupes who give seed money to televangelist charlatans it seems like lots of Trump's supporters are true believers. They don't just expect him to be a successful businessman they need him to be a successful businessman because they are so desperate for a strong man to come in and tell them what to do that they will turn to the pettiest dictator they can find.

So much of his support is coming from desperate people, people that are desperate for answers, people who are desperate for "solutions", people who are desperate for a strong man to tell them it's not their fault, that they are being victimized by Mexicans and Muslims and Liberals. I feel so deeply sorry for these people that are so desperate for something that they are willing to turn to someone who is so blatantly dishonest but who is telling them lies that they want to hear.

I feel sorry and compassion for these people but I also know that these are the same sort of people that allowed dictators to rise to power throughout the 20th century and a desperately need for that to never happen here because so many people who I love and treasure could be irreversibly hurt by allowing this man to become President. Hell I'm terrified about what sort of collective ID that he's already unleashed by becoming a nominee.
posted by vuron at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak?

I'm sure she does at some times. Like when he's 'joking' about what he'd do with her if he wasn't 'happily married and, ya know, her father'....
posted by filthy light thief at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016


I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak? Does she nod her head in honest agreement, or is it one of those "yeah, that Dad, what a character, he's all talk," things? How much is family loyalty and how much is being a true believer?

Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.


The thing about being in a relationship with a narcissist, family or otherwise, is that sooner or later you pretty much have to choose to be somebody who validates them and gives them what they want, or you have to choose to be an outcast who is a terrible human being that was so awful to the narcissist and victimized the narcissist so badly.

There's no third choice. You either buy in or you get out.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [41 favorites]


I hope people keep pushing him on this:
Donald Trump on Monday refused to clarify what he meant when he said "there’s something going on" with President Obama's refusal to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" and said he'd leave it up to others to interpret his comments instead.

“Well, you know, I’ll let people figure that out for themselves Howie,” the presumptive GOP nominee told WRKO radio host Howie Carr.
He's 'not afraid to be not-politically-correct,' but he's afraid to explain what his own words mean?
posted by cjelli at 3:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]


"I'm not not saying Obama's a secret Muslim..."
posted by tonycpsu at 3:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'd like to be racist, but also a bit cowardly at the same time."
posted by Artw at 3:13 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]


Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.

Stronger case than I expected. It's true that he probably has the right temperament for this cycle. Definitely worth considering him. Think he might be another one that found the right job in the Senate though.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:18 PM on June 13, 2016


Trump's VP choice is the more interesting puzzle, since it appears that Chris Christie already has a job.
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.

How about the senior senator then? Amy Klobuchar is only 56. That's right in the VP wheelhouse. Plus her Senate seat should be pretty safely Democratic.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on June 13, 2016


At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.

And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP? It's not exactly a reliable stepping stone to the big chair.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


BREAKING: PHOTO OF TRUMP VP FOUND
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016


Trump's VP choice is the more interesting puzzle, since it appears that Chris Christie already has a job.

I know Trump's trying to run with a lean campaign staff, but I do believe that there are separate positions for Vice President and Senior Fluffer.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP? It's not exactly a reliable stepping stone to the big chair.

2000.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [70 favorites]


BREAKING: PHOTO OF TRUMP VP FOUND

Man, Jack White looks old. I don't get the joke, though -- why would he be Trump's VP?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is not a column about Donald Trump.

It’s not about the fraudulent scheme that was Trump University. It’s not about his history of failing to pay contractors, leading to hundreds of legal actions. It’s not about how he personally profited while running his casinos into the ground. It’s not even concerned with persistent questions about whether he is nearly as rich as he claims to be, and whether he’s ever done more than live off capital gains on his inheritance.

...So why didn’t any of Mr. Trump’s primary opponents manage to make an issue of his sleazy business career? Were they just incompetent, or is there something structural about the modern Republican Party that makes it unable to confront grifters?

The answer, I’d argue, is the latter
A Party Agrift
posted by y2karl at 3:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


Have we completely discounted Julian Castro? Or Cory Booker? Honestly asking - I haven't heard anything about either one since earlier, like April.
posted by eclectist at 3:50 PM on June 13, 2016


It won't be Booker. Castro is a possibility.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on June 13, 2016


I would very strongly prefer that no Democratic Senators be selected as VP. Vice Presidents just do not add that much value to the ticket. Nothing is stopping Franken, Warren, or other Democratic Senators from cutting Trump down to size right now and through the rest of the campaign.

Trump is so unpopular that even Utah (!) is in play this election cycle, which suggests that there is a very real chance that the Dems could re-take the Senate. Removing effective progressive Senators from meaningful work for a symbolic election token is not a good trade-off in my book.
posted by palindromic at 3:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


So why didn’t any of Mr. Trump’s primary opponents manage to make an issue of his sleazy business career?

Because it's mutually assured destruction. Trump would immediately rattle off the crony capitalist dealings of any one of the field. Cruz? Caribbean Equity Partners. Rubio? Big sugar. Kasich's office was literally donate to his campaign for political appointments.

There's really so much sleaze that they'll let Donald get away with spin knowing they're outgunned and outmatched by a man who has no shame.
posted by Talez at 3:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


RE: Hillary's VP pick—
Is Tipper Gore available? I think Clinton/Gore has a nice ring to it, don'cha think?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.

Then you should see Franken here channeling Mick Jagger. (youtube)
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.

I would, too. It would mean taking the progressive ideals of 40% of the Democratic voters seriously. Warren would be an excellent VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016


Karenna Gore would be preferable to Tipper.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.
posted by Archelaus at 4:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why should they do that, when they can just get spokespeople from "both sides of the aisle" to weigh in on the issue, thereby legitimizing it as a topic for reasoned debate, while at the same time avoiding the wearisome, backbreaking work of having to do actual journalism.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Tipper is about the worst possible idea:

1. Doesn't this just reduce Hillary to "politician's wife"?

2. Invites all sorts of digging up of dirt from the 90s.

3. Everybody has always hated Tipper Gore. (The only thing I remember about her is that she's one of the people behind the completely stupid "Explicit Lyrics" labeling of music back in the 90s.)

4. Does she have any political experience at all?

I mean if you're going for no political experience, pick someone with charisma. And while I don't think it's savvy for her to look like she has anything to hide by papering over Bill's administration, it would be equally stupid for her to basically create a flashback to those days. She needs to seem presidential, not answer for her reaction to Monica and her cookie recipe and headbands and Whitewater.
posted by Sara C. at 4:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.

Honestly, I don't think that a great tack to take, because if fuels the "It's all an act, he'd never really put Muslims in concentration camps, of course" line of reasoning for why Clinton and Trump are basically the same.
posted by Sara C. at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is Tipper Gore available?

As a Gen Xer I find Tipper Gore unpalatable.
posted by My Dad at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [28 favorites]


Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.

Nothing is technically illegal until five Supreme Court justices agree that it is. If you have the five justices you need in your pocket you can do things like imprison people on a foreign military base for over a decade without trial.
posted by Talez at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


1. Doesn't this just reduce Hillary to "politician's wife"?
I thought that was kind of the point of that comment?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm reasonably certain that, in actual practice, it will not be possible to get five SC justices to agree to, just for example based on his last 24 hours of rhetoric: detaining American nationals who happen to be Muslim and deporting them to... wherever. (I'm not sure where he proposes we deport Muslims born here to, exactly, but it does seem to be on his agenda).

Just as the off the top example that made me think it in the first place.
posted by Archelaus at 4:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think "ha, Clinton/Gore would be funny!" was the point of that comment.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


Have we completely discounted Julian Castro? Or Cory Booker? Honestly asking - I haven't heard anything about either one since earlier, like April.

Can we please stop talking about Cory Booker? He's terrible, he's far more bought and paid for than even Clinton, and his only "achievements" are union busting and stumping for Paul Ryan's Cat Food For All budget. He shouldn't be anywhere near the ticket and progressives should be doing everything possible to primary him out of the Senate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [15 favorites]


(I'm not sure where he proposes we deport Muslims born here to, exactly, but it does seem to be on his agenda).
Forget deporting them: I don't think the Supreme Court would rule that it was even constitutional for the government to make a determination about who was and wasn't a Muslim. People's religious identity is the kind of thing that the government is not supposed to get involved in.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Probably pretty likely then.
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on June 13, 2016


I don't see it, really. Roberts is always concerned with his reputation; he doesn't want to be tagged with a Korematsu.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


"As a Gen Xer I find Tipper Gore unpalatable."

Yeah. When Al Gore was campaigning before the primaries in early 1988, Tipper decided to visit a class I was taking, a poli-sci international politics class taught by a prof who knew a lot of the Dem establishment. I loved that class, actually, but I very deliberately skipped that session because I feared that I would lose my temper and start shouting at Tipper Gore. I mean, well, I was in my early twenties and so while I cared a lot about wonky policy stuff, I really cared about the PMRC freaking out about music. Miss you, Zappa.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


Tipper Gore is why Hamilton's "My Shot" is labeled explicit for "A colony that runs independently / Meanwhile, Britain keeps shittin' on us endlessly."
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.

We've already seen that re: torture and war crimes.

Media: But that's illegal. The military will refuse.

Trump: They're not gonna refuse me.

He'll say the same thing about whatever jackass thing he thinks he can make happen. Tell him it's illegal, he'll say he'll make Congress legalize it. Ask him how, he'll say "I'll make them." And his supporters, who clearly dig his chairbrone ranger strongman schtick, will eat it up.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh heavens, think of a Clinton/Zappa ticket.
Of all the 60's rocknrollers to get into the pol game, why Sonny Bono and not Frank Zappa.
posted by eclectist at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Fine. As a sop to the haters, what if the Hillary/Tipper ticket chose "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption" as their official campaign song?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Of all the 60's rocknrollers to get into the pol game, why Sonny Bono and not Frank Zappa.

Or hell, for that matter, why not Cher?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why not Zoidberg?

I'm sorry. Someone had to do it. I'll see myself out.
posted by Archelaus at 4:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [49 favorites]


"Fine. As a sop to the haters, what if the Hillary/Tipper ticket chose "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption" as their official campaign song?"

I have the bluetooth speaker in my shower set to randomly play from my entire collection. A few days ago, Jello Biafra's "Love American Death Squad Style" came up and aside from occasionally yelling "fuck, yeah!" in response to a thirty-year-old political scandal like the old person I am, I also thought to myself, "wow, the more things change the more they stay the same", also like the old person that I am.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:48 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Or hell, for that matter, why not Cher?

It would be a big step up from her standard practice of calling into C-SPAN.

My favorite is this time where she discusses a charity that provides proper helmets for soldiers because the Army wasn't, without identifying herself, and the host eventually realizes who she is and asks "and is this Cher?"
posted by zachlipton at 4:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]


The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.

Not really. The election would be up to 160 days after the resignation, then require however many days to certify. That pretty much knocks out any chance of a Democratic Senate, if it comes to that, until after the summer recess. Now, the loophole states if Warren resigns with enough to time to schedule the election, then the Republican governor can't put a Republican in the seat.

Now, the Legislature could change the law. It would be not well seen, though, not in an election year.
posted by dw at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016


It's a slogan that's over 50 years old... Why Not?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016


And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP?

Well, 2000, sort of. The last time before that that a Democrat served eight years as VP was *looks* Thomas Marshall, under Wilson from 1913 to 1921. And the time before that seems to be never.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Why not Zoidberg?

Sure, you can vote for Shkinadel -- if you want there should be a recession!
posted by zachlipton at 4:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Now, the Legislature could change the law. It would be not well seen, though, not in an election year.

Yes, the Legislature's (technically, the Massachusetts General Court) ability to change the law was what the balance of my comment was about. And as mentioned a little later, it's something they've done more than once in recent years.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:05 PM on June 13, 2016


How about Gavin Newsom?
(for VP)
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.

After Al Franken 2008 there's no reason to risk it. The Senate is in play right now, no Democratic Senators should be taken off the board. VP isn't worth it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


How about Gavin Newsom?

is it just me or is putting up a candidate who was the mayor of a major american city just a reliable way to lose all of the votes from anyone who actually lived there during said candidate's term
posted by murphy slaw at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gavin Newsom certainly has the ambition but he's gonna be Governator of California first.
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, I don't think we have to worry about SF voting for Trump or anything. But yeah, Justinian is right. He'd be better off becoming Governor and running in the future than running as Clinton's VP now.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:12 PM on June 13, 2016


Newsom is already heavy into his 2018 campaign.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on June 13, 2016


I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.
posted by Justinian at 5:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gavin Newsom certainly has the ambition but he's gonna be Governator of California first.

Newsom is already heavy into his 2018 campaign.


That's definitely the current plan, but methinks he could be persuaded.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016


I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.

Precisely.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016


Well he'd certainly deliver California for Clinton. I guess.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016


is rod blagojovich out yet
posted by murphy slaw at 5:16 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Louis C.K on Clinton vs. Trump:
It's like if you were on a plane and you wanted to choose a pilot. You have one person, Hillary, who says, 'Here's my license. Here's all the thousands of flights that I've flown. Here's planes I've flown in really difficult situations. I've had some good flights and some bad flights, but I've been flying for a very long time, and I know exactly how this plane works.'...

And then Trump says, 'I'm going to fly so well. You're not going to believe how good I'm going to fly this plane, and by the way, Hillary never flew a plane in her life.' 'She did, and we have pictures.' 'No, she never did it.' It's insane.
posted by Salieri at 5:17 PM on June 13, 2016 [117 favorites]


is putting up a candidate who was the mayor of a major american city just a reliable way to lose all of the votes from anyone who actually lived there
I have two stadium-sized complaints about R.T. Rybak’s tenure as mayor of Minneapolis, but I think he’d probably make a fine VP. For what my opinion is worth.

Of course, if Clinton is in any danger of losing Minnesota, we’ve got bigger problems than a VP pick.
posted by nicepersonality at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton is going to carry California, no matter what. I suppose, from that perspective, it only makes sense as a way to anoint a likely successor, rather than solidifying current swing-states. Maybe I'm feeling too confident. Trump really does seem impossible to me. Maybe I'm deluded.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016


I have friends who are sure he's going to win, but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago, and now I'm really starting to think that everything they think about the election is pure misogyny and I feel really sad about what shitbags some of my friends are.
posted by Sara C. at 5:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [39 favorites]


They might just be deeply stupid, if that makes you feel any better.
posted by dersins at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [35 favorites]


but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago

This position makes no sense! What kind of cognitive dissonance must you maintain to refuse to vote for Clinton (despite her positions being much closer to Sanders') because you think she is a corrupt liar but then justifying your vote for Trump by saying he's corruptly lying about what he'd do in office?

"I won't vote for Clinton because she lies! And I don't worry about the bad things Trump says because he is lying!"

WHAT. HOW. WHY.
posted by Justinian at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [68 favorites]


that's it, justinian - i'm starting a blue party to fight the green party - it'll be just like old times
posted by pyramid termite at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


It's the way advertising works, political and non-political, but raised to the nth degree because Trump has no skills beyond self-promotion... it's like voting for a McDonalds Cheeseburger or a can of Budweiser.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]




I tried to get a Hippodrome built in L.A. but they are a bunch of short-sighted plebs here.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


any minute now, trump will come out for using hippodrones in afghanistan
posted by pyramid termite at 5:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Augh! Clinton! That is the EXACT OPPOSITE problem we need to be looking at here!
posted by Archelaus at 5:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yeah maybe before we expand the terror lists we should have a few examples of the terror lists working
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [16 favorites]


> Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.

Donald Trump Picked the Wrong News Editor to F*ck With: Trump is going to war with The Washington Post,​ but he doesn't stand a chance against Marty Baron.
posted by homunculus at 5:44 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]




i'm starting a blue party to fight the green party - it'll be just like old times

Old times if you're a BIZARRO DRAZI.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


oh God it's like I have fifty episodes of B5 playing in my brain right now
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think Clinton is right that we need a more finely honed domestic counter-terrorism effort, because we keep having these terrorism-connected attacks by American-born "lone wolf" sympathizer types. Which means we need to be better at finding people like that before they attack. It would also probably help prevent shootings like Aurora or terrorist attacks more on the Oklahoma City model, as well. Whereas it seems like organized ISIS or Al Qaeda plots in the US are rare/nonexistent.

But ugggghhhhhhh why use the phrase "expand terrorist watch lists" to describe that effort?
posted by Sara C. at 6:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]


In the NPR interview, Clinton took aim at Trump, saying she would be more qualified to protect Americans from ISIS and also wouldn't be such an inflammatory figure among America's enemies.

Holy gods I am flashing back to Kerry 2004
posted by Greg Nog at 6:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


Pretty sure she just means a milder version of the trump BS.
posted by Artw at 6:07 PM on June 13, 2016


I think Clinton is right that we need a more finely honed domestic counter-terrorism effort

I'm not sure that we "keep having" anything like that. There was the Ft. Hood attack, which might have been loosely connected to extremist leanings, the San Bernadino attack which definitely was, and then this in Orlando, which preliminarily looks to be a closeted self-hating homophobe who may have lashed out for a justification right before, but is too early to say for sure. It certainly doesn't look coordinated or maybe even predictable unless your search terms include "all angry dudes who say racist and homophobic shit to their coworkers". Is one plus two possible halves a trend? I'm not sure.

So how exactly would you "be better at finding people like that" without making some kind of list of extremist leanings? And stepping up pressure/enforcement against people identified on that list? Notwithstanding due process concerns for people added to a "watch list" and deprived rights, but not accused or charged in a court of law. Because that's not a relevant concern.

When she says "expand terrorist watch lists", she's really talking about expanding domestic surveillance powers for the FBI/NSA even further than under Obama (who never turned one centimeter from the Bush doctrine of maximal surveillance until forced to by Snowden, and even now we don't really know that much changed versus got shuffled off to another codenamed program yet to be reveal by the next Snowden).

There's two paths towards cutting down on "lone wolf" attacks, increasing surveillance, or decreasing access to the weapons used to commit them. The first is an easy sell, obviously, and is the only one Clinton could or would voice aloud, but the second is the only one likely to be at all effective.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:17 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


[Couple comments deleted; please take discussion that's only about the attack over to the attack thread, and let's not be armchair diagnosing the attacker there in any case.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:25 PM on June 13, 2016


Justinian: "I tried to get a Hippodrome built in L.A. but they are a bunch of short-sighted plebs here."

Well, the Coliseum is pretty much a hippodrome already....
posted by Chrysostom at 6:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


T.D. Strange, my point is that we've had at least two, maybe now three, (and maybe more if you classify some other mass shootings as terrorism; Dylan Root seems like an obvious choice) domestic terror attacks with similar M.O.s which have been successful, and which the feds don't seem to be able to do much about. Meanwhile there's this huge counter-terrorism apparatus related to a type of terrorism that has not happened in the US since 9/11, that of large coordinated plots tied to specific international groups.

I think it would be folly to pretend we don't need to do anything about the kind of terrorism that is actually happening in the US, or that mass shootings in general aren't worth the federal government stepping in. And it certainly seems nuts to put the full force of the military behind getting rid of ISIS while as long as it's just one dude and he does it with guns and not bombs*, that's A-OK. If a presidential candidate is going to speak to real solutions for mass shootings outside the box of gun control, what Clinton suggested seems fairly on point.

*Though I also think the Boston Bombing clearly falls under this terrorist M.O.
posted by Sara C. at 6:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


In CBS' Political Satire 'BrainDead', alien brain parasites infect politicians
All this fantasy plays out against the real current presidential campaign — with actual speeches by actual candidates playing in the background on the TV cable news shows everyone is watching.
posted by joeyh at 6:38 PM on June 13, 2016


'Expanding the terror watch list' is so vague it could mean almost anything from building the Panopticon to restricting firearms sales. It's typical poli-speak. Trying to ascertain what, if anything, it Really Means without flat-out asking Clinton is a waste of time.
posted by um at 6:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Clinton should make Arnold Schwarzenegger her VP. Yes, she would win CA without him. Yes, he is kinda to her left politically. Yet, he'd make an amazing foil to Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:54 PM on June 13, 2016


Am I missing a joke? He's not eligible to run for VP and he makes no sense as a choice for her anyway.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yes, it's a joke. There are many non-senators that Clinton could pick who'll serve far better for this campaign, while most Democratic senators do not provide much advantage against Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


In CBS' Political Satire 'BrainDead', alien brain parasites infect politicians

I certainly do not take pleasure in telling my elder relatives and in-laws to turn that TV off, it'll rot your brain.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:06 PM on June 13, 2016


I mean, the obvious running mate choice is THE HYPNOTOAD.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.

Take the cannoli.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


The reality is that virtually every current democratic Senator is unlikely to really benefit the campaign much or has negative consequences (such as putting regaining the Senate at risk).

There are some solid Senators that will likely become leading candidates down the road but even then a lot of them already have baggage that might prove challenging in the future.

Currently there doesn't seem to be any perfect unicorn for Veep short of recruiting George Clooney to run as VP, there are plenty of solid strategic picks that cover one or more checkboxes (PoC, Charismatic, young, probably male because OMG too much estrogen of something) but there doesn't appear to be any perfect fit.

Fortunately with the walking dumpster fire on the other side completely refusing to even put up a pretense of shifting towards the center I think Clinton can afford to actually take some risks and select a running mate that isn't perfect but who can ostensibly become a democratic banner carrier down the road.

Or she could just go super safe and keep Biden in the job another 4 years.
posted by vuron at 7:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Biden is the puppet master...WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
posted by Windopaene at 8:15 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


I move that we amend the Constitution to declare Biden VP for life.
posted by nevercalm at 8:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's true... Jim Henson faked his death, shaved his beard and swapped with Joe Biden ... he is THE MUPPET MASTER!!
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


I gave my wife this Biden t-shirt. Best gift ever.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


I know a part of me never wants to find out if the real Biden is as cool as the meme Biden and then another part of me kinda wants to find out if he's even cooler than the meme Biden.

I'm not sure who could step into the role of meme Biden though because I don't know of any other politician that I could conceivable see actually waxing a trans am in the white house drive way.

No matter what I kinda feel like the loss of both Obamas and likely Biden is going to leave an enormous cool gap in the White House moving forward.
posted by vuron at 8:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know a part of me never wants to find out if the real Biden is as cool as the meme Biden and then another part of me kinda wants to find out if he's even cooler than the meme Biden.

It's like Hamilton. The fiction is cooler than the fact of the life, but there's a good reason they chose to base the fiction on that life specifically.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


Let it roll off your tongue : future vice president Harold Ford, Jr.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:35 PM on June 13, 2016


that's MeFi's Own clango selling those shirts, and I'm sure he'd love to never have to discontinue that design.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wouldn't know about how much Hamilton diverges from reality because tickets are impossible to get and that's even before sweeping the Tonys. But I'm not bitter at all, no not at all.

Hrmm I wonder if someone could do a Biden musical but who am I kidding the man deserves a rock opera.
posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


IRL Biden is a bigtime fuckin' narc, not cool at all.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


Biden was not very cool about Anita Hill's testimony during the Clarence Thomas hearings, either.
posted by zutalors! at 8:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]


But he was pretty cool about forcing Obama's hand on the gay marriage issue. Joe Biden contains multitudes.
posted by biogeo at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]


Could also do without this sort of activity from the next VP.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]


well, as long as we have all these people who hate HRC but would totes vote Biden because that's different...
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]


He's a pretty great VP but Clinton would clearly be a better president. Too bad he can't be her VP too.
posted by biogeo at 9:06 PM on June 13, 2016




He could be! No legal barrier to it.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:10 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Technically Obama could potentially be her VP as there is nothing explicitly that prevents him from taking the office because the 12th and 22nd amendments kinda leave a gray area in which former 2 term presidents could serve as VP.

I think this gets even more hairy if you get into issues of presidential succession as the 22nd amendment specifically refers to someone being elected to office more than 2 times but not assuming the office as a result of presidential succession.

Fortunately it seems unlikely that it would happen in any event and as much as I would love to see Barack as VP I think the Obama I would prefer as VP would be the other one.
posted by vuron at 9:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Technically Obama could potentially be her VP as there is nothing explicitly that prevents him from taking the office because the 12th and 22nd amendments kinda leave a gray area in which former 2 term presidents could serve as VP.

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."

How is that not explicit?
posted by Talez at 9:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


The answer seems straightforward. But it is less straightforward than it appears.

The rough outline of his argument is this: The 22nd Amendment doesn't say you can't be president for more than two terms. It says you can't be elected president twice. If a Biden-Obama ticket won (which we'll get to), and tragedy were to befall Joe Biden, Barack Obama could become president, according to the letter of the law (which we'll also get to), since he wasn't elected to the position. As such, Obama is not constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.

posted by saul wright at 9:37 PM on June 13, 2016


As long as we're bringing up Michelle Obama in the context of fantasy dream tickets, I'd personally rather see her in the role of Dictator for Life.
posted by biogeo at 9:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]


There are a vast array of choices for a Progressive VP in Congress alone (and a ton of former Congresscritters if she doesn't want to risk losing a Congressional seat to the Republicans). If she wants a moderate Democrat there are even more choices. There is absolutely no reason why she would pick "guy who's VP now", "guy who is President now," "guy who is running against her in the primaries," or "that one rock-star Progressive Senator who we know from TV". There is literally no reason whatsoever for Clinton to pick Biden, Obama or Sanders, and very few to pick Warren.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]


The argument is that the 12th amendment deals with the qualifications to serve whereas the 22nd deals with qualifications for elections so a former 2 term president is eligible to serve.

The reality is that it's exceedingly unlikely that the courts will definitively decide on the question either way because it's unlikely to ever become an issue but I think there are some moderately compelling arguments for the possibility even though I tend to agree with the argument that it is unconstitutional.
posted by vuron at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016


Joe Biden is also unpalatable.
posted by My Dad at 9:47 PM on June 13, 2016


I tend to agree with you in principle Adam and while it's fun to imagine scenarios where the cast of characters who we've kinda grown to love gets to stick around into the ninth season there are some compelling cases for going with some new blood.

I think currently if I was a betting sort I would be tempted to put some money on Xavier Becerra because he's basically satisfies just about every thing that a conventional wisdom pick would be.

Young but not too young
Latino
From a different geographic region than the Nominee
liable to provide additional votes from key demographics
compelling personal history (son of immigrants, first to attend college, etc)
Progressive but also tied to established democratic leadership

About the only thing he doesn't have is executive leadership but personally I think the trend towards going with governors has been a pretty mediocre one.
posted by vuron at 9:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Al Gore is available and eligible.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016


He old.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


HuffPo interviews campaign managers for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.

Isn’t the issue that there was a broader collective action problem among the non-Trump campaigns? Everyone wanted to be the last guy standing against him.

Roe
I think so. Our strategy required us to be head-to-head against him. And when your strategy requires somebody else doing something, that’s a pretty weak strategy.

posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


Al Gore is available and eligible.

Yowza!
posted by mazola at 10:35 PM on June 13, 2016


Al Gore is available and eligible.

And he's a great kisser, so I hear.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:38 PM on June 13, 2016


AND DANK MEMES DON'T FORGET DANK MEMES

Dank memes don’t forget dank memes because dank memes CARE about each other. I wish we could all be a little more like dank memes sometimes.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


From the campaign manager interview:
Conant
Yeah, I would follow the money for both of them. I think the most success the media has had pursuing a story against Trump has been following the veterans' money.

Roe
And it didn’t start until everybody was out.

Diaz
Right. Once you hit that 1,237 delegate number, you know what’s going to happen. The assignment of stories and the stack of hits that come against you as a Republican nominee.

HuffPo
You thought the media was holding off on Trump during the primary?

Roe
I believe that there were financial decisions made in media suites on who they wanted to have as a nominee and what they would do to him after he became a nominee. I don’t think all of this is accidental. I really don’t.

Diaz
It’s too uniform.
Number of lessons Republicans have learned: 0
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


They sound like Sanders deadenders talking about the media rigging it for Hillary. I guess partisans gonna partisan.
posted by Justinian at 11:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump's Tweets After Tragedy Often Strike Self-Congratulatory Notes:
Trump's real-time Twitter reaction to tragedy offers a rare and telling glimpse into the mind of the candidate. Tragedy after tragedy, Trump has quickly pivoted from the appearance of mourning to self-aggrandizement or petty attacks.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm totally looking forward to the VP picks this time around. The Trump pick especially. I can't see anyone with any political ambition wanting to sign on to spend the rest of the year answering for whatever spews out of Trump's word-hole. Anyone halfway decent is immediately tarnished by association. He's stuck picking either someone completely unknown who can't help him electorally, or stunt-picking another train wreck just for the media attention. (heretofore known as pulling a McCain). And like Palin, the chances of him picking someone unvetted is very high. There will be shenanigans.

Meanwhile on the Dem side it's basically a freebie. The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication. She could pick herself in a pair of dark glasses and a fake moustache to be her VP and it wouldn't matter. I think it's a good opportunity to do away with a lot of the usual electoral considerations (help in a weak state/shoring up a perceived weakness) and elevate someone young/relatively unknown into the national spotlight. Also, my secret pet theory is that Clinton is personally much more progressive than her political choices let on, and we could see that play out in her VP pick, which would be great.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hilary Clinton/Zombi Fred Rogers. Sometimes you just need an undead guy in a cardigan to tell you eeeverything's gonna be ok.
posted by um at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


Christie probably has the necessary combination of (relative) credibility, ambition, and lack of dignity.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


or stunt-picking another train wreck just for the media attention. (heretofore known as pulling a McCain). And like Palin, the chances of him picking someone unvetted is very high. There will be shenanigans.

oh god he's going to pick palin isn't he
posted by murphy slaw at 11:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.

Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of victory and the PredictWise average of prediction markets/bookies is at 72% chance of Hillary victory.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]


The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.

Trump has a serious chance. I think this race will be close and I think we need to fight to keep Trump from winning and I think the fight will be difficult. I'm going to keep saying this to the very end and if everyone ends up laughing about how wrong I was that's just fine.
posted by mmoncur at 12:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [55 favorites]


It's competitive because a large percentage of the electorate votes on party lines pretty much no matter what (even "independents" which have been pointed out multiple times generally also vote for one side or the other consistently). It's competitive because a large percentage of Americans either don't believe or don't care or actively are okay with all the bigoted and contradictory crap Trump says. It's competitive because the people who know better and are actually leaders (yes, I mean Republican leaders) couldn't get their acts together and present a unified voice in opposition to the crap he says, instead stumbling to say similarly bigoted crap.

So yeah, it's sadly competitive and Trump could very well become our next president. :(
posted by R343L at 12:17 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


The underlying conditions make this a seriously challenging race for even "generic republican". Electoral college math is awful for Republicans regardless of who they pick to run.

And this is a candidate who besides being a total abomination of a human being fundamentally doesn't seem to understand how political campaigns run. It's like he's just assuming that he can run a campaign just like one of his grifter business deals and he can't.

He's also surrounded by an apparently green crew of relative nobodies because nobody with any sort of credibility wants to take the hit to their rep when he crashes and burns. His campaign has basically no resources until the RNC can come to the rescue because Trump can't be assed to fundraise and as a result he has zero ground game and zero analytical support.

On the other side Hillary took the lessons of 08 to heart and has basically hired the best political operatives in the business. They seem to know old school campaigning as well as new social media strategies and most importantly analytics so she can microtarget likely voters. This conserves resources and allows for very tailored campaigns.

And it's apparent that as Sanders campaign sputters to a halt she's rushing forward to snatch up the best and brightest from his campaign.

Ultimately I expect the big money donors and the RNC to make a valiant showing of trying to prop up Trump or at least stop the bleeding but it's looking like it will probably be too little and too late.

While the reddit trolls will no doubt give their power to Trump's MAGA effort I remain unconvinced that the trolls doing it for the lulz will really bother to abandon their keyboard consoles and get up to vote when they can just post dank memes in relative anonymity.

At the end of the day he'll still probably get 40% or so because there are about that many people when you count up hardcore republicans and conservative independents and I seriously doubt the the libertarians and greens will get much of a vote at all. It of course won't matter that 40% of the US electorate is apparently made up of fearful and bigoted people because Clinton will no doubt win in a relative landslide.
posted by vuron at 12:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Which argument seems to boil down to "It would be a nice sop to progressive voters." See also accusations about the Left's tendency to prefer symbolic acts to practical results.

Yes, I'll Vote for HRC - "Apparently that's not enough for many in the Clinton camp, however, who insist that I should be happy that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and that this is actually a good thing for progressives—defined loosely as people who want higher taxes on the rich, less inequality, stronger social insurance programs (including true universal health care), and better protections for workers. The argument is basically that Clinton is (a) more pragmatic, (b) more skilled at getting things done, and (c) more likely to be able to work with Republicans to achieve incremental good things, while Sanders would have simply flamed out in futility..."
The entire political system has been tilted more in the Republicans’ favor, to the point where the presidency is the only prize that Democrats can fight for on equal terms—because all we need is one charismatic (Obama) or well-connected (Hillary Clinton) candidate who can raise tons and tons of money.

Think about the situation that puts us in. Republicans are apoplectic at the idea that Hillary Clinton could appoint the deciding justice to the Supreme Court, but the smart ones realize that she will be able to accomplish little else; even if by some miracle Democrats retake the House, Republican unity will suffice to block anything in the Senate. Democrats, by contrast, are terrified because a Republican president means that they will get virtually everything, unless the Senate Democratic caucus somehow develops a backbone (which it certainly didn’t have under George W. Bush): not just the Supreme Court, but a flat tax, new abortion restrictions, Medicaid block grants, repeal of Dodd-Frank, repeal of Obamacare, Medicare vouchers, and who knows what else.

What’s the lesson here? It isn’t that Bernie Sanders could accomplish more than Hillary Clinton in four years against dug-in Republican opposition. He couldn’t. It’s that having a president isn’t enough. We need a movement. That’s what the conservatives have had for decades: embryonic in the 1950s, quixotic in the 1960s, on the rise in the 1970s, ascendant in the 1980s, and increasingly institutionalized, entrenched, and ideologically extreme ever since. We need to stop thinking that winning the presidency more often than not is a long-term strategy. What we’re doing isn’t working. It needs to change.
water under the bridge! :P

also btw... posted by kliuless at 1:49 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Has Clinton brought up Trump's hilarious foray into the birther movement when he supposedly hired an investigator to go to Hawaii to search for Obama's birth certificate? If not I bet they're keeping that particular bullet in the magazine for the debates.
posted by PenDevil at 2:26 AM on June 14, 2016


Maybe she can pick Chelsea as her running mate. Not that I think this is a good idea or she will, but what an interesting wrench to go into the gears.
posted by maxwelton at 2:27 AM on June 14, 2016


The birther movement was spawned by her dead-enders in the death knell of her 2008 campaign so I suspect she does not want to bring it up.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Has Clinton brought up Trump's hilarious foray into the birther movement when he supposedly hired an investigator to go to Hawaii to search for Obama's birth certificate? If not I bet they're keeping that particular bullet in the magazine for the debates.

Possible answer: "Yes, you're absolutely right that I looked into. I was the first one who knew that there was something fishy about Obama. He is not one of us. I knew it right away. It was my gut instinct, and I was right. So it was the right thing to do. When Obama became president, he did nothing to prevent terrorist in the US. And he never mentioned radical Islam as the cause. Not once. I wonder why. Crooked Hillary is just four more of Obama. But we need a president who is actually on our side. Until we have that, we need to investigate. And be vigilant."
posted by sour cream at 2:53 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe she can pick Chelsea as her running mate.

I was about to post that Chelsea wasn't old enough, and I thought maybe I'd better check that first, and it turns out she is — 36. When did that happen?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:11 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


And, alas, Socks and Buddy are both long gone.
posted by AndrewInDC at 4:18 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


The first image I ever downloaded from the internet and printed was a picture of Socks the cat.
posted by octothorpe at 4:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Re: Warren as the VP: no. No, no nononono no no. No. No no no, no nononononono. Remember what happened the last time Massachusetts held a midterm election for a senator, after Ted Kennedy died in office? The state party is so deeply dysfunctional that it ran the political equivalent of a fart in church, and let Scott "My Pickup Truck is Registered in New Hampshire" Brown win the lowest-turnout senate race we've had in thirty years. That extremely-liberal D switching to an R right around the time the ACA came through was one of a series of increasingly absurd factors (along with Franken not being confirmed for a goddamn YEAR, and Joe Lieberman going full Quisling) that torpedoed the public option on health care. If Warren vacated office, her interim replacement would be appointed by the Massachusetts governor, a Republican. The Senate MATTERS. Warren is currently the loudest voice speaking out against income inequality and plutocracy. Moving her from a role where she's scaring the living shit out of the banking industry, and into a functionally powerless role as VP, based on the vain hope that it will somehow swing the election because it will bring in voters who want to vote for a woman but who won't vote for Clinton (of which there are approximately 6 extant voters hidden among three million closet libertarians screaming "Bern It Down!") is the single worst idea I have seen floated by any contingent of the Democratic party in the past ten years.
posted by Mayor West at 5:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [46 favorites]


Thank you for voting today, D.C. people. Stay in line.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


UPDATE: We voted this morning before work so my dinner will definitely be at a timely hour tonight.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 5:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


oh god he's going to pick palin isn't he

Or Ben Carson. He understands the brain dead. That is, the base.
posted by y2karl at 5:58 AM on June 14, 2016




Yes, let's directly reference the last time fascists seized the wheels of power in the US!
posted by Artw at 6:15 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton's Veep is going to be one of the Castro brothers - young, charming, progressive, Latino, and Texan. In the Year of Trump, it may swing Texas purple enough to make the GOP panic and pour resources into the state they need to be spending elsewhere.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:28 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


No line at my polling place this morning, woooo. In and out in mere minutes.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 6:30 AM on June 14, 2016


Clinton's Veep is going to be one of the Castro brothers - young, charming, progressive, Latino, and Texan.

Maybe she could run with both of them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:32 AM on June 14, 2016


Maybe she could run with both of them.

They are both accomplished politicians at the national level that tick some nice demographic and policy checkboxes. Either one would be a win for the Democratic ticket. Sec. Julian Castro would be my first choice, to invoke the successes of the Obama administration, but Rep. Joaquín Castro would be equally acceptable. It's an unusual situation, that the Dem bench has a pair of superstars that happen to be brothers, but the two are absolutely not interchangeable pieces. It's like deciding between the modern day John and Bobby Kennedy as your VP.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:46 AM on June 14, 2016


I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.

I know you're talking about someone else, but I would totally support Joanna Newsom for president.

SPROUT/BEAN TWENTYSIXTEEN
posted by mrjohnmuller at 6:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


She could pick herself in a pair of dark glasses and a fake moustache to be her VP and it wouldn't matter.

CLINTON / CLIFTON '16
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:21 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee

Is this 2016? Really? This is twenty fucking sixteen and we're literally going to try and bring back McCarthyism? Jesus Christ, America. We've really lost the fucking plot at this point.
posted by Talez at 7:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


Voted! The gym was mostly empty at 8:30.

There were actually some choices to be made this cycle (Brandon Todd is pretty much Bowser Jr., but Andrews is actually fairly appealing AFAICT), but EHN was of course alone on the ballot, as was Garcia.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


mmoncur: "Trump has a serious chance. I think this race will be close and I think we need to fight to keep Trump from winning and I think the fight will be difficult. I'm going to keep saying this to the very end and if everyone ends up laughing about how wrong I was that's just fine."

This is the Y2K strategy, which I support.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


SPROUT/BEAN TWENTYSIXTEEN

“The love will hold and the love we spurn will never grow cold!”
posted by Going To Maine at 7:48 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Slap*Happy: "It's an unusual situation, that the Dem bench has a pair of superstars that happen to be brothers, but the two are absolutely not interchangeable pieces."

I don't think it worked out that well for UK Labour having two up and coming brothers.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:52 AM on June 14, 2016


What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:57 AM on June 14, 2016


What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?

If he didn't concede after the absolute shellacking in California and NJ he's not going to concede after DC.
posted by Talez at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016


Brandon Todd is pretty much Bowser Jr., but Andrews is actually fairly appealing AFAICT

We met him when he was campaigning outside our Metro stop! I liked him and he seems qualified and forward thinking and he has three super, SUPER cute daughters on his campaign material and I recognize this shouldn't sway me so I probably voted for him since I think he'll go a great job (and he seems really invested in the community and the political process and I read a candidate interview with him and it made it seem like he's got priorities with which I agree -- I'm not a single issue "cute children" voter).

Also happy to vote against Vincent Orange who, as one of my friends pointed out, has crazy grandiose plans for RFK that don't make a damn bit of sense and, as schmod pointed out, keeps getting by in low-voter elections. Seriously, though, I see SO MANY signs for that guy! He may not have anything to contribute to the city but his sign game is On Point.

Overall pretty pleased to have voted and pleased with my choices considering how ridiculous it is that the DC Democratic Primaries for Council/Mayoral positions are the only time my vote even kind of matters, although I'm disappointed that the only two women on the ballot were for a literally uncontested race (Eleanor Holmes Norton) and a race that has already been decided (Hillary Clinton). It's great that I could vote for these two women but there were like twelve other people on the ballot for various positions and they were all men.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton/Chelsea vs. Trump/Ivanka!

I've always thought there was a chance he would tap Palin as a poke in the eye to those labeling him a misogynist but a.) he doesn't like "losers" and b.) she doesn't like to work.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.

You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? Go outside, turn around three times, and spit! What the hell's the matter with you?
posted by lazaruslong at 8:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [33 favorites]


Clinton should go for the real blindside and tap Omarosa.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sanders would be foolish to (formally, publicly) concede tonight. Waiting until the convention to concede and endorse Clinton will give him a much bigger platform and audience for the kind of fire-breathing inspirational speech at which he excels, and it'll make a good visual for Clinton's campaign.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?

He's scheduled to speak to supporters via video live stream on Thursday to address "how the revolution continues". I'd bet on some form of partial suspension/endorsement at that point.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've always thought there was a chance he would tap Palin as a poke in the eye to those labeling him a misogynist but a.) he doesn't like "losers" and b.) she doesn't like to work.

My office has a gambling pool for vice presidential picks and because Trump's so unpredictable you get three choices for him; one has to have been elected/appointed at some point, one can't ever have held office, and the third can be whomever. For my "never elected" I went with Ann Coulter for basically this reason, in case he decided to try to prove he wasn't a misogynist by teaming up with a single terrible woman. Like, what woman hates women almost as much as Donald Trump does? Oh right! They were made for each other!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hillary Clinton’s advantage over Donald Trump grew over the course of the last week, according to the results of the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll released Tuesday.

In the same week that Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination and Trump continued his criticism of federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the former secretary of state leads 49 percent to 42 percent.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:14 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


So in my nightmares Trump/Palin get elected. Trump is impeached. Palin quits. We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:28 AM on June 14, 2016


Like, what woman hates women almost as much as Donald Trump does?

Anita Bryant?

(Fun fact: I momentarily blanked on Bryant's name, so I Googled "horrible orange juice woman." Bryant's Wikipedia entry was the second result.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [27 favorites]


We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.

Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


she doesn't like to work
doesn't that just make vice president the best job in america for her

she does like to give long, rambling incoherent speeches to carefully selected audiences, and hates talking to the press, so i think the trump campaign is a perfect home for her
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on June 14, 2016


Huffington's polling aggregation currently has the general election as Clinton: 44.5% and Trump: 39.1%.

It still pains me that more than 0% of Americans say that they'll vote for a vugar talking yam but I'll take a five point split right now.
posted by octothorpe at 8:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


I would vote for a vulgar talking yam (helooooooo sock puppet!) if it kept Trump out of the White house.
posted by The Bellman at 8:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Faint of Butt, who was first???
posted by AJaffe at 8:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


"happy to vote against Vincent Orange"

Amen. Glad there was a palatable alternative this time around. Ditto for Todd, although I have less beef with him than Orange.

"he was campaigning outside our Metro stop"

We must be neighbors!
posted by aspersioncast at 8:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


If we get Trump/Rove, we could have

YAM/HAM 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 8:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.


no, we're left with the speaker of the house, i believe
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?

Because of the 25th amendment. In the scenario described, Palin, upon being elevated to President, would appoint the new VP. Her pick would need to be confirmed by both the House and Senate though.
posted by ryanrs at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.

Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?

Indeed! It would go to Paul Ryan. Then he and Justin Trudeau could have a pants-off dance-off for the entirety of North America & it would be hotttt.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016


(Assuming Palin gets lazy about her appointments.)
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016


"Waiting until the convention to concede and endorse Clinton will give him a much bigger platform and audience for the kind of fire-breathing inspirational speech at which he excels"

I think if he waits until the convention to concede and endorse, he doesn't get a speaking slot. The nominees don't get to stump directly to the delegates, but wait until after the voting for one of them to be nominated; then the nominee speaks to accept the nomination. Before the voting, the speeches are given by surrogates and party members (and are typically selected and scheduled by the presumptive nominee's campaign organization). Which is why most people who want to see Bernie's message spread to the widest possible audience expect/hope he concedes in advance of the convention.

I'm a little vague on the specific ins and outs and rules, but I'm fairly certain that's the practical outcome.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:41 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]




Then he and Justin Trudeau could have a pants-off dance-off for the entirety of North America & it would be hotttt.

Oddly this... would not be the weirdest thing to happen in politics this year?

also where is aaron schock in this plan
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yinz know that "Vulgar Talking Yam" is from Charlie Pierce, right? Because you all should be reading his column. It's one of the few things keeping me sane this year.
posted by octothorpe at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?

Because it's a nightmare?
posted by sour cream at 8:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also I will not be comfortable until Trump's share of voters hits the basement at the 27% baseline crazification factor of the American electorate. When he's polling at 27%, I can deal with that. That is the level of crazy I expect from my fellow Americans.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [43 favorites]


"also where is aaron schock in this plan"

He actually just gave a huge local interview (it was smarmy and made me cringe) and he is currently working on business development and technology penetration in India and doing some (non-official, non-registered) lobbying for Indian causes among his former colleagues. When asked who he was voting for he laughed and said he wished he could vote for Narenda Modi, whom, I was given the impression by this interview, is a unicorn made of rainbows who shits gold.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yinz know that "Vulgar Talking Yam" is from Charlie Pierce

Love him so much. And as much as I enjoy his writing on politics for Esquire, his non-political writing is one of the top two or three things I miss most about Grantland (RIP).
posted by dersins at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Given Putin's interest in seeing Trump elected, what are the odds all that stolen data ends up in his campaign's tiny, delicate hands?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think if he waits until the convention to concede and endorse, he doesn't get a speaking slot.

I expect that Bernie would be allowed to speak since his nomination would have to be entered. Thing is, given the rules as they are, there's a zero chance he'll win the nomination, no matter what speech he gives.
posted by dw at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016


When asked who he was voting for he laughed and said he wished he could vote for Narendra Modi

Nobody likes a suck-up
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:56 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

This is the weirdest timeline and I don’t like anything about it.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


ryanrs: "Because of the 25th amendment. In the scenario described, Palin, upon being elevated to President, would appoint the new VP. Her pick would need to be confirmed by both the House and Senate though."

Yeah, you guys remember Gerald Ford, right?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Adding to that weirdness is the final line of the article: “Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


That WaPo story is another reason Onion editors drink.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald Trump's new bright idea could mean everyone in Britain is banned from America (Independent, June 14, 2016)
Trump: "When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."

Immigration from Britain to America would stop under Mr Trump's definition.

Three out of the four men convicted of the 7/7 bombings, an attack on one of America's allies, were born in Leeds and the fourth had moved to Britain at the age of five.

The Brighton Bombing in 1984 in which members of the IRA attempted to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and in the process killed five senior members of the Conservative Party and injured 31 others, is another example. The man convicted of this was Patrick Magee, a British Citizen from Belfast.

The Gunpowder Plot is probably the most insurmountable barrier to Brits entering America. Terrorism doesn't get much more historical, and Guy Fawkes was a lad from Yorkshire. As is well known Guy was of course "radicalized" and took on the holy warrior name "Guido" (Which in Catholic means...Guy) when he went to Spain

Dan Kaszeta, a veteran of the US Army's Chemical Corps and a security specialist provided this succinct analysis:
@JonathanWoodrow @jgulhane Basically, there's very few countries without some history of terrorism. Trump is smoking dope.
— Dan Kaszeta (@DanKaszeta) June 14, 2016.
But it makes everyone at his rallies all excited, so he keeps saying this and other stupid things.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Looking at that NBC/SurveyMonkey poll:

They are still asking "Here are the candidates running in the Democratic presidential primary this year. Which candidate do you now support for the Democratic nomination for president? [AMONG DEM & DEM LEANERS]"

And this is immediately before the direct question of whom would you vote for between Clinton and Trump.

Among the 9% in that question who did not support Clinton or Trump, she has the edge 44-40 with 16% still being unwilling to lean.

So, presumably/hopefully, the question re: the Democratic primary is priming a few current Sanders supporters who will actually vote for Clinton in November to not answer, which would then tack on a few percentage points for her.

The strongly + somewhat unfavorables for Trump are 49(!)+12=61. (Oddly they do not have favorables listed for Clinton.)

Barack Obama's strongly + somewhat approve numbers are steady at 29+22=51.

Given those figures (Trump unfavorable @ 61%, Obama approval @51%, Democratic primary is still winding down), I am cautiously optimistic about that topline 49-42 number. I think Clinton has some room before she hits a ceiling, and I think Trump is pretty close to his.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Trump Turns 70 Today. Hillary Clinton is 68. This Is America’s Senior Moment.: Trump and Clinton’s combined score make them by far the oldest duo ever to compete for the Presidency—a fact that has received almost zero attention.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:19 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump: "When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."

Immigration from Britain to America would stop under Mr Trump's definition.


Sure. Also, there happens to be thousands of miles of undefended border between the US and a nation that continues to operate an independent immigration policy as if they're, I dunno, a sovereign state or something.

Is he going to close off the 49th parallel?

Will he mine the Great Lakes?

It's fucking inconceivable that this person has even the slightest chance of sitting in the Oval Office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's fucking inconceivable that this person has even the slightest chance of sitting in the Oval Office.

You keep using &c.
posted by dersins at 9:24 AM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee

I'm getting uncomfortable flashbacks to the second phase of the Swift Boat mess, where it became clear that what they really wanted to nail Kerry on was his vocal opposition to the war and contention that the Vietnam War was a fiasco. WHICH IT WAS. So a little over a decade ago conservatives were essentially arguing that the Vietnam War was justified and right (or at least that anyone who denied its justification and rightness was a bad person), and now they're waxing nostalgic for HUAC? Shit, I thought there were at least a few things which were universally understood in America to be terrible, but I guess not.
posted by jackbishop at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump and Clinton’s combined score make them by far the oldest duo ever to compete for the Presidency—a fact that has received almost zero attention.

I'd say the reason it's received little attention is because people don't consider Trump's age as a factor at all, whereas plenty of ageist shit has been thrown Clinton's way. (Hm. I wonder what could be the cause of this discrepancy?)
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


So in my nightmares Trump/Palin get elected. Trump is impeached. Palin quits. We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.

I dunno, that seems a lot less nightmarish to me than the scenario where Trump and/or Palin don't vacate their position. I mean, whoever we end up with afterwards can't be much worse.
posted by jackbishop at 9:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
posted by DynamiteToast


Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!
posted by moody cow at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016


Hm. I wonder what could be the cause of this discrepancy?

how can we consider him an old man when he has such a lush, natural head of hair
posted by murphy slaw at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


And such a sharp wit.
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've considered it, which is why I think it's absolutely nuts that people are seriously proposing the *74 year old* Sanders as VP, apart from any other issues.
posted by tavella at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


From that WaPo hacking article:
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some GOP political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
So were these networks also penetrated, or did the hackers fail to get in? My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
posted by maudlin at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
posted by DynamiteToast

Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!


My ability to judge the importance of things is kind of broken at the moment.

I can't decide if this is:

a) spies gonna spy, film at 11

or

b) advance indication that Putin is going to do everything he can to manipulate things so that Trump gets elected

I'm going to go with a) for the moment because things are already shitty enough.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


The underlying conditions make this a seriously challenging race for even "generic republican". Electoral college math is awful for Republicans regardless of who they pick to run.

The current Real Clear Politics electoral map has Clinton ahead 201 electoal votes to Trump's 164. Trump right now is a lock on fewer electoral votes than Mitt Romney got, and he lost to Obama 332-206.

In order to win, Trump would have to run the table on the toss-ups, winning at least 106 electoral votes of the 170 currently up for grabs. The most pessimistic of these aggregate maps still have Clinton with at least 250 EVs, with a number of toss-up states undecided.

But it's hard to see how Trump will wind up peeling away many Obama states. As I mentioned in the other thread, Trump could win the Rust Belt, flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, plus Iowa, and still lose to Clinton.
posted by Gelatin at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Like all women, Clinton is either too old or too young for whatever thing she is wanting to do, and has been her whole life.

That said, damn it ma'am, it's not watchlists that protect us, it's making guns less available. Hateful shitbags are too numerous and too hard to spot. Keeping guns out of their hands is much easier and much less likely to increase the police state for everyone else. Can we just focus on things that work without making life materially worse for everyone, that would be NICE, for the love of god.

(I suspect that just like Obama and the motherfucking TPP, we are going to have to keep demanding our liberal leaders be actual goddamn liberals, jesus.)

(man I'm cursing a lot today)
posted by emjaybee at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?

If they got into it what would they even find? I rather think that internal emails at Trump HQ consist of racist/conspiracy theory meme forwards. Insiders have already basically said that the campaign strategy begins and ends with whatever Donald Trump shat onto his twitter feed most recently.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


If they got into it what would they even find?

Proof that he's a saboteur sent to destroy the Republican part from within?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's running mate pick is very important just because of the likelihood that ultimately the GOP Congressional Leadership will lose patience with him and Impeach his orange ass, and a ridiculous VP is a good defense (just like Agnew for Nixon... when Spiro was gone and Ford was in, it was safe to dump Tricky Dick).

As far as ages, the Beloved Biden is less than a full year younger than Bernie. So I'm still baffled at the claim that, at 65, Al Franken is too old.

My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
Considering his public statements, Trump's "opposition research" is whatever comes to his mind at the moment, and NOBODY wants to hack Donald's brain.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Again, it has nothing to do with her being a woman, in my case. In an ideal world for me, we wouldn't be electing anyone near retirement age to what is hopefully an 8-year job. It's why, despite liking him quite a lot, I had no desire for Biden to run. It's not an absolute bar for me, obviously, but it's not ideal.
posted by tavella at 9:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the GOP continues to control the House, I see zero chance they would impeach Trump, short of his actively gunning down people in the streets, and maybe not then. This is not 1974.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Trump oppo research file is just a whiteboard with CROOKED HILLARY!!! written on it in non-whiteboard marker
posted by theodolite at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [49 favorites]


The Trump oppo research file is just a link to Fox News' archive.
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on June 14, 2016


Really Bad Hillary
Horrible Hillary
Smellary
The She-Creature
Crooked Hillary This one! -DJT
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


A friend of mine in Oklahoma shared this link about Trump meeting with Gov. Mary Fallin today. Apparently she's already endorsed Trump and has been mentioned by his team in the context of a VP pick.

I don't know that much about her, but my understanding is that she's been partially responsible for under-funding schools and is generally qualified in terms of awfulness to be on the Trump ticket. My impression is that she's reasonably popular with evangelicals, and might help bring in that wing of the party?
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016


I'm pretty sure it's one of those zip files that creates another zip file when you unzip it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Trump oppo research file is written in BASIC and reads as follows:
10 PRINT "DONALD TRUMP RULES!!!"
20 GOTO 10
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:56 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


So I know "Fallin" is pronounced like "Fallon," but Trump/Fallin 2016 reads like "fallin(g)" or "failin'," either of which is amusing.
posted by stolyarova at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2016


Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Some more details from Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder of CrowdStrike:
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee.

Beware COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR!
posted by Kabanos at 10:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thank you to the kind poster upthread who linked again to Charlie Pierce. I've followed his posts regularly, but I'd forgotten how darned good his profile of Elizabeth Warren was. It's a fantastic article - and again, while I'd *love* to see what she could do with the ultimate in bully pulpits, I think she's best placed in the Senate right now.

What I wouldn't give for Chuck Schumer to become Senate majority leader, leaving Warren to chair the Finance and Banking committees as they write bills for President Clinton to sign. (Except for that hitch with the House of Representatives. What are we going to do about that?)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


NOT Care Bears.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016


Oh my God. I am reading Mary Fallin's Wikipedia Page right now, and I had no idea...
Under Fallin, Oklahoma has pushed for increased use of lethal injection as a means of ending life in capital punishment, while refusing to release details of the new chemical concoctions used in these executions following chemical company Hospira's decision to stop producing sodium thiopental, which had previously been widely used. Fallin pushed strongly for the execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett to proceed in spite of the lack of tested drugs to use for lethal injection. When the Oklahoma State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution, Fallin immediately overruled it, leading some political commentators to raise the possibility of a constitutional crisis surrounding the separation of powers. At the same time, a member of the Oklahoma legislature moved to impeach the seven justices on the Supreme Court who had granted the stay.[31][32] Lockett's execution was attempted on April 29, 2014, but was abandoned when he could not be sedated and was left writhing in pain. Lockett died 43 minutes later of a heart attack.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Should have renamed it LOTSA HEARTS if stealing info about GOP candidate.
posted by Kabanos at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2016


I don't know that much about her, but my understanding is that she's been partially responsible for under-funding schools and is generally qualified in terms of awfulness to be on the Trump ticket.

Mary Fallin has been an unmitigated disaster for Oklahoma. It's not about underfunding schools -- it's that she pushed hard for a oil royalty tax cut, one that everyone thought was pointless. Then the price of oil cratered and... yep.

School districts are cutting hundreds of teachers, per capita spending per pupil is now lower than Mississippi (the long-time benchmark for "at least we're not" when you're comparing education), others teachers are moving to Texas and Arkansas, and now families are leaving Oklahoma. Even the GOP budget leadership is talking higher taxes now.

Her as VP candidate is a mixed blessing. Oklahoma would love to get rid of her (luckily OK has term limits so she'll be done in 2018), but making her a heartbeat away from the presidency?

But she's perfect for Trump. Honestly.
posted by dw at 10:12 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?
posted by zutalors! at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016


I'm glad to see Obama call them out over the "radical islam" thing. Nice job.
posted by bongo_x at 10:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


"The entire political system has been tilted more in the Republicans’ favor, to the point where the presidency is the only prize that Democrats can fight for on equal terms—"

The issue is non-democratic court decisions (money = free speech), gerrymandering and voter suppression. I keep hoping Bernie will focus on this and I think Hillary would support him.

But his only comments for weeks have been about independents being able to vote in primaries, which has nothing to do with Republicans' success and is not fundamentally an issue of fairness. Seems more like sour grapes.
posted by msalt at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


So I know "Fallin" is pronounced like "Fallon," but Trump/Fallin 2016 reads like "fallin(g)" or "failin'," either of which is amusing.

“Trailin’”, like their poll numbers.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


>SPROUT AND THE BEAN IN 2016

"They say Trump will try to hurt me,
Like a slow, low-flying turkey,
Like a Texan drying jerky
But his meaty mitts can't hurt me."
posted by msalt at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't see anywhere where this has been noted before.

Obama: Nobel Prize.
Gore: Nobel Prize.
Trump: Razzie.

Ghosts Can't Do It. (Anthony Quinn commits suicide and then returns as a ghost to convince his widow (Bo Derek) to kill a studly man so he can keep on banging her.) Released (USA) the same month as Ghost Dad.

The clip.

The dialogue:

Donald Trump: Be assured, Mrs. Scott, that in this room there are knives sharp enough to cut you to the bone and hearts cold enough to eat yours as hors-d'oeuvres.

Katie O'Dare Scott (Bo Derek): You're too pretty to be bad!

Donald Trump: You noticed.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Re: Gingrich on the return of HUAC
If memory serves, someone on Fox has been hawking books over the last couple of years painting McCarthy as hero, not villain. I'm sure the return of HUAC plays beautifully to Trump's base.
posted by wittgenstein at 10:51 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


If memory serves, someone on Fox has been hawking books over the last couple of years painting McCarthy as hero, not villain.

And let's not forget that in the wake of 9/11, the odious Michelle Malkin wrote a book called In Defense of Internment.

(While we're strolling down memory lane, let's chuckle at the feeble attempt of Jonah Goldberg to deflect attention to so-called "Liberal Fascism").
posted by Gelatin at 10:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Narenda Modi, whom, I was given the impression by this interview, is a unicorn made of rainbows who shits gold.

As opposed to the reality, which is that he is a fascist who, at a minimum, refused to stop the massacre of Muslims while he was chief minister of Gujarat, and whose stint as prime minister has been marked by a huge uptick in the targeting of minorities in the largest democracy in the world.
posted by bardophile at 10:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2016


Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?

I say Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (who is 56). Name her VP this year -- Minnesota has a Democratic governor so the seat is safe. I'd love to see Al Franken, but a) the fact that he was literally a comedian will hurt him, and b) women get under Trump's skin in a way he can't.

Humor will be crucial to competing with Trump for entertainment while winning likability. By all accounts Klobuchar is even funnier than Franken, she might help shore up the Upper Midwest, and her victory will set her up for 2024 as the Lady Biden candidate.
posted by msalt at 11:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, but were the 1980s the Amy Klobuchar Decade?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I wonder if he'd even pick Michelle Malkin, come to that. She'd make a pretty Palin for him, except that whatever else she is, Malkin isn't lazy or stupid.

The name "Castro" could make some low-information voters as nervous as "Hussein," but I don't suppose such voters were likely to be swayed to Hillary anyway.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?

Gavin Newsom?
posted by aspersioncast at 11:16 AM on June 14, 2016


I mean he's currently running for CA Gov. 2018, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the ballot in a few years.
posted by aspersioncast at 11:22 AM on June 14, 2016


I finally read the HuffPost piece with the Cruz, Bush, and Rubio campaign managers and its incredible. As I read I kept glossing over the individual names, and only going back and seeing who said what if it got specific. A fun game is to see if you can tell which is which by the end without reading who said it (hint - if it's a super salty comment it's Cruz's campaign manager).

Also, I had to remember which was which and had a little mnemonic that might help. Roe is gross fish eggs and goes with Cruz because he's a disgusting reptile piece of shit. I don't know how to keep the other two straight but who cares.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee. Political celebrity can move pretty fast, so I'm not worried.
posted by Think_Long at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:32 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


> I finally read the HuffPost piece ...

Yeah, I'm reading it, and right off the bat, we meet:

Trump had a floor. He was always going to have 25 to 30 percent of liberal-to-moderates, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of somewhat conservatives, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of very conservatives.

Why, it's our old friend, the 27% Crazification Factor. It's uncanny!
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.

When his immediate predecessor as President was inaugurated, Obama had just gotten stomped in a House primary by 30 points. When Bush's immediate predecessor was inaugurated, Bush was 0-1 in elections, also having lost a House race. There is a very good chance that 90 percent of us have never heard of whoever will end up as the 46th president.
posted by Etrigan at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


*2000 words about how nobody in the Republican Party was able to control Donald Trump*

How can you then turn around and say, “You know, the system will restrain Trump”?

Bcause Republicans control themselves. We police ourselves better.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


There is a very good chance that 90 percent of us have never heard of whoever will end up as the 46th president.

Oh god, it's going to be one of those goddamn Youtube stars, isn't it?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Minecraft Dan
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


IWILLDOMINATE/IMAQTPIE 2024!

They could personally thank each person that pledges to vote for them live on stream!
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


A campaign run on the power of memes!
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016


Tyler Oakley turns 35 in 2024.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket over any republican candidate, any day.
posted by dotgirl at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2016


I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket over any republican candidate, any day.

PewdiePie is a svenskar so no bueno there.
posted by Talez at 11:52 AM on June 14, 2016


I've said it before, I'll say it again - I've run the numbers, and the 2024 president *must* be named Yelnick McWawa.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 14, 2016


Are you sure you're not confusing it with those weird three word addresses?
posted by Talez at 11:55 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Minecraft Dan
IWILLDOMINATE/IMAQTPIE
I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket


OK, now you people are just making shit up.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


CookieSwirl C / DisneyCollectorBR 2028
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I assume that eventually there is an extremely good chance that Kirsten Gillibrand will eventually follow in Hillary's footsteps.

In general she seems like her positions have been more along the centrist side of Democratic politics but there has been some evidence that when she became a Senator her positions became a lot more progressive even though I personally find her political positions problematic on a number of issues (Death Penalty and some economical conservative positions) but she seems to have.

Klobuchar is the other major up and comer on the Democratic side in the Senate and I wouldn't be surprised if we see her make a transition to either Attorney General or the SCOTUS.

I'm less certain of the up and coming individuals in the house besides the Castro brother, maybe Patrick Murphy if becomes a Florida Senator. I would love if someone like Jared Polis could move up as well but I have to imagine that rampant homophobia will probably limit how high he can rise.

Of course there are also people like Kamala Harris who definitely could be seen as potentially taking the fast track to leadership.
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016


On the plus side of a Mary Fallin nomination, a debate between her and Elizabeth Warren would be brutal. Plus Warren can play her own Okie card, so I'd expect a debate filled with references to "fraidy holes" and "Sonic limeades" and "rain-wrapped mesocyclones."
posted by dw at 12:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.

The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.

At the 1992 convention in his acceptance speech Clinton said “I ran for president this year for one reason and one reason only,” he said, “I wanted to come back to this convention and finish that speech I started four years ago!”
posted by JackFlash at 12:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Vuron, it should be remembered that Gillibrand came into Congress representing an upstate New York district, which tends to be much more conservative than New York State as a whole. I don't know a ton about her personal politics pre elected office, but it makes sense that she'd have been a Blue Dog in the house and more progressive in the senate.
posted by Sara C. at 12:22 PM on June 14, 2016


> Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee

Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani Have Bold Plans to Make Trumpism Even Worse. Constitution, schmonstitution.
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gillibrand has been asked about that - she's said she felt it was her responsibility to (within limits) reflect her constituents. Her congressional district was more conservative than her state as a whole.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:32 PM on June 14, 2016


I agree Sara and honestly I'm perfectly willing to have politicians develop more liberal positions over time. But let's be honest if the progressive wing of the Democratic party thinks that Clinton is too conservative then I figure they'll freak out over Gillibrand.

That being said I think she's got a very strong chance of rocketing into the national spotlight moving forward especially if she continues to adopt leadership roles in regards to a number of issues.
posted by vuron at 12:33 PM on June 14, 2016


The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.

Yes, and that was the same year keynote speaker Ann Richards brought down the house with her famous "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" speech. (Then, twelve years later, America would go on to elect the wrong Texas governor as president. RIP Ann.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.

He had been Governor of Arkansas four times and the chair of the National Governors Association. He wasn't the Inevitable Next Candidate in 1988, but he wasn't a wide-eyed neophyte.
posted by Etrigan at 12:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Gina Raimundo is another name to be on the lookout for - a fiscally conservative, socially progressive technocrat that will appeal to the Clinton base, she's also a compelling speaker.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016


"George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!"

As opposed to his son W, who was born with a silver spoon in his nose.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Rebecca Traister's latest on the campaign: This Election is a Civil War.
posted by emjaybee at 12:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Since I'm the person who raised the "younger Dem" question, it's more that I am curious about the nurture program. Maybe the public hadn't heard of Clinton or Obama but to the leadership they certainly didn't come from nowhere.
posted by zutalors! at 12:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Someone else to keep an eye out for in 2020 and 2024 is Brian Sandoval. He's a centrist Hispanic Republican, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-ACA, pro-renewable energy, and the very popular two-term governor of Nevada. If the GOP can recover at all from this year's dumpster fire he's the kind of guy they should nominate in the future.
posted by stolyarova at 12:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sandoval is incidentally also highly traditional-President-shaped (like a Latino Mitt Romney) so the Republicans will probably like that.
posted by stolyarova at 12:52 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Anyone saying a Clinton win is inevitable, take a look at how the "inevitable" victory predicted for the Remain side in the UK's coming EU referendum is going...

Don't get complacent.
posted by knapah at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Speaking of the dumpster fire, this week's great Republican flight from Trump's disgraceful reaction to Orlando has already begun. Plus the President and HRC have landed some very hard blows. I can't wait for the weekend news shows.
posted by bearwife at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Since I'm the person who raised the "younger Dem" question, it's more that I am curious about the nurture program.

Oh, the Dem's growth program is the complete opposite of a dumpster fire, in that a dumpster fire can be said to exist. A friend of mine who's run for the statehouse a couple of times was called by the state Democratic party about running again this year, because apparently they hadn't thought about our district until one week before the filing deadline.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


So apparently Sanders called for "changes to the Democratic Party" today:
-New leadership
-Elimination of superdelegates
-Same day registration for voting
-Open primaries
Which sounds nice at first glance, especially #1 and #2. But voter registration is controlled by the individual states' Secretaries of State, and unilaterally opening primaries sounds like a recipe for (Operation) chaos. Having half his proposal be either unworkable or likely to cause more problems than it solves makes it look like this wasn't thought through properly, which is especially disappointing seeing as how he's supposed to have been working on this kind of reform for months.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Re the "Obama came from nowhere" thing, he was definitely on my radar as early as 2000 when he ran for the House. I remember my community college journalism 101 instructor bringing in an article about the upstart Illinois civil rights lawyer and saying something along the lines of "this is a guy to watch."
posted by aspersioncast at 1:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]



The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.

Yes, and that was the same year keynote speaker Ann Richards brought down the house with her famous "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" speech. (Then, twelve years later, America would go on to elect the wrong Texas governor as president. RIP Ann.)


Could've used this a few days ago in LearnedLeague, thanks for nothing guys.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Elimination of superdelegates

Keeping the republican party's nomination process and results in mind, I see how superdelegates might be a reasonable idea.
posted by peeedro at 1:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee

is this real life
posted by biogeo at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016


What a wild coincidence that all of Bernie Sanders' goals for the Democratic Party involve killing things that appear to have hurt his nomination chances in particular. Such high, lofty principles he has!

(Although at this point the argument against superdelegates is that they let a hopeless candidate stay in the race long past the point where it's rationally over, not that they overturn the will of the electorate.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [24 favorites]


Yes, it's crazy to me that they just keep implying, if not actually saying, that Sanders lost because of superdelegates. Losing respect by the minute.
posted by bongo_x at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, superdelegates were never really his problem, and him tilting at that particular windmill isn't terribly impressive.

Also, is his call for open primaries to just have open primaries across the board, or is it to open existing primaries while leaving caucuses alone? Because if it's the latter, that is some hot bullshit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


-Elimination of superdelegates
-Same day registration for voting
-Open primaries


Sounds like a recipe for Republican ratfucking.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


It's like Sanders wants the Dems to have a Trump problem in the future.
posted by bongo_x at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


I was going to ask the same thing as NoxAeternum. Is he calling for elimination of both closed primaries and caucuses or just closed primaries?
posted by Justinian at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016


Gay and voting for Trump after Orlando: how the right is eyeing the LGBT vote

Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer. Yesterday, Hoft revealed that he was gay on Breitbart news and argued that it was time for gay people to “come home” to the conservative party. He wrote: “I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs. There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.”

UCF Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos’ Scheduled Speech on ‘Gays and Islam’

Brett Meade, Deputy Chief of Police at UCF said he made an executive decision to postpone the event due to lack of resources to assure Milo’s security.

They have 70 officers deployed for tonight’s vigil at the university and “cannot guarantee focus” on anything but that event.

Meade provided Milo’s tour manager, Tim Treadstone, with a folder of threats made against the Breitbart Tech editor on social media.


It's difficult for me to come up with any adequate words to express the disgust I feel for these people.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Hey, given the bro-mance between Putin and Trump, the perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that the Russians are working for Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 1:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ugh. Milo Yiannopolous (and his alt-right troll army) are everything that is wrong with political discussion on the internet.
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


"But it's hard to see how Trump will wind up peeling away many Obama states. As I mentioned in the other thread, Trump could win the Rust Belt, flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, plus Iowa, and still lose to Clinton."

The RNC today basically conceded Illinois and won't be running field operations or national advertising here.

They are focusing on "Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin - even deep blue California and New York."

(Regarding a 50-state strategy by Democrats -- discussion of the GOP conceding Illinois on local political blogs has involved VERY BITTER COMPLAINING that the Democrats have been running a tiny handful of national ads during national programming in Illinois and people are not used to having to see presidential advertising and they do not like it. Which makes me LOL.)

"I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock."

Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"

posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Caucuses need to go, even you Iowa Caucuses, because we really shouldn't let the front runners in elections be determined by who can show up in rural diners about 4 years in advance.

Same day voter registration gets into the territory of each state's Secretary of State. This is not something that can be mandated.

I'm not entirely sold on whether open primaries would be good or bad. I really haven't seen evidence that open primaries would've changed much in this election (Sanders would still have gotten stomped) and if we can get rid of caucuses I can definitely be willing to go with open primaries.

Honestly I haven't seen evidence that Superdelegates actually mean much, Clinton led with them in 2008 until it seemed like Obama was going to retain his lead and then they switched.

For the most part they really haven't matter at all this season until Sanders has started his bullshit campaign about getting the Superdelegates to ignore the Pledge Delegate lead of Clinton.
posted by vuron at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Democrats have been running a tiny handful of national ads during national programming in Illinois and people are not used to having to see presidential advertising and they do not like it.

Nobody is forcing these people to watch television...
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016


How about just one frikkin' day for all primaries so we get it over with and don't have the B.S. antidemocratic "early lead" and "momentum" media narratives that favor the voices of voters in some states over others? I don't understand why you'd bother with other reforms of the party nomination process without tackling that obvious flaw. This election season will have been over a year long by the time it's over. This on its own is damaging our democracy. Look at how it let the Republicans justify their refusal to vote on Garland's nomination by calling Obama a lame duck a year before he leaves office.
posted by biogeo at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oh right, the only systemic problems that needs addressing are Wall Street and political corruption.
posted by biogeo at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016


Ugh. Milo Yiannopolous (and his alt-right troll army) are everything that is wrong with political discussion on the internet.

ftfy
posted by murphy slaw at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


A single-day primary, however, will mean that the only viable candidates will be either strong establishment figures who already have national recognition or celebrities. A spread-out primary system that starts in small states enables lesser-known, less-establishment candidates, like Obama and Sanders, to build recognition, credibility, and fundraising. A single-day primary in a country this large will be MUCH more subject to party control and much less available to outsider or insurgent candidates.

It doesn't have to be THIS spread out and insanely long. But there are real benefits to a slow-starting primary system that gives a foothold to less-known candidates and allows the media more time to vet and requires retail politicking and takes some of the selection out of the hands of the party apparatus.

I was spitballing in a prior thread and I thought maybe Democrats should move DC up to third place, behind Iowa and New Hampshire (on the assumption that displacing Iowa and New Hampshire as "first" is politically impossible), because they're fairly rural, fairly white electorates. DC has the benefit of being small (like Iowa and NH), which makes it possible to do retail politics there and prevents such an early contest from being decisive while voters are still forming opinions, but is unique in that while tiny, it's entirely urban and extremely diverse, and pretty lefty. It's also politically well-educated by the nature of its domination by the federal government. It might bring a little more balance to the early part of the Democratic calendar without upsetting the process by which we start small to start the vetting process without committing to big states that assign decisive numbers of delegates until much later on when we've all had a chance to get to know the candidates.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [38 favorites]


I like the long primary season because I think it gives relative nobodies a better chance. Unless you are very well funded, running a national campaign is prohibitively expensive. But you can campaign in just Iowa and New Hampshire. Good showings there can get you a lot of free media coverage, and can be leveraged to give you a better chance in later states. It just seems like a lower barrier to entry. And the sheer amount of time it takes to get through all the elections gives lesser-known candidates time to get known.

But it does seem unfair that it's always Iowa and New Hampshire first. We should maybe just let a random selection of congressional districts from all over the country vote every week (ideally over the weekend!) for four months until they've all voted. Or switch to mail in voting and give everyone four months to get their ballot in, like filing your taxes.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock."

Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"


Sure. I just think Narenda Modi's name should never be taken without also identifying him as a fascist. The recent closer ties between the US and India make it even more important that this be so. Even in these election threads, people have praised Tulsi Gabbard as a progressive role model, without recognizing how sketchy her support of Modi and his RSS buddies is.
posted by bardophile at 1:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Because the states run the elections, they have to balance "being influential in the presidential election" vs. "paying for two elections, because we can't run our state-offices primary in February."
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.

That's true, but he wasn't exactly unknown, even then. Two months before the convention:
Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her "obama" button. "He jumped back, almost literally," she said. "And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don’t know him.' So I just said, 'You will.'"
The Candidate, The New Yorker, May 31, 2004. (Worth a read, incidentally. Just for old times' sake.)
posted by The Bellman at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


"If Aaron Schock is for it, I'm agin it," has never steered me wrong.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


A single-day primary, however, will mean that the only viable candidates will be either strong establishment figures who already have national recognition or celebrities.

Everyone keeps saying this, but it's nothing but cargo cult logic. Consider that nobody really comes out of nowhere -- they're all current or recent politicians except for wild card like Trump who have a platform already. The electoral contests are the way we currently let candidates "gain a foothold" and "build momentum", but they're not the only ways that can happen.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm glad to see Obama call them out over the "radical islam" thing. Nice job.

Here it is on video.
posted by peeedro at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


My general feeling is that the race as it stands now is basically the following:

Solid Democratic- 251
Solid Republican- 180

With the following states as the battleground states:

Arizona- Normally I would consider this as safe Republican but McCain looks vulnerable and while Phoenix is a fortress of Red it seems like there is a general weakening of the Republican position as more and more new residents come into the state.

Colorado- Honestly I think this is rapidly shifting into solid Democratic territory but there is a lot of libertarian sentiment as well and I'm unsure whether that will hurt or help Trump's chances. Still it's hard to imagine a state that legalized pot going for Trump

Florida- Always a big battleground and this is a must win for Trump. Currently without VPs nominated I'd say this is a fairly close state but the right VP could shift this one way or the other. The fact that there is also a pretty high profile senate race in this state could make stuff interesting

Iowa- I just don't know where I think Iowa will go, I think there should be some antipathy for Trump here but I also think there is some antipathy for Clinton.

Nevada- I would say that Clinton should win this state relatively easily based upon demographics but right now it seems appropriate to consider it as a battleground state.

New Hampshire - Iconoclastic as hell they seem to be the only NE state that is remotely willing to listen to Trump's bullshit. I think it will go to Clinton but who knows.

North Carolina- Haha this state should never of become a battleground this quickly, yeah influx on new residents and stuff but Republicans have to be worried if North Carolina becomes vulnerable because if they lose NC they pretty much get wiped out in the General Election.

Ohio- Trump absolutely has to win this state and I think it will force him to go with Kasich (in a vain attempt to also put Pennsylvania into a contest- Pro-tip never going to happen). Clinton's strength during the primaries seemed really really strong.

Virginia- One of the swingiest states in the nation it seems like demographics are killing Republicans for state wide office. Yeah Virginia Democrats are centrist as hell but it doesn't seem like it's a solid state for Trump currently. It is also more or less a must win for Trump.

Trump basically has to run the table and the reality is based upon the current polling if things pretty much keep in the current trajectory I think it's not impossible for things to become a 358- 180 ass kicking.
posted by vuron at 1:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Watch Ken Burns insult Donald Trump for 7 minutes straight at Stanford’s commencement
And then he did, delivering a seven-minute string of blistering insults to Trump, calling him an "infantile, bullying man," a "spoiled, misbehaving child," a "charlatan," and a "naked emperor." He blasted Trump's speeches as riddled with "troubling, unfiltered Tourette's of his tribalism."

[...]

It's up to graduates to reverse it, he said, to applause: "Asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747."
posted by tonycpsu at 1:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [21 favorites]


Re younger Democrats - don't forget, there's a 35 year old, very serious, very handsome next generation Kennedy in the House.

Maybe also Seth Moulton?

As far as Kirsten Gillibrand, I have never met a better cusser in my life. (There are lots of other good things about her too)
posted by sallybrown at 1:51 PM on June 14, 2016


Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016


Even aside from a single-day primary there are plenty of steps we can take to make the primary elections more equitable while giving less well-known candidates a larger voice. My own hobby horse here is to reform voting rules to make them more democratic, ideally something like approval voting. And if the idea of extending things to give outsider candidates more attention is what we really want, why not a series of one-on-one tournament-style elections over the course of a few weeks? Then each candidate gets a chance to present their case to the entire country in a series of smaller campaigns, roughly equally-weighted in terms of importance and media attention. The current system just feels like the worst possible way of doing it.
posted by biogeo at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016


Seth Moulton went to my high school, in my year. I mainly just knew him by reputation, which was a good one, so I don't have anything to add, except that having somebody from my class on the ticket would be the one thing that would make this election even weirder for me.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Guys you don't need to keep selling me on Gillibrand. I'm willing to jump on the bandwagon 8 years in advance ;)
posted by vuron at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?
posted by stolyarova at 2:04 PM on June 14, 2016


Talking about the electoral vote, this is the map you get from current prediction market values: Clinton 332, Trump 206.

Trump needs to flip 63 EVs to win. The closest states to flipping red (and their EVs), according to prediction markets, are:
   Win  EVs
OH 39%  18
FL 38%  29
NH 35%   4
PA 34%  20 < tipping point
IA 32%   6
MI 30%  16
CO 26%   9
Pennsylvania seems incredibly unlikely to be in play this year. Seems like his best path to "victory" is an electoral tie by taking Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:05 PM on June 14, 2016


So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?

oh crap, Trump is going to find out he's an asshole!
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]




I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).

It's like the 30 Rock episode where Jack hires a P.I. to investigate his own past.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?

Makes sense for Putin to undermine Trump's opposition. A weak president like Trump means Putin can more easily spread his fascist claws over the rest of Eastern Europe, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


A weak president like Trump means Putin can more easily spread his fascist claws over the rest of Eastern Europe, for instance.

Exactly. As I've mentioned before, my husband was born in the former Soviet Union, and he thinks it's hilarious how Trump believes Putin is his friend. Putin likes Trump because he can play him like a slide whistle.
posted by stolyarova at 2:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).

A disciplined, well-strategized campaign would be able to use knowledge of its opponent's planned attacks in controlled "leaks" and persistent messaging that would undercut those attacks before they're even made. So, yeah, I'm not sure what Trump would use it for either.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


Seth Moulton wants it too. If Warren gets the nod and they manage to do whatever 'write a letter on the third new moon during the House of Virgo' incantation they need to do to keep Baker from appointing a senator who lasts more than five minutes before melting back into wax and component parts, then I fully expect Moulton (veteran, big on veteran affairs, coming out swinging on assault rifles) to run for her seat.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump basically has to run the table and the reality is based upon the current polling if things pretty much keep in the current trajectory I think it's not impossible for things to become a 358- 180 ass kicking.

I saw a 401 map this morning. Current polling has her kicking his ass in Kansas and a tie in Utah.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


To be honest, I think Clinton has a good chance to take Utah. Mormons hate Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


> Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.

Scott Brown Says Orlando Shooting Did Not Primarily Target Gay People
posted by homunculus at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016


why not a series of one-on-one tournament-style elections over the course of a few weeks?

Why not actual tournaments? They always work well in the shonen anime I watch.

Besides, I'm still disappointed I didn't get to see my Clinton shoryuken during the California voting.
posted by happyroach at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]




If this was Ranma, we could have Martial Arts Primary Elections.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


> While we're strolling down memory lane, let's chuckle at the feeble attempt of Jonah Goldberg to deflect attention to so-called "Liberal Fascism"

Pretty much all of these conservative doorstoppers that mainly exist because they're part of the wingnut welfare scam should be named "Nuh UH, LIEberals!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


To be honest, I think Clinton has a good chance to take Utah. Mormons hate Trump.

It's gonna happen if Romney endorses Gary Johnson.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Chris Christie Calls For The U.S. Military To Retaliate For The Orlando Massacre. He’s Not Sure Where.

Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Holy shit. Bloomberg poll of 1,000 likely voters Friday to Monday. Clinton 49, Trump 37. 12 point lead.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Don't get complacent, everyone.

On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:29 PM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]


The Two Democratic Victors - "Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination for president, while Bernie Sanders has won the party’s battle of ideas. That may be cold comfort to the Sanders faithful, but it shouldn’t be: He clearly has transformed both the Democrats and the substance of American liberalism."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Chris Christie Calls For The U.S. Military To Retaliate For The Orlando Massacre

Much like Trump's assertion that he will ban immigration from countries where terrorists come from, the obvious answer is the US.

So we should ban everyone born in the US, with military force.

Given that the homicide rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, leaving the country to the immigrants should make it less violent.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


"So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?"

It's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I think the point was probably more to prove their ability to infiltrate and intimidate the systems of the person they think will be the next president (Hillary) to keep her off balance. While Putin certain enjoys feeding off Trump's free publicity, and Putin is many things, one thing he is not is stupid. There is not actually a lot of upside for Putin if Trump actually wins, because Trump is a literal crazy person who will then have nukes, and certainly Russia's relations with the US still revolve a great deal around nuclear questions. It's to Putin's benefit if Trump weakens Clinton and she is perceived as a weak president without a mandate; I'm really, really not sure it's to Putin's benefit to have Trump in the White House because, as noted, Trump is crazy. Putin's brand of crazy-like-a-fox works against rational foils like Merkel and Obama; it doesn't work even a little against ACTUAL crazy, and Putin would be able to do a lot less strongman posturing with an American president who is not capable of separating posturing from actual realpolitik positioning.

I suspect there are few people in the entire world who are more concerned about the possibility of a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button than Putin. Putin can be pretty sure that the US for its last several presidents has understood the consequences of nuclear-involving escalation and has been extremely reluctant to engage in anything to ramps up the risks of a nuclear attack; Trump has made it clear he is way too stupid to understand the realities of international politics and that he is willing to threaten and risk anything to make "deals" or to engage in his own strongman posturing.

A Hillary Clinton perceived as weak is probably Putin's best possible outcome. An actual ally in the White House would not fit Putin's strategies or domestic political narratives, which depend heavily on the US being an opponent. An actual crazy person in the White House is not in his interest at all, that's a literal existential threat. That's super-cool that Putin wants to be the strongman of Eastern Europe, but Russia doesn't have the force-projection ability to be the strongman of the world (other than through nuclear war), and the US DOES, with or without nukes. Putin does not want an actual shooting war involving the US (his slow, careful escalation in Eastern Europe with difficult-to-respond-to semi-aggressions has made that very clear); he definitely does not want anyone to start setting off nukes.

Remember that Russia's strategic imperatives also involve careful balancing of its relations with China and the EU; it's not a Cold War US/USSR scenario but even leaving the US aside Russia has two very powerful neighbors on its borders (China and the EU) who arguably rival Russia militarily at this point (certainly economically). Any strategic decision-making Russia makes involves balancing all of those relationships, and a relatively stable US makes it a lot easier for Russia to balance its relationships with the EU and China. A major shift in the US's relationships with Europe or China would be seismic for Russia.

Anyway I think Putin's delighted to ride Trump's free media train and to troll the shit out of the US and its allies by doing so; I think he's way too canny to actually help Trump. And that's leaving aside the natural grumpiness that countries feel when they think another country has interfered in its elections -- recall the backlash when some magazine (Time? Newsweek?) ran a "who do not-Americans want for president?" poll in 2004 and there was outrage and a (brief) Bush bump when the rest of the world weighed in in opinion polls and urged Americans to vote Kerry? Or recall the recent rage when Obama made relatively innocuous factual comments on Brexit (that it would take a relatively long time to remake US/UK trade agreements, contrary to the claims of pro-Brexit politicians that it would be instant)? Imagine if Russian spies actually started stumping for Trump! It would be more likely to hurt than help, and they know that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."

so there's that.

The 55% NeverTrump is heartening though, and seems to be pretty in line with the other indicators such as Obama approval.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


He clearly has transformed both the Democrats and the substance of American liberalism.

He's done the latter, for sure, by shifting the narrative away from a pro-corporatist agenda, to stress progressive ideals like universal healthcare, fighting climate change, and paying working Americans a living wage. It remains to see what happens on the first score — much of that will depend on how much the official party platform changes and the progressive chops of whomever is nominated for VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).

If they passed it off to him, I could see his people using it to figure out what the Dems don't know.
posted by drezdn at 2:36 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm really, really not sure it's to Putin's benefit to have Trump in the White House because, as noted, Trump is crazy.

Putin knows he just has to play Trump's ego to guide him to make the decisions Putin wants.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.

Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.

The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


(You guys know that whomever is nominated for VP has to pretty much shut up and toe the party line, right? VPs want what the president wants. VPs don't get to have competing agendas. An Elizabeth Warren VP nod either says the party is wholeheartedly embracing the platform -- but Clinton will lead that platform, not Warren -- or that Warren has to STFU for the next four years. VPs' political voices get neutered.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [22 favorites]


Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.

Many of the people who died Sunday morning were Floridians.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.

We can only hope.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:40 PM on June 14, 2016


“So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?”

Why would Putin do this? He likes Trump conceptually, but he doesn’t know him. If Putin wanted to really screw with things, he would be trying to frame Clinton for having indeed leaked sensitive data from her email server.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:41 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.

Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.

The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance


I don't see how a 12 point win for Clinton would not flip the House. 12 point win is gonna be 400-plus EVs and you'll see GA, KS, UT and AZ flip for sure. Hell IN might be in play, maybe even Missouri. Reagan won all but one state with a a 17 point win in '84. And ticket-splitting which was rampant back then is comparatively rare now.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2016


This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."

For fuck's sake, America.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]


This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.

What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Gothamist: Trump's Bronx Golf Course Is A Giant Taxpayer Money Pit
The group NYC Park Advocates obtained financial reports regarding Trump Links, showing that the course, the most expensive city-funded golf facility in the country at around $164 million, brought in more than $8 million in its first year, none of which is going back into city coffers.

Under the terms outlined by the 20-year contract, the Trump Organization has to pay nothing to the city for the first four years of operation, then for the fifth year, the larger of $300,000 or 7 percent of gross revenues, and an increasing share up until year 20, when it is supposed to cough up the greater of $470,000 or 10 percent of gross revenues, plus 3 percent of sub-vendors' gross revenues.
[snip]

The Post found that city taxpayers are on the hook for the course's sewage and water fees, which ran more than $1 million in the last year and are expected to rise in the coming year. In constructing the course, for which former golf pro Jack Nicklaus also got a sweetheart design contract that includes private jet and helicopter travel, the Trump Organization only had to pitch in $10 million for construction of a permanent clubhouse. The clubhouse has yet to be completed.
If you live in the Bronx and want to play a round of golf on the course that your tax dollars paid for and help maintain? It will cost you $144-172 per round. Also one of the perks for He, Trump is he can close the course at any time for private events for up to 20 percent of the weekdays.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]


(A derail: today is Trump’s birthday, so if you visit his Twitter page you will be presented with delightful cavalcade of balloons rising across your screen.)
posted by Going To Maine at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure it's too late for the Republicans to hop on the off ramp away from Trump as GOP candidate, at least not without totaling the car.
posted by yasaman at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


today is Trump’s birthday, so if you visit his Twitter page you will be presented with delightful cavalcade of balloons rising across your screen

Darn. I was hoping those were the Langoliers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.

No need. Florida's residents have been waging war against it, both as land and polity, for decades now.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Re Trump VP, I think he has to pick a complete kiss-ass groveler who will not eclipse him in any way. He was so uncomfortable when Palin was on the stage with him and he had to share the spotlight. Pretty boy vapid Scott Brown would be ideal, sort of a slightly smarter Dan Quayle. Plus, he would be acceptable to the Republican leaders (using the term loosely; if there even is such a thing anymore) and be a hope for the future. He would fit in the on-stage Trumpian family tableaux look book.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


VPs don't get to have competing agendas.

Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.

Yeah but considering his tiny hands and advanced years I'm not so sure Clinton wouldn't be the better choice. (I know she is only 2 years younger but I like to imagine that she is a tough brawler where he is soft, squishy bully with no backbone.)

I told my husband about the data suck this morning and we agreed that even if Putin sent Trump everything that the DNC has on him it wouldn't do him any good-- he is completely undisciplined. I mean he could forearm himself but he should already know what his dirty secrets are and how to counteract them.

today is Trump’s birthday,
Yep he turns 70 and he is spending the day in Greensboro, NC. Clinton will be coming to Raleigh on the 21. So I might try to see her. Seeing Obama speak in Raleigh is a treasured memory.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.

What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.


Poll spread is Friday to Monday. 2 nights pre, 2 nights post. Let's assume he rebounded on Sunday and Monday. How bad must he have been Friday and Saturday night?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016


I don't see how a 12 point win for Clinton would not flip the House. 12 point win is gonna be 400-plus EVs and you'll see GA, KS, UT and AZ flip for sure. Hell IN might be in play, maybe even Missouri. Reagan won all but one state with a a 17 point win in '84. And ticket-splitting which was rampant back then is comparatively rare now.

The ticket-splitting is the big question. Are moderate / anti-Trump Republicans going to go against recent trends and split their vote? Or will they vote straight Democratic? Either way could end up making sense for that bloc depending on how effectively the GOP is able/willing to distance itself from Trump.

I can't think of any way to suss it out until we have reliable district-level polling in the fall.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, Russian hackers got the DNC's "oppo" file on Trump, detaining all the horrible things he's said and done. Wouldn't it have been easier to just use Trump's own website?
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:07 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm pretty sure it's too late for the Republicans to hop on the off ramp away from Trump as GOP candidate, at least not without totaling the car.

Yeah, sure, but I still wonder how many GOP higher-ups would rather lose with a less embarrassing candidate and maybe keep at least some of the gains they'd made with non-anglos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:08 PM on June 14, 2016




Poll spread is Friday to Monday. 2 nights pre, 2 nights post. Let's assume he rebounded on Sunday and Monday. How bad must he have been Friday and Saturday night?

I don’t assume this, actually; I could both see people being burnt out on Trump, and see people going “Aaaaah! Not the idiot in our time of strife!” If that’s in the data bad on me, but it doesn’t seem given.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:11 PM on June 14, 2016


Ye gods, two of the Show-Me State's most odious citizens making an appearance here on just one thread.

To those of you not from Missouri, let me give a quick intro, so that later on you can't say I didn't give you full warning

if it's a super salty comment it's Cruz's campaign manager

Yeah, that's Jeff Roe, Missouri's political rat-fucker-in-chief, whom we have now exported to the national stage. At the center of a recent series of incidents that ended in the suicides of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate and one of his chief advisors--just to give a small taste of his methods.

The Politico profile is pretty much on target:
Those who have crossed Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, say things like he’s “mean” and a “master of sleazy politics.” . . . his calling card has long been win-at-all-costs campaigning.
Also his intense focus on polling and the numbers is completely in character--part of what makes him so dangerous.

Prediction: We'll be seeing a lot more of Jeff Roe on the national stage in upcoming years.

Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer.

This St. Louis-based blogger who bills his blog as "one of the top political blogs in the nation" runs one of the most odious and dishonest right-wing blogs in the country (and I know, I know--that's saying a LOT).

Media Matters sums it up pretty well:
But despite all this stiff competition, Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit) stands out as uniquely incompetent. Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension.

[Several screens full of embarassing mistakes, errors, out of context quotes, etc follow. Conclusion:]

Hoft makes embarrassing, credibility-killing errors on an almost daily basis. If the conservative media had any standards whatsoever, Hoft would be an afterthought in the conservative blogosphere -- a solitary, angry man screaming into the void.
Little Green Footballs has practically made a career of taking down Hoft's various ravings.

I won't say any more about Hoft, except to mention that he has been particularly odious on the subject of Ferguson and its aftermath.
posted by flug at 3:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Cookiebastard: "So, Russian hackers got the DNC's "oppo" file on Trump, detaining all the horrible things he's said and done. Wouldn't it have been easier to just use Trump's own website?"

I can just imagine the hackers turning over the files to their FSB handlers:

"This is it? All of it?"

"Yes."

"These are just scans of old issues of Spy magazine and screenshots of his tweets. And not even deleted tweets."

"Yes, but there's so much in there."
posted by mhum at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


> Yeah, sure, but I still wonder how many GOP higher-ups would rather lose with a less embarrassing candidate and maybe keep at least some of the gains they'd made with non-anglos.

Somewhere today - can't find it now - I read an article where a Republican muckity-muck snapped "He's not our candidate yet!" at a reporter. Things are great!
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on June 14, 2016


"Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful."

Uh, Biden was the trial balloon to make sure reaction to Obama's "flip-flop" would be positive. That was neither a gaffe nor Biden going rogue; that was entirely deliberate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


Note that the hackers also broke into Trump's oppo file on Clinton. He didn't go to the press with it.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Biden went first to test the reaction so Obama could know if his judgment on the timing of "evolution" was correct.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh, Hoft sounds to me like we've got our very own little Geert Wilders now.

Thanks, nope, we don't need your gross defense. Solidarity is and must remain at the heart of queer life.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.

I mean, I'd still put money down on Clinton.
posted by Salieri at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Was that corroborated? To this day, it has been described as Biden speaking out of turn. Anyway, the point is that VPs can stand up when it counts.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016


Can any of the speculation about the ulterior motives behind Biden's "gaffe" be backed up by actual facts?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Gina Raimundo is another name to be on the lookout for - a fiscally conservative, socially progressive technocrat that will appeal to the Clinton base, she's also a compelling speaker.

Never heard of her. [Googles} Hmmm, interesting. Rhode Island governor though -- are we sure she's clean? That state has a pretty intense history of corruption.
posted by msalt at 3:23 PM on June 14, 2016


Someone else to keep an eye out for in 2020 and 2024 is Brian Sandoval. He's a centrist Hispanic Republican, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-ACA, pro-renewable energy, and the very popular two-term governor of Nevada. If the GOP can recover at all from this year's dumpster fire he's the kind of guy they should nominate in the future.

Serious question -- why is he a Republican, then? Any chance he'll jump a sinking ship?
posted by msalt at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Luke Russert ‏@LukeRussert 4h4 hours ago
Ryan declines to answer question on Trump's assertion that Obama is complicit w Islamic terrorism. Says he won't comment on day to day Trump


Just your normal everyday accusation from a major party candidate that the President is a treasonous Manchurian candidate who wants us all dead and/or converted nothing to see here. Now let's talk about my exercise regimen!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]


Reports differ on what the exact timeline of events was with respect to Biden's SSM comments, but if it's true that he spoke out of turn and forced Obama's hand, it's the exception that proves the rule. A VP who continued to do that sort of thing would find themselves banished to ceremonial duties and kept as far away from cameras and microphones as possible.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Countess Elena I wonder if he'd even pick Michelle Malkin, come to that.

Michele Malkin (neé Malgalang) was born a few months after her parents immigrated to the US from the Philippines. If Malkin was a liberal instead of conservative she'd be branded with a nasty pejorative referring to her being born of recent immigrant parents. By Trump "logic" she's even more constitutionally ineligible to be president than Ted Cruz or Barack Obama.

Is Trump dumb enough to pick her? Yep. Would the hypocrisy matter to his followers? Nope.
posted by nathan_teske at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016


Says he won't comment on day to day Trump

How long before the Republican rank and file snap when it comes to these questions? I feel like it's fairly clear at this point that there will be no general election "pivot" towards reasonability from Trump. He's temperamentally incapable of it, and no one on his staff or in the GOP is willing or able to muzzle him. So how many weeks of "Trump said this totally batshit, politically radioactive thing, what's your response?" can they endure?
posted by yasaman at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


"Please stop asking me about the fleas I'm infested with after I laid down with that dog. It's totally not even my dog! Geez!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


a lot of weeks probably

hate is a hell of a drug
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, that's Jeff Roe, Missouri's political rat-fucker-in-chief, whom we have now exported to the national stage. At the center of a recent series of incidents that ended in the suicides of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate and one of his chief advisors--just to give a small taste of his methods.

Oops, forgot to provide the link with more details about the suicides incident. Here you go. This guy has had a corrosive effect on Missouri politics for a couple of decades now; it's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that he is getting a national platform now.

This is a guy to file in the same pocket as, say, Karl Rove.
posted by flug at 3:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


how many weeks of "Trump said this totally batshit, politically radioactive thing, what's your response?" can they endure?

Well, two R Senators today being asked about Trump's outrageous Orlando comments indicated they've already had enough:

For many Republicans the prospect of continually facing questions about Trump was plainly wearing thin.

“I’m just not going to comment on more of his statements. It’s going to be five months of it,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming.

Said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina: “What Trump does or says, every time he says something doesn’t mean I have to have an answer for it.”

posted by bearwife at 4:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Rhode Island governor though -- are we sure she's clean? That state has a pretty intense history of corruption.

Obama spent his political career in Illinois. Just sayin'.

Tho it looks like she's very clean, even during her foray into Wallstreet.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can we please please please stop with the "hurf durf Florida" comments? There are people who live here who are citizens who are politically active and involved and WE FIGHT DAILY against the policies being enacted and the politicians who are enacting them, and it's a difficult and discouraging fight that we lose most of the time. There's not an insignificant number of liberal/progressive citizens in this state that are overlooked so that people can make cheap jokes.
posted by hollygoheavy at 4:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [38 favorites]


Oh, Hoft sounds to me like we've got our very own little Geert Wilders now.
You don't see Trump that way? From my point of view, even though I know the USA is completely different than my country, I see so many similarities between Trump and Wilders. It fits in strange ways too. Wilders and Trump both have interesting hair and a mother who is born in a different country, for example.

And if Trump is our Wilders Sanders is our Marijnissen (former leader of the Socialist Party). In the other thread delfin said If you're capable of Trump<>Sanders pivoting, you're not FOR anything. You're AGAINST something and that literally used to be the slogan of the SP for years: vote against, vote SP. That was it. And it worked (in the sense that the SP grew and became a party of significance). And indeed, a not insignificant part of SP supporters will inexplicably vote for Wilders (and vice versa too).
posted by blub at 4:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


What I meant specifically was the disgusting rhetorical move of purporting to defend "progressive Western values" like gay rights, feminism, etc. against the religious or racial Other (in the last 15-20 years, Muslims and Arab people in particular).

As I said above, it's an affront to the principle of solidarity. It's another in the long line of attempts to divide and conquer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think Trump tries to make that move to some extent but he's too old-school misogynist to make it plausibly stick.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:22 PM on June 14, 2016


Trump has enough real estate 'deals' (mostly to put his name on other people's buildings) in the Middle East that he is likely two degrees of separation from Al Queda and maybe three from ISIS. He's certainly not going to nuke anyplace where the fallout would spread to a Trump Building.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


Clinton Leads Trump 49-37 In Dramatic New Poll.

Bad news for the Trumpers is that it will take only a few polls like that and nobody will want to put any money into the Trump campaign because it will be universally viewed as a hopeless cause.

Bad news for the rest of us is that a good portion of those dollars will be diverted into downticket races where they can do a lot a mischief . . . .
posted by flug at 4:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey I just voted! Am I last?
posted by Cocodrillo at 4:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


People need to keep in mind that despite the media needing to push a horse race narrative like always there is a very good chance that the sort of polling that we are seeing now will extend outward for most if not all of the election.

Yes there are still undecided voters and there is still some element of uncertainty concerning third party candidates but if you look back at the 2012 Obama vs Romney polling there was a great deal of consistency in the polling for months. Some tightening around the RNC and to a degree around the 1st debate but you can see a remarkably amount of stability once the nomination process was finished.

The polling coming out now is the first real polling post Clinton effectively clinching the nomination (even though it's been a foregone conclusion for months) and while there is probably some bounce in the current polling from that it seems like the number of undecided voters is really small and if they are still undecided it's because they are still investigating third party options.

I have no doubt that Stein will peal off some support from Clinton but there number of Bernie or Bust partisans that are firmly committed to voting for any but Clinton seems to be pretty small and as Trump continues to display how deranged he is I suspect that number will drop further.

On the other hand we are beginning to see more and more Republicans say "no fucking way" when it comes to Trump. Seriously 55% of the people in that poll said no way ever which seems to suggest that his ceiling is going to be in the low 40s. I think there are lots of Republicans that are still privately hoping their party will come to it's senses but I think there are some that are beginning to strongly consider voting for the Libertarian or God Forbid Clinton.

Seriously when we have former GOP senators like Larry Pressler that are apparently willing to not just say #NeverTrump but that they actually endorse Hillary the dam is about to break. Current GOP congress critters are of course stuck because they can't buck the party line without suffering in some future election but they also see Trump as a catastrophic challenge for their party. People with no need to run again though are actively saying NOPE. If former politicians are committing the public Heresy of not just challenging Trump but endorsing Clinton you have to know that a huge number of average Republicans now realize that there is a madman driving the bus and no real expectations that someone else other than Clinton can stop him.

As much as I would tend to expect the race to become more or less stable from here there is a non-zero chance that collapse of Trump's polling could become absolutely devastating to the party in 2016, like 1994 Midterms bad.
posted by vuron at 5:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thanks for voting cocodrillo, hopefully we can work together so that DC gets some sort of representation in the not so distant future. It seems like that is something that both Clinton and Sanders agree on.
posted by vuron at 5:03 PM on June 14, 2016


There have been a lot of election threads, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and I missed it, but what happens if Trump throws a tantrum and quits in September/October? Does his VP pick take over?
posted by yasaman at 5:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The RNC picks the new nominee. So it depends on who the VP pick is. If it were John Kasich they'd probably ratify that. If it were Looney McCrazypants they would likely go for Ted Cruz or the like.
posted by Justinian at 5:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


The parties can choose their candidates however they want, so presumably the RNC would anoint someone.

On the other hand, that's the ultimate October Surprise and it would represent a total forfeit by the Republican Party. There's no way they could win an election after something like that.

On the other other hand, this isn't going to happen.
posted by Sara C. at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016


The RNC gets to pick a replacement, apparently. Though there may be individual state ballot access laws that also come into play.
posted by tavella at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016




He's certainly not going to nuke anyplace where the fallout would spread to a Trump Building.

Honestly if he has Trump America I don't think he'll give a rat's ass what happens to any Trump Towers. He'd either just deny that it was ever a Trump property or brag that it glows, just, real bigly, folks, it's the glowingest building, a yuge, beautiful glow.
posted by biogeo at 5:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


So right now, #LGBTQHatesTrumpParty is trending...and Trump supporters are responding with pictures of ISIS executions.

Also, Seattle Police just arrested a dude who threatened to shoot up a local mosque. (Said mosque is literally three blocks away from my house, as it happens.)

America, 2016.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]




If those livetweets are truly indicative of the tone of all of, or even some, Trump rallies, the attack ads write themselves. Is it possible for someone to get in one of the rallies, take video footage of this kind of behavior, and then use it in an attack ad (with appropriate identifying features blurred out)? "Trump says he wants to make America great again. This is how his supporters behave. Is this making America great? Is this the America you want to live in, or that you want your children to live in?"
posted by yasaman at 5:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump just accused U.S. soldiers of stealing from the "giant baskets of money" we sent to Iraq.— denis horgan (@dhjr) June 14, 2016

posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:29 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


One beneficial side effect of the Trump candidacy is I've trimmed my Facebook follow list by a third. I like to see what others think, have an open mind, and learn from other viewpoints, but there's only so much daily crap I can take. Most of which so obviously false, if not at first glance then certainly after a few seconds of searching, that I can't believe otherwise intelligent people post it.

*sigh*
posted by beowulf573 at 5:30 PM on June 14, 2016


"Is it possible for someone to get in one of the rallies, take video footage of this kind of behavior, and then use it in an attack ad (with appropriate identifying features blurred out)?"

The name for this job is "tracker" and presumably there are a dozen of them following Trump around already.

Politicians sometimes try to keep trackers out of private events (like Romney's 47% fundraising dinner thing), but they can't really keep them out of public events, and turning on trackers usually draws a storm of negative media.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


Apparently that actually happened! Well, point to Donald Trump.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016


The guy George Felix Allen destroyed his career by calling an obscure racial slur was a tracker, for instance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


As noxious as I think Trump rallies are, I think it's bad form to go find the craziest Trump supporters and try to milk them for attack ads. For one thing, first amendment, right to assembly, etc. For another thing, as a frequent protester on the opposite side, it always burned me the way that journalists would show up to a rally, get a soundbyte from the craziest crank there, and make it seem like that's what the protest was about/what activism is like.

Not to mention, all the Republicans have to do is show the Nevada Bernie Bro chair throwing footage and claim it's typical Democrat behavior.
posted by Sara C. at 5:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


There have been a lot of election threads, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and I missed it, but what happens if Trump throws a tantrum and quits in September/October? Does his VP pick take over?

This is one of the benefits (?) of the Electoral College. Even if his name stayed on the ballot, you're not voting for Donald Trump, specifically; you're voting for a list of his electors. As long as he drops out before the electors vote (in December), they can still try to figure out what to do. Presumably the RNC would provide guidance for this, but they could pretty much vote however they want.

This happened before, in 1872, when Horace Greeley died after Election Day. His electors voted for four different candidates, and three electors voted for Greeley anyway; Congress rejected those votes. Ulysses S. Grant had won re-election anyway.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know it was a real nailbiter and could have swung the election but CNN has reported that Hillary Clinton has pulled out a victory in D.C. The suspense is over.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]


I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention, so
posted by Sara C. at 5:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."

so there's that.
Ok, but a tiny minority answered yes to the proposition that law enforcement agencies should increase surveillance of all Muslim Americans, even if it conflicts with civil liberties. (27% yes, 69% no.) There was also strong disagreement with the suggestion that Obama has not taken forceful action to stop domestic terrorism because he sides with Muslims. (31% yes; 61% no). So basically, Americans are repudiating Trump's vision for fighting terrorism, even if they maybe think it would work better. Which is interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh, and 63% of women say they could never vote for Trump, which has to be some sort of record.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention, so

The die-hards are still holding out hope for an indictment. My brother-in-law just posted an Uncut article claiming that Wikileaks are about to release documents that will "provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict" Clinton.

Sigh.
posted by Pink Frost at 6:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


My least favorite aspect of the Bernie-or-Bust phenomenon is the willingness of Sanderistas to believe, and repeat, a quarter-century of scurrilous right-wing nonsense that they're mostly not old enough and/or savvy enough to realize is just recycled Republican slander.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [45 favorites]


There was also strong disagreement with the suggestion that Obama has not taken forceful action to stop domestic terrorism because he sides with Muslims. (31% yes; 61% no).

Why that's just within the margin of error of the crazification factor. It's everywhere!
posted by zachlipton at 6:18 PM on June 14, 2016


The folks I know hoping for an indictment just depress me. Like we are all in the same large, diverse tent, but you shouldn't want the candidate that got the most (by a lot) votes and delegates to be indicted as it will just encourage folks to become more disengaged and cynical about politics. Similarly, while I think Trump is depressing as a candidate, it's difficult to think of any way to remove him because every last way it could be done has down sides in terms of voter engagement (as is him running and being the candidate at all.) :(
posted by R343L at 6:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention

2061: After working for decades in secret, a coalition of top physicists and jurists calling themselves "The Brothers of Bernard" finally perfect the Acausal Indictment.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh hey so I found the line where I WILL HAVE TO COMMENT on my Facebook. I barely post stuff myself, really only on it because that's how my family and extended family communicates now and have either culled my list or just hide crap. Unfortunately I do see comments on my parents posts which I usually ignore. At least until now.

My line is when Mom posts something related to Orlando which is basically a comment about keeping perspective on the whole Islamic Terrorism thing eg lots of shootings and crap by non-Muslims etc etc. And this lady who is part of the local theatre group, which they see all the time, comments " there's much more to come ......just brace your blind liberal asses !!"

Like wtf? What she said is bad enough but you say this to you're supposed friends. It pissed me off right because I know Mom is so nice and conflict adverse she wouldn't say anything back. I asked Dad about it and she said that this woman is the swiftest type and has started to be a Trump parrot on social media. My line is being threatening and being rude to my parents like this because I know they are socialized differently. Strangers are one thing but people you know? Just no.

So yeah. I commented. Basically called it out and asked her point blank if this is something she would have the courage to say to the people in the convo face to face and or whether this was keyboard courage. I'm just totally disgusted with people and this sort of toxic, right wing, trumpass shit and hiding in places like Facebook. Like we KNOW you are the same person who is posting vile crap. There's another guy in that circle that has been doing it for a long time and has said when I brought it up one time, 'well that's Facebook this is real life.' No buddy you're pushing the buttons, that's good old sexist you in all your glory and I do not have to respect you or talk to you if I don't damn well feel like it.
posted by Jalliah at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [26 favorites]


The oppo file hacking stuff - intelligence on the enemy during wartime is most valuable when the two sides are evenly matched. If the other guys are sweeping all before them, then it doesn't really matter what you know's going on behind the scenes. Likewise if they're falling back in disarray. But if you're duking it out trying to find the weak spots to change the balance, then that intelligence is king.

Have to see how things shape up after the conventions, but I don't think it needs a Bletchley Park to find Trump's weak spots and I do suspect the battle will not be evenly matched.
posted by Devonian at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am sorry you can't put endless articles from Breitbart and then pretend you don't know that you are not buying into right wing and alt-right slander.

Between the Bernie Bros spamming endless right wing talking points and ostensibly progressive journalists spamming endless conspiracy theories about the MSM and Clinton conspiring to dupe the public I am beginning to see signs that a left wing opinion bubble is beginning to form and I am terrified by it because I really can't handle yet another group of people obsessed with ideological purity.

Either that or the Trump trolls are doing double duty as Sanders supporters and MAGA memesters.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.

I mean presumably any intelligence agency can replicate this sort of data relatively easily or even get better stuff that would be of strategic value if Trump becomes President.

I guess it's cheaper and easier to steal info than collect it yourself.

The only other long shot would be that they are collecting black mail material on the off chance there is something in there that threatening to release could be used to force Trump to reveal intelligence briefing material when the Obama administration begins to brief Trump.

Which is frightening enough as is because the man has no filter.
posted by vuron at 6:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.

they're probably looking for the kind of thing one would find in a russian politician's info - whatever that might be

i'm sure there's a lot of things that puzzle them very much
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


WaPo:
Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers
'America First' was Charles Lindbergh's motto in the 1930s

posted by Joe in Australia at 6:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh dear lord help me... the woman replied back. Lots of ranting about how her opinion is valid because Mom is SHOVING her liberalness in her face by posting things on FB. lol

It's so on now lady. I'll admit it, she's now the symbolic standin for everyone Trumpass person that I have ignored or waved away thus far because I despise Facebook arguing and I don't care.
posted by Jalliah at 7:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]


I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.

Scandals are always possibly useful for blackmail. That said, the real story here is “Russian hackers have been in the DNC for months, and they got LOTS OF THINGS.” The Trump news seems to be a distraction - it’s the biggest and most exciting thing, and keeps everyone from thinking about all of the other stuff they might have nabbed. Heck, I’d argue that we’re still thinking about this as a story about Trump and not about shoddy computer security practiced by a major political party. These guys make the plumbers look like amateur hour.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Robert White just beat Vincent Orange by around 2200 votes for D.C. Council. Woohoo, time for a no-more-Vincent party--

Oh wait, Vincent Gray just won his old Council seat back...

#OrangeisthenewGraybutGrayisalsothenewOrange
posted by sallybrown at 7:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Do all the local politicians have to have color names? Is it exactly like Clue?!?
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]


WaPo: Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers

Looks like a lot of folks at the Post aren't all that dismayed by the news that they no longer have access and can go on the attack now.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Even if the Republicans were somehow able to get Trump to step aside at this point which would basically require a massive degree of blackmail along the lines of "pretend that you are too ill to continue with some unspecified illness or we let x happen" I don't know that it would do them much good. Trump has already revealed the dirty little "secret" that there are a fuck ton of incredibly angry and militant bigots present in the base of the Republican party. At least enough of them that they were able to propel Trump to the nomination.

This faction is incredibly loud, feels important and is extremely likely to resist any attempts to hide their hate behind a veneer of compassionate conservatism. This faction is tired of having to use dog whistles because apparently that's too PC so the idea that they are going to want to go back to being muzzled seems ludicrous.

At this point in time Republican leaders are probably hoping that Trump loses (because he's awful for their brand long term) but not at a level that hurts other candidates too much. They have to support him because they are still dependent on the bigot vote for their GotV strategies but as long as he loses they can say "No the idea that McCain and Romney lost because they just weren't conservative enough is false" and they can go back to trying to realign their party.

My personally preference would be for Republican leaders to do a 180 and abandon bigotry even if it hurts them until they can create a new political coalition but I strongly suspect that there are too many ambitious people in the ranks to be willing to give up the bigot vote in the short term.
posted by vuron at 7:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


i'm sure there's a lot of things that puzzle them very much

The image of a knot of Very Serious Kremlin Analysts crowded around a little desk and poring worriedly over the printout of some meaningless Trump email rant pleaseth me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trumpology
posted by um at 7:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


I haven't really read a whole lot of reports about the methods the Russians used to get this data and what sort of infosec capabilities that the DNC was using to protect this data but the reality is that between the capabilities of the big cybercrime syndicates and the state actors the level of capabilities of various persistent threats are simply incredible. I'm largely getting to the point of acknowledging that if some of these persistent threats haven't already penetrated your security you probably have nothing that they really want or the effort spent trying to penetrate your systems would be more profitably spent in building yet another bit of ransomware.
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Do all the local politicians have to have color names? Is it exactly like Clue?!?

See also:
LaRuby May
Elissa Silverman

Past:
Kwame Brown
Marian Barry (too much of a stretch?)

Unfortunately, dealing with many of these folks is closer to playing Clue than is ideal as far as government officials go...
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


Okay this is no fun. The first time and only time I have ever responded to a Trump person on social media, I get called out for a face to face chat because I asked if she was willing to say what she says on Facebook to peoples faces....

Fuckin hell. I agreed because well I guess it's some sort of social media playing chicken thing and it won't be me that backs down. Did ask is I should prepare for name calling or if it can be civil (heh). She's really is full on Trump though and since it's Canada they're are a rarer species. I'd like to humanize the whole thing (if it actually happens) but I'm afraid I may have to look at it like some sort of social research to get through it.

WHAT HAVE I DONE TO MYSELF!!

Grrr Arrgh.
posted by Jalliah at 7:25 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


if you get stuck you can always play the Canadian nationalism card. Make the Trumpist explain to you how Donald stands for peace, order and good government, etc, etc.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh wait, LaRuby May just lost her D.C. Council seat...

...to Trayon White

OMG THIS IS CLUE
posted by sallybrown at 7:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


It's not as bad as the time we had two guys named Michael Brown running for the same council seat in the same election.
posted by schmod at 7:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Did Radagast the Brown get reelected?
posted by biogeo at 7:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina: “What Trump does or says, every time he says something doesn’t mean I have to have an answer for it.”

From TPM's endorsement scorecard:
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) had endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the presidency, but said he could support Trump as the nominee.

The country is better off having a Republican in the White House than having a Democrat in the White House. I’m certain that the center-right construct is better for our country than the far liberal left that we have to contend with.
Sorry, Sen. Scott. Until you have the guts to clearly distance yourself from this vile train of poo and hate, as long as you think anything with an (R) after its name is better than any other alternative, you do have to answer for it. I hope this flaming trainwreck is a fucking albatross around your neck that drags your career into obscurity and irrelevance.
posted by nubs at 7:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]


I’m certain that the center-right construct is better for our country

BREAKING: Republican Senator Admits: Trump Is A Toupee Golem
posted by murphy slaw at 7:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


So Bernie and Hillary finished their hotel meeting. No sign of an endorsement from Bernie. Looks like he's planning on going all the way to the convention.
posted by Talez at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016


If political media can do one good thing in my lifetime, please do not let these asshats think they don't have to answer for Trump and then write more stories about how they don't eat candy instead, thanks.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


No sign of an endorsement from Bernie. Looks like he's planning on going all the way to the convention.

What makes you say that? As noted upthread, his online speech Thursday is probably when he'll be making his next move, and not before.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, regardless of the election outcome, EVERY time one of the Republicans that endorsed or "stood behind" or "supported" Trump is interviewed, that should be the first question. Never, ever let that be forgotten. It should be a permanent orange stain on their political career.
posted by mmoncur at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


TPM: "A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide. It also showed that 55 percent of those polled said that they would never vote for Trump."

Wow. The trend just this week has been dramatic towards Clinton. Republicans are literally running from their own nominee, and McConnell just said he won't talk about Trump. The SENATE MAJORITY LEADER cannot go on record regarding his own party's nominee for President. This really is unprecedented and should by all rights be the end of the Republican party as we know it. Just in case anyone forgot how Republicans tried repeatedly to destroy the country with government shutdowns and trying to default on the world's reserve currency, they reminded us all by trying to destroy the country, or the world, by handing the nuclear codes to an unstable lunatic. They've nominated a madman, admitted it, and said he should lead us all anyway. None of them should ever be allowed to walk away from Trump, ever. Everything he says is fully supported by every member of the Republican party from top to bottom until they unequivocally and publicly disavow him, and that includes campaigning for Hilary to stop him. He's that dangerous, and nothing short of that is remotely close to sufficient atonement for their attempts to destroy the United States.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [42 favorites]


I was going to correct you for saying they were "literally" running away from Trump, but then I read the article. THEY ARE LITERALLY RUNNING AWAY when asked to talk about Trump...

Strange times indeed.
posted by mmoncur at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


Jared Yates Sexton attended and live tweeted tonight's Trump rally in Greensboro. Storify here. (Dear god, is it awful.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]


Many of us view a vote for the Iraq War / support for the War as a permanent stain on politicians. Support for Trump, or even failure to denounce Trump, should be similar or substantially more disqualifying. I know for the rest of my life I will never cast a vote for someone who could have refused to support Trump and didn't.

And Mitt Romney has my permanent respect.
posted by sallybrown at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]


That Ken Burns speech! I was nodding an agreeing pleasantly, thinking this is one of those fucking "independants" we have to hear so much about all the time, and then he dropped the "Vichy Republicans" bomb.

I literally fell of my stool and flopped around on the ground, hands clamped over my mouth as I have a wife and kid asleep upstairs. That is about the sickest of burns from the sickest of Burns.

How do you recover from that? This is a guy who let Shelby fucking Foote natter on endlessly with his "Lost Casue" bullshit. Who remained deathly quiet on politics during both Bush II campaigns and the Obama Resurgance. He looks like he's twelve with a really fake beard and he was 9 in 1962. If he is explicitly taking a side, NOW...

Get up. Off your asses. All of you. There are doors to be knocked on. Voters to be registered.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]


And now I'm feeling sheepish and kicking myself for diving into FB arguing but I think I'm going to just laugh at how silly that whole thing was. Woman came back with 'well be prepared to try to handle a different opinion'. (ooo ominous).

I was writing my reply and then all of sudden Mom jumps in and told her that if XXX didn't like her posts then she could just block Mom and that Mom wasn't forcing her to read anything. And that she did not appreciate being called and ass.

Then before I could reply the whole thing disappeared.

Mom messaged me. " I deleted the post and deleted her. You're right I don't like being called an ass and shouldn't put up with it."

When I said "Aww but I was going to meet up with her..."

"Spend your time doing something useful!"

"Yes Mom, you're right...." *looks down and stubs toe into the ground

And as a postscript just got another message that Mom deleted a bunch of other people which for her is a pretty big thing. She usually feels super bad doing it as she doesn't want people feelings to be hurt. Glad I could help her stand up for herself more so that's a good thing.


And yeah...no more political comments on Facebook for me. I'm just going to stick with cats and baby nephews from now on.
posted by Jalliah at 8:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [63 favorites]


People in my line of work try to be careful about predictions, because, you know, the future comes eventually, and you might be wrong. When I do make predictions, I’m always careful to add the conditions—if this, assuming that.

So let’s not call this a prediction, but an observation: I hereby observe that it is entirely possible that this election could—could—be a blowout. A humiliation. A decapitation. A world-historical debacle for one party. And I bet you can guess which one.

This observation is occasioned by the appearance this week of the first full-blown general-election Electoral College forecast, from frontloadingHQ.com. The folks at FHQ looked at polls and recent electoral history and voting trends to take a stab at what the electoral college might look like on the night of November 8 if things don’t change much from today. And if you’re a fan of the candidate who’s a person of color—orange—it isn’t pretty.

...Two points. One: It’s psychologically devastating for a party to lose a state it’s supposed to win. If, say, Clinton actually carried Georgia, it would wound the GOP badly and lead to loads of stories about how even the solid South is now slipping out of the ossified party’s geriatric hands. It wouldn’t be the same as, for example, Obama’s winning Indiana in 2008, which everyone knew was a fluke. Clinton winning Georgia wouldn’t be a fluke.

Two: It’s what the man himself deserves. There’s one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it’s not “Mexican” or “Muslim.” It’s “loser.” How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser. To a “girl,” no less! FHQ, from your spreadsheets to God’s ears.
Hillary Clinton Is About To Clean Donald Trump's Clock
posted by y2karl at 8:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]


This really is unprecedented and should by all rights be the end of the Republican party as we know it.

if i had a nickel for every thing that should have been the end of the republican party since the clinton administration i might not be worried about them eviscerating social security before i retire
posted by murphy slaw at 8:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [36 favorites]


Yes, there's a reason "surely, this" is a cliche on Mefi...
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


There’s one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it’s not “Mexican” or “Muslim.” It’s “loser.” How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser. To a “girl,” no less!

this is why I will relish voting against him so hard. SO HARD.
posted by sallybrown at 8:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


TPM: "A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide. It also showed that 55 percent of those polled said that they would never vote for Trump."

Was just talking to Dad about how I just really want his numbers to get bad enough where I can observe what's going on without or with at least less of the underlying feeling of being terrified that he could actually win. The whole thing is so messed up and from someone who has followed US politics for years unpredictable, fascinating and quite astonishing. I also admit that I do want the satisfaction seeing him and everything he and his ilk stand for soundly repudiated and I want to at least sort of enjoy watching the politics of it happen.

I'm thinking though that if the numbers do go that bad then other nasty stuff will start happening as his most diehard supporters rage and become frustrated and what they potentially will do is just terrible to contemplate. I really can see more people getting really hurt this election. I'm also way more concerned for Hilary's safety then I was Obama's and I was pretty stressed out then!

I hate this election because it's making me think of things that just shouldn't be thought of. Like "oh hey maybe it might be better if his numbers actually stay close enough that his supporters still think there's hope so they won't go off all super ragey and hurt all the types of people that Trump is othering.." I shouldn't be having to think things like this....
posted by Jalliah at 8:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


What are the chances he loses and then just.. doesn't concede. brb searching ebay for crates of BP-5 rations
posted by theodolite at 8:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


What are the chances he loses and then just.. doesn't concede.

0.o

Has anything remotely like that happened before? And what happens if someone does do that? Is it something that has to be done at the end of an election or is it just symbolic?
posted by Jalliah at 8:44 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


He doesn't have to concede. All that matters is the Electoral College vote.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]


Even if he wanted to try and claim he somehow really won, it would only matter if the Secret Service and military decided to support a coup, basically. Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Mitch McConnell. Especially don't let this guy not talk about the election. He's decided not to do his job and hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee because of this election, so don't let him fucking say he doesn't have to talk about it. Tell us more about why it's so important this guy you won't discuss gets to nominate people for the Supreme Court, Mitch.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [49 favorites]




"Even if the Republicans were somehow able to get Trump to step aside at this point which would basically require a massive degree of blackmail ..."

All the party establishment needs to do - all they ever needed to do - is buy him off. Suck it up, put together another super-PAC, pay off the $50M in "loans" Trump Corp made to the Trump Campaign and sweeten it with 15% on top to his favorite offshore shell corp. It's not an insignificant sum, but it does reflect the going rate for national election influence. Really, that's all he ever wanted anyway. Trump Campaign was structured exactly like Trump Steaks, Trump Ties, Trump Dress Shirts and Trump University: all just siphons to move suckers' money into his own pocket.

Finally, give him an hour at the podium during the convention; he knows how to save face when losing.
posted by klarck at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]


Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises.

Or let him park cars at one of the inaugural balls. Where there might be a toilet what needs to be snaked.
posted by y2karl at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's like Sanders wants the Dems to have a Trump problem in the future.

I think it's more like Sanders wants to be the Dems' Trump problem.
posted by dersins at 9:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


He doesn't have to concede. All that matters is the Electoral College vote.

There's a lot more to fear from what Trump's supporters will do than from Trump personally in defeat. He's opened an entire Pandora's Box of hatred, underscored by legitimate economic insecurity, that cannot be put back. Disaffected Trump voters, especially the white male losers of globalization and the top down 21st century economy do not have much else to lose, have less and less buy in with the entire concept of an inclusive America, and have put all their eggs in Trump's basket as their last Great White Hope.

Trump won't concede, and he's highly likely to lead a sort of shadow Presidency of the alt-right/FOX News sphere, if only because that's where all the best grift is located. His business is based on selling his name, which will be radioactive going forward, but there's an infinite market of rightwing marks happy to keep throwing money at whatever conspiracy he can sputter. Plus coming this close to power (even if he's not all that close) will only fuel his narcissism. But as a side effect of that, he'll keep encouraging the worst of the base impulses he's uncorked, and who knows what violence will come out of that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]


Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises

Brb, savoring image of HRC ordering Trump dragged off White House lawn in cuffs.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has anything remotely like that happened before?

No. This is dumb.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's a lot more to fear from what Trump's supporters will do than from Trump personally in defeat. He's opened an entire Pandora's Box of hatred, underscored by legitimate economic insecurity, that cannot be put back.

I could see that, but the problem is easily solved, at the price of surrendering one precious freedom: internet anonymity. All of 4/8chan, online harassment, rape and death threats, MRAs, the dark enlightenment, all the death and rape threats, all of it vanishes very quickly the second that the electronic klan hood of anonymity is wiped away.

There are real civil liberties costs to that move. But on the plus side, it would really cut back on spam emails.
posted by msalt at 10:22 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide.

I'll say it for every poll -- it's just one data point. Don't overfocus on a single data point.

That said, Hillary was +7 in the NBC poll (a poll she's been steadily gaining in the last two weeks) and hasn't been behind (tho within MoE) in any poll taken in June. This is probably the consolidation bump post-California.

Trump seems stuck between 37-42% in the polls, save some outliers and the strangely high-running Gravis/OneAmerica poll which remains the only one to poll him >=50% this entire cycle.

Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning.

We are still a month out from the conventions. There's a LOT of road ahead. But at this point, Hillary is coming out of the blocks strong.
posted by dw at 10:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'll start to treat this like a comedy instead of a tragedy when those Trump percentages get down below 10%. Or at least below the 27% Crazy Factor.
posted by mmoncur at 10:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]


37-fucking-% of America might vote for a raving bigoted elitist imbecile. I don't care if the dems take it in a landslide. The fact that this loon can get anything over a tiny bigoted fraction of the vote is a full-on existential threat to the republic.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]


In theory, Trump could protest the election and convince a GOP-led Congress to refuse to accept the electoral college vote. They could reject enough states to force the vote to be thrown to the House and Senate.

But the question would be whether they could really pull it off without pissing away the last fragments of respect the American people have for them. It wouldn't just be dishonorable, it'd be the closest we've come to a blodless coup since the disastrous 1876 election.
posted by dw at 10:37 PM on June 14, 2016


Oh, one more thing about Trump's poll numbers: Against Sanders, Trump polls 36-40%. So only a tick or two less than vs Clinton. There really are 37% of Americans ready to vote for him.
posted by dw at 10:40 PM on June 14, 2016


He's such an transparently self-aggrandizing fraud that anyone, regardless of education or political engagement, should be able to see through him in two minutes.

[…]

If we elect Trump, we deserve him. Doing so would be an eyes-wide-open rejection of constitutional democracy.


No one can say the people are deceived
posted by salix at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'll say it for every poll -- it's just one data point. Don't overfocus on a single data point.

Sure, that's exactly correct. But the national average is clearly trending Hilary, with the RCP showing 5.5 Dem. A 5% national advantage translates to a crushing electoral college defeat. A 5% margin is about what Obama had in 2012, which wasn't really in doubt. If that's at all accurate, and with the EC map strongly tilted in favor of Democrats, it's all but insurmountable.

Trump is horrible and dangerous, and Republicans are absolute fucking monsters, no hyperbole, monsters, for putting him this close; but we can take some solace that even 40% of monstrous Americans voting for him isn't close to enough. This is one time where we should all be thankful for the electoral college, it's almost worth 8 years of Bush the Lesser to stave off Trump and the end of democracy.

All polling subject to actual events of course, but this week has given me a lot more optimism that maybe America won't cross this particular bridge.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016


If we elect Trump, we deserve him. Doing so would be an eyes-wide-open rejection of constitutional democracy.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning.

That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president. Nothing to be happy about in those odds. If someone offered you chocolate ice cream and said, "By the way, there's a 1 in 3 chance that's actually just a frozen turd," would you want to eat it?
posted by biogeo at 11:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]


That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president. Nothing to be happy about in those odds.

“Nothing” is a bit of a stretch. There’s absolutely no other R. candidate against which Clinton would be doing this strongly at this point in the race. The expected value of competing against Trump is awful because of the cost of a loss, but those odds are darned good.

(Goldwater and McGovern each got 37.5% of the popular vote. It would be great if the public would round on Trump with more force, given that he’s literally - truly, literally- the worst candidate ever, but I find it hard to see.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]


It would be great if the public would round on Trump with more force,,, but I find it hard to see.

I said it a while back, in an election thread long ago, but I'm betting historic blowout.
posted by bongo_x at 12:05 AM on June 15, 2016


Sure, but we could get a historic blowout without getting Trump below 37.5% of the popular vote.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:10 AM on June 15, 2016


Is possible that Trump realizes, perhaps only subconsciously, that he could not handle the job of President, and his response to the Orlando massacre is a way of giving the GOP an excuse to prevent his nomination? That way he isn't a loser; he was cheated out of winning.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:24 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Scandals are always possibly useful for blackmail. That said, the real story here is “Russian hackers have been in the DNC for months, and they got LOTS OF THINGS.”

Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails:
Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.
The source for this article is Defense and Foreign Affairs, published by International Strategic Studies Association, I haven't heard of either before and can't say one way or another how reliable they are.
posted by 3urypteris at 1:06 AM on June 15, 2016


That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president.

Yes. And there are a number of things that could happen that might make those odds even closer, such as:

(a) Coordinated series of suicide bombings by ISIS sympathizers in, say, San Francisco, Boston and New York;
(b) Clinton disappearing from the race for a week or longer due to health reasons;
(c) Refugee crisis in Europe worsens dramatically with sleepers blowing up things;
(d) Trump pivoting heavily after all and half the country being relieved that he's not so bad after all.

So it's much too early to call this race yet.
posted by sour cream at 1:11 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Donald Trump really is terrified of winning, on some level, but the only way he knows to deal with fear is to go for broke and bluff his way through it. I think he is trying to "fake it till he makes it," and that this tactic has worked well for him his whole career. It's like that story Ivanka tells about when Trump pointed to a homeless guy and said "that guy is $8 million richer than me" because he was so deeply in debt. How do you get out of a hole like that? You keep your poker face and convince other people to stake you until you start winning again. At least, you do if you're Donald.

Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they? And we've seen how thin-skinned Donald can be.

I've had jobs where I felt a lot of "imposter syndrome." I bulled my way through them until I got my confidence, powered by a certain amount of belligerence. "I'm gonna do what makes sense to me, and if they don't like it, let them fire me. Who cares what they think anyway? They're jerks." As long as you don't actually get fired this is a great way to cope with imposter syndrome! Works for stage fright too, if you can manage to convince yourself the entire audience is probably jerks, or idiots. Who do they think they are, sitting there and judging you?

Donald must be feeling imposter syndrome and stage fright in a big way right now. This is the ultimate in final exams you didn't study for, job interviews where you don't have answers. Like Louis C.K. said, he's like a guy who's never flown a plane before trying to get a job as a pilot. God help him (and the rest of us) if he gets it!

So he says these outrageous things, because either they will cost him the race, or they won't. And if they don't it will prove that he really can be president after all, because if he's lucky and talented enough to bluff his way into winning the campaign, then he can probably bluff his way through the presidency too! And if not, he would probably tell himself, we hired him. It's our fault really if he isn't competent at the job. Right?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:26 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


If there is one thing these threads have convinced me of, it is that I need to continue to use a throw-away Facebook account for contests and never, ever make a legitimate account where I might actually see what people I know are posting. Ignorance is bliss.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:42 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald must be feeling imposter syndrome and stage fright in a big way right now. This is the ultimate in final exams you didn't study for, job interviews where you don't have answers.

But this is based on the premise that Trump is wired like most normal people and actually experiences emotions such as shame, remorse and regret. "I didn't study for my exams! I hope noone finds out how underqualified I am, because if someone does, that will be so EMBARRASSING!"

But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.

Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they?

There is a certain narrative on how bullies are really insecure and vulnerable people at heart. I think this is a "meme" that is thousands of years old, originating in the Bible. Think conversion from Saul to Paul, redemption etc. So it's really deeply ingrained into our (Western) culture and we try to fit the facts to the narrative whenever we can.
But the narrative is mostly wrong. Most bullies are just assholes, nothing more, nothing less.
posted by sour cream at 2:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Anthony Clark/KC Green webcomic "Back" has just reached a point in its story where a mad villain has just had his scheme foiled and reading his rant, I thought "this could be Trump's inevitable 'concession' speech". And I realized, yes, everything is political.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:28 AM on June 15, 2016


Do you Approve/Disapprove of Orlando response:

Obama: 44/34 (+10)
Clinton: 36/34 (+2)
Trump: 25/51 (-26)
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails:

Defense and Foreign Affairs magazine, and the International Strategic Studies Association seem like another one of those weird alt media sites, like globalresearch.ca, that sell hastily written books on international affairs to lay audiences of tin foil hatters who like to think of themselves as intellectuals. But maybe I'm wrong.

If the Russians had email intercepts, they'd probably wait until Clinton was President and they needed something from her before threatening to release them. To quote former Governor and current felon Rod Blagojevich, thats a fucking valuable thing, you don't just give it away for nothing.

I guess their game might be getting Trump in power because Putin might think that with an incompetent like Trump at the helm, Russia will be more successful in its efforts to reclaim the former Soviet territories? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me at all.
posted by dis_integration at 5:55 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Election Predictions- Keep in mind that a lot of the variability in the predictions offered by 538 and Sam Wang are based upon simulations and because of the long time horizon between polling now and the actual election there is an inherent level of fuzziness.

For example if the polling averages that we have now were predicting a general election next week the chance of Clinton winning would be extremely high. I'm not sure exactly how high because I don't think Nate and Sam reveal numbers like that (and their value would be extremely limited to most readers).

Even then if you look at sites like 538 you'll already see talk about how the current polling is making states that shouldn't be remotely competitive like Georgia and Utah are now moving into "battleground" state territory and many of the states that are supposedly targeted by the Trump campaign are completely delusional. Okay let's be honest California and NY have always been completely delusional (and frankly so are Michigan and Pennsylvania) and I'm having a hard time seeing why Trump and allies wouldn't focus almost all their media buys on absolute must win states and more or less abandon the "battleground" states like Nevada which are rapidly becoming lol good luck categories for Republicans. Some of that might be the relatively low cost of some media markets (I don't know I assume Reno is relatively cheap but I suspect Las Vegas is probably an expensive market).

As we move forward the uncertainty inherent in predictions concerning the General election decreases so that if the polling stays pretty much in the 5-8 range (which has been remarkably consistent for an extended period of time suggesting that the number of truly undecided voters is pretty small) for the next couple of months the chance of Clinton winning the GE will go up significantly even without poll movement. If the long term trend line move into the solid 12% range i.e. that the current polling aren't outliers then her chances in November are crazy good.

I'm less certain about the betting markets current because in the past some of the big players in that space seemed to have lots of "investors" engaging in more or less short term positions where big movement by a single player or group of players could shift the values rapidly and IIRC there was probably some profiteering by manipulating the market through these mechanism. I'm less certain about how the current betting markets which seem more like gambling odds makers than financial markets work and if they allow for the same sort of manipulation.

I think regardless we'll see a definite attempt by conventional pundits to point to the work by this quants as suspect because people like Silver and Wang are stealing page views and undermining the horse race narrative. I also think we'll see a bunch of poll unskewers show up to generate false hope for conservatives.
posted by vuron at 6:02 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If Putin has designs on the Baltic Republics and I think most conventional wisdom is that he does although I feel like we are getting into almost Cold War Kremlinologist territory when we start trying to determine Putin's intentions I could see some vague benefit for Putin by having Trump in the White House.

Not because they would remotely be friendly but that the extreme nationalism of Trump's brand might see our foreign policy become more isolationist along the lines of "Let Europe fix their own problems with Russia" which would dramatically undermine the US position in world affairs but there are elements of the Republican base that would eat that shit up.

However let's keep in mind that Putin is also a cold war intelligence type and while he might be a true believer instead of a Kleptocrat I think that's a really dumb assumption and would really not fit in with the optimal game theory strategy for how to achieve his objectives.

Clinton would not be the opponent that I would want if I'm planning on engaging in sabre rattling and a quick occupation of the Baltic Republics because I think the chances that she'll go full appeasement are extremely low but let's be honest having Trump as your opponent increases the chance that pursuing your objective could turn out really bad.

I think Putin is an awful man but I don't think he's dumb and I don't think his inner circle are dumb
posted by vuron at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails

Oilprice.com ? ORLY.C'MON.
posted by y2karl at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't believe anyone on the world stage would want to see president trump with the exception of true wild card despots who want to see the world burn.
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:26 AM on June 15, 2016


I don't know, some corrupt world leaders are bound to think "I bet if I offered this guy a million dollars he'd pretty much do whatever I wanted."
posted by mmoncur at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2016


I don't know, some corrupt world leaders are bound to think "I bet if I offered this guy a million dollars he'd pretty much do whatever I wanted."

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump had promised Putin, for example, that he would not honor the mutual defense clause of NATO in exchange for intelligence leaks that delivered him the presidency. Nixon made a similar, although less disastrous move, in 1968, by delaying a cease-fire in Vietnam (source). Trump's (lack of) moral compass makes Nixon look like a boy scout.
posted by dis_integration at 7:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay let's be honest California and NY have always been completely delusional (and frankly so are Michigan and Pennsylvania)

I don't think Pennsylvania is out of play. Trump is polling better than expected in the Northeast, the middle of the state is your classic Trump voter, and it's the sort of place where you could see Bernie supporters staying home while the people of Altoona show up by the busload.

That said, neither Hillary nor Bill have ever lost PA. Ever. Not in a primary, not in the general election.

And winning PA is futile if Trump loses Ohio or Florida. And if Utah and Arizona are in play, they have 3 fewer electoral votes than PA.
posted by dw at 7:52 AM on June 15, 2016


I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.

In which case I still wouldn't bet on Trump, pampered, doughy, man-baby that he is.
posted by emjaybee at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let me just say, given our governors' history of voter suppression, I would be more comfortable with models that show Clinton winning without needing Florida.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


There's numerous paths to a D victory without Florida. There's really none for Rs without it.
posted by chris24 at 8:05 AM on June 15, 2016


I don't think Pennsylvania is out of play. Trump is polling better than expected in the Northeast, the middle of the state is your classic Trump voter, and it's the sort of place where you could see Bernie supporters staying home while the people of Altoona show up by the busload.

Yeah but the center of the state is so underpopulated that the Philly and Pittsburgh regions can carry the state. And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.
posted by octothorpe at 8:08 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.

To be fair, Corbett's margin in 2010 was near double digits as well, but that was during a GOP wave election, so I'm inclined to agree that PA is going to be a tough get for Trump. It's definitely not out of play, though.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


WaPo - Negative views of Donald Trump just hit a new campaign high: 7 in 10 Americans

New poll from ABC/WaPo has Trumps unfavorables climbing from 60% to 70% over the past month.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Unless there's an astonishing upset somewhere else, the Republicans need to take at least two of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida, and not lose any of their weaker strongholds (e.g. North Carolina). This may not be impossible but it is unlikely enough that I'm almost breathing easily. Pennsylvania, despite being demographically Trump-inclined outside of the cities, has generally slanted just Democratic enough; Virginia is a close thing in an ordinary year, and with establishment beltway Republicans who detest Trump and newly-reinstated felons in the mix it looks a lot more Democratic-leaning than usual; in Florida I dare to hope conservative (and nonconservative, although they were never voting Republican) Latinos are a large enough bloc to seriously shift the election.

I mean, this could be a close thing because there are just enough crazies out there, but the overall shape of the nation seriously favors Democrats here, and Trump is an unfavorable enough antagonist that places nobody thought would ever come into play (Georgia? Kansas? Utah? Maybe even Texas?) are being tossed around as serious points of weakness.
posted by jackbishop at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2016


This may not be impossible but it is unlikely enough that I'm almost breathing easily.

I will not breathe easily until Hillary Clinton walks off the stage having taken the Oath of Office.

Trump's just short of unhinged, and that's giving him benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve.
posted by Mooski at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.

I'm leery of drawing too many conclusions from that particular race, given that Corbett was personally unpopular for a number of reasons that don't easily map onto broader voting patterns -- particularly for his handling of the Sandusky case, both as Governor and as Attorney General.
posted by cjelli at 8:48 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump's down to 29% favorable? With the "the 27% baseline crazification factor of the American electorate" Eyebrows referred to, that makes 2% NON-crazy still like him. The best possible effect would be for Republicans who can't stand him and feel they can't go elsewhere to not bother to vote at all, which would certainly turn the down-ticket races against the Rs.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would fill me with glee if Arizona finally caught up on its demographics, turned blue and then kicked Arpaio out of office with him spitting bile about Mexicans all the way out.
posted by Talez at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


Trump: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

Did he just say he's backing the Democratic gun control plan? The plan that Obama has been pushing for? Or is he saying that he's just...talking about that? For reasons? Because he's against it? And why would he be meeting with the NRA over it, rather than with the GOP -- his own party! -- who oppose it? Is he going to be taking credit for the Democratic Party's plan?

This is truly the most confusing election.
posted by cjelli at 8:57 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Trump is an unfavorable enough antagonist that places nobody thought would ever come into play (Georgia? Kansas? Utah? Maybe even Texas?) are being tossed around as serious points of weakness.

I think this is about as likely as any of the scenarios in John Lennon's "Imagine" coming to fruition, but just like with the song, the mere idea of this makes my heart go all warm and gooey.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest. He will blame the unfair media and political correctness, allude to some wack-ass conspiracy involving Black Lives Matter and/or Hezbollah, and go to his grave telling everyone he knows that if he had stayed in the race, he would’ve beaten Clinton. Remember: It’s better to be a quitter than a loser, because a quitter can always say he would’ve been a winner. (NOTE: Do not share this fact with your children.)
Trump Won’t Lose—So He’ll Have to Quit
posted by y2karl at 9:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest.

Back a few months ago I thought this would be the case. But no, he's staying in. He's gotten the scent of the presidency. He smells the power. The notoriety. The prestige. Trump isn't going to drop out. He's going to have to get beaten.
posted by cashman at 9:03 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


States that I think are surprisingly in play for Democrats: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Utah. Arizona and Utah are interesting because of the large number of Mormon voters who will have a very difficult time voting for Trump. The other states are in play because of demographics -- new voters tend to be transplants from more liberal places (NC especially) and/or Hispanic (Texas, Arizona particularly). I *don't* think Clinton has much of a chance in states like Indiana, Kansas, or Nebraska, but that's a prediction that I'd love to be wrong about.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2016


Take Texas. What happens if you have 7-8% of traditional Republican voters pull the lever for Gary Johnson, AND you have a net increase of +400K Hispanic voters? It is super hard to pull off, but I do think that one of the really big unreported stories of this election is Hispanic voter registration and turnout.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


What happens to a candidate's business interests if they get elected President? Aren't they run at arms-length? If the Trump empire is a house of cards built on sand, what will happen to it if he's not there to spin the plates?
posted by Devonian at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


It would fill me with glee if Arizona finally caught up on its demographics, turned blue and then kicked Arpaio out of office with him spitting bile about Mexicans all the way out.

There are even more signs for Paul Penzone, Sheriff Joe's opponent, around my neighborhood than there were last time. It's an established older neighborhood in central Phoenix, so I'm hopeful.

In other news, I've agreed to join a group protesting (peacefully, I hope) at Trump's rally here this Saturday. I feel I really need to experience this firsthand to truly grasp what's going on.
Wish me luck.
posted by Superplin at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


I have friends who are sure he's going to win, but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago, and now I'm really starting to think that everything they think about the election is pure misogyny and I feel really sad about what shitbags some of my friends are.

The few people i've met like this seem to think that he not only doesn't know how to get anything done, but would propose things so ridiculous and fucked up that congress would just shoot them down, or they would be illegal and impossible to implement, etc. They think that Clinton would propose/try to implement bad things and know exactly how.

Is this stupid as fuck? Yea, but it's a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent. They'd rather get 4 years of mired in nothing really getting done than more war in the middle east/whatever is their argument.

The worse thing is all the smart people i know who flat out refuse to vote at all this time around because they won't be "forced to pick between two options that are both garbage". That group includes a lot of women and minorities :(
posted by emptythought at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


they won't be "forced to pick between two options that are both garbage".

...my answer to this is "So you'll let someone else choose for you?"
posted by Mooski at 9:32 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Emptythought, I know a lot of people in that same category. It's hard for me to grit my teeth and not say anything in response to the sanctimonious posts about "leading a change through voting [their] conscious" (unlike all those sad people who are forced by The Establishment to vote for terrible people), but I've learned that it's pointless to argue.
posted by Superplin at 9:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


But this is based on the premise that Trump is wired like most normal people and actually experiences emotions such as shame, remorse and regret. "I didn't study for my exams! I hope noone finds out how underqualified I am, because if someone does, that will be so EMBARRASSING!"

But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.


I was thinking about this and I think the thing is he does feel embarrassment, he just doesn't feel shame. He does NOT like to be shown up in front of other people, especially by women, but he never, ever feels badly about what he's done or who he's hurt, only angry that other people don't think he's great. This means that he blusters and tries to brag his way through stuff and it doesn't occur to him that he's underqualified because he actually doesn't understand that the problem might be him and not everyone else so he just gets more and more angry and lashes out at more and more people but he never, ever looks inward.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Is this stupid as fuck? Yea, but it's a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent.

"women are evil scheming manipulators" is not an especially nuanced form of misogyny
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2016 [36 favorites]


GGW: A history of paint colors as DC Councilpepople.

Assuming that the Democrats win their seats in November (which is almost guaranteed), we'll be tied for the most "colorful" (albeit monochromatic) council in DC's history, with Silverman, White, White, and Gray on the council.
posted by schmod at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


it doesn't occur to him that he's underqualified because he actually doesn't understand that the problem might be him and not everyone else so he just gets more and more angry and lashes out at more and more people but he never, ever looks inward.

I wholeheartedly agree with the whole comment, but am highlighting this part because it totally explains why he thinks of himself as his own best advisor.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:40 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Regarding Trump's Base-

Trump's current ceiling of support seems to represent a large number of people that are deeply angry and the demographic that he seems to be doing best with are of course White Males.

Yes there is undeniably a current "Washington is corrupt" attitude that is strongly represented among Trump supporters and Sanders supporters and let's be honest Paul supporters in 2012.

Considering all 3 have radically different policies I'm wondering what are the underlying issues that seem to be driving both Paul in 2012 and Sanders and Trump in 2016 especially since there seems to be an overlap in support (at least on the internet) between what should be 3 mutually exclusive world views. The reality is that the support of Trump and support of Sanders appear to be overlapping venn diagram but it's really hard to tell exactly how big the overlap is. Is it as big as some Bernie bros have been threatening? Almost certainly not but it's definitely a non-zero factor.

Undeniably there is economic hardship in this country driving attraction to perceived "Washington outsiders" but I definitely think it's more complex than that because many of the economic issues that seem to be driving white male attraction to these candidates don't seem to be there to the same degree with many minority voter groups who typically have much higher unemployment than the national average (at least for Black and Latino voters). So while economic status is obviously a factor it doesn't appear to be telling the whole story as minority voters drove Clinton to victory over Sanders.

Age could be a big driver as well and at least on the Democratic side there seems to a definite generational divide between Bernie and Clinton. I'm not sure that we've seen evidence of there being as much of an generational divide regarding Trump supporters so like economic status I'm not sure that the generational gap is telling us the whole story.

One thing that seems to be a commonality among all three candidates is the high percentage of each candidate's support that seems to be young college age cisgender white males and older working-class cisgender white males.

It seems like some of the proposals that were extremely popular in regards to Sanders was his Free College campaign proposal. This obviously has a very specific target audience which seems to be the younger demographic (and probably their parents). It seems specifically related to the high cost of college education and the realization among many millenials that unlike what people have probably been telling them a college degree is not an instant ticket to prosperity. It still is much better than having only a High School diploma in terms of your economic future but the high upfront costs and challenges of paying off student debt when you emerge from college is starting to make many question whether college tuition is too damned high.

There is also the commonality between Sanders and Trump that free trade has hurt Americans, primarily blue collar workers, which is a compelling narrative especially if you were a blue collar employee in the 70s and 80s when it was still possible to support a family with a middle class lifestyle with a factory job. Loss of these jobs overseas as the US transforms into a post-industrial service economy has eroded much of this source of opportunity in the past and inflationary pressures have pretty much erased the rest. So factory workers are being told they need to go back to school and get retrained but the outcomes for many non-traditional students getting degrees are still challenging especially if your work history is spotty and you went to a for profit school that basically failed to actually provide needed job skills.

Trump of course has added a huge helping of nativism on top of this underlying tension, basically going into full blame the brown person for your problems mode. Immigrants with the possible exception of honorary white people are completely villified. This ugly ugly racism is compounded by a huge helping of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc often in the guise of "Why are we all being so PC" or "Tumblr SJW" type language as if the bigots are the only ones with the courage to say what we all obviously feel but we are held back by "liberals" and "feminazis" and "white guilt" from saying what we really feel.

In a perverse way I also see the other side of this sort of privilege in the Bernie Bro and Libertarian types who basically deny any sort of idea that Straight White Males are playing the game of life on easy mode and that it's all about corporations and government colluding to keep the obviously talented guys from rising to the top like Galtian superheroes. Any attempt at talking about structural impediments for other groups tends to be dismissed or discounted. Stuff like "I had to struggle to get to this level" and "you just need to try harder, or maybe if you weren't so angry things would be easier for you" seems to flow out of these guys at the drop of a hat.

This sort of entitlement basically that you are owed the level of success that you expect to achieve seems really deeply rooted in white male culture and when there are challenges there is this really dangerous tendency of blaming someone else like minorities or the government or whatever especially if other people who are obviously of lower status (because they are women, or minorities, or whatever) are succeeding in any way.

Add in all the constant lies and conspiracy theories like "Liberals are going to take your guns away" or "Clinton is a neoliberal shill for the banks that will sell us out" there is some really dark stuff out there operating in this weird little venn overlap between the Bernie Bros and the Alt-Right Libertarians.

I do think that much of what Sanders has been saying especially early on in the campaign has been correct and we need to do something about economic equality in this country because it's making for a very bad situation for lots of people but I also think we absolutely have to begin deconstructing the awful sense of entitlement that seems to be ever present in white male culture because taking away that base of simmering anger is the best way to eliminate the threat to our democracy that demogogues like Trump represent.
posted by vuron at 9:41 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent.

You forgot the part where they think that because of misogyny.

As I said in a previous thread, and has been said by that super-long facebook thing that's going around, it is precisely because of Hillary's gender that people feel this way about her. For one thing, they over-scrutinize her and are hyper-critical in a way they don't do with male candidates. For another thing, yet again, what you're saying is that people assume that Hillary Clinton is actually Lady Macbeth. Which isn't the case, because as I'm sure you know, Lady Macbeth is a fictional character.

People going with their uninformed gut assuming that Hillary must be bad, like there just must be evidence out there that she's evil, somehow, boils down to misogyny. It's exactly as un-nuanced as "misogyny lol".
posted by Sara C. at 9:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [28 favorites]


They'd rather get 4 years of mired in nothing really getting done than more war in the middle east/whatever is their argument.

What a load of shit. The party of diplomacy with Iran and Cuba isn't going back into the Middle East without international consensus and a damn good reason.
posted by Talez at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Five People You Meet On Election-Year Social Media (at least MetaFilter saves me from two of them - and reduces the influence of a third)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Arizona is weird

The 2nd Congressional District is extremely competitive probably because some of what should be in there is pushed into the safely D 3rd district.

The 7th of course is the safely D Phoenix district but it seems like the Arizona Republicans have largely pulled a trick out of the Texas Republicans playbook and diluted what would likely be a relatively strong position for Dems in the 9th.

I think there is no hope that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th will become Democratic for the foreseeable future baring annexation of Arizona into Nuevo Aztlan by Mexico.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]




> 37-fucking-% of America might vote for a raving bigoted elitist imbecile. I don't care if the dems take it in a landslide. The fact that this loon can get anything over a tiny bigoted fraction of the vote is a full-on existential threat to the republic.

This is the most annoying thing about this election. Many people will think, "God, I can't vote for that Trump jackass, can I? Yet if I don't I'm handing the election to Hillary!" Hillary Clinton is probably the candidate least able to tug loyal GOP voters to the proper side of their cognitive dissonance.

You can see this whenever a prominent Republican announces they won't be voting for Trump. When Jeb made his announcement on Facebook, the replies were overwhelmingly — like 19 out of every 20 — people saying "shame on you, Jeb, for helping THAT WOMAN become president."

This is a litmus test. Any otherwise reasonable person who is more afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency is delusional. Sadly, the right wing noise machine has had decades of practice taking each thing in Hillary's "negatives" column and inflating it to the point where it alone would disqualify her from the presidency. She's their Emmanuel Goldstein, even more so than Obama himself. *

In a typical election year, this would at least be ordinary behavior, in the same way that people took the narrow differences between Bernie and Hillary and made them out to be gigantic, crucial things. That's what you do during an election. But, then, in a typical election year, both candidates would be level-headed people, and the important distinction would be one of policy, not temperament. Right-wing media is not equipped to say, "well, policies are important, but it's even more important that the president not be a Greg Stillson type who gets us all killed," and even if they wanted to they wouldn't be able to pivot before November.

I hope exit pollsters are smart enough to ask people whether they were voting for Trump or against Hillary. I do think the distinction is important. The former group, the Trump die-hards, are the would-be authoritarians we need to be seriously worried about. The rest are still a problem, but at least they're a known quantity, and maybe this election will teach us something about how they can most effectively be deprogrammed.

* This is not Hillary's problem. Hillary has some baggage, like any candidate, but it's not her fault that some assholes somehow see her as more corrupt than Nixon.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The party of diplomacy with Iran and Cuba isn't going back into the Middle East without international consensus and a damn good reason.

Yeah, I don't think any Democrat is particularly trustworthy on that front- Politico: Obama ruled out new calls for missile strikes in Syria (3/16)

Secretary of State John Kerry has, over the course of the past year, asked President Barack Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets in Syria to “send a message” to Bashar Assad, according to an extensive interview with Obama published Thursday. Obama has not been moved, nor amused.

“Oh, another proposal?” Obama exclaimed to his secretary of state after Kerry presented him with a list of options to further pressure the Assad regime, according to a report by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, indicating that the president had grown weary of the suggestions.

[...]

Vice President Joe Biden — who is said to be leery of deeper engagement in Syria — has told Kerry privately, according to the report, “John, remember Vietnam? Remember how that started?” Obama laid down the law during a National Security Council meeting at the Pentagon in December, declaring that only Secretary of Defense Ash Carter should bring him proposals for military action (i.e., not Kerry).

***

This is John Kerry, of all people. John antiwar Swiftboated-slandered Kerry.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think most of the "ugh Trump is obviously going to win, there's nothing anyone can do" folks in my social media are Sad, Sad Boys. The narrative seems to be that Hillary is unelectable for Reasons, and since Bernie failed to secure the nomination, Trump will win.

(Sometimes the Reasons are rooted in something akin to facts, like certain poll numbers interpreted in certain ways, but more often the assumption is that right-wing smears about the Clintons from the early 90s are true, or just a nebulous feeling of badness that is clearly sexism)
posted by Sara C. at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]




This is John Kerry, of all people. John antiwar Swiftboated-slandered Kerry.

There's a big difference between launching a long range missile and putting American boots on the ground for a decade.
posted by Talez at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2016


I don't ever watch news and I even try to avoid listening to NPR around my daughter but if she was a couple years older I would totally be a Woke Daughter Haver.

At least I keep almost all of my political on Metafilter instead of places like Twitter or Facebook because seriously who has time for that shit.
posted by vuron at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Trump could win!"

Yes, as long as Trump is running for president, he has a non-zero chance of winning. He will most assuredly take a number of states and bank electoral votes. Hillary could stumble. The threats of Assange and whatever that oilprice.com thing is could come to pass with truly damaging info that somehow slipped passed the GOP investigators. The Bernie or Busters really could be a significant number and bollox the election. And, perhaps most improbably, Trump might finally get a clue about what being "presidential" looks like.

And that's why we must remain vigilant and not sleep on Trump and the GOP.

However... no one should panic. Sam Wang has Hillary at 65%, but he also has her at a +3.5 point swing (IOW, the total amount of vote Trump needs to take away from her). Those numbers, at this point, are good. She's in a good starting position.

Don't panic. Remain vigilant. But do not panic.
posted by dw at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


There's a big difference between launching a long range missile and putting American boots on the ground for a decade.
There's plenty of room for both of those things to be bad.
posted by schmod at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't ever watch news and I even try to avoid listening to NPR around my daughter but if she was a couple years older I would totally be a Woke Daughter Haver.

The joke with the Woke Daughter Haver is that generally the tweets that came from those people tended to seem very made up and were attributed to increasingly young children, as parodied by Ezekiel Kweku (aka @theshrillest).

You should definitely have woke kids though.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump had promised Putin, for example, that he would not honor the mutual defense clause of NATO in exchange for intelligence leaks that delivered him the presidency.

So, a western fascist making a secret deal with the leader of Russia to carve up Eastern Europe?

that would never happen
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


Dan Rather's career went National when he was accidentally the first on the scene at the JFK Assassination, so he is probably deeply committed to "anything can happen". And after the Right Wing Blogosphere got him discredited on his big Bush Jr. expose* (which is why he's now the anchor of a minor cable channel owned by Mark Cuban), he's more likely to overestimate than underestimate right-wing wackos.

*which I still insist was probably true but the "source" thought it was a good idea to reconstruct old documents he'd seen that have since been totally destroyed.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


In regards to Syria, it's hard to see any option that isn't bad.

Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.

Tons of options all of them absolutely shit because we've been forced by decades of foreign policy to more or less maintain completely artificial boundaries in the Middle East and prop up a series of horrible dictators because it was in our economic and geo-political interests.

Clinton could be an absolute angel and she's still going to inherit a fucking mess in Syria because there are absolutely no good options short of inventing a time machine and going back and dope slapping a ton of people.
posted by vuron at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Happy Birthday Donald Trump – Hindu Sena cuts cake for ‘messiah against Islamic terror’

Globalization is a helluva drug.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:19 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


In regards to Syria, it's hard to see any option that isn't bad.

Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.


Yes, that.

Bernie said he'd continue to use drones. Hillary will probably stay the course with the intervention they have been doing. Trump will just bomb every ISIS stronghold he can until he's out of bombers and Tomahawks, damn the civilians.

It seems the left's (and the libertarians') best answer to Syria and ISIS is to just let them kill each other, it's not our problem. We've tried that. Bosnia. Rwanda. Bosnia shambled into the slow-motion civil wars of the 1990s. Rwanda ended up being the trigger for a pan-African war that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands and exacerbated the spread of HIV across sub-Saharan Africa.

Sometimes, we will have to intervene. Sometimes, we will go to war. What we should push for is intervention that saves lives, not economic interests. Intervening in Syria, where the army and some rebel groups have indiscriminately targeted innocents and together have led to this mass flight of refugees into Europe, may be one. Invading Iraq, in retrospect, doesn't look like one.

But every American president has intervened militarily since William Henry Harrison. To expect that Bernie, or even Jill Stein, wouldn't do it is gainsaying American history and how our foreign policy works.
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sam Sanders' new article about the end of Bernie Sanders campaign.

Maybe there's nothing Sanders could have done to overcome the Clinton machine on the ground. But University of Vermont professor Huck Gutman, a close friend of Sanders and his former chief of staff, seemed to predict the problems Sanders would have with minority voters in an interview with NPR soon after Sanders launched his presidential campaign.

"One of the differences between Bernie and so many other people who are liberals," Gutman said, "is that Bernie's central concern has always been with the condition of what he calls working-class families. He is consumed by the need for economic justice."

Even as Gutman pointed out Sanders' track record of support for other progressive causes, he said of Sanders, "His central concerns have never been war or civil rights or gay rights or women's rights."


posted by SarahElizaP at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


ABC: Seven in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, according to the results of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out Wednesday, which also finds Hillary Clinton's image slipping, albeit less severely. Overall, both candidates are the least popular presumptive nominees for a major party in the poll's history, dating back more than three decades, to 1984.

A full 70 percent said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee, an increase of 10 points since the May survey. A little less than one in three, 29 percent, said they have a favorable view of Trump, down from 37 percent who said the same last month.


Dump him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're saving it for when Mitt Romney runs up on him with a steel chair at the convention.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump goes from implying Obama's a treasonous ISIS agent to tweeting Breitbart conspiracy theories explicitly saying it.
posted by chris24 at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016


Keep him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


I knew he was going to latch on to that Breitbart story as soon as I saw it. He probably had it before publication. It's BS of course put it plays into what a lot of Republicans want to believe. They aren't going to read it close enough to see it never says what Breitbart says it does.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:38 AM on June 15, 2016


Seems relevant to this thread and the election: Democrats have started a Senate filibuster over gun control.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


And here I was wondering why it's always Republicans who filibuster.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2016


Democrats
Spines
Give Zero Fucks Obama
MSM people like Anderson Cooper calling out hypocrisy
Long form investigative journalism being hidden in a funny package

What is this strange universe I have found myself in

People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline.
posted by vuron at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


From scaryblackdeath's link:
The NRA formally backed an approach favored by Senate Republicans that would allow a judge to arbitrate people who mistakenly end up on the terrorism watch list and want to buy guns, while Democrats prefer giving the Justice Department such authority. Both bills were voted down by the Senate last December.
God help me for saying this, but as long as it's not a rubber-stamp judge like the FISA court, I prefer the Republicans' approach. If the executive branch puts people on the list, another branch of government should review its legitimacy.

Oh, also, the process described should be available to anyone who's been put on the watch list for any reason. It would be quite silly if you suspected you were wrongly on the watch list for some other reason but had to try to buy a gun just to receive due process of law.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


What happens to a candidate's business interests if they get elected President? Aren't they run at arms-length? If the Trump empire is a house of cards built on sand, what will happen to it if he's not there to spin the plates?

I can't find it, but I remember reading a piece which said there's actually no legal barrier to prevent a President from running their business themselves after they've been elected. Trump has said he's going to let his kids take over, but who knows if he'd stick to that.
posted by homunculus at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


And Breitbart is basically Pravda for Trump, with staffers saying Trump was paying for good coverage.
posted by chris24 at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Senate Democrats are doing something? This really is the weirdest election year.
posted by rorgy at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Matt Valentine at Politico: “The Most Political Gun in America”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2016


I was ready to dismiss a talking filibuster as symbolic but it looks like they are putting on some actual pressure. A bill might be possible, though probably only for the watch list issue.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2016


...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest. He will blame the unfair media and political correctness, allude to some wack-ass conspiracy involving Black Lives Matter and/or Hezbollah, and go to his grave telling everyone he knows that if he had stayed in the race, he would’ve beaten Clinton. Remember: It’s better to be a quitter than a loser, because a quitter can always say he would’ve been a winner. (NOTE: Do not share this fact with your children.)

Exactly what Perot did in similar circumstances -- the last non-politican candidate with a serious chance of winning, that later faded.
posted by msalt at 10:49 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Keep him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.

While the Clinton campaign may benefit, his continued candidacy only emboldens the racists, the fascists, the people filled with violent hatred. See the Storify that Atom Eyes posted. The more of the rallies that go on, the greater the likelihood of violence.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


dw I think you're (possibly maliciously) distorting the position of the Left here.

I'm not an isolationist and I don't think many on the Left are. I think intervention can be a good thing, I think Bill Clinton made he right call in Bosnia for example.

Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.

In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.

Our options are limited to either bombing (via drones or airstrikes), or sending in the army. The latter is going to not just cost more, it'll cost lives and doing it right will require a fairly massive military presence.

And I'm not sure either one will accomplish much good.

The Syrian civil war is even worse than IS in terms of a morass wrapped in quicksand. Intervening in a civil war is always difficult, and the US has a terrible track record for successful (in terms of producing actual good results) interventions in the middle east.

Show me a path forward, a plan that looks like it might actually accomplish something, and I could support intervention in one or both situations (not that I think you can really address one, since the two issues are deeply intertwined). But right now it doesn't look like there's really a plan of any sort except for the failed send in drones and bomb semi-random people while hoping that somehow it all works out plan.

I think if we can't come up with better than that we'd accomplish more good by limiting ourselves to shipping in food and medical supplies.
posted by sotonohito at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The more of the rallies that go on, the greater the likelihood of violence.

Likelihood, nothing - there has been violence.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on June 15, 2016


I do think that much of what Sanders has been saying especially early on in the campaign has been correct and we need to do something about economic equality in this country because it's making for a very bad situation for lots of people but I also think we absolutely have to begin deconstructing the awful sense of entitlement that seems to be ever present in white male culture because taking away that base of simmering anger is the best way to eliminate the threat to our democracy that demogogues like Trump represent.


This election is showing the slow fissures between economic and social privilege in this country, which are closely aligned, but used to be more closely aligned. And it’s making people angry. Not every candidates’s supporters are angry, but

--among angry Clinton supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is less than their economic privilege. They’re not rich or even well-off, but they social oppression as a bigger factor in their problems than economic oppression. They’re black voters who have been annoyed by Sanders’ dismissive attitude toward the south, women who see in the Sanders/Clinton race echoes of their working lives (woman works hard to carefully build something thoughtful and credible, man swoops in and gets showered with praise for presenting a similar plan in a totally half-assed and unworkable way).

--among angry Sanders supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is greater than their economic privilege. This is mostly younger people, mostly white, mostly male, but not entirely, who were born middle or working class but are currently broke, don’t think it will get any better, and are pissed about it. They’re not from families where nobody has ever been to college, high-school graduation is low, and drugs and violence are plagues. They’re people for whom it’s economically tough to go to college, but not socially/culturally expected. They expected to be doing better financially than they are.

--and among angry Trump supporters I mostly see people who are pissed to see their privilege (white, male, economic or all three) threatened in any way.

Naturally all three candidates have supporters — have a majority of supporters — who are not angry, or angry in a way that is appropriate and proportionate and shared among both injustices they face and injustices others face.

I really only see a kind of raaaage about a competing candidate from someone who feels they really deserve better than they're getting in this country. And many people do deserve better than they're getting. But it's not how every underprivileged person feels. Many people who are poor or discriminated against in this country have never expected the world to be any better for them than it is. They want it to be, they're working toward that, but they dont have this sense of entitlement about it. The anger comes from people who not only expected the world to be better for them than it is, but are angry about the ways the world is unjust to them and myopoic about how it's unjust to others.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


woman works hard to carefully build something thoughtful and credible, man swoops in and gets showered with praise for presenting a similar plan in a totally half-assed and unworkable way.
This describes really well something that's been bugging me about the Dem race but hadn't been able to articulate. Thanks.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [24 favorites]


Trump goes from implying Obama's a treasonous ISIS agent to tweeting Breitbart conspiracy theories explicitly saying it.

The hilarrible part is that reporting on the implication is the reason he threw a tantrum over the WaPo. Amazing.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]




Erik Loomis: Are Left-Populists Wrong About Political Campaigns?
So what are the lessons of a credible leftist campaign failing to win the primary? [...]

1) No left-populist candidate can win the Democratic primary without African-American and Latino support. This is the biggest lesson and one that I found a lot of Bernie fans really defensive about. But it’s just the reality. No support in the black community, especially in the early states, no victory. It’s that simple. [...]

2) Campaigns can’t start in 2015. Hillary Clinton has basically been campaigning since 2005 and has fully been laying groundwork for this run since 2013. Whatever the next leftist primary candidate looks like, that person has to start a long time before the year before the election be make the inroads necessary to beat an entrenched candidate. [...]

3) People have to understand that just because all their friends support Bernie that means that really everyone supports Bernie except for sellouts and fools. We all talk to like-minded friends and family. It’s very easy to get in a bubble. The Democratic Party is a complex beast of a lot of different constituencies. The winner has to win most of those, not just me and my friends.

4) A better candidate. Let’s face it–Bernie Sanders wasn’t a great candidate in a lot of ways. [...]

5) Focus on the local and state level first. The worst part of the 2016 Democratic Primary was the intensive focus on personalities, how two politicians who have very similar positions on many issues are fundamentally different. Sanders’ “political revolution” was also pretty annoying because it assumed that the president could just change things and showed very little structural analysis. That’s a big problem. [...]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Telling someone "Fuck you!" is technically speaking to them I guess.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016


all the smart people i know who flat out refuse to vote at all this time

This seems like a classic oxymoron. Smart people are going to make sure they vote in 2016, and that they turn out others to vote. Some elections matter hugely, and this is one of them.
posted by bearwife at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]




According to Daily Kos, former GOP Senator Larry Pressler is endorsing HRC and comparing Trump's rhetoric to Hitler's.
posted by bearwife at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline.

Maybe it's the most darkly humorous timeline instead?

All I know is, my kid is at the age you start learning about government and this election is going to warp his perception of that into a shape soooo much different from what I learned.
posted by emjaybee at 11:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, wow. From tonycpsu's link I found this critique of Freddie deBoer, who's one of the popular intellectual sorts at the center of the "yay Bernie fuck Hillary" maelstrom. It articulates a lot about that movement which I've been increasingly feeling but haven't been able to put into words.
posted by rorgy at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


This seems like a classic oxymoron. Smart people are going to make sure they vote in 2016, and that they turn out others to vote. Some elections matter hugely, and this is one of them.

At this point in my life, I've made peace with the fact that smart people make stupid decisions all the damn time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


Refusing to support Hillary Clinton from any point on the democratic left and trying to persuade others not to do so, although this election presents one of the widest gaps between the parties of any presidential election in American history, can mean one of two things. One is that all of the horrors that would flow from at least four years of a President Trump almost certainly joined by 4 years of a Republican Congress are a price worth paying to “punish” the Democrats (note: it is not Democratic leaders who would actually bear the brunt of the punishment, but people of much less privilege). This is a monstrous position, in my view, given that the horrible things are certain and the speculation that the bad things would lead to better things implausible in the extreme, but if it’s your position at least own it. Conversely, you could privately believe that Sanders is right that President Clinton would be significantly better than President Trump, and you don’t actually want the latter to happen, but you feel comfortable publicly trying to persuade people not to support Clinton because you’re confident it will be ineffectual. In some ways, this is even worse. I mean, at least “heighten-the-contradictions” is an ethos. “I refuse to support Hillary Clinton as long as I’m sure I won’t matter” isn’t “principle”; it’s “utter wankdom.” If that’s your position, why bother writing about electoral politics at all? Just write in the only person who could ever be worthy of your vote — yourself — if you bother to vote at all, and be done with it.
(from the aforementioned article)
posted by rorgy at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]




Bearwife, would you say that this election matters... bigly?
posted by Sara C. at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


My vote is the most precious and pure thing that I possess, and that is why I'm saving it until marriage.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."

Why if that doesn't represent everything the Republican party has stood for in the past, let's say, 52 years, I don't know what does.
posted by zachlipton at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2016 [52 favorites]


vuron: "People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline."

It's not. Definitely, it is shitty in many ways. But I can think of a lot of ways it could get a lot worse.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."

he sometimes does have a way of putting his finger right on what's on a lot of people's minds

but it's not possible - it never has been possible - maybe once in awhile someone might pull it off for a few years, but the consequences tend to be awful once the dam breaks
posted by pyramid termite at 11:52 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson (R) has announced his support of HRC.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


I missed the speech, but holy shit do the livetweets sound more insane than usual

For what it's worth, Daniel Dale (Toronto Star) is saying the same thing.

"I'll run as a Republican," promises Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Willam F. Buckley: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:56 AM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Dale survived years of Ford, but I think Trump has broken him: "How does the media even cover a speech like that? No 'Trump said X and Y' headline can do it justice. You need to show people like 12 Vines."
posted by maudlin at 11:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was just posting that Buckley quote before I saw you did.
posted by octothorpe at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016


Stephen Stills: "Stop, children, what's that sound?"
Diana Ross: "Stop! In the name of love."
Vanilla Ice: "Stop, collaborate, and listen."
posted by tonycpsu at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'd say that Trump is a few tweets away from a full psychotic break, but he seems to have passed that point a long time back.
posted by sotonohito at 12:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder if Trump is still sleeping in his own bed every night, or if he's had to get used to strange new mattresses across the country. Sleep deprivation is torture, you know.
posted by maudlin at 12:02 PM on June 15, 2016




Dale survived years of Ford, but I think Trump has broken him

It's true. The poor fellow. After this he deserves to cover the kittens-and-hot-chocolate beat for the rest of his days.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Willam F. Buckley: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

*Trump: “The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it.”

For maximum hilarity, it’s probably worth remembering that William F. Buckley described Trump as a demagogue and narcissist.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:09 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's not. Definitely, it is shitty in many ways. But I can think of a lot of ways it could get a lot worse.

In the darkest timeline we never rejected Yahoo Serious and Bing Hitler never transmogrified back into Craig Ferguson.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:13 PM on June 15, 2016


"Eventually, it's not going to survive, just so you understand," Trump says of the United States.

Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


On the lighter side: Donald Trump Has No Idea What Dogs Are
As long as there’s somebody (or something) Trump doesn’t like, he can and will compare them to a dog. In particular, he has a strange fascination with people being “fired like a dog.” [several examples of Trump using "fired like a dog"]

That’s not the end of Trump’s apparent confusion about our canine companions, either. He’s also fond of accusing former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of “choking” like a dog in 2012, because dogs constantly crumble under pressure and have poor gag reflexes or something.
The article goes on to list tweets where Trump claim people "beg for money like dogs" and are "kicked out like dogs" as well as people who are dogs.

Bonus: Mitt Romney in a Nacho Libre costume beats up a luchador
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]


it's hard to imagine one single thing that will stay the same in a universe where the trumpster becomes commander on cheif.
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016


Trump complains that some state dinners are held in tents. "Looks like HELL," he says, and probably makes the tent-company owner rich.

I'm now anxiously awaiting the announcement of Trump Tents.
posted by nubs at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him because while he's always been prone to all sorts of weird verbal patterns the text of his speeches are just seeming more and more disjointed all the time.

He's still bulling his way through the speeches because this is still The Donald but it just seems like he's getting more and more disorganized in his speech patterns and while his arguments have never made logical sense they weren't as obviously confused and meandering.

The disorganized thoughts, the rambling, the clear lack of any sort of internal filter or impulse control despite the obvious negative consequences of following the course of action he's on just seem to suggest that there is something deeply off about him and many of them seem like their symptomatic about some sort of organic brain disease (which should be clear does not describe any sort of mental illness).
posted by vuron at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dogs can't choke people because they have no opposable thumbs! Unless you are choking ON a dog?
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016


it's hard to imagine one single thing that will stay the same in a universe where the trumpster becomes commander on cheif

taco bowls?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016


"Eventually, it's not going to survive, just so you understand," Trump says of the United States.

Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.


He's setting up his "fire sale of US assets" policy. "The country must go, folks! But we're going to get the best prices, absolutely the best. Yuge deals!"
posted by nubs at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe he's more of a cat person
posted by saturday_morning at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016


Taco bowls would stay the best at trump plaza. Agreed.
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Holy fucking shit. I think he's losing what little it he had.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016


He’s still bulling his way through the speeches because this is still The Donald but it just seems like he’s getting more and more disorganized in his speech patterns and while his arguments have never made logical sense they weren't as obviously confused and meandering.

Perhaps realizing that being President might not be something Trump wants is finally forcing him to introspect. Perhaps what we are really seeing here is a human being beginning to develop a soul. He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead, discovering too late in life that he never wanted to be an architect but rather a painter, and now his effort has all been spent pursuing the wrong goal. (Clinton is Roark.)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016


Just looking at the last few quotes, I got nothing, 'cept maybe the guy is just the GOP trying to move the Overton Window far enough into crazyland that they seem like straight arrows by comparison.
posted by Mooski at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Now I kinda want a web series where a dog wearing a bad suit and a bad orange toupee has lots of cute dogs dressed in various business outfits do all sorts of office work but inevitably one dog every week comes into the boardroom and looks sad as the Donald trump dog does the mocking "You're Fired!"

Now I feel kinda slimy
posted by vuron at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him

i'm beginning to wonder if i can catch it by reading his tweets
posted by pyramid termite at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him

Maybe he's more of a cat person


so, toxoplasmosis
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


no, trumplazamosis
posted by pyramid termite at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


case closed, hit the showers
posted by saturday_morning at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016


Going To Maine: "He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead"

More like Peter on Family Guy.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]


The disorganized thoughts, the rambling, the clear lack of any sort of internal filter or impulse control despite the obvious negative consequences of following the course of action he's on just seem to suggest that there is something deeply off about him and many of them seem like their symptomatic about some sort of organic brain disease (which should be clear does not describe any sort of mental illness).


Trump's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 year before his death. I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:25 PM on June 15, 2016


"Trump has finished his notably incoherent speech. It'll be deeply worrying to any Republican officials who watched."

"Deeply worrying." No shit! If they weren't collectively a morally-bankrupt set of power-mad cowards I'd almost feel sorry for them. Here's a pretty good photo of what I would imagine Paul Ryan feels like all the time these days.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2016


Trump Cat
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:28 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


If I was an operative in the RNC, I'd be doing everything I could to dig up some sort of medical disqualification for Trump's candidacy. It's one of the only options remaining for the Republican party to come out of this something close to intact. "What a shame, Trump is TOO ILL to continue on," they can say, as they shove Cruz or whoever into his slot instead. "He is NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD and all the nonsense he has spoken has been literal crazy talk! hahaha don't pay attention to how he we endorsed and supported him anyway." The convention will probably still be a shitshow, but it won't be an existential threat to the party and the nation-level shitshow.
posted by yasaman at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


It would be interesting for someone (not me, I haven't done a speech analysis in 20 years) to go back and compare a speech he made early on in his presidential run with one made within the last week.

I remember an article that I read months ago describing one of his earliest stump speeches. The observer wrote that Trump would bring on the applause with his line about building a wall and then his speech would veer into something less incendiary only to be met with silence which caused Trump to drop that topic immediately in order to hit on something that gained wild applause. He was never interested in running a standard informational campaign but only in garnering the most attention and praise. The crowds literally conditioned Trump to become the ass clown he is today.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


i'm beginning to wonder if i can catch it by reading his tweets

Trumpypool
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Could it be that he's running out of things to say? He doesn't seem like one who'd like to go through rote recitations. Maybe he's passed the point where he's said all the things he knows well enough to sentence up.
posted by rorgy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead… (Clinton is Roark.)
yes but WHO IS JOHN GALT?

okay I know that’s technically from Atlas Shrugged, but I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it
posted by nicepersonality at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump cat meet Trump Catapiller.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


A new Marquette Law School Poll in Wisconsin shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump among registered voters, 42% to 35%.

But among likely voters her lead grew to 46% to 37%, as just 78% of Republicans said they were absolutely certain they would vote in November, down from 87% in March and 90% in June 2012.


Wow, if those GOP voters really stay home, the impact on Congress could be, well, yuuuuge.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Bearwife, would you say that this election matters... bigly?

Like Chrysostom, I'd say it matters yugely!
posted by bearwife at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


We've had something like 60+ meaningless votes to take away people's healthcare.

Let's get an actual constitutional amendment on the books that gives the government unambiguous authority to enact strict gun control (if not a full repeal of the 2nd)

The first draft probably won't pass. But let's start with that before claiming that the Democrats have a spine.
posted by schmod at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So apparently at least one veteran is getting pretty pissed at Trump's implication of corruption by troops in Iraq.

Corbin Reiff's tweetstorm about Trump

I can only imagine how doing an ad or two with Trump sound bites about his disdain for the troops could make it's way into some TV markets with big armed forces communities nearby.

You know like Norfolk, Virginia and Fayetteville, NC you know areas where there are big US armed forces bases and also battleground states.

I would even say Colorado Springs but based upon how weirdly conservative the Air Force is it probably wouldn't be that great of an investment but you know she'll be blasting Denver's market no mater what.
posted by vuron at 12:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Also, holy shit.

I'd considered it previously, but the idea that Trump might have a massive brain tumor and/or dementia is starting to seem awfully plausible. (Stranger still, what if he knows it, and is knowingly running an insincere campaign?)
posted by schmod at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2016


You realize that a constitutional amendment requires 2/3rd majorities in both the House and Senate or 2/3rds of the states calling for a constitutional convention right?

I want gun control as well but if the Republicans could even come close to getting their stupid flag burning amendment passed what are the chances we'd ever see a gun control amendment anytime soon?

Nope the reality is that the only likely way that gun control is anything other than a symbolic fight right now is if the balance in the SCOTUS shifts towards Liberals and that they'd be willing to overlook precedent established under a previous court. The originalists are sometimes willing to ignore precedent but many of the SCOTUS liberals have been pretty solid in terms of deferring to established court decisions even when it seems like they disagree with them.
posted by vuron at 12:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


But..but..but his doctor stated "unequivocally, [Trump] will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Norfolk is safely Democratic, and Virginia as a whole isn't far behind. Even among the conservatives there, Trump has little appeal.
posted by schmod at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016


I'm watching that weird-ass speech, and other than how chilling his use of the words "good" and "not good" are, what I can't get over is how much he sounds like the narrator in Wizard People, Dear Reader. I'm half-expecting him to start talking about a dream he had about cake.
posted by rorgy at 12:57 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


My guess for Trump's increasingly incoherent speeches is that he's having to read speeches he didn't write from a teleprompter, which is an actual skill people have to develop.

That and I'm pretty sure that his campaign isn't exactly attracting the best and the brightest among speechwriters.
posted by Sara C. at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


pocketfullofrye Trump's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 year before his death. I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems

Didn't stop them from electing Reagan, who also was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer's during the 1980 election.

Hell, if Trump really does have Alzheimer's the R's might see it as a sign that he's the anointed successor to St. Reagan.

Sara C. Most likely. You could literally watch him reading his lines off the teleprompter, while a skilled teleprompted person makes it look much more natural. He looked to me like he needed glasses or something, he was squinting at the teleprompter. And he sounded awful, I mean he always does, but that speech was much worse than usual, his rhythm was off. Maybe because the speechwriter didn't pay much attention to how Trump usually talks and so the speech just didn't work for him?
posted by sotonohito at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


The contrast between this and Hillary's most recent speeches is staggering. Skeptical as I am of liberals specifically and America in general, I would not be surprised if Clinton wound up with the mandatiest mandate that I've seen in my lifetime.
posted by rorgy at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


his doctor stated "unequivocally, [Trump] will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,”
I would like to dispel the rumor that 'his doctor' is Dr. Demento. While appropriately named, I've met the man and he'd never do anything like that.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


Didn't stop them from electing Reagan, who also was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer's during the 1980 election.

Was it all that clear in 1980, though? I could be wrong, but I thought his Alzheimer's didn't really manifest itself (publically, at least) until well into his presidency.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:08 PM on June 15, 2016


That, and I think Alzheimer's was a less known and recognized thing at that time?

I'm pretty sure the RNC doesn't actively want Trump to have dementia, because that would be bad all around.

However, the example of Reagan (and probably of Dubya, who did not have dementia but seemed stupid in a tractable sort of way) probably leads them to believe that they can control Trump. Which is not the best assumption for them to make following this primary season.
posted by Sara C. at 1:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's pretty much a given that Trump's doctor is none other than Dr. Leo Spaceman.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


Trump accusing American troops of theft and corruption is pretty freakin' hilarious when he's the guy promising to bring back waterboarding and "a whole lot worse," and then saying the military won't refuse him when he orders them to commit war crimes.

We keep talking about how he has thrown away the GOP's racial dogwhistles. But have we also finally found a Republican who will openly run against the troops rather than talking a good game on the campaign trail and then screwing them once in office?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The only surprising part about Trump's doctor's note was that he didn't endorse the size of Trump's junk.
posted by AndrewInDC at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016


Hmmm, from a Times article titled Parsing Ronald Regan's Words for Early Signs of Alzheimers


"The researchers found no changes in the speaking patterns of Mr. Bush, who is not known to have developed Alzheimer’s. But in Mr. Reagan’s speech, two measures — use of repetitive words, and substituting nonspecific terms like “thing” for specific nouns — increased toward the end of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, compared with its start. A third measure, his use of unique words, declined."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yesterday I watched Charles Manson Superstar which was done in 1989 and consists largely of takes from Charles Manson monologues after twenty years of being locked up as the most famous convicted felon of all time. They have an interviewer, but the questions are mostly pointless as the usual answer is almost always non sequitur. The resemblance of Trump's "logic" now to Manson's in 1989 seems quite close. They are utter sociopaths and it isn't everyday we give anybody like that a microphone and a videocamera. I would do a mashup if I had mad mash skills.
posted by bukvich at 1:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would like to dispel the rumor that 'his doctor' is Dr. Demento. While appropriately named, I've met the man and he'd never do anything like that.

DR. SPACEMAN! DR. SPACEMAN!
posted by murphy slaw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016


dw I think you're (possibly maliciously) distorting the position of the Left here.

I'm trying not to, but there's a strong anti-interventionist streak on the Left, and it's felt like those who support even measured intervention have come under heavy critique this cycle.

Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.

In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.


I would disagree here. For one, military intervention is one piece of the overall strategy to disrupt ISIL. Remember that we're also hitting their cash flow by shutting down their bank accounts, that we're bombing economic targets to starve them of cash, and we're supporting Iraq and Syrian rebels in their bids to retake territory. It has worked, given they're losing territory and capital pretty consistently while turning to terrorism to try and be relevant.

The intervention could be more "decisive," I guess, at least in the way Trump would want it -- nonstop carpet bombing and ground troops. But the goals are clear -- disrupt ISIL -- and the methods are clear. The problems have mostly been with an Assad government and a Russian military that have been obstinate about wanting a stable, bilateral solution through negotiations.

If we had done nothing, ISIL would still be consuming much of the Levant, and the refugee crisis would be just as bad as it is now. I think this is why Bernie hasn't been super-critical of the Syrian intervention and has been open about continuing drone strikes. (This even as he's been critical of the Libyan intervention.)
posted by dw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


The resemblance of Trump's "logic" now to Manson's in 1989 seems quite close. They are utter sociopaths and it isn't everyday we give anybody like that a microphone and a videocamera. I would do a mashup if I had mad mash skills.

Welp, here's an oldie but a goodie: Trump/Manson gif
posted by Existential Dread at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]




Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?
One of those "optional" things, like releasing your tax returns?
posted by Theta States at 1:30 PM on June 15, 2016


Having read over the gawker report, but not the file itself, it seems theres nothing groundbreaking in it at all.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2016


It looks like Gawker has the oppo file now.

It's pretty telling how absolutely nothing in that file seems to be new. The man is his own oppo report.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Reminds me of a bit on Paul F Tompkins' show No, You Shut Up! "Anonymous" claims to have dug up dirt on Trump and it's just stuff everyone knows already.
posted by Green With You at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2016


To use an old Howard Cosell quote, the report has "an uncanny grasp of the obvious". Of course, since it was compiled in December 2015, it could have helped source some of what we've heard since. Otherwise, not an efficient use of Russian espionage resources.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:35 PM on June 15, 2016


It's pretty telling how absolutely nothing in that file seems to be new. The man is his own oppo report.

True, but that information under a DNC letterhead might force them to distance themselves from the strategy outlined in the report (i.e., the only strategy).

I wonder to what extent Trump's team didn't engineer it themselves?

Damned tinfoil hat.
posted by Mooski at 1:36 PM on June 15, 2016


"women are evil scheming manipulators" is not an especially nuanced form of misogyny

Getting that from "i don't like her policy stance and think she could actually execute it" is just about as sad as most of the bernie bro stuff this site has been roasting for at least a month now.

As i said, i don't agree with that position, but i haven't attacked anyone for it because i at least understand it.

But as far as i can tell, the general consensus on here seems to be that if you think Clinton would be bad at her job, then you're a misogynist because she's quite experienced. But if you think she'd be good at her job and don't agree with her, then you're a misogynist because you think she's an evil schemer.

So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?
posted by emptythought at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, it's a collection of publicly available information. I assume the DNC has more from their own direct investigations. But hell if I know how much of that they actually do. I also don't think you can read too much into strategy from it. They have the information about his marriages on there, but I doubt that's the kind of thing Clinton really would want to run with unless she had to as a response to Trump's dumbassery about her own marriage.

Also, what is up with the DNC IT staff? First the shit with Clinton information being shown to Bernie staff and now private documents being leaked by hackers? This is not a good look when Clinton is dealing with the email scandal. Shape up and look competent.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016


"Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?"

Just traditional. They don't even have to get physicals, if they don't want to. In recent years sitting presidents have used their physicals not just to reassure the nation that they're healthy, but to push various public health announcements, like George W. Bush and colonoscopies. There was some discussion of requiring it by law for sitting presidents around the time of the passage of the 25th Amendment, and some discussion of requiring it for candidates after Paul Tsongas was revealed to have concealed his cancer recurrence during the entire 1992 primary. (Had he been elected, he would have been too sick to attend his own inauguration and would have died shortly thereafter in office.) But there's a lot of concerns about whether it would become politicized, and whether it's an invasion too far into presidents' and candidates' privacy. (The flip side is, people like pilots must undergo physicals, it's a little crazy that the guy with the nuclear button doesn't.)

Candidates with histories of health problems have often released copious medical records -- John McCain released many, many thousands of pages of mental health records, for example, to address concerns both about his post-POW mental health and concerns about age-related decline of mental fitness.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't believe there's nothing. I hope the Clinton campaign has their own oppo people and aren't sharing with DNC.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:43 PM on June 15, 2016


Presidential candidates should be required to release tax returns and a standard summary of their medical history and risk factors for heart disease, cancer and dementia.
posted by humanfont at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?

Fearing Clinton executing her own policies makes very little sense unless you assume she's misrepresenting her own policies. She is not even a little bit diametrically opposed from Sanders if you take her at her word. Where she differs is mostly in degrees, in not going far enough for some people's preferences. "I want to sell us out to Wall Street and start more preemptive wars" is not actually a part of her platform.

I am sorry that so many garbage people have muddied the waters such that it's difficult to separate a clean, pure, and defensible mistrust and dislike of her from the horrifically prevalent misogynistic bullshit.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [29 favorites]


I can't believe there's nothing. I hope the Clinton campaign has their own oppo people and aren't sharing with DNC.

Also it's from December, when many still thought it was impossible that he'd be the actual nominee. I'm sure they've ramped up their research since then.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Norfolk is safely Democratic, and Virginia as a whole isn't far behind. Even among the conservatives there, Trump has little appeal.

Jacksonville, Florida is completely Republican and we have 2 naval bases. I would totally LOVE to have ads with the Trump military quotes running here.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel like that oppo file is stuff any halfway dedicated researcher could pull together in a couple afternoons, at least in the broad outlines. Like, I feel like The Daily Show or similar have brought most of this up already for the purposes of jokes. It can't be that big a blow to the Clinton campaign.
posted by yasaman at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2016


Yeah, not gonna mourn the idea that the Dems have to come up with a better supposedly sick burn than "misogynist-in-chief."
posted by straight at 2:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?


The problem is that many -- or even most-- people who dislike and distrust her, do not dislike or distrust Democrats who are absolutely no better in terms of their relationships with Wall Street or Iraq or any of a number of other supposedly policy-based critiques that are made of her from the alt-left.

Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating! This is not among all Democrats, this is specifically among Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary

That's not the view of someone dislikes Hillary because of her Iraq vote, or her position in The Establishment or the fact that her campaign is funded the way all campaigns are funded. It's someone who dislikes her and has found high-minded reasons to justify it.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [53 favorites]


How do you dislike/disagree with Clinton without being a misogynist: A Primer

1. Don't use sexist terms or gendered pejoratives like "bitch", "THAT WOMAN", "shrill", etc. to describe her.

2. Disagree with actual policies that she really has. I got no quarrel with people who think Hillary is too much of a hawk. They're right. I don't like that, either, and it's something I'm concerned about looking ahead at her presidential administration. You don't have to like Clinton or agree with her. But your thoughts on the matter should be rooted in fact.

3. Don't use meaningless platitudes like "liar", "criminal", "corrupt", "$hillary", "Killary", etc that are not rooted in fact, either. This tells me that you dislike the idea of a female POTUS/women in power generally, and not that you disagree with Hillary Clinton for specific reasons.

4. Check your sources and make sure you're not just repeating spurious attacks from the right wing during Bill's administration. If you do this and realize you agree with those assessments, you may want to reconsider whether you are, in fact, a progressive.

5. Make sure that you would hold male candidates to the same level of scrutiny. If you were previously a Sanders supporter (for example), how did you feel about his stance on gun control, or the fact that he once wrote publicly in support of pedophilia? Obviously it's possible to rationalize that stuff and still disagree with Clinton, but again weigh those comparisons next to each other and be honest with yourself about them.

Again, I have no quarrel with people disagreeing with Clinton, or even just straight up disliking her. Even for reasons that ultimately are misogyny-adjacent, like thinking she's uncool, matronly, nagging, etc. You don't have to like her. But you should make sure that your opinions about her are rooted in fact, at least.
posted by Sara C. at 2:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [66 favorites]


I'd add that claiming "I'm not sexist! I'd vote for Liz Warren!" is really starting to come off like the new version of "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are [insert POC here]!"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [30 favorites]




In response to Andrew Kaczynski (of Buzzfeed) asking 'There's no way this is the DNC's only oppo book right?', There is more. A lot more.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


So during this Atlanta speech, Trump proclaimed "ask the gays." (more context: apparently it's Clinton's fault that Saudi Arabia mistreats women and LGBT people)

The Gays are now trending on Twitter and they have answers. It's a bit like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, except with worse hair.
posted by zachlipton at 2:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’: Conservatives freak after Trump hints he’ll support stronger gun control

Well. He's just not going to be happy until he's pissed everyone off.
posted by schroedinger at 2:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating!

Yeah, this stuff drives me crazy. Its either misogyny or they've just bought into the Republican-originated lies about her (all the insane conspiracy theories), or both. I don't see any actual policy or voting record reason to support Biden over Clinton, they're near-identical. Especially on the two big issues for a lot of Berners, Iraq and the financial industry.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


Can I say that while I'm totally up for more gun control, if I get a choice I'd prefer it not involve targeting people on an unaccountable, likely-racially-biased "watch list"? We already saw the problems that came out of the no-fly list.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]


So basically what appears to be released is pretty much everything anyone with a search engine could easily find out. I mean there isn't even a lot of stuff from databases you'd normally have to pay for access too.

I assume for instance there is a massive dossier on all of his financial dealings and a ton of legal documents, etc.

I would honestly be pretty shocked if the Democrats don't know exactly what he's worth baring some sort of hidden Cayman Islands account.

I figure they are going "well we don't even have to start pushing our narrative" because the man is a menace to himself. That being said I could totally see all sorts of leaks coming out if Trump somehow starts to rally in the polls but it's probably too early to release anything really juicy. They will want to wait until after the convention for that (especially since a Super PAC could lead the charge).
posted by vuron at 2:59 PM on June 15, 2016


In response to Andrew Kaczynski (of Buzzfeed) asking 'There's no way this is the DNC's only oppo book right?', There is more. A lot more.

While I trust Guy Cecil on this, it’s worth remembering that his job depends on there being a lot more oppo research on Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2016


Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’: Conservatives freak after Trump hints he’ll support stronger gun control

This is also a good reminder of why conservatives haven’t been able to just dump Trump: because they really will get into trouble with some folks if they do.

I will shed a single tear for their plight.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:01 PM on June 15, 2016


I kind of assumed Clinton's oppo research people spend about 60% of their time just taking audio/video recordings of Trump and organizing them according to what specific topic they're being inane on so as to be easy to share specific points to bolster, say, Clinton's foreign policy speech; 30% of their time clipping mainstream media reports of what he's done and what his own ostensible allies think of him; and maybe 10% of their time trying to find actual hidden dirt on him.

I mean, the most effective anti-Trump material hardly requires "research" to find. It gets vomited all over the news on a regular basis.
posted by jackbishop at 3:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


If you find yourselves freaking out over the present state of your politics consider that there was a naval battle between boggle eyed idiots on the Thames today.
posted by vbfg at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


In my opinion the only reason professional Rs (i.e. Ryan et al) are scared/ambiguous/standoffish about Trump is the notion that he is political/career/GOP poison. If trumps approval ratings skyrocketed all of the sudden I bet all their noble misgivings would vanish.
posted by museum of fire ants at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


after Paul Tsongas was revealed to have concealed his cancer recurrence during the entire 1992 primary. (Had he been elected, he would have been too sick to attend his own inauguration and would have died shortly thereafter in office.)
He didn't die until January 18th, 1997 which was 2 days before Clinton's second Inauguration.
posted by soelo at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016


Longly thereafter, then. :) He was quite ill the last few years, though, and probably would have been too sick to govern for very long at all. (We can also easily imagine the rigors of the office shortening a sick person's life.) I have no particular beef with him or his decisions and was too young to understand the nuances of the decision or feel personally betrayed as a voter; it's just of interest in discussing the issues around candidate physicals. (And, I suppose, of interest in watching the later West Wing plot!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems

Years from now, revisionist historians are going to be saying that Ivanka manipulated the demented and helpless Donald into running for president, just so she could be the power behind the throne. Because a white man couldn't possibly be responsible for his own failure.

Later a best selling fantasy novel series will come out of that idea, followed by plays, comics, a TV series....
posted by happyroach at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Democratic proposal regarding the watch list created a consolidated watch list. Individuals denied a gun or flight will be informed of the reason, given an opportunity file a request for administrative review and if still denied they can sue in Federal court. This isn't the old No Fly List.
posted by humanfont at 3:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]


ok good because the old no fly list is really shitty
posted by ryanrs at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would not be surprised if Clinton wound up with the mandatiest mandate that I've seen in my lifetime.

Mandate is a meaningless word. G.W. Bush literally lost the popular vote by half a million yet it didn't slow him at all in his terrible policies. In contrast, Obama won by the biggest margins in recent history and yet has received nothing for it but obstructionism.
posted by JackFlash at 3:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]


Comment from Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’:
Republicans start the week off by saying that President Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. By Wednesday they're defending the second amendment rights of people on the terror watch list.
Meanwhile Trump is telling the GOP leaders to "be quiet" or he will lead alone
"You know, the Republicans, honestly folks, our leaders, our leaders have to get tougher. This is too tough to do it alone. But you know what, I think I’m going to be forced to. I think I am going to be forced to, our leaders have to get a lot tougher,” he began.

He added, icily, "And be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don't talk, please be quiet.”

“They have to get tougher. They have get sharper,” he said in Atlanta. "They have to get smarter. We have to have to -- our Republicans -- either stick together or let me just do it by myself. I'll do very well."
He'll be the best leader cause no one can lead like he can! He will lead everyone right over a cliff but it will be the best cliff and he will do it bigly.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]


I am apparently perfectly ok with presidential candidates concealing significant information about their health as long as they eventually fess up while sticking their hands in their pockets, turning away, and smiling, and Dire Straits plays in the background.
posted by zachlipton at 3:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


(That's a reference to the end of West Wing's Two Cathedrals, since it was a bit cryptic.)
posted by zachlipton at 3:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


From Reuters - Sanders not ending campaign in Thursday's video speech: spokesman.

Every day Sanders does not suspend his campaign is a day he loses additional leverage. He's at Old Man Yells At Cloud levels now. Soon he'll be completely irrelevant. He should have made a deal the day after California.
posted by Justinian at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2016 [34 favorites]


The Democratic proposal regarding the watch list created a consolidated watch list. Individuals denied a gun or flight will be informed of the reason, given an opportunity file a request for administrative review and if still denied they can sue in Federal court. This isn't the old No Fly List.

Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]


Spencer Cox [Lt. Gov of Utah] speaks up about regretting the way he once treated gay people:
I grew up in a small town and went to a small rural high school. There were some kids in my class that were different. Sometimes I wasn't kind to them. I didn't know it at the time, but I know now that they were gay. I will forever regret not treating them with the kindness, dignity and respect — the love — that they deserved. For that, I sincerely and humbly apologize.
...

I believe that we can all agree we have come a long way as a society when it comes to our acceptance and understanding of the LGBTQ community (did I get that right?). However, there has been something about this tragedy that has very much troubled me. I believe that there is a question, two questions actually, that each of us needs to ask ourselves in our heart of hearts. And I am speaking now to the straight community. How did you feel when you heard that 49 people had been gunned down by a self-proclaimed terrorist? That's the easy question. Here is the hard one: Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.
posted by zachlipton at 4:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [46 favorites]


Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."

Well, whether it's a no-fly list or no-buy list or no-pie list or whatever, all you have to do is try flying, buying, pie-ing, or whatever and if you are refused you know you're on the list.

There is really no way to have a list that stops people from doing something without simultaneously creating a way for people to find out whether or not they are on the list--simply by attempting to do the thing the list bans.
posted by flug at 4:12 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."

Sure, but they can whether they're on the No Fly List now by trying to buy a plane ticket and seeing whether they're denied at the airport. This was dubbed the Carnival booth effect in a paper all the way back in 2002: terrorists can "Step Right Up! See if you’re a winner!" If we're going to have that system anyway for the No Fly List, adding some basic semblance due process to try to get off of it seems like an improvement, even if it's an improvement to a stupid system.

Of course, then we'll have the secret No Fly List Of People Who Can't Know They're On The No Fly List so they might be allowed to fly anyway. And then when one of them commits some sort of horrible act, we'll all ask why they were on this list and not the other list.
posted by zachlipton at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


Joe in Austrailia: Wouldn't attempting to get on an airplane do the same thing? It's not much good to have a no fly list otherwise. (That said I think a no fly list is a seriously anti-american concept)
posted by aspo at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016


Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."

Yeah, that's another flaw in the plan. Even if you restrict it to people who have been actively questioned (and thus are aware that law enforcement has noticed them regardless of gun purchases) the appeals process means they get to examine the evidence that led DOJ to investigate them, potentially fouling an investigation in midstream. But if they can't due that, it's a Due Process nightmare.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:14 PM on June 15, 2016




> Meanwhile Trump is telling the GOP leaders to "be quiet" or he will lead alone

This Really Is a Historic Game of Chicken: Trump can't survive without the Republican Party. They can't survive with Trump.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.

Christ, that's a powerful statement.
posted by Mooski at 4:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [20 favorites]


Trump Says He Will Delegate Judicial Selection To The Conservative Federalist Society

Why stop at judges? You could have foreign policy decided by Lonely Planet™ and economic policy decided by the knowledgeable folks at Quicken Loans™!

Holy fucking shit this election doesn't stop reaching new depths of stupid.
posted by Talez at 4:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating!

Wait, the guy who wrote the crime bill they so despised? The man who voted for the Second Iraq War and DOMA? Who supports abstinence-only education? Who is a self-described Zionist?

They like him better than Hillary?

Wow.
posted by dw at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [27 favorites]


He is old, white and male.

Don't get me wrong, I love Joe. But I still think there are some very strong biases operating here.

I'd add that I'm struck by how much people -- including me -- who actually have taken the time to watch Hillary speak, listen to her, and read what she is written, find they actually like her a ton.
posted by bearwife at 4:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [32 favorites]



NYT: Hillary's Secret Facebook Groups
posted by msalt at 4:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


I guess, and i'll give it a goddamn rest after this because i've done it in probably three threads at this point(and those were good responses!), what really gets my goat is that this site has been shitting on the terrorist watch lists and no fly lists since the freaking PATRIOT act was dreamed up. Broadly, widely, and consistently. This was one of the very first places i saw a good explanation of why they were garbage when i was still a lurker and barely even understood why! But if she makes a broad pro-crappy-list statement suddenly the response is "well that's too vague of a politicy policy claim to really dig in to unless you want to see something specific" or whatever?

This is one of those things like fracking. It's crappy. There isn't really a good version of it. This was almost unilaterally agreed to be security theater BS. But suddenly it's not that bad, and we should wait to hear more?

I might seriously have to take a break from these threads, or the entire site at this point because i just don't understand and i feel like i'm going to become young man yells at cloud. I'm really, deeply disappointed in multiple things she's said since the shooting(and voiced my disappointment early on at the Islamic Radicalism comment) and it's stuff i usually feel like regular posters here would be pretty critical of and everyone is just like "idk, if you look at it like this it's not that bad..."

Like yea, i'll be down there in november voting for her. But i'm worried and disappointed... and it weirds me out that almost everyone here seems to be supportive and excited even when those are... crappy positions? And i was someone who was on the fence before the primary was decided because of the gun control positions between them.
posted by emptythought at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]


NYT: Hillary's Secret Facebook Groups

In the fucking Fashion and Style section. Are you kidding me?
posted by zachlipton at 4:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


And from the actual article: "Others function like support groups: complete with finger snaps and Hillary cat memes and engulfing, bosom-like support."

Gross, NYT
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


Bosoms fucking golfing, golfing, golfing out the roof, out the fucking door, it was golfing. There was nothing I could do.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016


I'd add that I'm struck by how much people -- including me -- who actually have taken the time to watch Hillary speak, listen to her, and read what she is written, find they actually like her a ton.

Hear, hear. My reaction to Hillary's candidacy early on was, "Meh, a dull, timid, centrist, dynastic choice, hardly worth getting excited about." But damned if she hasn't risen to the occasion with passion and fiery rhetoric. She's not only incredibly competent (which we all already knew) but also has shown significant character.
posted by jackbishop at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


emptythought, it is possible to like a pol and not agree with them 100%. I am really disappointed with Obama on almost all civil liberties issues (a key one area of concern for me) and am not enthused HE suggested tying gun ownership to the already awful No Fly list. But I am still overall a huge Obama fan. So I find it goes for me with HRC.

I also think it is fine to not support someone or dislike them because of disagreement on important issues. I just think lots of people dislike HRC who really have not taken any kind of close look at her. Not talking about you, as I believe you have.
posted by bearwife at 4:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet but I want to heartily concur with emptythought—I would have no objections to completely eliminating the second amendment from the constitution and obliterating for everyone any notion that private ownership of weapons is a right, particularly ones that are more like an artillery piece from the 18th century when that amendment was written than a firearm of the era. But instead providing the government with a means to have an arbitrary list of individuals who don't get the same fundamental rights as everyone else seems absolutely insane to me.

Between the embedded systemic racism of our society and the fact that half of the political establishment appears to have openly given up on the fight against fascism, and was somehow able to field multiple presidential candidates who propose things like special police patrols of ethnic neighborhoods and registries of citizens by ethnicity, I'm hard put to imagine a worse time to put a tool like that in the government's hands.
posted by XMLicious at 5:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the reason we're talking about it/reacting to it in the way that we are is that we understand that Presidential candidates have to work with the system they're given. Nobody who says "well personally I don't think we should have terrorist watch lists" or "honestly guns should just be illegal, period" is going to get elected.

So it can be useful to look at the candidates we have, and the system we have, and evaluate what each is saying in that context. We have to fight fascism with the weapon we have right now, which is a centrist establishment politician running against a fascist for POTUS.
posted by Sara C. at 5:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [27 favorites]


Part of the hope of the "no guns for people on the no-fly list" is that it will, by constitutional necessity, create a system by which people can get themselves removed from the no-fly list via some reasonably expedient legal process (assuming they're not actually terrorists).

Currently there are a lot of people on that list for no known reason, who can't get off the list despite trying to go to court, and who have to try to fly before being told they're still on the list. It's a nightmare.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:17 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]


Here's a pretty good photo of what I would imagine Paul Ryan feels like all the time these days.

Daniel Lin: Transcript of Paul Ryan’s life since endorsing Trump
posted by maudlin at 5:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


"Trump: When Starbucks mispells your name that's legally your new name"

Ok I lost it.
posted by Talez at 5:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


[If you want to get in the weeds on gun control, please take it to one of the two gun control threads. I can only track the argument across so many threads at once!]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee on May 4; Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 7. So Trump had a full month head start, a month when he had the chance to pivot to the center and define his opponent, an opportunity he's completely wasted. Instead it's a seemingly-endless series of own goals.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.

That was Pete Sessions, not Jeff: Lawmaker Blocks Nondiscrimination Bill After Claiming Gay People Weren’t Targets In Orlando Shooting
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]


it's stuff i usually feel like regular posters here would be pretty critical of and everyone is just like "idk, if you look at it like this it's not that bad..."

1 - it's a cultural thing - just as some of her opponents wouldn't oppose someone else with her policies, some of her fans are willing to overlook things that they would condemn others for

2 - starting in january, there will be a certain amount of buyer's discomfort - ordinarily, it would be remorse, but no one's going to feel remorseful about donnie losing

no one sane, anyway

3 - as an extra note i watched the first 5 minutes of trump's speech - a segment of the american population have finally found their representative - fast to talk, slow to think, unable to focus on any subject for more than a minute, and willing to communicate by shibboleths and shared assumptions rather than actual thoughts and arguments

that we're faced with a choice between this idiocy and a centrist status quo candidate in perilous times is a sign of a declining country, with declining choices
posted by pyramid termite at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Trump says he was ‘right’ about Obama and terrorists, citing questionable 2012 intelligence cable
“The main worry by those folks that I talk to in the national security and foreign policy universe is that he’s just winging it. And winging it . . . at this period in time is clearly dangerous,” said Kevin Madden, a veteran GOP strategist and former adviser to 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“Some days I expect him to come out and say, ‘I’m not an expert on national security, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Let me tell you what I think,’ ” Madden said.
posted by zakur at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2016


Gov. Larry Hogan (R - MD) said emphatically Wednesday that he does not plan to vote for Donald Trump, his party’s presumptive — and divisive — presidential nominee.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]


As predicted, Rachel Maddow is now saying that Rubio will break his promise not to and campaign for his senate seat after all.
posted by XMLicious at 6:07 PM on June 15, 2016


New CBS News poll: With the presidential primary season now officially at a close, Hillary Clinton (43 percent) holds a six-point lead over Donald Trump (37 percent) - the same margin she led Trump by a month ago. When former New Mexico Governor and current Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is added to the contest, he garners 11 percent of the vote, but the margin between Clinton and Trump changes little. With Johnson's name added, Clinton holds a seven-point lead nationally over Donald Trump, 39 percent to 32 percent.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:08 PM on June 15, 2016


“Some days I expect him to come out and say, ‘I’m not an expert on national security, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Let me tell you what I think,’ ” Madden said.

It'd be something more like "I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and you know what? They give you these keycards! We could make all the Muslims give police these keycards to their homes and to the mosques!"
posted by Talez at 6:27 PM on June 15, 2016


Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?

Might this be a #NeverTrump strategy for the Republican convention -- requiring candidates to pass a health and mental facility test before the final vote, in the not unreasonable hope that Trump will fail it? Corb?
posted by msalt at 6:31 PM on June 15, 2016




And from the actual article: "Others function like support groups: complete with finger snaps and Hillary cat memes and engulfing, bosom-like support." Gross, NYT

That line was weird and bad and unlike the rest of the article. I wonder if an editor added that, or a friend of the writer suggested it?

The rest of it seemed pretty good though, and I think that the secret Hillary groups are an important and undertold part of this election's story. It's smart response to the gendered online harassment, and an unpredicted twist on new media campaigning.
posted by msalt at 6:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]






I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines.
posted by bongo_x at 7:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay, if you're truly ready to stop taking Trump seriously: Japanese (style) Donald Trump Commercialトランプ2016
now we can stop the Hitler comparisons and focus on who he's really like: Emperor Hirohito
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


1. No-fly lists are still garbage
2. But they're not going anywhere, yet
3. There are too many guns
4. I am not above using one bad idea to try to mitigate the damage of another, in the absence of any better options.

Though I do understand the point that this will further entrench/legitimize no-fly lists. However, "no-fly lists should be abolished" is not anywhere on the political radar at the moment. They are about as legitimate as they can get at this point. To change that, you have to challenge the power of the anti-terror/Homeland Security hardliners, which is a massive fight that will probably have to be fought piecemeal/sideways/over time.

If on the other hand we could force the NRA to fight some of that fight for us (because they will want to make it easier to challenge no-fly lists because it affects gun buyers) that would be an excellent bit of political jiujitsu. And have the short-term effect of there being fewer guns out there.

It's not that Mefi's gone all Yay No-Fly Lists, it's that we're looking at the best strategies for the opportunities available right now.

Politics is like that.
posted by emjaybee at 7:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]


bongo_x: "I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines."

MSNBC's Chris Hayes has speculated that Trump doesn't even read newspapers but only gets his news from cable TV. I could have sworn that I read somewhere about how Trump once insulted (?) someone based on the fact that they didn't watch CNN or something but I can't find it any more.
posted by mhum at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


now we can stop the Hitler comparisons and focus on who he's really like: Emperor Hirohito
I dunno, do you think Trump would ever explicitly say he isn't a god?
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:28 PM on June 15, 2016


From Daniel Lin, who is great:
"Marco wishes to apologize to Donald Trump. Marco asks Donald Trump if there is a speaking slot at the convention."


I just discovered him today. He hits my type of humor button dead center.
Not sure why but I was reading through them all and this one just made laugh so hard.


[Debate]

CLINTON: (wearing Heelys and vaping on Snapchat) On fleek. Emojis. YAAAS.

TRUMP: At my inauguration, I promise to kill a gorilla
posted by Jalliah at 7:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


If Trump were to deny his divinity then it would undermine all the Trump is the God Emperor of Humanity memes.

Next you are going to suggest that Trump will deny that he plans on making anime real.
posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on June 15, 2016


Be fair - we have no evidence Trump has taken on the skin of a sandtrout.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


[There are ongoing conversations about the no-fly and no-buy lists in the other threads.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:00 PM on June 15, 2016


I don't spend a whole lot of time on Facebook, but I'm kinda sad that I never knew about any of these awesome secret Hillary groups. :(
posted by Salieri at 8:25 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Eyebrows didn't put a closed bracket at the end, which means that all further comments in the thread are technically mod statements.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:33 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]


MeFi is officially endorsing Trump
posted by zachlipton at 8:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]


All right, ya knuckleheads, I closed my bracket and made it bold so it's extra, extra strong. :P
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [33 favorites]


I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines.

I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bold fringe brackets are the brackets of an Admiralty Mod, and I do not recognize their authority.
posted by bongo_x at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [66 favorites]


All right, ya knuckleheads, I closed my bracket and made it bold so it's extra, extra strong. :P

And Eyebrow's gonna make US pay for it!
posted by happyroach at 9:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]


That bracket just got two pixels higher!
posted by mazola at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]


Bold fringe brackets are the same as CAPITALIZING NAMES! THIS IS A SOVEREIGN MEFI THREAD!
posted by dw at 10:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]


Very glad my blue liberty tarp gets to come out of retirement. Thought I'd never get to use it again after Fry yelled "hallelujah". SOVEREIGN MEFITES ONLY RECOGNIZE GOD'S LAW NOT MOD'S LAW.

I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.

Strongly disagree. He re-reads Art of the Deal every year. Sheds a single solitary tear at the pure genius of it.
posted by honestcoyote at 10:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]


...From money flows power and influence, and from there the perception and, in many instances, reality that the governing class has become servant to the interests of the wealthy. A crucial turning point was the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession, which was visited upon a still-suffering public by unrepentant bankers—fantastically wealthy gamblers who talk a good free-market game but were only too happy to be shielded from harm by massive government bailouts.

For the record, there was no alternative to saving the financial system; without those emergency measures, we would have had another Great Depression. The mistake was letting the bankers off un-chastened and releasing them back into the wild, a failure for which Democratic and Republican political elites share responsibility. It is likely this episode catalyzed an anything-is-better-than-this backlash against the comfortable guardians of the status quo, a sentiment ripe for exploitation by a power-hungry demagogue with a gift for public theater.

But anything, if it takes the form of Donald Trump, is not better than this. It is worse. Much, much worse. It is also profoundly dangerous and would visit potentially irreversible damage upon a great and exceptional nation (and it is high time that Bernie Sanders’s supporters come to recognize this). If Internet culture threatens to turn us into a fragile, violent fiefdom, egregious concentrations of wealth and a philosophy of no-holds-barred capitalism present the danger of turning us into the world’s most advanced banana republic. These are traps from which it is not easy to escape. We must do everything we can to avoid falling into them in the first place.
Trump and the End of Everything
posted by y2karl at 11:27 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]


Does the bold end bracket mean that everything before it is a mod statement?
posted by Etrigan at 3:54 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]




Storified series of tweets from Republican strategist Rick Wilson as an open letter to the GOP:
2/ You can't elide over his utter dipshittery. No matter how much you try to act surprised, you own this. You're covered in his stench.

5/ You won't escape the stain. It's like a big, visible "No Ragrets" chest tat that will mark your careers forever.

8/ This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself.
All ten are in the link.
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [33 favorites]


While as far as I can tell Trump wasn't admitted via Legacy preferences back in the day as his father was not old money at all the continued existence and preferences given to legacies at most elite private schools really has me doubtful about the actual quality of lots of famous people that get into and then brag about Ivy school educations especially when it's clear that just having a big donor vouch for you can basically result in admission.

Legacy preferences clearly diminish the quality of the incoming students and elite schools game the hell out of them with stuff like the z list at Harvard but to the average American Ivy is Ivy so keeping them are a great way to keep Ivies white i mean great
posted by vuron at 4:51 AM on June 16, 2016


Storified series of tweets from Republican strategist Rick Wilson as an open letter to the GOP:

And "Cheeto Jesus" was born. Damn that's good.
posted by Sreiny at 4:55 AM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


10/ Your resumes will always read "Worked for a batshit crazy crypto-fascist who destroyed the GOP".

From his fingertips to God's eyes.
posted by y2karl at 5:01 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton Is Actively Vetting Elizabeth Warren As Potential Running Mate: Other possible choices include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, among others.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:11 AM on June 16, 2016


Elite schools were flatly much less academically competitive in the 60s than they are today. They also drew from much more regional recruitment pools and much more traditional socio-cultural groups. An East Coast rich dude's son who went to an Ivy in the 60s is like, "Well, sure, that's what they were for." If Trump came from a disadvantaged group and managed to go to an Ivy before admissions shifted away from the gentlemanly class, that's impressive, especially in the quota era. But a rich white East Coast dude going to an Ivy in the 60s? That's just what Ivies were for.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


It seems quite unlikely that Trump could win an election. My prediction: Trump will do whatever it takes to have the Republicans choose a different candidate – somehow. The alternative is losing (which he hates) or "winning" a hard, stressful job. But being the spoiler, someone who can snipe and snipe and screw people around? He's been training for that all his life.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


The alternative is losing (which he hates) or "winning" a hard, stressful job.

It's only a hard, stressful job if you do it well; if you do it Bush-style and basically just show up to photo-ops and follow whatever course your underlings advise, there's still plenty of time to clear brush back at the ranch. The sense I get is that Trump would genuinely dig being president; he would just be okay with being a terrible one.
posted by Greg Nog at 5:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


If he were, somehow, to win I picture the immediate aftermath as kind of like the last scene of The Candidate...except instead of asking "What do we do now?" he'd be all like "Well, I'll be on the golf course if you need me. Don't call before 3:00!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


State of the Union address would be via Twitter
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:04 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Actually comparing Trump to a Cheetoh is a really good comparison even beyond the "Orange" bits

1)Orange
2)Made of hot air and extruded product
3)Utterly devoid of substance or nutritional content
4)Leaves your hands dirty after handling
5)Enjoyed only by children (in this case manchilds)
6)Makes you feel disgusted by yourself after consuming

Cheetoh lovers are free to hate now
posted by vuron at 6:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


Legacy admissions are useful because getting to network with the scions of the rich an powerful is an intangible benefit of Ivy League education.
posted by humanfont at 6:07 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would agree that having someone's rich dad or uncle be a venture capitalist is super useful if you want to start a tech company but is it really worth holding aside 10-20% of the seats for the incoming class?

Why not just allow anyone who went to Phillips Exeter to automatically enter.

I totally understand why some of the elite universities do this because it's a great way to increase your endowment (and presumably not have to deal with giving financial aid) and for the most part undergrads don't really contribute that much to the research efforts of elite institutions but let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of negative consequences as well.
posted by vuron at 6:21 AM on June 16, 2016


Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his penchant for conspiracy theories, Trump is now alleging -- with apparently no evidence -- that the DNC leaked its opposition research itself and made up the hacking story.

Meanwhile, 'Donald Trump Accused of Using His Charity as a Political Slush Fund':
In key early primary states this year, Trump handed out [Trump] Foundation checks to charities at campaign rallies. This also calls into question “whether the Foundation provided the campaign with an illegal in-kind contribution by providing services for what was a campaign event. Under the campaign finance laws… providing anything of value to a campaign for free or at less than fair market value is a contribution to the campaign,” said Larry Noble, the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.

And in 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi—an action the foundation is prohibited from taking, and which it failed to report on its disclosures.

The Trump campaign blamed this failure on clerical mistakes, but legal experts are sounding the alarm because at the time Bondi was reviewing complaints surrounding the businessman’s controversial Trump University project.
posted by cjelli at 7:29 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, billionaire, are basically Flounder from Animal House.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




octothorpe: All ten are in the link.

Here's an illustrated director's cut of those tweets, because we all needed a Cheeto Jesus picture to brighten our day.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 AM on June 16, 2016


So, if I donate to Clinton now, she can use the money for general election funds, right? I'm confused by the whole primary/general legality.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


As much as I think the world would be better off if Trump simply walked away in shame from his campaign today, another part of me wants him not to completely implode until after the R convention. They've been making this bed for 15 to 45 years, and now it's time for them to lie in it.
posted by chimaera at 8:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


State of the Union address would be via Twitter

The State of our Union is: Great Again
posted by saturday_morning at 8:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, if I donate to Clinton now, she can use the money for general election funds, right? I'm confused by the whole primary/general legality.

Money contributed right now goes into the primary fund until the convention although you can specify on the check it should go to the general election fund. Once the convention has happened the person donating can choose whether to send money towards retiring debts or for the general. Also, campaigns can roll over any left over primary money into their general election fund. In a practical sense it all amounts to donating $5400 directly to a candidate over the course of an election campaign.
posted by Talez at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]




Donald Trump Apparently Has A Serious Fundraising Problem

This is pretty big for the downticket races. The Presidential campaigns usually have long coattails, every other candidate counts on using some of the national structure to get out the vote and advertise for their own race. If Trump is way behind on fundraising and ground game, it's doing to trickle down (ha!) to the lower races.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump supporters get into Twitterfights with Markov-fueled [maybe?] Twitter bot @assbott

In their defense, @assbott's tweets are no less coherent than those of their evil, orange puppet-master.
posted by sour cream at 8:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is pretty big for the downticket races.

But alternately, maybe it's people taking the money they would have given to for the presidential campaign, and then they turn around and give it to Congressional races?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:52 AM on June 16, 2016


Donald Trump Accused of Using His Charity as a Political Slush Fund

When the story first came out about Bondi, the part that stood out to me wasn't the possibility of bribery, which is very difficult to prove, but the fact that the donation to Bondi came from the Trump Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity.

There is no ambiguity about that. A charity donating to a political campaign is a clear cut, very serious IRS violation. It means that the charity's tax exemption is revoked, which means that everyone who donated to the charity and claimed a tax deduction needs to amend their returns and remove the tax deduction.

Further, the law states that an organization that loses 501(c)(3) status, which is a charity, is also ineligible to be a 501(c)(4) civic non-profit. This means that the organization becomes a for-profit company and all of the millions received by the charity must be refiled as taxable income.

There is also the issue of filing a fraudulent tax return. This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.
posted by JackFlash at 8:53 AM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.

I foresee President Clinton pulling the leash back on her DoJ/IRS/etc. to keep it from looking like she's going after her fallen foe, regardless of how much criminality (advertent or in-) there actually was.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on June 16, 2016


Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extraction.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.

[Insert conservative platitude about the IRS being used for political purposes here]
posted by Talez at 8:58 AM on June 16, 2016


Yes people like the Kochs are definitely going to put money into down ballot races but it's still a negative for Republicans overall.

There are many reasons for this but essentially it comes down to it's less effective to give the same amount of money to 50 candidates than give it to one big organization like a presidential campaign.

The reality is that a lot of the infrastructure that many campaigns need is extremely expensive. Analytics tools necessary for micro-targeting voters, grassroots with lots of door-to-door and phonebankers, big ad-buys on national programming, etc these are generally handled by the RNC and the Presidential campaign and they tend to be shared (like common goods) down ballot so that a rural Representative still has access to tools that a national campaign might have. Plus because they are often priced out of doing big media buys in some markets many suburban Republicans representatives depend on the Presidential Campaign to introduce a lot of positive impacts for down ballot races.

So if Trump is doing his campaign on the cheap because this is just one big grift (and it is) it means that the RNC will have to prop him up (because some things absolutely still need to be purchased) and that means less resources the RNC can devote to down-ballot causes. Yes big republican donors might give to a lot of downballot candidates separately but it's not a guarantee and it's costly because now even smaller campaigns are going to have to be more aggressive about soliciting from big donor lists and a lot of those types don't want to hear from every little campaign.

This is kind of the reason why I disliked all the progressive chatter about how much money Hillary was siphoning off when she was doing big joint fundraisers like it was just one big slushfund. Nope it might look like the bulk of the funding is going to the national campaign but in reality most of it's going to buy a shared infrastructure.
posted by vuron at 9:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


I foresee President Clinton pulling the leash back on her DoJ/IRS/etc. to keep it from looking like she's going after her fallen foe

I'd prefer for her to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war; to crush her enemy and see him driven before her; and savor the lamentations of his Twitter goons.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:11 AM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


Speaking of the campaign as one big grift: Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?
Sarah Ellison reports that Trump is exploring the possibility of a television or other media venture that would cater to his loyalists. “According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the ‘audience’ currently supporting him,” she writes. “He has also discussed the possibility of launching a 'mini-media conglomerate' outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC.” According to Ellison, Trump chafes at the way media have been able to make money off his antics without him getting a cut — a piece of reporting that happens to comport with Trump’s frequent public boasts about the ratings he commands and the money others are making off him.

And if this is Trump’s plan, it makes sense. Perhaps he grasps a truth the official Republican Party has refused to acknowledge: The conservative base is a subculture. It is a numerically large subculture, but a subculture nonetheless. It rejects the moral values of the larger society and wallows within its own imaginary world, in which Barack Obama is a foreign-born agent of anti-American interests, global warming is a lie concocted by greedy scientists or perhaps the Chinese, and hordes of foreigners are rendering the United States unrecognizable. The greater the gulf between the reality perceived by Trump’s supporters and the reality experienced by the rest of the world, the worse for the Republican Party, but all the more profitable for the media that can cater to their delusions.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Should be "AFL-CIO -- which has 12.5m members -- endorses Clinton" with no dollar sign. Unless that's just a corruption marker. {/}
posted by defenestration at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2016


Unless that's just a corruption marker.

Maybe just a typo.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:16 AM on June 16, 2016


Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extracti

And she's had ample opportunity, having served in Congress since 1982 and never winning with less than 55% of the vote.
posted by one_bean at 9:17 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Unless that's just a corruption marker.

Maybe just a typo.

I was just joking around. But that is a big endorsement for sure.
posted by defenestration at 9:18 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Re Trump's education, my understanding is that he went to Fordham (not an Ivy, and I hate to rag on it because it's more name-prestigious than my alma mater, but it's not actually that competitive to get into) and then Wharton School Of Business for an MBA.

I don't think you get into Wharton as a legacy. And, I mean, MBA degrees, sneer sneer sneer how hard can they be to get really

What I'm saying is that while I guess it's impressive that he bothered to go to college at all, and Wharton is kind of a big deal in MBA-worshipping circles, he's not nearly as well educated (or as old-money) as he'd like to let on. He's typically educated for NYC Wall Street high finance circles. He's mediocrally* educated compared to the Obamas or the Clintons. The only real difference his education holds over a particularly ambitious car dealership owner from Tampa is that his undergrad diploma doesn't have any direction words on it.

*If bigly can be a word, surely this...
posted by Sara C. at 9:23 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


[Insert conservative platitude about the IRS being used for political purposes here]

I mean really though, what are they going to do about, beyond complain? Impeach the -- oh.
A House committee plans to vote Wednesday on whether to censure Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen over Republican claims that he obstructed an investigation into whether his agency targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

The action by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee comes before a planned June 22 hearing by the House Judiciary Committee about a resolution to impeach Koskinen. House Republican leaders have not promised floor votes on the proposals, and neither effort is expected to move through the Senate.
...
In case anyone’s forgotten...Koskinen wasn’t even at the tax agency when the imaginary controversy unfolded
posted by cjelli at 9:26 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?

I keep saying, the person most vulnerable to Trump isn't Hillary, it's Rush Limbaugh. Are there any 'dittoheads' to who aren't massive Trumpsters?

I've always thought that was the real aim of Trump's run -- before it seemed like he might actually win. Now that he's the apparent actual candidate, he might lose the general so badly that he can no longer go the right-wing talking head route. At least, not with the kind of prominence and profitability he probably imagined.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump’s relationship with RNC sours. Among other things, he promised to call two dozen top GOP donors, then quit after making just three calls.

Trump, in a rally yesterday:
You know, the Republicans, honestly, folks, our leaders — our leaders have to get tougher. This is too tough to do it alone. But you know what? I think I’m gonna be forced to. I think I’m going to be forced to.

Our leaders have to get a lot tougher, and be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don’t talk. Please, be quiet. Just be quiet, to the leaders, because they have to get tougher, they have to get sharper, they have to get smarter, and we have to have our Republicans either stick together or let me just do it by myself.

A lot of people thought I should do that anyway. But I’ll just do it very nicely by myself. I think you’re gonna have a very good result. I think we’ll be very happy. I’ll run as a Republican.
posted by zakur at 9:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


then Wharton School Of Business for an MBA.

No, Trump did not get a Wharton MBA. He spent two undergraduate years at Fordham and then two undergraduate years at U Penn. He got an undergraduate degree in business. He tries to fool people into thinking he got a Wharton MBA, but he just got a bog standard undergraduate business degree, which includes some classes at Wharton.
posted by JackFlash at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [24 favorites]


mediocrally

I think the standard "productive suffix" there would be "-ly" and therefore produce "mediocrely"

let the prescriptivist/descriptivist derail begin!
posted by aspersioncast at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extraction.

Oh, it's worse than that. She voted to ban federal health coverage that includes abortions. She threatened to kill the ACA until President Obama agreed to release an executive order backing up the existing ban on taxpayer funding for abortion. She's also the only member of the Progressive Caucus to vote against embryonic stem cell research and against expanding current research initiatives to include additional embryonic stem cell lines.

But hey, she's against NAFTA. Isn't that great? I guess Sanders thinks that makes up for Kaptur spending 30 years trying to fuck over millions of women.
posted by zarq at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [53 favorites]


Pobody's nerfect, zarq.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think you get into Wharton as a legacy.

Generally not for the MBA program, at least today; there's a separate undergraduate program that might consider that, although I'm unclear on whether or not they actually do. The MBA program shares classrooms, buildings, and professors, but the overlap between the undergraduate/graduate programs is, overall, less than you might think -- I don't know if that was closer in the '60s, though.

And, in any case, he didn't get an MBA there :
Trump transferred into Wharton’s undergraduate program — then known as the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce — after spending two years at Fordham University in New York. He graduated in 1968 and has embraced the school’s card-carrying prestige ever since.
...
Reports of Trump’s grades at Wharton vary. The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he graduated first in his class. But in a 1985 biography of Trump, Jerome Tuccille wrote that he was not an honor student and “spent a lot of time on outside business activities.”
...

Some classmates speculated that Trump skipped class, others that he commuted to New York on weekends.
posted by cjelli at 9:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is it funnier that this inheritor-class dudebro who has almost certainly never had a callous, gone without a meal nor been punched in the face self-identifies as 'tough,' or that his fans actually eat this up?

I mean, tough how? Like an overcooked Trumpsteak?
posted by aspersioncast at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh, so he has the education of an unambitious Tampa car dealership owner, then.
posted by Sara C. at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump is "tough" in the way that Joe Apario is tough, or a Fortune 500 CEO is tough; willing and able to abuse his authority.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


In the spirit of juvenile vulgarity i present: RUMP 2016 (NSFW, NSFL [hello.jpg mashup])
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is it funnier that this inheritor-class dudebro who has almost certainly never had a callous, gone without a meal nor been punched in the face self-identifies as 'tough,' or that his fans actually eat this up?

Far be it from me to defend Trump, but he went to military school, where he played several sports. I am willing to bet he's had callouses and been punched.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016


Tough (adj.): "Bellicose; cavalier with respect to the lives and resources of others"
posted by aspersioncast at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


In Kaptur's defense, she's in Ohio, and that state is always going to require reps that walk an odd line. If the choice is Kaptur or an R, I'd take Kaptur. But yeah, those optics are hella bad.

What's surprising to me is that Kaptur's been in the house for aaaages. Sanders supporting her is surely payback for her endorsing him, but it doesn't seem critical.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:50 AM on June 16, 2016


Trump even tried to class up his diploma by slapping a more prestigious name on it, I'll hand it to him for consistency.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016


played several sports

Fair enough.

Unless all these pictures were staged! Let's see his birth certificate! :p

had callouses and been punched.

Those were the days . . .
posted by aspersioncast at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ohh so Trump is actually someone like Sterling Archer just affecting a middle class everyman guise.

1)Tough as nails
2)Stylish - well at least in his mind
3)Misogynistic
4)Witty for some values of witty
5)Definite parental issues
6)Completely abusive to the help
7)Loathed by coworkers
8)Supposedly not an alcoholic

I need to see him in a tactical turtleneck to confirm. Or maybe we can have a Trump cartoon after the end of Archer with the Trump character voiced by H Jon Benjamin.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2016


Trump is "tough" in the way that Bernie Madoff was tough, and I remain certain that a major motivation for his political misadventure is the mistaken belief that being President can grant him immunity from prosecution for several things that'd cause him to spend his declining years in a Federal Prison. (Fortunately for him, he'll obviously qualify for a 'Country Club' prison where you don't need to be tough at all).

But if President Hillary's DOJ were to throw the book ("Art of the Deal") at the poster boy for crony capitalism, the only Republicans who could possibly object would be those who he had specifically made past bribes campaign contributions to. Wait... didn't he contribute to Hillary Clinton's first Senate Run before he went Full-GOP? (Wasn't that why Hill & Bill attended his 3rd wedding?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:01 AM on June 16, 2016


But if President Hillary's DOJ were to throw the book ("Art of the Deal") at the poster boy for crony capitalism, the only Republicans who could possibly object would be those who...

...want to score political points against a Democratic president.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh god, Etrigan, now you've made me imagine a future where Hillary is president and all those Republicans who opposed him for being a fascist moron now wistfully imagine out loud how great a Trump presidency would have been. Mark my words; I'm linking back to this comment if and when that happens.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]




I've seen every episode of Archer at least once, many twice, so I'm aware of all the many ways Sterling Archer is an absolutely horrible human being. I'm still very offended on his behalf.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


I know! Comparing someone to Trump is about the vilest insult there is.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:26 AM on June 16, 2016


Charles Pierce asks whether Trump wants to even really be President:
Ever since the rise of He, Trump, I have resolutely resisted the arguments of people who told me that he didn't really want the job of being president, that he was only in it to build his brand, that he was simply ego-surfing on the waves of affection produced by simpletons. I thought he actually believed he could do the job of being president better than all those other pathetic, low-energy losers who lined up against him. I thought that, the more he won, the more he validated himself in the echoing canyons of his mind. Now, though, I'm not sure. Maybe the whole thing was pure grift from the start.
posted by palindromic at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


(If you’d like to be angry) Jenna Johnson at The Washington Post: “Donald Trump calls her ‘Crooked Hillary,’ but his fans just say ‘[bitch]’”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wait, Trump supporters are unapologetic misogynistic assholes? Who'd have guessed?
posted by octothorpe at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mason Adams at Politico: “How the Rebel Flag Rose Again—and Is Helping Trump”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic: The year of the white voters.
posted by numaner at 10:39 AM on June 16, 2016


(If you’d like to be angry) Jenna Johnson at The Washington Post: “Donald Trump calls her ‘Crooked Hillary,’ but his fans just say ‘[bitch]’”
“Everybody’s just so sensitive now. Trump supporters just go out and they just say how they feel. . . . I’m not offended by it. I mean, it just is what it is. It’s just a feel-good American-type thing. We are not over-analyzing every little thing that we say or do.”
Yeah! Fucking liberals and their unreasonable demands of treating people with a modicum of respect by default!
posted by Talez at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.
posted by stolyarova at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2016


I have a grandfather who's in some ways a legit badass himself (he grew up with parents who spent their lives in countries trying to resist the Bolshevik/Communist revolution, which I guess explains his kneejerk dislike of the Left?), and he is nutso gaga about Trump. I bet he'd describe Trump as "tough", and most of the Trump supporters I hear about remind me of how my grandfather thinks and acts. Which is kind of a relief to me, and one of the things keeping me sane—not because I don't think those followers are insanely dangerous, but because I think there are limits to their fucked-up fascist fanaticism that will keep our nation from dissolving or going to the dogs, unless things are a lot uglier and worse than they appear to be even now.

Trump supporters aren't simpleminded. They're operating off a set of facts so divorced from reality that they're literally psychotic and insane, but there _is_ logic and thought going on there, albeit uselessly. That logic can be simplified to "afraid of loss of privilege", and don't get me wrong I'm 100% okay with that simplification, but I do think there're some knots and brambles in how they think which are smoothed out by that simplification which interest me.

For one thing, I think they mistrust corporations more than they're given credit for. Their mistrust of the government extends to their mistrust of how much power lobbyists wield (which Trump has taken advantage of rhetorically—that's not a new insight). Their fear of socialism partly manifests itself as a fear that government will hurt small businesses to support the vast, tyrannical corporations that control them. I suspect that a part of Trump's appeal lies in his solipsistic habit of naming everything after himself: yes, his empire is vast and corrupt, but it's certainly not faceless, and it lets Trump present himself as a kind of "indie" corporation, which for all its failings still belongs to a single American man. I think there's also an assumption that small businesses necessarily contribute to a sense of community, which is a fallacy in many ways. (The technocracy thinks of itself as a collection of small, personal enterprises, but as somebody who's been personally exploited by a start-up, I know how easy it is for a cool, young CEO to look you in the face and think of you as an exploitable asset. Corporate exploitation starts small: Steve Jobs stole thousands of dollars from Steve Wozniak before employee #3 joined Apple.)

The social conservatism that seems to genuinely drive the movement is rooted in a more definite ignorance, but it's an ignorance borne of information overload—one of the fundamental diseases of our age, and something that manifests itself in MetaFilter threads as readily as it does on Fox News. Was it here that somebody mentioned an asshole on Facebook linking to Wikipedia's list of Islamic terrorist attacks? Of course there isn't a similar Wikipedia list of Christian terrorist attacks, because we don't define Christian terrorist attacks as terrorism—and in a time of Too Many Details, omissions like that tend to compound exponentially. If you don't know much about Islam, your ignorances explode in short time (and when I was younger, learning about the world primarily from Reddit threads, the ease with which user logic shifted from genuine liberalism to libertarian nuttery to scary Trumploving across a decade felt completely reasonable and at no times worth serious doubt). The same goes for feminism, for QUILTBAG rights, for sexual promiscuity (I've written about this before), and for basically any kind of deviation-from-social-norms-as-defined-by-old-people (even when young people buy into that shit). You can consider yourself well-read on a subject and remain entirely ignorant on it, because the assumptions by which you derive your reading list will distort your field of knowledge to grotesque extents. That's not a They Do It, either: we enlightened MeFites have similar distortions, some of which are more insidious and destructive than I think we're usually comfortable with or than I have the energy to get into right now. (JUST TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: the ones I'm talking about aren't ones we'd usually call political, and I'm not trying to suggest that there's some dark secret that renders all of our tolerance and love invalid. Because, eww.)

The slippery slope works both ways. Just as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church might be convinced to escape her life just because somebody was friends with her on Twitter, shattering her worldview in the tiniest of ways, so too does somebody who sets out along a certain path of logic find themselves susceptible to a perverse and growing set of beliefs, until they seem terrifying to those of us who see the world a different way. Because of this, what we usually think of as "logical" approaches to discussion—things involving, y'know, facts, and abstractions, and what-have-you—are actually deeply irrational and virtually useless. It's like trying to demolish a house by replacing its furniture piece-by-piece. None of you here are gonna be convinced to suddenly hate Islam because of something your nutty relative tells you; the same is mostly true in reverse. It would take a shock as vast as the sort that would make you suddenly wonder if, hey, maybe we should ban all Muslims after all, before your nutty relative is gonna start changing their mind.

I don't think that "tough" has the direct masculine connotations we're assuming here. Which isn't to say masculinity isn't significant here—it's to say that the masculine bullshittery is stranger and more pervasive than just "hey you, look at my muscles". Donald Trump's toughness, to my mind, has been fairly earned by him. He earned it by saying the things that his followers believed, by sticking to it all, by making it clear that he's not dogwhistling or manipulating them. He's speaking the truth as he knows it. Maybe even courageously. (Certainly his Republican counterparts are too frightened to be as honest as he's being. Is that because they don't believe what they say, or simply because they know the shit they'll receive for speaking their mind? And at what point is the distinction meaningless?)

Where the toughness rings false, and where the true patriarchal wretchedness seeps in, is that I think the Trump worldview, more than the Clinton or Sanders worldviews (though there're light shades of grey here), requires you to think of Truth and Facts as perfectly understandable, inviolable, and insusceptible to personal bias. Once you know the Truth, you insist upon it, fierily and full of conviction; you see any deviation from the Truth as a grotesque thing, essentially Satan's mark itself. (My old favorite author, Orson Scott Card, moved from a pretty generous stance on homosexuality, to an awful and batshit one, to raving bigotry, as the world refused to acknowledge his initial interpretation and he grew convinced that only a Conspiracy could explain it all.) At some point, you begin to relinquish common decency, morality, and ethics as you attempt to brace yourself against the seemingly repugnant violation that the changing world represents.

The various social justice movements, meanwhile, ranging from #BlackLivesMatter to intersectional feminism to, hell, take your pick, request the exact opposite. They ask that you see yourself, your life, your experience, as part of a vastly more pointillist society, and to find a genuine curiosity in the parts of society that you will never know firsthand. In these movements, some voices matter more than others, because they have been more silenced; some grievances are more significant than others, because they are borne of deeper harms and injustices. As a cissexual straight white man, I can ponder all the ways in which I've been wronged by society, but I'll spend far more time shutting up and listening than anything, and I'll hope for society to change in ways that reflect the people I'm listening to more than it reflects me. My assertiveness consists of a comfort with knowing that I'm not who matters here, that my version of the Truth might be interrupted at any point by somebody who says "Fuck off for a minute—you don't know what the hell you're talking about."

My grandfather is a very smart and admirable man, and I love him without reservation. But his masculinity, his toughness, while more authentic than Trump's in many ways, all derive from that same insistence that his understanding of the world, and his force of will, reflect some Platonic truth that can only be deviated from if you're willing to upend reality itself. He calls Trump tough because Trump insists upon that reality himself. Trump's cowardice, his incompetence, his clearly disintegrating mind, don't matter; his heraldry of the Truth is what makes him strong, and Rubio weak. In a lot of ways, Trump is a glorious manifestation of this particular aspect of human nature, just as much as Hillary Clinton is a glorious manifestation of the kind of person you become when you spend your entire life learning to work within an unfair society, but insist upon your capacity to do something good regardless. (It's hard for me to think of this year in anything less than Biblical terms.)

Yet I think Trump, and the revolution his ilk have been building towards since at least the 80s, arrived too late. America's moved past them. Too many people have too much of an inkling of the world as the complex and beautiful place that it is. Too many people know how to doubt their own opinions. Too many people have suffered at the hands of doubtless monsters not to recognize the pattern. The reactionaries are intensifying their madness, but the more they do, the more they're recognized for what they are. They could only command the mainstream by sublimating their vision—and that sublimation gave their opponents room to organize, to gather and grow, and that growth is what's caused them to intensify now. It's a self-defeating cycle. I don't think it could have gone any way.

Information overload is an insidious form of ignorance, but it's not the only consequence of our relentless information age. A lot of communication that never could've occurred in past decades has happened this decade. There's no going back.

Rebecca Traister's piece, linked a day or two ago, about this election being a civil war, resonated with me. I think we're seeing one emerge. I think it'll be violent. I fear it'll be violent in a more potent and genuinely revolutionary sense, if Trump loses (and Trump will lose). I suspect it will last Clinton's presidency, and probably beyond. That it'll almost certainly be less atrocious than the last civil war, that its body count will number "merely" in the thousands or tens of thousands, is not at all a relief. I do think the right side will win, and that historians will look back upon this as a significant moment in human history for lovely reasons as well as ugly ones. I also don't think my privilege entitles me to hold any more of an opinion than just that.
posted by rorgy at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.

I am sorry to say I think there is about a snowball's chance in hell Trump would do anything so respectful or sensitive.
posted by bearwife at 10:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I expect a tripling down on "America First!" tbh
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


I hope he doesn't stop using it. The association exists - nationalistic Trump supporters and the Britain First assholes have the same motivations, after all.
posted by stolyarova at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2016


I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.

I think it's more likely that he'd double down on it, if anything, 'or else the British win.'
posted by cjelli at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2016


I wouldn't be surprised to find Trump defending the MP's murder. "Some people are wondering why we're not murdering people here! We're so weak! China's laughing at us!" And Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will look down and mutter something about defeating Clinton.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


SEIU national political director Brandon Davis takes the helm of the Democratic election campaign:

Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, will become the general election chief of staff for the Democratic Party. His selection formalizes the coordination of the Clinton campaign and the committee, a stark contrast to Donald Trump who is currently at odds with his party.
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager, arrived Thursday morning at Democratic headquarters on Capitol Hill to introduce Davis to the party's staff.

posted by NoxAeternum at 10:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, Paul Ryan continues to distance himself from Trump but won't rescind his endorsement:
In Georgia Wednesday, Trump's message to leaders was simple.
"Be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don't talk, please be quiet," Trump said.
Ryan didn't seem interested in heeding that advice from a nominee he endorsed just two weeks ago.
“You know. You can’t make this up sometimes," Ryan said when asked to respond to the comment.
posted by murphy slaw at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016


I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.

I expect a tripling down on "America First!" tbh


Either of these implies a degree of caring about anything* that happens outside US borders.

*Anything that isn't Scary Muslims, Scary Mexicans or the putative birth of a future president
posted by saturday_morning at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


How the Rebel Flag Rose Again—and Is Helping Trump
"It's like they say: Take one flag down and 1,000 go up," says Tim Boone, who as founder of Rebel-lution, one of the many pro-flag activist groups that formed last summer and handed out "No votes for turncoats" stickers targeting the newly unpopular Haley and anyone else who might vote to take down a flag.
Uh, no, people backing a bunch of traitors do not get to call other people turncoats.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]


My irony detector just exploded and then whimpered and then waved a tiny cartoon white glag.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


But you have to admit, the Rebels of the American Civil War were more true to the Founding Fathers' Original Intent than the Unionists.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016


Depends on which Founder. Jefferson and the Anti-Feds would definitely align with the Rebels. I think Adams, Hamilton, and maybe Franklin would be closer to the Unionists.

Washington was maybe in the middle.
posted by FJT at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


ROU_Xenophobe: "My irony detector just exploded and then whimpered and then waved a tiny cartoon white flag."

Literally yesterday I saw a man on the street in a Trump 2016 T-shirt with the slogan "We Shall Overcome".
posted by mhum at 11:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


"We Shall Overcome".

Yeah, Trump actually said that on a strategy conference call. I think that's when my irony meter exploded.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course he'll overcome. It's the triumph of the will, that's all.
posted by stolyarova at 11:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orlando shooting
Republican Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama is "directly responsible" for the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, because Obama has allowed the growth of the Islamic State group on his watch.

McCain — who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential election — made the comment to reporters Thursday while Obama was in Orlando visiting with the families of those killed in Sunday's attack and some of the survivors.
This is pathetic, vile cowardice and crass opportunism that should not only result in him losing his election (and hopefully retiring from politics); it should also forever remain a stain on his record.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [46 favorites]


It always surprises me how lacking in integrity and honor McCain is. But even for him, this is a new nadir.
posted by bearwife at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


Because of this, what we usually think of as "logical" approaches to discussion—things involving, y'know, facts, and abstractions, and what-have-you—are actually deeply irrational and virtually useless.

You might like George Lakoff's book, Thinking Points, particularly the first two chapters about how our emotional and moral frameworks of issues are pretty much impervious to facts. It also suggests that there are no moderates, just "biconceptuals".
posted by puddledork at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


There is no ambiguity about that. A charity donating to a political campaign is a clear cut, very serious IRS violation. It means that the charity's tax exemption is revoked, which means that everyone who donated to the charity and claimed a tax deduction needs to amend their returns and remove the tax deduction.

Well, maybe. Remember how the Republicans freaked out when the IRS even attempted to look into whether the various Tea Party groups -- among others, let's not forget! -- were really charities and not political organizations? Surely no one mistook all that outrage for being in good faith, as opposed to being intended to discredit any findings of wholesale cheating? One could easily imagine the howls of outrage about "using the IRS to punish political enemies" for even such an obvious instance of cheating -- and it is -- and scarcely imagine the media to report the objective facts, as opposed to the "balanced" claims of both sides -- of such a move.
posted by Gelatin at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Literally yesterday I saw a man on the street in a Trump 2016 T-shirt with the slogan "We Shall Overcome".

Are you sure it didn't say "We shall overcomb"? Because i've seen that one out and around, and i'm not sure if i could handle the alternative.
posted by emptythought at 12:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


i'm not sure if i could handle the alternative.

Then you prrrrrobably don't want to follow this link.

It is in fact a shirt for sale. This is the most terrible timeline.
posted by cjelli at 12:14 PM on June 16, 2016


Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain that he is willing to throw what remained of his integrity in the trash by first endorsing a crapstorm of a man who openly mocked him for being captured and tortured as a POW, and now by spewing this racist chain-email horseshit? Surely he can't be hurting for money. Does he think that the moment he stops being a U.S. Senator he'll crumble into dust? They say power is a hell of a drug, but how much power can you consider yourself to have if you need to debase yourself like this to keep it?
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


McCain should have to watch this whole video.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


In this miserable election season (really, 37% of Americans are willing to co-sign this bullshit?) it's news coverage like this that keeps me going:

NYT: While Mr. Trump lent his campaign more than $43 million in the primaries, he has shown little inclination to self-finance his general election campaign in a large-scale way. Yet many Republican fund-raisers have openly questioned why they would donate their money to a candidate who has claimed a net worth of $10 billion.

Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, called his fund-raising operation “a tremendous success,” adding that “the money is pouring in for the party.” She declined to answer specific questions.


Pouring in, I say! It's tremendous!
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]




Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain that he is willing to throw what remained of his integrity in the trash

Yes. Two words: Sarah Palin
posted by zachlipton at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2016


Honesty I'll grant him
posted by saturday_morning at 12:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Surely no one mistook all that outrage for being in good faith, as opposed to being intended to discredit any findings of wholesale cheating?

ALL the outrage? Perhaps not. But most of the outrage? Sure. When you’ve got a bunch of people who are terrified of the government suddenly finding that the government is taking an interest in them, it’s not hard to lose it; the same thing can happen on the Left.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016


horseshit is, in fact, a substance. PolitiFact rates this "partly true"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yeah, but with the Palin thing he was swinging for the fences. Now he's back to his day job, and what does he have to prove?
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain...

He's had two jobs in his life: Navy officer, member of Congress (he worked for his father-in-law's beer distributor as VP of PR, but everyone involved knew he was only doing it to make contacts for his House run). He doesn't want to retire, because then what the hell is he? Some old guy who used to be somebody.
posted by Etrigan at 12:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, his re-election race is pretty close, so he needs some red meat.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


The 2000 primary broke McCain. 9/11 broke Cheney. Look closely at either of their records beforehand and you can find generally principled politicians (whether you agree with those principles or not). There's some strange crucible that, on the other side, lies a weird madness and obsession with retribution.

What strange twisting does it take to make a man who was tortured for years on end come out in favor of torture? I have no idea, and I really don't want to personally find out.
posted by chimaera at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


When you’ve got a bunch of people who are terrified of the government suddenly finding that the government is taking an interest in them, it’s not hard to lose it

But much of whatever honest rank-and-file Republican outrage that may have existed had to have been driven by the usual puke funnel of right-wing blogs and Fox News, and I doubt any of them presented the story in good faith (indeed, the entire myth that it was a crackdown just on Tea Party groups -- when the office was looking, naturally enough, at the explosion of so-called charities on both sides -- proves it).
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Like George W. Bush, I suspect McCain has major daddy issues. (Both his father and grandfather were 4-star admirals in the Navy, whereas McCain's military career, though he displayed bravery and perseverance, was well short of glorious.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:33 PM on June 16, 2016


emptythought: "Are you sure it didn't say "We shall overcomb"?"

I'm pretty sure, though I've been googling unsuccessfully for an image of the shirt I saw. My main feeling for why it wasn't an ironic t-shirt is that it wasn't at all cartoony or winking. I'd describe its primary aesthetic as, for lack of a better term, American Badass -- prominent red-white-and-blue flag motif, overwrought typeface, ostentatious machismo.
posted by mhum at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016


9/11 broke Cheney

To the contrary: it made him very rich.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]




Sarah Ellison reports that Trump is exploring the possibility of a television or other media venture that would cater to his loyalists.

He might find it is not as easy as it looks. Sarah Palin set up her own TV Channel which was to showcase her, her family, and the wonders of Alaska. She shut it down one year later. If there had been any money in it that channel would still be going but either it was too much work or it wasn't bringing in the bucket loads of cash she was hoping for.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:45 PM on June 16, 2016


The difference being that Palin just quits. Trump starts businesses, gets what he can from them, and then if they don't work out, BAM bankruptcy.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




The 2000 primary broke McCain.

No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human. Nobody deserves what he went through in Vietnam but there's good reason to believe that he crashed and was captured because he was an incompetent pilot who had that gig only because of his family connections which were used to keep him from less pleasant compulsory service. He'd crashed another multi-million dollar piece of aircraft before that one and reports seem clear that he didn't pull his weight or do what he needed to do to be competent at the yoke.

I don't know whether he was legitimately changed in some way by that experience or was just good at spinning it to improve his lot in life, but every indication is that he still came back a jerk. Stories of his long standing grudges and using his Senate power to harass people are legion and predate 2000. He is a power-hungry jerk who wants power to be jerky with. He'll leave the Senate only when forced to by voters or the reaper, no sooner.
posted by phearlez at 12:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Back to the Trump campaign. I watched about 10 minutes of his rally in Georgia. He was patting himself on the back for only having 80 on his campaign staff compared to the 800 on Clinton's staff. He told the crowd that this was proof he was better than her because what they needed in Washington was someone who could get more done with fewer people. He got a lot of applause for that which I guess makes sense if your viewpoint is most government workers are time wasters. Yet I couldn't help but think that in this case that Clinton was the job creator-- he was not. Also if you told that crowd that you were going to fire nine tenths of them and make one person do the work of 10 they would not take kindly to that suggestion.

Of course it is all nonsense that he can make do with one tenth of the manpower that Clinton has but I'm not sure if he doesn't know yet or he doesn't care.

The same thing with funding. He was boasting how little money he had spent versus how much his fellow Republicans had spent. Fair enough, he didn't need to spend much to win against that pathetic field of candidates but he seems to assume that everything is going to continue on in the same pattern in the general election-- that he will get plenty of media coverage which will substitute for political ads. I have to guess that people are telling him things ("you need to fundraise and reach this goal in order to have a chance") and he is just ignoring them. He, Trump, has the best brains. The best.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Right, McCain has always been awful. Terrible things (and what happened to him was indeed terrible) happen to garbage people as well as good people. Being tortured does not make you a good person, it just makes you a tortured person.
posted by Justinian at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


McCAIN: 'I misspoke'

"I was referring to [his] national security decisions, not the President himself" -- that's hardly an improvement; it's still blaming the President for the deaths in Orlando. His 'corrected' statement merely names the specific method by which McCain thinks the President was responsible.
posted by cjelli at 1:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


I watched or listened to most of Senator Murphy's filibuster yesterday. Senator after senator took the podium to talk about the effects of gun violence on their constituents, and their arguments were full of compassion and facts, eloquent and frequently full of what seemed like a genuine grief for the lives lost, mindful of intersectionality and considerate of all of their constituents. 15 hours of that. I went to sleep last night so damn proud of Democrats for carrying the banner for that kind of compassion and public service, even as I boggled that all this effort was being expended just for a vote on the bare minimum of gun control measures. And then to see senators like McCain, literally enriched by NRA money, blood money, callously hold to inaction, and just every single thing Trump says entirely lacking in empathy.... I don't know. It's obscene. I don't know what to do with that.

On the bright side, I am very, very encouraged that Democrats and Hillary's campaign are placing so much emphasis on the necessity of empathy and coming together.
posted by yasaman at 1:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [38 favorites]


McCAIN: 'I misspoke'

He seems to do that a lot when it comes Iraq. In 2008, he said that Obama “would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.” Then, in 2009, he told Obama that he "thought the withdrawal plan was thoughtful and well prepared." And in 2010, he seemed happy that the last American troops were leaving Iraq, but that "President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory." Because of course he does.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Donald Trump fundraiser to be held at Barry Goldwater's old home in Paradise Valley
Roughly 75 donors and supporters are expected.

The invitation to the fundraiser says the address will only be provided “upon RSVP.”

The fundraiser will command a $25,000 per-couple donation to be recognized as a member of the host committee. A photo with the reality-TV star will cost a cool $10,000, according to an invitation. Individual tickets cost $2,700.

Proceeds will benefit "Trump Victory," a joint fundraising committee of the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the GOP parties of 11 states.
$12,700 times 75 is less than a million...a drop in the bucket and that is if everyone wants to pay for a picture, people could pay the $2,700 per person ticket and decline the photo...to raise $200 thousand which has to be split 3 ways. Even if everyone donated the $25,000 And wanted a picture taken that would still be less than $3 million.

I'm hoping he finds this very hard, distasteful and humiliating, and then discovers he has to do it over and over and over again.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


Knowing Trump, if he doesn't enjoy it he just won't do it again. And maybe leave while the fundraiser is still going on. Leaving the RNC and state parties looking like fools. Haven't they learned by now that he doesn't care about their races? Only his. If helping their downballot candidates means doing something Trump doesn't like, he won't help.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


> Speaking of the campaign as one big grift: Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?

> Charles Pierce asks whether Trump wants to even really be President


He may want both: to be president and to have a his own media mouthpiece where President Trump can say whatever he wants without being questioned.
posted by homunculus at 1:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fuck McCain, I respect what he went through in Vietnam but he's never been someone with even the vaguest degree of courage when it seems like doing the right thing morally would potentially cost him politically.

He's no doubt looking at polling for his Senate race and going "Oh shit I guess I need to double down on douchebaggery" because you know playing to the racist and xenophobic base is safer than actually trying to be a centrist Republican.

I'm kind of glad that's he's being revealed for being a craven self-aggrandizing opportunist. He should've had the grace to retire after getting his ass kicked in 2008 but no 8 years later and he's trying to hold onto office. Some people might be willing to say that he's being self sacrificing rather than going into lobbying or getting a cushy series of corporate board positions but I think he's been addicted to being able to go onto Meet the Press on a more or less weekly basis and can't give it up despite sounding tired and shrill and useless.
posted by vuron at 1:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie’s Foreign Policy Failure
But let’s just take this from a strategic perspective. What if Bernie Sanders had even the slightest interest in foreign policy and went after Clinton from the left? No, he wouldn’t have won the primary this way either. But he would have opened up a whole new line of critique at her greatest vulnerability. Yet Bernie was either unwilling or (likely) unable to do so. His ridiculous response when asked about Latin America showed just how utterly incapable he is on foreign issues, which in a globalized world, are deeply connected to his beloved issue of inequality in the United States. Of course, Sanders’ most vocal supporters loathe Clinton for her foreign policy, but they were doing the heavy lifting for him on these issues.

Again, would it have mattered in the end? Probably not, but it would have at least meant that the Democratic nominee was going to feel real pressure from the left on foreign policy as she has on domestic and labor policy. But really, what did Bernie do to make her moderate her foreign policy stances? Not much and that’s a missed opportunity.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


there's a fact check report on mccain. it seems he caused one early crash, but there's no evidence capture was his fault. do you have support for the claims above?
posted by andrewcooke at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don’t know whether he was legitimately changed in some way by that experience or was just good at spinning it to improve his lot in life, but every indication is that he still came back a jerk.

Michael Lewis in The New York Times (May 25, 1997): “The Subversive”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016


In politician-speak, "I misspoke" means "Subsequent events have made me realize that my offensive public statement has backfired on me. Please accept this milquetoast statement in lieu of an apology and pretend it never happened."
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]




The snarky part of me would argue that Bernie is so myopically focused on economic issues in the US he simply doesn't care about foreign policy issues just like he seems to be more or less unconcerned with social justice issues other than economic justice but I'm not sure that I'm being charitable enough.

I think the reality is probably that honestly most Americans, even most liberals, barely give a shit about foreign policy unless it's somehow involving military action and even then it seems to really be around boots on the ground situations.

Add that there isn't really a good deal of consensus about intervention even on the left. Some on the left are no intervention at any time (kinda like a first directive) but others particularly those that have come from environments or cultures that have seen first hand the horrors of war and genocide tend to be a little less against interventions or even feel like there is a moral imperative to intervene even if there aren't compelling strategic objectives.

I don't honestly know, I definitely don't like use of interventions at the drop of a hat but on the other hand I feel like the promise we collectively made in the wake of the Holocaust was never again and it keeps fucking happening.
posted by vuron at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


I feel like an explanation of the narrative arc of John McCain is in order. I mean, his story makes me look at humans and think what the hell is this fucking species.
posted by angrycat at 2:02 PM on June 16, 2016


Not that it matters, but I think honestly right now I'm against interventionism as a component of American foreign policy not out of any sort of Star Trekian Prime Directive against interference in the affairs of others, but more out of a simple sense that the United States right now, and specifically the United States military right now, is not competent to make anything better, and is moreover very good at making everything worse.

That said, I have trouble thinking about foreign policy at all without succumbing to my desire to climb under the bed and suck my thumb and mutter "the horror.... the horror..." I'd be glad to hear - legit glad to hear - about successful US interventions and why and how they went well.

also, this is sort of off-topic, but: I go away for, what, two months, and then I come back to see everyone's using "liberal" and "left" as synonyms? sheesh. I thought all the ISOers here, if no one else, would keep people from falling back into that trap...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


Is there a good list somewhere of republicans who are either refusing to support The Hair That Came From Below or actively voting for/endorsing HRC?

(Also this horrifyingly long reddit post is a convenient repository of Trump Insanity).
posted by Skorgu at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Is there a good list somewhere of republicans who are either refusing to support The Hair That Came From Below or actively voting for/endorsing HRC?

TPM's got you covered with their Trump Endorsement Scorecard. It doesn't differentiate between #NeverTrump vs. #ImWithHer GOPers, but it provides all the info you'd need.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


The 2000 primary broke McCain.

No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human.


After McCain dies, Longform or somebody will do a very good retrospective. In addition to the David Foster Wallace one, it will also include this.
posted by box at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm so sad about that Sanders' endorsement of Kaptur. I hoped he would be a real progressive ally, even though I thought Clinton would be the better President. It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.
posted by Salamandrous at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.

Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]




playing to the racist and xenophobic base is safer than actually trying to be a centrist Republican.

In Arizona, that's probably true. Nation-wide, we'll find out how well as we get closer to November.
posted by chimaera at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2016


According to experts interviewed in The Guardian starting a cable network is a "frighteningly costly affair":
“I understand that he says he’s a great businessman but smart money isn’t going into linear cable anymore,” said Tuchman, calling the idea “very amusing to say the least”.

Tuchman has worked for cable television networks and conglomerates in many capacities across the world over three decades, at companies from Viacom to MGM to AMC Global, where he was president.

“For a guy who’s a master at Twitter, I’m kind of astonished that he’s not at the level of understanding that capital in media today is running toward digital and apps,” he said.
Is he a master at twitter? I find him neither informative nor amusing-- except inadvertently when I have to laugh at his cluelessness.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I believe that the bar to "twitter-mastery" is set pretty low...
posted by Golem XIV at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Trump TV ends up anything like Palin TV, we're essentially talking about a youtube channel. I don't think the media are quaking in their boots just yet.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Anyone who tweets regularly is a master of Twitter to some old business people. It's like your Grandmother calling you a "Computer Whiz" because you restarted her PC and maybe ran a virus scan.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


Remember how the Republicans freaked out when the IRS even attempted to look into whether the various Tea Party groups -- among others, let's not forget! -- were really charities and not political organizations?

That was quite different from the Trump case. The Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity. Charities are absolutely forbidden from making political donations. There is no ambiguity about the law. Charities permit donors to take tax deductions for their donations.

The Tea Party entities were 501(c)(4) organizations, which are for social welfare, clubs, education and civic leagues. They are not charities. Donors cannot take tax deductions for contributions. The law is ambiguous in that they cannot be "primarily" for political purposes. Defining "primarily" is difficult which is why the IRS was scrutinizing these organizations with obvious political names. The IRS is required to do this by law.

So while the Tea Party cases involved actual debatable ambiguity about political involvement, the Trump Foundation, which is a charity, is not ambiguous at all. They are entirely different types of organizations under the law.
posted by JackFlash at 3:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.

Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
  • Kaptur endorsed Sanders. This is the game.
  • Richard May, her opponent, is a Tea Party Activist and kind of a garbage fire. The linked article makes him sound like a long shot, but I’m not certain if that’s the case.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:22 PM on June 16, 2016


A bit of fluff from The Motley Fool: Which Businesses Are Most Popular With Clinton and Trump Supporters?
To find these results, the company "measured the offline behaviors of nearly 2 million double opt-in users to connect voting patterns to store visits

"To map store visits to votes, Placed determined if its audience lived in a county that voted Republican or Democrat, and assigned that party's primary winner to the users. Once assigned a candidate, Placed directly measured the business associated with the voter to identify businesses they were more or less likely to visit (compared to the US population)
Top two businesses favored the Republican Supporters are both convenience (i.e. gas station) stores. #1 Sheetz, #2 Kangaroo Express with 2 other convenience stores showing up in the top 10. The top two for the Clinton Supporters are #1 Citibank and #2 ShopRite with Dunkin Donuts coming in at #10. Cracker Barrel shows up on the Trump list and Whole Foods on the Clinton list.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2016


Wow I keep getting surprised with the increasingly pointless observations generated by big data analytics tools and the breathless way in which journalists report them
posted by vuron at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


In the grim future of 2016, there is only Thomas Friedman.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


But where do they buy their taco bowls?
posted by nubs at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah I don't know you could possibly do with this information. Stock Mountain Dew Cans with Trumps goofy face in Sheetz stores? Make Dunkin Donuts in Donkey shapes?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2016


I think maybe that's partly regional? I don't think we have either Sheetz or Kangaroo Express around here, and the closest Whole Foods is a two-hour drive from me. I don't think there's ShopRite around here, either.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm more concerned about the assertion that nearly 2 million people knowingly and truly double opted-into having all their store visit data sent to someone who would use it to do largely meaningless analytics, among who knows what else? I bet they opted in the same way millions of people opted into the Ask.com toolbar.
posted by zachlipton at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


From the article:
It's worth noting that in some cases, the results break down a logical, geographic line. Clinton supporters, for example, have Dunkin' Donuts (NASDAQ:DNKN) and Stop and Shop on their list, which both operate most strongly in the Northeast. The Trump list, on the other hand, shows Publix, a grocery chain which operates in the Southeast, and Waffle House, a primarily Southern chain.

Still, these are not lists that break down on obvious economic or ideological lines. As you can see on the Clinton list below, her likely voters patronize the upscale Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ:WFM) while also regularly visiting the less high-falutin' White Castle.
I'm more concerned about the assertion that nearly 2 million people knowingly and truly double opted-into having all their store visit data sent to someone who would use it to do largely meaningless analytics, among who knows what else?

They were probably offered $5.00 off their next grocery store visit or a free magazine subscription or something. I used to follow a few of those uber housewife coupon clipping sites and often coupons and freebies were tied into filling out a survey or using a tracker. People are desperate to make a buck stretch and data often seems like a meaningless trade-off.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016


Wait, Trump supporters frequent BOTH Cracker Barrel AND Waffle House?

And you're telling me he can't bring America together?
posted by dw at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I didn't know there was a Cracker Barrel/Waffle House divide. Here in my part of the South you can go to both-- Waffle House for breakfast and Cracker Barrel for lunch. Then stop in at Kangaroo Express to get your Dew for the ride home.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


What strange twisting does it take to make a man who was tortured for years on end come out in favor of torture? I have no idea, and I really don't want to personally find out.

This 100x. Watching him do that was probably the most heartbreaking thing I've seen in politics.
posted by msalt at 3:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Good data journalism might try to control for regional effects…
posted by Going To Maine at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016


Does this mean I have to give up the Western Bacon Burgers at Hardee's west coast partner, Carl's Jr.? Carl has forced me into some moral compromises before, but this may be the last straw. Also, Carl's subchain The Green Burrito has taco bowls.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016


Could always get some trumplings.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:56 PM on June 16, 2016


Harper Neidig: Sanders camp no longer lobbying superdelegates
Bernie Sanders's campaign manager said Thursday night that the campaign is not actively lobbying for the support of superdelegates.

"We are not currently lobbying superdelegates," Jeff Weaver said during an interview with Bloomberg Politics' ”With All Due Respect" that aired on MSNBC. "I don’t anticipate that’ll start anytime soon."

The admission may indicate that the Vermont senator intends to drop out of the Democratic race for president. Sanders is slated to give a live video address to his supporters at 8:30 p.m. Thursday.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]




I guess I'm being a precious blown-glass liberal, but I was thoroughly creeped out to visit Alvin's Island, a fun ridiculous nonsense beach store chain on the Redneck Riviera, after 20 years, and see that they stocked Trump shirts next to the rebel flag wifebeaters. Either Alvin's Island has changed, or I have.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm going to guess Alvin's Island has, because while I remember plenty of rednecky junk, and Blue Angels military masturbation paraphernalia, I don't remember it being THAT bad.

My guess is that they fell down a slippery slope of Duck Dynasty merch and never bothered to claw their way out.

(On the other hand, it's totally possible that they've always carried Rebel Flag stuff. It's always been fairly ubiquitous in the South and people have to be getting it somewhere.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Telegraph: Donald Trump Mocked Online after saying 'Ask the gays' to find out if he is LGBT friendly.

Any queer wit with a friend who ever wanted to start an advice column, now is your moment.
posted by msalt at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2016


As you can see on the Clinton list below, her likely voters patronize the upscale Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ:WFM) while also regularly visiting the less high-falutin' White Castle.

i'd have to drive at least 90 miles to get to a white castle - who makes this crap up?

in fact, i'm more likely to visit a tim horton's* than a white castle - does that make me a tory?

*i live within 3 miles of one - they're all over the place in michigan
posted by pyramid termite at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


My guess is that all this data analysis shows what any good electoral map would.

People shop at regional chains a lot.

Red states and Blue states exist.
posted by Sara C. at 5:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]






Well, that appears to be that.
posted by Artw at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


oh Bernie. Sweet Bernie. I'm so glad to have you back.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I... don't think he's conceding, though?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


So...is he actually conceding? Because a clear statement of "Hillary Clinton won fairly and I accept that and will stand behind her blah blah blah," would go a long way toward making me feel better about some of the fuckery of this primary.
posted by Salieri at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


I tuned in late, so just checking -- has he actually said "vote for Clinton"? Or anything like it? Cause right now it still sounds like he's campaigning.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016


At this rate, he'll never admit he lost. It'll be Hillary's inauguration and he still won't give a clear statement about whether his campaign is over or not.

Also, where the hell were you yesterday during the filibuster, Bernie?
posted by yasaman at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


Shout-out to the 50-state strategy.
posted by mhum at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2016


> So...is he actually conceding?

he can do that at the convention. this is fine.

no assault rifles, no gunshow loophole, close the pay gap between men and women, no tpp, free college, healthcare for all, 50 state strategy. that's a platform for a decent party, is what that is.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]




50 state strategy

Well, at least he admits Southern Democrats matter.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also, state and local elections. Good. Now, let's see if he can actually turn enthusiasm into electoral wins.
posted by mhum at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, didn't Clinton suspend her campaign (rather than "conceding") in 2008 and then at the convention was the one who formally nominated Obama?

There are a lot of way to do these things and a lot of language to do it in, and a lot of political theater that can come out of it. I'm not picky about which language Sanders chooses.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton." we had the WTO protests. we had the antiwar movement. We had Occupy. we had the Sanders campaign. let's get ready for the next version of this big weird protean thing we've been building for decades. let's make it bigger next time.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Winning congress is where change will happen if it's going to happen. Without it the presidency ia vastly less effective.
posted by Artw at 5:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton."

Sure, but, he could have said both.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


A blue congress comprised of a few hundred old rich white guys isn't going to serve us much better than a red one. We need real grass roots change ("A new generation of people actively engaged in public service" as he said just now.)

"Ok everyone time to vote for Clinton" is very "Because I Said So" and it's not how you win the hearts and minds of young people. You get their vote by giving them a purpose, and he's doing that in spades.
posted by an animate objects at 6:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton.

I disagree. Or at the very least, "vote for Clinton" can very easily be said right along with what he's already saying!

There's been a lot of weirdness during the primary, and part of it has been the conspiracy theories circulating on the left recently about how Clinton "stole" the nomination. This goes back to what I was saying after Nevada - he had the opportunity then to push back strongly against the violence and misogyny coming from certain quarters, and he didn't. He has the opportunity now to push back against the idea that losing a primary = disenfranchisement, and so far he hasn't.

The idea that his "message" is so overwhelmingly important - more than anything else - is what has given rise to so much of the nastiness I've seen recently. Also, you can't get away from the gender lens of this primary, any more than you could have ignored the racial aspects of the previous one. The optics of seeing a man refuse to step down and support a women who beat him fairly makes me think less of him.
posted by Salieri at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [36 favorites]


Eyebrows McGee: "Yeah, didn't Clinton suspend her campaign (rather than "conceding") in 2008"

Eh, maybe? You can watch her 2008 concession speech here. By 6:45 she's throwing her support to "help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States". She says that she's "suspending her campaign" but given the surrounding context of the speech, I don't think there's any real difference between that and "conceding".

Side note: Boy oh boy, that crowd sure did not like Obama back then.
posted by mhum at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton." we had the WTO protests. we had the antiwar movement. We had Occupy. we had the Sanders campaign. let's get ready for the next version of this big weird protean thing we've been building for decades. let's make it bigger next time.

"And our first step is supporting a pro-life-ish Democratic Congresswoman who hasn't faced a tough election since 1982!"
posted by one_bean at 6:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.

The outcome of the general election does not hinge on an elderly socialist from Vermont properly performing a ritual of submission. In terms of the general election, this speech is irrelevant. Nothing he could say tonight could yield any effect whatsoever on the general. But, now that the excitement (and the blazing stupidity) of the campaign is over, we're free to remember that this is what Sanders got into the race for in the first place. Not the presidency — which even in this stinking year Sanders never had a real chance at. Not the presidency. This.

Go sign up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


I can't believe that I considered voting for him in the primary for a while. He's seriously not going to concede and explicitly endorse her? And he's going to lecture us on how to change a party that he's been a member of for less than a year? I can't even.
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess and Americans in general are fed up with politics for a specific, changeable set of reasons including/not limited to politicians who are neither financially nor ideologically bound to the representation of their constituencies.

We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something. The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we want isn't what we have.
posted by an animate objects at 6:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


Sanders endorsed Vice President Walter Mondale for president in 1984 in the least enthusiastic way possible, telling reporters that "if you go around saying that Mondale would be a great president, you would be a liar and a hypocrite."
posted by phoque at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know that annoyance towards Bernie means resistance to the idea that the Democratic party is a mess. In this case, "stern" just reads as "shrill"—and "lectures" tracks to the idea that people who publicly support Hillary and think Bernie should bow out already are in some way finger-wagging moms. Support of Hillary and annoyance towards Bernie does not necessarily equal thinking or saying that someone doesn't deserve something.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sanders endorsed Vice President Walter Mondale for president in 1984 in the least enthusiastic way possible,
so we get to blame him for Reagan's 2nd term?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:24 PM on June 16, 2016


We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something.

I bought part of him too, and if I were at a shareholder meeting, I'd be demanding that he unequivocally throw his support behind Hillary, like, yesterday. What does dragging this out do to advance the issues he cares about?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]


There's something inherent to Clinton's core fandom that means they're going to be predisposed to having fights with illusionary "Bernie bros" for a good long time. Hopefully that won't get in the way of fighting for any seats.

As for Clinton, she's come over left as far as she's going to and will be sending her way back right for the general, her nod to push and by extension reclaiming the Iraq policy she voted for being part of that. I expect there will be a lot of disappointment there, or people talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Still better than trump by orders of magnitude, obviously.
posted by Artw at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


He's had a seriously bad case of "white dude lefty who's upset that people want to talk about issues other than class" the whole campaign and he's basically declined to address the bad behavior and shrieking misogyny and racism of a lot of his supporters, especially over the last few weeks as his loss became harder and harder to deny.


The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we wan't isn't what we have.

Your dude lost. That is not disenfranchisement. That is not you being denied representation. Your dude had a shot and he didn't win, in part because his appeal was mostly to people who are white in a party whose demographics are increasingly not.


There's something inherent to Clinton's core fandom that means they're going to be predisposed to having fights with illusionary "Bernie bros" for a good long time.

Ask the people who are getting death threats and harassing tweets and phone calls if the Bernie Bros are make believe or not.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [63 favorites]


Here is a transcript of Sanders' speech. It definitely did not have the shape of a standard concession speech. Mostly it was a list of the various issues he wants to talk about and also a call-to-action to for his supporters to get involved in local elections and public service. The closest thing to a preview of what his next move is (either at the convention or afterwards):
The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time.

But defeating Donald Trump cannot be our only goal. We must continue our grassroots efforts to create the America that we know we can become. And we must take that energy into the Democratic National Convention on July 25 in Philadelphia where we will have more than 1,900 delegates. [...]

I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.
He does not specify what that role will be. He does not endorse Clinton nor acknowledge that she's won the nomination in this speech. But he also doesn't say he's going to initiate a floor fight in Philadelphia or start convincing superdelegates to flip or whatever.

My guess is that this speech was just the next phase for him to mobilize his supporters and actually capitalize on this movement he's started. Maybe he'll endorse Clinton at the convention, maybe he won't. Maybe he won't explicitly endorse at all in order to keep his supporters pumped up to the max. Whatever. But, I'd be very surprised if Sanders and Clinton hadn't already worked out a general outline for messaging strategy during their meeting earlier this week.
posted by mhum at 6:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


A blue congress comprised of a few hundred old rich white guys isn't going to serve us much better than a red one.

Well, I suppose it's nice to see the "Clinton is no different from Trump" message has evolved.

But seriously, after the filibuster? After the shit Ryan and McCain and company have said? To say the Democrats and Republicans are equivalent is just amazing.

Sure, maybe a Democratic Congress won't won't quite be oriented enough toward the desires of young white middle class guys. But it won't be beholden to a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, fascistic minority. And that's the important goal.
posted by happyroach at 6:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [55 favorites]


dismissing it as illusionary Bernie Bros is sort of dismissive of the substantive allegations of a) sexism in the campaign and b) Bernie's continued unwillingness to give her a full-throated backing and c) Bernie doing shitting things like being shitty to Mondale.

Saying yeah but illusory Bernie Bros makes it seem like those complaints are not substantive
posted by angrycat at 6:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.
posted by Artw at 6:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.

Why does Sanders or anyone else get to define who's a part of the movement and who isn't? Who's a liberal and who's a leftist and who isn't? If the movement is truly beyond Sanders, then that means he doesn't get to define who is and isn't in it.
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.

Eh, they're already doing a solid job of that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:36 PM on June 16, 2016


a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement

Is anything in this speech actually about "building a left movement" in any real way? The platform planks mentioned here seem like basic liberal stuff, things that have been on the Democratic agenda for at least the entirety of the Obama administration. Meanwhile Sanders can't be relied upon to toe even the most basic liberal party line on things like being pro-choice or supporting gun control. Free college is the only thing on his list that isn't basic duh-doy Democratic red meat.

As a socialist who is also a member of the Democratic party, I'm sick to death of people saying Sanders is a socialist. He's a liberal, just like Clinton is, whose views differ from hers slightly, and some in a more conservative direction.

I'm sick and goddamn tired of Bernie Sanders coopting the "leftist" label, and of Bernie Bros who know nothing of how politics works insisting that his policies are in any way "revolutionary". Or, frankly, not stuff that the mainstream Democrats they villify have been working towards for decades.
posted by Sara C. at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [61 favorites]


Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.
Maybe Bernie should have thought about that a couple of months ago, when he decided not to condemn people behaving like total assholes in his name?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess

Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.

But I'm getting tired of all the very important reasons why It's Different This Time and No Really, it's Not Sexism. I mean, there are so many excuses that have been laid down over the past few weeks about how it wasn't fair to ask Bernie to concede. And hey, I've always been a fan of him staying in the race as long as he wants! God knows I was annoyed at the people asking Clinton to step aside last time before she was ready. But she won, and he lost. Does he really want to push progressive policies? Acknowledge the ways in which Clinton is a sound progressive choice! Again, it sounds like the people talking about her as a Republican-lite haven't actually looked at the policies she has espoused for years.

Also, the whole "working together to defeat Trump" thing...yes good, defeating Trump is an absolute must. But...she's the nominee, not him. And god willing, she will be the next President. This isn't a grade school election where they will co-lead so no one's feelings gets hurt.

Also also... Clinton's "fandom"? Ugh.

Although maybe I should replace my "What would Buffy do?" slogan with "What would HRC do?"
posted by Salieri at 6:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]


Ahhhh, nothing like actual Sanders/Clinton news to bring back those timeless squabbles we know and love.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ahhhh, nothing like actual Sanders/Clinton news to bring back those timeless squabbles we know and love.

Yeah, imagine if any of this actually mattered to real people!
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is the Democratic party "a mess", though?

And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?

If anything, watching the horrorshow on the Republican side this primary season, I'm more convinced than ever that the DNC is going to be OK.

I'd like some young blood and some kind of effective strategy to take back congress. (Or even better, a plan in place like the Republicans had in the 90s to get Democrats in at all levels of government, down to deciding what textbooks school districts have to order.) But all in all, in the sense of like how political parties actually work, the D's are at the top of the pecking order as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Sara C. at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


He's had a seriously bad case of "white dude lefty who's upset that people want to talk about issues other than class" the whole campaign

Want to know how I know you haven't done your homework?

The misogyny thing is sticking by the force of sheer wishful thinking, the race thing is straight up dumb, considering his actual personal and political history.

Bernie has three problems, and they prevented his nomination -

1) He really is too old for an office that visibly sucks the life out of its office holders. I know, ageism sucks, but this really is an exception.
2) He has no real plan to bridge the divide in congress. He is running on a platform of the Unitary Executive taken to an illogical extreme.
3) He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party, he's just using it to gain power.

And these are noted by yrs truly, "Bernie Bro" extraordinaire. (I voted for Bernie because I found his policies to address race, gender AND class equality compelling, and not in conflict. His weaknesses were understood, but man...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something.

Yep. If you saved the receipt, you can take him to the returns counter and exchange him for one that fits.
posted by multics at 6:46 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


The misogyny thing is sticking by the force of sheer wishful thinking

Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really not a fan of hearing a guy say this when so many women have been experiencing it otherwise.
posted by Salieri at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [49 favorites]


Is the Democratic party "a mess", though?

Yes.

And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?

Yes.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


Eh, maybe this is all a part of the plan. Sanders has met with both Obama and Clinton now. Maybe they all agreed that keeping the Sanders people outside the Democratic Party is the best plan, so that they don't have to take the bitter pill of identifying as "Democrats", but can still coordinate and be utilized by the party as an auxiliary force to help towards various issues.
posted by FJT at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016


Sanders conceding in the exact right way

How about "Sanders conceding", period? Why can't we get that?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really not a fan of hearing a guy say this when so many women have been experiencing otherwise.

The polls tell a different story. Sorry. It is a generational thing, tho, and why the #bernieorbust thing is horseshit. Those women in the Gen Y/Millennial cohort ain't voting trump or Johnson or Jill Stein. Like me, they will be voting Sec. Clinton. As the POTUS says, she is literally the most qualified candidate for the office since I can't remember when.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


How about "Sanders conceding", period? Why can't we get that?

Because he doesn't give a shit about the institutional party or the decades spent building it. The D is a flag of convenience.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


[If you've posted more than 3 comments in the short time since Sanders' speech began, you're probably digging in and being circular and not, at this point, adding to the conversation. If this is you, police yourself and take a break. Everyone, stop being jerks to each other, and try to recall which parts of this we have already had THOUSANDS OF COMMENTS on and maybe don't need to rehash YET AGAIN.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


When I posted the links to the AP report and stream I just assumed he had conceded at the start of the speech and that was all we would be talking about tonight. It is really baffling to me what he thinks he is gaining from this. I know a lot of Clinton supporters don't like him or his campaign, but I think a lot more are really excited to have him fully on board. If he really wants to move on to the next stage of the political revolution, move on already. It's time.

I think he just feels a lot of obligation to his supporters, he wants to make sure they know their voices were heard, but I think he has done all he needs to for them along those lines already. I'm sick of talking about a primary that has been effectively over for months. Not that the general is shaping up to be less of a headache.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


The fact that the ambiguity has just reignited back-and-forth of the previous months seems to me to lessen the effectiveness of the speech. It just serves to frustrate people until the convention, which is at best pointless, and at worse gives the media a new shiny toy just when they were starting to give the GOP heartburn. Why spend the energy to chase down McConnell/Ryan/etc when they can get sit on their asses and wait for juicy quotes about Dem infighting to roll in?
posted by zombieflanders at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess

Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.


I've always held with Will Rogers on this one, and I've been a member since my first vote. Democrats have nowhere near the party discipline of the GOP past, which I suppose you could call a "mess," but the fact that it's the coalition party of the center-left and left is what makes it dynamic and a great vehicle for progressive change. I'd like to see more long-term coherent strategy, but the things that make it "a mess" are also the things that will prevent its totally imploding as the GOP has just done.
posted by Miko at 7:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


I don't understand his plan. If he doesn't concede and endorse he does not get a speaking slot at the convention. A prime speaking slot at the convention is a huge deal. Why would he blow that off?
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be

As a liberal who strongly prefers Clinton's leadership to that of Sanders, I am continually surprised at this attitude. Coulda swore I've been left wing this whole time, but maybe not?
posted by EatTheWeak at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


Eh, maybe this is all a part of the plan. Sanders has met with both Obama and Clinton now. Maybe they all agreed that keeping the Sanders people outside the Democratic Party is the best plan,

My personal question is always 'what is the simplest answer?' And the simplest answer would be that Sanders, who has said for a very long time that he's going to take the fight to the convention, who has as recently as the day of the California primary said he's going to convention (but not necessarily fighting at), was telling the truth then, and is now simply personally unwilling to concede. He may or may not be working up to it -- he's toned down his language at lot, but gradually -- but I don't think this is measured, or strategic, or a even plan, with regards to conceding or not; I think this is personality-driven -- I think this is Sanders being unwilling or unable to walk back his earlier statements.

Or, at any rate, that seems like a simpler explanation that an elaborate three-way plan between Obama, Clinton, and Sanders to carry out a sham campaign post-California. That seems...unlikely.

I am really looking forward to reading about this election season in, oh, a decade or two, when everyone feels like they can finally talk honestly about it, and what, for example, was said in the Obama/Sanders meeting, because I don't think we're going to know before then.
posted by cjelli at 7:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


It's pretty plainly a concession, TBH, since he's no longer talking about running for president.

And what he is talking about, a grassroots attempt at seizing congress, is pretty much essential at this point and something I'm suprised at seeing people upset by. We're going to need it if Clinton is elected, whoevers expectations she meets, and we're damn sure going to need it if Trump somehow wins.
posted by Artw at 7:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


#AskTheGays is a treasure.
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Because he hasn't put much work into actually funding and supporting such a thing?
posted by tavella at 7:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think people are upset because Sanders firmly endorsing Clinton, asking his supporters to vote for her and pointing out why not voting or voting for Trump would be a bad idea would go a long way towards ensuring Trump doesn't somehow win.
posted by peacheater at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


It's pretty plainly a concession
A plain concession has the phrases "I'm suspending my campaign" and "I congratulate on winning a hard fought campaign." It's pretty easy to drop those in, even to a speech about continuing the fight!
posted by fitnr at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


Vox:
First, Clinton wants him to end his campaign before the convention so the party will be unified going into it. And second, Clinton wants his enthusiastic endorsement, to help mobilize those supporters of his who have so far been reluctant to back her.

But Sanders appears to think that as soon as he gives up either of those things, he’ll lose whatever leverage he still has to push the party in a more progressive direction.

So here’s his strategy: be conciliatory toward Clinton, stop his attacks on her, and make clear they’re on the same team — while also trying to win whatever commitments from her on the platform and her own policies that he can manage.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's pretty plainly a concession, TBH, since he's no longer talking about running for president.

I am, right now, reading a bunch of people on social media celebrating the fact that 'he's not conceding!' and 'he's not dropping out before the convention!', so, no, I don't think it was plainly a concession speech at all.

I do think he knows that he lost the nomination, and that's why he didn't mention running for president, but he did not actually concede.

Why that matters is exactly because there are people celebrating right now over the 'fact' that he's 'not conceding.'
posted by cjelli at 7:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


Meanwhile, Hillary (or her media team) is still winning at the Twitters.
posted by octothorpe at 7:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


So here’s his strategy: be conciliatory toward Clinton, stop his attacks on her, and make clear they’re on the same team — while also trying to win whatever commitments from her on the platform and her own policies that he can manage.

There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding.
posted by Miko at 7:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


I hope Hillary Clinton keeps those social media people as president. A+++
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


"There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding"

I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.
posted by klarck at 7:24 PM on June 16, 2016


I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.

He has no real leverage, though. There's no real upside in terms of moving Hillary more to the left than he already has, but a lot of downside if he's really willing to shoot the hostages. The expected value of this gambit is negative.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.

Right....I read it. My point being, if that is what he thinks, he is incorrect. In fact, it's clearly damaging his leverage with people who were sympathetic to him but unsure about his analytical and leadership qualities.
posted by Miko at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Meanwhile, Hillary (or her media team) is still winning at the Twitters.

Being pithy in response to Trump is brilliant. He uses a million words to say nothing, you use one or a few to say a lot. See also her response to Lincoln Chafee. No way to tell for sure, but I think it's definitely possible she has a personal hand in these.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding.

Politics? Negotiation?

Those are two substantial reasons!

If we were seeing news reports about the high competency of the Trump campaign, and rising Trump poll numbers to go along with, maybe-probably Sanders could be shamed into falling into line. But we aren't, and so Sanders can take a maximalist position. This position (not the nom itself -- there was never a chance of that) is what he has spent the past year working toward. It's a remarkable achievement -- he's barely a Democrat! -- and here's hoping he plays the end game as deftly as he has played the opening and the middle.
posted by notyou at 7:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Either he has leverage, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, it makes no practical difference whether he concedes now or in July -- his supporters will come round to Clinton by November either way. If he does, then it would be foolish to concede now, for exactly the logic of political hardball that Clinton claims she will excel at in dealing with Republicans as president. I myself tend towards the former -- even if he affects the platform, that will have a relatively minor effect compared to the leftward shifts he induced over the course of the campaign. The Clinton leadership (and Obama) presumably also understand this, and thus don't appear too worried about such things. The main people I see upset are a subset of Clinton supporters who feel that the symbolism of a concession, as a form of apology for what has happened in the last few months, is important. Which may be true, but it doesn't mean that a little rudeness might not be strategically advantageous in wringing out the last leftward nudges possible. And if there is no advantage to be had (and no harm to be done), then it's all just symbolism.
posted by chortly at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


One of my key lessons from 2012 was that candidates operate on their own schedules to their own purposes. There were many times when the Romney machine "won the cycle" against Obama with some idiotic mini-scandal and people on TV and across the internet worked themselves up into a panic because Obama would refuse to address it until later, when in the midst of a sometimes seemingly random campaign speech, he would casually say something as an aside that would make the whole thing and everyone associated with it seem ridiculous. We have totally different candidates, neither of whom are Obama, and very different dynamics today, but the candidates continue to operate on their own schedules despire our increasingly urgent desire for immediate conclusions. They're seeking out critical, impactful moments in which to act, and low key speeches like this really aren't that. As much as I'd like Sanders to put a bow on it so we can move on to the next phase already, unless the convention comes and goes and he decides to never concede, it seems most reasonable to think that he is biding his time and that once he finds his moment and concedes, everything will be fine.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


Which may be true, but it doesn't mean that a little rudeness might not be strategically advantageous in wringing out the last leftward nudges possible.

In the many debt ceiling battles, the GOP had leverage on paper, but exercising that leverage required making a credible case that they were willing to wreck the US economy by defaulting on our debt. Eventually, the markets eventually told them "hey, that's some bullshit right there, cut it out." They weren't actually willing to pull the trigger, and if they did, it likely wouldn't have advanced their goals anyway.

That's how I feel about this. Bernie's "leverage" is that he won't ever concede and will stage a convention fight. But if he's willing to do that, to cause significant damage to the only host organism through which large-scale progressive change has ever been achieved in this country, then I can't look at that as merely a tactical disagreement or political hardball.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.
posted by joeyh at 7:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Clinton leadership (and Obama) presumably also understand this, and thus don't appear too worried about such things.

What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things? I don't think it'd look any different from what we see now: private negotiations with Sanders, but without public expressions of frustration, which would be completely counterproductive. If they appeared worried, they'd be doing it wrong.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.

One is asking somebody who cannot win to formally concede the race, and the other is the demand that a particular racist shibboleth being invoked. They're not the same at all and the comparison is insultingly facile.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [53 favorites]


"I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

- and -

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."

- Will Rogers.

The more things change...
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Conceding isn't just a thing you say, it's a thing you do.
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


But if he's willing to do that, to cause significant damage to the only host organism through which large-scale progressive change has ever been achieved in this country...

Not a rhetorical question: what is the "significant damage" to the Democratic party he could cause? This really isn't 1968, and it's certainly not remotely comparable to the direct effects of a debt default. If there were serious risks to the party or Clinton's chances that depended on what happens between now and July, I think Clinton, Obama, and the party establishment would be acting very differently.

What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things?

There would be a lot more leaks from the top and attacks by high-level surrogates; Obama and Sanders would not have been laughing it up at the White House; the mainstream media would be echoing such messages as well. It would not be in the Clinton campaign's strategic interests to feign complete indifference, unless the appearance of disunity caused by attacking Sanders's disloyalty was itself so damaging as to require silence. But this second-order symbolic effect seems even less likely to matter. Mainly, apart from appearances, the main reason they are probably not worried is that they shouldn't be worried. Sanders has very little (but not zero) leverage, and his supporters will largely line up behind Clinton in November, and she knows it. In the meantime, he is doing what he can to wring out whatever leverage he has left.
posted by chortly at 8:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.

It's dumb if you consider the audience for the Sanders speech - at this point any of them who have decided they're going to abstain or vote for Trump are pretty much a lost cause, and probably were before the race began, directing the attention of the others on the downticket races is a much smarter play for gaining ground than doing some kind of walk of shame, as emotionally satisfying for Clinton supporters as that would be.
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not a rhetorical question: what is the "significant damage" to the Democratic party he could cause?

A Trump victory if he fails to fully endorse Clinton and tell his supporters to vote for her?
posted by Justinian at 8:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't want to see a walk of shame, I want to see a fucking enthusiastic ally in the fight to overwhelmingly defeat the worst presidential candidate of my lifetime.

I'm glad he made some noises in that direction, but I would have liked more. Ultimately, though, I don't think it matters all that much, and the Sanders chapter of this election is more or less closed.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [25 favorites]


Meanwhile, in actual news: Hillary Clinton vows to end “carried interest” loophole — even if Congress won’t.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.
I think he'll get DWS, not that it will really matter, but I don't think the party can deliver open primaries. There would be open revolt if the national leadership dictated to the states how to run their affairs at that level of specificity.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't want to see a walk of shame, I want to see a fucking enthusiastic ally in the fight to overwhelmingly defeat the worst presidential candidate of my lifetime.

I suspect you may have to slog there through "grudging acceptance" rather than jumping to it immediately.
posted by Artw at 8:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah I am super unimpressed by his stance. In light of his recent behavior it's hard to see this as something inspirational. All that BS doesn't suddenly go away. All I see here is a grouchy old dude who lost and can't step up to it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


Well, he always looked like the candidate most likely to shout Get Off My Lawn!
posted by y2karl at 8:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


The reality is that Sanders already lost his shot of achieving maximum gains by failing to drop out weeks ago before NJ and California.

If he had done that he could've maintain the illusion that just maybe he could've come from behind and won (In reality he lost the nomination on Super Tuesday it's just been a slow motion car wreck ever since). He could've spun a story that upon looking at Clinton's lead and Trump's nomination that the best thing to do for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole would be to mend fences because a Trump Presidency would be the worst timeline ever.

The reality is that by now the polling is beginning to show that the number of Bernie or Bust dead enders is really not that large and that most of the votes for Bernie reflected a preference for his policies rather than a explicit vote against Hillary. The number of people that were NeverShillary was always small at least among the actual liberals and left. Yeah there are probably some extreme left accelerationist types but they actually tend to be vanishingly small in numbers and even though most might grumble about Hillary being neo-liberal or whatever is the current argument advanced on reddit most are willing to sign on because voting third party in the US is literally useless and Trump is a walking cheetoh.

So Bernie never had substantial leverage in terms of dictating things to Hillary once she took a commanding lead. She just had to take her time and let him waste money on all sorts of stupid and wasteful advertising and now he basically has zero resources remaining. It's basically the political version of rope a dope which she's also beginning to use on Trump to good effect.

Yeah he could probably have influenced the party platform in some way but for the most part the party platform in largely a functional meaningless and symbolic document as nobody is actually required to support it after the convention. But yeah symbolic victories have some value I guess. However he radically overplayed his hand in trying to get two Democratic elder statesmen removed and by putting on someone like Cornel West who clearly has no desire to mend fences when he's more or less a professional shit-stirrer. Don't get me wrong we need professional shit stirrers in the US but we don't necessarily need one trying to make rules in the Democratic party.

That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders was massively overplaying his hand and has resulted in a deep level of distrust and scorn from many people that otherwise support him.

Combined with the increasing evidence that most of the Bernie or Bust types threatening to go over to Trump probably represented lean Republican independents and lots of libertarian types (even though functionally liberalism like Sanders is promoting is really far from what libertarians normally want) and it's clear that the idea that Clinton was going to be unable to get most of Sanders supporters without the assistance and explicit endorsement of Sanders was wrong.

Darlings of the left like Warren have already endorsed Clinton and to most Sanders supporters she's Sanders in an even better package so if Clinton wants or needs to run a unity ticket she already has that option.

Furthermore once Clinton basically consolidated her position the tightness in Clinton vs Trump polling disappeared and now Trump is more or less imploding in terms of polling so the concerns that Clinton would have to really rally the base to win have largely disappeared.

I think it will still largely be a base election but Trump's increasingly unstable behavior could result in lean Republican and even loyal Republicans voting for Clinton or Johnson. The attention of the media on Sanders has basically disappeared and coverage of his events (where he's largely been doing the same rehashed stump speech for fucking ever) is basically perfunctory at best. Even the concern trolling by bloggers on Salon and HuffPo has largely gone away. Yeah you still have the dead enders like Goodman and the douches on TYT but increasingly everyone is choosing to ignore them.

Sanders had a shot to really create a solid left-liberal consensus but his messaging and campaigning just undermined so many of his positions. Shit like discounting the votes of Black democrats in the South when African Americans are the absolute most reliable Democratic group was stupid as fuck as was all the weird flip-flopping on stuff like Caucuses and Super Delegates.

I am way to the left of Sanders and Clinton on a ton of issues but fundamentally I know that the US version of the First past the post model absolutely dictates long term stability around 2 parties (sometimes an old party is eclipsed by another one such as when the Whigs went away). As a result you have to create coalitions built on winning a plurality of the votes in national elections. The modern Democratic party is a very diverse coalition and it represents the collection of a lot of different racial and regional preferences and the simple fact of the matter is that the current center-left block of the Democratic coalition is dominant and after winning the last to national elections the Democrats seem unwilling to break with what seems like a winning strategy.

The reality is that the current fixation on Sanders as President was always a fairly sketchy proposition for making sure that socialist and progressive positions become dominant. For the first thing Clinton is already pretty liberal and progressive certainly more so than Obama. Second, the presidency is a nice figure head because of the theoretical bully pulpit but the best way to actually advance progressive goals is to win house and senate races and honestly Sanders has been absolutely awful as helping that goal. Third, the idea that progressive policy positions some how require a uncorruptible politician to achieve is simply false. It created an illusion that we somehow need a great man to champion a cause and the truth of the matter is that is a relatively rare and honestly not the best model for change. It's just that we had so many good examples of it during the 20th century that we tend to expect it now.

The reality of course was that the two periods in which liberal and progressive policies made the biggest advances were during the FDR and Johnson period but not neccesarily because either was a brilliant leader but largely because the left had assembled a massive and basically unstoppable congressional advantage. That is the revolution that people needed to hear about but it got lost in all the relatively useless rhetoric. The truth of the matter was that the change he was largely talking about is the type of incrementalism that Clinton advocates for (building congressional majorities etc) it's just that he happened to basically promise a whole lot of stuff he was never ever going to be able to deliver because promising incremental change had absolutely no way of differentiating himself to potential voters.

TL, DR Sanders wasted his opportunity to actually make a big difference in changing Democratic politics because he waited too long and misplayed the hand he was dealt. Not that big of a deal because lots of other good politicians have made similar blunders but I suspect the unfortunate reality is that the bad way he's finishing his campaign is really undercutting a lot of the lessons that should've be found in the way he was able to generate a relatively successful campaign in a relatively short time period mainly through very effective fundraising and social media. That sort of thing is 100% what Democrats need to pick up from Sanders and the truth is Hillary has already been snagging his best social media campaign people.
posted by vuron at 9:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


In light of his recent behavior it's hard to see this as something inspirational.

Well, over 12 million voters were inspired, including millions of women, people of color, LGBTQ, poor, etc. Perhaps they were all misguided, but I doubt their affections would be significantly swayed by an enthused concession. And regarding Sanders himself, and what he says or does inpendent of its effects -- I myself can't see why we should care too much.
posted by chortly at 9:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders

Oh barf, did he seriously? That's astonishing arrogance. Where were these reports coming from?
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders demands

Short of the party taking over the primary process entirely which is possible most of the reforms that Sanders wants are simply not achievable because state's have a degree of control over how they run elections.

Open Primaries- Maybe but I'm already beginning to see more and more democrats that are completely frustrated with Bernie's refusal to concede as a sign that he doesn't give a shit about the party. So the counter narrative is basically "Fuck that why should people who aren't Democrats be able to select who runs as a Democrat"?

Basically there is an increasing realization that the much vaunted independent swing voter is becoming more and more rare with the intense polarization of politics. Most independents are generally pretty strongly committed to voting one party or the other they just choose to avoid party affiliation in many cases.

Closed primaries of course have a potential issue there is a chance that the eventual selection will be unpalatable to the supposed independent swing voter but that is balanced by the benefit that Republican voters can't cross over in the primaries just to make sure that the Democrats select a completely shit candidate which has happened at least a few times generally on down ballot races.

Getting rid of DWS- Honestly I don't think Clinton or Obama are really big supporters of DWS. She's not the worst DNC Chair but let's be honest she could be replaced by someone much better. i think she's a pretty mediocre politician and her positions tend to be pretty lame for a representative especially in a pretty safe Democratic district. Patrick Murphy for instance has way more reasons to be centrist being in a pretty Republican leaning district.

Honestly I haven't really been that impressed with just about any recent DNC Chairs McAuliffe was competent but frankly meh, Kaine was awful, Dean showed potential but it kinda went nowhere.

I really like Donna Brazile but she only got it as an interim so probably the last really solid DNC chair was probably Ron Brown. I would totally be willing to kick DWS to the curb as DNC chair if it was required for healing the rift.
posted by vuron at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2016



That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders


I would be interested if there is a link for that. He's definitely given his own input on who to pick, but I haven't heard of anything besides that.

"I would hope, if I am not the nominee, that the vice-presidential candidate will not be from Wall Street, will be somebody who has a history of standing up and fighting for working families, taking on the drug companies whose greed is doing so much harm, taking on Wall Street, taking on corporate America, and fighting for a government that works for all of us, not just the 1%," Sanders said.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


And regarding Sanders himself, and what he says or does inpendent of its effects -- I myself can't see why we should care too much.

I care because Sanders did inspire a lot of people, and those people will be important to continue to push for progressive causes for decades to come. A decent number of the folks he inspired are casting their first Presidential votes this cycle; some are still too young to vote. They shouldn't coddled to be sure, but the more this drags on, the more we all blow any opportunity we had with them; your first vote matters, a lot.

These voters deserve a straightforward and appropriate end to the campaign: a celebration of what they've accomplished; an acknowledgement that they've fallen short legitimately and honorably; and a clear direction for what happens next.

All of us deserve a generation of new voters that don't believe that this primary was rigged or that there aren't meaningful and vital differences between Clinton and Trump that must take precedence over Sanders supporters not getting everything they perhaps want.

Downballot progressives, actual progressives, deserve and can benefit from the continued support of Sanders.

And lastly, the elements of the progressive agenda shared by both Sanders and Clinton deserve unified and enthusiastic champions, because the only way any of it has any chance of being passed is with the continued advocacy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters, both outside of elections, and in the 2018 midterms.

Or to put it another way:

My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
When the fall is all there is, it matters.

posted by zachlipton at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate

I'm also interested in a cite for this. Without a credible source attached, it seems to be the tilting at illusory Bernie-bros mentioned upthread.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I care because Sanders did inspire a lot of people, and those people will be important to continue to push for progressive causes for decades to come.

If their response to not winning a primary is to freak out and threaten people and proclaim that the system is rigged and refuse to vote Democratic in the general, I think you may overestimate their importance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]




Please, just stop. Bernie is not a secret racist or misogynist. He's not a senile old man. He's not a narcissistic fool, or a deluded tool. He is as he seems - a Democratic Socialist, deeply committed to causes he feels the Democratic Party is not paying enough attention to.

He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement. She may never get there, either, but he keeps driving her ever leftward. This is a good thing. The run-to-the-center-and-overshoot-to-the-right bullshit keeps losing elections.

The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long. Now our nominee has to work to keep us in the fold, to get us knocking on doors to GOTV. Sec. Clinton runs leftward, because of Bernie, or she does not win.

I say, make her sweat until the convention, confirming and re-confirming her progressive bonifides. The Donald is actively burning all his bridges, left right and center, so why not?
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


Consider the following:

The last time Bernie was making front-page headlines was last Thursday, when he met with Obama. Since then... Orlando, Orange Human Tire Fire's response, the Filibuster. Oh, and the DC primary somewhere in there, but also a baby taken by an alligator OMG. Also, three polls showing Hillary with a comfortable lead over Trump.

Bernie's total contribution to the news cycle in that time has been:
-- Meeting with Hillary on Tuesday
-- Not showing up at the Filibuster

In essence, as much as Bernie wants to think he has leverage... he really doesn't. He has a donor list. He could monkeywrench the Hillary campaign in Philly, but there's not much he can do to stop the nomination. He really can't even make it any more than awkward anymore. His rabid supporters are all that are left as the classical Democrats melt away and the independents go their own way. And it feels like he's keeping up appearances for them.

I don't know if he even has a strategy anymore. Holding on to the donor list in exchange for concessions on the party platform seems reasonable. But every day he's slipping further from the mind of the press and the rank-and-file. He better create an exit strategy soon.
posted by dw at 9:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.

I keep seeing people saying that, but I see little evidence that it's really the case. And aside from a plan to help white middle class college kids, I honestly don't see that much difference between the programs of Sanders and Clinton.
posted by happyroach at 10:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess

Compared to what?
posted by bongo_x at 10:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Even if Bernie Bros are as exaggerated as you claim, they're still making people hesitant to openly show their support for Clinton. Women volunteers still fear being shown on media in case they get a backlash. Many people are not willing to discuss politics because mentioning anything tangentially related to Clinton or involving the presidency can set off a furious response.

Saying we should be satisfied that he has made a commitment to work with Clinton is really shifting the Overton window. We applauded Bernie when he said he was sick of hearing about the damn emails, and helped focus on actual policy debate. But not addressing the myriad issues with his campaign and supporters is tacitly condoning it. We don't care if he's apparently not a misogynist or racist if he doesn't actually do anything to curb it. He could have helped many local candidates that were in contested primaries. But he didn't, and a few of them lost when directing his base could have changed that.

So I'm glad that he's not being a shitshow and making active statements that he will fight for the Democratic nomination. But many have been berned and are not going to give him the benefit of the doubt until he earns it again.
posted by halifix at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


I say, make her sweat until the convention, confirming and re-confirming her progressive bonifides. The Donald is actively burning all his bridges, left right and center, so why not?

She's not sweating.
posted by current resident at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]


[y2karl, repost with a smaller excerpt, thanks!]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2016


The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.

What natural base? Because from where I'm sitting, the "natural base" of the Democratic Party, c. 2016 is the Obama coalition. Sure, progressives are part of that, but they're only part of it, and need to realize that the base does contain other groups that do have their own goals and agendas.

Frankly, it's this attitude which has the rest of the base routinely looking askance at progressives.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.

They're not the natural base. There is one CPC member in the Senate; Bernie Sanders himself. If young progressives want to be taken seriously they need to show up more often than once every four years, they must be prepared to realize there are also liberals and centrists in the party and they must be prepared to lose once in a while. This whole bullshit of disappointing the young progressives? If they show up once every four years and then take their ball and go home when they only get 80-90% instead of 100% then fuck them. We don't need them. Come back when you grow up.

The reason the Tea Party has such a strangehold over Republican politics is they show up consistently every election. They primaried the House Majority Leader out of his own god damn seat. You want a lock on Democratic platforms? Get your people to show up. Start paying attention to local party politics instead of whining about DWS and the DNC on Facebook. But that takes effort and this is America and WE WANT IT NOW.

Me? I'm a social democrat so Bernie was as close as it got to my policy views. I supported him. I donated to him. But I'm not about to allow a crypto-fascist into office just because everyone else picked a hybrid liberal/third way centrist.
posted by Talez at 10:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [59 favorites]


Apropos of nothing, I just watched a health insurance company's television advertisement that promoted how easy their smartphone app makes it to choose an in-network emergency room before seeking emergency care.
posted by XMLicious at 10:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.

Forget the Debbie Wasserman Schultz obsession. As of today, Clinton has already installed her new head of the DNC, Brandon Davis. Brandon was national political director for the Service Employees International Union, is very experienced and knows what he is doing.

It is standard practice for the Presidential nominee to take over the reins of the DNC. DWS will retain her official title as chair, but the real control is in Brandon Davis' hands from this point forward. DWS' only role will be chief fundraiser from here on out, so Bernie can just chill.
posted by JackFlash at 10:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


Grr, I just managed to nuke a big response regarding progressives as the base.

But yeah basically we aren't the base. Yes some of us show up every damned election even shitty local and state elections where we absolutely know we are going to get blown out but that's the relative rarity.

Progressives especially young progressives haven't been the most reliable voter demographic. Yes push comes to shove we vote Democratic but the current multi-cultural Obama coalition has a very strong track record and politics tends to be if it's not broke don't fix it with the Republicans attempting to generate a new playbook of even if it's broke don't fix it and just pray it works anyway.

The thing is that because Bernie chose extremely popular issues for a limited subset of the Democratic audience. The result is that he generated big big leads among a younger demographic that is very progressive on a ton of issues and that we really want to capture long term as Democrats because who you vote for in your first election is a primary determinant of your future voting behavior. The unfortunate thing is that either those issues lacked a plurality of support among Democratic voters or people felt that he was promising shit he couldn't deliver.

A real concern of some democrats is that disillusionment with the democratic process often comes from promising too much and delivering too little. So you could make a potential case that a disillusioned base that felt a lot of unachieved 2008 campaign promises resulted in big mid term losses in 2010. Considering that younger voters are extremely unreliable voters out of presidential election years anyway there is a good case to be made that maintaining a realistic set of campaign promises is a better strategy.

The other really dumb thing about Sanders campaign was that there is an implicit criticism of the President when you attack the economic policies of the current administration. Yes Presidents have very little control over the economy but that is not the perception of most of the electorate.It's bad form to run against your own party leader when by most measures Obama has done a remarkably decent job (which is reflected in his current popularity).

Plus when you are looking to win election to national office, criticizing a person who is extremely popular with the current Obama coalition is a poor move. If you notice Clinton has explicitly run as a continuation of Obama's legacy, hell short of saying 4 more years already I'm not sure she could be more of an Obama legacy. Among critical demographics like AA voters attacking Obama even implicitly was not the best strategy and Sanders got nuked as a result.

I think some radical changes are required to solve some deep structural issue but I think Sanders was a completely mediocre spokesman for those changes and as a result there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency that his reforms are needed by most of the party much less the electorate as a whole.
posted by vuron at 10:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]


Oh I hadn't heard about Brandon Davis, that's a very good thing because unlike most other unions the SEIU has been extremely aggressive in recent years about not just retaining union representation but actually dramatically increasing union representation.

Hopefully this can result in some real increased synergy between the DNC and organized labor as I'm beginning to see more and more signs that Americans are beginning to abandon the idea that all unions are basically ineffective leeches and that there are needs for increased collective bargaining power for workers.

Like I said up further in the thread I don't feel like Clinton was in any ways a strong DWS supporter and I think in many cases there has been frustration with DWS not so much based upon some perception of bias on her part but mainly because she hasn't exactly been the most effective chair other than fundraising efforts.
posted by vuron at 10:49 PM on June 16, 2016


He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement. She may never get there, either, but he keeps driving her ever leftward. This is a good thing. The run-to-the-center-and-overshoot-to-the-right bullshit keeps losing elections.

What's cool is that now if Clinton sticks to her liberal principles and doesn't tack right, people will credit Sanders for that even if she would have done that regardless

Isn't that awesome
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [53 favorites]


Giving credit to a man for something that a woman does is basically as American as apple pie!
posted by vuron at 11:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [40 favorites]


...and I think in many cases there has been frustration with DWS not so much based upon some perception of bias on her part but mainly because she hasn't exactly been the most effective chair other than fundraising efforts.

But now we got an effective guy in there, amirite ? Who will be called by his full name, no doubt, unreified, undemonized. There ought to be bumpin' chests over that.
posted by y2karl at 11:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know, I know, how dare I suggest that the demonization of Deborah Wasserman Schultz ever had a thing to do with her being a woman. But that's how it came across to me. In no small part.
posted by y2karl at 12:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Nah, I can totally get that. Maybe there is some bias that I'm relaying. Even if it's not specifically mine it could be in how her actions are reported.

On the other hand I've heard from multiple people that are involved pretty heavily in Democratic politics that recruiting for down ballot races has been less than stellar. But honestly it was mediocre under Kaine IMHO.
posted by vuron at 12:06 AM on June 17, 2016


Well, nothing personal intended towards you but, man, the torches and pitchforks over Deborah Wasserman Schultz were so overblown, like Sanders supporters want to blame everything on someone other than themselves and Sanders. Hillary Clinton got a lot more votes. Period. More people voted for her. What is so hard about that ? Are those people less than human ? Do they count for less ?
posted by y2karl at 12:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement.

When a normal human person who is not a living dumpster fire beats you for the nomination, that really ought to be enough.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


And the shenanigans -- first the Superdelegates are evil, then he's going to flip them after more people voted for her than him. What kinda gas was he huffin'?

Now it's like he wants to call the shots and be the backseat driver. But withdrawal from the approval of huge crowds clouds the mind, expands the ego to monstrous proportions. And then it deflates. I.hope he gets over himself soon.
posted by y2karl at 12:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of course, this is not unlike the experience of Cheeto Jesus -- everywhere he goes, crowds of people adore him. He doesn't even have to make.sense. They lap it up. But then he finds out even more people who don't come to his rallies deny his godhood. What a let down. Sad.
posted by y2karl at 12:36 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long. Now our nominee has to work to keep us in the fold

The Democratic Party's natural base voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. They did not support Sanders. It's people who aren't in the party's base that make up the majority of the resistant-to-Clinton faction.

Now I'm kind of curious who you think is the Democratic Party's base? Because most people would (correctly) say that it is the Obama coalition.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [39 favorites]


I'm a little unpersuaded by the moral purity/ clarity/values of Sanders' endorsement decisions after his endorsement of an anti choice representative. Whatever his endorsement represents, it's hard to buy that it is some kind of certification of progressive values or commitment to 'the base.'
posted by Salamandrous at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.

Whoa whoa whoa. Dude. This is some spurious nonsense right here. Clinton is pretty damn progressive in a lot of ways. She is also through-and-through establishment, but that's why I like the thought of her being given the biggest establishment position in the nation—especially if her political opponents have gone nutjob to the point of refusing to vote for a Supreme Court nominee. I want hyper-competence in the good ol' knows-the-system way.

And, yeah, leftism's gonna have its time. You're also right that Bernie isn't responsible for it and hasn't helped foment it, until the point that he ran for president against the most-despised woman in the country. But you know what, I think you left off a few movements while you were drawing your Grand Progressive Trajectory in one of your comments above. You jump right from the antiwar movement to Occupy to the Sanders campaign, but wasn't there that thing, in between, about black lives mattering? Or how about the Clinton campaign, in which people voted in record numbers for the person who handed Bernie Sanders his ass? Those sound like movements to me, but you left them out for some reason. I'm not sure why.

I think we need an Intersectional Leftism the way we have intersectional feminism right now. Only maybe we need to put leftism into that existing feminism fold, because you and I both know that the second "feminism" is dropped from the masthead we'll get people, I dunno, ignoring women's voices, probably throwing chairs in Nevada, probably something something death threats, I just don't know!!! It's almost like maybe the whole lofty ideals thing should also be backed up by some pragmatic assessments of where the nation stands, because as much as I am pretty hardcore Leftist I also don't like the thought of saying the contemporary Leftist movement should start by me signing up for Bernie Sanders campaign emails??

(Which. By the way. I'm already signed up for those. They're not all that revolutionary. I can send you a few if you like.)

Please, just stop. Bernie is not a secret racist or misogynist.

DEAR MEN OF THIS WEB SITE CAN YOU PLEASE STOP WEIGHING IN ON IF YOU THINK BERNIE SANDERS IS A MISOGYNIST

IT'S JUST, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION LIKE TEN BILLION TIMES BEFORE AND YOU SEEMINGLY IGNORE ALL THE REQUESTS THAT PREVIOUSLY CAME YOUR WAY

MOST OF WHICH WERE MADE BY WOMEN

BUT I MEAN THAT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE MAYBE JUST LIKE ALL THOSE BERNIE BROS

posted by rorgy at 3:03 AM on June 17, 2016 [48 favorites]


(if I want to see what Berniebros *really* think, I check out Reddit. Today's top hits include "hillary folks, leave us alone", "california election fraud (according to some guy with a spreadsheet)", "here's another women we can beat", and an open letter to bernie about how his voters are the only ones that count and how he is the latest in a long line of african-american civil rights activists, signed "the people".)
posted by effbot at 3:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Democratic Platform Drafting Committee Hearing, Day 1, Part 1, Part 2, Day 2 Morning, Afternoon. CSPAN videos about 12hrs.
posted by phoque at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The best part is the fraud one is titled "Stanford University confirms election fraud!!" because that apparently sounds better than "One dude who takes classes at Stanford in disciplines unrelated to statistical analysis or election auditing claims in non-peer-reviewed essay that election fraud happened!"
posted by Justinian at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


I understand why the platform stuff needs to be public but I hate how any time you put a camera near politicians or bureaucrats it turns into speechifying. That said it is amusing how this is a mixture of high powered pols (Eric Holder!), civil rights heros, and random scrubbos.
posted by Justinian at 4:13 AM on June 17, 2016


CNN will host a primetime town hall with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate William Weld, the cable news channel announced Wednesday.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo will moderate the town hall, which will air Wednesday, June 22 at 9 p.m. It will be held at CNN's headquarters in New York's Time Warner Center, with Johnson and Weld being asked questions by voters.

posted by Drinky Die at 4:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I honestly don't care about the Libertarians getting a free advertising hour but I am kinda curious why them and not any number of other third party options. Is it based upon some sort of current polling average because while I have seen some tracking polls that suggest decent Libertarian support currently due to hatred of the Cheetoh Jesus it seems like it's a weird decision.

Other third party candidates can scream what about us and Trump can perhaps legitimately albiet in a crocodile tear manner that giving the Libertarians free publicity is a political move designed to hurt him.

I of course welcome any attempt to harm Trump in a political manner but it feels weirdly partisan for the 4th estate.
posted by vuron at 4:46 AM on June 17, 2016


I believe the Libertarians are the only third party on the ballot in all 50 states + DC?
posted by Justinian at 4:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The libertarians are ahead of the other third party candidates. Johnson is polling close to getting on the debate stage. A major party candidate complaining about a third party candidate having an advantage would be laughable. It's an hour on a network people barely watch when there isn't breaking news.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:01 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the LP polled at 3% in 2012 according to Gallup, while the Greens were next closer at 1% (and I'm pretty sure that's rounded up). No one else really has even close to a meaningful slice of the population (not that 3% is especially meaningful).
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or another measure: in the 2012 presidential election Gary Johnson received 1.3M (0.99%) votes versus Jill Stein's 470k (0.36%).
posted by Perplexity at 5:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


i don't think the party can deliver open primaries. There would be open revolt if the national leadership dictated to the states how to run their affairs at that level of specificity.

Also, the members of the party. I do not want an open primary! I want a primary that is run by and for my party in which members of our party choose our party's nominee. Since there are no ideological tests for membership, anyone can become a member - that, to me, is open enough. It puts the onus on people to figure out how to become a member, but it infuriates me no end that people somehow want what is at its heart a party process to pick a party nominee to suddenly become subject to the unpredictable and typically temporary passions of a relatively un-engaged swath of people. I would not support a move to further open primaries.

And given how easy it is to vote in a primary, I'm also OK with superdelegates as a check and balance on the state systems. As Samantha Bee said earlier, "The GOP would give its left nut to have superdelegates right now."
posted by Miko at 5:25 AM on June 17, 2016 [50 favorites]


The Libertarian Party is the strongest third party at present, and third parties in general are very strong this year. No, none of them are going to win, but it's not unreasonable to give them some press coverage.
posted by jackbishop at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


More Marcy Kaptur idiocy:

Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant

She literally says - in a long interview with the National Review -- that Trump and the Clintons are old pals, maybe they cooked this whole thing up. No mention of her opposition to abortion rights.
posted by msalt at 6:40 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]




Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant


Honestly, the conspiracy theorizing bothers me less than the sexism buried in the apparent assumption that Bill must have been doing all the plotting while Hillary just passively benefited.
posted by DiscountDeity at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yglasias points out why Sanders' assertions of bad faith on the part of the Democratic Party are infuriating to Party members:

It’s one thing to disagree with people about policy substance or political tactics. But something Sanders has done throughout his campaign and very pointedly did here is straightforwardly challenge the good faith of the vast majority of his colleagues in Democratic Party politics. It’s worked pretty well for him on the stump, but it doesn’t win you a lot of friends. And to be honest, it’s simply wrong — you can raise a lot of objections to Obama’s approach to Wall Street or climate change, but the fact is that the financial services industry and the fossil fuel industries have been fighting him every step of the way.

This is important to understanding why, at the end of the day, Sanders got so very little institutional support for his campaign despite a very long career in Congress that’s involved a lot of working constructively with other members and left-wing interest groups.

posted by NoxAeternum at 7:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


“When steel gets dumped on the international markets, it’s workers in Ohio who get laid off,” she says. “It’s very different in Washington, D.C., where the majority of jobs are government jobs. I don’t come from that kind of America.”
Y'know what, Kaptur? Fuck. Off. The conspiracy theory stuff is bad enough, but your "real America" posturing here is some straight-up Palin-esque bullshit. You're talking about a city that was founded specifically as the seat of the federal government. What's more, it's a city with a large population of transplants from other parts of the country and the world, and was the last stop for many escaped and former slaves. I'm sorry that that offends your allegedly hardscrabble, folksy mindset.

But you know what the worst of it all is? It's that your claim that "the majority of [DC] jobs are government jobs" isn't even accurate. There are thousands of other arguments you could have used here, and you went with that one? You want to impugn hundreds of thousands of people who have chose to go into civil service, in the only place that reliably votes 100% Democratic, as indifferent to the plight of steelworkers in "your kind of America"?

If that's your idea of party unity, then let me repeat: Fuck. Off.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.

Boy howdy, you really were gone for two months
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


The leftier-than-thou-ism behind "natural base" is precisely why Sanders' refusal to suspend/concede is harmful to the progressive cause. Political parties don't have "natural bases", they simply have "bases", as defined by the people who routinely show up to vote for that party's candidates. The composition of those bases change over time as the composition of the electorate changes and as the parties realign in response to those changes, but at no time has the "base" of the Democratic party resembled the part of the Sanders coalition that hasn't already unified behind Clinton.

We absolutely need reform on many of the issues Sanders ran on -- that's how he got my vote -- but that push for reform did not come from the party's base. It could eventually become a significant constituency within the party's base -- I hope it does -- but you don't get to call yourself the base because you feel like you're holding down the left-most position on the issues you happen to care about. That's really not how it works.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:56 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


You know I think that Bernie probably isn't sexist or racist or homophobic.

However as I was reading the lonelygirl15 thread I remembered how I used to always think of myself as being good on race, on gender, on sexuality, etc. I remember thinking to myself how righteous I was as a defender of the down-trodden. I remember thinking to myself along the lines of this is all related to economics and if we just fix economic issues things will get better.

However there has been a certain point in recent years when exposure to a whole host of postmodern thinking in regards to intersectionality in lots of areas has changed my thinking. Exposure to concepts of feminist neo-marxist thought, discussions of structures of privilege, understanding of concepts like the Matrix of Domination allowed me to develop a much more nuance understanding of the complex issues at work that act as determinants on people's ability to succeed and how those structure are embodied in various institutions within our culture. As I learned more I began to understand my privilege and became more and more innoculated to the virus of "You are just having white guilt". Even later on I began to understand how to effectively function as an ally, that I as a cis-gender, white male of relatively privileged economic status don't need to solve these problems for other people thereby taking away their agency but that it is incumbent on me to realize that my privileged position makes it where if I don't make room for others I can suck up all the oxygen in the room leaving no room for anyone else to contribute or share ideas or feel powerful or share their story.

As I learned to step back and make room for other people I also began to realize that yep I had a moderate case of engineer's disease. When people relate problems I tend to immediately go into let's fix it mode and I start to pull out solutions of my design and I also fail to actually listen and validate other people emotionally. I know I have this tendency and this is extremely challenging to counteract in online and real world social settings. As I learned all of these I have been able to look back on my past and see "ohh yeah I was a shit ally at times" and instead of focusing on feelings of guilt and shame for past actions it's inspired me to continue trying to improve.

What I see in Sanders is someone else on a similar journey that perhaps has been shaped by different drivers but who has very significant blind spot when it comes to his ability to see social structures through a lens of a matrix of oppression. Even if he understands intersectionality on an intellectual level it seems like his speeches and statements just accentuate the likelihood that the lens with which he sees the world is almost exclusively colored by a lens of economic class. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a lot of people in the US there is a denial that differential outcomes based upon economic class even are a factor. They are still buying into the "bootstraps" and "poor-shaming" ideology. It's just that increasingly it's not enough especially when you are trying to build a progressive movement.

What I see happening in regards to the split online and the supposed split of the Democratic party in terms of voter preferences is that progressives are increasingly divided into the group that see just about everything through the lens of economic determinism and a group that is increasingly willing to look at how lots of structural elements in our society influence outcomes.

The tone deaf response to concerns of BLM activists and the "southern states don't matter narrative" showed that there is a really big split along understanding how class and race intersect. I see it all the time when I talk to a lot of very progressive white people about issues of how the criminal justice system disproportionately disadvantages PoC. Very well meaning people that I really like and think are very smart will then tell me without a wry smile or any sense that they are being sarcastic that really is a function of economics that PoC are disproportionately poor and that if they had better resources they would have better criminal justice outcomes. While that is likely true to a degree it completely denies the experience of the upper middle class black driver who has experienced "driving while black" despite driving in a nice car and following the traffic rules and who gets a disproportionately aggressive interogation by an officer that would simply not be the norm for a caucasian driver even one who quite regularly speeds. Anecdotes get negated with things along the lines of "bad apples" or "not all cops" which basically undermine the experiences of PoC in our society.

I saw the same sort of tone deaf shit online regarding gender where people were absolutely in denial about how Hillary was seeing a disproportionately negative response at least partially motivated by her gender.

These sort of actions that I've seen over and over online and in the real world over the last year especially have made me develop some deep doubts about the long term success of a progressive movement as shaping the course of Democratic politics. While I think ultimately most people are actually well meaning and not particularly sexist, or racist or homophobic they have been inculturated with a default if low level of all 3 (and let's be honest more forms of prejudice) just by growing up in this society many of which had their formative years under very very different social norms.

I don't blame Bernie as he's a product of his past but I am increasingly disposed to want better. I don't think every elected official needs to be a member of a class that has historically been discriminated against but I do think that the cis-gender white males that make up the bulk of elected officials and tend to dominate online spaces absolutely need to get better about making room for other voices.

Of course I just did a lecture about how white males shouldn't be all preachy and try to solve other people's problems and I try to solve other people's problem with a TL;DR response from hell. I can just say that I'm trying to get better not that I'm always successful...
posted by vuron at 8:13 AM on June 17, 2016 [34 favorites]


You know I think that Bernie probably isn't sexist or racist or homophobic.

Well, sure, he farted, but that doesn't mean he's a Farter. He's emphatically a Non-Farter who just happened to fart one time.
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Sanders was actually interested in reforming the nomination process and making it more open, his first move would be to push for getting rid of caucuses, which are extremely hostile to anyone who doesn't have the time, funds, or ability to sit around for the better part of a day to have their vote count. Great for college students, not really for people doing shift work, people with medical issues, etc. But he's quite silent on that. In other words, he doesn't give a shit about openness, he wants what is good for Bernie, and he had difficulty winning outside of caucuses.

My respect for him continues to decay to just about nothing.
posted by tavella at 8:18 AM on June 17, 2016 [33 favorites]


According to Weaver this morning, he's still an 'active candidate'.
Asked to answer "yes or no" whether Sanders is still running for president, Weaver was unequivocal.

“Yes, he is. Yes, he is. Yes, he is," Weaver said. "He is an active candidate for president, yes."
Plus some more stuff about "transforming America".

The thing that bothers me about this - besides the pettiness of refusing to actually say, "I lost," - is that it's doing nothing to unify the party. There's this idea that by refusing to concede Sanders is "dragging" Clinton to the left, as if she's some recalcitrant toddler digging her heels in. It ignores her firmly progressive policies and the ways in which she's to the left of him on some issues.

Worse, it's doing nothing to help his supporters transition to the general. Why in the world would you want to go out and vote for the Democrats when it's been insinuated over and over that the candidate is a corrupt liar who cheated her way into the nomination? Do you actually want people to be enthusiastic about participating in the party rather than treating it as a reluctant protest vote? If so, the worst way I can think of doing that is to spend your remaining political capital ranting about superdelegates and open vs. closed primaries and the details of the electoral process rather than the actual issues that garnered you so much support in the first case. It's okay to see problems and want to fix them, but it starts looking petty when the particular "fixes" in this case transition from policy differences to "things that kept me from winning".

I honestly don't know that he actually wants to "reform" the party. His demands for the convention - such as putting West on the committee and wanting the ouster of solid Democrats like Frank because he has a personal grudge against him - look ugly and do nothing to support the idea that we're all supposedly on the same side. And the limited way in which he has so far chosen to support specific down-ticket races also makes no sense strategically for the larger good of the party - unless it's all about only supporting people who endorse him personally or some very specific policies which are in his wheelhouse.
posted by Salieri at 8:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [35 favorites]


The best part is the fraud one is titled "Stanford University confirms election fraud!!" because that apparently sounds better than "One dude who takes classes at Stanford in disciplines unrelated to statistical analysis or election auditing claims in non-peer-reviewed essay that election fraud happened!"

Here is a Snopes piece on the topic. Poll Position - Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
posted by dougzilla at 8:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


@NYTMetro: The optimum speed of a MetroCard swipe. #MetDiary

@HillaryClinton Hillary Clinton Retweeted NYT Metro Desk: Helpful.

posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


The ultimate political truth that I have seen play out of way way way too many games of Diplomacy is that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

So let's assume that Clinton is Germany and Sanders is Austria. Both are concerned about the Russian steamroller so there is an agreement that Russia needs to go but Germany is also concerned about Britain and France while Austria is worried about Turkey and lol Italy (true fact, despite trying just about every different strategy for being a successful Italian player including countless Lepanto openings I have never ever done particularly well with Italy- I think my best result has been maybe a 4 way tie).

So while both Sanders and Clinton are distinctly worried about the same threat they don't necessarily share the same concerns about everything and furthermore unless the constitution allows for some sort of dual consul system (which actually wouldn't be awful) eventually there can be only one and just like Germany in Diplomacy Clinton has the much stronger hand right now and Sanders can either be swallowed whole or arrange for some sort of shared victory (because playing out every permutation takes too long exactly like something else like our nomination calendar).

Right now Austria is holding out for a power sharing arrangement when he's down to maybe 3 supply centers and Hillary has like 10 and Trump has like 8 and Italy (Green) and Britain (Libertarian) are doing fuck all in their half of the map because they are really really bad players. Hillary knocked out France (Malloy) and Trump defeated Turkey (Cruz) and the reality is that it's pretty much going to be a Russia vs Germany cage match for the win.

Austria is still holding onto hope and completely pointless Italy is telling him to totally stab Clinton in the back because they can totes win this together and the reality is that the German republic going to seize all his supply centers no matter what and Bernie needs to figure out a way to save face.

Note- after writing most of this long ass comment I realized that despite the metaphor of Diplomacy being chosen and the Germany-Austria alliance happens almost every game thus it was the natural fit for this metaphor the could be a perception based upon Sanders being Jewish that there is some underlying anti semitic intent behind my metaphor which I want to assure people is 100% not the intent. Diplomacy should be played with a Great War mindset not with a WWII mindset even though yes WW2 can be seen as a natural continuation of WW1.
posted by vuron at 8:51 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Or, as someone pointed out, he's afraid that if he makes nice and enthusiastically endorses Clinton, he loses whatever influence and input he has left to shape the campaign or the party. So, holding out is the only hand he has left to play, after which he sits at the kids table.

Except that dragging it out too long diminishes him, too, as it turns into a version of that old National Lampoon cover of Buy this Magazine or We Shoot this Dog.
posted by y2karl at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


There's a new Anti-Trump "Super* PAC", and it's awesome.

*Super in the same way anything of Trump's can be "yuuge" or "bigly"

Warning: Gawker link

posted by oneswellfoop at 9:14 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Except that dragging it out diminishes him, too, as it turns into a version of that old National Lampoon cover of Buy this Magazine or We Shoot this Dog.

A friend of mine posted a picture on facebook today to the effect of "I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."

I was unable to convince him that "Look what you made me do" is not a morally defensible position.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [50 favorites]


That's some serious intellectual contortion there. It took me a minute or two just to parse what the hell they were even trying to say.

Like, do you really think that other people would alter their votes because they're worried you would have a tantrum like a bloated manbaby because they didn't do what YOU want? Would you do something like that?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Politics is also about acting with decisiveness when the right opportunity arises. That even means conceding when defeat is inevitable because sometimes conceding quickly is preferable to dragging things out because all it does is increase anger and angst and limits your bargaining power.

Sanders failure to appreciate the writing on the wall and parlay his broad base of support during it's high point into a position of increased influence within the Clinton campaign was basically a missed moment.

It's like buying a company's stock when it's really low and then holding on to it way past the peak and then letting your belief that past performance can influence future returns influence your behavior so you ride the stock all the way down to where it's getting close to where it was when you first bought it.

I mean I know Bernie is supposedly a socialist but damn dude even Marxists can appreciate the basic logic of buy low and sell high.

And unfortunately a lot of the people that "bought" Bernie stock at the high point (because apparently donating to him makes you own him I guess which is really kind of strange terminology - I'm pretty comfortable saying that nobody should own anyone else humans aren't property yo) seemed to be thinking that Bernie 2016 was kinda like Apple before Jobs came back and launched the iPod and it was totally going to make everyone incredibly rich (or at least pay off college). Market analysts were of course going sell, sell, sell you fools but nope.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 17, 2016


Vuron, the difference is that if you're a nation state working through diplomatic responses to various threats, you're just a thing that's trying to exist and get the best deal for itself. If you take a setback today, there's always tomorrow. Unless your nation state gets disassembled or colonized, you live on to fight another day, even if that fight will be based on the shitty circumstances that resulted from today.

If you're running for the nomination of the Democratic party, it's a win/lose thing. Someone will win, and someone will lose. Party cohesion and winning the general election are the most important thing for everyone playing the game, and thus you base your calculus on knowing you may lose fair and square for reasons entirely outside your control, and knowing that there's a bit of political theatre at the end that the loser has to comply with in order to not poison the well forever.

The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy. (Well real life diplomacy, anyway.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Right now Austria is holding out for a power sharing arrangement when he's down to maybe 3 supply centers and Hillary has like 10 and Trump has like 8

and that really ended up well for everyone, didn't it? - germany lost and went bankrupt and eventually went fascist, austria ceased to exist as an empire, russia had a revolution, turkey tore itself apart with civil war and ethnic cleansing, france and italy were their usual fun selves, britain kept looking for a way out, and the americans, off the board, made a lot of money until the stock market crashed

hmmm

are you sure this is an analogy you're making?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 AM on June 17, 2016


Pope Guilty- maybe a picture of a domestic violence victim with a "look what you made me do" caption would wake people up to the how their facebook rants could be perceived because that was basically the image that popped into my head based upon god knows how many movie scenes with essentially that dialogue and that sort of violence (which I assume was your intent but maybe he was too clueless to understand the subtext).

I hate having to shock people awake with actual text that confronts people with the underlying nature of their rhetoric but I am increasingly coming around to the side that yep sometimes shocking people is the only way to make them wake up.
posted by vuron at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016




The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy

actually, it's more like mexican roulette - many lose, one wins
posted by pyramid termite at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016


maybe a picture of a domestic violence victim with a "look what you made me do"

Ew, no.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sanders failure to appreciate the writing on the wall and parlay his broad base of support during it's high point into a position of increased influence within the Clinton campaign was basically a missed moment.

That assumes you take him at his word about wanting to move the US left through any means available, rather than his primary goal (hah!) being to become president for the sake of being president. My willingness to give him the benefit of that doubt is quickly going away.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump

I suppose there's a kind of logic in there about how, by electing an unelectable candidate, the Democratic base did it to ourselves and now Trump will inevitably win.

The problem is that this logic is rooted in... well, a lot of things, but mostly misogyny (Clinton can't possibly win because she's a woman) and also a high degree of delusion about Sanders' own chances in the general.
posted by Sara C. at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or, as someone pointed out, he's afraid that if he makes nice and enthusiastically endorses Clinton, he loses whatever influence and input he has left to shape the campaign or the party.

But at some point - maybe not realistically ever, maybe soon, maybe already passed - it could shift from "Make nice and we'll do this for you" to "Make nice or lose your slot on Budget" or some other actual punishment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.

Or a Greg Schiano-coached football team that, outscored and outplayed, rushes the victory formation in an attempt to knock the winner on their ass.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


The problem is that this logic is rooted in... well, a lot of things, but mostly misogyny (Clinton can't possibly win because she's a woman) and also a high degree of delusion about Sanders' own chances in the general.

Also, buying into the decades-old right wing propaganda that Hillary Clinton is "the most hated woman in America".
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


"I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Why does this person assume we can somehow not only read his mind, but read it four months into the future when he's thinking about voting? Unless your friend is a celebrity endorser of Sanders (Sarandon, Ruffalo, etc.), then I can safely say I had absolutely no idea what his thinking is or will be.

And doesn't this also undercut an argument that Sanders supporters put forward towards the beginning of the primaries: That we shouldn't vote for who we think will win, but who we actually WANT? Well, some people genuinely WANTED Clinton to be president, just like some people WANTED Sanders for president, even though he might not have had the best chance to win.
posted by FJT at 9:44 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have progressive yet Hillary haters in my family who love Sanders. Okay, whatever. I just want to get along with them. But it's hard when they make vague inchoate statements of the evil of HRC. So I guess I personally resent Sanders for his position because he could help this rift in the party, he doesn't seem to want to, and it's progressives around the dinner table who are having these ridiculous conversations because we don't want to inspire an anti-HRC rant because there's always the danger that angrycat will Hulk-out and start flipping tables and whatnot in response to how the left has internalized right-wing bull shit.

So Bernie, fucking reign it in, for the sake of us all. God, I'm sick of it.
posted by angrycat at 9:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [