At least we know she knows where France is.
September 16, 2016 8:36 PM   Subscribe

With 52 days to go until the U.S. presidential election, the polls are tightening and some Democrats and Republicans are freaking out that Clinton might not win "this easy-ass election." (Nate Silver says we can wait a week before surrendering to panic.)

Miscellanea:
posted by lalex (4725 comments total) 102 users marked this as a favorite
 
As if everything weren't strange enough, we've somehow ended up back with the birthers and also it was Hillary's fault all along? Stop the world I want to get off.
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:38 PM on September 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


So begins the next episode of Donald Trump Craps the World
posted by perspicio at 8:40 PM on September 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


thx lalex. lose, trump. (I'm still embarrassed that he's a major party nominee.)

I can almost not believe this election is real, and I won't be able to wrap my head around everything until Clinton wins...

or
posted by defenestration at 8:41 PM on September 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


also, I cannot help but imagine Fallon ruffling Hitler's hair and playing stupid games with him and fake laughing
posted by defenestration at 8:42 PM on September 16, 2016 [90 favorites]


My brain hurts, in cryptic and confusing ways.
posted by aramaic at 8:43 PM on September 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I keep waking up and remembering Donald fucking Trump is the goddamn Republican nominee for President and is way, way too close to approaching having a shot at winning.

This is our reality. Our country is trolling itself.
posted by defenestration at 8:48 PM on September 16, 2016 [31 favorites]


Next week: "I never said Obama was born in America, okay? I never said that."
posted by uosuaq at 8:49 PM on September 16, 2016 [49 favorites]


imagine Fallon ruffling Hitler's hair and playing stupid games with him and fake laughing

Rolling over to let Kim Jong-Un pet his belly

Begging Franco to scratch behind his ears

Doing a dance routine with Qaddafi's Amazonian Guard
posted by Existential Dread at 8:51 PM on September 16, 2016 [22 favorites]


God help us if it all came down to Jimmy Fallon.

Also: Fuck you, Jimmy Fallon.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:51 PM on September 16, 2016 [63 favorites]


Honestly, with his track record during the primaries, Nate Silver telling me not to panic makes me want to curl up on the floor while weeping and sucking my thumb.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:51 PM on September 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


All we can do is vote, and encourage others to vote. And vote *effectively*. Remind your friends this is not the time for a protest vote. If you know young people, talk to them, register them. Get out the vote.
posted by frumiousb at 8:51 PM on September 16, 2016 [31 favorites]


Begging Franco to scratch behind his ears

I believe he already did that to Dave Franco thinking he was a Spanish dictator.
posted by Talez at 8:52 PM on September 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


(should be: help them register, typing too fast.)
posted by frumiousb at 8:53 PM on September 16, 2016


I wouldn't be surprised if next week he says Obama was never born anywhere at all, and sprung fully-formed from the bowels of Lucifer himself.

Except he'll pronounce "Lucifer" wrong. "Luke-ifer", or something.
posted by rifflesby at 8:53 PM on September 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


Okay but at one point 538 had Clinton at 89% to win and since that's describing the same election that must mean it's still true because I choose to believe that's what math means
posted by beerperson at 8:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


While Fallon was ruffling Trump's hair, here's what other "Late Night TV Comedians" were doing. And that doesn't include the guy on right after him, Seth Whatsisname.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


The title of that Nate Silver article is the worst kind of clickbait.
posted by Bistle at 8:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't be surprised if next week he says Obama was never born anywhere at all, and sprung fully-formed from the bowels of Lucifer himself.

Ben Carson already claimed that for Hillary. Obama would have to be the spawn of Belial.
posted by Talez at 8:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Excellent thread title. It was one of those I had rattling around my brain for the first debate, but the timing here is great.

My "Election 2016" Twitter list is blowing up. It includes a fair number of media sources that may cover other political topics (or in some cases, stuff unrelated to the campaign, if you can remember such things exist), but it's usually pretty easy to keep track of. This birther nonsense, and in particular the crappy way Trump has treated the press in the last 24 hours, has really pushed everyone into a new gear.

If the moderation of the first debate is anything even remotely like that Matt Lauer event, I almost fear violence might erupt--this time initiated by the political media. I work around journalists, so the idea that they might storm the castle is kind of hilarious, but there is FINALLY some real outrage happening.

(My less charitable side is thinking that journalists can manage a dispassionate stance when reporting on Trump trolling the population at large, but when the troller blades are turned in their direction, all bets are off.)
posted by Superplin at 8:56 PM on September 16, 2016 [15 favorites]


If my Facebook feed and suggested articles are any indication (the algorithm is terrible, but I do have a number of Trump and Johnson supporters among my "friends"), the tide of news coverage is finally starting to turn. I click all negative Trump articles every time they come up, hoping to boost their visibility and send a message to news orgs that anti-Trump, reality-based reporting pays off.
posted by witchen at 8:56 PM on September 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


I wouldn't be surprised if next week he says Obama was never born anywhere at all, and sprung fully-formed from the bowels of Lucifer himself.

Impossible! No less than President Obama himself revealed the video of his own birth; you can watch it here.
posted by lalex at 8:57 PM on September 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Regarding the Fallon interview, and a lot of his shtick and appeal in general, I cannot help but think of Gawker's essay about what the author used the word "smarm" to describe. So much of internet culture and our culture and pop culture is dripping in it, and that's how you get interviews like that one. Warts and all, I do miss Gawker.
posted by defenestration at 8:58 PM on September 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


January 25, 2017

Act 1: Morning
Advisers burst into Trump's room - "Mr. President, Putin has invaded Azerbaijan!!"
Trump: *stares blankly*
Adviser: "It's a country in the Caucasus."
Trump: *stares blankly*
Adviser: "It's a country."
Trump: "...........does he want help?"
Adviser: "I...uh, what"

Act 2: Late Morning
GOP Representative: "Sir, we need you to lay out your agenda for us this session. What legislation should we propose to bring manufacturing jobs back to America?"
Trump: "Did you see this garbage? Tweeter egg WhiteHitler69 tipped me off that a letter to the editor in Wisconsin was worried about my rhetoric?!?
GOP Representative: "Ah, no, I didn't. Sir, should we include some sort of punishment for companies moving their operations overseas?"
Trump: "....sad that the irrelevant....how do you spell 'She-boy-gan'?"
GOP Representative: "That offends me."

Act 3: Afternoon
*At Press Conference*
Trump: "Believe me, we are going to do great. things. here in the White House. Great. Things."
Reporter: "Sir, you're now in the White House. Could you elaborate?"
Trump: "We're bringing in the best people. The. best. people."
Reporter: "Yes, I saw Secretary of State Alex Jones earlier. How are you going to deal with the shift in trade policy from Latin American countries away from the U.S.?"
Trump: ".........get him out of here!!" *Swarm of Secret Service Officers wearing Trump brand shirts hustle the reporter out of the room*
Trump: "Next question"
Only reporter left in room: *Looks around* "Sir, what is your response to President Hollande saying you had "a bit of a quick temper?"
Trump: *Balls fist*

At 4: Evening
Trump: "You're probably wondering why I gathered you here today."
Joint Chiefs: *Looking at strategical map of France displayed on the table*
"Bring me the briefcase."
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:58 PM on September 16, 2016 [137 favorites]


Except he'll pronounce "Lucifer" wrong. "Luke-ifer", or something.

Hail Satin! We've got only the finest satin sheets, so soft, the best.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:59 PM on September 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


After Trump wins, I'm sure there will be plenty of people telling themselves "at least he put the Mexicans in their place" as the nuclear bombs rain death upon us all.
posted by double block and bleed at 9:03 PM on September 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


if trump wins, there's a chance we'll go further down the post-fact path. like he'll be demonstrably awful and everything will be fucked domestically and internationally and people will just be like "well that's not how I see it"
posted by defenestration at 9:06 PM on September 16, 2016 [33 favorites]


After Trump wins, I'm sure there will be plenty of people telling themselves "at least he put the Mexicans in their place" as the nuclear bombs rain death upon us all.

Yes, a homophobic, Latino-hating, Muslim-hating, racist, sexist pig won the US presidency, but for a beautiful moment in time I got to stamp my feet and refuse to vote for Hillary. You’d understand if you saw how many people on Facebook were impressed with me at the time.
posted by Talez at 9:08 PM on September 16, 2016 [183 favorites]


So FiveThirtyEight's poll estimates Trump at 44.3% of the popular vote (Clinton 46.5%), and RealClearPolitics at 47% (Clinton at 41%(!)).

In 2012, Romney lost with 47.2% of the popular vote compared to Obama's 51.1%.

In other words, Trump's vast difference from Romney—one was a serious conservative candidate, the other is an ignorant con man who's reduced the media to talking about cartoon Nazi frog memes—apparently does not make a difference to the overall electorate. It's just another D versus R to people.

2016. At least it'll be over soon eventually.
posted by Rangi at 9:12 PM on September 16, 2016 [33 favorites]


I do miss Gawker.
Some of Gawker's better writers are making nice waves in other sites in the Formerly Gawker Network. Most notably The Concourse, a subsite of their sports site Deadspin (because it IS all a game, isn't it?) You just gotta know where to look...
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:13 PM on September 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


I really think a huge effect social media has had is making it harder for people to admit they were wrong in the face of a challenge or new evidence. You put your wrong opinion in print on the internet for everyone to see forever and it's a lot harder to be like, "Eh, you know what, maybe not so much with that." It was different when maybe you spouted off to your boyfriend or your cousin about some thing you didn't know much about because if you change your mind you can try to save face by denying it or being like, "Well, that's not how I remember it." Put that shit in writing for your 200 facebook friends? It takes a pretty mature person to admit they were wrong in front of that many people.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:15 PM on September 16, 2016 [46 favorites]


On my Google News feed right now, Clinton is the only one of the four Presidential candidates not mentioned except as the subject of a thinly veiled threat by one of the other candidates.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:17 PM on September 16, 2016 [2 favorites]




Relevant:

The Commission on Presidential Debates has weighed in. Its Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria will not allow Gary Johnson or Jill Stein into the first presidential debate, which is scheduled to take place on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in New York. USA Today: "Candidates were required to reach 15% support in a selection of national polls to qualify... Johnson had 8.4% backing, while Stein had 3.2%." Johnson and running mate, Bill Weld, plan to hold their own debates. Weld, speaking to Reason last week: "[We will be] standing together on the street corner outside every debate venue answering the same questions as in the debate in real time, you know, putting it out on Facebook."
posted by mr_bovis at 9:21 PM on September 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


>We are staring into the abyss of a Trump presidency, and many people are to blame

Andrew Coyne's Twitter feed is always amusing. He's a highly entertaining commentator.
posted by My Dad at 9:22 PM on September 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


that's cool Gary
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:23 PM on September 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


2016. At least it'll be over soon eventually.

2016 was already lengthened by a leap day in February, and it'll be extended again by a leap second in December. It's going to be a long year.
posted by mbrubeck at 9:25 PM on September 16, 2016 [47 favorites]


He's a highly entertaining commentator.

For me, nothing beats Coyne when he sets "invective" to high:

"What about the media? Should they wear this? . . . For succumbing to Trump’s months-long war of attrition on human reason — the insults, the craziness, the elemental errors, the literally hundreds of lies, by which Trump advertised his Olympian disdain for any of the usual standards of behaviour, and so made it impossible for anyone else to hold him to account?"
posted by nubs at 9:27 PM on September 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


I do feel a touch abd bad that your FPP about candidates not being let in the debates was...not let into MetaFilter, so thanks for bringing it over here mr_bovis.

I don't really get the hate I keep seeing over the 15% threshold, even though I understand it obviously angers supporters of third parties. It seems reasonable that there be some kind of threshold for the debates. Is there anything really so terrible about having one?
posted by zachlipton at 9:29 PM on September 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


Donald says Hillary started birtherism and he finished it.

He may as well read lorem ipsum at this point.
posted by adept256 at 9:32 PM on September 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's all in keeping with his life-long practice of Having It Both Ways.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:35 PM on September 16, 2016 [5 favorites]


I feel like this whole shift to a tight race came in a flurry of:

1. All Clinton Foundation, All the Time
2. Matt Lauer and that fucking C-in-C forum where he went all-emails, no substance on Clinton and rolled over for Trump
3. Clinton said something demonstrably true about Trump's hold on the racist vote and the media freaked out like that was somehow a bad thing
4. Clinton got pneumonia and some bad footage of her nearly passing out and oh my god why didn't she tell the world she was under the weather
5. The NYT defended its false equivalency strategy on the basis of false equivalency (as a MeFite noted they could've just posted an Xzibit meme)
...and in that same week, most of the big media outlets (aside from WaPo and some internet sites) basically gave up on covering Trump. Like, at all.

It really doesn't feel like Clinton did a faceplant to me so much as she had one bad day (the pneumonia) at the same time the media basically decided "fuck it this is too hard."

I swear I'm at a point where the only thing I want out of the news networks, NYT, and NPR is the sort of sobbing "I'm sorry" apology your bf/gf gives while you're walking out on them and they damn well know you're right to do it. I mean what I really want is for them to get their fucking act together and start doing some goddamn journalism, but I'm kinda past hoping for that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:46 PM on September 16, 2016 [152 favorites]


"Candidates were required to reach 15% support in a selection of national polls to qualify... Johnson had 8.4% backing, while Stein had 3.2%."

The irony is that if it weren't for Harambe's role as spoiler, Stein would have gotten enough support to attend the debate.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:46 PM on September 16, 2016 [18 favorites]


I really think a huge effect social media has had is making it harder for people to admit they were wrong in the face of a challenge or new evidence.

Possibly. I do think there's a different effect on display, which is that you're never alone with your ideas and beliefs, no matter how fucking awful they are. The internet era has helped people in isolated communities who were unjustly marginalised and it's also created a competition for the town bigot to out-bigot the other bigots in a virtual city of bigotry.

There's irony in how Trump is a creation of social media's ability to gather vicious fuckwits in the unbridled service of hatred and harassment, but his campaign has had purchase on the media establishment because cablenews producers treat it like a wobbly tooth in the back of their mouth.
posted by holgate at 9:48 PM on September 16, 2016 [17 favorites]


For anybody who is interested, The Truth about Pepe the Frog and the Cult of Kek.

(tldr--it came from 4chan)
posted by bukvich at 9:50 PM on September 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


Let's keep this simple: Pepe is the Anti-Kermit.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:52 PM on September 16, 2016 [12 favorites]


zachlipton:

Yes, the fate of my post was unfortunate, though I can't help smiling a touch at the series of events.

I like the idea of setting the bar lower for the first debate -- say at 5% -- though even that plan is not without its failings. You will always have someone complaining that the bar is too high even at a lower percentage. Johnson didn't get near this high last year and wouldn't have made a 5% cutoff, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the Debate Commission's criteria is that it doesn't take into account the various polls (as high as 52% in one) that say the public wants to see Johnson/Stein in the debates. It also doesn't address unfavorability (56% Clinton, 63% Trump in one poll). I don't know about any ratings for Johnson or Stein unfavorability.
posted by mr_bovis at 9:53 PM on September 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


What the fuck is Jimmy Fallon supposed to do? The problem is not that Jimmy Fallon didn't play hardball, the problem is that something that rounds up to about 50% of the country is prepared to vote for Richie Rich Racy Racist.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:53 PM on September 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Let's make it more simple: fuck Pepe, fuck 4chan, fuck the alt-right, and fuck Trump.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [34 favorites]


My reaction when Pepe went from something silly to being the badge of the scum of the internet: feels bad, man.
posted by tclark at 9:54 PM on September 16, 2016 [21 favorites]


My reaction when Pepe went from something silly to being the badge of the scum of the internet: feels bad, man.

Over on the earlier thread, someone commented that this election cycle has their parent's watching MSNBC all the time, and they saw and commented on her pepe story. I realized that pepe is actually the perfect spokesman for Donald Trump and his supporters' misogyny, racist, and hate because to mostly everyone who is in the category "Olds" pepe is completely context free, therefore to them ( and myself ) **ALL** pepe stands for is misogynistic racists.

Let's keep this simple: Pepe is the Anti-Kermit.

Indeed.
posted by mikelieman at 9:58 PM on September 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jesus, bukvich, that makes every part of my psyche hurt.
posted by argybarg at 10:02 PM on September 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


yeah. a young woman interned at my company over a year ago and would drop sad pepe into slack every once in a while, at opportune times. it kinda caught on, and we wound up making an emoji out it in her honor when her internship was over. over time, it kinda became the default bummer emoji.

yesterday, I wound up bringing up my personal moratorium on pepe stuff because of all the associations it now has with the alt-right, white supremacists, and antisemites, etc. even among a group of young, techy programmer-types, who very much trade in internet culture, most of my coworkers had no clue pepe had taken on so many negative connotations—that it was now a symbol of which repugnant bigots have taken ownership.
posted by defenestration at 10:03 PM on September 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


My reaction when Pepe went from something silly to being the badge of the scum of the internet: feels bad, man.

I need a new cell phone case. My first thought, given the way Jon Bernthal fucking nailed his performance of Frank Castle in season two of Daredevil (hell, better than any comic version of the character), was to get a Punisher skull for my phone.

Except, on the day that I was about to do that, I had clicked on whatever political hashtag was going through Twitter and I saw more than one racist white nationalist asshole spouting Trump bullshit with a Punisher skull as his Twitter icon. And god damn it, Frank was never about that. Never. Like I've lost count of the number of times the comic cast those dudes as the bad guys.

But I looked at those icons and I thought about when I discovered terms like "nice guy" and "friend zone" had these awful connotations I'd never heard of before. I don't want to have to explain myself to anyone because some brainless assholes decided to adopt one of my fictional favorites as one of their mascots. So my cell phone still doesn't have a case.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:09 PM on September 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


what I really want is for them to get their fucking act together and start doing some goddamn journalism, but I'm kinda past hoping for that.

PBS tonight: “Let’s start with the birther lie” from Judy Woodruff.

I think the hubris on display over the past two days -- stranding the Trump embeds on the bus, teasing the birther shit, Fallon, this morning's rickroll / hotel promo, this evening's megalomania -- has blown away a little of the fog. Trump's feeling cokefiend-powerful right now and redoubling on every bet. Tomorrow he's in Texas to wave the bloody shirt again against illegal immigrants. Yeah, it relies upon top-tier media thinking themselves special snowflakes, but if that's what it takes.... Let's see if it lasts.

(Hillary is in DC tomorrow evening at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's legislative conference, and Obama will give the final keynote; Sanders and Warren are doing multiple events in Ohio.)
posted by holgate at 10:09 PM on September 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


On Wednesday, October 12th, I'm toddling down the street to my MIL and FIL's house. we are going to go out for a nice breakfast, then we are going to the old Veteran's Services building in downtown Toledo to cast our votes. It's the first day of early voting, and we're doing it in person to make sure our votes are counted. This will undoubtedly annoy OH Sec. State Jon Husted, who really wants Dems to vote absentee.

And then I am not looking at another godsdamned bit of election coverage until November 9th. I am out of cope. I am in negative spoon territory. The nightmares, I thankfully do not remember (thanks, Lexapro!), but I apparently wake up screaming every night about the election. My poor husband. My poor dogs. I cannot bear to hear Trump's bellowing any more - I literally begin to gag, I can feel the urge to vomit rising. The heartburn is doing me in. The desire to crawl into the Bourbon decanter is dangerous in its ease to satisfy.

I'm not going to be able to sleep until I cast my vote, then turn it all off.
posted by MissySedai at 10:18 PM on September 16, 2016 [70 favorites]


I never imagined myself saying anything good about Trump, but he seems to brilliantly understand how the media works. It would be a wonderful irony of the way he trolled them today actually made them mad enough to start doing actual journalism.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:26 PM on September 16, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think the hubris on display over the past two days ... has blown away a little of the fog.

So the 177th time is the charm? There's no blowing away the fog -- it escapes in tendrils from the nostrils of the media every time they exhale. My best guess is that, since they are (despite appearances) human like the rest of us, they have preferences, and their sweet spot is about Hillary +3. When she drops below this margin, they turn up the heat on Trump (using whatever fresh content he's generated that day) until that margin gets back up. And when Hillary pulls too far ahead, they dredge up whatever fresh email/Foundation scandal the Republicans are drumming on that day until she's back down. +3 is just about right -- they don't want Trump to win, but they don't want people to tune out either. So I expect we'll see a few more days of anti-Trump until Hillary's numbers rebound a bit.

Alas, like most everyone else, they don't really appreciate that +3 / 70% probability still means a 1 in 3 chance of blowing our collective brains out, but at least in that regard, they aren't unlike the rest of us who were so overconfident just a few days ago, and will likely be again when that margin bounces back up to +5 for however long that lasts.
posted by chortly at 10:37 PM on September 16, 2016 [28 favorites]


Just, I want to know, do I need to panic?
posted by stoneweaver at 10:48 PM on September 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just, I want to know, do I need to panic?

Probably, yes.

Are there any journalists here who can explain why this is happening? I mean, Trump has done 1,000,000 things worse than Clinton and it isn't getting play. Why?
posted by frumiousb at 10:53 PM on September 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


Don't panic yet.
posted by all about eevee at 10:55 PM on September 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


The debates haven't even happened yet.
posted by all about eevee at 11:00 PM on September 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are there any journalists here who can explain why this is happening?

Trump is bizarre and fascinating. He's transgressive. He's a quote machine. We all want to talk about him.

How do you not write about him?

Also, does anyone notice that we're in the he age of the sociopath? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Hannibal Lecter, Donald Trump. For whatever reason we're riveted by these men. It's something that people of even 50 years ago would, I think, have struggled to comprehend.
posted by argybarg at 11:01 PM on September 16, 2016 [37 favorites]


It's the old "Man Bites Dog" joke about newspaper headlines gone horribly wrong.

If Clinton does something awesome and professional and presidential... it's not news. If she makes any sort of mistake or has any sort of imperfection... it's news.

If Trump does something racist and terrible, or something bafflingly incompetent... it's not news. If Trump does something human or competent... it's news.

Thus we have "Hillary's 2 Days off for Pneumonia Raise Concerns About Her Health" and "Trump Admits that Obama was Born in America" as actual headlines, and my head has a bump where I keep banging it against my desk.
posted by mmoncur at 11:03 PM on September 16, 2016 [125 favorites]


Don't panic yet.
posted by Fizz at 11:05 PM on September 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


So Trump has decided to repeat his bit about taking away the guns from Clinton's Secret Service detail, on Twitter, at 2am.

He's also seen fit to tweet out this Washington Post story: Donald Trump’s birther event is the greatest trick he’s ever pulled. It would appear the cheeto is pleased with himself.
posted by zachlipton at 11:12 PM on September 16, 2016 [28 favorites]


Just, I want to know, do I need to panic?

Earth has been upgraded from Harmless to Mostly Harmless.
posted by adept256 at 11:17 PM on September 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


The debates should go heavily in Hillary's favor since she is going to be debating with a walking blob of cat puke and we should see anxiety-easing numbers following them. If that does not happen or if the public somehow manages to forget what a disaster he is between the debates and the election, then you panic and start campaigning for Giant Meteor and planning the 2020 Arizona Bay MeFi meetup. Just plan ahead, Giant Meteor is heavily in favor of dismantling all infrastructure so you will probably be walking to the meetup.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:17 PM on September 16, 2016 [9 favorites]


How do you not write about him?

You recognize the harm this is doing and you decide to do something healthier for everyone instead.

Also, does anyone notice that we're in the he age of the sociopath? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Hannibal Lecter, Donald Trump. For whatever reason we're riveted by these men. It's something that people of even 50 years ago would, I think, have struggled to comprehend.

I reiterate my position.
It's one thing to observe something from the safety of "it's just entertainment" and hopefully a healthy degree of critical thought. It's another entirely to play with that in a situation that has real consequences to real people.

I have absolutely no sympathy for people -- especially people with the power to affect all this -- who can't seem to pull their eyes off the wreck on the freeway and drive their fucking cars like they're supposed to.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:18 PM on September 16, 2016 [29 favorites]


Trump has done 1,000,000 things worse than Clinton and it isn't getting play. Why?

Clinton way out in front is boring. The media prefers a tight race.
posted by dave99 at 11:18 PM on September 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


You can't generalize the motives of the media people or their masters, they are as varied as the programming on the SyFy Channel... okay bad example. But the last couple days have 'defogged' the view for some media profesionals... of course, the fog will never clear around the Old Grey Lady; meanwhile Comcast really wants an FCC that'll give 'em a blank check, but they'll let MSNBC do its thing as long as it doesn't threaten to have an influence; the other owners, Disney and TimeWarner and Univision and Tronc and Amazon and Redstone and Murdoch, all have varying agendas and varying levels of dedication to them (if FoxNews fears competition from TrumpTV but expects it to happen even if Trump WINS, they could do some weird pivoting). Trump should have been fully exposed as a fraud 48 hours after he made his first announcement to run, but that's not how the American Media works; he's providing them dramatic, 'entertaining', audience-grabbing content at minimal cost, just as he has for 30 freaking years.

And thank you argybarg for saying something I've been trying to... we've got a culture where gangsters, serial killers and medieval despots are our TV heroes and the movies are dominated by superheroes trying to kill each other... and then there's the craze over zombies, the perfect faceless "other" to build a national state of paranoia. Decades of anti-government propaganda have made one of the most accomplished women in America into the Ultimate Villain (and we are still so bogged down in misogyny, but you know that).

Still, I, for one, was gobsmacked that anyone with as non-American a name as Barack Obama could be elected President eight years ago. When I read the first news story about this young, tall, black man in Illinois, my first thought was "dude, if you want to get anywhere, change that first name to Barry". We turned out to be better than I thought, and we still could again.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:27 PM on September 16, 2016 [51 favorites]


You can't generalize the motives of the media people or their masters, they are as varied as the programming on the SyFy Channel... okay bad example.

Maybe you can't generalize the motives of the journalists, but their masters? That's easy. Their motive is profit. And their relationship with Trump is a profitable one (people read/watch stories about him). Very very simple.

And sad.
posted by el io at 11:32 PM on September 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, does anyone notice that we're in the he age of the sociopath? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Hannibal Lecter, Donald Trump. For whatever reason we're riveted by these men.

I didn't get into Breaking Bad until during the airing of the 4th season, and after I caught up I went online looking for people talking about the show, as you do. I was shocked by the number of people who really, earnestly believed that Walter White was somehow a heroic figure (and of course the huge contingent that believed that Skyler was somehow a villain). It's a view that's completely divorced from both the facts of the show's story and from the show's tone, but there are a lot of people who were quite vehement about it.

I don't exactly know how that particular lack of critical thinking skills plays into this crisis, but it's hard to imagine the two things are completely unrelated.


What the fuck is Jimmy Fallon supposed to do?

Off the top of my head, here are some options that are absolutely within Jimmy Fallon's power that would have been better than the everything-but-a-blowjob-on-live-television performance he gave:
1) Refuse to interview Trump. I'm sure Fallon has the power to just nix a guest even if there might be repercussions from the network, but even if that's not the case a person with a conscience would have just refused to come in that day.
2) Use the fact that Trump is a ridiculous clown to make some comedy while reinforcing reality and refusing to help him do evil. Point out Trump's obvious lies, make some jokes out of it. You know, his goddamned job.

When Jimmy Fallon emerged into the public eye on SNL, he was a cut-rate Sandler replacement, but he couldn't even do the job. His schtick was the same, but his impressions were worse and his songs were worse. The only remotely funny thing he did during his entire tenure there was actually an impression of Sandler on Celebrity Jeopardy. It is frankly mind-boggling that he started as diet Sandler and managed to find a way to get worse.

Now he's playing pattycake with a real-life monster whose only goal is tearing our society apart at the seams so he can replace it with a more hateful, less equal parody of itself. If he has a conscience he'll resign in shame. Of course, if he had a conscience he couldn't have done what he did in the first place.
posted by IAmUnaware at 11:37 PM on September 16, 2016 [53 favorites]


Well, Trump sells copies, which move ad space or TV time or Facebook ads or whatever makes the money that drives the media. I used to work in media and the thoughtful actual-journalism took a long time to produce and never got as much traffic as finding a funny picture and running it beside an article vaguely related to it. The media is dying and no one is quite sure how to make money off it. But Trump! He's got people watching until they're physically ill, like the poster up thread. Every "mic drop," every "John Oliver totally destroys and leaves a smoking crater," every Facebook argument, every bit of engagement with the process makes someone money. Why wouldn't they want to keep him in the news when nobody can bring themselves to look away?

As for why he has an audience, to me it parallels the Remain side's argument in the UK during the Brexit vote. Which is basically "look, it's not great, but if you don't you're a racist, you racist." Some people don't think of themselves as racist, so that bounces right off. Some see the left calling everyone and everything racist, so the label doesn't have any punch. And some people actually are racist and view Trump's racism as a feature, not a bug.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:38 PM on September 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also, does anyone notice that we're in the he age of the sociopath? Tony Soprano, Walter White, Hannibal Lecter, Donald Trump. For whatever reason we're riveted by these men. It's something that people of even 50 years ago would, I think, have struggled to comprehend.

That does explain something for me, I'm never at all interested in those kinds of movies, shows, or people. I've often felt like the odd one out about that. I don't understand what makes it interesting.
posted by bongo_x at 11:38 PM on September 16, 2016 [19 favorites]


They are people who are surviving, and thriving if only momentarily, by bucking the rules we've all generally decided to follow as a society. Escapist fantasy writ large and destructive.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:42 PM on September 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


As I said, Trump has been providing the media with "dramatic, 'entertaining', audience-grabbing content at minimal cost for 30 freaking years," and never so much as during the Insane Campaign. I think media executive opinions will vary widely whether he'd continue to do so as President, when a pile of other factors will come into play. A Trump with actual power would do a lot of real damage (even without nuking anything), but he could be very very good for certain special interests, and The Media as a whole is not one (certain subsets are). It still looks unlikely that media handling of his campaign could deliver him a victory, but you can see that likelihood in the rear view mirror and it has gotten closer.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:48 PM on September 16, 2016 [1 favorite]




do I need to panic?

If panicking has any beneficial effect on action -- not just voting, but more substantial action like donating serous money, phone banking, door to door, or just standing on a street corner shouting -- then yes, absolutely.

But you should have been panicking last month as well, and if Clinton bounces back, you should still be panicking. This idea that now that 2 or 3 of the 6 chambers are loaded we should now panic but back then when only one was loaded everyone was totally fine about putting the gun to our collective head and pulling the trigger is nuts. I'd say that until the chance of national and possibly world destruction is below, say, 5%, we should all be panicking if that has any beneficial effect. The looming disaster is huge. Whether it has a 50% chance or a 15% chance shouldn't change the fact that we should be doing absolutely everything in our power, even more than we did in 2008, to avoid that very real possibility.
posted by chortly at 12:12 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


One of the things that seems a little odd about the Pepe meme among other things is that there is clearly a divide among people who are at least vaguely aware of the darker side of internet culture and those who know nothing at all about it. Those older relatives or acquaintances who say they are voting for Trump perhaps need to become a little more familiar with their allies and where some of the guiding "principles" and figures of the Trump campaign have come from. To that end, I would seriously consider linking those people to 4chan and letting them get a good look at who it is they are supporting.

Delicacy around this for fear of offending this just allows sites like 4chan to continue to do what they do without much direct notice and allows them to continue their own offensiveness. If people want to support Trump, that's their right, but allowing them to remain blind to what that means is doing no one any favors.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:47 AM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


2016. At least it'll be over soon eventually.

2016 may end, but this election will never be over. Whoever wins, a significant portion of the other side will never accept the outcome. Maybe that's always been the case, but at this point so many people just don't even give the process any validity. The Trumpies will cry "Rigged!" or the Dems will blame the media etc. The whole thing will be argued and litigated indefinitely. And, if it actually does wind up at SCOTUS (possible) look out! This ain't 2000, and people will not just chill out and let the court select a winner.
posted by Gotanda at 12:51 AM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Jimmy Fallon

Nicole Kidman dodged a bullet there.

Jeebus, I just looked up her name to make sure I spelled it correctly...and she is five weeks younger than I am. I need to figure out how many orders of magnitude more than 5 weeks I look older than she does, but it's not 1.
posted by maxwelton at 12:58 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


In 2000 I thought it was completely embarrassing to be an American when Bush won, but I remember me and several of my friends saying "What's the worst that can happen? He's President, but it's not like he can wreck the country in a couple of years." Good times.

Maybe Trump is just trying to save Bush's legacy? He would make Bush look good in comparison.
posted by bongo_x at 12:58 AM on September 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


If I knew how to do stuff like that, I would make a YouTube video of Donald Trump riding down the escalator set to AC/DC's Highway to Hell. If someone does it, please memail the link to me.
posted by Daddy-O at 1:24 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If I knew how to do stuff like that, I would make a YouTube video of Donald Trump riding down the escalator set to AC/DC's Highway to Hell.

Like this?
posted by KirkpatrickMac at 1:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


In the spirit of self-care - Starling recently gave birth to six kittens and you can watch them live, 24/7. There is also the Calming Manatee. Remember to take breaks if fear becomes overwhelming, put this in the context of a longer Campaign, and try to be kind to each other. This has been a stressful year in a lot of ways.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [50 favorites]


About the young and the olds: I know a young person who was going on and on about all the failings of Hillary and how she and Trump were equally bad, and I asked where that came from. Well it was their American Studies prof and he is brilliant, they say. Yesterday, I looked him up, and lo-behold, he is a white, mustached Boomer. (Not anything against mustaches here, just underlining his gender-status). In a way I'm stating the obvious, given Sanders' age, but the reluctance to support Hillary among boomers and millennials are not unrelated. And (again, nothing new) the way white male professors use their status to promote misogyny is deplorable. I see it every day, and it is not at all limited to the few right wing profs.
Luckily, my young friend has a same-age friend who is an ardent Hillary supporter. And of course I am spamming them with all of the great articles mefites are providing.

re: Trump and birtherism, it is clear that his staff had strong-armed him into that press-somethingorother. The yuge delay was a big sign: he was fighting till the last moment against it. I wondered about why, because it is so clear that the Trump campaign has embraced the "deplorable" label. My guess is the Powell mails. They are really powerful, and should get more attention.

These days, I am dealing with very difficult stress issues. So I have crazy dreams. I dreamt that we were preparing some sort of fundraiser here at our house. (Completely inconceivable now, but not when my grans were alive, and in the dream they were). Hillary was sitting on a landing with a big cauliflower she was prepping for the snacks, and while it looked ok, it was bad inside. I came up to her saying we should complain about that type of bad produce, but she was all granny-like and said I should give the bad cabbage a chance. There is some sort of metaphor in this - can we get her to let go of her sympathy for the bad cabbage? Or something?
posted by mumimor at 2:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


My absentee ballot should be on the way soon. Doesn't matter all that much, since I'm voting in Maryland, but it makes me feel better.
posted by kyrademon at 2:54 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also Finnish Disco
My FB has several crazies posting BRING BERNIE BACK. An African friend posted this as an antidote
posted by mumimor at 2:55 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait, don't the new threads come on Mondays? Was I in a coma for a couple days? What's going on? My world is upended.
posted by Justinian at 3:36 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


> In a way I'm stating the obvious, given Sanders' age, but the reluctance to support Hillary among boomers and millennials are not unrelated. And (again, nothing new) the way white male professors use their status to promote misogyny is deplorable.

I'm sick of this "if you don't support Hillary you're misogynist" bullshit. That is so patronizing. I think she's a corporate sell-out and a warhawk. I don't care what gender she is.
posted by technodelic at 3:40 AM on September 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


How do you feel about Joe Biden?
posted by Justinian at 3:42 AM on September 17, 2016 [58 favorites]


"I say to the leadership of the Democratic Party, open the doors, let the people in, or the other option for the Democratic Party, which I see as a very sad and tragic option, is to choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big money campaign contributions, and be a party with limited participation and limited energy and a party which, incredibly, is allowing a right-wing extremist Republican Party to capture the votes of a majority of working people in this country."
--Bernie Sanders
posted by technodelic at 3:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Jimmy Fallon will be around long after Hilliary or Trump and that's what makes America great.
posted by clavdivs at 3:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


technodelic, Sanders has also says he likes, respects and supports Clinton even as there are places where he disagrees with her. Cherry picking.
posted by frumiousb at 3:49 AM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


frumiousb, you can like and even respect someone as a person while disagreeing with their politics. I think one of the psychological hacks that is pulled on voters is to get them to identify with personalities instead of talking about issues. The great thing Bernie did was focus on issues, issues, issues. Particularly the issues people actually care about.

If the Democrats had actually wanted to win against Trump they would have nominated the candidate who polled higher against him, namely Sanders.

During the primary there was tremendous energy around Sanders. People phonebanked from their homes and did all kinds of crazy homebaked political activism. I went down to the Democratic HQ in Pasadena the other night and there just weren't that many people there. We had more people at the Sanders house meetings.

This tells me the Democratic leadership cares more about neoliberal policies than about actually winning. They learned the wrong lesson from McGovern back in 68.
posted by technodelic at 4:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Ah man, not this shit again.
posted by Justinian at 4:07 AM on September 17, 2016 [158 favorites]


During the primary there was tremendous energy around Sanders.

Not as much as Secretary Clinton had, apparently, given that she won the primary.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:13 AM on September 17, 2016 [125 favorites]


Margaret Sullivan, WaPo: It’s time for TV news to stop playing the stooge for Donald Trump

Oh lordy. Media, pundit thyself.

One of my musings from this election cycle that I've had is how every news organization has been suckered into a losing battle to be breaking news. Guess what, twitter won and you lost. NPR and AP and NYTimes and CNN are battling to be the first ones to post "Frist!" in the youtube comment section of life. But the world has changed, anybody with a smartphone can scoop them now. Breaking news is now the domain of citizen reporter.

The media's actual value is in their restraint, their ability to take a breath before running with breaking news, to add context and substance to their reporting. Instead of competing with Periscope, I wouldn't mind if NPR, CNN, or the Washington Post would take a moment to let the territory of truth settle a bit before publishing the map.
posted by peeedro at 4:17 AM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


Justinian, I'm just responding to people bemoaning the state of the race. It could have been different. I'm just sayin'.

Elementary Penguin, I guess you haven't heard all the personal testimonies from voters here in L.A. and other places who had their voter registrations changed, were switched to provisional ballots that were not counted until weeks after the primary, plus how AP called the election the night before California voted. Not to mention how much money the Clinton machine generated from wealthy donors versus the scrappy Sanders campaign that had to depend on mere people power.
posted by technodelic at 4:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Focus on issues would mean you say "I have some problems with Clinton's foreign policy position" not calling her a Warhawk. Again, cherry picking.
posted by frumiousb at 4:20 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


Oh, and never mind. I just saw the "election was stolen" argument. Which not even Sanders argues. You're more Catholic than the Pope and I'm out.
posted by frumiousb at 4:21 AM on September 17, 2016 [41 favorites]


Hillary Clinton got more votes than Bernie Sanders and she had more votes than him during the entire primary season. You can feel free to ignore the 14 million of us who voted for Hillary but don't act surprised when you get ignored right back.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:21 AM on September 17, 2016 [83 favorites]


OK - in a way I started this, I'm sorry; I only wanted to give a perspective on the young-old thing. Please lets not re-litigate the primaries. Secretary Clinton won.
Right now, the reality is that you can choose between Trump and Clinton. There are no other choices. If you vote for anything else, at this point you are supporting Trump. You own it.
posted by mumimor at 4:24 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


[YET ONCE AGAIN A MOD MUST ASK: please drop the repetitive fighting about Bernie Sanders. If you need some repetitive Bernie Sanders fighting to chew on for some reason, just go back and read the old threads where there is certainly more than enough to get your fill.]
posted by taz at 4:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [56 favorites]


No, there are indeed other choices. This whole "there are only two choices" is another thing I'm sick and tired of. When I vote for Jill Stein I'll voting for the issues that are important to me rather than some fake lesser-of-two-evils crap. If/when Democrats lose it will be because the establishment pushed an establishment candidate and froze out a candidate who really represented the people.
posted by technodelic at 4:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


We now return to your regularly scheduled repetitive millennial-bashing.
posted by enn at 4:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


In a way I'm relieved when 15 new posts appear in the thread in the middle of a Friday night and I discover that it's just the ghost of the Clinton vs. Sanders threads coming back for a visit.

At least a new Terrible Thing hasn't happened.
posted by mmoncur at 4:35 AM on September 17, 2016 [38 favorites]


Yeah well the millenials are the future. I say that as a Gen-Xer.
posted by technodelic at 4:35 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


How do you all still have the energy to discuss this? I feel like I'm sitting in a bomb shelter, in public, everytime I read about election news, and more when I see the comment thread on MeFi.
posted by yueliang at 4:40 AM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Honestly, I feel like I have to. I have a five year old son and I can't imagine what his world will be like if these neoliberal politicians to keep running our country. We have to change course.

During the primary I had a moment where I realized that if Sanders won I wanted to have been a part of it, and if he lost I don't want to have stood by doing nothing. I'm also a Linux user, if that means anything to you.
posted by technodelic at 4:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


When I vote for Jill Stein I'll voting for the issues that are important to me rather than some fake lesser-of-two-evils crap. If/when Democrats lose it will be because the establishment pushed an establishment candidate and froze out a candidate who really represented the people.

That's not how causation works. When you vote for Jill Stein, you may be raising the probability of a Trump victory; depending on your state, the effect may be more or less significant. If Trump wins, it will just be true to say that one of the causes of his victory is your vote for Stein. Your intentions, goals and desires won't make a difference to that effect. Of course it's fair to say that you're happy with that - you are prepared to increase the risk of a Trump victory in exchange for other things you value - but it's just a form of denial to disassociate your choice from its foreseeable results.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [173 favorites]


There are no other choices.

The left left left part of my Facebook is convinced the DNC are currently discussing how and when to swap in Sanders, and links to various alt-left news sources as incontrovertible proof. The fact that their main source also claimed NASA had just released new guidelines for astrologers didn't seem to trigger any amount of "wait, what" thinking.
posted by effbot at 4:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


mr_bovis: Johnson and running mate, Bill Weld, plan to hold their own debates. Weld, speaking to Reason last week: "[We will be] standing together on the street corner outside every debate venue answering the same questions as in the debate in real time, you know, putting it out on Facebook."

sebastienbailard:The irony is that if it weren't for Harambe's role as spoiler, Stein would have gotten enough support to attend the debate.

It would be worth going to down to Hofstra just to see Stein and Johnson debate with a dead gorilla on Hempstead Turnpike.
posted by dr_dank at 4:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes, the debates. The two major parties are scared to death that the public might hear someone like Stein and discover that they like what they hear.
posted by technodelic at 4:50 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


The two major parties are scared to death that the public might hear someone like Stein and discover that they like what they hear.

That seems... unlikely.
posted by Mooski at 4:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [123 favorites]


[A couple deleted. Technodelic, it seems like you are popping in to have a fight one way or another. Please give it a rest.]
posted by taz at 4:57 AM on September 17, 2016 [29 favorites]


This whole "there are only two choices" is another thing I'm sick and tired of.

1. There are only two people who have a chance of winning.
2. Stein is a clueless, pandering moron I wouldn't support even if the above weren't true.
3. The Green Party as a whole is a mess that needs to get its collective act together if it wants my supports and that starts with getting rid of Stein who uses them every four years when she runs low on money.
4. Some of us genuinely support Hillary and this lesser evils bullshit is just that - tired, lazy bullshit.

In other news, don't know if this has been mentioned yet but the Fraternal Order of Police has apparently endorsed Trump.
posted by asteria at 5:01 AM on September 17, 2016 [103 favorites]


Clinton's campaign and its media auxiliary have detoured way off track.

Trump's net negatives are the highest ever seen, and yet they seem to believe that the focus ought to be on raising his negatives further.

Trump's entire campaign is "I'm the man of the people" and yet they spend the last 6 weeks letting him pack arenas full of regular Americans while she sticks carefully to intimate parties full of millionaires and celebrities.

They seem to take comfort in the debates. They shouldn't. Trump held his own in the Republican debates despite moderators who were as anti-Trump as any we'll see coming up, and despite opponents all wielding one or more of the tools she believes she has to wield against him.

Here's what they need to do --

A Barbara Walters style interview in which Clinton once and for all explains why she had her email on a private server and apologizing for the risks it unintentionally conveyed

Allowing the Gates Foundation to acquire the Clinton Foundation and walking 100% away from it, followed a couple of news cycles later by donating her entire 2013 and later corporate speaking fee income to charity and promising that she and Bill will eschew all corporate income

Her own arena tour, and LOTS of public walking and standing for weeks on end. People need to see her as the healthy woman of the people, not just be told that what's she supposedly is.

Start to ignore Trump, and ditch the anti-Trump rhetoric ("racist," "sexist") that isn't going to move anyone who isn't already moved

Prepare a debate strategy which EMBRACES the hurt / fear / anger that has powered Trump supporters and explains why that is better expressed through voting for her.
posted by MattD at 5:04 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Just, I want to know, do I need to panic?

OMGF, you're waiting this late in the game?
posted by sammyo at 5:04 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Her own arena tour,

Sorry but that would backfire, a huge exciting, stirring, screaming event needs, excitement, stirring speeches and a huge number of excited fans that scream loudly.
posted by sammyo at 5:10 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


In the last thread, people were taking The Roots to task for seemingly doing nothing with Jimmy Fallon fawning over Trump. We should never doubt The Roots.

"Then you, you built a wall
A 20 foot wall, so I couldn't see
But if I get off my knees
I might recall I'm 20 feet tall."
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


"Stein 2016: Because you crave an untested savior"
posted by Burhanistan at 5:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Metafilter: give the bad cabbage a chance
posted by sammyo at 5:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


MattD, Clinton has done plenty of fundraising but it's pure hyperbole to suggest that she hasn't stumped for regular Americans in the last six weeks. Trump "held his own" in debates by occasionally interrupting policy talk stretched between 14 other candidates to deliver sick burns. One on one debates are a different animal. And the Gates Foundation can't just "take over" the Clinton Foundation. First, the Clinton Foundation oversees the Bill Clinton Presidential Library. Second, Clinton's charity does its own outreach, training, and missions. The Gates Foundation primarily hands out money to other organizations that already have infrastructure for polio vaccines and skeeter tents.
posted by xyzzy at 5:31 AM on September 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


"People need to see her as the healthy woman of the people, not just be told that what's she supposedly is."

Agreed but the rested and ready works too, shows pragmatic thinking to a complex situation. (Running for President)
There's a saturation point about health that the public will start to buck, I think we're there, as evidence, Donald's new humility and Hubris skit.
Remember, Teddy Roosevelt finished a speech with a bullet in his chest.

Not another fucking word about e-mail, or past "specters". Don't even mention a postage stamp.
Get Bill off the mic for more then 3 minutes.
Do not give or borrow your foundation to Bill Gates, that falls under the Glass House initiative, for further details consult the various plot lines within the works of Harlan Ellison. But Gates' advice would be invaluable.
posted by clavdivs at 5:32 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


A few thoughts for the peanut gallery:

* Of COURSE the race was going to tighten up. A bunch of Republicans were going to stop playing along with four-candidate polls and protest vote posturing and woke up thinking "good lord, Hillary Clinton, the Not Yet Proven Antichrist But Only Because We Haven't Found Her 666 Tattoo Yet, Slayer of Vince Foster, Would-Be Seizer of All Guns, Hitler in a Pantsuit is two months away from being President-Elect," and started drifting back accordingly. Many #NeverTrumpers saw the writing on the wall and wavered.

The country didn't magically adjust itself from being rabidly kneejerk-partisan just because the Republican candidate was pointedly absurd this time around; this is the party that elected Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, after all. The lesson about Trump is that his personality and posturing are ridiculous but what he's standing for RESONATES with a disturbing % of the Republican base, and most of the rest will go along with him in the end because The Wrong Lizard Might Get In.

* Trump had himself a pretty good week; nothing caught on fire in his undergarments. Hillary had a pretty terrible week; passing out at a 9/11 memorial is, how you say, remarkably unfortunate optics. The end result was that Trump's chances of winning the Grand Shebang went up to... 40% in the aggregates. As others have noted, that is still Far Far Far Too High for Cheeto Benito to become Leader of the Slightly Free World. But it's a high point for him and he's still behind in most swing states, let alone set to run the table like he'll have to do to overcome Hillary's electoral position.

* Since then, Trump had his Of Course Obama Was Born In Hawaii Wink Wink press conference, pissed off a planeload of press and made yet another oblique reference to Hillary being shot at. The balance shall be restored in time.

* None of this means OH HEY FINE I CAN RELAX AND GO BACK TO WATCHING WRASSLIN'. Keep working, keep phonebanking, keep bending the ear of moderates you know who might be wondering if this orange fuck might be okay after all. It's not done yet.
posted by delfin at 5:43 AM on September 17, 2016 [40 favorites]


It was their American Studies prof and he is brilliant, they say. Yesterday, I looked him up, and lo-behold, he is a white, mustached Boomer.

You had me at "American Studies."

Had me smacking my head that is
posted by spitbull at 5:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Her own arena tour, and LOTS of public walking and standing for weeks on end.

TWiRL for me, Hillary, twirl!
posted by Dashy at 5:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


In other news, don't know if this has been mentioned yet but the Fraternal Order of Police has apparently endorsed Trump.

White supremacist organization supports white supremacist candidate?

I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked.
posted by Talez at 5:50 AM on September 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


The balance shall be restored in time.
Clinton has quite a bit of star power with more freedom to campaign now, too. The Obamas, Sanders, Warren, Bill, and Diamond Joe all have stumps to appear on over the next several weeks. Sanders made an appearance on television where he signalled his intention to campaign once his Senate responsibilities are taken care of and spent quite a bit of time talking about the danger of protest voting especially when most of the planks Sanders supporters care about are in Hillary's platform. He wrote Stein and Johnson off as ridiculous choices.
posted by xyzzy at 5:51 AM on September 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


I've been up most of the night reeling from Trump's second assassination incitation. "Let's see what happens to her" ... I just. No, no, no.

There was a brief discussion in the last thread about who would need to come out against Trump for his deplorables to see that this is terrifying, and after his comments last night, I think it's got to be the NRA. They need to disavow Trump now.
posted by erisfree at 6:02 AM on September 17, 2016


The NRA? They probably fed him the damn line.
posted by spitbull at 6:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm starting to wonder if Trump's shouting about how the election is rigged wasn't so much a complaint as it was a boast.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why would the NRA take a machine gun to its golden goose?
posted by Burhanistan at 6:03 AM on September 17, 2016


Allowing the Gates Foundation to acquire the Clinton Foundation and walking 100% away from it, followed a couple of news cycles later by donating her entire 2013 and later corporate speaking fee income to charity and promising that she and Bill will eschew all corporate income

Can I be in the room when you tell Bill and Melinda that you are their new boss? Because that would be fun.

They have a very diferent foundation that does very different work and have expressed no interest in taking on a new job. I wish that people would quit using them as an easy way of avoiding the difficult discussion of what the Clintons giving up control of their foundation would actually involve.
posted by colt45 at 6:06 AM on September 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


Bernie Sanders calling anyone else a "ridiculous choice" is rich. Is he saying the third party candidates should drop out because they can't win or that his fans shouldn't vote for them because they have no chance to win? Or is it because they espouse far left or far libertarian ideological positions that certainly don't have majority support in the country but get their followers all riled up and excited about revolutions and such?

The holdout Bernie Bros I know mostly seem to consider the man himself a sellout or failure now anyway, so I'm not seeing how he convinces them. I suppose the idealistic teenagers who wouldn't otherwise vote even if they're old enough might be inspired, but only if they can put their voting moment on Instagram.
posted by spitbull at 6:10 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


As an American living abroad, watching this, as other people have called it, "post-fact" election cycle go down, I can't help but sweat profusely. I honestly cannot articulate anything beyond that. I don't want to explore the ramifications. This is far too terrifying to me. Listening to him pin the birther movement on Hillary yesterday was so absolutely bizarre. It's hard to believe that would work. I think what he has proven is that you can gaslight* a nation. All it takes is putting an idea or phrase of accusation out there, and suddenly everyone doubts their memories.

I am deeply troubled by his weakness. His business interests are everywhere. I have no doubt that he would be a president beholden to every powerful foreign interest. Knowing that you can goad and cajole and flatter him makes him corruptible. And corporations, private interests! I don't want to know who has him in their pocket and is ready to make him drop regulations, or elevate single individuals into government, etc.

At least I have dual citizenship and can distance myself when this pariah of a human being comes to represent America internationally. I've pretty much lost all hope.

I feel the shame personally, a little, as I was really busy this year and did not have time to register and subsequently vote. I understand it's too late now. Was voting in a swing state, too.



*I don't mean to make light of gaslighting. I understand that usually it is employed to describe a particularly disgusting situation of spousal abuse, and I am not trying to take away from that. I simply see parallels in the idea of undermining one's sense of reality through constant insistence to the contrary. No other word that more succinctly captures that idea in my vocabulary.
posted by constantinescharity at 6:11 AM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


[A couple deleted. Sorry, but let's head off a hundred comments of debate about how many Linux users are Stein supporters?]
posted by taz at 6:18 AM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]




Metafilter: I'm also a Linux user, if that means anything to you.

(I'm also a Linux user. And voting for Sec. Clinton. Because she is an excellent candidate and because she is the only reasonable choice to defeat Trump. I'm voting my conscience.)
posted by Cookiebastard at 6:20 AM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


If a beverage analogy is a better choice, I will herewith share my hitherto private nickname for Trump, which is "Pom Haaaaahrible." ("Horrible" as Trump pronounces it. "Pom" as in "pompadour.")
posted by spitbull at 6:25 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel the shame personally, a little, as I was really busy this year and did not have time to register and subsequently vote. I understand it's too late now. Was voting in a swing state, too.

Are you sure? You haven't missed the deadline in most states. You may need to use DHL to get the registration in on time and make sure you get your ballot, but that should be doable, right? A couple of US citizen abroad sites will actually organise the DHL for you (tho not pay)
posted by frumiousb at 6:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


constantinescharity, avaaz has a tool set up to help US citizens abroad vote.
posted by frumiousb at 6:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


The best part of Politico's article on Trump encouraging Clinton's assassination again is the image chosen showing Trump's tiny, tiny hands.
posted by chris24 at 6:28 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


‘This Is Moral Cowardice’: Chris Hayes Grills Ex-Trump Aide Over Creating Birther Strategy

So Chris Hayes is grilling Sam Nunberg with Nina Turner.
Hayes asked him if he understands “that this was racist.” Nunberg said they found it wasn’t race that helped fuel this nonsense, it was “the Muslim name.”
I can't /facepalm Nunberg enough.
posted by Talez at 6:32 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


I leave for Cote d'Ivoire the day after the election. My Ivorian friends were making fun of me: "Ah, you're fleeing to West Africa to avoid political instability in the United States!"
posted by ChuraChura at 6:32 AM on September 17, 2016 [173 favorites]


More Lin:

Tweeting≠voting.
Posting a video≠voting.
Your essay on FB≠voting.
If you CAN vote and you don't?
You've done nothing.
#Vote
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


Taking about anything other than how to defeat Trump (actually defeat him here in reality in 64 days our whatever it is) to me is like being on a plane that is crashing and your seatmate is sitting there going, "Hmm, you know, I'm really concerned about the carbon footprint of air travel."

Yes, that is a valid concern and we really need to discuss how the choices we make in a modern western lifestyle impact climate change but right now WE ARE ALL ABOUT TO DIE, so it's kind of not a good time for me to chat.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:36 AM on September 17, 2016 [47 favorites]


I know Trump feels sincerely that, if the Secret Service is allowed to have guns, everybody should be allowed them. It just makes sense.

Fortunately, there's a simple compromise: anyone who wants a gun can have one, they just have to go through the kind of vetting and background checks that USSS agents go through.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 6:39 AM on September 17, 2016 [37 favorites]


I want someone to reassure me that our political systems and institutions are strong enough to survive even a President Trump, but I suspect if they did, I'd think they were just trying to make me feel good.
posted by hwestiii at 6:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


> I want someone to reassure me that our political systems and institutions are strong enough to survive even a President Trump, but I suspect if they did, I'd think they were just trying to make me feel good.

If they're not strong enough to prevent it, they sure as shit won't be strong enough to survive it.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:54 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


yet they spend the last 6 weeks letting him pack arenas full of regular Americans

I think the issue here is that "regular" actually means "old and white". (And he's not "packing" arenas, he's framing the shots well. You know that.) This isn't a personal dig. It's about how there's still a default assumption that certain people are "regular" (see also: endless coverage of middle-aged men with moustaches in Appalachian towns) and other people are "diet" or "caffeine-free" and so they don't count as much. Or "zero".

I do think there's a case for a little more visibility from Clinton, but there are clearly risks with more open and less formal events at this stage (not least security) and it's still judging time allocation by the standards of a candidate who doesn't have a proper campaign to preside over. (The phone bank room for his visit to Asheville was set up on the day by the county GOP for appearances and presented by Trump to the travelling press as "my secret weapon" as if it's been going on for ages. It's still a Potemkin campaign.)
posted by holgate at 6:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


There is a reason we're relitigating the Sanders issue: no matter the amount of progressive policy, outreach or twirling, some Berniebros will never recognize her as a legitimate candidate, let alone the strongest one.
“There is something the campaign is hiding,” Ashley, who identified herself as a progressive, told me in an e-mail. “They want to call any question of her health a conspiracy theory. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact.”

The possibility of a cover-up even seems to have kept some Sanders supporters’ hopes alive that he could get back in the race. “This does NOT look like heat exhaustion to me,” a Reddit user recently commented in response to video showing Clinton leaving the 9/11 memorial. “It looks like she has a serious neurological disease; maybe she was having a stroke, maybe she has MS. Whatever it is, we the people need to know. SOON! Bernie must replace her, NOT Tim Kaine or Joe Biden!”

This isn’t the first time Sanders supporters and conservatives have fixated on rumor and innuendo in the hope that Clinton might be disqualified from the race.
posted by Dashy at 7:02 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


and other people are "diet" or "caffeine-free" and so they don't count as much. Or "zero".

Really? I thought other people were at least the Life verison of people. You know, 3/5th the calories of normal Coke.
posted by Talez at 7:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I want someone to reassure me that our political systems and institutions are strong enough to survive even a President Trump, but I suspect if they did, I'd think they were just trying to make me feel good.

They survived Nixon (war on drugs black citizens, foreign coup, sabotaged peace talks), Reagan (brinkmanship, dismissing AIDS, letting staff handle essential functions), and even Jefferson Davis (admittedly after a civil war, but not every country survives those at all). Trump's set of ridiculous policies, lack of policies, and grifts disguised as policies all have their precedents—he could literally try to deport all the US Mexicans and Eisenhower would already have beaten him to it. And I doubt he would risk nuclear war more than the Cold War did.

I realize this doesn't actually sound reassuring, but you asked whether America's institutions would survive, not whether they'd do well.
posted by Rangi at 7:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


We are staring into the abyss of a Trump presidency, and many people are to blame

Just an FYI for Americans unfamiliar with Andrew Coyne: he is basically Canada's answer to David Brooks. (Unless he's changed drastically in the five or ten years since I last paid attention to his highminded handwringing.) Ignore ignore ignore.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:12 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Pro-Tip 1: Ignore the numbers on national tracking polls just focus on the trend line. Yes Clinton is losing ground but Trump has only caught her twice and for very brief periods.

Pro-Tip 2: The media is forcing the horse race narrative because quite frankly most journalists are either lazy or under equipped. Punditry is easy a fuck to do and is cheap for publishers unlike investigative journalism.

Pro-Tip 3:Johnson and Stein are largely irrelevant as both will struggle to break 2 percent in votes. Polling numbers for 3rd party candidates are always much higher than the real vote percentage.

Pro-Tip 4: most polls underrepresent minority and youth voters. Additionally the LV screens most pollsters are using are outdated and predicated on Obama being a singular candidate and that the electorate will resemble 2014 or 2004. This is a really bad assumption.

Pro-Tip 5: The amount of campaign derailing shit that will hit around October and November against Trump means current high watee marks for him are going to recede.
posted by vuron at 7:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


Trump finally gives up on his "remarkable campaign of relentless deception to undermine President Obama.

I'm gonna need to see the long form version of Trump's Birtherism disavowal, sorry.

Joy Reid on her AM Joy show on MSNBC is knockin' it outta the park at the moment, absolutely refusing to let the Trump surrogate she has on, Sean P. Jackson, get away with any bullshit, and simply ignoring him when he tries to dissemble rather than answering questions put to him.
posted by XMLicious at 7:23 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Videos on How to Vote in Every State
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Are there any journalists here who can explain why this is happening? I mean, Trump has done 1,000,000 things worse than Clinton and it isn't getting play. Why?

One of the ten million dispiriting things about this election campaign is how it has shone a spotlight on how desperate vast swaths of the electorate are to avoid having a female president at any cost. Of course Trump has his rabid base, but there are others who are going to hold their noses while they cast their vote for him and for these people it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. Literally Any Man. If that man happens to be Donald Trump, well...maybe he's not the ideal candidate, but better to roll the dice on him and see what happens than have a woman (especially this particular woman) in the Oval Office, right?
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:25 AM on September 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


I'm jaded and bitter, because of long experience. Claims that elections are rigged are true. And offered by the candidate who just isn't as good at rigging them as their opponent. Given what I've seen of Trump's leet photoshop skillz, it's going to be Clinton by > 25 points.

Hell, The Keyes Factor predicts only 27% for Trump when it counts, election day.
posted by mikelieman at 7:25 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump got his Android back this morning. Shitting on Robert Gates for his WaPo editorial and CNN.
posted by Talez at 7:27 AM on September 17, 2016


Yes it's another Joy Reid masterclass in how to deal with professional con artists on live TV. She is my hero lately.

I worked in a high end product sales gig for a couple of years to pay the college tuition. Watching Trump's minions punches all the buttons of classic hard selling. These same techniques are used to sell extended warranties on cars or time shares in Florida. It's pathetic that so few media "journalists" can't counter them, and I imagine they all have useless home alarm systems too.

Pro tip: when you next need to buy a car, prepare by watching Joy Reid shred a Trumpie.
posted by spitbull at 7:29 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


no matter the amount of progressive policy, outreach or twirling, some Berniebros will never recognize her as a legitimate candidate, let alone the strongest one.

Basket of not-deplorables, but not-really-helping-either. If people are that wild-eyed, no amount of outreach will ever reach them, and you just have to put your resources where they can be better used instead.
Trautman: It's over Johnny. It's over!
posted by mikelieman at 7:29 AM on September 17, 2016


Having witnessed Brexit, I thought briefly of putting money on a Trump victory, though then realised that, were it to happen, my winnings would be of very limited use in the world to come.
posted by acb at 7:31 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Watching Trump's minions punches all the buttons of classic hard selling.

Or the classic grift.

Matt Yglesias made a good point about CNN and "balance": the network had conventional Trump-sceptic conservatives on its panels during the primary, and as Trump rose, they got shuffled out and replaced by Trumpers like Lord and (the ringer) Lewendowski. That's even before considering the willingness to air duckspeakers like Katrina Pierson. Classic "both sides" journalism, but one of the "two sides" got recalibrated on the sly to exclude ongoing criticism from within its own party.
posted by holgate at 7:43 AM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Having grown up in the mid-south, I have a lot of conservative family and friends. I keep starting a FB post "Look, I don't want to say you're a stupid fucking asshole for supporting Trump..." but I just don't know how to finish that sentence. Kind of paints me into a corner.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [31 favorites]


I'm not worried about whether our political system will survive- I'm worried about whether my son will survive. The country may get through four years of the anti- Christ Trump but individual people will suffer and die.
posted by SyraCarol at 7:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


Just remove the don't.
posted by delfin at 7:49 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


you guys seem to like it, but maybe building a campaign around being not-Trump was a bad idea.

it's amazing how totally hermetically sealed in a bubble these election threads are. if your candidate loses it won't be her fault or your fault but the result of a soft conspiracy of nazis, leftists, and the mass media to elect a candidate who you deem illegitimate and may be an agent of Russia.

this election has shown that mild-mannered upper middle class Democratic voters can buy into the "paranoid strain" of American politics as much as any Bircher clipping out news articles in his basement..
posted by ennui.bz at 7:51 AM on September 17, 2016 [27 favorites]


By "hard selling" I *meant* grift, to be clear. This is when you sell a product you know is not what you say it is, not worth the price you're trying to extract, and in many cases only "exists" as a sort of prestigious placebo ("the very best brand ever," "your family won't be burdened with funeral costs," etc.). And you know that your customer/mark doesn't trust you and has the rational ability to see through you, which you have to disable by a noxious combination of phony alliance ("if I were in your shoes") and aggressive intimidation ("you'll look like a dumbass if you don't spring for the upgraded luxury package at this small upcharge") and a few other basic psychological manipulations familiar to sociopaths and salesmen alike.

You can learn these techniques systematically. I learned a softer version of them selling fine wine to status-conscious rich folks. Or watch any one of a hundred movies about grifting and sales. There are books and seminars and websites and podcasts devoted to this shit.

And Trump's crew aren't even good at it.
posted by spitbull at 7:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Allowing the Gates Foundation to acquire the Clinton Foundation and walking 100% away from it

The Gates Foundation is a private foundation. The Clinton Foundation is a public charity. They are two entirely different types of legal entities.
posted by JackFlash at 7:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


> And Trump's crew aren't even good at it.

And yet here we are.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:54 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Margaret Sullivan, WaPo: It’s time for TV news to stop playing the stooge for Donald Trump

Oh lordy. Media, pundit thyself.


Given that she is talking only about TV news, I don't see any self-awareness at all.
posted by JackFlash at 7:55 AM on September 17, 2016


DirtyOldTown: "People who trusted Trump and got stiffed, a short list: ... a grifter gets people to believe him right until the money's gone and he's skipped out of town."

(I hate to cede explicit control over this election to people with real money and non-elected power, but I'm also quite certain that Trump has burned enough people who keep good records and won't care about NDAs or other contractual shit if that's what's necessary. But again, actual-billionaire ex machina is not a plan.)
posted by holgate at 7:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


And yet here we are.

The campaign is an unmitigated dumpster fire and LA times says Trump is up 6 points.

Nothing matters anymore. Campaigns, policy, works. None of it matters to half the electorate. We're might as well choose the president by lot.
posted by Talez at 7:58 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yes because the media also work on a grift-based poetics and political economy. Reality TV is a grift, in fact. Almost the definition of a con game in fact.

Trump himself is very good at the sales techniques I mentioned, unlike most of his immediate surrogates. It's his essential skill.
posted by spitbull at 7:58 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:00 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Actually totally worth mentioning the intersection of classic griftsmanship, con artistry, and hard selling with the PUA thing, too. Same techniques and Trump's campaign has shown us the Venn diagram.
posted by spitbull at 8:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Most of the time, my theory is that the whole Trump campaign is a Producers-type scam which has gotten way out of hand. The Trumps have tons of bad issue and devised this as a way of distracting investors (maybe mainly Russian), Deutsche Bank, the IRS and all those contractors and others they are not paying. They imagined they would get the 27% of the vote and some time off from all the invoices in order to get their s..t together and flee to some tax haven or weird dictatorship like Korea or Venezuela. And then now wtf is going on?!?
Thats most of the time. At other times, I'm just curled up in the dog's basket, hoping for all of this to disappear.
posted by mumimor at 8:05 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


The Gates Foundation is a private foundation. The Clinton Foundation is a public charity. They are two entirely different types of legal entities.

They are actually both 501(c) organizations, although it is correct that the CF is classified as a public charity and the GF as a private foundation. The biggest difference (aside from setting up a lucrative career in mapping out legal fine-print) seems to be that "private foundations" are subject to much more stringent IRS scrutiny than "public charity". Take that as you will...
posted by ennui.bz at 8:05 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


you guys seem to like it, but maybe building a campaign around being not-Trump was a bad idea.

Is there a precise percentage of her campaign effort that she's allowed to use to draw contrasts with her opponent? It would be political malpractice to not use Trump's negatives against him, and if your point is that she should have tried harder to run to the left to increase support in her base, I'd like to know exactly what your counterfactual is.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:07 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


you guys seem to like it, but maybe building a campaign around being not-Trump was a bad idea.

As far as I can tell, the central message of her campaign is "we should escalate hostilities with Russia."
posted by dialetheia at 8:10 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is the part of the thread cycle where we ritually reenact the primaries
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:10 AM on September 17, 2016 [54 favorites]


Is there a precise percentage of her campaign effort that she's allowed to use to draw contrasts with her opponent? It would be political malpractice to not use Trump's negatives against him, and if your point is that she should have tried harder to run to the left to increase support in her base, I'd like to know exactly what your counterfactual is.

You are free to blame the "mass media" for this, but the bulk of this thread is Clinton supporters saying, in effect, she is "not Trump", and enumerating all of the bad things about Trump. This is evidence enough for how her campaign is centered on Trump. Are her supporters really so far off message? Should they be talking about something else?

If they should be talking about something other than Trump then that is a massive failure of her campaign's messaging.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:13 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


and LA times says Trump is up 6 points.

Do we have to do this again? The LA Times tracker made some odd assumptions about self-reported 2012 voting, and it's also a rolling weekly average where respondents rate candidates on a scale from 1-100, not yes/no, and that rating becomes the LV screen. So a week where Trumpers are more enthusiastic and Clinton supporters less so gets converted into %ages.

(It's also gameable: if Trump supporters on the panel know that rating 100 every time boosts the %age, they're going to keep doing that.)

This sounds like unskewing, I know, but LAT/USC is such a damn outlier.
posted by holgate at 8:15 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Pro-Tip 1: Ignore the numbers on national tracking polls just focus on the trend line. Yes Clinton is losing ground but Trump has only caught her twice and for very brief periods.

[...]

posted by vuron at 9:19 AM on September 17 [6 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


Oh thank god you're back vuron. Please talk the people down.

This is the part of the thread cycle where we ritually reenact the primaries

the simultaneity I predicted yesterday has come.

WHAT DO THEY WANT. I OFFER MYSELF AS BLOOD SACRIFICE TRIBUTE
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:15 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


You guys, as a distraction, looking at a lot of pictures of a beautiful person roughly your age--in order to scientifically determine how much better they look than you do--works wonders.

Lucille Frances Lawless is less than a year younger than I am, too. This is a conspiracy, and everyone's in on it.
posted by maxwelton at 8:15 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


If antifascism is insufficient for you as a motivating force in this election, I envy your obliviousness to the world and hope that the world is equally oblivious to you.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:16 AM on September 17, 2016 [37 favorites]


You guys, as a distraction, looking at a lot of pictures of a beautiful person roughly your age--in order to scientifically determine how much better they look than you do--works wonders.

but I'm already depressed
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [14 favorites]


This is the part of the thread cycle where we ritually reenact the primaries

I'm kind of tired of the specter of the primaries being invoked as a means of terminating any discussion about the lack of unity on the left, which is a very serious problem that goes far beyond a single Presidential primary. Given that Clinton and Sanders are now on the same side, I think the remaining points of contention are at the heart of what it takes to build a winning electoral coalition, and we should be able to discuss them without people assuming it's about what happened months ago.

We're all adults here, and we all know the primaries are over. Shouting down anyone who defends Clinton against charges of insufficient outreach to the left flank of the Democratic coalition with accusations that they're trying to re-litigate the primaries is kind of shitty.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


I wouldn't think it would have been such a small step from "They're all the same so it doesn't matter who I vote for" to "If I can't have the perfect president of my dreams it's okay for the Nazi candidate to win."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:20 AM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


whenever I get frustrated in these threads it always helps to remind myself that Clinton and her team are in all likelihood far more intelligent and competent than her detractors or even supporters will ever allow
posted by um at 8:23 AM on September 17, 2016 [27 favorites]


I'm kind of tired of the specter of the primaries being invoked as a means of terminating any discussion about the lack of unity on the left, which is a very serious problem that goes far beyond a single Presidential primary. Given that Clinton and Sanders are now on the same side, I think the remaining points of contention are at the heart of what it takes to build a winning electoral coalition, and we should be able to discuss them without people assuming it's about what happened months ago.

We're all adults here, and we all know the primaries are over. Shouting down anyone who defends Clinton against charges of insufficient outreach to the left flank of the Democratic coalition with accusations that they're trying to re-litigate the primaries is kind of shitty.


Sorry if it looked like I was doing that, because I agree with you. Roland Martin said yesterday that the Clinton campaign has an "intensity problem", and this is probably part of it.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:23 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Still waiting on my absentee ballot over here. Yup. Sent the paperwork at the end of the July and I have nothing. I will be a sad panda if I don't get to vote.
posted by Kitteh at 8:24 AM on September 17, 2016


As far as I can tell, the central message of her campaign is "we should escalate hostilities with Russia."

I don't get that from her position paper. There's plenty of room to criticize various aspects of Clinton's foreign policy from the left (although please god let's wait until after the fascists are defeated at the polls) -- but what other sane response is there to a regime that launched what, to my understanding, is the first inter-state invasion in Europe since 1945? Serious question.

It's not like she's advocating nukes over Moscow on January 21. She's just saying she's not going to roll over for Putin, and that by the way Donald Trump has some disturbing links to the Russian oligarchy. I don't see the problem here, and I also don't see how this is anything close to a "central message" of her campaign.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [55 favorites]


They are actually both 501(c) organizations, although it is correct that the CF is classified as a public charity and the GF as a private foundation. The biggest difference (aside from setting up a lucrative career in mapping out legal fine-print) seems to be that "private foundations" are subject to much more stringent IRS scrutiny than "public charity".

The legal difference between the two is established in Section 509(a). Operationally, one type is in the business of giving money away, and other is in the business of raising money. It goes way beyond "scrutiny."
posted by AndrewInDC at 8:28 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sent the paperwork at the end of the July and I have nothing.

I'm sure the answer is yes, but did you call to check on the hold-up?

While registering to vote here in Missouri, my registration was delayed because: (1) (and this is a direct statement) "we had an election, so we were behind processing the registrations" and (2) they (unlike the Feds) were somehow unable to verify my social security number.

I had to go into the election board (8-5 pm, Mon-Friday) and present my social security card for them to process my application.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 8:28 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If antifascism is insufficient for you as a motivating force in this election, I envy your obliviousness to the world and hope that the world is equally oblivious to you.

I don't say this lightly or without thought, but the most immediate fascist threat comes from: if Trump is elected, he will be seen as illegitimate and not-fit for the presidency by most of the political elite, of both parties. And who will be the "foot-soldiers" in the campaign to delegitimize and remove an elected preisdent... the good-citizens of metafilter.

fascism is about how elites begin to see the rule of law turn against it's owners and begin to see it as a suicide pact. fascism in the US will look like a "color" revolution in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. A big popular protest against a corrupt and dangerous leader, people out in the streets, and finally a sudden collapse in power, a resignation or even something more dramatic. It will feel good, like real change is finally happening. But it will be driven by those political elites who have come to see civil society and law as a threat to their position.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's about the tone and messaging, not position papers. Democrats over the last month have sounded unhinged calling all of their critics Kremlin stooges.
posted by dialetheia at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


and that by the way Donald Trump has some disturbing links to the Russian oligarchy.

There's this weird "heh, the Dems keep blaming the Russians for everything" thing on left twitter ever since those infosec firms fingered Russian intelligence for the DNC hack and it would be more annoying than outright denial of reality is if the smugness it's always posted with wasn't so baffling.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


> whenever I get frustrated in these threads it always helps to remind myself that Clinton and her team are in all likelihood far more intelligent and competent than her detractors or even supporters will ever allow

It's not the intelligence and competence of Clinton and her team I'm worried about.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:31 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Do you guys think my deck chair would look better over here, by the pool? Or over here, closer to the railing?
posted by kythuen at 8:32 AM on September 17, 2016 [61 favorites]


It's about the tone and messaging, not position papers. Democrats over the last month have sounded unhinged calling all of their critics Kremlin stooges.

I'm not sure I understand the linkage between nameless "Democrats" sounding unhinged and the "central message" of Clinton's campaign.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's weird I have pretty acute anxiety about a lot of issues but the current state of the 2016 election is very very low level.

Latino support of Trump is below 20%, African-American support is in the single digits. Other minority groups are also heavily against Trump.

Trump is doing awful with Women voters regardless of ethnicity. Even College educated white males are only barely supporting Trump.

The simple fact of the matter is that while Trump has strong support from White, less educated males he can only achieve the low 40s with that voter block.

The only way the current race is as close as it appears is if the third party candidates are actually pulling more than 10% and if those votes are coming disproportionately from disaffected Democrats and Independents. However third party candidates are non viable and the number of people willing to register a protest vote is actually pretty small.

People like winners and most of the third party support will vanish in the ballot box.
posted by vuron at 8:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [29 favorites]


Democrats over the last month have sounded unhinged calling all of their critics Kremlin stooges.

Yes, it's the Dems who are unhinged, not the candidate calling for Russia to cyberattack the US. Which they have done. Why would Dems want to mention that or how Trump and his campaign have sucked up to Putin, changed the Republican platform on Ukraine, employed a campaign manager still in the employ of Putin-affiliated oligarchs, lied about their financial ties to Russia, refused to release taxes that would show foreign entanglements, etc., etc. Unhinged indeed.
posted by chris24 at 8:37 AM on September 17, 2016 [66 favorites]


These general election demographic arguments fall pretty flat. If the most recent state-by-state polling holds, Trump only needs to flip one more state: either PA, MI or WI, from blue to red, to win. He could do that without a strong minority coalition. This really is a very close race at the moment.
posted by dis_integration at 8:38 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Are there any journalists here who can explain why this is happening? I mean, Trump has done 1,000,000 things worse than Clinton and it isn't getting play. Why?

I think on this past Friday's NPR Politics podcast that had a listener question similar to this. Their answer was that Clinton's weakness has always been trust and Trump's weakness is his fitness to serve as president. Those two things by this point have been baked in to each candidate and affect the way both are seen.

First, there's polarization. Folks who are diehard Republicans or who just don't like Clinton will find whatever reason not to vote for. So since the narrative is around her trust as a person, they will grab onto that as a reason.

Second (and the meat of it, I think), trust isn't a big of an issue with Trump because he's said himself and built his campaign around saying whatever comes to his mind and being spontaneous, so that inoculates him from the normal things that would sink mainstream candidates. While Hillary Clinton has built her campaign around competence, so anything that would ding that narrative (like trust issues) would be more harmful.

Finally related to Clinton building her campaign around competence, they pointed to racism and sexism as a reason why women and POC always have to tout their accomplishments as a way to say they deserve to be on stage. In turn that racism and sexism would also contribute to more questions on Clinton's trust.
posted by FJT at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


TYT: Bernie Sanders On Voting Third Party

Actually, TYT uses Bernie's statements as a jumping off point for discussing third party voting this cycle.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2016


Heh, I think you can advocate against Russian imperialism in the form of creating puppet states and pretty much engaging in wars of conquests over former Soviet Republics without wanting to see a return to the Cold War.

The ties of Trump to the coterie of oligarchs surrounding Putin is definitely of concern. There is a large number of options between launching nukes at the Kremlin and rolling over as Putin absorbs the Ukraine and the Baltics.
posted by vuron at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]




Actually, TYT uses Bernie's statements as a jumping off point for discussing third party voting this cycle.
Four white men. Just saying
posted by mumimor at 8:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


So the only major demographic Trump is leading with is white, non-college educated men and it's still enough to put him in something very close to a statistical tie with Clinton?
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


One of Obama's best lines in 2012: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

A laugh line from four years ago is evidence of... what, exactly?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Basket of Deporables" seems like it happened years ago now but Ta-Nehisi Coates talks with On The Media about it and how she was basically right. No transcript yet but it's always nice to hear Coates' voice.
posted by octothorpe at 8:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]




So the only major demographic Trump is leading with is white, non-college educated men and it's still enough to put him in something very close to a statistical tie with Clinton?

Trump is also strong with white, non-college educated women. Like a tie with HRC.

The answer is yes. If minority groups were evenly distributed throughout the US then it wouldn't be the case. But, for example, winning the Latino vote doesn't do HRC much good if she wins it in Texas and Arizona, where the white vote will carry Trump anyway, or in California and New York, where she's going to win by default. As it stands, though, white men and women are still the most important voting demographic.
posted by dis_integration at 8:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Pennsylvania won't turn red, or Wisconsin, or Michigan. Yes there are a ton of racists and misogynists in all three states but in each of those states the current LV screens basically assume minority turnout will be awful and tbh based upon the amount of engagement I have seen in minority communities the idea that minorities won't vote because of no Obama are absolutely laughable.

Nevada and Colorado have extremely difficult minority populations to poll so supposed weakness by Clinton is artificially high.

Unfortunately the simple fact of the matter is that current polling methods tend to heavily undervalue ninority and younger voters.

For most younger voters there isn't a landline to get a hold if them and seriously how often do you answer cell calls from out of state? It doesn't take many IRS and Microsoft tech support scam calls to stop answering out of state calls. If the person really wants to get a hold if me they leave a message. However pollsters don't leave messages.

Unfortunately there aren't other modalities of polling that don't have even worse problems.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


One of Obama's best lines in 2012: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Were the Russians hacking the candidates and parties in 2012 and releasing the info to influence the election in 2012?
posted by chris24 at 8:54 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


And Russia Today has cultivated a media space where anti-US-establishment politics of left and right get all stewed up: sort of a Democracy... Well, Maybe Later! Come for the criticism of the NSA, drone strikes and Israeli settlement expansion, stay for our interview with Julian Assange!
posted by holgate at 8:55 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


A laugh line from four years ago is evidence of... what, exactly?

That Americans hate the idea of restarting the Cold War, mostly. Is there evidence that people care about (or even believe) the hacking stuff?
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Just wanted to say good luck, we're all counting on you.
posted by Trochanter at 8:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


LA Times' Chris Megerian: Hillary Clinton has millennials' support, and now she's trying to make sure they vote.

Good antidote to panic.
posted by spitbull at 8:59 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


Is there evidence that people care about (or even believe) the hacking stuff?

CNN poll from August 2.

"Nearly 6-in-10 see the country as unfriendly, and about half say they think the Russian government is attempting to influence the outcome of the US presidential election."
posted by chris24 at 9:03 AM on September 17, 2016


For most younger voters there isn't a landline to get a hold if them and seriously how often do you answer cell calls from out of state? It doesn't take many IRS and Microsoft tech support scam calls to stop answering out of state calls. If the person really wants to get a hold if me they leave a message. However pollsters don't leave messages.

When our arguments become: calm down, the polls are wrong! that's a sign of desperation. Polling is conducted by cellphones now, and pollsters do leave messages. They do callback polls. The polls are probably not wrong. Maybe the likely voter determinations are wrong, I could be convinced of that. But let's put this claim that the polls are skewed because they call landlines to bed.
posted by dis_integration at 9:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


That Americans hate the idea of restarting the Cold War, mostly.

Yes, and when asked to support your contention that Clinton and her campaign are escalating in 2016, you're choosing instead to restate your premise by linking to something from Obama in 2012. A lot has changed with respect to Russia's foreign policy since 2012, and the guy who uttered those words has been at the helm throughout. Do you think he wanted things to escalate?

The thing about bilateral foreign relations is that you can only control what your side does. It's hard to agree with the notion that Clinton should have the same stance toward Russia as Obama did in 2012 when Obama doesn't have the same stance toward Russia that he did in 2012. Things change, often in ways we can't imagine at the time, and it's sort of dispiriting to see this kind of grasping at straws to paint Clinton as the one who's escalating based on such flimsy evidence.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:04 AM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


Come for the criticism of the NSA, drone strikes and Israeli settlement expansion, stay for our interview with Julian Assange!

And Cenk Uygur, and Ed Shultz, and Michael Flynn, and Jill Stein! Russia is still fantastically good at propaganda/soft power, and we're seeing this cycle how many marginal "journalists" and rabble rousers on both the left and the right are perfectly happy to pocket Putin's money to sew dissent in any and all directions.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:06 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Unreal.
posted by dialetheia at 9:13 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


> "Unfortunately the simple fact of the matter is that current polling methods tend to heavily undervalue ninority and younger voters."

I've seen no evidence that this is the case and it sounds an awful lot like "unskewing" to me.
posted by kyrademon at 9:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bob Gates: Trump is 'beyond repair':
Neither presidential candidate has offered a compelling vision on national security, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates writes in a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed -- but Donald Trump is “beyond repair.”
posted by kirkaracha at 9:20 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


The reality is that the polls consistently underestimated minority turnout for the entire primary season and yes primaries aren't general election polling but there is some pretty clear signs that pollsters do pretty shitty jobs of actually polling minority (and younger voters). Add in the high margin of error for the minority and younger voter crosstabs and the reality is that you can honestly raises concerns about polling methodologies without getting into "unskewing" territory.

Even if undersampling minorities and millenials is a small degree of variation and the LV screens also introduce uncertainty the combined effect can definitely result in big variations. 538 and others try to account for those effects but even then there is still some big issues with the polling averages.
posted by vuron at 9:21 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's weird that Trump has quadrupled his 538 probability of winning (10% to 40%) in the last month. What gives?

> this is not the time for a protest vote

That depends on where you live. If you live in a non-swing state, there is no reason not to vote your conscience.

I know MetaFilter is strongly critical of Stein voters, but there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left other than refusing to vote for hawkish centre-right nominees beholden to Wall Street. Cornel West is not an idiot.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:23 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


> There is a reason we're relitigating the Sanders issue...

Quoting somebody on reddit with a crackpot theory that Clinton's going to drop out does not convince me I'm delusional, mentally defective misogynist, racist bigot because I support idea that all US citizens should have access to health care, increasing the minimum wage and paid parental leave. I don't how you think it could, since I'm not the guy on reddit, and the guy on reddit, if he was here to read your comment, probably wouldn't agree his theory is nuts. What do expect to accomplish with attacks like this?

Seriously, take taz's advice and lay off of this. All I get from your comment is that there's a nutso fringe of Bernie supporters who can't accept the idea that idea that he lost, and there's a fanatical core of of Clinton supporters who simply can't accept that we have primaries to elect our nominee and people can vote for different candidates for the nomination, even if they're different from your preferred candidate. But I knew both of those things already.

I'm supporting Clinton for president against Trump, even though she was my second choice for nomination, not my first. She's an extremely smart and competent liberal Democratic candidate (though she's not very economically progressive). She'll probably be a good president. We'll argue about our policy differences later and in future primaries, but for now we just have get our candidate elected. I wish you could take a similar philosophical attitude, but obviously you can't or won't even though you won.
posted by nangar at 9:24 AM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


No other way? What about voting for Clinton at the top of the ticket because she's a better candidate to work with the more progressive people you're voting for and supporting down ticket?
posted by R343L at 9:25 AM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


In other words, you don't fundamentally pull the party left by your presidential vote. You do that by voting left in the House and Senate and in your state legislative bodies. Cleverly this is also how you get progressive legislation implemented.
posted by R343L at 9:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [71 favorites]


> "... there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left ..."

That's not true. Which is probably a good thing, because it doesn't actually work.
posted by kyrademon at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


This comment is a bookmark and a reminder that down-ticket votes are what put policy into place. Any ideas about what I can do to help the Palmdale-area Dem take a seat in the house?
posted by infinitewindow at 9:29 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Regarding skew, if anything, the most systematic and dramatic errors of the last decade have been in underestimating the conservative vote. Both Nate Silver and the woman who runs Pollster have agreed with me in conversation that something may be systematically a bit skewed both in the US and the UK in recent years, but if anything, it's in the liberal direction.
posted by chortly at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2016


but there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left

Other than, you know, doing what Bernie did this election and working from within the party.
posted by chris24 at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [52 favorites]


That depends on where you live. If you live in a non-swing state, there is no reason not to vote your conscience.

What about as a way to show how much the American people repudiate Donald Trump and all the toxic and terrible shit he's gleefully brought into the mainstream that will no doubt continue to poison future elections, politics, and probably greater American society?
posted by FJT at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


Protest votes are silent voices screaming into unpowered microphones hooked up to read-only storage.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [47 favorites]


I know MetaFilter is strongly critical of Stein voters, but there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left other than refusing to vote for hawkish centre-right nominees beholden to Wall Street.

That was disproven in this election. Clinton is running on the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party after input from Sanders.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [51 favorites]


[Okay seriously we're not relitigating the primaries. And we probably don't need a full and complete rehash of "Third Parties: Smart Protest or World-Terminating Debacle?" either.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


In other words, you don't fundamentally pull the party left by your presidential vote. You do that by voting left in the House and Senate and in your state legislative bodies. Cleverly this is also how you get progressive legislation implemented.

Which is a fundamental problem most folks have with Stein and the Green party. They have no local presence in most places. No political infrastructure, not even a strategy to get one. I've visited their website and it's a shambles. It basically boils down to "if you wanna start a local co-op veggie garden that's cool, but also vote for Stein!" Stein's Green party is not Germany's Green party,in fact, it's hardly a party at all.
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [34 favorites]


I'm curious, how can a campaign (and even a supporter) try to get through to anyone on a platform other than "not Trump" when every time Hillary comes up, there is instant combativeness? The personal supporter side is how it seems on FB and the emails and Foundation stuff from a campaign side. My perception seems to see it as supporting Clinton is grounds for immediate attack. Obviously it's different here but let's face it, we're not the standard group of people.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 9:37 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


[dialetheia, drop it, we are not relitigating the primaries.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:38 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Conservative voter turnout is typically underestimated in non presidential years and liberal voter turnout is underestimated in presidential years.

Or more specifically liberals don't vote when it's not for Presidents.

However ever voter screen I have seen thus far this year seems to believe that Obama was an aberration and I just haven't seen evidence that is accurate.

Voter enthusiasm might be reduced but voters know about the candidates and they hate Trump. Granted they dislike Clinton but by a smaller amount.
posted by vuron at 9:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


My perception seems to see it as supporting Clinton is grounds for immediate attack.

Yeah, it's getting pretty bad out in the real world too. People at work are openly talking badly about Clinton. And it's not criticism on issues either. But it's not too surprisingly, they've also said that Obama is a Muslim. So, I've just mostly tried to be polite and just not talk or respond to anything about politics anymore.
posted by FJT at 9:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


If a beverage analogy is a better choice, I will herewith share my hitherto private nickname for Trump, which is "Pom Haaaaahrible." ("Horrible" as Trump pronounces it. "Pom" as in "pompadour.")

Yet another reason to despise Trump, as though we needed one: he's co-opted common New York regionalisms like "HAHR-ible" (that's the way native New Yorkers pronounce it; we also say "AHR-inj" and "FLAH-rida" and "FAHR-ist" for orange and Florida and forest).

Same goes for "believe me," which I hadn't even identified as a regionalism until I realized with horror that I tend to punctuate sentences with that phrase too, as does my mother (born in Queens, as Trump was), as did my grandfather -- all native New Yorkers. But it is one.

And now it looks like we're imitating Trump. Fuck.
posted by holborne at 9:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


At least we know she knows where France is.

Sorry, I'm not getting the reference. Cite?
posted by IndigoJones at 9:50 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know MetaFilter is strongly critical of Stein voters, but there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left other than refusing to vote for hawkish centre-right nominees beholden to Wall Street. Cornel West is not an idiot.

If there was no other way of pulling the Democratic Party to the left then handing over the Presidency to Donald Trump then you might as well give up now.

Fortunately there is. The Tea Party have demonstrated that if you primary the House and Senate members in your direction in the safer seats it both puts the people you want into the House and Senate and it moves the rest of them in your direction. Bernie Sanders has demonstrated that if you primary the Presidential nominee and lose but do a good job you still get the most progressive platform in the history of the party.

Successful examples both that fly in the face of the claim that there's no other way to pull the Democratic Party to the left.

On the other hand you right now have the most left wing platform in Democratic Party history. The Republican Party nominee is Donald Trump. If the combination of the two is not enough to persuade you to vote for Clinton then you are demonstrating one thing. The price for your vote is too high for the Democratic Party to be worth bothering even paying lip service to going after. The most progressive platform in history isn't propgressive enough for you. The worst opponent since possibly Barry Goldwater, possibly before that isn't bad enough for you. It's your way or the high way and you demand a veto on the entire Democratic Party platform rather than just having about 80% of the Sanders platform.

At that point it becomes the highway. The centre right highway that pays no attention to you because no matter how much pandering is done to you you are demonstrating it will never under any circumstances be enough. So they might as well ignore you and yours entirely and go with the larger coalition.

If you wish Clinton was more left wing and had a more progressive platform then speak up as much as you like. Loudly. Please. It both keeps the issues going and reassures the moderates.

If on the other hand you want to punish the Democratic Party for not implementing more than 80% of the Sanders platform you aren't an effective progressive in any way, shape, or form. You are making sure that the progressive platform becomes untenable in national politics because it's not even worth bothering trying for Progressive votes.
posted by Francis at 9:50 AM on September 17, 2016 [143 favorites]


"At least we know she knows where France is.
Sorry, I'm not getting the reference. Cite?"


Hamilton, obvs
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's a decent rule of thumb that the winning party tends to be underestimated, but when the winning party in a presidential election is Republican, they too tend to be underestimated. But that is a known (if empirically ill-supported) effect. The recent misses in 2010, 2014, Brexit, Scottish independence, etc, are a separate thing, if they mean anything at all. But the experts in the field do worry the ever-shifting voter models might be a bit off these days.
posted by chortly at 9:53 AM on September 17, 2016


I actually want to talk about the so-called "enthusiasm" gap. There's a lot at play here but here are some reasons folks are less enthusiastic about Clinton, fair or not:

* it's not cool in some sub-groups to support the middle of the road, the "boring", the effective. Hillary Clinton is perceived as all of these.
* we're not used to women leaders or what they look like or how they behave.
* women are often taught they can't support women because they'll be perceived as supporting her just for that (and that's bad even though it shouldn't.)
* men are not raised to see women as fully formed humans in the public sphere. This literally starts with childhood where books overwhelmingly have male protagonists even when they are anthropomorphized animals!
* the media talks more about the latest scandal of the day rather than policies and how they apply to people

Is it any wonder enthusiasm is "lacking"?
posted by R343L at 9:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [57 favorites]


Unfortunately some people on the margins seem to think that the only elections that matter are the presidential ones.

Progressives get more influence when they consistently show up not just for the big elections but all of the small ones as well.

Showing up in a inconsistent manner and then trying to hold the party hostage for your vote means you get marginalized because the political parties reward groups that consistentially show up in the form if voting and/or financial giving.
posted by vuron at 10:00 AM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


Primary relitigation aside, in my opinion Cornel West may not be an "idiot" but he's a disingenuous bigot (who used the"n-word" to describe President Obama in the opposite sense from what Larry Wilmore meant by doing that) and who is not nearly as smart as some people think he is and is entirely engaged in self-dealing in his public intellectual life.
posted by spitbull at 10:01 AM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Enthusiasm might also be lacking because the Clinton campaign doesn't have an effective way to combat the Trump media domination.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hillary Clinton offers a number of compelling reasons to support her for president , many of which she brings up at each campaign stop, rally and event. Her policy positions are pretty easy to find and she's been very vocal about them.

But I'll offer another compelling reason that is worth hammering on - the Supreme Court. The next president is going to be in a position to appoint judges whose rulings will impact all of us - five year old the yet-to-be-conceived as well - for decades. This is why Mitch McConnell has worked so hard to deny Obama the ability to appoint a new justice. The right recognizes that they can effectively block (and maybe even undo) any progressive movement for decades if they can maintain control of the court.

If you truly value the long-game of progressive gains, the only choice this year is pulling the lever for the candidate who is going to appoint left leaning justices. Systemic racism, women's rights, marriage equality, Campaign finance reform, health care, abortion rights and a whole other bevy of issues depend on a Supreme Court that leans left.

In the primaries, vote your conscience. In the general, vote the Supreme Court. Vote Clinton.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:05 AM on September 17, 2016 [60 favorites]


The Princeton Election Consortium has been mentioned on these threads before. I had just been keeping an eye on the maps and the probabilities, but today there is a good write-up on why the gaps have closed and what it all might mean. very germane to the discussion here.
posted by OHenryPacey at 10:07 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


When Trump is elected, Americans will finally view their country in the same way that the rest of the world does.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:08 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77
Clarence Thomas is 67
Samuel Alito is 66
John Roberts is 61
Sonia Sotomayor is also 61
Elena Kagan is 56

Trump delenda est.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:09 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


I am 100% voting for HRC but personally lacking in enthusiasm because I'm tired of the insularity, secrecy, and paranoia that comes with the Clintons.

Basically what Axelrod said: "Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"
posted by lalex at 10:10 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Based on having lived through the last 25 years I can't imagine how the Clintons could be anything but secretive and paranoid. Live under a microscope manned by people who want you dead or in jail for a quarter-century and see how open and trusting you are.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:12 AM on September 17, 2016 [108 favorites]


And in the Eerily Prescient department, I've just happened upon this Oscar Wilde quote: “It is personalities, not principles, that move the age.”

I weep.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:12 AM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


Enthusiasm might also be lacking because the Clinton campaign doesn't have an effective way to combat the Trump media domination.

And I think she knows it, which is why we're seeing this weird bank-shot stuff like "basket of deplorables." She knows any positive stories her campaign tries to put out there are going to be drowned out by cries of EMAILS and PNEUMONIA and how long it's been since her last press conference and, so why not just force them to talk about another shiny object for a while.

"Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?"

Obviously there is none, but that penchant for privacy is the direct result of decades of being scrutinized and attacked for just being a Clinton. Axelrod's diagnosis is accurate, but it's a bit unfair to talk about the symptoms and the cure without considering the etiology.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:14 AM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


Hamilton, obvs

Thank you. Not obvious is one has not seen the play.

(and at those prices.....)

Mind you, I did think the whole Les Deplorables thing was apretty remarkable Clinton own goal, far more interesting than the Trump drops birthing article above the fold on today's Financial Times. Now they have something to rally around. Stronger Together just doesn't fire the belly. They'd best come up with something stirring, and fast.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:16 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


obvious only because MeFites let no Hamilton reference opportunity pass unreferenced in election threads!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Now they have something to rally around.

The idea that the right wing didn't have something to rally around when running against Hillary Clinton is... novel.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


You buy a new house and find people looking through your windows so you put up curtains. Now they come into your lawn and peek through the cracks so you put up a fence. They stand by your fence with binoculars so you put up a tall hedge. They start checking when you come and go from your driveway so you start ordering delivery food. Who is the one with the paranoia problem exactly?
posted by JakeEXTREME at 10:19 AM on September 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


Rallying around the fact that you're proud to be racist, homophobic and religiously intolerant is also an interesting tactic if you want to gather new voters.
posted by OHenryPacey at 10:24 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Based on having lived through the last 25 years I can't imagine how the Clintons could be anything but secretive and paranoid. Live under a microscope manned by people who want you dead or in jail for a quarter-century and see how open and trusting you are.

This is true and still doesn't mean I think those characteristics are a great fit for a healthy candidacy or presidency.

My mom is one of those people who makes noises about Hillary's "seizures", SIGH. Last week, as one of many examples, I couldn't even say something like "chillax, she just got overheated. Not a big deal!" with any kind of confidence.

I know how these threads go so I'm not here to argue my point at length. Just wanted to throw out a reason for "lack of confidence" that is pretty common in my (liberal, mid-thirties) crowd.
posted by lalex at 10:24 AM on September 17, 2016


Thank you. Not obvious is one has not seen the play.

Then it's time for this thread's reminder that you need not see Hamilton to enjoy Hamilton. The entire album can be streamed free on YouTube (the first song is over here), streamed on Spotify, Apple Music, or the streaming provider of your choice, and purchased for download wherever fine music is sold. The show is more-or-less sung through, and so the album contains (with a few small exceptions) the entire show. Further enhance your experience with the lyrics and the Genius annotations, which add context and insights to the text, and then use the various MeFi posts as a gateway to the many wonders the fandom has to offer.
posted by zachlipton at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [46 favorites]


Dropping back in to say that after reading rorgy's wonderful and well-timed comment however many threads ago, I checked the fuck out of the election for sanity reasons. I think this was a wise decision, especially since at the time I said to myself, "things will go badly for Clinton for a week or two, and then there will be terrifying polls that reflect that, and then inevitably Trump will self-destruct again. The armies on both sides have not changed. It will be ok."

And so far that seems to have been fairly predictive.

So thank you, rorgy, for saving my sanity. I miss all you people, and I miss the election threads, but I miss sanity more.

I so hope I can come back soon.

(I'm still donating money every month and doing phone calls when I can; I've just put blinders on.)
posted by schadenfrau at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


I'm voting for Clinton on the merits. She's competent and really really wants the job. I don't have to love her to admit she might be a great president.
A vote for Trymp is REALLY a vote for Pence. Trump is everyone's horrible ex-husband. Pence is everyone's abusive uncle.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


This is true and still doesn't mean I think those characteristics are a great fit for a healthy candidacy or presidency.

This is essentially saying that the Republicans get to veto Democratic nominees for the Presidency.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:26 AM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


I actually don't see a whole lot of evidence that the Clintons are any more secretive than any other politicians that have been in public service for a long time. They've had people out to get then, literally out to put them in jail, for decades, but chose to stay in public service. That's not being secretive and insular.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:30 AM on September 17, 2016 [33 favorites]





Is it any wonder enthusiasm is "lacking"?


Enthusiasm may be lacking because Hillary Clinton has been the subject of a vicious smear campaign for 25 years.
posted by adam hominem at 10:34 AM on September 17, 2016 [45 favorites]


FYI, both tweets were from Twitter for iPhone. I almost think he was dictating one tweet and two assistants on two phones tweeted different versions of it.
posted by chris24 at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


When Trump is elected, Americans will finally view their country in the same way that the rest of the world does.

Yeah some of the recent conversations I've been a part of up here in my part of Canada have been pretty durn negative and well beyond what might be consider stereo-typical anti-Americanism. It's taken on a decided air of being just fed-up with it all and a whole bunch of lying in the beds that people make sentiment. Then there is usually some sort of sighing type commentary about how they would care so much and be frustrated about it if there wasn't such a chance that parts of the rest of the world weren't likely to be taken down in the nuclear flames with them.

And holy heck I haven't heard so much talk about the threat of nuclear flames since the early 1990s. People I've talked to, especially people old enough to have lived through more acute nuclear fear time are right pissed at having it added back into the more conscious worry bin.

My expectation is that Trump getting elected is going to create a deluge of anti-American anger the likes of which haven't been seen for some time or I dunno, ever. I thought Bush made it bad but my feeling is that Trump would make it seem like little league. This isn't good for anyone no matter where they live.

Plus with the way that Trump is he's likely to respond to any expression of world anger with a bunch of mighty 'fuck you, Trump America fuck yeah, bullshit threats and actions' and create a vicious cycle of horribleness that just chills me to imagine.
posted by Jalliah at 10:36 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mary Beard, "Why Donald Trump really IS like Julius Caesar," or

TRVMP
posted by MonkeyToes at 10:37 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


My favorite Pence hot take
posted by pxe2000 at 10:37 AM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


FYI, both tweets were from Twitter for iPhone. I almost think he was dictating one tweet and two assistants on on two phones tweeted different versions of it.

Merediths!
posted by zachlipton at 10:38 AM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Voter enthusiasm might be reduced but voters know about the candidates and they hate Trump. Granted they dislike Clinton but by a smaller amount.

Exactly.

Fundamentally, it's just difficult for me to see how a country that elected Barack Obama twice is going to turn around and vote for Donald Trump -- whose entire political raison d'être is being the voice of the anti-Obamaists.

And I don't mean that in the sensibility-ruffled white moderate sense of "How could such a rude and nasty person POSSIBLY be the GOP nominee", but in the sense of "I don't see how the math adds up."

We all know that there is a large minority of Americans (mainly white, it goes without saying) who believe that a President who is not white and male is automatically unfit to lead, unless that person fully accepts the doctrine of white male supremacy and is willing to be the figurehead for the movement (see: Palin, Sarah and Keyes, Alan). And there are a bunch more people who don't particularly like those views but are willing to be bedfellows with them if it means they can get their policy (theocracy / deregulation of everything / lower taxes) enacted. This coalition of deplorables and their hangers-on detested and feared Barack Obama. But Obama won in '08, and he confirmed that his victory wasn't a post-Bush fluke by his smaller but still substantial 2012 victory.

I don't see what Trump is doing or saying that would convert Obama '08 & '12 voters into Trump voters, or would motivate them to stay home; and I don't see any other headwinds for him in the other fundamentals -- the economy is better than it was in '12; Obama's favorability ratings are up; Clinton's ground game is by all accounts superb; and most of all, the electorate gets browner every day.

Looking at the poll trend lines, I see a pretty stable race at about Clinton +3 or +4, and that's not taking into account the very real advantages she has in terms of GOTV and, yes, party unity. (Can you even imagine the firestorm if Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi bolted from the mics at the mention of their party's nominee, the way the Republican leadership does when people ask about Trump's latest wordvomit?)

My personal panic index was at JCPL-equivalent heights around early June, when Brexit was happening and #NeverTrump was failing and it looked like Trump might actually be able to pivot into being the Maverick Billionaire with a Heart of Gold, sweeping through the Rust Belt to victory.

Now that we're into the real swing of things, it simply doesn't look like that's happening. Trump is now only where he was at the end of the primaries; I really do think that this is his ceiling. If he were more disciplined or if he were more interested in the un-fun parts of running a campaign, the fundraising and the volunteer coordination and the outreach (actual outreach, I mean, not five-hour junkets to Flint or Mexico City) -- yeah, I'd be shitting myself a lot. If he had spent the summer going all-out at WI/PA/OH/FL instead of wasting his time doing god knows what in random safe states, he could be winning for sure.

Of course nothing is in the bag. That's in the nature of, you know, the future's not having been written yet. But we don't have to be panicking. Really, we don't. Instead, we have to work hard, which is just one more thing about which Donald Trump knows nothing.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:42 AM on September 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


Merediths!

Meres Dith.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:42 AM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


I never imagined myself saying anything good about Trump, but he seems to brilliantly understand how the media works.

Trump has been doing this for over three decades, and he doesn't just understand the media, he is the media. Let that sink in, and no one should be surprised that Clinton is struggling to pull comfortably ahead no matter how mainstream her positions are.
posted by Beholder at 10:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm tired of the insularity, secrecy, and paranoia that comes with the Clintons.

I think you are going to have to elaborate on that because it seems the opposite is true.

The reason you know about Bill Clinton's business relationships is because they voluntarily released their income tax records -- for over 30 years.

The reason you know about Hillary's speaking fees is because she voluntarily released her income tax records -- for over 30 years.

The reason you know about the Clinton Foundation donors is because they voluntarily released a list of all donors.

The reason you know about her emails is because she voluntarily turned them over to the State Department archives (unlike her predecessors Powell and Rice and the entire Bush administration).

The reason you know about Clinton's hypothyroidism, blood thinners and concussion is because she voluntarily released her medical records.

So if you think secrecy is the problem, you seem to have it exactly backwards. It is the transparency that Clinton's opponents have exploited while overlooking the actual secrecy of Trump. Not only has her transparency been exploited but it ironically has led to her being accused of being crooked because of secrecy.
posted by JackFlash at 10:45 AM on September 17, 2016 [228 favorites]


The great thing Bernie did was focus on issues, issues, issues. Particularly the issues people actually care about.

This is why the Democratic campaign is so frustrating, that they refused to learn from the success of the Sanders campaign in the primaries. i'm not re-litigating anything, i'm just praying that they remember what a really large part of their constituency cares about.

The more we talk about people and not policy, the dumber we all get.
posted by eustatic at 10:46 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Meres Dith

Which makes Trump a Dith Lord. Darth Hater.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:47 AM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


I never imagined myself saying anything good about Trump, but he seems to brilliantly understand how the media works.

Trump has been doing this for over three decades, and he doesn't just understand the media, he is the media. Let that sink in.


Trump is a purely intuitive creature. He knows how to manipulate and communicate with people, but doesn't know how he knows. He never had to look within himself. He always had money and power. He's a perfect media organism.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:47 AM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


One also might consider how things like Whitewater, Vince Foster's suicide, Benghazi, and more have all been investigated to death by people who absolutely hate the Clintons and they came up with nothing.

Even the issue with the emails thing came with a non-binding editorial by a lifelong Republican Clinton-hater who still had to admit there was nothing to prosecute.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [34 favorites]


Darth Hater

Brilliant. Someone fax this over to the Clinton social media team for expedited memeification.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:49 AM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Do you have to sign up in advance to volunteer? My work schedule is fairly crazy right now, so whenever I go to sign up for something, I have no idea if I'm going to be able to commit, so I don't. But there are times when I could totally volunteer; I just don't always know about them in advance. Can I just like, show up at the Hillary campaign office and ask to be put to work?
posted by Weeping_angel at 10:49 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


On the trail, Clinton talks issues constantly, but that's not what the media covers. This perception that she doesn't talk issues is an artifact of the way the press covers the horse race.
posted by chrchr at 10:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [62 favorites]


It's rich calling the Clintons secretive and insular when the person running against Hillary refuses any aspect of transparency whatsoever.

No tax returns, no disclosure of financial interests, NDAs present on virtually every employee,etc

The Clintons are paragons of transparency in comparison and they really aren't any more secretive than standard politicians.

Sanders for instance wasn't exactly transparent about some of his taxes.
posted by vuron at 10:55 AM on September 17, 2016 [54 favorites]


This is sort of trivial yet intriguingly Trumpian in its redolence of fecal matter: apparently the day he supposedly had his colonoscopy he was tweeting and meeting people all day long, in a manner that suggests he is perhaps lying about that procedure too.

He may have literally lied out his ass.
posted by spitbull at 10:57 AM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


For those of us trying to laugh through the tears, Calvin Trillin does a Shouts & Murmurs for The New Yorker, A Trumpian Candidate on Trump’s Corset
posted by morganw at 10:58 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


The press corps is punishing Clinton for not having daily press conferences. They want access and Hillary shows no interest in playing the normal game.

They are willing to give Trump free airtime and a pass on bad behavior because he promises access and frankly he is easy to cover.

The press corp is biased against Clinton but it is primarily because they are lazy but self important assholes with virtually no ability to practice self reflection. This can be seen every white house correspondence dinner where the press frowns at any condemnation of their incompetence and incestuous behavior in regards to people if power.
posted by vuron at 11:03 AM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


I know MetaFilter is strongly critical of Stein voters, but there is no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left other than refusing to vote for hawkish centre-right nominees beholden to Wall Street. Cornel West is not an idiot.

Boiling down Clinton to "hawkish centre-right beholden to Wall Street" is pretty selective.

And Cornel West is an idiot if he believes there is no other way.

I was a Sanders primary voter and supporter. I want a more progressive Democratic party because I want a more progressive society. The primaries are a place to move the party. The fact that it didn't work as well as some of us might have liked this time doesn't change that (though it came close enough even considering Clinton's connectedness and qualification that it should be producing the opposite of a sense of fatalism). The party can be moved by citizen lobbying. It can be moved by other methods of internal conversation. It's hard to move, because there are a lot of other people involved and some of them aren't going to agree with you, but it can be done.

Defecting in the general is not a good strategy for moving the party. It makes center-right votes more valuable (and if the country's views are close to normally distributed, there's more of those than anything left of center-left). Deciphering any kind of "message" through a system that is designed to select candidates is worse than trying to read smoke signals across state lines. And it's a unqualifiedly terrible strategy for moving society as a whole in a progressive direction, which is the real goal.

I get there's a sense of powerlessness but that sense is lying to you to the extent it whispers opting out is the best response to not getting what you wanted, that protest votes in our system are a good idea. Voting Green wouldn't be a good idea even if they actually did good policy along with purer values, which, if Stein is any indication, they don't.

If you liked Sanders in the primary, listen to what he's saying now: show up for Clinton in November, and then organize and continue to try to exert influence.
posted by wildblueyonder at 11:05 AM on September 17, 2016 [39 favorites]


This is essentially saying that the Republicans get to veto Democratic nominees for the Presidency.

It is, and it's not fair, but it's a thing people think. One way I've heard it expressed is that there's always drama (or mishegas) with the Clintons. And even though I know, intellectually, that there actually has been a conspiracy to pin one thing or another on the Clintons for approximately my entire life, more than a dozen investigations and -gates, many of them utterly without merit, it's something you start to internalize. It sinks in that the news throughout most of my life has frequently involved Bill or Hillary being investigated for something, even when I know full well that investigation involves generations of blood-thirsty partisans who would run over their own mothers if they could blame Hillary Clinton for it. Some of that also involves holding Bill's failings against Hillary, which I know perfectly well isn't remotely fair or appropriate, yet I still find myself wanting to do it.

And in that mindset, it's hard to not question everything she does. Why take foreign money for the Foundation? (Because the Foundation helps fight HIV/AIDS and Malaria around the world, among other things.) Why the email server? (Because the NSA blew her off when she asked for something like the system Obama was using, and her predecessor used an AOL account, among other reasons.) Why not tell us she was sick before the 9/11 memorial incident? (Because people were already making up crazy rumors abut her health.) And I know that these are largely stupid questions to be asking. And yet I ask them, because I've been conditioned to by decades of investigations. It's the classic pattern where I ask "why don't you stop hitting yourself?" as if there was ever something she could do to make it stop.

As JackFlash ably points out above, the Clintons have gone out of their way to be transparent in many areas, as opposed to a certain other candidate who believes it's so unfair everyone wants to get all in his business (except when he's using his candidacy to promote one of his businesses). I know all that, intellectually. And I'm absolutely with her and will vote for her and donate and make calls and make unnaturally high pitched noises when she quotes Hamilton and everything else. But when it comes to truthiness, deep in the gut, I can't help but think about all the Clinton drama sometimes; I think "my entire life it's been one thing or another with these people." And I know that means the Republicans have won.
posted by zachlipton at 11:06 AM on September 17, 2016 [49 favorites]


This is sort of trivial yet intriguingly Trumpian in its redolence of fecal matter: apparently the day he supposedly had his colonoscopy he was tweeting and meeting people all day long, in a manner that suggests he is perhaps lying about that procedure too.

I think that's grasping at straws tbh. A colonoscopy takes about half an hour and doesn't need a sedative (although it frequently comes with one). No tweet between 9:13am and 11:11am. 9:30 colonoscopy. Finished by 10:00. Recovered from sedative by 10:30. Met Ms. Martinez at 11:11am.
posted by Francis at 11:11 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Gah, Trump is currently less than two miles from my house right this moment, and is even in a hotel I ride past on my bike frequently. I'd go join the protestors if I wasn't at work.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:15 AM on September 17, 2016


I think "my entire life it's been one thing or another with these people." And I know that means the Republicans have won.

Be strong. Don't give in to the bullies. Letting them win only emboldens them for continued and even worse behavior.
posted by JackFlash at 11:15 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


grasping at straws tbh.

Or some sort of hollow, flexible plastic tube anyway.
posted by spitbull at 11:22 AM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm sure the answer is yes, but did you call to check on the hold-up?

I can do that Monday, but I cannot present myself in my old county for an election board as I am over 1200 miles away from my previous residence in the US. I'm in another country, hence voting absentee!
posted by Kitteh at 11:25 AM on September 17, 2016


Taking a break from canvassing while the football game is on. Today's report: for all the talk about Millennials, it's still the case that every Bernie or Bust holdout I've run into has been a white guy in his 50s.

Anyway, in general it's been a good day. It's been slow going because so many people are signing up to vote by mail.
Do you have to sign up in advance to volunteer? My work schedule is fairly crazy right now, so whenever I go to sign up for something, I have no idea if I'm going to be able to commit, so I don't. But there are times when I could totally volunteer; I just don't always know about them in advance. Can I just like, show up at the Hillary campaign office and ask to be put to work?
It's totally fine to show up for an organized event even if you haven't RSVPed. It's also fine to RSVP "maybe," although my experience is that maybes almost never show. Otherwise, I would call first, so they have time to print out a walk packet and make sure that there's someone around to train you. But it's also fine to show up and ask if they have anything for you to do. Just don't get offended if the answer is "not right now."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:27 AM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Matt Taibbi: Stop Whining About "False Balance"
posted by Trochanter at 11:35 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is back to manic sexist mode. Two tweets within a minute of each other.

Wacky @NYTimesDowd, who hardly knows me, makes up things that I never said for her boring interviews and column. A neurotic dope!

Crazy Maureen Dowd, the wacky columnist for the failing @nytimes, pretends she knows me well--wrong!


That can't possibly be Trump, Trump doesn't hurl personal insults!
posted by Talez at 11:36 AM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Every once in a while I am stunned to hear that Maureen Dowd is STILL a columnist for the Times.
posted by lalex at 11:39 AM on September 17, 2016 [22 favorites]


Last night I had a friend go on an anti-Trump/media tirade and then immediately follow it up with, "too bad Clinton is so secretive." My expression said ??? so he immediately followed it up with "like her heat stroke or whatever." I replied it can't be so secret if I know it actually wasn't heat stroke, so he moved on to "like Whitewater". You complain about the media being too Trumpian and yet you relitigate Whitewater which you are too young to even remember? You are exactly what Trump wants!
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:41 AM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


While Secretary Clinton might prefer otherwise (and rightly so, IMHO), the fact of the matter is that we know far more about this candidate, her policies, her behavioral patterns under various circumstances (some of which were extremely stressful) and even her private life than any other candidate in history. That she did not disclose a bacterial pneumonia diagnosis is understandable in this political climate. Remember her statements in the Humans of New York piece in the last thread (I think it was that one)? Statements dealing with her experience being one of two women taking the LSAT. Those sorts of experiences scar you. Little wonder that she chose to try to power through a 9/11 ceremony and keep the focus on it, rather than cancel her appearance and become the story. It was unfortunate that she did need to leave early, but it was always a calculated risk to take this path. Given her life experience, it was understandable that she would take that risk. What would the health narrative be if she'd announced that she would be leaving the trail for recuperative purposes?

A genuine question: What would people like to know about Secretary Clinton that we don't already know ourselves or can find out through research? I speak here of reasonable things one might need to know about a candidate.

A lot of what is being stated which causes people to distrust her seems to be strawwomen. "Always changing positions," for one. Over thirty years, so have I, so I have no problem with the particular positions she has changed. "Secretive." Again, not particularly true as regards the things that matter. The research is out there. Never has one candidate been so thoroughly investigated by the opposition party and she emerged without that opposition being able to find reasonable charges against her. By this point, I'd think twice before revealing information, especially given her formative experiences.

In the end, we all have a choice to make when we vote. We have four candidates with varying positions on all matters from which to choose. What people need to decide, if none of the candidates exactly meet their list of qualifications, is whether they can make a compromise and accept any of the candidates. If so, then they're in business. If not, they might want to examine the candidates from the standpoint of candidates who would absolutely not be acceptable to them. If there is one such candidateor more than one, then people will have to take up the "lesser of evils" possibility and try to find a candidate they can at least accept as a president.

The one thing that would be very sad to see is people refusing to vote in this particular election because no platform seems to precisely meet their needs. We all have to accept that most of us will rarely get exactly what we want in a candidate or platform. That is a reality in a republic. By winnowing the candidates in the primaries, we achieve a workable number of names on the ballot which assures us of a wide range of political beliefs from which to choose. I can't imagine the situation we would be in without the primaries. Just can't do it. That would lead to the situation in which someone could win the popular vote with a small percentage of the vote overall, and no one achieving 270 electoral votes.

I'll let others hash out the luxury of protest votes in swing states as most here are better at it than I, but I will say that this particular election is a referendum on what this country chooses to be. Choose wisely when you vote; your vote is terribly precious this year. Every year, really, but rarely are the stakes so well deliniated or so high. /soapbox :)
posted by Silverstone at 11:41 AM on September 17, 2016 [45 favorites]


If you're wondering why Trump is going off on Dowd:

Dowd says Trump told her violence at his rallies added a "frisson of excitement."

On CNN this morning. Video in link.
posted by chris24 at 11:44 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


My mom just stopped by and saw my yard sign and was like, ugh, Clinton so I had to talk to her about it briefly. She's a lifelong R-voting libertarian who's been increasingly fed up with the republican drift towards Christo-fascism, so she's never going to be rah rah about a democrat ever ever ever and I already knew she hates Trump. I said, well, we have two options and one of them wants to start a nuclear war so I'd like to try and make sure that doesn't happen. She reluctantly agreed that that's probably what it comes down to but "I just don't trust her." *sigh* It really is hard to talk to people about this because in effect what you have to say is, "You've been a dupe for the last 25 years." No one wants to hear that. It's a lot easier to just be like "just vote for the lesser of two evils" and not defend her in a positive way because it's just so much to slog through and it runs so deep. And I'll be the first to admit that I used to feel the same way and I had to do a lot of reading before I came around. This is not a two minute conversation, it's an ongoing dialogue and it asks a lot of the person you're talking to as far as putting prejudices and ego aside and entertaining the notion that they may have been too credulous in the past and jumped to conclusions based on propaganda and not facts.

Anyway, my mom just sort of hinting that she may pull a D lever at all is a pretty big step just as it is so I left the full Clinton litigation be for the time being.

In other news, I'm signed up to phone bank tomorrow night.
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:46 AM on September 17, 2016 [50 favorites]


Matt Taibbi: Stop Whining About "False Balance"

Oh look it's another straight white male liberal reporter whining that journalism is hard
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:47 AM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


Look, a lot of people don't trust Clinton, but ask them if they trust her not to start a nuclear war.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:48 AM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Imagining Trump using the word 'frisson' is causing my brain to shudder.
posted by Killick at 11:51 AM on September 17, 2016 [35 favorites]


Given that she is talking only about TV news, I don't see any self-awareness at all.

Given that she probably understands that TV news has a far larger viewership and influence than do newspapers, it's a pretty appropriate plea, self awareness notwithstanding.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Imagining Trump using the word 'frisson' is causing my brain to shudder.

Yeah, I'm assuming that phrasing is a Dowd embellishment.
posted by chris24 at 11:52 AM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Matt Taibbi seems to believe in sort of an efficient markets theory of the press, where if a story exists, it must be because the public demanded it. I could use that same logic to work backwards from the fact that he's so far up his own ass to prove that there was something important up there.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


Voting Green wouldn't be a good idea even if they actually did good policy along with purer values, which, if Stein is any indication, they don't.

Just wanted to really, really emphasize this. Our two major political parties have *inertia*. They have *power*. Money flows through them. I've talked about this before, but it's true: they're not going anywhere.

On the right-wing side, we have now spent years watching the Tea Party do this one thing right: instead of forming a new party, they organized inside the existing GOP and took it over. From a purely strategic standpoint, this was correct. Their goals are horrible and I wish them all a fiery demise, but they did this correctly.

On the left, Bernie Sanders is an independent, but he joined up long enough to run for President within the machinery of the Democratic Party. This was the correct strategy, and it worked out pretty well for him. He got heard in a way that Independents *don't*. Many of his ideas made it into the discussion that would not have otherwise. He made a mark because he did this *correctly*.

In both cases, people who really wanted to bring about change understood that the only way to do that is to try to grab the wheel, not reinvent it. They agitated during primaries and fell in line in the general, because that is the way our system actually *works*. People who say otherwise are foolish, lying or both.

The Green Party is for people who would rather feel good about themselves than make a difference. I'm not just basing that on Jill Stein's horrible positions - although every quote from her makes me prefer a dead gorilla - but from their lack of local efforts. Politics is hard. Politics is messy. Politics is about showing up. They're not interested in that. Don't vote for them. Learn from success stories, not failures.

(And don't kid yourself: Bernie is a success story. It doesn't matter that he lost a battle, he got a national platform to talk about his ideas instead of being confined to a state or two.)

Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi is a wonderful argument for UBI, because I would literally prefer he be paid to stay home and shut up.
posted by mordax at 11:54 AM on September 17, 2016 [71 favorites]


I think the enthusiasm gap may be as much fear as anything else.

I am totally pro-Clinton. She is incredible -- and every time I think "Madam President" (or, "Mrs. President"?), I start smiling.

But. The assholes on my Facebook feed. The Bernie supporters, in particular, have been fantastic at shutting down everything whenever any of us post pro-Clinton stuff. (I think there's more support for Stein among my male friends than my female ones. I think there's a lot of liberal men who have talked themselves into believing they're not being misogynistic because they're totally supporting another female candidate.) It's dick-ish, and the sort of shit that men have been allowed to do for centuries.

So I'm voting Clinton. And I'm hoping to seek out the local campaign once I get back from a business trip. But I'm having a hard time thinking of ways to voice my support.

(Incidentally: I live in a state that's red enough not to have a Clinton HQ. Where do you all seek out volunteer opportunities?)
posted by steady-state strawberry at 11:55 AM on September 17, 2016 [25 favorites]


Killick and Chris24 beat me to it. I highly doubt that DJT used that word, since I've never heard it said out loud (I realized this upon trying to mentally pronounce it).

As far as I know DJT is functionally illiterate -- I mean, I'm reasonably certain he does know how to read basic English but I don't think he reads much of the sort of material that might use a word like 'frisson'.

So that's a typically stupid Dowd misstep. It pissed off Trump though, apparently, so I guess I don't care too much.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:55 AM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh look it's another straight white male liberal reporter whining that journalism is hard

That's not what Taibbi is saying AT ALL. He's saying that the public isn't willing to consume the real hard journalism that has been done about all sorts of topics for so long that newsrooms are less and less willing to spend the real dollars to do it on any sort of regular basis. And even when it is done, the public generally consumes the real reporting through secondary sources who are writing fluff piece summaries of the real reporting.

Taibbi is saying this as someone who has done some really serious reporting (oddly, for Rolling Stone, not NYT or WaPo) and who has managed to make enough waves with his reporting that it's affected the tenor and actuality of reality.

Taibbi isn't saying that journalism is hard. That's the opposite of what he's saying.
posted by hippybear at 11:56 AM on September 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


I think there's a lot of liberal men who have talked themselves into believing they're not being misogynistic because they're totally supporting another female candidate.

One that can't possibly win, but see, they're not to blame!
posted by bongo_x at 12:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Haha Taibbi's defense of the pundits is so laughable.

"It's your fault that we submit lazy shitty false equivalence stories without the hint of fact checking because you guys seem to prefer clickbait anyway."

People still sit down and read long form journalism but yeah if you are going to offer completely vacuous puff pieces might as well just click on the buzzfeed article instead.
posted by vuron at 12:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


He's saying that the public isn't willing to consume the real hard journalism that has been done about all sorts of topics for so long that newsrooms are less and less willing to spend the real dollars to do it on any sort of regular basis. And even when it is done, the public generally consumes the real reporting through secondary sources who are writing fluff piece summaries of the real reporting.

All right, I'm being unfair, but I'm not *whining*, and I wanted to punch him. Seriously, does he not appreciate that his guys will be up against the wall *first*?

Anyway, the market's there, even in the our current world of clickbait headlines. The Daily Show set a pretty great example, and led to some fascinating spinoffs. Reporting the truth - even unflattering truth - can be done in a manner that courts us poor, fickle, whining viewers. John Oliver's doing some pretty great stuff lately in particular.

There are solutions besides 'I give up and it's your fault anyway, crybabies.'
posted by mordax at 12:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Ok, I'm so sick of seeing people (elsewhere) going on about how corrupt Clinton is and how many scandals she's had, etc. Is there a handy single link to refute this idea? To show how little There there is there? Of course, the same people just write off any vaguely pro-Clinton piece as "biased." But still, I feel the need to do SOMETHING to spread truth.
posted by threeturtles at 12:09 PM on September 17, 2016


That's not what Taibbi is saying AT ALL. He's saying that the public isn't willing to consume the real hard journalism that has been done about all sorts of topics for so long that newsrooms are less and less willing to spend the real dollars to do it on any sort of regular basis.

I know. And I've read and respected Taibbi's work for a long time. But of course people are going to want to read fluffy supermarket magazine bullshit -- that's no excuse for actual journalists to throw up their hands and give the people the Horse Race Coverage They Want.

It's frustrating because I know he knows this. I don't understand why he's defending the media coverage of this race which, with some shining exceptions (the Washington Post comes to mind) has been really, really awful, particularly from well-off straight white journalists who are going to be just fine under a Trump administration as long as they toe the line.

I appreciate that dead tree media isn't the money machine it was before the Internet but if nationally recognized journalists working for major media outlets are worried about their job security because the sheeple don't care for hard news -- I mean, come on. That's ridiculous.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Jill Stein isn't a progressive. Look at her record as an elected official. What did she do about local progressive issues like affordable housing, the living wage and integration? Even on health care her record is one of charging rich people for Medical care, not free clinics.
posted by humanfont at 12:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


From the Taibbi article:

"It's worth noting that the exploration of Trump's iniquities and unfitness for office in the last year has been truly awesome, both in terms of raw volume and vehemence of tone. Anyone who tries to argue that there's insufficiently vast documentation of Trump's insanity is either being willfully obtuse or not paying real attention to the news."

Bullshit. The depth, tenor and duration of coverage of Trump has paled in comparison to his issues. Nate Silver had a good tweetstorm yesterday that covered it. Basically, if a "mitt" is a unit of measurement of scandalousness, then Romney and Obama are probably one mitt candidates. Clinton is probably a 5 mitt candidate and covered thusly. But Trump is being covered like a 7 mitt candidate, but he's really a 50 mitt candidate. Despite covering him more than others, it's nowhere near the coverage necessary given his corruption and issues.
posted by chris24 at 12:16 PM on September 17, 2016 [39 favorites]


Imagining Trump using the word 'frisson' is causing my brain to shudder.

More plausibly: 'fuckton'.
posted by mazola at 12:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


(Incidentally: I live in a state that's red enough not to have a Clinton HQ. Where do you all seek out volunteer opportunities?)

Have you tried searching for nearby events on her website?
posted by peeedro at 12:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


The journalism industry is large and maybe it's less the fault of journalists themselves, the writers, and more the editors and the managers and the leadership who choose the lowest common denominator formats?
posted by Apocryphon at 12:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Both journalists and Clinton's own camp (especially the internet/social media people) have been outplayed a lot in these last couple of weeks. (They had Pepe the cartoon frog on HillaryClinton.com home page for days and days, totally buying into the low-road nonsense and ruining any shot at a policy-and-grownups-based discussion all week.) It's disappointing: where did all those culture-savvy Obama internet people go, anyway?
posted by rokusan at 12:21 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


They had Pepe the cartoon frog on HillaryClinton.com home page for days and days, totally buying into the low-road nonsense and ruining any shot at a policy-and-grownups-based discussion all week.

What? Are you talking about this? How is that in any way buying into low-road nonsense? It's an attempt to explain an under-the-radar (to the olds, anyway) symbol that's energizing the opponent's base.

FFS, someone shouted out out "PEPE!" during Hillary's press conference. The fight about this has been brought to her.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:24 PM on September 17, 2016 [37 favorites]


I'm still trying to get over the picture from Flint the other day, is that from The Killing Joke or am I confusing it with The Dark Knight?
posted by bongo_x at 12:25 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


I know. And I've read and respected Taibbi's work for a long time. But of course people are going to want to read fluffy supermarket magazine bullshit -- that's no excuse for actual journalists to throw up their hands and give the people the Horse Race Coverage They Want.

And the whole thesis is a false dichotomy, anyway. It's hardly unusual to be a reader who clicks on listicles about the 100 worst movie villains, or what have you, and who also subscribes to (and reads) the WaPo or The Economist. Being interested in entertainment doesn't mean you're too fucking stupid to appreciate meaningful journalism, as Taibbi suggests.
posted by holborne at 12:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Journalists don't necessarily need to surrender to lowest common denominator false equivalence puff pieces, they choose to operate under that regime.

Yes journalism is taking a beating but still it's hard to have sympathy when the response to economic challenges is turning your product into garbage.

But mortgages make cowards of us all.
posted by vuron at 12:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm still trying to get over the picture from Flint the other day, is that from The Killing Joke or am I confusing it with The Dark Knight?

People have made a good point about the contrast
posted by Francis at 12:29 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]



Imagining Trump using the word 'frisson' is causing my brain to shudder.

Yeah, I'm assuming that phrasing is a Dowd embellishment.


He would never use a word like that in front of his supporters. Maybe that's why he's pissed at Dowd.
posted by Surely This at 12:32 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is it one of those "best" words?
posted by Burhanistan at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


The journalism industry is large and maybe it's less the fault of journalists themselves, the writers, and more the editors and the managers and the leadership targeting the lowest common denominator media?

If only there were a way to establish media outlets that were insulated from the profit motive or mandated to adhere to journalistic principles.

Not to say that the Toronto Star or the BBC are perfect by any means, but it's not a coincidence that a lot of the best coverage of this election has been done by journalists hailing from places where public and non-profit news organizations set the pace for reporting standards. NPR tries to do that here, but it looks like the member-donor model is not a whole lot better in terms of real journalistic independence.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thank you for the field reports, ArbitraryAndCapricious and others, I like hearing those.

I miss the general positivity I felt during and after the DNC - these threads have (with some exception) been a shelter from the maddening negativity swirling elsewhere in my infosphere. I'm really bummed that the popular narrative seems to be "who is worse," because I love how passionate and geeky Hillary comes across in conversations like the previously linked vox interview. I catch clips of her speeches surprisingly infrequently, but every time I'm reminded "oh yeah, I really like her, I'm voting for this (and not just against that)". It drives me crazy to have conversations with close friends who will say things like "I read her website and like her policies, but her campaign tweets condescending stuff and I just don't like her and can't stand the sound of her voice when she gives speeches" Said friend is introspective enough to recognize that "vocal tone" is no reason to disqualify a candidate and will be voting for her, but it makes me sad that this is the (simplified) reaction of an otherwise liberal, well-travelled, and well-read individual.

Also, well said steady-state strawberry - let us know if you find a way to make optimism cool again.

also first post wooo, hi everyone
posted by apeship at 12:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [49 favorites]


Vice News reporter arrested at a Trump event in Houston.

-> @AlxThomp, @ViceNews politics and policy editor, arrested "while inquiring about press access:"
posted by chris24 at 12:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Taibbi has half a point. Do chewy meaty detailed journalism, and at best right now you'll have it screencapped into Twitter, dumped into Facebook, paraphrased as a Vox 'splainer, converted into GIFs or a video for Buzzfeed, and otherwise recapitulated fifteen different A-B testing ways with a teeny tiny (via) link. At worst, you're competing against Sidebar of Shame stories or garbage SEO clickbait fake news for the Facebook headline topics.

However, I think Brian Beutler makes a more valid point that high-end media outlets have failed in their basic duty to tell the public what they've seen.
posted by holgate at 12:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


Is there a handy single link to refute this idea

I asked about this in another thread - would love a single source for refuting talking points against Clinton, just a quick place to refer to when I see "corrupt!" or "emails!" or "her health!" or "she's a conservative warhawk" types of garbage posts on facebook.

On that note - I understand why back-and-forth over Jill Stein and Clinton-vs-ThirdParty stuff gets deleted, and appreciate the moderation, but must admit I'm always a bit disappointed when it happens...I get that a lot of folks here get all "ugh not this again" but I'm personally a sucker for busting out popcorn and seeing people get smacked down and piled on WWF-style, particularly exchanges between people who are really smart and people who *think* they are really smart.

Call it a guilty pleasure, but for whatever reason I absorb a ton of talking points that way so if anyone wants to point me to places where these exchanges are still going on instead of getting modded out (r/hillaryclinton is pretty heavily moderated for example), I'd click and bookmark that link so damn fast.
posted by windbox at 12:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't understand how anyone thinks Trump will win Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Clinton's ground game is at least as good as Obama's. This week the campaign is sending 10 busloads full of New Yorkers to canvas on Saturday and Sunday - that's not counting New Yorkers I know who are driving to Easton, PA, where they're sending people out all day to long to canvas if you just show up at the Dem headquarters. This is going to go on until election day and Trump has NO ground game as far as anyone knows.

In Ohio, the governor (Kasich) hates Trump, so it's not likely there will be much help forthcoming.

I wouldn't believe Trump was going to win those states unless he was up by 10.
posted by maggiemaggie at 12:42 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can folks please stop linking to tweets that then require further clicks to get to the article or news item. As in this example. It is quite annoying.
posted by humanfont at 12:44 PM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


From Taibbi's article:
Under the rules of this reality series which media consumers turn into a gigantic hit every four years, collapsing in front of a cell-phone camera at a 9/11 memorial service is more important than a dozen position papers.

It just is. You proved it when you clicked on that video of the episode last weekend and didn't read a compare-and-contrast piece on, for instance, the candidates' banking policies.
Sure. That's always going to be the case and has always been the case. The fact that sensationalism sells is not a new phenomenon. But we've seen, time and time again, that people can and will care about boring stories about banking policies and the like if you make them interesting. Matt Taibbi, of all people, should know this, because he made a name for himself distilling tales about defaulting tranches of subprime mortgages and CDOs into something that made a lot of us look at Rolling Stone magazine for the first and only time. Planet Money got us to care about the life and death of Toxie, their very own toxic asset. John Oliver routinely gets millions of people to watch him talk, for 15-20 minutes at a time, about 401k fees and car loans and public defenders because he swears sometimes and puts up funny pictures while he's doing it, almost all based on other people's reporting. People actually do care.

Taibbi seems to conclude that us readers and voters get what we deserve because people click on entertaining stuff instead of eating our vegetables. Well, it turns out that lots of people happily eat vegetables as long as you dress them up in some sauce first. Yes, I know I'm asking for yet more from overworked newsrooms, but part of the job is providing information in ways people will consume it.

Taibbi also ignores the fact that the number and placement of stories is one of the primary signals journalists and editors use to signal what is important. When there's maybe two stories in a month on tax policy and 15 on the Clinton Foundation, that says something. And if you're telling me that writers can't find a way to make a story about how much each and every one of us will have to pay in taxes at least as engaging and relevant to our lives as a story about who met with the Secretary of State and when, then I think you aren't trying hard enough.
posted by zachlipton at 12:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


maggiemaggie, as a PA resident, it's great to hear that all those resources are coming down to help here, but it's foolish to believe that Hillary's ground game advantage could overcome a 5-10% gap. If you don't believe me, take it from David Axelrod:
At the same time, Trump is going to have less of a turnout operation than any candidate in memory. Do you have a sense of how big a Clinton advantage that is?

It is 1 to 3 percent I would say, in some of these states. In most states that is not going to make a difference, but in battleground states … when you look at a state like North Carolina, that could be very meaningful.
Now, maybe Axelrod was assuming Trump would show up with a credible ground game, but still, 10% is a massive gap to assume you can overcome with outreach on election day.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:52 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apochyphon makes a very good point here. Remember the failed CinC event on NBC where apparently Andy Lack set the tone and behavior of the forum, not Matt Lauer? You can make a fair case that Lauer didn't need to buy into the agenda to the degree he did, but apparently his position and income from NBC were more important to him than a fair and balanced forum.

I do believe that editors and publishers are determining a lot of the campaign coverage this year. They'll have to ask themselves when this is over just what their actual jobs are going to be worth if their clickbait strategy has allowed a Trump win by not telling the unvarnished truth about him. He's already said that he intends to rewrite the slander and libel laws. That could mean an assault on the First Amendment and significantly fewer journo jobs of all sorts. We'd only need the expected Trump Media Corp. then.

I'm not asking them to protect Secretary Clinton--that's not their job. I am asking them to be fair in both the amount of coverage and nature of coverage to both candidates.

If they managed equal time coverage to both candidates, I realize it would undermine Trump's GOTV efforts, since he's figured out that his advantage in this area is a) free to him and b) effective for his projected constituency. Fairness, then, would be a definite benefit to Secretary Clinton, one she's not seen in the general election. Not to mention, the right thing to do and the honorable thing to do.
posted by Silverstone at 12:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can folks please stop linking to tweets that then require further clicks to get to the article or news item.

The "arrested" was the article.
posted by chris24 at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2016


Taibbi seems to conclude that us readers and voters get what we deserve because people click on entertaining stuff instead of eating our vegetables.

Not from the quote, he doesn't. From the quote alone I might conclude more cautiously that there are structural factors that affect how the public receives and processes politics. To say that he thinks we deserve the status quo is reading a lot into that quote. Unless what you mean, by "seems", is from something else this person has said.
posted by polymodus at 12:57 PM on September 17, 2016


All this handwringing about reporting in this thread is really just a failure of the news media to do what everyone was required to do in AP high school classes, and then again in college: comparison/contrast. Want to see real comparison/contrast in action? Samantha Bee did this on Full Frontal's recent return from hiatus, and it's breathtaking.
posted by hippybear at 1:00 PM on September 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


maggiemaggie: In Ohio, the governor (Kasich) hates Trump, so it's not likely there will be much help forthcoming.

Kasich is held forth as a "moderate" Republican, but those of us in Ohio know better. He loathes Trump, and won't lift a finger to help him.
Rob Portman, who is running for reelection to the Senate, has endorsed Trump. That seems like a risky calculus to me, but it remains to be seen how much he actively campaigns for Trump, or how much "help" he would accept from Trump in his own campaign.
posted by Surely This at 1:02 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


As an example, take the New York Times story from the beginning of the month: Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Dept. It's about the time a Clinton Foundation staffer shot a State Department official an email asking if they could get diplomatic passports before accompanying Bill Clinton to Pyongyang for unofficial negotiations about American journalists held in North Korea. Then the State Department didn't give them diplomatic passports. Yeah, big scandal.

This is the kind of story the "false balance" argument is talking about. It was shopped around by Judicial Watch, a group originally founded by Larry Klayman to attack the Clintons. And it's an utterly uninteresting story about a not ridiculous request that wasn't fulfilled. Yet it got significant attention for a little bit as a "Clinton Scandal" story. How can you tell me that this nothing story about passports is inherently more interesting than a serious policy story about finance or taxes or health care or any of the dozens of policy areas worth discussing in this campaign?
posted by zachlipton at 1:03 PM on September 17, 2016 [55 favorites]


If only there were a way to establish media outlets that were insulated from the profit motive or mandated to adhere to journalistic principles.

Has anyone been following PBS NewsHour's coverage of the race?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:05 PM on September 17, 2016


but it's foolish to believe that Hillary's ground game advantage could overcome a 5-10% gap

Yeah, I was exaggerating for effect. I will be canvassing in both PA and Ohio, so I don't think they should be taken for granted. It's just when I see pundits say Trump could win those states I find it highly unlikely.
posted by maggiemaggie at 1:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


However, I think Brian Beutler makes a more valid point that high-end media outlets have failed in their basic duty to tell the public what they've seen.

Well said Mr. Beutler, your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter podcast.

(n.b. this is not an endorsement of this podcast, I literally am subscribing to it right now.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]




Trip report: the outskirts of Lancaster, PA.

Southeastern PA is, like Libya, a land of contrast. From where I live, you can go twenty minutes east and be in Philadelphia with all that that implies, or twenty minutes west and be at a Wal-Mart whose parking lot still has horse-and-buggy hitching posts. This is the hitching post side, with touristy stuff along all the highways leading into Amish country and deep deep deep deeeeeeeeeeeeeep rural territory.

Seen: A sign from Amish PAC encouraging America's plainest citizens to cast their votes for a flamboyant millionaire philanderer. They've also been getting hit by mail.

Seen: On the corner of US 30, where there once was a Turkey Hill c-store and then a Verizon Wireless store and now a boarded up building, an aspiring entrepreneur has set up Trump Central. T-shirts for sale, hats, stickers, a sign marked ♪ SINGING TRUMP ♫ that raises some very uncomfortable questions, and people standing next to a cardboard cutout of The Donald getting their picture taken with it.

Clap louder! Clap louder, everyone, or Tinkerrump won't live!
posted by delfin at 1:40 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm sick of this "if you don't support Hillary you're misogynist" bullshit. That is so patronizing. I think she's a corporate sell-out and a warhawk. I don't care what gender she is.

It is misogynist if you call Hillary "a corporate sell-out and a warhawk," but don't apply the same label to Obama for doing the same things. Anybody who does that really does care what gender Hillary is, regardless of how they doth protest otherwise.
posted by jonp72 at 1:45 PM on September 17, 2016 [44 favorites]


This was the tweet you linked. This was the tweet linked from the tweet you linked. This was the article linked from the tweet from the tweet you linked.

Maybe I'm the only one annoyed by this pattern of links to tweets which are just links to links. I think that unless there is something added by the tweet, we should try to link to the original content. Furthermore it seems to me that tweets are often written to maximize clicks and outrage, not further a discussion.
posted by humanfont at 1:45 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


The Amish having a PAC seems like the most un-Amish thing ever. I would hope it's an astoturf operation run by some GOP operatives and that the Amish would see through it.
posted by PenDevil at 1:47 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


It is misogynist if you call Hillary "a corporate sell-out and a warhawk," but don't apply the same label to Obama for doing the same things. Anybody who does that really does care what gender Hillary is, regardless of how they doth protest otherwise.

I mean, Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, most of the post-DLC New Democrats arguably can be labelled as such. HRC isn't substantially worse than any of them, but she isn't substantially better. Certainly people could have been more critical of Obama, but also make sure to treat John Edwards exactly the same, otherwise they would have been accused of being racist.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2016


"People to Compare Donald Trump To" Graphed by Coolness. I would've included Putin and Mr. Burns from The Simpsons myself.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2016


Seen: A sign from Amish PAC encouraging America's plainest citizens to cast their votes for a flamboyant millionaire philanderer. They've also been getting hit by mail.

I personally want to know how the hell the Amish will vote in PA without drivers licences.
posted by Talez at 1:51 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Amish having a PAC seems like the most un-Amish thing ever. I would hope it's an astoturf operation run by some GOP operatives and I that the Amish would see through it.

Amish for Trump!
Amish PAC was started by an alum of a pro-Carson super PAC, an ex-Amish donor to that super PAC and an employee of Gingrich Productions. The group is planning to mount an old-fashioned, billboards-and-newspaper-ads effort this summer, designed to encourage Amish people in Pennsylvania and Ohio to turn out for Trump in November.
posted by peeedro at 1:53 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I personally want to know how the hell the Amish will vote in PA without drivers licences.

wat
posted by tonycpsu at 1:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ok, I'm so sick of seeing people (elsewhere) going on about how corrupt Clinton is and how many scandals she's had, etc. Is there a handy single link to refute this idea?

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer
Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt — Is He Right?
posted by kirkaracha at 1:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Doesn't PA have voter ID laws? The Republican House Leader was boasting back in 2012 that their voter ID laws were going to turn PA red.
posted by Talez at 1:57 PM on September 17, 2016


A woman told me today she hated HRC because of that "stand by your man" quote. Oh she hates Trump too but you know HRC and the cookie quote thing
posted by angrycat at 1:59 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Doesn't PA have voter ID laws? The Republican House Leader was boasting back in 2012 that their voter ID laws were going to turn PA red.

The voter ID laws were struck down based on provisions in the state constitution & never went into effect.
posted by jonp72 at 2:01 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


"I'm still trying to get over the picture from Flint the other day, is that from The Killing Joke or am I confusing it with The Dark Knight?"

"I was scared Secret Service would tackle me for touching him and there was a lot of people around yelling."

-Amariyanna Copeny.

Her mothers Facebook response:

"Ok ya'll, that pic is being BLOWN way out of proportion. Mari was not terrified of that man, she still wants to ask him her question."

Look, the people of this city have had historic strikes, Weatherman war councils, decimation of industry, epidemic like poverty, #1 murder rate, autoworld, Don Williamson and the poisioning of the water supply.

Donald Trump doesn't scare us, but the distortion of truth hurts and you don't get to do that.
posted by clavdivs at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Re Amish voting without driver's licenses in a Voter ID state: Does Pennsylvania offer State ID cards? WA does--they look a whole lot like driver's licences and, if current, are accepted the same way as driver's licenses.

On review, jonp72 explains that this situation won't be necessary. It should be considered in any state that still has Voter ID, though. Unless the law is written to exclude the non-driving voter for some reason.
posted by Silverstone at 2:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


....Republican House Leader was boasting back in 2012...

Yeah, that was ole turdy-turd Turzai thinking he was the biggest smarty pants in the room.

I think eventually they did get some thing working in terms of VoterID, but it took a lot of effort and has been approved and repealed a number of times. I don't live in PA so I stopped trying to follow it.

This site seems to be current - Everyone.votesPA.com
posted by lampshade at 2:05 PM on September 17, 2016


I think the fact that Amish don't watch TV might be an immunization against Trumpism. But hell, if Trump is leading in Mormon territory anything could happen I guess.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is misogynist if you call Hillary "a corporate sell-out and a warhawk," but don't apply the same label to Obama for doing the same things.

That's valid and wise. I think most liberals and/or Democrats* who dislike Clinton for those reasons, though, are at least somewhat disappointed in Obama on the same grounds. It's just that the middle of a heated election when Obama's positions are pretty much moot isn't necessarily the time you're going to hear much about the latter. (There are probably disagreements each way about degree, too, but I don't think those have to be sexist any more than they have to be racist, and Obama isn't running against Clinton.)

Everyone on the center/left seems really, really fired up, anyway. One thing about daily Trump rage is that it shows there isn't any real enthusiasm gap to worry about, so that's good... I think?

* Now, a right-winger who dislikes Clinton and claims those same reasons rather than acknowledging sexism or other irrational hatred... well, those I have less charity toward, given how the right's acted in those areas for 30 years.
posted by rokusan at 2:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


First time voters in PA must have voter ID - I got to that link from the pa.gov dept of state page
posted by maggiemaggie at 2:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow, I need to download all the Sam Bee shows now. I wasn't delighted with the first couple episodes, but if she's this sharp and on-target now, she's back to must-see in this house.
posted by rokusan at 2:12 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've been off social media for a couple of weeks and had limited Internet access as well. My heart fell when I looked at 538. I got into a passionate discussion with people over Eid, about how Clinton has been subject to a smear campaign for decades. Looking forward to casting my Ohio absentee ballot.
posted by bardophile at 2:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


A sign from Amish PAC encouraging America's plainest citizens to cast their votes for a flamboyant millionaire philanderer.

"Hard Working, Pro-Life, Family Dedicated...Just Like YOU." It's true. He's so decidated to families he's had five children by three wives.

Amish for Trump!
Donald Kraybill, an expert on the Amish people at Elizabethtown College, said he guesses that the most generous turnout scenario would be about 2,000 Amish voters each in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

In 2004, President George W. Bush received about 1,300 Amish votes in heavily Amish Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, he said — the product of the most successful political outreach to the community in recent memory.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have plenty of acquaintances who are radical progressive anti-establishment types who really despise Clinton and Obama/Biden alike. I just want to note that these people indeed exist. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that these women are self-loathing/internalized misogynists.

If the only response to "I think Hillary's policies and decisions have killed a lot of brown people and that is upsetting"/"Clinton is a warhawk" is "I bet you didn't say that about Obama/Biden!!!"/"Other politicians do it too!" - these folks read it as a cop-out and not much more.
posted by windbox at 2:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think most liberals and/or Democrats* who dislike Clinton for those reasons, though, are at least somewhat disappointed in Obama on the same grounds.
After finishing The Looming Tower, the 9/11 Commission Report, and The Secret History of ISIS, I am less convinced that measured hawkishness is essentially terrible. There are certainly arguments to be made that the US inevitably screws up overt, clandestine, and covert action, but sticking your head in the sand until something disastrous happens seems to also be bad.
posted by xyzzy at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


The article was directly linked in my text. Easily seen by hovering over the link. The tweet linked was from Brian Stelter of CNN, also clear while hovering, which I included because in addition to the information in the article, I often find interesting and valuable info and exchanges between the press in Twitter replies and threads. So I gave both options in case people were interested in convos on it outside of MeFi.
posted by chris24 at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I agree with the idea of linking articles over tweets to articles (and chris24 did directly link the article), but I do appreciate the people who post interesting and often hilarious tweets in these threads, because I don't generally have the time or energy to keep up with election stuff on Twitter, and I feel like I get a "best of" view thanks to those of you who post quality tweets.
posted by zachlipton at 2:25 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


After finishing The Looming Tower, the 9/11 Commission Report, and The Secret History of ISIS, I am less convinced that measured hawkishness is essentially terrible.

Those of us who remember the 90s and the Bill Clinton Presidency are essentially convinced that measured hawkishness, as long as it is measured, isn't essentially terrible. Not intervening in Rwanda was a tragedy. The NATO intervention in Bosnia probably stopped a lot of ethnic cleansing.
posted by Francis at 2:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [42 favorites]


Trump is massively corrupt, criminally dishonest, greedy, power-hungry, lecherous and bigoted in multiple ways. He is the perfect reflection of Traditional America. But his lifelong business practices show that his bigotry is a lessor factor in his decisions; only in his calculations to build support has he let that flag fly, but as President, if the ruling sheik of a country he has hotels in were to pressure him, he'd drop any anti-Muslim proposals in a heartbeat. And he'd stop complaining forever about any company exporting jobs to China if the Bank of China were to write-off his personal debts to them. I actually trust Trump not to throw nukes at any country that could throw nukes back at us. But there are parts of the Middle East he'd love to make permanently radioactive (and he'd take their radioactive oil... fossil fuels AND nuclear energy together, what a deal!!)

And here's an analogy: America is on a steady downward slide. If Hillary were President, we'd continue that route, with minor adjustments on some issues to slow the decline. If Trump were President, we'd go straight off the nearest cliff into the jagged rocks below. An there is nobody America who can ever get the support to be elected President who would reverse our downward slide, including Sanders... not without electing a LOT of other anti-downward people to other offices. And the VAST majority of Americans may complain about the downward slide, but would complain louder if they had to stop riding and begin to trudge back uphill.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


So Russia just suggested that the White House supports ISIS

Being worried about Putin's shenanigans ain't red-baiting in this wonderful year of 2016, folks
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


Do you have to sign up in advance to volunteer? My work schedule is fairly crazy right now, so whenever I go to sign up for something, I have no idea if I'm going to be able to commit, so I don't. But there are times when I could totally volunteer; I just don't always know about them in advance. Can I just like, show up at the Hillary campaign office and ask to be put to work?

Online phone banking could be a great option for you! You can sign in and pick up calls whenever, and all from the comfort of your own home! I like to call from my front porch and/or in my PJs.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:44 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


By what objective measure is "America on a steady downward slide?" Since when?
posted by spitbull at 2:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


So Russia just suggested that the White House supports ISIS

Being worried about Putin's shenanigans ain't red-baiting in this wonderful year of 2016, folks


That's not new, that's the standard Kremlin line. 'The West are fascists (like literally the descendants of the Nazis) who created ISIS, only Putin can stand up to American fascism and state sponsorship of terror to protect Russia and the world.'
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:47 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Put differently, a slide from what? When was this golden age from which we have "slid"?

For persons of color, at least, dates before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act don't count. And since then things have hardly ever been rosy either.
posted by spitbull at 2:49 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


If the only response to "I think Hillary's policies and decisions have killed a lot of brown people and that is upsetting"/"Clinton is a warhawk" is "I bet you didn't say that about Obama/Biden!!!"/"Other politicians do it too!" - these folks read it as a cop-out and not much more.

Well I think the question there is "who did you vote for in 2012." If they say Obama, then they are not being consistent to their principles. I mean I did get into an argument with someone and eventually it came down to "I'm a pacifist and won't vote for anyone who wages war" and "Stein is the pacifist candidate" and I just wished him luck with that, but asked him to cease using the term "murderer" about Clinton because she served as Secretary of State or, at least, also be willing to call everyone else involved with the federal government murderers as well.

So, yeah, if you're a pure pacifist and that's your one issue, fine, but if that only comes up when you talk about Clinton....I think there's bias happening.
posted by threeturtles at 2:53 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


By what objective measure is "America on a steady downward slide?" Since when?

Probably since the formation of a fascist white nationalist party that has strong support from the military and law enforcement
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Let me add one more formulation: for Trump (and Sanders/Stein supporters in my opinion) the main "downward slide" appears to be in, very specifically, the domain of white male privilege.

In aggregate economic terms America was never any fairer than it is today,or any wealthier or more powerful. We have 5% unemployment with -- yes! -- rising incomes and markets. No draft. Improving air and water quality over 30-40 years. And vibrant wealthy cities with low crime rates. More people have health insurance than ever before too. And go to college.

Seems to me the election pits "steady downward slide (in my white privilege)" folks against everyone else for whom things have been looking up overall, not least since we elected our first president of color.
posted by spitbull at 2:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


Probably since the formation of a fascist white nationalist party that has strong support from the military and law enforcement

So... since always?
posted by asteria at 2:57 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


RobotVoodooPower, this election represents a "slide" perhaps, but only if Trump wins. His exact pitch is "steady downward slide amirite white folks?"
posted by spitbull at 2:57 PM on September 17, 2016


If they say Obama, then they are not being consistent to their principles.

It is possible to criticize someone's policies and also vote for them. The people criticizing Clinton's hawkish tendencies aren't hypocrites for not voting for Stein or Johnson or La Riva or whoever. For someone concerned about our foreign policy Clinton and Trump are not the same, and despite the sudden deluge of Gary Johnson radio ads declaring otherwise one of those two is going to be President.
posted by edeezy at 2:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also on the issues of pacifism and hawkishness, what I find so disingenuous in that argument is "Ok, so, what should we do?" I was incredibly, loudly opposed to the Iraq War in 2003. I am, by philosophical nature a pacifist non-interventionist. But unfortunately, the leader of our country was determined to lead us all into a shitshow and that created the global situation we now have. It created ISIS. It led to the instability of an entire region and a dedicated organization of terrorists with no central core to defeat.

So given that we don't have a time machine, what are we supposed to do NOW? "Not getting involved" isn't an option. Saying "Our bad" and explaining that really, we've changed and won't make any more mistakes if people just don't attack us isn't going to work. So, what, from a pacifist, non-hawkish POV are we supposed to do. Saying "if only we hadn't gone into Iraq" is correct but currently meaningless. The fact is that shit is a mess and if we do nothing, it's likely to only get worse and lots and lots of people are going to die. So, now what?
posted by threeturtles at 3:04 PM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


The people criticizing Clinton's hawkish tendencies aren't hypocrites for not voting for Stein or Johnson or La Riva or whoever.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if they say they won't vote for Clinton because she's a hawk but they DID vote for Obama (the second time, I can see a 2008 vote being anti-war), then that's a contradiction. I'm not talking about people who are criticizing but voting for her, I'm talking about all the people saying they're voting third party or sitting this out.
posted by threeturtles at 3:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Russia just suggested that the White House supports ISIS
You wonder who Trump would nuke? Every territory controlled by anti-Sadat rebels, both ISIS and honest freedom-fighters, and it'd inevitably be a joint effort of the US and Russia, we'd provide some bombs and they'd provide some.

By what objective measure is "America on a steady downward slide?" Since when?
I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the leftists whose #1 issue is Income/Wealth distribution (warning: link to Bernie Sanders campaign website), as the persons to whom that argument should be made. Under Trump, most of America's wealth won't go to the .01%, it'll go to the .0000001% - Donald's family.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you are unwilling to vote for Hillary because she is a secretive, warmongering, cryptofascist then chances are good that your privilege insulates yourself from the negative consequences of a potential Trump presidency.

Stein and Johnson have zero chance to win and quite frankly if Hillary loses the next Democratic candidate will be even more centrist.

Losses result in future candidates running towards the center rather than running towards the margins.

But sure go ahead and engage in the standard x=not liberal enough for me so I abstain or protest vote but be sure to explain to those people whose lives will be materially worse under Trump why your convictions should be more important than their lives and wellbeing.
posted by vuron at 3:09 PM on September 17, 2016 [63 favorites]


So, at this point the RNC could literally nominate Hitler, or Satan, and still poll 40+% of the electorate.

What the fcuk is wrong with our white people?
posted by percor at 3:13 PM on September 17, 2016 [38 favorites]


White supremacy (because this goes beyond mere privilege) is apparently the most important thing and must be defended at all costs.
posted by asteria at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


What the fcuk is wrong with our white people?
my business was shut down by illegal immigrants.... The bigger companies filter people in with fake I.D.'s they can pay them next to nothing and underbid contracts. I'm all for immigration but it has to be done the right way. And I'm sorry if I'm worried about our current relationship with Muslims. This is a sovereign country and should be kept as so. We are more than happy to have you! And hopefully in the future can open back up to the Middle East but as of now our failed policies in the Middle East has created a monster that we cannot see coming. We have way to many problems of our own here, we need to worry about ourselves before giving more hand outs. There are plenty of countries in the Middle East that have plenty of space for immigrants? Why is this even an issue? But again this is one of the things that make this country great. I can have my opinion and it should be respected as I respect others. I might not agree but I do respect.
One of the few Trump supporters I know. His own business failed, he's broke and scared. He's an ex-con so he struggles to find "normal" employment. I can't really blame him. From his vantage point he's got two crappy choices and at least one seems to be full of bravado, extraordinarily loud about what's wrong with the status quo, and assuring him that he'll fix it.
posted by Talez at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's just team thinking. If your college football team gets a suspected rapist as a quarterback you'll find a way to like him (if you're a standard issue college football fan, that is).
posted by argybarg at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


White supremacy (because this goes beyond mere privilege) is apparently the most important thing and must be defended at all costs.

God I hope this is a winning strategy
:

By squarely siding with civil rights activists who demand that racism be forcefully confronted, she’s making clear that she views her path to victory doesn’t run through the white working-class vote. Rather, she’s making a bet that the makeup of 21st century America allows her to do something no Democratic nominee, not even Barack Obama, has done before: win the White House without winking at white grievance.
posted by percor at 3:23 PM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


People really exist in their media bubbles so it makes it extraordinarily difficult to express nuance about a situation. When hardline conservatives blame Clinton because the Arab Spring occurred under her watch they don't know the situation because it's deep and extraordinarily complicated. All they know is Obama was President, Clinton was Secretary of State and everything over there went to shit. They don't know who Mohamed Bouazizi or why he even matters in all of this. Hell, I try to immerse myself in this and even I had to Google his name. God help you if you are a man on the street trying to make heads or tails of this.
posted by Talez at 3:23 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you have lived your entire life where white males dominate politics and commerce and you have internalized that as being the only conceivable state of affairs your brain is capable of engaging in a remarkable level of rationalizations.

Trump isn't racist he is standing up for traditional values and job creators.

He isn't sexist he just wants to make sure religious values are respected (as long as they are Christian values).

That and some people just really like someone who is willing to use racism and not be apologetic about it because people shouldn't have to feel bad for using racial slurs I guess
posted by vuron at 3:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


vuron: I was going to quote a bunch of your comments to reply but I realized that could come across as jerky, so I'll just say that hanging our hats on the idea that the polling around this election is significantly off because it is undercounting minority and younger voters is probably a desperation move. Like... if polling is showing a dead heat on election day you bet I'll be crossing my fingers for this supposed groundswell of minority voters which polling isn't picking up on but it would really, really, really be better if Clinton were ahead with more traditional voter models instead. Because likely voters vote. That's what makes them likely voters. Unlikely voters vote at lower rates.

Do I hope those unlikely voters come out in higher numbers this time around? Yes. But most campaigns which depend on the polling being wrong and not picking up less-likely voter support end up being losing campaigns.
posted by Justinian at 3:31 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


Sorry, but in my personal anecdotal experience, I've known maybe 5 'ex-cons' (that admitted so), and the only one I personally ever trusted was NOT a white male... but every one of the white males would be preferred for a job before him.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:33 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe this isn't the best thread to discuss Stein, because, e.g., I don't know much about Stein, and I tried keyword searching up and but seems to be a lack is somebody knowledgeable about Stein and is able to discuss and critique her approach in a clear and calm manner. Instead, I saw a lot of hate on Stein and ambiguous criticism of her followers or supporters, but that angry talk is the last thing we need. It's also not a liberal attitude.
posted by polymodus at 3:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


So wait we can't vote third party this time because of Trump. Last time because reasons, the time before that because, HRC might win, the time before that because more reasons. When, when is it a good time to get rid of the two party duopoly?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:42 PM on September 17, 2016


I don't know, ask the respective third parties when they'll start taking the down-ticket races more seriously.

Or when they'll show a willingness to work with the parties to get policy passed. Because that's something that happens in a multi-party system.
posted by asteria at 3:45 PM on September 17, 2016 [52 favorites]


So wait we can't vote third party this time because of Trump. Last time because reasons, the time before that because, HRC might win, the time before that because more reasons. When, when is it a good time to get rid of the two party duopoly?

There will never be a removal of the duopoly. There will only be a reformation of the parties that make up the duopoly and at the moment that appears to be the Republicans turning into Know Nothings.
posted by Talez at 3:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [17 favorites]


Voting for a 3rd party Presidential candidate does not further the goal of eliminating the two party duopoly. That's like shooting your self in the head to remove a splinter from your foot.
posted by humanfont at 3:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


So the Vice reporter who was arrested at a Trump even was formerly an editorial assistant to Maureen Dowd. From the Washington Post's coverage:
That's right. Thompson is not just any random reporter. He used to be an editorial assistant to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who has written critically about Trump and released a book this week called "The Year of Voting Dangerously" — an unflattering take on both major-party presidential nominees. Dowd has been all over news programs in recent days discussing the book.

Trump has certainly noticed. Around the time Thompson was being arrested, Trump was blasting Dowd on Twitter.

Could it be a coincidence? Anything is possible. But Thompson's arrest smells of vengeance.
posted by peeedro at 3:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm still trying to get over the picture from Flint the other day, is that from The Killing Joke or am I confusing it with The Dark Knight?

But think of the tale she'll be able to tell her children about the day she felt the cold, dead grasp of Lord Magog. That's a priceless family memory there.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:47 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


If you are unwilling to vote for Hillary because she is a secretive, warmongering, cryptofascist then chances are good that your privilege insulates yourself from the negative consequences of a potential Trump presidency.

That's not necessarily true.

For instance, young people (including young black people and young Latinxs) are more likely to vote third party in 2016 than older folk, in spite of being economically less privileged and racially much more diverse than the country at large.
posted by splitpeasoup at 3:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


When, when is it a good time to get rid of the two party duopoly?

The two party duopoly is a fundamental part of our system. You can't get rid of it, only change the platforms of the parties which compose the duopoly.

Ok, you could have a Constitutional Amendment which changes the nature of our system. But you can't change the duopoly through voting for a third party.
posted by Justinian at 3:49 PM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


Do I hope those unlikely voters come out in higher numbers this time around? Yes. But most campaigns which depend on the polling being wrong and not picking up less-likely voter support end up being losing campaigns

Which is great because Clinton leads in the states she needs, and Trump's whole campaign strategy is making white non-voters angry enough to figure out how to register and find their polling place.
posted by one_bean at 3:55 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


The most viable 3rd party run in this country's history was when a former President, pissed that his successor had turned his back on a progressive agenda and was in the pocket of wall street, ran against his party.
TR was responsible for Wilson winning the presidency in 1912, because the split cost the Republicans because TR was too popular, and the Progressives, because like all third parties, they lacked ground troops.
If TR, master of the press, hugely popular as a war hero, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and arguably the biggest celebrity of his day, couldn't break the duopoly, it will take more than any current politician has at their disposal to do it.
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [52 favorites]


Justinian: The two party duopoly is a fundamental part of our system. You can't get rid of it, only change the platforms of the parties which compose the duopoly.

Ok, you could have a Constitutional Amendment which changes the nature of our system. But you can't change the duopoly through voting for a third party.


OK, I'm in need of a Constitutional Law lesson here. I know full well that the two-party system is the default political mechanism in the U. S., but how is it "baked into" the actual Constitution. I know that we don't have a Parliamentary system here, but are we legally locked into a two-party system by the Constitution?
posted by Surely This at 3:57 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


My wife (white, middle-class, college educated) refuses to vote for HRC on the sheer fact that she didn't walk out on Bill's ass during the Lewinsky hearings...like the way she did on her first husband. Is it wrong she has a memory that goes back earlier than 2007?
posted by JoeZydeco at 4:03 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


RobotVoodooPower: I think the fact that Amish don't watch TV might be an immunization against Trumpism. But hell, if Trump is leading in Mormon territory anything could happen I guess.

Is this a deliberate non-sequitor? The Amish aren't Mormon.

spitbull: By what objective measure is "America on a steady downward slide?" Since when?

RobotVoodooPower: Probably since the formation of a fascist white nationalist party that has strong support from the military and law enforcement


There has always been a strong, fascist, white nationalist movement in the US; it predates the US. It has long been a large part of the military and law enforcement as well and received support from both; there are strong arguments to make that both organizations exist in part to reinforce class, gender, and racial inequality (see: their use against political protests, their use in expanding US influence in foreign countries).

One of the interesting things about the US is because of how we were structured, people with vastly different opinions and beliefs were combined and work together. Sometimes it falls apart; the biggest fall apart was in the Civil War and the Union side literally violated the Constitution to win (one example: Lincoln set aside Habeus Corpus in Maryland so his capital wouldn't be surrounded). I'm personally glad the Union won, but I'm realistic about what it took.

Equally strong, since the founding of the US, has been a dedication to the literal idea of All People Are Created Equal even though the guy who wrote those words sucked at their literal application (and was critiqued for that at the time!). This dedication led to how the Civil War ended, weakened during Reconstruction and in the face of racism, led to Women's Sufferage, became more complex as more people recognized how many axes of discrimination there are, led to Civil Rights, complexified as the degree to which individuals could undercut those rights became more obvious, led to Occupy, became even more complex in the face of the racial and sexual dynamics of fiscal inequality and the increasingly recognized voices of Native Americans, led to Marriage Equality, became more complex as evidence grew that people already privileged along most axes benefited most, led to Black Lives Matter where all of the lessons learned from previous experiences have created a nuanced, organized but decentralized movement which stands in solidarity with an astonishing range of other movements (take the NoDAPL movement just beginning to coalesce around the unification of the Native Americans with whom #BLM stand).

This second movement is by definition larger, more inclined to in-fighting, and much more complex because the biases don't just exist in the "other side" at any point, but also within groups as the multiple axes of discrimination intersect. Even within #BLM the argument has been made that it's Black, Queer, Woman founders have often been reduced to just their race, that the deaths of black men are higher profile, that other LGBTQ movements sometimes are supportive and sometimes treat #BLM as if it doesn't belong within an LGBTQ context.

This difference is inherent to the different structure of the two movements - one centralized around wealthy, white, straight-acting, able bodied and minded, cis gendered men (who occasionally include someone who doesn't have one of those characteristics) and the other ....not. The former has the advantage of being the status quo, of having people with all of those characteristics denigrate themselves because of it, and of having a consolidation of current money, power, and influence. The latter has the advantage of numbers and moral high-ground.

The moral high-ground piece is why the arguments on the part of the former have been about undercutting the value of morality for my entire lifetime and likely before, it's why "PC" and "SJW" are both insults, why "community organizer" was treated like a slur, why no one is talking about Clinton's Listening Tours and how progressive her platform are, why there are people embracing being "Degenerates" now.

I have an incredible amount of hope based on Occupy, #BLM, and the no-DAPL movements. They are on the ground, doing the hard work of forming coalitions and repairing old relationships. They will make this country into what it should be.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:04 PM on September 17, 2016 [18 favorites]


By requiring a majority of electoral college votes rather than a plurality - added to the fact that you can win all a states electoral college votes with a plurality (excepting ME and NE) - the constitution effectively encourages a duopoly.
posted by chris24 at 4:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


OK, I'm in need of a Constitutional Law lesson here. I know full well that the two-party system is the default political mechanism in the U. S., but how is it "baked into" the actual Constitution. I know that we don't have a Parliamentary system here, but are we legally locked into a two-party system by the Constitution?

First past the post voting in almost all electoral districts plus the electoral college virtually guarantees an extra candidate would only run as a spoiler.
posted by Talez at 4:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know full well that the two-party system is the default political mechanism in the U. S., but how is it "baked into" the actual Constitution.

There are some interesting answers on that here.

Short answer, it's not spelled out, but it's the natural result of what's in there.
posted by waitingtoderail at 4:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


My wife (white, middle-class, college educated) refuses to vote for HRC on the sheer fact that she didn't walk out on Bill's ass during the Lewinsky hearings...like the way she did on her first husband. Is it wrong she has a memory that goes back earlier than 2007?

Your wife has decided to hold HRC responsible for her husband's actions. That's her choice, but I hope you understand why few people here will encourage that line of thinking.

Our memories also go back beyond 2007. As a result, we remember Lewinsky. We also remember Bush Jr., Reagan, Nixon, and Mussolini. We remember that elections have consequences more important than marital infidelity.
posted by saturday_morning at 4:09 PM on September 17, 2016 [90 favorites]


Our system is a first past the post system with no elements of proportional representation.

By it's very structure it can only accommodate a third party for a short period of time and generally only as a spoiler. Long term a successful third party will get absorbed by an existing party or will replace an existing party.

And that's before stuff like Citizens United pretty much making third party runs impossible outside of a vanity run for billionaires.
posted by vuron at 4:09 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


If one thinks contemporary "income inequality" is the most serious existential threat we have faced or indeed face now, I suggest one is still thinking within a frame of unquestioned white privilege.

The golden age of income *equality* (let alone even more basic forms of equality) never existed for communities of color. Its existence for white "middle class" Americans (the site of Millennial leftist imaginary projection since OWS at least) was inarguably dependent on segregation and racial inequality, rooted in African slavery and the genocidal taking of sovereign Native lands and resources.

The "working class" in any correctly Marxist sense in the US is now "majority minority" and decidedly urban, but to hear the bright young things on TeeVee tell it you'd think it was mostly made of middle aged white men in suburban towns.
posted by spitbull at 4:10 PM on September 17, 2016 [25 favorites]


My understanding of the dominance of the dual party system in the US is because of our election system being one of First Past the Post. I got my understanding from this video.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:11 PM on September 17, 2016


They are on the ground, doing the hard work of forming coalitions and repairing old relationships. They will make this country into what it should be.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:04 PM on September 17


WILL YOU MARRY ME?
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:12 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


To be fair saturday_morning blaming the woman for marital infidelity has a long tradition in human society.
posted by vuron at 4:13 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


refuses to vote for HRC on the sheer fact that she didn't walk out on Bill's ass during the Lewinsky hearings...like the way she did on her first husband.

Part of feminism is respecting other women's choices. Your wife made a different choice than HRC did, in a different situation, with a different personal history with her husband.

I don't think anyone has taken the fact that HRC stayed with Bill as a directive that all wives of cheating husbands must stay with them. And if they do, that's wrong. Women get to make their own decisions.
posted by suelac at 4:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [48 favorites]


OK, I'm in need of a Constitutional Law lesson here. I know full well that the two-party system is the default political mechanism in the U. S., but how is it "baked into" the actual Constitution. I know that we don't have a Parliamentary system here, but are we legally locked into a two-party system by the Constitution?

The two party system is not literally written into the Constitution, but it is typically viewed as an inevitable consequence of a first past the post plurality voting system (Duverger's law). The question then is why that doesn't entirely hold true in countries like the UK (where, of course, the primary contributions of the Lib-Dems was to roll over for Cameron, apologize, and lose almost all their seats in the next election) or India, which have had a number of coalition governments. Even in those cases, the alliances that get formed start to resemble two party systems in some respects. It's not quite as simple as saying that we can't have more than two viable parties, but there are structural forces that make it the most stable system over the long-term.

There's a reason why the Green Party advocates for ranked choice voting (instant runoff) and proportional representation systems, as these forms of voting tend to produce more opportunities for third parties.
posted by zachlipton at 4:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


WILL YOU MARRY ME?

OMG I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO ASK!!! OF COURSE!
posted by Deoridhe at 4:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


I should have added gender inequality to my analysis. The modern "working class" archetype is a woman of color in a big city. Mea culpa.
posted by spitbull at 4:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]




Is it wrong she has a memory that goes back earlier than 2007?

No, but it is ridiculous that she is basing her vote today on something that happened like a million presidencies ago, had no effect on the welfare of the country then, has nothing to do with running a country now, and is in fact none of her business.
posted by kythuen at 4:21 PM on September 17, 2016 [80 favorites]


Putin offers tacit support for 'pro-Russia' US candidate

"Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday offered what appeared to be his strongest support yet for US presidential candidate Donald Trump -- without explicitly naming him.

"We are carefully watching what is happening in the United States and we, of course, view with sympathy those who publicly state that it is necessary to build a relationship with Russia, on basis of equality," he told journalists at a briefing shown on television.

His remarks were a clear allusion to Trump, the outspoken Republican nominee, who has emphatically professed his readiness to work with Putin, and at one point even said the Russian strongman was much more of a leader than US President Barack Obama."
posted by chris24 at 4:22 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, at this point the RNC could literally nominate Hitler, or Satan, and still poll 40+% of the electorate.

As argybarg says, this is probably team thinking, which has been on the rise in this country for the last few decades of increasing partisanship.

I don't want to sound like Mitt Romney, but there's a significant percentage of voters that will vote R or D no matter who the nominees are, and this percentage is probably in the 40 percents somewhere. Maybe high 30's. The decline of split-ticket voting over the last 40 or 50 years shows this has been happening for awhile.

(Of course this year we might see a lot of split tickets that are mainly R but leave off the R nominee for president, but I think everyone agrees this is a pretty atypical year. We'll find out in 2018.)
posted by rokusan at 4:23 PM on September 17, 2016


had no effect on the welfare of the country then

I dunno, wasn't there a central European country we suddenly had to bomb to bring them freedom?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:25 PM on September 17, 2016


I have to admit, I have enjoyed seeing Bill step into the roll of first male First Lady candidate a lot. I knew he had to have had practice being the support person since Clinton has been nearly Non-Stop for years, but I was not expecting the warm rush I felt when I watched him fall back with Anne Holton to walk behind Clinton and Kaine a if it were the most natural thing in the world. That image, of Clinton and Kaine striding off together, smiling confidently while Bill and Anne followed after chatting is seared into my mind.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:26 PM on September 17, 2016 [34 favorites]


If one thinks contemporary "income inequality" is the most serious existential threat we have faced or indeed face now, I suggest one is still thinking within a frame of unquestioned white privilege.

I agree. My "here's an analogy" upthread was targeted at those specific "they're both the same" people, not ALL the "they're both the same" people. There are several different directions for reaching different foolish voters, because there are many paths that lead to stupid voting (either 'third partiers' or members in the Other, non Deplorable basket of Trump supporters... the ones who MAY possibly be reached).
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just finished a three hour phone banking shift at the Hillary office in Portland. Please favorite.
posted by chrchr at 4:29 PM on September 17, 2016 [165 favorites]


My lay understanding of the instrumental reason why FPTP leads to two parties being a stable state of the system is that approximately 50% of the vote awards 100% of the political power. So at a certain critical electoral mass, when a party can consistently hit pluralities, it has a lensing effect; but below that level the reverse is true, and a solid and consistent 25% or more of the vote just melts away into 0% of the political power, in long-run averages.
posted by XMLicious at 4:31 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


How did it go, chrchr?
posted by Francis at 4:31 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


My lay understanding of the instrumental reason why FPTP leads to two parties being a stable state of the system is that approximately 50% of the vote awards 100% of the political power. So at a certain critical electoral mass, when a party can consistently hit pluralities, it has a lensing effect; but below that level the reverse is true, and a solid and consistent 25% or more of the vote just melts away into 0% of the political power, in long-run averages.

More or less. But the reason there are only two parties in the US is because you have the Presidency. In both Britain and Canada there are more than two significant parties, although almost any given seat has only two if not fewer. (There are Tory/Labour seats. Tory/Lib Dem seats. Labour/Lib Dem seats. And even a few Labour/Green seats these days). There is however no need to combine at a national level (just ask the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Meybon Kernow, or the various Northern Irish parties).
posted by Francis at 4:34 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I must admit that Hillary never severing ties with Bill was on my list of negatives regarding her as a candidate, that it seemed to be more of her need for him and his connections as a practical matter than anything emotional or love-based (and that may just be 'bad optics'), and yet in the long run, a lot of her lingering image problems (like seeming less liberal than she really is) are Bill-based. IT WAS NEVER ANYWHERE CLOSE TO A DEAL BREAKER FOR ME, but, as a similar example, I'm still quite relieved that Hil's top advisor Huma Abedin is finally cutting Anthony Weiner loose. Come on, if Ask MetaFilter had existed in the last months of the Bill Clinton Administration and Hillary had made an anonymous post with her circumstances, is there any doubt that the overwhelming response would've been "DTMFA"?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


For instance, young people (including young black people and young Latinxs) are more likely to vote third party in 2016

THANK YOU for posting that. I've said here many times before, but everyone's "only white males vote third party" critiques turn to shit if they saw my social media feeds. My BoB/Stein-supporting friends are mostly women of color. Try telling them that they're being sexist and privileged because of their protest votes. Like it's literally impossible to imagine that radical anti-Clinton types could be anything other than middle class/upper class white males. Like it's impossible to imagine that BLM was actually contributing quite a lot to the booing and protesting at the DNC.

I'm as pro-Clinton as they come, but I find the erasure happening within ultra-left Clinton critique severely disappointing. I suppose some people need a straw narrative to latch onto.
posted by windbox at 4:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [20 favorites]


Josh Marshall: The Fever Inside
But there's one part of the last few days that doesn't quite match up to this pattern or at least not on first glance. The fuse for yesterday's debacle was lit late Wednesday night when the Post's Robert Costa interviewed Trump on the tarmac in Canton, Ohio in his private jet. Already in this interview, the transgressive, belligerent Trump was back after a few weeks of uncharacteristic discipline. I could see it the moment I read the copy.

...

As I'm sure many of you did, the moment I read the piece I could tell the fever was back: stabbing at the birther questions, lashing out at Anderson Cooper, boasting that he wouldn't trim any sails or make any concessions. But why? Here was Trump, at the apex of what he's managed to achieve in the campaign, drawing close to a tie with Hillary Clinton, lurching back into Khan/Curiel mode. When I read it it struck me as simply the truth of the man: feeling himself 'winning' he was entirely unable to resist the urge to lash out, strike out at enemies with what felt like his regained power, to regain dominance. He's Trump; he'll always give way to chaotic and self-destructive rages. To do it when he was riding high wasn't a mystery to be explained but the most obvious time. It's the novelistic fatal flaw.

But reflecting on it, there may be more to the story...
posted by homunculus at 4:42 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


"This dedication led to how the Civil War ended, weakened during Reconstruction and in the face of racism, led to Women's Sufferage."

We are entitled to opinions and interpretation, but your time line is an interpolation of facts not chronology which suggests a modicum of academic honesty or at least cite something to support your claim for example, was woman's sufferage really a result of the civil wars end? It took 55 years, that's not a chronological success.
posted by clavdivs at 4:44 PM on September 17, 2016




Come on, if Ask MetaFilter had existed in the last months of the Bill Clinton Administration and Hillary had made an anonymous post with her circumstances, is there any doubt that the overwhelming response would've been "DTMFA"?

Almost certainly. But. People who post Ask MeFi (or other ask) posts in bad situations are normally wanting someone from outside to tell them to DTMFA. And normally if you read between the lines you can see this is the advice they want - but most of their friends are TMFA's friends as well and they are scared to.
posted by Francis at 4:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


So Trump is threatening the Times now.

I assume it has to do with this: With $885 million in tax breaks, Donald Trump built an empire in New York
posted by PenDevil at 4:55 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Thanks for all of the responses to my question about the constitutionality of the two-party system. First past the goalpost, yeah. :/

I have another deep thought about the Constitution. Bear with me...

I saw a Facebook comment today that Trump was benefitting from a "gerrymander". Yeah, no. The comment was well intentioned, and it was on a public page infested by trolls, so I didn't bother to correct it. Gerrymanders affect district-level elections, but anything statewide can't be influenced by districting. But that brings me to this observation:

There is a bias toward smaller states baked into the electoral college. The EC is apportioned according to the Congressional delegation for each state. The House is apportioned by population, but each state gets two Senators regardless of population. So Wyoming (population 582,658) gets the same number of Senators, and subsequent EC votes, as California. (population 38,332,521).

Here are the ten largest states by population: California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina.
And the ten smallest by population: Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming.

Does it seem like the "big states" are mostly Democratic-leaning or swing states, with the exception of Texas and Georgia? The small states seem fairly skewed towards the Republicans. Hmm.
posted by Surely This at 4:56 PM on September 17, 2016


'Irresponsible intent' sounds more like me on a Friday night than a tort, but IANAL.
posted by chris24 at 4:57 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


I must admit that Hillary never severing ties with Bill was on my list of negatives regarding her as a candidate, that it seemed to be more of her need for him and his connections as a practical matter than anything emotional or love-based (and that may just be 'bad optics')

This is a personal opinion, but his behavior during the DNC cemented for me that he loves her and she loves him and that's why she stayed. My read of the relationship is that he stepped up and became better, and part of that was him being behind her 100% in her political ambitions. I believe her ambitions were and are real, and are based on a desire to help other people and make a difference in the world which has somehow survived even people on her own side insulting her for it. Politically speaking, I have no idea what effect a divorce would have; Before Trump, the only person to run for president while divorced (but remarried) was Ronald Reagan.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


it seemed to be more of her need for him and his connections as a practical matter than anything emotional or love-based (and that may just be 'bad optics')

What gives you this unique inside into other people's marriages and how they work? Super powers? Special glasses? How is what happens in their marriage anyone else's business?

I think it's completely possible they're two freaking smart people and are each the smartest person they know and they love each other. And he's a horndog. And she married him anyway and stayed with him anyway because she loves him. But it's still not my business.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


I assume it has to do with this: With $885 million in tax breaks, Donald Trump built an empire in New York

To echo a complaint upthread. Please stop linking to Twitter if you want to link to a story elsewhere. Link straight to that story.
posted by Francis at 4:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting

As Josh Marshall has been pointing out, "irresponsible intent" is not a real tort. It is not a thing you can sue for. If his lawyers told him they wanted to sue for it, those may not have been lawyers. They may have been Scott Baio.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:00 PM on September 17, 2016 [46 favorites]


Oh, and regarding "first past the goalpost" voting: Anyone remember Lani Guinier? She was (Bill) Clinton's nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in April 1993. Her nomination was shot down when it was revealed that she had advocated for cumulative voting.
posted by Surely This at 5:00 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


I assume it has to do with this: With $885 million in tax breaks, Donald Trump built an empire in New York

Direct link; that's exactly the thing, he didn't even just start with a million dollars, he started with all of his father's government and financial connections and with his father's ability to guarantee loans and provide other advantages.
posted by XMLicious at 5:01 PM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


Oh, so the self-righteous Facebook screeds about defriending Trump supporters etc. seem to be working out well.
posted by listen, lady at 5:02 PM on September 17, 2016


They may have been Scott Baio.

Joanie Loves C̶h̶a̶c̶h̶i̶ Litigation
posted by chris24 at 5:02 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The NYT will allow you to see the full article when it originates from Twitter but not from a direct link which is why it might be better in some cases to post a link to a tweet.
posted by PenDevil at 5:03 PM on September 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


I dunno, wasn't there a central European country we suddenly had to bomb to bring them freedom?

No.
posted by humanfont at 5:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


This is a personal opinion, but his behavior during the DNC cemented for me that he loves her and she loves him and that's why she stayed.

Yep, their marriage is their business, but this moment from the DNC after her speech looked like pretty genuine affection to me!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


There is a bias toward smaller states baked into the electoral college.

I think the distortion you're seeing is that of the Senate, which is heavily biased toward smaller states. The numbers for the Electoral College come from the number of Senate and House seats; the Senate is biased toward smaller states and the House toward large ones, but I think the distortion to the Senate is greater.

A lot of the Constitutional compromises are really fascinating, but I think the Congress compromise is my favorite. The fears and desires of the founders were so variable, all the way from everyone should vote to why can't we make a monarchy only this time include OUR friends - and that's not even counting the opinions of the people ineligible to participate and vote!
posted by Deoridhe at 5:10 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


They may have been Scott Baio.

Maybe Trump's been reading the Bob Loblaw Law Blog.
posted by cyclopticgaze at 5:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [31 favorites]


Hey, if anyone in Chicago is looking for something to do, they're apparently bussing people from Chicago to the Quad Cities, right on the Iowa/ Illinois border. We're doing super, super easy canvassing right now: we're signing supporters up to vote early, so we can make sure that they don't flake out and forget to vote. You will be talking to very few people who aren't Hillary supporters, and even the non-supporters will likely be polite, because this is Iowa.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:12 PM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


> I must admit that Hillary never severing ties with Bill was on my list of negatives regarding her as a candidate, that it seemed to be more of her need for him and his connections as a practical matter than anything emotional or love-based (and that may just be 'bad optics'), and yet in the long run, a lot of her lingering image problems (like seeming less liberal than she really is) are Bill-based.

People are complicated. Women are in fact people, therefore they can be complicated and nuanced. People stay with partners who have done much worse, people divorce partners for smaller disagreements or violations of trust. They are a couple who have decided to support each other and continue to remain as such through difficult times. They are both passionate and committed people, otherwise why remain in the spotlight when they could retreat with their millions?

Which goes back to one of my original points: if Hillary is this evil mastermind, bent on gaining power and influence, then why in the fucking world is she attempting to run for president? Twice? That is the most public and scrutinized position. We are finally seeing all the media and press (and now the NY Times has their own "corrupt Donald" story, so they can have a horse in the race along with Washington Posts Trump Foundation research) pick apart the life of a man who is in fact running entirely for personal gain, who has genuinely cheated the system, but somehow managed to stay out of the spotlight.

Well, it must be that she is a power hungry bitch who thinks she must gain the highest seat in office as she is obviously too dumb to realize the real way to wield power and influence is through lobbyists, special interest groups, and tactics like the Koch brothers and Roger Ailes have been using for the last 16 years or so. Not that maybe she is genuinely seeing it as the place for her to have the position to serve the nation and help solve the problems she wants to help solve.

Things like the "why didn't she divorce Bill" bullshit just remind me how as a society it is so hard to accept women having the same levels of nuance, complexity, and agency as men. The majority of the press can't even acknowledge that in this situation that Donald is the power hungry, single minded, narcissist with all the nuance of a bowling ball attempting to attain personal glory (while heavily influenced by the special interests around him), while Hillary is the self directed, intelligent, and complex person with the desire to make the world better.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [76 favorites]


Yes Deoridhe, it's the Senate seats (and corresponding EC votes) that are skewed toward the smaller states. The House seats are proportionate to population. I just find it interesting that the small states seem to lean toward the Republicans, while larger states lean Democratic (with obvious exceptions). The Senate representation is what it is, for better or worse.
posted by Surely This at 5:17 PM on September 17, 2016


even the non-supporters will likely be polite, because this is Iowa.

*lyrics to Iowa Stubborn now floating through my mind*
posted by hippybear at 5:17 PM on September 17, 2016


I just want to say that I find it really gross when people try to shame Hillary Clinton for sticking with her marriage to Bill. Yes, he's been a jerk, and may continue to be a jerk. But her marriage is her business, and if she choses to stay with him it's her right to do so.
posted by Surely This at 5:21 PM on September 17, 2016 [52 favorites]


Here's the data on ratio of population to electors, House seats, and Senate seats. The House is really idiosyncratic because in the 1-6 seat range there can be a really big or really small remainder.
posted by one_bean at 5:23 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


"The most viable 3rd party run in this country's history was when a former President, pissed that his successor had turned his back on a progressive agenda and was in the pocket of wall street, ran against his party ... in 1912,"

Naw, 1860, because the third party won.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:24 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


1860, because the third party won.

And then immediately became one of the duopoly.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Naw, 1860, because the third party won.

Except that there was no Whig candidate in 1860, and there hadn't been one since 1852

And also that the Whigs largely just turned into the Republicans and then we duopolied again

I feel bad because that was a very good line, but pedants gonna pedant

posted by saturday_morning at 5:30 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


Yeah but pretty soon after 1860, they really did run out of evens.
posted by zachlipton at 5:34 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I guess Conway lost control because Trump is back to being Twitter Trump. Lashing out at everything and anyone.
posted by Talez at 5:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Twitter for iPhone in the streets, Twitter for Android in the sheets
posted by saturday_morning at 5:38 PM on September 17, 2016 [40 favorites]


Maybe Twitter is right and Conway is quitting.
posted by asteria at 5:39 PM on September 17, 2016


I must admit that Hillary never severing ties with Bill was on my list of negatives regarding her as a candidate, that it seemed to be more of her need for him and his connections as a practical matter than anything emotional or love-based

You know, maybe she knew the whole time and didn't give a fuck. A marriage is not always just the sum total of two people's sexual interactions. There's such things as open marriages, swingers, wives (or husbands) that just look the other way, or hell, maybe he told her all about it and she liked hearing about his fooling around because that's what got them going together. We shouldn't care or even stoop to asking, because as the parade of disgraced Republicans who wasted all our lives trying to impeach when they were doing the same or far worse at the exact same time should've showed us, it is and was never relevant to his/her ability to lead the government.

But this is a puritanical country, so if she knew and didn't care, she could've never admitted that either without giving the press more ammo. And even if she only stayed with him for advancement, how is that a negative for her ability to do the job? Actually no, don't answer that because it didn't matter in 1996, and it sure as fuck doesn't matter 20 years later.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:40 PM on September 17, 2016 [43 favorites]


Bill Maher going up against Kellyanne Conway.

It starts off rather civil and cordial and then...
posted by Talez at 5:40 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Good for Conway if she quits. I have to admit to feeling bad for the nice person buried somewhere underneath all the sophistry and partisanship.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:41 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


New PA poll has Clinton up 8 points with likely voters. And the dates are 9/12-16, so after the health scare.

JCPL improved?
posted by chris24 at 5:42 PM on September 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


Ack! Sorry to gov-splain that, Surely This.

I thought the smaller-population states tended Republican because of the population density effect, where people in a densely populated area tend to be Democrats while people in sparsely populated areas tend to be Republican. A lot of the Republican states have fewer residents but are large size-wise. Ever since my mom told me she went from Republican to Democrat after moving from the country to the city, I've wondered if there isn't something in how cheek-and-jowl with other people tends to lead to a more Democratic mindset but so far as I know no one has done that sort of expanded, longitudinal research on political changes (and a lot of the research done has compared between generations instead of following within one, with the attendant flaws cross-sectional studies bring). I'd love to see some solid research, but I've no idea who would fund it.

but pedants gonna pedant

I love you all so much.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:42 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


So The Old Grey Lady FINALLY gets around to reporting on the Big Lie of Dishonest Donald as "Self Made Man"... only 29 years after he made it the basis for his expertise in his first ghost-written book... and they publish it on Saturday when the least people are following the news (MAYBE it'll be in the dead tree Sunday edition, but I have my doubts). Then TwitterTrump threatens to sue over it, bringing it to the attention of The Entire Internet. That is the very definition of "own goal" to me.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Good for Conway if she quits. I have to admit for feeling bad for the nice person buried somewhere underneath all the sophistry and partisanship.

No, she's Jennifer Barkley. She gets paid nearly seven figures for a few weeks work and she knows what she's doing.
posted by Talez at 5:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Money comes and goes; lost dignity is forever.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have to chime in on the debate over whether Bill and Hillary Clinton should have split. Firstly, it's none of my business. If I were a friend she trusted, I'd certainly have listened to her if she wanted to discuss the situation, but this decision had to be hers.

Secondly, though, I want to say that Women's Liberation was fought in order to give all women the right to make decisions such as this one for themselves. That someone chooses a path other than what I might have chosen is not something I have any right to judge. I hope she made the right choice for herself and her family, and that's all I have the right to do. Thankfully. A lot of women went through bad times and still do in order for U.S. women to have these rights.
posted by Silverstone at 5:47 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


The new Times story is an A1 Sunday feature, assuming aliens don't invade in the next couple of hours.
posted by zachlipton at 5:47 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Money comes and goes; lost dignity is forever.

There's always another sucker who wants to run for office.
posted by Talez at 5:48 PM on September 17, 2016


If you are unwilling to vote for Hillary because she is a secretive, warmongering, cryptofascist then chances are good that your privilege insulates yourself from the negative consequences of a potential Trump presidency.

It's perfectly possible to vote for Clinton, and call her those things at the same time. And agitate for her to adopt policies of one's own choosing after she's elected. And continue to badger her continuously throughout her administration(s) until she moves sufficiently in a direction of one's liking.

Both liberals and leftists are too short-sighted. Leftists who vote for Clinton aren't betraying some revolution. Liberals who get leftists to vote for Clinton haven't achieved some sort of kumbaya reconciliation. It's in the nature of Americans to hang together instead of hanging separately, defeating Trump is only the first step. There will be plenty of time to sort out these grievances afterwards.

Does no one remember the concept of a united front?
posted by Apocryphon at 5:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


If you'll all open your hymnal to 7 or 12 election threads ago, you'd know that a biography of Hillary reveals that she was actually very upset about Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky, and she made him explain what he had done to Chelsea.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2016 [48 favorites]


I remember the United Front of Judea, that bunch of splitters.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


If his lawyers told him they wanted to sue for it, those may not have been lawyers.

Dr. Bornstein, Attorney at Law
posted by EarBucket at 5:52 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


7 or 12 election threads ago only takes us back to May 2016.
posted by hippybear at 5:52 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


Based on the decreasing length of time between the election threads, I conjecture that the number of election threads will approach infinity as we get closer to November, ensuring the singularity, or Roko's Basilisk, probably.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


if you want to see the future of Metafilter, imagine an election thread stamping on the front page... forever

also a yearly cat scan thread
posted by delfin at 5:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [25 favorites]


If you'll all open your hymnal to 7 or 12 election threads ago, you'd know that a biography of Hillary reveals that she was actually very upset about Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky, and she made him explain what he had done to Chelsea.

Also not relevant to the job of President, same as if she was in the room watching.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bicker in private (or the primaries) and then once the decision has been made get behind the nominee.

That's what a united front looks but instead we get endless hit pieces from erstwhile allies talking about how Clinton is an awful candidate long after anyone else has been eliminated.

Needless to say people have gotten tired of it.

Know why the Republicans have been strong despite their demographic challenges? They punish people in the primaries and then dutifully support the candidate despite those reservations.
posted by vuron at 6:01 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


Hillary Clinton ≠ Bill Clinton

She's her own completely separate person. Bill's actions have literally nothing whatsoever to do with her.

It's not the 18th century anymore. Couverture no longer exists. Stop subsuming women's identities within their husbands'.
posted by Sara C. at 6:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [35 favorites]


JCPL improved?

The JCPL has been moderate since yesterday. I don't know why. The acceptance stage of grief? Shock rendering me numb and unable to process? So the PA result isn't moving the needle.
posted by Justinian at 6:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


Know why the Republicans have been strong despite their demographic challenges? They punish people in the primaries and then dutifully support the candidate despite those reservations.

This. They turn out and vote, come hell or high water, for that R. The Tea Party managed to unseat Eric god damned Cantor. The sitting House Majority Leader and they managed to primary him out of Congress on a rail and then, the R+10 electorate happily turned out to vote R despite Dave Brat being quite literally batshit crazy.
posted by Talez at 6:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Although Trump is clearly an aberration who is severely unqualified to do the job that Republicans of all stripes are jumping ship.
posted by Talez at 6:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


A t-shirt is not sufficient for my I SURVIVED THE METAFILTER 2016 ELECTION THREADS memorabilia. I want a plaque for making it through these threads. A gold and mahogany plaque. With the number of favorites I have given and received in these threads inscribed upon it.

Did you perhaps hear the distant sound of harpy screeching, sometime around 11 am PST? That was me, reacting to reading round 2049401 of the proscribed topic of relitigating the primaries. I'll take chicken littling over that, tbh. That PA poll makes me feel better though.
posted by yasaman at 6:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [22 favorites]


They say they are jumping ship but let's be honest most of those Johnson supporters are lying because if their shame of Trump. Same with a lot of green party supporters.
posted by vuron at 6:12 PM on September 17, 2016


And even if she only stayed with him for advancement, how is that a negative for her ability to do the job?

I regret that I have but one favorite to give, T.D. Strange. I've been trying to find a way to say just that.
posted by kythuen at 6:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump in historically red Colorado Springs at an airplane hangar. I am sitting approx. six miles west of this event.

DJT:
- There was a bomb in New York today. We've got to be tough.
- Trump up 4 points in CO. Reuters predicting FL win. Up in Ohio and NC. LA Times has him up 4 points. He thinks they're going to win.
- "It's a movement."
- Petty politicians don't have a clue.
- Plan can be summed up in three words: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Reducing "job-killing regulations." Good jobs sucked away. Will renegotiate bad trade deals.
- Journalists are terrible!
- Repeal/replace obamacare. (Crowd cheers.) You only hit deductibles if you're in for a "long, slow, tragic death." [I am groaning at how false this is.]
- End common core.
- Build a wall! (Crowd goes nuts.)
posted by mochapickle at 6:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


A t-shirt is not sufficient for my I SURVIVED THE METAFILTER 2016 ELECTION THREADS memorabilia. I want a plaque for making it through these threads. A gold and mahogany plaque. With the number of favorites I have given and received in these threads inscribed upon it.

Did you perhaps hear the distant sound of harpy screeching, sometime around 11 am PST? That was me, reacting to reading round 2049401 of the proscribed topic of relitigating the primaries. I'll take chicken littling over that, tbh.


You do realize that there are many, many FPPs in a week and you aren't required to participate in or even read any of the election threads?
posted by hippybear at 6:20 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


oh, SUPER: "Trump just called early reports of an explosion in New York a "bomb." No confirmation of that yet. "We've got to get very tough," he says"
posted by lalex at 6:21 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


What the fuck? Trump just walked off the plane to the CO crowd, "somebody told me a bomb went off in New York. We're gonna have to get tough". Then goes on like nothing ever happened.

What in the fucking fuck?!?
posted by Talez at 6:22 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


what a fuckwit
posted by lalex at 6:23 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


For fuck's sake. I just saw a couple of "what was that loud explosion in Chelsea?" tweets, and Trump has already decided it's a bomb?

There was an explosion in Chelsea. It is not necessarily a bomb. We will know more at some point in the future. Trump is a fucking menace.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


The pipe bomb in question didn't cause any injuries, and happened in New Jersey, not New York.

Not that Trump knows the difference.
posted by hippybear at 6:24 PM on September 17, 2016


DJT:
- Mexico is going to pay for it.
- Take down isis.
- Rebuild military.
- Remember: "Peace through strength." "America First! You never hear that anymore." (USA USA USA)
- Mentions HRC and crowd starts to howl and boo and now LOCK HER UP.
- Even if you're sick and can't get out of bed, vote.
- Trump hates cursing! He has LEARNED.
- Just saw a mosquito! Hates them! (We don't have mosquitos in Sept. in Colorado, I have no idea.)
- Endorsement from 160 top military! And border control!
- Earlier today spent time with victims of "illegal immigrant violence." Their govt failed them. Received endorsement of Fraternal Order of Police.
posted by mochapickle at 6:24 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


The pipe bomb in question didn't cause any injuries, and happened in New Jersey, not New York.

No, this is another explosion at 23rd and 6th.
posted by chris24 at 6:24 PM on September 17, 2016


Yeah, it was weird. He waltzed off the plane, and the bomb thing was the first thing he said, and it was super casual.

DJT:
- Reciting litany of people who have been shot. "We must stand with our police."
posted by mochapickle at 6:25 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


No, there's definitely something going on in NYC. A building blew up on 23rd and 6th in Manhattan. Initial reports were that it was an IED, but initial reports are often wrong. Authorities are saying they don't know the cause.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:26 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, 'cause what we really need is a president who reacts to an accident/attack/incident/disaster is for him to repeat the first scary thing he heard on Twitter.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:26 PM on September 17, 2016 [16 favorites]


A building blew up on 23rd and 6th in Manhattan.

I'm reading that a possible IED went off in a dumpster/trash can. Not that a building blew up.
posted by chris24 at 6:26 PM on September 17, 2016


No, this is another explosion at 23rd and 6th.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is tweeting about this - it happened across the street from his apartment, although he is not there. He says it's a home for the blind. https://twitter.com/joshtpm
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:27 PM on September 17, 2016


Wouldn't the natural first reaction be that it's probably a gas leak or something?
posted by Justinian at 6:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is a lying liar?

Oh well I guess we can trust the media to call him out...
posted by vuron at 6:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


DJT:
- Every place we go we have crowds like this! "There's something special going on. We're gonna take back the White House. We're gonna take back our country." (USA USA USA)
- Is there any place more fun to be at a Trump rally? There's a lot of love!
- I will never, ever let you down. Our support comes from all walks of life. "Young and old, rich or poor, black, white, hispanics!" But we're all americans!
- Hillary Clinton (Booooooooo!)
posted by mochapickle at 6:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obviously it's time once again to refer to the Breaking News Consumer's Handbook.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:29 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


DJT:
- She's slandering you as deplorable (BOOOOOO!) and irredeemable! But you are hard working patriots!
- Her comments were angry! The same sense of "arrogance and entitlement" that allowed abuse as secretary of state.
- 33,000 emails (LOCK HER UP!) Yoga and the wedding!
posted by mochapickle at 6:30 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


what we really need is a president who reacts to an accident/attack/incident/disaster is for him to repeat the first scary thing he heard on Twitter.
Sounds like a perfect Internet Age President to me...

DJT:
- I will never, ever let you down.

AND a Rick Roll.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:30 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, somebody had to do it.


Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
posted by adam hominem at 6:30 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


You guys, this #WomenTogether event I was at today was really fantastic. There were over 400 attendees--reportedly more than at similar events in NYC and Chicago--and represented woman of all ages, colors, and backgrounds from all over the state (plus a few men in support, or working on behalf of progressive women candidates). A handful had brought small children with them. Jess O'Connell, executive director of Emily's List (and Arizona native) was there, as well as a couple of people from HFA HQ in Brooklyn, and several women in public office at the city, state, and national levels. The Democratic Party is investing major resources in Arizona for the first time in many years, and the excitement is palpable.

I heard some amazing stories, talked to a bunch of cool people, learned about some messaging and organizing strategies and some new bits of Arizona political history, made a poster that is going to be used to decorate at Dem events in AZ over the next several weeks, and best of all, got to shout and weep after Gloria Steinem introduced Gabby Giffords as her hero, and Gabby said, "Speaking is difficult for me, but come January, I want to say these two words: ‘Madame President.'”

I also talked to Clinton's state campaign director, and we'll be working together to schedule some hands-on workshops on using social media. There was a speaker on the subject, and he was very engaging, but a lot of these women are not experienced but would like to be more active and use social media for a good cause. This is a tangible contribution I can make (as I like to say, all those years of farting around online--including on Metafilter--really paid off in the end), so that's exciting.

I am super fired up. We can do this if we just get out there and work hard, and don't let the crazy news get us down.
posted by Superplin at 6:30 PM on September 17, 2016 [72 favorites]


Reuters has "breaking news" at the top of their page calling it an explosive device.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:32 PM on September 17, 2016


If Trump wins I wonder if Hillary is going to end up like Yulia Tymoshenko.
posted by Talez at 6:32 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm staying calm till the debates, which will unquestionably show Trump for the unhinged narcissist he is. He can't help it. He doesn't want to help it.

The only question is, will it matter.
posted by adam hominem at 6:33 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


DJT:
- She sold gov't favors and access.
- Obama and HRC created current chaos in middle east.
- 1.7 billion in cash! (Booooooo!) Who does this? Where are these people coming from?
- (Yours truly catches a scent of cheese and sulphur in the air to the east.)
- HRC's donors and advisors gave us NAFTA, the worst trade deal in the "history of the world."
- MYSTICAL PLANT BUILDER IN MEXICO
- TPP (BOOOOOOOO!)
posted by mochapickle at 6:34 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


mochapickle, I (at least I) come here to get away from that shit.

Thank you.
posted by adam hominem at 6:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


You do realize that there are many, many FPPs in a week and you aren't required to participate in or even read any of the election threads?

And my scrolling finger isn't broken, so I am perfectly capable of skimming past our more circular and repetitive arguments. That doesn't render them any less circular or repetitive. I didn't intend my comment to read as hostile so much as affectionately exasperated.

Anyway, has any enterprising journalist tried to find out who this mystery friend of Trump who builds plants/factories in Mexico is? Is he even real, or is he as mythical as Trump's black and Latino friends?
posted by yasaman at 6:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Would anonymous plant builder in Mexico have built plant in Mexico if the NAFTA deal Hillary had no part of never been signed?

Inquiring minds want to know if these hypothetical questions confirm Hillary to be the antichrist.
posted by vuron at 6:38 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Or the "hundreds" he claimed to have known who died on 9/11.
posted by spitbull at 6:38 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


DJT:
- AA stats (employment, education, 3K shot in Chicago) - What do you have to lose? I will fix it, I will fix it. (Colorado Springs is overwhelmingly lily white with only 6.3% African American.)
- I am spending MY money!
- We have to lift restrictions on energy. We are going to unlock billions in energy potential. We will be a rich country again, will lower taxes. It will be a beautiful thing to watch! Ford is moving small cars to Mexico, and this won't happen when I am elected President. We will charge them 35% tax on product and we will have a strong border. Politicians whpon't do it because they are controlled by special interests.
- We will stop China from stealing 2M jobs a year!
posted by mochapickle at 6:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Would anonymous plant builder in Mexico have built plant in Mexico if the NAFTA deal Hillary had no part of never been signed?

Hahahahahahaha. Before NAFTA the import tax on Mexican-built finished light autos was 2.5%.

It was going away far before NAFTA and would have continued even if NAFTA hadn't been ratified.
posted by Talez at 6:42 PM on September 17, 2016


Just heard on local radio news 25 relatively minor injuries in Chelsea explosion. Hope it stays that way.
posted by spitbull at 6:43 PM on September 17, 2016


DJT:
- School choice! Every disadvantaged child in America can have any school of their choice, to lift AA and hispanic children out of poverty. More poverty since Obama. We are going to protect jobs and schools and deliver safety.
- Earlier this week along with my daughter Ivanka (wooooo!) I also rolled out a plan to help mothers and families get affordable health care. Will save 30-35% reduction in tax bill. Millions of low income people will be removed from tax rolls entirely: "A great economy, a safe country and an honest gov't safe from corruption."
- We're going to reduce taxes "bigly." HRC will raise them (booooooo!)
- Litany of promises on infrastructure.
- American cars on our roads! American plans in our skies! American hands will rebuild this nation! American energy will power our country! American STEEL!
posted by mochapickle at 6:44 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


> In aggregate economic terms America was never any fairer than it is today,or any wealthier or more powerful. We have 5% unemployment with -- yes! -- rising incomes and markets. No draft. Improving air and water quality over 30-40 years. And vibrant wealthy cities with low crime rates. More people have health insurance than ever before too. And go to college.

You're describing an America that exists in your imagination, but it isn't the one most of us are living in. Maybe it describes your reality as an affluent professor at an elite university, and the day-to-day experience of the rest of just doesn't matter.

Do you really think the Fight For $15 movement consists of a bunch whiny privileged white frat boys motivated by misogyny? I think you should look that up and ask yourself a question or two.
posted by nangar at 6:44 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


DJT:
- One people, under one god, saluting ONE american flag!" (USA USA USA)
- We have to break with those failures. We don't win anymore!
- We are gonna treat our vets properly (BIG CHEER)
- Can you imagine Gen MacArthur or Patton saying "We can't beat ISIS." Patton would rip your heart out. They would be spinning in their graves. I don't want to tell how I'm going to beat the enemy. (COS is a huge military town.)
- "I will give you good results, don't worry how I get there!"
posted by mochapickle at 6:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


So after all that we've been through in 2016, we finally have it: a literal, actual dumpster fire.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [37 favorites]


Just because things might be better doesn't mean they are getting worse. America can have problems and not be in decline
posted by humanfont at 6:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


DJT:
- I am so much better at what Robert Gates is doing.
- "The blood, the death." 16 trillion dollars and the lives we have lost. We are dealing with stupid and incompetent people.
- "I don't like critics. I like the people who get it done and get it done right."
- "We will make America safe again, wealthy again, strong again, great again."
posted by mochapickle at 6:50 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Thirty-five seconds of waving to the crowd and back on the plane! (People lined up for this HOURS ago.)
posted by mochapickle at 6:51 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


no nangar, quite the contrary. But for simple counterpoint Trump opposes a rise in minimum wage and is portrayed as a candidate who appeals to struggling workers.

I'm not saying everything is great. But we are far from falling apart or from things being nearly as bad as they have more than once been in the 20th century in economic terms. Trump's pitch is that things are collapsing for workers. The objective truth is a lot more complicated than that, with things getting better (there is now upward wage pressure without inflation that is driving the fight for $15 because it's got tailwinds) in recent years but a lot of serious threats (automation especially) gathering steam.

When was the better time for working class people in modern American history, in the aggregate, meaning including workers of color?

And to address the ad hominem, yes I am a professor it's true. And I am best known for work on white working-class culture in the rural south. I still spend a good deal of time with my adoptive family and communities there (and even more of my time in deeply oppressed Native American communities) and do not at all feel I am detached from knowledge about poverty or struggle.

I simply dispute that we are in a fallen condition from a golden age.
posted by spitbull at 6:53 PM on September 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


- I am spending MY money!
yes, it must be repeated over and over and over and over...
Trump Has Pocketed Nearly 8 Million Dollars Of Donor Money While Running For President

- "I will give you good results, don't worry how I get there!"
Trump Definition of "Good Results" includes Endless War, Economic Collapse, World Pariah Status, Billions Pocketed by Trump Family

- We are dealing with stupid and incompetent people.
TRUMP'S MIRROR.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:53 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


23rd Street Explosion: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

In a trashcan, not a dumpster, as per the earlier NJ bomb.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


James Traficant

That's not hair...Dear Lord, THAT'S NOT HAIR!
posted by kewb at 6:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also I have no idea where you came up with "whiny frat boys" nangar, from anything I have written. I'm talking about the white men most often represented as the archetype of "working class" voters allowing a conflation of class and race that belies the diverse (and more female) character of the contemporary working classes as if we didn't just go through an entire generation of globalization and deinduatrializaion.
posted by spitbull at 6:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


totally superfluous, appearance-based comment...

On this subject, she was really pulling off the Galactic President look just now when she spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus!
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:59 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm still hung up on the thing about yoga and a wedding in Trump's speech? What's that about?
posted by suelac at 7:00 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


The reality is that by most measures the average American is extremely prosperous in comparison to virtually every other time period in US history.

The question mark is whether their should be greater equity in terms of wealth creation but there really hasn't been a period in which prosperity has been evenly divided for a sustained period of time.

The post WW2 economic boon was very good for the white middle class but arguably less so for other population groups.

So while there has been extreme concentrations of wealth in the last 40 years it's not entirely clear that we should expect anything different under the current economic paradigm because Capitalism is great for wealth creation but shitty at generating equitable wealth distribution.
posted by vuron at 7:02 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm still hung up on the thing about yoga and a wedding in Trump's speech? What's that about?

Trump says HRC says the missing emails were personal. He likes to express bafflement at how 33K emails could be about yoga and Chelsea's wedding, suggesting that HRC is a lying liar who lies.
posted by mochapickle at 7:02 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Some interesting insinuation in Trump's attack tonight on former Sec of Defense Robert Gates. #TrumpsMirror

Trump: "we had a clown today, an absolute clown, Robert Gates...he's a nasty guy, probably has a problem we don't know about"
posted by chris24 at 7:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm still hung up on the thing about yoga and a wedding in Trump's speech? What's that about?

Without the context, I'm guessing he's picked up on evangelical opposition to yoga classes as spreading a false religion.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:06 PM on September 17, 2016


> America First! You never hear that anymore.

Fuck, Donald, lately it seems like I never hear anything but.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Those may not have been lawyers. They may have been Scott Baio.

Hmmm... well, he does skew younger.
posted by rokusan at 7:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Be warned, this is depressing.

For the last 40 years, the more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election.

Carter beat Ford
Reagan beat Carter
Reagan beat Mondale
Bush beat Dukakis
Clinton beat Bush
Clinton beat Dole
Dubya "beat" Gore (yeah, I know)
Dubya beat Kerry
Obama beat McCain
Obama beat Romney

How can this be a coincidence? Ten elections in a row where the warmer/more likeable/more charming candidate won! That's not a coincidence. That's a pattern.
posted by Beholder at 7:09 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


For the last 40 years, the more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election.

Personally, I find it reassuring. YMMV.
posted by chris24 at 7:10 PM on September 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


Dukakis is arguably much more charming than Bush senior it's just that Dukakis looked stupid in a tank ohh and rampant racism.
posted by vuron at 7:12 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm still hung up on the thing about yoga and a wedding in Trump's speech? What's that about?

Early during the e-mail server controversy, either Clinton or someone in her camp (I forget) said that all of the whatever-thousand missing e-mails were personal, things like yoga appointments and [Chelsea-related] wedding plans and none were State or Foundation-related.

Since that turned out to be not completely accurate (though not quite flamingly false, either), it's sometimes used by anti-Hillary types as shorthand for a transparently-false defense or excuse.

(From Trump, often without any sense of irony, yeah.)
posted by rokusan at 7:12 PM on September 17, 2016


The more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election...

Like chris24 says, right now there are two camps very certain that their own candidate is far more charming and likeable than the other, that inhuman monster. I suspect that's how it was before every other election, too, though maybe with a little less vitriol most of the time.

I say we should also adjust for hindsight, and the fact that which famous people (that we have never met) we consider "likeable" or not comes, necessarily, through a pretty twisted media lens.

In other words, in a parallel universe, Dukakis may have been eventually remembered as a charmer, himself. Who really knows?
posted by rokusan at 7:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [8 favorites]


On this subject, she was really pulling off the Galactic President look...

But she only has one head?
Edit: Oh you mean the shiny suit.
posted by rokusan at 7:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Look at it this way: in all but the two most recent elections the white man won.
posted by spitbull at 7:19 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


For the last 40 years, the more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election.
I will NEVER trust the judgment of anyone who thinks Donald Trump is in ANY way "charming/likeable", but then that kind of rampant idiocy/gullibility is what has done serious damage to this nation well before the Trump Campaign began. But then, wasn't the image he was TRYING to project on "The Apprentice" the OPPOSITE of "charming/likeable"???
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:20 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


Oh, found the actual comments that DJT said as soon as he got off the plane (thanks, WaPo!):
"I must tell you that just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on... But boy, we are living in a time -- we better get very tough, folks. We better get very, very tough. We'll find out. It's a terrible thing that's going on in our world, in our country and we are going to get tough and smart and vigilant. ... We'll see what it is. We'll see what it is."
posted by mochapickle at 7:21 PM on September 17, 2016


Katy Tur is posting philosophically about the tight timeline involved in Trump knowing about the bomb going off.
posted by Talez at 7:24 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump just called early reports of an explosion in New York a "bomb." No confirmation of that yet. "We've got to get very tough," he says
From that statement The Reichstag Fire 1933 came to my mind
Is Trump looking for a similar Reichstag Fire event?
posted by robbyrobs at 7:25 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


But racism and sexism and religious bigotry are totes adorable.

I would totally have some beers and kill some exotic game with Trump and his sons.

On the other hand Hillary doesn't dress in a feminine enough manner and she should totally smile more. And did she really call most Republicans deplorable?
posted by vuron at 7:25 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Early during the e-mail server controversy, either Clinton or someone in her camp (I forget) said that all of the whatever-thousand missing e-mails were personal, things like yoga appointments and [Chelsea-related] wedding plans and none were State or Foundation-related.

Since that turned out to be not completely accurate (though not quite flamingly false, either), it's sometimes used by anti-Hillary types as shorthand for a transparently-false defense or excuse.


In what way is that inaccurate? After she had turned over her work-related email to the State Department archives, two years after leaving office Clinton directed her IT service that she only wanted to retain her personal email archives for 60 days. No one has a right to peruse her personal email. Not Republicans, not Donald Trump, not the press and not you.
posted by JackFlash at 7:26 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump just called early reports of an explosion in New York a "bomb." No confirmation of that yet.

Do we expect precision from this guy?

"Sir, what do you want to do about the situation in Whateverministan?"
"I'll tell you what, you can't throw too many bombs at Whateverministan."
(bombs away, world explodes)
"No, no, I said you *can't* throw too many bombs at Whateverministan!"
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:27 PM on September 17, 2016


Come now not every domestic terrorist has links to Trump just most of them.
posted by vuron at 7:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Presser about to start in Chelsea. Looking for a link...
posted by mochapickle at 7:35 PM on September 17, 2016


Shock rendering me numb and unable to process?

Oh, I think you spelled "Scotch" wrong.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:36 PM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Assuming it's the reported bomb in a trash can that's been going around, when it comes to dumb places to put a bomb assuming you want to maximize your efficiency, in the middle of what is basically a poor man's blast containment vessel has got to make you one of the dumbest terrorists.

I can't wait to see the CCTV on this one. I'm putting twenty on white guy.
posted by Talez at 7:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


Wow. I couldn't figure out why you all were still talking about the New Jersey explosion. But no, it turns out this is a different explosion. Jesus Christ.
posted by great_radio at 7:40 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, I think you spelled "Scotch" wrong.

Dammit, I always forget.

Can someone add "[Begin drinking now]" to every election thread? It makes everything so much easier to swallow.
posted by rokusan at 7:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Someone above was asking for a nice roundup of "why Hillary Clinton is awesome and also not the anti-christ" link for sharing with family members/doubters who might be amenable to listening; A disturbing history of all the sexism Hillary Clinton has endured — and why I stopped buying into it is link-heavy and covers her full career. A single, sharp example is a tweet pointing out post-DNC coverage, in which several major newspapers announce Hillary winning the candidacy yet show pictures of Bill.

For the Bernie supporters who are suspicious, there's Because Hillary Listens (And now I do too) on tumblr, also heavy with links (although not as much as that first article, wow) including to her policies pages.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [55 favorites]


Can you imagine Gen MacArthur or Patton saying 'We can't beat ISIS.'

Well, MacArthur almost started World War III with China, and Patton wanted to start World War III by joining up with the Nazis to fight the Soviet Union, so no.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump Definition of "Good Results" includes Endless War, Economic Collapse, World Pariah Status, Billions Pocketed by Trump Family

Oh, my. I mean, the family name is different, but we have been here before, haven't we.
posted by rokusan at 7:44 PM on September 17, 2016




Plus ça change Rokusan
posted by vuron at 7:47 PM on September 17, 2016


All the Terrible Things Hillary Clinton Has Done in One Big List.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:47 PM on September 17 [1 favorite +] [!]


Wait, is #57 true? I don't care about the Vince Foster stuff, but some things are beyond the pale.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


The new Times story is an A1 Sunday feature, assuming aliens don't invade in the next couple of hours.

Let me just amend that with the benefit of hindsight: Or someone sets off a bomb in Chelsea.
posted by zachlipton at 7:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


"I'm not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette." (1992)
posted by chris24 at 7:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Assuming it's the reported bomb in a trash can that's been going around, when it comes to dumb places to put a bomb assuming you want to maximize your efficiency, in the middle of what is basically a poor man's blast containment vessel has got to make you one of the dumbest terrorists.

Also it's a desolate corner obstructed by scaffolding. Literally the dumbest place to terrorize.

I'm betting on idiots.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]




America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion:
Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:58 PM on September 17, 2016 [11 favorites]


This is delayed because I was murdering super mutants, but about the US and two parties:

Our system is a first past the post system with no elements of proportional representation.

Yeah, but this isn't baked into the Constitution. There's nothing about districting -- or even having districts -- in the Constitution. It would be constitutional for CA to elect its fifty-whatever Representatives at-large. I don't think anyone has ever tried, but you could probably run the elections with some sort of party list. Without any constitutional changes, just statutory, and not necessarily even federal statutes.

In both Britain and Canada there are more than two significant parties, although almost any given seat has only two if not fewer.

That's not really true in Canada -- part of how Harper won was that there are lots of districts with a 60\% left vote that went 30 Liberal, 30 NDP, 40 Fucking Tory Bastards. Then they went and did it again the next election, keeping Harper and his dead eyes in office.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:59 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also it's a desolate corner obstructed by scaffolding. Literally the dumbest place to terrorize.


Or an easy place to plant a bomb without being seen, and then counting on that bomb to be a distraction for another nefarious activity.

/anchorvamp
posted by Burhanistan at 8:01 PM on September 17, 2016


Literally the dumbest place to terrorize.

It's a smart place to terrorize if what you want to do is plant terror and not have a lot of casualties.

Terrorism isn't about how many people you kill, it's about how many people you frighten into changing their way of life out of fear.
posted by hippybear at 8:02 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Gary Johnson today at a rally in Seattle:

No minimum wage
No income tax, to be replaced with a national sales tax (great for millionaires)
Abolish departments of Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. (That's more that three -- oops!)
Block grants to states to replace Medicaid (Conservatives will love their new discretionary slush fund)
Raising the Social Security retirement age to 72
Climate change is real but government should do nothing about it
Balanced budget within 100 days. Asked how, without taking Medicaid from the poor, he says maybe is means no cellphones. (What?)
posted by JackFlash at 8:03 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


Terrorism isn't about how many people you kill, it's about how many people you frighten into changing their way of life out of fear.

I know I'm going to stop hanging out at deserted construction sites.
posted by Justinian at 8:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


What I honestly want to know: Is there any way I can get 10 bucks on "James O'Keefe's attempt at a Reichstag Fire for Trump"?
posted by Talez at 8:05 PM on September 17, 2016 [19 favorites]


Gary Johnson today at a rally in Seattle:

I can see why he's drawing the BoB crowd. He and Bernie are two of a kind!
posted by asteria at 8:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


it's about how many people you frighten into changing their way of life out of fear.

Soledad O'Brien: Everyone is fine. There's zero panic. Anyone reporting otherwise is full of it. I live here.

Mark Harris: New Yorkers on the actual scene of the explosion on West 23rd St. are more chill about it than Trump is in Colorado.

This is NYC, nobody's freaking and nobody's changing their way of life.
posted by chris24 at 8:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [36 favorites]


I kinda would like to see Gary at the debates, with those talking points. How would Trump counter it?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:10 PM on September 17, 2016


He wouldn't, he'd call Johnson a loser with no chance who shouldn't even be at the debates.
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't have the same idea of charming/likeable as Beholder. Carter was by most accounts a genuine, decent, straight talking guy and Reagan was fifth rate Hollywood phoney, promising to kick Iran's ass if they didn't give the hostages back. He was the guy who first demonstrated, on a national scale, how far you can get by wanking the macho power fantasies of the center-right. Trip imp is just digging a little deeper.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Good to see Johnson is a Lolbertarian like so many others. Free market is life, free market is love. You should be able to sell yourself into serfdom, etc.
posted by vuron at 8:12 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]




Repeal/replace obamacare. (Crowd cheers.) You only hit deductibles if you're in for a "long, slow, tragic death."

So the ironic thing here is that my family first went on Obamacare because my husband's employee provided plan had a $10,000 deductible before it paid for a cent. My current ACA plan has a $1000 deductible that we met in a couple months. (It sucks in other ways, but starting next month I'll be paying 3 times as much for a new employee's plan.)
posted by threeturtles at 8:13 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


We were having dinner on 6th Avenue and 17th Street. Just got home to the Upper West Side after a VERY long walk home.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm hoping that no one is seriously injured, and part of me is hoping if this is actually found to be done by someone, it's an alt-right idiot.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:16 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is there any way I can get 10 bucks on "James O'Keefe's attempt at a Reichstag Fire for Trump"?

So the Trumpian version of the Reichstag Fire would literally be a dumpster explosion then?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 8:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Part of me is hoping that no one is seriously injured, and if this is actually found to be done by someone, its an alt-right idiot.

Fire department had them all green which was basically minimal injuries.
posted by Talez at 8:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Seattle Times on Johnson's weird cell phone/Medicaid connection:
Pressed by reporters on how he would cut so much, specifically from Medicaid, without taking away health care from people, Johnson was at a loss for specifics.

“Well, if it means not having cellphones,” he said. “There’s things that can be done that, in my opinion, nobody’s without and you can still deliver those essential services.”
Is he wanting to dissolve SafeLink, the gov't program that gives lifeline cell service to participants in programs like SSI and food stamps? Lots of Medicaid plans depend on SafeLink as a way of reaching their members for appointment reminders and preventative care. Preventative care and compliance in attending appointments (and the phone as a tool for self-direction) cut down on overall costs.
posted by mochapickle at 8:18 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Chelsea Presser - DeBlasio:
- None of the injured are likely to die
- Preliminary information shows no evidence of a terror connection or a connection to New Jersey
- There is no specific and credible threat in NYC from a terrorist organization
- Early indications this is an intentional act
- NYPD and all agencies are on full alert
posted by mochapickle at 8:22 PM on September 17, 2016


Chelsea Presser - DeBlasio:
- Second site at 27th b/w 6th and 7th Ave - has been cleared and is under investigation as well
posted by mochapickle at 8:24 PM on September 17, 2016


"Climate change is real but government should do nothing about it"

The market solves all problems! Everyone dying is a solution!

"Balanced budget within 100 days. Asked how, without taking Medicaid from the poor, he says maybe is means no cellphones. (What?)"

Probably referencing so-called Obamaphones, despite no part of the program originating with Obama (universal access goes back to Reagan and the cell part to Bush II), but it's a favorite conservative bogeyman, that poor people elected Obama so he'd give them free cell phones. It's technically not even tax funded, but funded by the universal service fee on your cell and landline bills, so cutting the program wouldn't free up discretionary funds.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [28 favorites]


I know I'm going to stop hanging out at deserted construction sites.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is the scene of the NYC explosion.
posted by hippybear at 8:30 PM on September 17, 2016


He wouldn't, he'd call Johnson a loser with no chance who shouldn't even be at the debates.

Hey, even a stopped clock...
posted by the marble index at 8:30 PM on September 17, 2016


I think the cell phone thing isn't about Obamaphones but actually more of "stop spending money on frivolous shit and you can afford healthcare". Which I'm pretty sure a cellphone is critical spending for most people these days.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:31 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Purported video of the explosion. Seems like it's leaked video of somebody (police?) watching surveillance tape.
posted by chris24 at 8:33 PM on September 17, 2016


Ah god, please don't increase security theater in New York. Please do not let the media turn this into "The Chelsea Bombing" or some shit and let Trump address it every 5 minutes for the rest of the campaign.
posted by windbox at 8:33 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Climate change is real but government should do nothing about it"
I've long said that most Climate Change Deniers know it's real but consider the opportunities for profit from building high-altitude air-conditioned domes to be AWESOME. Finally, somebody is open and honest with that.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:35 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


actually more of "stop spending money on frivolous shit and you can afford healthcare"

Ah, classic "but they have flatscreen TVs!" glibertarianism. "Luxuries" are cheap, necessities are fucking expensive.
posted by holgate at 8:35 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


Johnson is, after all, a libertarian.
posted by hippybear at 8:37 PM on September 17, 2016


diBlasio says that the explosion looks like an intentional act but that there is no evidence at this point to link it to terrorism. Unless it's a piss poor attempt at an insurance scam what else could it be? Someone who just really hates dumpsters?
posted by Justinian at 8:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [4 favorites]


Could be a small meth lab gone awry. Those are known to explode and are known to be hidden in all kinds of places.

I mean, the speculation. It could lead one to any conclusion.
posted by hippybear at 8:39 PM on September 17, 2016


So it's unrelated to NJ? Is today bomb a dumpster day?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


> diBlasio says that the explosion looks like an intentional act but that there is no evidence at this point to link it to terrorism. Unless it's a piss poor attempt at an insurance scam what else could it be? Someone who just really hates dumpsters?

Pretty much saying "we know someone put a device there meant to explode" but don't yet know the purpose. Could have been to attack a specific target, maybe a shake down for the business or a distraction for another non terror related crime (remember that still happens).
posted by mrzarquon at 8:41 PM on September 17, 2016


"Terrorism" only means Islamic terrorism, in this context. Sadly.

I mean that's a big blinking What Is Wrong With America sign, but not a surprising one.
posted by rokusan at 8:43 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


The market solves all problems! Everyone dying is a solution!

Well, technically.
posted by rokusan at 8:43 PM on September 17, 2016


"No link to terrorism" is politically correct codewords for "not Muslims."
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:44 PM on September 17, 2016 [21 favorites]


I can't remember where I read it, but supposedly explosives are used in pretty "normal" crimes (regular murder, theft, etc) fairly commonly. I'm sure it was a link somewhere on metafilter. Anyway, in the absence of someone claiming responsibility and a political motivation, even an intentional explosion doesn't seem like terrorism in any meaningful sense. Certainly people shouldn't jump to that conclusion just because it's an explosion.
posted by R343L at 8:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Needless to say it's absurd that Trump was saying that already. Yet another example that he's outside the bounds of normal political behavior.
posted by R343L at 8:47 PM on September 17, 2016


On third parties: there are actually a few things that make it harder to build downticket in the US than in other "plurality-wins" democracies, and I'm broadly sympathetic to reform there. Ballot access restrictions are mostly stupid and protectionist bullshit; municipal races are often nonpartisan (though with tacit party support for slates) so you can't really build up a party from them.

Americans vote for too many positions, and have not enough choice for the positions they ought to be voting for; nobody should be voting for State Commissioner of Widgets (make it a gubernatorial appointment and make the governor ultimately accountable for fuckups) and it should be very easy to get on a ballot for the lowest tier of partisan election.
posted by holgate at 8:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


Re: NY & NJ

It's not even October yet, but it's been Halloween all year.

My brain suggests scenarios, but reminds me that I don't have enough information to draw any conclusions.

Gut: "You damn well know enough to make a good guess."

Brain: "Shush." (Fidgets, but remains calm.)

It's a good thing they like each other, mostly.
posted by perspicio at 8:50 PM on September 17, 2016


The Commission on Presidential Debates has weighed in. Its Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria will not allow Gary Johnson or Jill Stein into the first presidential debate, which is scheduled to take place on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in New York. USA Today: "Candidates were required to reach 15% support in a selection of national polls to qualify... Johnson had 8.4% backing, while Stein had 3.2%."

I wonder if Jill Stein will be arrested trying to get into the debates again, as she was in 2012.
posted by SisterHavana at 8:51 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Charles Blow: Trump, Grand Wizard of Birtherism
posted by SisterHavana at 9:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


NY Times has done a complete 180 and starting to hit him with absolutely everything in the arsenal.
posted by Talez at 9:11 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


I never had a problem with Fallon (though I thought of him more of a lightweight Mike Myers than as a Sanders replacement). I mean, other than the obvious injustice of the million funnier women and people of color who deserve his success more than his bland white ass. But he's occasionally funny and very nonthreatening, and people like that when they're waiting for the Ambien to kick in .

But after the Trump thing, yeah, I'm done. Done with SNL too, Lorne Michaels' open arms to Trump didn't help things months ago either.
posted by emjaybee at 9:21 PM on September 17, 2016 [12 favorites]


Libertarians are worse than just no flat screen TVs. They take issue with poors having refrigerators as well.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:33 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Wait, Johnson isn't even close to the 15% threshold? Man the way the LP Twitter feed has been going the last 2 weeks it was like he was so close you could taste it.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:34 PM on September 17, 2016


Wait, Johnson isn't even close to the 15% threshold?

He is when you count the millennials but the CPD has apparently decided to just ignore the existence of an entire generation because we don't have landlines.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:42 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, this is the first election thread I've spent any time in, and it's been fun, but I'm checking out now. Have fun!
posted by hippybear at 9:46 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


> NY Times has done a complete 180 and starting to hit him with absolutely everything in the arsenal.

I think getting one upped by the Washington Post has something to do with it. And the opening mocking of the press by him has finally sunk in.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


He is when you count the millennials but the CPD has apparently decided to just ignore the existence of an entire generation because we don't have landlines.

From this very thread:
Polling is conducted by cellphones now, and pollsters do leave messages. They do callback polls. The polls are probably not wrong. Maybe the likely voter determinations are wrong, I could be convinced of that. But let's put this claim that the polls are skewed because they call landlines to bed.
From Pew:
Do survey researchers really call cellphones? I didn’t know that was possible.

Absolutely. All major survey organizations that conduct telephone surveys include cellphones in their samples. They have to, because the kinds of people who rely only on a cellphone are different from those reachable on a landline, even though being cellphone-only is becoming more mainstream.
So I'm afraid I'm going to need a cite for the claim that Gary Johnson would be above the threshold if the polls were unskewed.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:51 PM on September 17, 2016 [29 favorites]


He is when you count the millennials but the CPD has apparently decided to just ignore the existence of an entire generation because we don't have landlines.

Huh? He's not over 15% in any national poll. And the polls the CPD uses are the ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal, CBS/New York Times, Fox and Gallup. None of which are landline only.
posted by chris24 at 9:52 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


> So I'm afraid I'm going to need a cite for the claim that Gary Johnson would be above the threshold if the polls were unskewed

The informal poll that no one on their facebook feed reported being polled.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:53 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


>NY Times has done a complete 180 and starting to hit him with absolutely everything in the arsenal.

I think getting one upped by the Washington Post has something to do with it.


Heck, the NYT has been getting one-upped by the New York Post!
posted by Sys Rq at 9:55 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


because we don't have landlines.

Pretty sure the only phone pollster this cycle that is landline-only is Emerson and it shows because their methodology is GI-[tweak a bit]-GO.
posted by holgate at 9:56 PM on September 17, 2016 [3 favorites]


I am so grateful that the election is before the next major family holiday. If Clinton wins, I can feel reassured and magnanimous (though I will not put up with any viciousness) and we can all eat our turkey and talk about harmless things and anticipate having a future.

If Trump wins, well, I ain't going because I will have nothing to be thankful for and I don't want to actually know which of my relatives are happy it happened (I mean, I have some good guesses, but I don't want them confirmed).
posted by emjaybee at 9:59 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


I didn't say that he was *over* the threshhold yet, I was replying to whether he was *close*.

He's at 13% nationally (see page 4) when they actually include his name in the first question.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:01 PM on September 17, 2016


Then maybe just say he's close in one unincluded poll rather than make it about excluding millennials and landlines?
posted by chris24 at 10:06 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's not even a single Libertarian serving in congress. Johnson may be an amiable goof who some people find more palatable than Trump or Clinton but he is not a serious candidate, the Libertarians are not a serious national party, and including him in the debates would be a big dumb waste of everyone's time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [31 favorites]


But that's a Quinnipiac poll... they aren't one of the polls used in the decision.
posted by Justinian at 10:10 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


... and what is Aleppo a Libertarian?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:10 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Some more Gary Johnson policies:

Opposes internet neutrality
Eliminates corporate income taxes
Supports the XL pipeline
No paid maternity or sick leave
Supports Citizens United
Supports TPP
Wants to abolish government support for all student loans
Supports fracking
Opposes all gun control
And of course repeal of Obamacare goes without saying

But he is in favor of marijuana. So there's something to hang your hat on.
posted by JackFlash at 10:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [52 favorites]


Then maybe just say he's close in one unincluded poll rather than make it about excluding millennials and landlines?

See page 22 of these recent CNN poll results. Entire 18-34 age bracket is "N/A" and thus not counted in the totals.

I assumed it was still the old landline vs cellphone problem of years past since neither my husband nor I have *ever* received a poll call on our cell phones yet my mother-in-law's landline is ringing off the hook with multiple pollsters calling every week.

But hey maybe they've come up with a new excuse to exclude an entire generation from the polls.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:14 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I assumed it was still the old landline vs cellphone problem of years past since neither my husband nor I have *ever* received a poll call on our cell phones yet my mother-in-law's landline is ringing off the hook with multiple pollsters calling every week.

If the pollsters were using logic like this to do their oversampling, Gary Johnson could have 162% of the vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


Here's what would happen if Johnson were included in the debate:

- Trump would spend the entire time arguing with Johnson. If Clinton spoke he'd say something like "Hush, the men are talking here."

- His base would love that.

- All of the press would be "Hillary accuses Trump of Misogyny, Trump says she is the Real Misogynist" instead of being about her performance on the issues.

- Johnson would still lose the debate and the election.
posted by mmoncur at 10:19 PM on September 17, 2016 [15 favorites]


I assumed it was still the old landline vs cellphone problem of years past since neither my husband nor I have *ever* received a poll call on our cell phones.

The typical poll is around 1000 samples. With 100 million households it means you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being called. The plural of anecdote is not data.
posted by JackFlash at 10:20 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


I don't expect the vast majority of MeFites to ever like Libertarians or support our candidate. But you at least have to admit that we're getting fucked over (probably deliberately) in the methodology of the polls the CPD is using.

How can a poll that leaves out the entire 18-34 age bracket be considered legit? Yet it's one of the five polls the CPD averages to decide whether Gary Johnson can debate.

And how can any poll that doesn't include Johnson and Stein in the first question with Clinton and Trump instead of just as a follow-up question to the "someone else" answers be considered fair?
posted by Jacqueline at 10:21 PM on September 17, 2016


Also, there is a lot of campaigning done in the guise of polling. Your m-i-l's phone may be off the hook because she's being targetted for push polling with the intent of changing her vote, not getting her actual opinion.
posted by R343L at 10:22 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


N/A doesn't mean they weren't counted in the totals (emphasis added):
A total of 1,001 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones...Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA"
In other words, the sampling error would be so great for those subgroups so as to be effectively meaningless. The sample is intended to produce meaningful results for the population as a whole, but there is much higher error when dealing with small subgroups. That could mean that this particular poll didn't reach a ton of 18-34 year olds, and so they weighted the ones they got more highly to ensure they matched the overall demographics of the nation, but it certainly doesn't mean that anyone under the age of 35 was excluded.
posted by zachlipton at 10:22 PM on September 17, 2016 [26 favorites]


See page 22 of these recent CNN poll results. Entire 18-34 age bracket is "N/A" and thus not counted in the totals.

"This sample includes 601 interviews among landline respondents and 400 interviews among cell phone respondents."

No idea why it shows N/A for the 18-34 age range; it shows an asterisk in other categories where they have less than 1% results. I don't know if that means their results got 0 hits in that age category, which would be more than a little weird.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:24 PM on September 17, 2016


That could mean that this particular poll didn't reach a ton of 18-34 year olds

So then how can it be representative of candidates' true levels of support? That's like 1/4th of the voting-age population.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:25 PM on September 17, 2016


In a rational society we wouldn't be holding debates at this point. Trump would be in a padded oval cell with a classy, a *very* classy (gold-plated Tuscan marble) desk with a pretend telephone to shout into, and Hillary's transition team would be swinging into full gear.
posted by uosuaq at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [13 favorites]


The CNN poll did ask about Johnson and Stein in Question #1 (page 2 of the linked PDF):
Q1. (P5.) Suppose that the presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Party’s candidates, Donald Trump and Mike Pence as the Republican Party’s candidates, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as the Libertarian Party’s candidates and Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka as the Green Party’s candidates. Who would you be more likely to vote for? (RANDOM ORDER)
They even randomized the order of all the candidates so everyone had an equal chance of being first. Question #3 is just Clinton vs Trump. I can't say that all five of the CPD's polls did this, but the CNN poll did.
posted by zachlipton at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Also, there is a lot of campaigning done in the guise of polling. Your m-i-l's phone may be off the hook because she's being targetted for push polling with the intent of changing her vote, not getting her actual opinion.

That might be it. I nearly break my neck rushing upstairs every time her phone rings just in case it's a poll and half the time it's a recording of Trump yelling instead. So her number is definitely on some lists.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:27 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I liked Libertarians until they removed the children's rights plank from their platform, under the logic that advocating for minors' rights would include allowing 8-year-old prostitutes and kindergartners carrying guns. I watched for a few years to see if any of them changed their minds, but their message was always firmly, "if you don't have wealthy parents, better learn to bootstrap." The level of callousness they show for anyone hit by adverse circumstance is just breathtaking.

The level of cluelessness about government finance is almost as shocking - maybe more, since these are presumably well-educated people, whether or not they have any empathy. It's always fascinating to watch candidates blithely talk about shutting down entire branches of the government as if that would cause no problems whatsoever and there'd now be this huge pool of money freely available.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:33 PM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


In other news, I spent 8 hours outside a beer and wine festival today passing out literature and asking people to vote for Gary Johnson.

Sooooooooooo many rude frat boy types shouting "TRUMP!" at me. Some even made a point to roll down the windows of their truck as they were leaving so they could honk and yell "TRUMP!" at me some more as they drove past.

Meanwhile, for HOURS not a single person even said a polite no thanks, they were voting for Clinton. And while I live in a generally conservative part of the country, the city the festival was being held in tends to be more Democrat, so I was wondering WTF was going on with that. FINALLY someone yelled "Hillary all the way!" at me and I sincerely thanked her for the variety.

Possible conclusions:
- Clinton supporters are less enthused about their candidate than Trump supporters
- Clinton supporters are just more polite than Trump supporters

(My theory: a little of both)
posted by Jacqueline at 10:37 PM on September 17, 2016 [10 favorites]


For the last 40 years, the more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election.

Hmm, good thing most women I know react to Trump with the desire to vomit copiously and or scrub their skin in a hot shower. He may seem likable to some segment of the populace, but I think by his poll numbers you can tell it's not women. We've known too many like him.
posted by threeturtles at 10:38 PM on September 17, 2016 [24 favorites]


So her number is definitely on some lists.

Yeah, that kind of frequency has the whiff of list-dealing. Does she also get a stack of junk mail that has OFFICIAL ELECTION COMMUNICATION or similar written on the envelope?
posted by holgate at 10:39 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Does she also get a stack of junk mail that has OFFICIAL ELECTION COMMUNICATION or similar written on the envelope?

She's the one who fetches the mail in so I never see hers.

But now I think I should ask her to start saving me any fundraising letters she receives, though, for research purposes.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:41 PM on September 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Young voters don't turn out as much, so it's not as much when it comes to who actually votes, at least in years past, unfortunately.

The idea is that subgroups are weighted in polls to try to make them more representative of the electorate. So let's say you reach 1,000 adults who agree to participate in your poll and 100 of them say they're between 18 and 34. You actually have data to conclude that 18-34-year-olds are closer to 20% of the electorate, so you weight their responses 2x. This gives you a reasonably accurate picture of the whole nation, but it means, simply by virtue of sampling error, that you can't break down what 18-34-year-olds say specifically, at least not without making a bunch more calls. And since the point of the poll is the national number, not the subgroups, they set the number of calls at a lower level.

At some point, the discussion really boils down to are polls accurate? And the answer seems to be that, generally, for all their faults, polls are more predictive of the election result the closer they are to election day, and generally do pretty well after Labor Day. Indeed, polls including all the candidates tend to overstate third-party support compared to the actual election results (and they tend to understate third-party support when they only ask about the Republican and Democratic candidates and wait for respondents to say "other").
posted by zachlipton at 10:48 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sooooooooooo many rude frat boy types shouting "TRUMP!" at me.

I think the message is that other than marijuana, Gary Johnson is offering nothing different than Trump offers bigger and better.
posted by JackFlash at 10:54 PM on September 17, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think the message is that other than marijuana, Gary Johnson is offering nothing different than Trump offers bigger and better.

Uh... actual experience governing, perhaps?
posted by Jacqueline at 10:57 PM on September 17, 2016 [6 favorites]


not a single person even said a polite no thanks, they were voting for Clinton.

a. Many of us are not going to talk to anyone handing out fliers, most of the time
b. I'm pretty sure lots of women especially feel like they'll get harassed/harangued by a Trump/Johnson/Stein person, and why even bother? I have a Clinton sign in my yard, and every morning I'm slightly surprised no one has stolen or vandalized it. Because anti-Clinton dudes, especially, tend to be real assholes and not above threatening violence, and we do the math on "is it worth the risk that this person is reasonable."
posted by emjaybee at 11:00 PM on September 17, 2016 [30 favorites]


On the question of Johnson being "fucked over", I would say that 15% is a rather high bar to clear for the kinds of third parties we have right now, who are unable to or uninterested in building organizations that can meaningfully compete at the local and state levels to provide the base of partisan support that would make such a bar easy to clear for any credible candidate. But if a party can't do that or can't be bothered to try, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. There are a lot of barriers to third parties in the US, but as long as so much of their energy is going to these Hail Mary plays to get Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson elected President, where they would have precisely zero members of their own party to work with in Congress, this really looks like an endless video loop of own goals rather than some kind of conspiracy to keep them from participating in politics.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 PM on September 17, 2016 [27 favorites]


Good for you, Jacqueline, for getting involved and working for your candidate. I don't agree with nearly anything that he stands for and think he was a bit of a train wreck of a governor, but I appreciate that you're active and involved.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [23 favorites]


The entire primary was a story of Clinton having deep, widespread support that remained fairly quiet in public and online. She had less vocal support and yet she had three million more votes than her opponent.

I don't know if I'm representative of Clinton supporters or not, but I was sick of defending Clinton from bullshit accusations and double-standards during the primary against Sanders supporters and I'm really not any more enthusiastic about the prospect of doing the same vs. Johnson supporters. At this point it's too easy to assume every discussion will turn into that sort of thing. Jacuqline, given your comments about politeness, I'll assume you weren't out there being obnoxious or anything, but at this point in the campaign I think a lot of Clinton supporters are just gonna keep operating as they did during the primaries.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:07 PM on September 17, 2016 [32 favorites]


Is he wanting to dissolve SafeLink

Personally I read it as not paying for any government employees to have cell phones. Since that's the only way I could figure anything to do with cell phones would affect the federal budget to the extent he is talking about. Of course, having been a government employee with a work cell, he might as well just say everyone can work without computers or cars or whatever, too. That will definitely save money, so long as we're not concerned with ability to actually do one's job. But I'm pretty sure Libertarians have no concern with practical reality anyway...so win!
posted by threeturtles at 11:08 PM on September 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Interview with David Fahrenthold: Meet the reporter who’s giving Donald Trump fits (WaPo)
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 11:15 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


not a single person even said a polite no thanks, they were voting for Clinton

Yeah, here's the deal.

I'm voting for Clinton.
I LIKE and RESPECT Hillary Clinton. I TRUST her.
I don't think she's a lesser evil or a hard choice.
I voted for her in the primaries and look forward to voting for her in the election.

BUT...

This is the only place outside my own family where I will admit that.

When you live in a deeply red state it's simply not safe to admit that.

And I certainly wouldn't admit it to someone gleefully waving a sign for an opposing candidate.

I don't want an argument, I just want a decent President.

Every time someone talks to me about Trump I just nod politely, then go home and donate another $20 to the Clinton campaign.

I hope I'm not the only one.
posted by mmoncur at 11:16 PM on September 17, 2016 [89 favorites]


Interview with David Fahrenthold: Meet the reporter who’s giving Donald Trump fits (WaPo)

Alternate title: "Meet the reporter who's doing his fucking job"
posted by tonycpsu at 11:17 PM on September 17, 2016 [46 favorites]


FWIW, from my last comment: "I'll assume you weren't out there being obnoxious or anything," ...oh god that comes off as so condescending now that I read it again and I'm so sorry. That was not my intent and you didn't deserve that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:22 PM on September 17, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's fine. A lot of people ARE obnoxious when electioneering. I'd like to think I wasn't -- I just told everyone who said no to have a good day, enjoy the festival, or on the way out to have a safe trip home etc.

The only people I got aggressive with were the ones who said "I can't vote, I'm a felon" because I was so happy to inform them "NO NO NOT TRUE YOU CAN NOW THE GOVERNOR RESTORED YOUR RIGHTS I HAVE THE NUMBER TO CALL SAVED IN MY PHONE LET ME GIVE IT TO YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU." Sometimes while chasing them down to give them the number lol. But it really pisses me off that they were ever disenfranchised in the first place so if I can help a few people get their voting rights back then I'm gonna drop my Johnson flyers for a few minutes and do that instead.

(I really need to get that number and the basic info printed on a bunch of business cards or something.)
posted by Jacqueline at 11:28 PM on September 17, 2016 [45 favorites]




Unfair to chimps.
posted by asteria at 12:15 AM on September 18, 2016 [25 favorites]


Someone four houses down from me put up a Trump sign today. Considering the only other really close sign was a Hillary sign that was repeatedly vandalized until the homeowner gave up, I will be interested in seeing what if anything happens to this sign. Somehow I think it has better odds of surviving.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:47 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


For the last 40 years, the more charming/likeable Presidential candidate won the election.

I gotta disagree with the terms there, I'd suggest "confident" or maybe "self assured" is a better measure than "charming/likeable".

Confidence and self surety suggest how we tend to frame an idea of "strength", not just in politics, but in the larger world as well. From my perspective, the common thread of all the losing candidates lay more in how they stumbled about defining themselves than in sheer pleasantness, charisma, charm, or what have you. Gore and Dukakis, for example, not only looked foolish at some notable moments, but they both changed their tone and demeanor on different occasions as if looking to create some "message" rather than just seeming to be "natural". Mondale came across as deferential and Kerry and Romney seemed to be playing down their backgrounds in faux appeals to middle class tastes. None fit the mold of what I see as the cultural view of strength based in self certainty.

Trump has that in a very singular way that some seem to take at face value, while others see it as a huge bluff. Clinton has it too, but based around knowledge and ability rather than bluster. She sometimes looks weaker when she is being truthful given it comes across as apologetic in a way that perversely suggests dishonesty, where the feeling might be that one wouldn't need to admit a mistake if one were stronger to begin with.

If the debates actually revolve around policy and things a president actually does, then Clinton should win handily, but if they go towards personality "issues" then it's less certain since Trump will continue to bluff and Clinton might act on her seeming reflexive honesty and acknowledge change or mistakes in ways that could read as weak to a lot of people. If she can simply demonstrate who she is and what's she's always stood for, she should do well. Some people are always going to go for the bluster, but there are more than enough people out there who can see through it just looking for some confidence from and for Clinton to able to vote for her without worry.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:59 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


actual experience governing, perhaps?

And what is experience?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:59 AM on September 18, 2016


If Trump is charming or likable, then I'm a Vermicious K'nid.
posted by mmoncur at 3:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


Meanwhile, for HOURS not a single person even said a polite no thanks, they were voting for Clinton.

I'm an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton. What's the point of engaging with someone out there waving a sign for Johnson? I would probably avoid making eye contact and give you a wide berth because I am wholly uninterested in your literature. It's nothing personal - that's cool that you're involved enough to volunteer for him! - but I wouldn't know if your reaction to me saying something positive about Clinton would be an angry one, and why would I willingly subject myself to that? Maybe it's because I used to live in a place that was like flier distribution central but the best case scenario in saying "no I'm voting for their opponent" is a neutral reaction and really just a waste of everyone's time.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 3:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [27 favorites]


but the best case scenario in saying "no I'm voting for their opponent" is a neutral reaction and really just a waste of everyone's time.

That's why I made an effort to tell those people to have fun at the festival or a safe trip home etc. Even if you weren't going to vote for my guy, I'd hope you'd at least come away with an impression of Johnson supporters being NICE.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:01 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Possible conclusions:
- Clinton supporters are less enthused about their candidate than Trump supporters
- Clinton supporters are just more polite than Trump supporters
- Trump supporters saw you supporting a right wing extremist and thought you could be persuaded to switch, while Clinton supporters assumed there was no point in trying.
posted by jack_mo at 4:10 AM on September 18, 2016 [29 favorites]


I do understand, though, why most people wouldn't want to engage with another candidate's supporter. I did get a lot of "no thanks" or "I'm already decided" with no mention of whom they were voting for instead.

What was weird was for every 2 of those people there was 1 vocal Trump supporter. Not all were obnoxiously screaming "TRUMP!" at me -- many just said "We're making America great again" as they walked by.

So it leaves me wondering why so many Trump supporters had no compunction against (sometimes loudly) voicing their support despite all the good reasons mentioned here for just not engaging.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:13 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


A lot of young men seem to be identifying with Trump as a form of disruption to the status quo, so the actions of the people you saw fit in with that pretty well. It isn't about policy as much as the candidate, and not even as much about the candidate as a candidate as it is Trump as a signifier of their manhood, a kind of middle finger to the rest of the world and celebration of themselves basically.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:18 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


[This is getting to be a kind of weird extended derail. Several people have offered ideas, please let it go now.]
posted by taz at 4:20 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Just looked it up and Lynchburg is 47% Democrats. And this was a $30 entrance festival featuring local wineries and craft breweries, so it should have skewed even more Democrat given that neither Liberty students nor Southern Baptists drink (in public) and most poor white men would probably prefer to buy two 24 packs of whatever cheap beer they usually drink instead.

So Trump supporters should have been a minority but they identified themselves at least 50 times more often than Clinton supporters. And there was almost never an attempt to persuade, just a loud declaration of their support for Trump while blowing me off.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:27 AM on September 18, 2016


Many candidates have lost believing that the loudness of their supporters equated to votes.

I doubt those Trump screamers even noticed or cared about the name of the candidate whom you were supporting. You just gave them a chance to be bullies (to a woman even!) with impunity. They like that. It's almost as cool as rolling coal in front of a Prius.

Gotta check that confirmation bias thing. It's always a bigger cognitive obstacle for supporters of quixotic candidates and lost causes.
posted by spitbull at 4:39 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


By the way, I've defended Johnson a bit in these threads on the philosophical basis of his being anti-Trump. An enemy of my enemy can be my sorta friend if we make a deal. "And what is 'Aleppo'?" was pretty devastating though, or would be if any significant number of Americans could even name Johnson's home state or running mate if asked.

Libertarians need a media network of their own, but based on the ones I know it would look more like an extended cut from an old SNL.
posted by spitbull at 4:47 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


New York Times Reinstates Managing Editor Role and Appoints Joseph Kahn

I wonder if this has anything to do with the noticible change in coverage from the NYT.
posted by colt45 at 5:00 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


"And what is 'Aleppo'?" was pretty devastating though, or would be if any significant number of Americans could even name Johnson's home state or running mate if asked.

Heh, I think the Aleppo gaffe will actually help us in the long-run. The media presented it as "the third candidate for President doesn't know where Aleppo is" but I think what a lot of voters heard was "there's a third candidate for President!" It certainly didn't hurt him in the polls any.

Given the number of people who lunged for my literature like they were drowning and I was offering them a life preserver when they heard the words "third option for President," I think at this point, almost anything that increases public awareness that he exists is more likely to help than hurt.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:25 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


In other news, I spent 8 hours outside a beer and wine festival today passing out literature and asking people to vote for Gary Johnson.

Sooooooooooo many rude frat boy types shouting "TRUMP!" at me. Some even made a point to roll down the windows of their truck as they were leaving so they could honk and yell "TRUMP!" at me some more as they drove past.

Meanwhile, for HOURS not a single person even said a polite no thanks, they were voting for Clinton. And while I live in a generally conservative part of the country, the city the festival was being held in tends to be more Democrat, so I was wondering WTF was going on with that. FINALLY someone yelled "Hillary all the way!" at me and I sincerely thanked her for the variety.

Possible conclusions:
- Clinton supporters are less enthused about their candidate than Trump supporters
- Clinton supporters are just more polite than Trump supporters

(My theory: a little of both)


I am an avid Clinton supporter. I do not make a habit of stopping to speak with stumpers for ANY candidate when I'm out in public, because I really don't care to have a conversation with complete strangers obviously in the tank for someone I'm not supporting so that they can try to harangue me about my beliefs and get me to vote for their candidate. I'm not interested in taking their literature, stopping to hear anything they have to say, and least of all I am REALLY not interested in pausing on my way to have some fun in order to have my entire day ruined by someone shitting all over me for how I choose to vote, which is what has happened when some strangers have found out who I'm voting for.

Maybe instead of assuming that people didn't run up and scream Hillary's name at you, like the Trump assholes, maybe you should consider how wary many Clinton supporters here have been about supporting her publicly because of how they've been treated. The lack of people coming up to praise their chosen candidate does not mean they're lukewarm on their candidate. It often means they don't care enough about yours to engage you.

I mean, I don't stop to talk to the Lyndon LaRouche kids on the street when I pass their table, even to say no thanks. All it means is that I'm not interested in talking to them.
posted by palomar at 5:57 AM on September 18, 2016 [32 favorites]


It all becomes clear. Trump’s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall

Doesn't Jane Goodall think chimps are wonderful?
posted by waitingtoderail at 5:57 AM on September 18, 2016




People who would be voting for anyone with an R next to their name but just can't even with Trump can knock themselves out with third parties.

I have volunteered for the Clinton campaign and when I'm out as a private citizen I don't engage other canvassers about my candidate. What would be the point? I'm not changing my mind, they're not changing theirs. I was walking across campus the other day and some dude with some kind of conservative organization lit table started losing his lit because of a gust of wind. I helped pick up his "Socialism Sucks" bumper stickers and went on my way.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:04 AM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]



Doesn't Jane Goodall think chimps are wonderful?


Probably not as President.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [37 favorites]


soren_lorensen: I helped pick up his "Socialism Sucks" bumper stickers

... like a true comrade should.
posted by Too-Ticky at 6:10 AM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm a Clinton supporter and if I saw a Johnson table, I'd give a seriously wide berth because there's just no way that I'm going to want to talk to a libertarian booster. Libertarians I know want to just talk your ear off about silly political fan-fiction like bringing the gold standard back or abolishing the fed and life to too short to have to listen to that.
posted by octothorpe at 6:12 AM on September 18, 2016 [54 favorites]


I live in a town that is obsessed with football. On game days, pretty much everyone but me is wearing the colors of the local team. But every once in a while, you'll bump into someone wearing gear for the rival team. Once or twice, I have accidentally worn the rival team's color on game day. Most people don't say anything: they're big fans of the local team, but they hate the rival team's fans or want to pick fights. Some people, though, will yell at the people wearing the wrong team's stuff. Every once in a while, someone will get really belligerent.

I think that Trump supporters are probably more likely than supporters of other candidates to think of their candidate as being like a sports team. And they may be more likely to be in the shouty or really belligerent groups, for reasons of demographics or temperament.

Anyway, if my analogy holds, it's not a good thing for Trump, because the screamers are likely to be too drunk to remember to vote on election day. Also pretty likely to get arrested for public intox and miss the election because they're drying out in a holding cell.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


And I'm trying really hard to avoid discussing politics with third-party voters in general, because I have a tendency to get snarky with them in ways that probably aren't helpful.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


She has a whole book about males in one chimpanzee community systematically hunting down and killing individuals from another chimpanzee community. I think if there's anyone capable of recognizing that aggression isn't a good way to gain power, that "natural" behaviors aren't always good, and that sharing common ancestry and behavior is no excuse for behaving like our primate relatives at their "worst," it is Jane Goodall. Part of the value of research like what Jane Goodall did (and, I say modestly, the way I like to think of my research) is putting human behavior in a cross-species context. Is it comforting to know that Donald Trump is behaving more or less like a male chimpanzee trying to climb up the dominance hierarchy? I don't know.

I saw Frans De Waal speak earier this year, and he said something very similar (he suggested turning off the sound on the presidential debates and just observing body language; you'll get basically the same outcome). He also pointed out the importance of reconciliation when you have aggression and competition and these dominance hierarchies in the primates, and the fact that regardless of the outcome of this election, reconciliation is going to be key to maintaining a successful social group.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:17 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


Doesn't Jane Goodall think chimps are wonderful?

Probably not as President.


Yet I *would* vote for a bonobo.
posted by mikelieman at 6:19 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


I doubt those Trump screamers even noticed or cared about the name of the candidate whom you were supporting. You just gave them a chance to be bullies (to a woman even!) with impunity. They like that. It's almost as cool as rolling coal in front of a Prius.

Perhaps. While I didn't encounter more than a couple self-identified Clinton supporters, I did encounter a few more people that I inferred were Democrats based on their concern for my wellbeing after they'd witnessed some of the more obnoxious incidents of Trump supporters shouting at me or taking my literature and then flicking it back at me to hit me in the chest with the edge etc. I got a lot of "how do you even DEAL with that," "what are you getting out of this," and at the end of the festival "wow, you're still here?!" type questions from people I suspect were Democrats. And there were a few people who stopped to semi-aggressively grill me about Johnson's positions from whom I picked up a Democrat vibe from based on what they were asking me about. So they were THERE, but only a couple cheered for Clinton in the same way the others were cheering for Trump and only near the end of the festival when they were a bit drunk.

The reason I bring up the disparity I've witnessed is that I'm genuinely disappointed that Clinton supporters aren't being more vocal in their support. Virginia is purportedly a swing state yet it seems like the Democrats aren't even *trying* to compete in the part I live in. There are Trump signs everywhere but I've yet to see a single Clinton sign, my mother-in-law may call herself independent but she's voted Democrat in the last umpteen number of elections yet she only gets robocalled by recordings of a shouting Trump, there was a very-well-staffed (and loudly vocal) Trump booth at last week's street fair downtown but no Clinton booth, etc.

C'mon guys, I'm counting on y'all to keep the madman out of office. Myself, I still gotta campaign and vote for Johnson if for no other reason than if we get 10% in Virginia then I will not have to personally stand out in front of the DMV in the blazing sun begging crabby people for signatures for the next four years, but I've still been helping y'all out by running a little Sunday morning side project of setting up voter registration tables outside of black churches. (I have to skip this week because I'm busy prepping for a big LP meeting / Gary Johnson volunteers cookout this afternoon, but I intend to make up for it by going door-to-door in a black neighborhood later this week. And yes, sadly this part of Virginia is still so "voluntarily" segregated that there are definitively black and white churches and neighborhoods.)

Please, get it together and start standing up to the Trumpers, or at least stop being afraid to even say your candidate's NAME. Yeah, some assholes will yell at you, but the alternative is letting people perceive that almost everyone is for Trump where they live, which is scary and alienating for a lot of people and may also depress some into not bothering to vote on Election Day. :(
posted by Jacqueline at 6:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yet I *would* vote for a bonobo.

Throwing your vote away on a third party, smh
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Is it comforting to know that Donald Trump is behaving more or less like a male chimpanzee trying to climb up the dominance hierarchy?

For me it might add some comfort because it could at least offer some sort of explanation but any comfort gained by it is canceled out by thinking of those chimps having access to a nuclear button when they reach the top.
posted by Jalliah at 6:23 AM on September 18, 2016


Please don't tell other people that they need to go out and let psychopaths scream at them because you don't want Trump in office. Especially since you're voting third party. Thanks.
posted by palomar at 6:23 AM on September 18, 2016 [65 favorites]


Libertarians I know want to just talk your ear off about silly political fan-fiction like bringing the gold standard back or abolishing the fed and life to too short to have to listen to that.

Now imagine what it's like when you have to regularly attend meetings with those dudes lol
posted by Jacqueline at 6:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Please don't tell other people that they need to go out and let psychopaths scream at them because you don't want Trump in office. Especially since you're voting third party. Thanks.

And canvassing to convince others to vote third party in a swing state.
posted by chris24 at 6:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [43 favorites]


the Senate is biased toward smaller states and the House toward large ones,

I wish people would stop with this bullshit "bias" argument about the two houses of Congress. It's set up this way to balance the effest on legislation. The house is populated based on raw population numbers of the states, which, of course, will hand more influence to the larger, more populous states. In reality, at least in our era, the House is biased according to which party has drawn the state voting districts most effectively, which is a completely different issue.

The Senate, on the other hand, is populated in a way to give all states an even vote. I'm not sure how that actually "biases" the Senate toward smaller states (other than there are more smaller states than huge ones, I guess,) but small states don't vote as a monolith, so I think that interpretation of bias is pretty unfounded. If anything, the Senate is a more realistic reflection on how divided the US populace really is, politically, since jerrymandering does not affect Senate voting in the states.

Our founding fathers recognized the problem of balance, and their solution was to divide the math between the two Federal bodies. Lately, I've heard a lot grousing how the Senate should also be based on proportional representation. I don't understand this desire since, at this point in our history, would result in the Senate becoming a close of the House. Which would beg the question of the need for a second (highly dysfunctional and highly dangerous) body of the legislation arm.

The fix for Congress lies almost solely in the states, which is where the right have been aiming their big guns and money on for several decades.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:31 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Honestly, given that you won't vote for the only candidate that stands any chance of beating the cheeto, why should anyone take your exhortations seriously?
posted by palomar at 6:31 AM on September 18, 2016 [39 favorites]




Please don't tell other people that they need to go out and let psychopaths scream at them because you don't want Trump in office. Especially since you're voting third party. Thanks.

What, so you don't think anyone should personally campaign for any candidate ever, and just hope that TV ads and robocalls will be sufficient? Because getting screamed at by psychopaths is par for the course when you're canvassing, calling, or staffing outreach booths, regardless of whom you're campaigning for.

And canvassing to convince others to vote third party in a swing state.

I'm pretty sure that I'm registering likely Democrats to vote at a faster rate than I'm persuading people who would have otherwise voted Clinton to vote for Johnson instead.

Most of the people I've converted to Johnson supporters are recovering Republicans who got fed up with their party's hateful stances on social issues, people who still identify as Republican but can't stand Trump, and the previously apolitical. I've heard that Johnson is picking up a lot of Sanders supporters in other areas but locally we've only recruited one Sanderista so far. (He still wears his Sanders shirt to Libertarian meetings, which I find to be loltastically wonderful. I want to elect this kid to office.)
posted by Jacqueline at 6:39 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Senate, on the other hand, is populated in a way to give all states an even vote. I'm not sure how that actually "biases" the Senate toward smaller states

It biases the Senate toward residents of smaller states, each of whose vote counts for more than a resident of a larger state.

Lately, I've heard a lot grousing how the Senate should also be based on proportional representation. I don't understand this desire since, at this point in our history, would result in the Senate becoming a close of the House.

As you point out, a lot of the issues with the House are due to gerrymandering. If senators were elected in statewide, at-large elections, but assigned votes proportional to their state's population, we could avoid those issues while also avoiding the current problem with the Senate, which is that a tiny obstructionist minority of voters from rural states can elect enough senators to stop programs that are overwhelmingly favored by the country as a whole.
posted by enn at 6:42 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


What, so you don't think anyone should personally campaign for any candidate ever

Do whatever you want, support whoever you want, campaign for whoever you want. But coming in here and saying 'Goddamit guys, I really need you to beat Trump, but I'll be over here campaigning for Johnson' is insulting and offensive.
posted by chris24 at 6:43 AM on September 18, 2016 [82 favorites]


I seldom have nightmares these days but I had a Trump nightmare (not end-of-world, just oh-god-why-is-he-in-this-restaurant) the other day. This fucking election can be over now. His stupid face and name and voice being everywhere can definitely be over now.

In good news, my yard sign is still up and un-fucked-with.
posted by emjaybee at 6:43 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clinton's ground game is much fiercer than Trump's. Your local anecdata is, again, not actual data.

Demanding other people do the work of electing the only person who can keep Trump out of government while you get to keep your own moral purity is pretty rich, though.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [74 favorites]


It biases the Senate toward residents of smaller states, each of whose vote counts for more than a resident of a larger state.
That's completely true. But a fascinating thing is that, even though smaller states tend to be more conservative than bigger states, the Senate is actually more Democratic than the House, because the Republicans are geniuses at gerrymandering, and the Senate can't be gerrymandered.

It's sort of an interesting thought exercise about how we would change things if we were going to start from scratch and design an American political system, but I'm not sure it's totally relevant right now, because it's not going to happen anytime soon, and we're sort of staring down a bit of an existential crisis for the next two months. Come mid-November, I'll be happy to discuss it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:48 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Libertarianism is a philosophy that believes that people are basically good, and they do not need government regulation or oversight.

How anyone can view Donald Trump, and his support and supporters, and still believe in libertarianism I do not know.
posted by adam hominem at 6:48 AM on September 18, 2016 [23 favorites]


Libertarianism is a philosophy that believes that people are basically good, and they do not need government regulation or oversight.
Is that true? I think that anarchism is a philosophy that says that people are basically good. Libertarianism is a philosophy that says that the person holding it is smarter and stronger than everyone else and has bigger guns, and in a lawless society, they will end up at the top of the heap.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:51 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


To clarify re ground game: Clinton's uses massive amounts of analytics to target ground and voters specifically. That means that some counties or districts have been deemed either a sure thing or a lost cause and are not allocated the resources needed for a heavy presence. The campaign has way way way more voter data than you or me or any of us. They know where to press forward and where to back off to an absurdly precise degree.

Trump on the other hand has openly said that he thinks analytics is useless and his campaign doesn't use voter targeting data. You see them in random spots that may or may not have any bearing on the actual election, it's just where someone felt like opening an office or setting up a table.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:51 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


As a change of subject, I'm starting to think this election is only the start of a long run of ugly showdowns. I've been seeing a lot of news shows covering driverless cars lately, as if there's some sort of push to do so, and given driving is one of the largest employment segments for men without college educations, the potential removal of huge swaths of jobs from that sector is only going to make for increasing agitation and aggression among members of the group with the largest propensity for that already. I'm getting the feeling that if we don't start addressing these kinds of issues soon things will really get out of hand.
posted by gusottertrout at 6:53 AM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


The analytics-targeted ground game is pretty amazing, but it's really important not to overestimate how powerful it is. 2014 was a pretty big wakeup call about that. It can make a difference at the margins, but it can't overcome big (or even moderate) disadvantages. And it's also to some extent a prisoner to enthusiasm, because it relies on volunteers, and it's hard to get people to volunteer for candidates about whom they're not enthusiastic.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:55 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is that true?

It's true of my parents who are objectivist libertarians. Both ideologies also attract sociopaths who are looking for an ideology that says that whatever they want to do is virtuous. But the major philosophical difference between my parents and me such that they are libertarians and I'm a social democrat is that I think people suck and they have this heroic vision of humanity as inherently pure and good.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Johnson's stance on abortion comes off as feel-good and fuzzy on his website. Howeverr when asked about specifics:

Q: Should abortion be outlawed in the United States?
A: Let each state decide.
Q: Should the federal government fund stem cell research and legalize its development in the private sector?
A: No, but allow the private sector to explore potential benefits.
Q: Should the government require health insurance companies to provide free birth control?
A: No, let the insurance companies decide instead of a government mandate.

Ah yes, letting the states decide to ban abortion and insurance companies decided "nah" to birth control, that's always worked out well.

On equal pay for women:

Should employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job?
Gary Johnson’s answer: No, there are too many other variables such as education, experience, and tenure that determine a fair salary


Typical libertarian white-dude stuff. Nah.
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 AM on September 18, 2016 [68 favorites]


at least stop being afraid to even say your candidate's NAME

In addition to everything everyone else has said, are you not reading the responses to your comments? Many people have explained to you (and it's mentioned often in these threads anyway) exactly why people are skittish about being vocal about Clinton to strangers. Why would we want to engage with a third party supporter who'll harangue Clinton supporters about not being good enough to provide cover for Johnson? No thanks.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 7:02 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


[A couple of comments deleted. Please cut out the personal attacks, and let's back away from centering the entire discussion on Jacqueline and the "Clinton supporters need to be noisier" argument at this point.]
posted by taz at 7:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]




Obama at the CBC dinner: "Democracy is on the ballot".

Wow. That is powerful - no anger-management there at all. I hope it has some effect.
posted by mumimor at 7:09 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


What self-identified "Libertarians" fail to realize is that there are things that are best done at the Federal level.

Consider: Traffic Lights. US Dept. of Transportation mandated shades red, yellow, and green, and their relative position is a GOOD THING. I can drive from New York to California and know when I should stop, proceed with caution, or go.
posted by mikelieman at 7:12 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


"It's true of my parents who are objectivist libertarians. Both ideologies also attract sociopaths..."

Come on. We're not sociopaths. Sociopaths are charming.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Libertarians are basically people who hear about rural Sheffield leveraging their role into a petty dictatorship and think that is an awesome way to run EVERYTHING.
posted by Artw at 7:17 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


powerful Clinton POW ad posted above.

I *know* "Never read the comments". WHY did I read them? WHY???
posted by mikelieman at 7:20 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mods, please delete if off topic / derail / etc

I understand where you're coming from to some degree, Jacqueline. The idea of a Trump presidency *is scary* to any reasonable person. I like that you're in these threads and reading this discussion - and I wonder if your disappointment in not getting to engage with Hillary supporters in your area (and why you're here) stems from a desire to want to be convinced to vote for her.

If that's the case, I think it means, deep down, you're already convinced! Vote for her! She's the best person for the job. She's wonderful! You don't even have to tell any of your libertarian friends. It's just you in that voting booth doing your part to keep an orange monster out of the White House.
posted by erisfree at 7:24 AM on September 18, 2016 [20 favorites]


chris24: "Wow, this new Clinton ad on veterans, POWs and Trump is powerful.

"The brave men and women who have served our country deserve better than Donald Trump."
"

Wow. That's brutal to watch. The moment when the words catch in the speaker's throat and he pauses for a second just killed me.
posted by octothorpe at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2016 [40 favorites]


C'mon guys, I'm counting on y'all to keep the madman out of office.

Nope, nope, nope. The best way to keep Trump out of office is to support Hillary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on September 18, 2016 [47 favorites]


I live in a town that is obsessed with football. On game days, pretty much everyone but me is wearing the colors of the local team. But every once in a while, you'll bump into someone wearing gear for the rival team.

I'd like to see the major candidates and their campaigns adopt face paint, jerseys, and large oversized foam thingies like #1 gloves or oddly shaped hats.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The moment when the words catch in the speaker's throat and he pauses for a second just killed me.

"My war is 70 years ago... and yesterday."

Tears.
posted by chris24 at 7:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]




So Chuck Todd was going at Kelly Ann Conway on MTP just now and the feed cut out. He immediately apologized to her and the audience for the technical difficulties but I wouldn't be surprised if she disconnected. It definitely bought her a few minutes to figure out how to bullshit her way out of explaining how Trump will wall off his business interests from his Presidential duties. (Spoiler: she pivoted to complaining about Clinton.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


"My war is 70 years ago... and yesterday."

I need a Dandelion Break. And a hug.
posted by mikelieman at 7:40 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obama at the CBC dinner: "Democracy is on the ballot".

Wowww. Seconding this being worth a watch.

"I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send-off, go vote."
posted by saturday_morning at 7:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [61 favorites]


Pence is having another good morning on the shows.

Mike Pence Says His Role Model for Vice President is Dick Cheney

"“I frankly hold Dick Cheney in really high regard in his role as vice president and as an American."

Also in the same interview.

RADDATZ: Why did it take [Trump] so long to put [birtherism] to an end?

PENCE: It's over.

RADDATZ: It's not over.

posted by chris24 at 7:45 AM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


So Chuck Todd was going at Kelly Ann Conway on MTP

After seeing the clip of her on Maher, I'm actually sympathetic to her. I have enough Production experience to see the fourth wall breaking in Bill's needling of Kelly's gig, and her ability to not flub her lines was worthy of a freaking Emmy Award. Pivoting is all she's got to work with, and she's way more pro than DJT deserves.

Too bad about the (assumed ) non-disparigment in the NDA, or she'd have a hell of a book to sell.
posted by mikelieman at 7:47 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


RADDATZ: Why did it take [Trump] so long to put [birtherism] to an end?

PENCE: It's over.

RADDATZ: It's not over.


That Seinfeld episode where George quits his job in a blaze of glory but changes his mind so he just goes into the office like nothing happened
posted by saturday_morning at 7:47 AM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'd like to see the major candidates and their campaigns adopt face paint, jerseys, and large oversized foam thingies like #1 gloves or oddly shaped hats.

Nika riots, no thanks.
posted by Emmy Noether at 7:48 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm actually sympathetic to her.

She's out front helping an unrepentant violence encouraging hatemonger possibly become president, by her own choice. A guy that wants to ban people because of their religion. She's masterfully helping a guy who is a climate change denier. Who said black people are naturally lazy, who denied black people housing. I am not sympathetic to her because she's helping destroy what the United States is supposed to be. Fuck him, and if she's going to continue to help him, her too.
posted by cashman at 7:52 AM on September 18, 2016 [56 favorites]


As I've mentioned in multiple comments in multiple election threads, I'm doing my part to defeat Trump in Virginia by registering people to vote who are demographically likely to vote for Clinton. I can't morally stomach campaigning for her directly, but I'm more than happy to spend my time registering historically underrepresented or previously disenfranchised groups to vote.

This is all without any support from actual Democrats, BTW. I tried contacting the local NAACP, local Democratic Party, local League of Women Voters, state New Virginia Majority, and national Black Votes Matter organizations to volunteer for any voter registration drives they might be conducting in my area. The League of Women voters emailed me that they would get back to me but never did. The New Virginia Majority finally called me back only to tell me that they weren't doing anything in my part of the state, and by then it was too late to arrange for them to be guest speakers at LP meetings in those parts of the state that they are active in. The other three organizations didn't get back to me at all*.

So I took the state's online voter registrar training, ordered a "Black Votes Matter" shirt from Amazon, bought some voter registration table supplies, and started doing my own thing.

I need my 10% for Johnson so that my state delegate candidates will have ballot access next year without me having to personally spend endless days at the DMV gathering signatures. But I'm trying to get there by targeting disaffected Republicans for recruitment into the LP whilst simultaneously working to increase the pool of likely Clinton voters.

My hope is to help turn Virginia blue (which it would be already if all its adult citizens voted) so that I can do my Libertarian thing worry-free. And also because the Republican Party of Virginia is especially vile, even compared to Republicans in general.

*BTW Democrats in general seem to suck at getting back at me. I'd considered joining you once, back in the bad old days of Barr/Root, but the Democratic Freedom Caucus (the D's version of the Republican Liberty Caucus) never got back to me!
posted by Jacqueline at 7:52 AM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


The Atlantic is reporting a bit of good news:
The National Institute of Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona has just come out with guidelines for debaters, the debate audience and, importantly, the moderators, that need to be heeded. Most of the guidelines are simple and obvious

[Snip]

The key, though is the moderators. The Institute’s guidelines ask moderators to address uncivil behavior by calling it out; enforce debate rules equally; hold candidates accountable for truthfulness and integrity; treat candidates equally when it comes to complexity of issues and debate rules; and be respectful in interacting with the candidates.

[Snip]

Most important, to say that when a candidate lies, the other candidate can use his or her rebuttal time to call out the lies while moderators remain silent, is to take away the rival candidate’s ability to answer questions the way they want, and instead forcing them to use their time on the other candidate’s turf. And, given Trump’s lack of policy chops, knowledge, and interest, that means a more substance-free debate.
(Emphasis mine)

This isn't your father's presidential debate format. (I'm looking at YOU, Chris Wallace.)
posted by perspicio at 7:53 AM on September 18, 2016 [42 favorites]


John Dickerson on Face the Nation holding Kellyanne's feet to the fire about Trump's birtherism, and correcting her...misrepresentations.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:53 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


I need my 10% for Johnson so that my state delegate candidates will have ballot access next year without me having to personally spend endless days at the DMV gathering signatures.

10% for Johnson hands Virginia to Donald Trump.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on September 18, 2016 [45 favorites]


She's out front helping an unrepentant violence encouraging hatemonger possibly become president, by her own choice.

I go with Krusty in this...

They drove a dumptruck full of money to my house...
posted by mikelieman at 7:58 AM on September 18, 2016


Yet I *would* vote for a bonobo.

...we're all voting Hillary.
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:59 AM on September 18, 2016 [46 favorites]


I wonder if your disappointment in not getting to engage with Hillary supporters in your area (and why you're here) stems from a desire to want to be convinced to vote for her.

Nope nope nope nope nope. Can't vote for her. Can't even vote swap for her with the MeFite in Massachusetts I've vote swapped with in previous elections. I might have been able to vote-swap for Sanders, but I can no longer stomach voting (even just as part of a swap) for candidates whom I am certain are going to bomb the shit out of some kids.

You're right that I'm disappointed about not finding any local Clinton supporters to engage with, but that's because it would be nice to go out and do voter registration in a pair instead of solo.

10% for Johnson hands Virginia to Donald Trump.

Depends on where that 10% comes from! My buddies at the gun range are just as convinced that it would hand the state to Hillary Clinton.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:03 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]



Mike Pence Says His Role Model for Vice President is Dick Cheney

Holy shit, that needs to be every headline.
posted by bongo_x at 8:03 AM on September 18, 2016 [20 favorites]


I'd be happy to vote for Jane Goodall.
posted by spitbull at 8:05 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Those debate guidelines are suggestions put out by a university think tank in a Medium post. There's no reason to expect that the networks or moderators will obey or even hear about them.
posted by theodolite at 8:05 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Depends on where that 10% comes from! My buddies at the gun range are just as convinced that it would hand the state to Hillary Clinton.

Your buddies at the gun range don't spend hours thinking about this and watching the polling.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Virginia is purportedly a swing state yet it seems like the Democrats aren't even *trying* to compete in the part I live in.

So the smart and responsible thing to do when you feel like that is look at the state polls, if there are any. There have been several in Virginia this week and Clinton is up in all of them. The other smart and responsible thing to do if you're wondering about the political leanings of an area is to look up its presidential vote, not its party registration, especially in the south and double especially in the more-or-less rural south. In 2012, Lynchburg city went for Romney 55/45, which would make it quite conservative, and the surrounding counties went for Romney by 20 and 40 point margins. So it should not be surprising if the Clinton-votes-per-dollar or per-effort are lower in Lynchburg than the returns from just doing more intense efforts in NoVa, and if so that's what a smart campaign would be doing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:07 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


If you choose to vote for Stein, what are your reasons? Nothing about her suggests to me that she has the experience or skills to actually do the job of being president. So, maybe you agree with her stated positions. Okay, but she has not been in the positions where those beliefs get tested by actual events. I disagree with some of Clinton's actions, but she acted on the information available, reflected the will of her constituency, and made reasoned choices. And I do agree with most of her positions, and I especially respect her track record on the rights and needs of children, families, and women. But if you think Stein would be great, go vote. As far as causation, you only cause Trump to be president if you vote for him. But, by your action, you are not stopping him from becoming president. You are taking a stance that I think is flimsy, and watching a dangerous event happen, and not doing anything at all to stop it.

The people who voted for Nader, and the Green Party who nominated him, did the same thing in 2000. Nader has an interesting history, and has done a lot for consumer protection. But I think he'd be a crummy president. Not Trump-crummy-scary, but crummy. And people voted for Nader, and Bush Cheney lies caused the deaths of 125,000+ Iraqi civilians, thousands of US and allied lives, thousands of Iraqi troops, and destabilized iraq and fueled Isis and etc. That's more dead civilians than people who voted for Nader. Those Nader voters didn't cause Bush to be sort-of elected, but they stood by and let it happen. It's not causation, but a case can be made that it's depraved indifference.
posted by theora55 at 8:08 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah I was trying to figure out why vountary debate guidelines sure to be ignored were "good news." We all know what's gointo happen, and it will be neither civil nor fair compared to an MMA bout.
posted by spitbull at 8:09 AM on September 18, 2016


[Couple comments deleted. Once again, this is really not going to be a thread about Jacqueline and her personal views.]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:10 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just donated $5 for a few chances to get a seat at the Hofstra debate. *crosses fingers* I'm not even sure how I would get there, but it sounds fun.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:11 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mike Pence Says His Role Model for Vice President is Dick Cheney

Trying to reassure rank-and-file Republicans that Dad won't let Trump take the car out on his own.
posted by AndrewInDC at 8:11 AM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


Jacqueline:
I appreciate that you're trying to engage constructively here, but I would urge you to look at the phrase "morally stomach" as your reason for not voting for HRC.

That is going to piss a lot of people off. Her's why it pisses me off. From white woman I have heard the following:

I don't like HRC because of the Tammy Wynette quote
HRC enabled her husband to sexually abuse women (this from an instructor who repeated to her voting-age class)
And then a few cases of vague wide-eyed statements regarding morally corrupt.

There is no there there. She's not going to take away your guns. If you're worried about this, check out how hard it to amend the constitution. For love of God, I do not understand the worship of people killing machines, but please, if you don't believe me, do some reading. Because your moral objections, if they are like anything the people who've expressed themselves similarly, are based on a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Except that if people believe the sound and fury, we're all fucked.
posted by angrycat at 8:13 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


Jacqueline, kudos for getting out into the trenches, even if I don't agree with your reasoning.

Your buddies at the gun range don't spend hours thinking about this and watching the polling.

You might be surprised.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I might have been able to vote-swap for Sanders, but I can no longer stomach voting (even just as part of a swap) for candidates whom I am certain are going to bomb the shit out of some kids.

Funny story. Once again -- anyone who supported Sanders should be able to support Clinton.

And if you want to keep the killing of kids to a minimum, you have one and exactly one option on the ballot. President Thin-Skin Don is gonna have an awfully itchy trigger finger.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:15 AM on September 18, 2016 [29 favorites]


You're right that I'm disappointed about not finding any local Clinton supporters to engage with, but that's because it would be nice to go out and do voter registration in a pair instead of solo.
Where I live, we don't do door-to-door voter registration in pairs, because we can hit twice as many doors if people go solo. Sometimes newbies are really nervous about going alone, and we'll pair them up with someone initially, but we try really hard to convince them to go on their own once they've seen that it's not so scary.

And honestly, we try pretty hard to screen for people who are going to say terrible things about our candidates. We want volunteers, but we don't want volunteers who are going to actively contradict our message. It's sort of naive to think that Democrats would be willing to work with you, given your attitude towards their top-of-the-ticket candidate. It would be dumb of us to allow people to use our resources to pursue their own agendas, especially when their agendas are actively hostile to our goals.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


I just donated $5 for a few chances to get a seat at the Hofstra debate. *crosses fingers* I'm not even sure how I would get there, but it sounds fun.

Looking at their page, um, I don't see anything about $5, or anything for non-students.
posted by cashman at 8:22 AM on September 18, 2016


The Atlantic backs the NICD debate guidelines.
Most important, to say that when a candidate lies, the other candidate can use his or her rebuttal time to call out the lies while moderators remain silent, is to take away the rival candidate’s ability to answer questions the way they want, and instead forcing them to use their time on the other candidate’s turf. And, given Trump’s lack of policy chops, knowledge, and interest, that means a more substance-free debate.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


cashman, it's a Clinton campaign thing.
posted by vathek at 8:28 AM on September 18, 2016


Looking at their page, um, I don't see anything about $5, or anything for non-students.

Yeah, as vathek said, it came as a "guest of the Clinton folks" email.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah I was trying to figure out why vountary debate guidelines sure to be ignored were "good news."

Because it was early Sunday morning (here in the PNW), I was still in bed, I was hungry for uplifiting news, and my perspiciator (TM) was still warming up.
posted by perspicio at 8:31 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah. Good luck!!
posted by cashman at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, this new Clinton ad on veterans, POWs and Trump is powerful.

It is. They've all been powerful. I hope (and suspect) that Clinton will start running more positive ads in October. The best part of the DNC was the happy, inclusive vision the Democrats offer. She and her surrogates have done that on the trail, but the ads I've seen have focused solely on Trump. As unfair as it is, the campaign narrative right now is about having to choose between two bad choices. Continuing to hit Trump I think will stop having great returns - people who would vote for Clinton know what they need to about the guy. It seems like a lot of them have forgotten what the DNC offered.
posted by one_bean at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


NYT: Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most Since Post-9/11 Era

"New data from researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, found that hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent over the course of 2015. Attacks on those perceived as Arab rose even more sharply."

Trump's America.
posted by chris24 at 8:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


Gusottertrout makes a good point:

I've been seeing a lot of news shows covering driverless cars lately, as if there's some sort of push to do so, and given driving is one of the largest employment segments for men without college educations, the potential removal of huge swaths of jobs from that sector is only going to make for increasing agitation and aggression among members of the group with the largest propensity for that already.

I coach non-techy folks on using computers for a living, and non-tech-oriented folks generally find the whole world of tech confusing and hateful. It makes them feel stupid and unnecessary, it shuts them out with jargon, and it makes them irrelevant. This going to keep happening at an accelerating pace.

I've wondered if the obsession with Hillary's emails isn't wrapped up in this -- she feels like a technocrat to many people. That combination of "your new boss is a woman" and the design polish of her campaign -- I would suspect it looks to many people like the world that doesn't want them.
posted by argybarg at 8:46 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


I hope (and suspect) that Clinton will start running more positive ads in October.

Like this one.
posted by rory at 8:47 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


“There is an otherness to this president” — Alex Castellanos, Trump super PAC strategist, on Meet The Press

So in defending Trump's birtherism, they're going from a racist dogwhistle to a less subtle racist dogwhistle?
posted by chris24 at 8:50 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]



“There is an otherness to this president”


That's like using the definition of dogwhistle as the dogwhistle.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:54 AM on September 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


Castellanos, huh? Dude, your people were treated as scary racially inferior others (vermin, terrorists, anarchist-communist infiltrators, mafiosi) not 100 years ago in the US.
posted by spitbull at 8:54 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


What? No, his candidate is treating what-anglos-would-call-his-people-even-though-he-would-probably-disagree as scary racially inferior others right now.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:58 AM on September 18, 2016


Trump on disgusting media: "I could name every one of them that are that way, and I – and probably some day I will."

So you're saying you have a list of un-American reporters? That you will use some day? Alrighty then.
posted by chris24 at 9:00 AM on September 18, 2016 [47 favorites]




“There is an otherness to this president”

And there's a uterus to the next one.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:04 AM on September 18, 2016 [35 favorites]


Castellanos has his own history of birtherism.

"Let's say Mitt Romney released 100 years of tax returns tonight," said Alex Castellanos, a Republican media consultant who advised Romney in 2008. "What do you think the odds are that the Obama campaign would say, 'Oh great Mitt. Thank you! Now we can put that behind us and move on to more substantive issues like entitlement reform!' Zero."

Added Castellanos: "I'd advise Mitt to release 10 years of tax returns when Obama releases 10 years of birth certificates."
posted by chris24 at 9:05 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Mike Pence continues his Trump Apology Tour:
Pence, speaking Sunday in an interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week," said that his running mate and the Republican nominee for president wasn't at all calling for violence against the Democratic nominee for president.

"I think what Donald Trump was saying is if Hillary Clinton didn't have all that security—she'd probably be a whole lot more supportive of the Second Amendment," Pence said.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Trump's real political inspiration: Richard Nixon

Honestly, that seems like giving Trump too much credit.

His political inspirations are his ego and his id. Any resemblance to past evil presidents, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:15 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


Pence: "His comment was that if she didn't have all that security, she'd change her attitude about the right to keep and bear arms. And I'll bet that's probably true." [real]

I can't even. A good follow-up there might be "Governor Pence, roughly how many Americans have openly expressed a desire to assassinate Hillary Clinton and have the weaponry to do it?"

(erisfree: that's parody)
posted by holgate at 9:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


[removed mistaken parody and attendant derail, feel free to repost as fake if it's amusing]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:20 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Howard Taft and Barack Obama lived in the Philippines. Ah ha!

You don't throw POWs' under the bus like that, that decided my vote and I suspect it was early "no trump" re-bar for GOPers.
posted by clavdivs at 9:23 AM on September 18, 2016


I suspect Gov. Sixpence is feeding on Hillarys' 08' RFK gaffe, not good. Aptly fits into depolarable.
posted by clavdivs at 9:28 AM on September 18, 2016




Add show trials and purges to the list.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


And another possible wow.

Carl Bernstein reports that Bill Weld is considering dropping out if he thinks Johnson-Weld will help elect Trump. #JohnsonWeld2016

If he dropped and endorsed Clinton, I'd take back everything I've ever said and thought about Libertarians.
posted by chris24 at 9:37 AM on September 18, 2016 [78 favorites]


Trump campaign manager says Trump’s pre-campaign positions do not matter:
On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd presented Conway with a lengthy list of issues on which Trump has recently changed his stated views, including birtherism, tax cuts for the wealthy, a Muslim ban, the minimum wage, the Iraq invasion, Libya intervention, abortion, whether he would self-fund his campaign, whether to accept Syrian refugees, and Japan and nuclear weapons. “He’s totally changed his position on all these issues,” Todd noted. “Why shouldn’t voters look at this and, including the birtherism comments on Friday, and say ‘he’s just another politician who will say and do anything to get elected in the moment?’”

Conway responded, “This is a man who is running for office the first time and he’s the nominee for president. Why? Because people do not see him as a politician. You want to take statements he made, positions he took as a private citizen when he was not running, and conflate them... People see who see who he is now.” She then changed the subject, suggesting that it was in fact Hillary Clinton who is untrustworthy and less than transparent.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Wait, ROU_xenophobe, how is the Trump movement discriminating against Italian Americans now?
posted by spitbull at 9:42 AM on September 18, 2016


Alex Castellanos, a Cuban American, is the guy who created the infamous Hands campaign ad for Jesse Helms.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Ah, he's Cuban-Americann, mea culpa. I had him as Italian American.
posted by spitbull at 9:45 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Peter Staley: So apparently we're not supposed to criticize younger voters who are planning to vote for one of the 3rd party candidates. They don't respond well, and will dig in their heels. Definitely don't insult them -- they'll double-down and start praising Johnsonstein in front of their friends. Bernie has tried to reason with them, but he's dead to them now (how dare he endorse the lying bitch!). Appeals to self-interest, or trying to trigger their empathy for those less well off (who will get screwed the most by their vote) haven't worked either. Should we try shiny baubles?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:45 AM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


Conway responded, “This is a man who is running for office the first time and he’s the nominee for president. Why? Because people do not see him as a politician. You want to take statements he made, positions he took as a private citizen when he was not running, and conflate them... People see who see who he is now.”

If Chuck Todd were capable of pretending to be a journalist, he could have noted the many issues on which Trump has flip-flopped on since he became a candidate, sometimes within the same day. He could have even done so with this list of such flip-flops, put together by his own network.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:46 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


I just saw my first "Make America Great Again" shirt in the wild today. In Connecticut. I wanted to ask where the short was made.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 9:49 AM on September 18, 2016


She then changed the subject

Doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

Does Conway get to walk away from everything she said about Trump when not on the campaign? Can we get a specific date for when Year Zero of Trumpism began, or do we just assume it's "yesterday evening", updated daily?
posted by holgate at 9:51 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Chuck Todd were capable of pretending to be a journalist, he could have noted the many issues on which Trump has flip-flopped on since he became a candidate,

All the issues he listed were flipped and flopped during Trump's campaign, though he didn't press the point.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:51 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Conway responded, “This is a man who is running for office the first time and he’s the nominee for president. Why? Because people do not see him as a politician. You want to take statements he made, positions he took as a private citizen when he was not running, and conflate them... People see who see who he is now.”

This lie also drives me nuts. Trump ran for the Reform party nomination in 2000. He's also been drafted for a run as Gov. of NY, which he apparently decided against, and floated the idea several times of running for Mayor of NY. He's a politician.

Also I don't understand why everything you said before you started running for office is off-limits. You don't get a clean slate the minute you declare your candidacy.
posted by dis_integration at 9:55 AM on September 18, 2016 [28 favorites]


Also I don't understand why everything you said before you started running for office is off-limits.

Um, you know darned well why Ms. Conway makes that argument. It's just that the argument has nothing to do with honesty or any other attribute of integrity.
posted by perspicio at 9:58 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I canonically enter this HuffPo link as FAKE so you guys can stop linking to it as real: "The Indiana governor, an evangelical Christian, explained that he opposes the word “vice” on religious grounds. Pence said that the Bible has strict prohibitions against vice. He said the word “vice” means, among other things, “immoral” or “wicked behavior.” ... Pence was asked during his press conference if he condemned the word “vice” on Christian principles, why then didn’t he condemn the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organization, that openly participates in immoral and wicked behavior? “I would,” he answered. “But if we start criticizing deplorables, we run the risk of losing half our voters.”"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:03 AM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


I coach non-techy folks on using computers for a living, and non-tech-oriented folks generally find the whole world of tech confusing and hateful. It makes them feel stupid and unnecessary, it shuts them out with jargon, and it makes them irrelevant. This going to keep happening at an accelerating pace.

Yes, exactly. That's the kind of thing I was thinking about when I mentioned in an earlier thread that many of the Trump supporters I've met aren't readers. It wasn't meant as an insult, my father and some of my friends aren't readers either, it was meant to suggest that the changes in how society is taking on information and how people are processing that is causing some greater divide than race or gender alone might explain.

It is in part perhaps the growing class divide, but talking about class in the older sense might not be the best way to address the problem, at least not without addressing the information gulf itself first.

There needs to be more talk about similarities, shared interests, and common goals that aren't based in exclusivity and mostly finding better ways to communicate complex ideas in straight forward easy to understand ways. This is something, in their perverted way, Fox news does well. They pare down ideas to a clear set of points that are easily understood often through analogies or broad claims, then sell their viewership on the nuggets of info.

Fox viewers are, in my experience, ridiculously loyal. Many don't trust any other source of news. It may be the message that Fox sells with their twist on the information they are presenting, but I'm not sure I believe that. While there's always been racism and sexism in this country, there has also been times of greater worker unity and class based affiliation. I think those things can return if people can share their knowledge and experience in more universal ways.

Many people who aren't great with processing written information or complex abstraction are excellent when it comes to interpersonal exchange. Information is shared as part of a trust network of people they know. It builds in a way almost identical to that people claim for crowd sourcing on the web, but passed on as verbal, personal exchange instead. That method is prone to distorting reality if there are weaker members in the process, but it is also open to new ideas if one can gain trust within the group.

Talking as an equal with respect to people from outside one's own normal sphere can do wonders in spreading different perspectives on the world. It's the same principle as when someone finds their son or daughter is gay or a lesbian, their perspective on LGBT rights can change because its personal rather than an abstraction.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:11 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


New tweet from Hillary, with a new ad: So what exactly is Donald Trump hiding from voters? Pretty much everything.

As usual, only read the comments if you're braced for them.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:11 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm a bad person and want to start rumors that Trump's people were responsible for the NYC dumpster bomb. Maybe we'll see more mini Reichstag fires like that to drumpf up panic.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:18 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


And the amount of gaslighting from the Trump campaign is astonishing: you shouldn't care about anything he said years ago, he didn't say it anyway, they said it, what's wrong with you?
posted by holgate at 10:28 AM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


Reince, next week:

"It is just *disgusting* that Hillary Clinton said of John McCain that she 'likes people who weren't captured.'"
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:31 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


no other way for progressives to pull the Democratic Party to the left
The Tea Party took over the Republican Party in Maine by getting active, becoming officers of town GOP groups, getting elected to local office. We now have one of the worst governors in the country and he is hurting the state a lot. There were a lot of Sanders delegates to the Maine Dem. Convention this year. They had a lot to say about the platform. If they stay involved, they can help move the agenda. The Republicans and the Big-Money Right have moved the agenda far to the Right. We have to fight this on all fronts.
posted by theora55 at 10:31 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump's got the Bart Simpson approach to accountability. "I didn't do it; nobody saw me; you can't prove anything; and besides I wasn't alone." [FAKE]
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:34 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


"You broke my lamp!"

"No I didn't. It's my own lamp, it was broken when I found it, it was working when I gave it back, and I've never seen that lamp before in my life."
posted by saturday_morning at 10:37 AM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


Re the Johnson campaigning anecdata thing, the answer is simple. Trump and Johnson are both right-wing candidates. A great many people label themselves libertarian and vote straight ticket Republican, even. It is well known that the far right and right-libertarianism are fellow travelers. Thus Trump supporters are more likely to want to engage with a Johnson supporter.

Meanwhile something nearing 100% of registered Democrats know that the Libertarian Party does not speak for them and that they share almost no political ground with right-libertarian political candidates. Johnson is about as worthy of their attention as Lyndon La Rouche is.

It's sort of like asking why there aren't cats in the dog park.
posted by Sara C. at 10:46 AM on September 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


I don't think it's nearly as simple as "Trump and Johnson are both right-wing candidates." Plenty of people are going to peel off from Clinton and vote for Johnson.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:50 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think it's nearly as simple as "Trump and Johnson are both right-wing candidates." Plenty of people are going to peel off from Clinton and vote for Johnson.

There is zero tension between those two statements.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


Wow. Reince saying on #facethenation that there may be future penalties for 2016ers who didn't endorse Trump if they wana run again

The Trumpification is complete.


This strikes me as potentially an even more important story than the birther renaissance. If you're John Kasich or Jeb Bush or Ben Sasse, you now have a heck of a choice to make. Either roll over to Reince, or realize you have nothing left to lose and fully endorse HRC. Either way, serious potential consequences for any holdout #nevertrumpers.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:12 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


Doonesbury.
posted by Talez at 11:15 AM on September 18, 2016 [40 favorites]


Either roll over to Reince, or realize you have nothing left to lose and fully endorse HRC.

Or oust Priebus from the RNC chair position.
posted by tclark at 11:18 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


Or oust Priebus from the RNC chair position.

Fair, but if Trump were to *gulp* win, hard to imagine that effort succeeding.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016


> Plenty of people are going to peel off from Clinton and vote for Johnson.

Polls have been showing Johnson mostly picking up support from Republicans and Republican leaners, and not much from Democrats or Democratic leaners.
posted by nangar at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Remember this tweet?
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting
Rick Wilson's reply: You're so full of shit it's amazing you're not surrounded by flies 24/7.
posted by Talez at 11:25 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]




Yes, other Presidents won by half-assing it.
posted by thelonius at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [27 favorites]


Christie’s claim that Trump did not ‘on a regular basis’ spout birther nonsense after 2011
This will possibly be our shortest fact check ever.
Four pinocchios.
posted by Talez at 11:27 AM on September 18, 2016 [28 favorites]


Trump sure seems to be doing his best.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:27 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah the whole thing smacks of effort
posted by ian1977 at 11:28 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Some voters seem to believe that the Democratic nominee cares too much about winning.

................


ow ow ow my eyes that one was a record-breaking eyeroll
posted by seyirci at 11:29 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh, Rick. You've stolen my heart from Steve Schmidt.

You naughty Republican, you.
posted by wallabear at 11:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Last one for a few... minutes... I promise!

If you're John Kasich or Jeb Bush or Ben Sasse, you now have a heck of a choice to make. Either roll over to Reince, or realize you have nothing left to lose and fully endorse HRC.

Kasich: Trump owes Obama apology for birtherism claim

It appears that Kasich has made his decision.
posted by Talez at 11:32 AM on September 18, 2016 [45 favorites]




Either roll over to Reince, or realize you have nothing left to lose and fully endorse HRC.

Kasich has two full years left in Ohio, Jeff Flake isn't up for re-election till 2018, Ben Sasse not until 2020. RNC PR BS is raising the stakes with chips he doesn't hold: the people he's threatening know it, and he knows that they know it.
posted by holgate at 11:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


When Trump is defeated (listen to my optimism ha ha ha sob) obvious anagram Reince is going to get the bums rush as well. The only thing that will save Ryan is his cowardice and how fast he will denounce Trump once the coast is clear and he can find a way to spin it as bravery.
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:58 AM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


Oh for the days of tar and feathers, and running people like Trump, Ryan, and Priebus out of town on a rail.
posted by rifflesby at 12:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


There's a rumour going around (c/o Carl Bernstein) that Bill Weld is possibly about to resign, make the Libertarian ticket implode, and endorse HRC in order to stop Trump.
posted by Talez at 12:33 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


But will Nathan Johnson declare his support?
posted by kyrademon at 12:37 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Man, that's going to DECIMATE the Libertarians' chance of winning the Presidency.

(reducing it from 0.01% to 0.009%)
posted by delfin at 12:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


Talez, chis24 linked to a tweet to that effect earlier. I really hope that it's true.
posted by Surely This at 12:40 PM on September 18, 2016


It feels way too good to be true, like political fan fiction. But oooooh golly would I be so very happy.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [23 favorites]


All joking aside, some of my otherwise sensible friends have been talking about Johnson in a favorable way. Weld's defection could turn them right around.
posted by Surely This at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's a rumour going around (c/o Carl Bernstein) that Bill Weld is possibly about to resign, make the Libertarian ticket implode, and endorse HRC in order to stop Trump.

If most Johnson supporters are right leaning and/or disaffected GOP that won't vote Clinton no matter (like is being said they are) what then is it really going to help that much? I see people either not voting which would maybe only be good for down ticket or feeling like they're being force back to Trump if they want to vote at all.
posted by Jalliah at 12:44 PM on September 18, 2016


Weld is a huge part of whatever appeal Johnson/Weld have to business-oriented republicans at least. I've heard many people say they wish the ticket were reversed. On the other hand the crazier Paulite crew were divided about Weld for VP and will be angry at Johnson if Weld bolts. ("We told you so!") Gotta say that drives Johnson down to low single digits. So where does that vote go?

Not easy to predict.
posted by spitbull at 12:45 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Either roll over to Reince, or realize you have nothing left to lose and fully endorse HRC.

Or oust Priebus from the RNC chair position.


Does anyone think Priebus is still gonna be in charge of the RNC for the next election? Seriously?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I don't know that those Johnson votes go to Clinton. In the conservative parts of my family, anyway, they would go to Trump or to staying home.
posted by misskaz at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2016


Gotta say that drives Johnson down to low single digits. So where does that vote go?

Yes. I wouldn't be jumping for joy that all these people would automatically go to Clinton. I could see this scenario backfiring and giving Trump more support.
posted by Jalliah at 12:49 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh, the defection of Weld wouldn't "automatically" make Johnson supporters switch to Clinton, but it's another way to shore up some of the shaky support that Clinton currently has. If a member of a highly-touted third-party alternative ticket says he's quitting the race to endorse Clinton, that would have a significant impact.
posted by Surely This at 12:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of course if Hilz came out for cautiously moving toward legal weed (as a response to the opioid addiction epidemic perhaps?) maybe she could get some Johnson voters. Almost every sane and apparently educated person (nearly all of whom are white males, Jacqueline aside!) I've heard saying they find Johnson appealing is mostly thinking about cannabis. Or guns but that's not a concession Hillary can make and keep her base.

Wonder what it would cost Hillary to soften on weed with mainstream republican women.
posted by spitbull at 12:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I dunno if I buy the idea of it backfiring. Head-to-head polls have been better for HRC than four-way ones for a while now. Given the Libs are currently pulling much more support than the Greens are, hard to believe none of that effect is due to Lib voters.

Also, what Surely This said. It's not just a matter of winning Lib support, it's also about bringing the public consciousness back to the late-primaries stage of abject horror. To the idea that keeping Trump out of office transcends party and the current electoral cycle.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:57 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


For Politico two days ago:

Gary Johnson cuts into Clinton’s lead

"Certainly, though, he’s taking support from Clinton, too.

She leads by five points among likely voters in a two-way national race, 48 percent to 43 percent. But when Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are included, Clinton’s lead shrinks to two: she’s at 41 points, with Trump at 39, Johnson at 13, and Stein at 4. Democrats assume that all of Stein’s support comes from the Clinton column, meaning Johnson’s is split roughly evenly between Clinton and Trump.

That’s a break from the earlier Washington wisdom that Johnson’s inclusion on ballots was a clear benefit to Clinton as a go-to for conservatives uncomfortable with Trump. Instead, he has turned into a “None of These Candidates” option much like the one by that name that will also be printed on Nevada’s ballot."

So I guess the hope would be that conservatives would stick with Johnson regardless of Weld or stay home, but the more ones liberal using Johnson as a protest vote would come home to Dems.
posted by chris24 at 12:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Plus I agree with Surely This that the nature of a drop out and endorsement would highlight the cross-party existential threat that Trump is and hopefully be damaging to him and helpful to the cause.

Though as said above by saturday_morning, it's probably poli-fan fiction.
posted by chris24 at 1:00 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Almost every sane and apparently educated person (nearly all of whom are white males, Jacqueline aside!) I've heard saying they find Johnson appealing is mostly thinking about cannabis.

This statement annihilated some of my evens merely by its proximity to my perspiciator.
posted by perspicio at 1:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah Carl Bernstein, pfffft, that guy never gets a scoop!
posted by spitbull at 1:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's... been a while
posted by saturday_morning at 1:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


Didn't Hilary already commit to taking marijuana off Schedule I? I'm not sure weed is enough to get white male Johnson/Paul-bros to switch, considering that she's already done it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


perspicio, haven't you met libertarian Bros, generally in tech, thus educated, for whom weed and guns are primarily motivating causes but who are otherwise socially liberal and naive about foreign policy ("And what is Aleppo?" )?



It's an insanely white male privileged demo, but quite real.
posted by spitbull at 1:05 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


Don't generalize too much about libertarian voters. I think a lot of people, understandably, tend to base their understanding of "libertarianism" on the self-described libertarians in their own lives – whether that's a friend or relative, random people in particular corners of the Internet that they frequent, etc. But they are not a monolith. (In particular, the way that some people treat "libertarian" and"Tea Party" as more-or-less equivalent does not jive at all with my own experience of libertarians.)

I happen to disagree, often quite vehemently, with much of the reasoning that libertarians espouse – but I don't think there's necessarily much overlap between Trumpism and libertarianism. My brother, for example, is a lifelong (and insufferably vocal) capital-L Libertarian – and he despises Trump. If the Libertarian ticket collapsed, I imagine he'd just stay home.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 1:05 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


There is a huge leap from "off schedule 1" to legalization or even full decrim of recreational weed. She'd have to embrace it though. And that would have definite costs for her too.
posted by spitbull at 1:07 PM on September 18, 2016


Personal anecdata: Some of my (real-world) friends are hard core Libertarians. The only reason that we're still friends is that they are actually kind, generous, thoughtful people. No, really!

I think they have selective hearing when it comes to the Libertarian agenda. They hear legal pot, marriage equality (yes, they seem to think that the Ls support that), and other social-libertarian issues. They are intelligent people who honestly believe that. I just don't know how to address that, but if Weld were to make a dramatic exit, combined with a Clinton endorsement, maybe it would make a difference.
posted by Surely This at 1:08 PM on September 18, 2016


Huh, that's interesting. I've definitely run into single-issue pot voters in the past (and they tend to be weirdly hostile for people who are obsessed with a drug that makes you mellow), but not this go round. I've run into people who have told me that they're voting straight-ticket Democrat and then Johnson, but they just really, really, really hate Hillary. And I don't think there's anything in the world that's going to make those guys vote for Clinton, although maybe I'm wrong about that.

I've also run into some "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Clinton" voters, and maybe they'd be pushed further into that camp by a Weld defection. I would prefer, though, to work on convincing them that Clinton is not a terrible, untrustworthy crook.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:12 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think most anti-Hillary lefties who go for Johnson just take legalized weed as a sign that Libertarians are in some way socially liberal. It's just a signifier, as is the vote in the first place.
posted by argybarg at 1:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, that. I'm to the left of Hillary. I like weed, but I like abortion better, and the states-rights bullshit that Johnson espouses on that issue is... not encouraging.
posted by box at 1:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [33 favorites]


If you want to end the war on drugs then you should vote for Hillary. Trump wants to crack down and expand the war on drugs, Hillary wants to curtail it further. Trump will appoint Judges, DOJ and DEA officials who will make it more difficult to conclude this war. Hillary will do the opposite. Those are your options at the moment. More work needs to be done at the state level to build a political consensus for legalization before it will go anywhere at the federal level. Voting for Johnson as a symbolic support for legalization will not help the cause, but instead undermine it.
posted by humanfont at 1:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


I don't think we should just tarnish libertarians. Libertarianism has an immediate appeal and one deeply rooted in Americanism: that people should be free to pursue their own interests up until the point where that pursuit causes harm to others is hard to argue against. It requires a fair bit of dialectical thinking to understand why a situation like that necessarily leads to market monopolies and banana-republic style levels of wealth inequality. And Americans have been inundated with the notion that they bear personal responsibility for their own socio-economic status, and its very hard to cure people of that disease. They really believe there is no society, only individuals. Bizarrely they can think that and simultaneously be compassionate and sympathetic towards the suffering of others. Which is enough to convince them that there isn't something fundamentally coldhearted about individualism, even though it is is indifferent in its objective form despite its subjective manifestations not being so cold and indifferent.
posted by dis_integration at 1:24 PM on September 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


More work needs to be done at the state level to build a political consensus for legalization before it will go anywhere at the federal level.

Removing it from Schedule I is the best thing that can be done at the federal level right now, allowing for less restriction on research on both medical and social effects of legalization at the state level. If you think full legalization can pass this Congress, well, you're probably already a deadend Johnson voter anyway. The drug war can't be ended with a magic wand, but it can be gradually rolled back by incremental changes which Hilary has indicated she will pursue, above and beyond Obama's very hands-off approach.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:25 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


My mom is the sort of educated, upper middle class, secular but above all pragmatic republican/libertarian voter who might well vote Hillary just to keep Trump out (I haven't asked her point blank yet but listening to her talk it sounds like she's so scared of Trumps fascist agenda that she's ready to hold her nose) who would, in less terrifying circumstances probably vote L. The libertarians intentionally blowing up their ticket and endorsing Hillary would absolutely send the message to her that there should be absolutely no waffling about this decision, it's too important. Vote against Trump and let our republic live to fight another day.
posted by soren_lorensen at 1:26 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


A great tweetstorm storified on how Pastor Timmons led to Trump's latest self-immolation. (And once again, like with the Khans, the people Trump demonizes most are the people who are going to bring him down.)

Josh Marshall on Pastor Timmons taking down Donald Trump

Starts with...

"I love me some Tim Kaine. But c'mon. Pastor Timmons for Veep. I don't think people quite get how much guts it takes to do what she did."
posted by chris24 at 1:29 PM on September 18, 2016 [26 favorites]


Spitbull, I...believe I get what you're saying, really. In fact, I work among such individuals. And some of my evens were just momentarily stunned by your (I'm certain unintended) Inartful Phrasing syntactical grenade, which, until the trailing phrase was incorporated and parsed in context, appeared to cast white males as constituting the great majority of the ranks of the smart and apparently educated.

I can regain the balance of the evens simply by asserting (really for my own sake, not for the sake of argument, as I don't believe there is a meaningful one for us to engage in) that education is not binary. One can be educated in all matters tech, yet be wholly ignorant about the history, principles, conventions, and benefits of civil society, the historicity of the various ideas being (re)promulgated and (re)litigated during this presidential campaign season, and consequently, the stakes. In the context of this discussion, such a person could appropriately be understood to be functionally uneducated, and thus could not be relied upon to act in his best interests.

And now I can even...carry on.
posted by perspicio at 1:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Obviously I didn't mean white males were better educated by definition. Oy.
posted by spitbull at 1:35 PM on September 18, 2016


> (And once again, like with the Khans, the people Trump demonizes most are the people who are going to bring him down.)

I can't believe the Kahn's speech feels like a distant memory.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:38 PM on September 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


And some of my evens were just momentarily stunned by your (I'm certain unintended) Inartful Phrasing syntactical grenade, which, until the trailing phrase was incorporated and parsed in context, appeared to cast white males as constituting the great majority of the ranks of the smart and apparently educated.

Wait, you're criticizing MY syntax?
posted by spitbull at 1:38 PM on September 18, 2016 [31 favorites]


Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson stated over the weekend that he was "just grateful that nobody got hurt" by an explosion that injured 29 people in New York City

To be fair, he wuz hiiiiiiiiiigh! [real story, possibly fake high]
posted by petebest at 1:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Will it really matter what I will have or will not have criticized as a private citizen in the future past present, after I have declared my candidacy for an entry level position in the Grammar Youth Squad?
posted by perspicio at 1:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wait, you're criticizing MY syntax?

Now spitbull and perspicio must duel to the death.
posted by kingless at 1:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


Another clavdivs in training?
posted by argybarg at 1:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Vincente Fox: #trump,I searched, for a Trump fan in Santander Spain,nobody,none, only POKEMONES. ,You are not welcome here either
posted by PenDevil at 1:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Hey now
posted by clavdivs at 1:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [25 favorites]


@GovGaryJohnson says he wants to ruin the two-party monopoly: “They are dinosaurs and I think we're the comet"

Got to hand it to him, that's a perfect metaphor. He's perfectly happy to destroy the country so he can claim 15% participation in the debate over who gets to rule over the nuclear wasteland.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:00 PM on September 18, 2016 [52 favorites]


It's "sin tax".
Like eating over at the Medicis'.
posted by clavdivs at 2:00 PM on September 18, 2016


I'm sure it's not actually this way, but I choose to believe the Spanish pronunciation is POKÉMONES, like "anemones"
posted by saturday_morning at 2:00 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


> In particular, the way that some people treat "libertarian" and "Tea Party" as more-or-less equivalent does not jive at all with my own experience of libertarians.

As a fascinating counter-counter example, Senator Lisa Murkowski is up for reelection in Alaska as the Republican nominee. In 2010, she was primaried by Tea Party Candidate Joe Miller but won her senate seat on write-ins. Miller recently announced that he's joining the senate race as the Libertarian candidate. He's apparently not voting for Johnson though.
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 2:06 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Comets are pretty and rather insubstantial masses of ice and dirt that start melting as they approach the sun. (They can't stand the heat.)

They also had nothing to do with the extinction of dinosaurs.
posted by phliar at 2:12 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


Even his perfect metaphor makes him sounds like a ignoramus.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


What is a meteor?
posted by angrycat at 2:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


A thought I had last night, which is still partially formed, is the 18-24 year old demographic means at the oldest end, they were eight when Bush took office, and no child left behind took hold, and at the youngest, two.

I was lucky at that age to have had a decent background in the American political process, but even that was lacking. I was excited by Nader, I wanted him to fix all the things, I didn't really understand how his plans weren't going to be effective and how having a third party with no house or senate presence was pretty much idiotic.

And NCLB gutted history and social studies in exchange for standardized testing subjects (math, science).

Given a tendency for youth revolutionaries to want a single leader for immediate change (Bernie!) compared to a systemic overhaul towards progress (Hillary!) - possibly in part because they don't have much invested in the current system, combined with the tumblr history courses of social progress, makes it a very different demographic than other ones to address.

And I'm not saying those who have self taught or self educated themselves on subject matter and american history can't vote or have opinions, but there is a real difference between reading Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States and taking a course that features it, along with other material, led by an instructor to help unpack the meaning and significance of the material. And that difference isn't just specifically something i see generationally, but also in my career as talking to people who hated the fact they had to take "soft sciences" as a requirement to get their engineering degree, or who claim that higher education is for suckers.

Just that god damn, NCLB muted the entire idea of social studies, systems thinking, as something to be applied to a practical level (to have a well informed, well educated middle class is essential for a Democracy), in exchange for passing standardized tests. This may have a bigger impact on this election and those to come than we anticipate.
posted by mrzarquon at 2:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [41 favorites]


Phone banked today in Colorado Springs to cleanse myself after last night's Trump rally here in town.

Me: Hi, I'm mochapickle from the Colorado Democratic Party calling for Jane?
Them: Jane's not here, but I'll tell you right now that no one in our house is voting for that idiot Trump!

Made my day!
posted by mochapickle at 2:25 PM on September 18, 2016 [88 favorites]


> What is a meteor?

A meteor is the name for a thing as it is falling through our atmosphere, heating up and becoming luminescent.

Meteoroid vs Asteroid is really a definition in size of the object when it is in space. When it hits atmosphere, it becomes a meteor (and small bits of rock can break off a comet and become meteroids / meteors).

So technically, Earth is never hit by a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid. Once they enter the atmosphere they are now a meteor.

(or atleast that's what i remember from my astronomy class)
posted by mrzarquon at 2:26 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


> marriage equality (yes, they seem to think that the Ls support that)

Not sure how far we want to go on this derail, but the Libertarian Party has been supporting marriage equality for more than 40 years. For much of that time, I would imagine that position would have had a place of honor, right alongside drug legalization, in many people's list of reasons why the Libertarian Party could not be taken seriously.

Even now, Libertarians are objectively better than the GOP on numerous issues of critical and immediate importance, including ending the surveillance state and ending military adventurism. And like the failed War on Drugs, these are issues on which the Democratic Party has a nearly unbroken track record of cowardice.

The fact that it's a catastrophically dumb move for people who want a less terrible society to vote Libertarian at the presidential level in this election (if they live in potential tipping-point states) doesn't change the fact that we'd have a much healthier political conversation in America if the principal partisan divide were between Democrats and Libertarians rather than between Democrats and the GOP.
posted by shenderson at 2:29 PM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


Chris Cillizza's latest electoral college riff in The Fix is good for the nerves: Sure, Trump has momentum. But his chances for 270 electoral votes are still dim. [WaPo]

Nothing you haven't read already but it goes down smooth.
posted by spitbull at 2:29 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why It’s Still Clinton’s Race to Lose
The HuffPost Pollster average shows Clinton leading by four points nationally, 46% to 42%, which should translate into a comfortable electoral vote margin. It’s useful to remember that Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by four points as well, 51% to 47%.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:31 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


on pronouncing pokemon in spanish. in the official artwork and on the site, it's written pokémon, but everyone i know (like, my nieces and nephews) pronounces it pokemón. which is really confusing me because it if were pokémon you'd write it pokemon with no accent. really weird. maybe i have something wrong.
posted by andrewcooke at 2:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is a meteor?


About $20/gram same as in legal states.
posted by spitbull at 2:35 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


MetaFilter: on pronouncing pokemon in spanish.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:38 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: on the Flexibility of Language
posted by mrzarquon at 2:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sizzlean is a meteor....choice over bacon.
posted by ian1977 at 2:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


andrewcooke: I suspect the "é" is just there to signal that you don't pronounce it "poke-mon."
posted by KChasm at 2:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


my SO just told me that he read a book that said that evidence points to a comet (and not a meteor) hitting the now Yucatan peninsula and killing everything.

So I don't know, guys. Maybe Johnson is indeed our true savior, the teller of obscure truths.
posted by angrycat at 2:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton's ground game is much fiercer than Trump's.

Still riding that RuPaul endorsement, I see. Fine with me.
posted by rokusan at 2:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Metafilter: on the Flexibility of Language

I totally forgot the original starting premise of that sketch was "could the english language support demagoguery."

Well, I guess we get to find out now.
posted by mrzarquon at 2:45 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: on pronouncing pokemon in spanish.

I was in Mexico when the iMac landed. There was a period of weeks, maybe a few months, when the media and people on the street tried the obvious Spanish pronunciation, eeMac.

It didn't stick, which is too bad, since a couple years later, eeFon would have sounded positively adorable.
posted by rokusan at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


the Libertarian Party has been supporting marriage equality for more than 40 years.

♫ A spoonful of pretending to give a shit about personal freedoms helps the laissez-faire capitalism go down. ♫
posted by Sys Rq at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [37 favorites]


Going down the meteor rabbit hole - its more referring to the visual of the streak of light in the sky, and not the object causing it.

http://www.universetoday.com/100075/infographic-whats-the-difference-between-a-comet-asteroid-and-meteor/
posted by mrzarquon at 2:49 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


shenderson, I thought that the libertarian position on marriage equality amounted to the "let the states decide" bullshit that Rand Paul espouses. If the L's official policy is better than that, I stand corrected. It does make me think of Johnson's "let the states decide" position on a woman's right to chose. That might be telling in terms of his credibility as a presidential candidate (viability notwithstanding).
posted by Surely This at 2:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


I always wondered why the state level was the sphere of government that libertarians decided should be the arbiter of laws? Why not just drill straight down to the Home Owners Association?
posted by PenDevil at 2:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [53 favorites]


Surely This, that's right. A fundamental contradiction in (g)libertarian discourse on "civil rights" is that they don't believe the state should guarantee such rights except in the most abstract meaning of "freedom," including freedom for private individuals and enterprises to discriminate on any basis they so choose (in a world where all is privatized no less). Rand Paul got in some trouble over this stuff in the primaries, when he was forced to admit he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for its restrictions on private businesses that serve publics.

It's easy to be for civil rights in the abstact when you're a straight white male with money or property and have no responsibility for enforcing anyone else's rights via state power or your now non-existent taxes.
posted by spitbull at 2:59 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


And to be clear by "the state" I mean the abstract state, federal or state or local.
posted by spitbull at 3:00 PM on September 18, 2016


I always wondered why the state level was the sphere of government that libertarians decided should be the arbiter of laws?

Libertarians oppose government involvement in employer-worker transactions. You do the math.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


I always wondered why the state level was the sphere of government that libertarians decided should be the arbiter of laws? Why not just drill straight down to the Home Owners Association?

Have you been to Pennsylvania? There are Libertarians just like that. 'Why should HARRISBURG tell us what to do!"
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:02 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


we'd have a much healthier political conversation in America if the principal partisan divide were between Democrats and Libertarians rather than between Democrats and the GOP.

This is the stance I've been taking with my Libertarians friends. Hey, if you trend conservative, hell yes I think Libertarian is a better choice than the GOP. I'd much rather have the Libertarians as my opposition because I feel at least they can be reasoned with since they don't base most of their platform on "it's God's will."

BUT I always point out how antithetical Libertarianism is to progressive goals and ideals, so that hopefully the people I know who were supporting Bernie and now talking about Johnson can see how illogical that is.
posted by threeturtles at 3:07 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is ultimately why I find discussions with my L friends so frustrating. Did I mention that they're basically really kind and thoughtful people? I walk a tightrope talking about the election with them. I want to win them over in the effort to defeat Trump, but they seem to cling to their pie-in-the-sky Libertarianism in a very naïve way. (Is that the correct Wikipedia spelling?)
posted by Surely This at 3:07 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


And there's a uterus to the next one.

Gentle reminder that organs are not the same as gender.
posted by Deoridhe at 3:08 PM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


I always wondered why the state level was the sphere of government that libertarians decided should be the arbiter of laws?

It's a very current way of thinking about the US Government.
Circa 1790, I think, though I wasn't in the room where it... oh, nevermind.
posted by rokusan at 3:22 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


What this thread needs is more Mothra fairies. Just sayin...
.
posted by y2karl at 3:30 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


i read that as 'Mothra fries'
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 3:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


The highest level of government that a Libertarian supports is the one they or those sympathetic to them are capable of controlling at that moment.

This is also true of the whole right side of the spectrum and most of the left.
posted by delfin at 3:38 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


(Karnak the Magnificent) What do you get when Mechagodzilla predicts which way Mothra will dodge?
posted by delfin at 3:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I recently dated a guy who had been a pretty hardcore Libertarian in his youth, and while not as closely hewing to it these days, was way more in the not-connected-to-reality, more-statistical-than-thou mode than I could bear. He refuses to vote, and as he is a hardcore atheist, it was noteworthy that he regarded his refusal to vote as pretty much a religious position. I asked him why and got a long answer about how flawed American democratic process is, with detailed descriptions of not one, but two more acceptable forms of democratic process, that he would deign to participate in. I should also say that his explanation led off with a mathematical discussion of why his vote "wouldn't matter", comparing it to lottery statistics--by which he actually meant, wouldn't be the deciding factor. Because hey, if he's not the individual who decides it, why bother at all?

Truly, it was one of the most breathtaking displays of privilege I've ever seen. Well off white dude? What's the worst that could happen to him? He can just opt out, no bigs.

When my grandmother was born, (white) women's votes weren't recognize across the US. When my mother was born, women couldn't have their own bank accounts and credit cards and if it were possible at all to get birth control, they needed their husband's permission. When I was born, second-wave feminism hadn't really gotten off the ground and there were so many barriers that fell during my youth and young adulthood. When my kids were born, reproductive freedom had been on the ropes for years.

This guy had girl children and was so content to just sit atop his high horse of Libertarian principles... it was really gross, and I lost a lot of respect for him to hear it.
posted by Sublimity at 3:42 PM on September 18, 2016 [43 favorites]


A meteor is a ball of rock that is falling into the Earth's atmosphere, but that's not really important now.

Getting a viable multi-party system in the United States is a whole different thing. Altogether.
posted by qcubed at 3:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Have we already covered that Mitch McConnell led "Lock her up" chants while stumping for Trump? Because that's a thing the current senate majority leader did.

Deplorable is too cromulent a word for these garbage people.
posted by strange chain at 3:45 PM on September 18, 2016 [52 favorites]


Sublimity...I'm surrounded by those guys. The worst of it is, and what makes them more unbearable than even a wild eyed trump supporter? They think their so damned clever, like they cracked the code. Lazy lazy privileged douchery.
posted by ian1977 at 3:46 PM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


Altogether

Getting a viable multi-party system in the United States is a whole different thing.
posted by Twain Device at 3:50 PM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]


Wouldn't the proper way to get a multi party system be from local elections up?
posted by ian1977 at 3:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Wouldn't the proper way to get a multi party system be from local elections up?

But that would require real work and time, building an organization, and having to face voters with real world positions they'd actually have to try to live up to.
posted by chris24 at 4:02 PM on September 18, 2016 [25 favorites]


What major scheduled events are on the docket this week?
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:02 PM on September 18, 2016


What major scheduled events are on the docket this week?

Wasn't Clinton's speech to millennials going to be tomorrow?
posted by chris24 at 4:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am a little surprised that I'm saddened that McConnell would intentionally invoke the "lock her up" rhetoric but I am. :(
posted by R343L at 4:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


I am a little surprised that I'm saddened that McConnell would intentionally invoke the "lock her up" rhetoric but I am. :(

Me too. As big as a douche nozzle McConnell is I expected he of all people to respect the invisible lines that govern the decorum of sitting senators. Sure not doing his job is playing politics but cheering on the complete abandonment of the rule of law?

We're through the looking glass. Now we're just seeing who else Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber are bringing along for the ride.
posted by Talez at 4:07 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well off white dude? What's the worst that could happen to him? He can just opt out, no bigs.

Among my friends I have less Libertarians and more of the equivalent Stein voters. When questioned, they literally seem to have no idea what she actually stands for, but they like her moral standpoint in showing up at protest rallies. Many of them are secretly (or not so secretly) anti-vax with their kids and go in for reading Natural News or other equivalently woo news sources and Stein seems like she wouldn't make them feel bad for that position. If you try to discuss with them, they will start talking about Clinton and Palestine and how they might have supported Sanders, but... They definitely don't want Trump, but seem happy to let other voters get them to that point (which is in line with their position on vaccination, I guess.)

One of the things this election has brought me is that I actually sat down and read most of Stein's position statements and also the Green party material. In the past, I have always thought of her positively, without much information. Mostly because I'm familiar with the European Green parties from living there so long and I find they have some really smart things to say in Europe. But I do not get the Green party in the US at all. They seem to have nothing in common with the European Greens. They don't seem to be doing much in local elections and Stein's positions on many things are frankly awful. I'm pretty far to the left, but I'd honestly prefer Johnson.
posted by frumiousb at 4:08 PM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


But that would require real work and time, building an organization, and having to face voters with real world positions they'd actually have to try to live up to.

Well, third party presidential runs do provide the use of bringing some spotlight to groups that would be even more ignored during state and local elections.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:09 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm phone banking currently and just overheard one of the organizers mention that the "persuasion portion" of the campaign hasn't begun yet. Color me intrigued...
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:09 PM on September 18, 2016 [26 favorites]


McConnell is the guy who stated at the very outset of Obama's first term that the Republicans should set making him a one-term president as Job One. The "lock her up" stuff is just icing on the shit cake that is Mitch McConnell. So yeah, fuck that guy.
posted by Surely This at 4:12 PM on September 18, 2016 [28 favorites]


Johnson recently tweeted he doesn't believe in mandatory vaccines, so he and Stein have even more in common.
posted by emjaybee at 4:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


Sublimity, for the ones who insist they'll protest "the evils of the system" by not voting, I push the idea that they should vote, but hand in a blank ballot, so's to prove that they're not just too lazy to bother.

Also, one blank ballot will be believed to be an accident. A handful of them would be a meaningless protest vote. More than that - several dozen in the same district - would cause head-scratching, and at least one loser of a local school board election to say, "okay, who are these people? Obviously, they didn't care for my opponent, so what could I have done to convince them to vote for me?"

Of course, the majority of the "I don't vote" protestors couldn't actually hold to that if faced with a ballot with boxes to mark in a state with measures as well as candidates on the ballot. They're not so much protesting the voting system as hiding from it.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:14 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Definitely fuck that guy. My only surprise is that he has apparently decided to get right down into the shit for all to see rather than attempting to still maintain the outward appearance of an adult professional.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:16 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


So what happens if Trump gets elected and he doesn't lock HRC up, doesn't start building a wall, doesn't do anything he's said? His supporters are armed and dangerous.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well off white dude? What's the worst that could happen to him? He can just opt out, no bigs.

Speaking as a cishet white dude myself (not well off, but stable anyway): this shit just blows my mind. Like I don't blame anyone for presenting this problem because it's real. The demographics show how many well off white dudes apparently don't really care about the damage Trump will do.

The fact that so many guys who fit my same demographics plainly don't give a shit about anyone else leaves me stunned. Like I don't get how they can just not care about the women in their lives, or how they can not care about anyone who isn't white--like you literally have no friends of color at all? Nobody you care about? You really live in that kind of a bubble?

But sure, let's play this game. Trump offers a million reasons why guys in this demographic should care about this race and should be screamingly alarmed by the prospects of a Trump win. Even if you don't give a damn about anyone else (and fuck you for that, btw):

He's still likely to get us into another fucking war. Maybe several. Nuclear action isn't just on the table for him; he'll play with it like a novelty salt shaker.
He talked about fixing the debt by having our creditors take a haircut. Have we forgotten about that?
The mocking McCain as a POW thing? The Purple Heart thing? His advocacy of torture? Putin? That shit is real. That matters. WTF.

...and now I realize I'm preaching to the choir and nobody on the blue needs to be reminded of this, so I'll stop. But for fuck's sake, there's something really wrong with you apart from racism and/or sexism if you're a SWM and you're thinking Trump is a reasonable choice.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:19 PM on September 18, 2016 [32 favorites]


I'm not convinced that a multiparty system has any benefits over a two party system.
posted by humanfont at 4:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Also, one blank ballot will be believed to be an accident. A handful of them would be a meaningless protest vote. More than that - several dozen in the same district -

walkin' in, handin' in a blank ballot, singin' a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walkin' out? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT!
posted by uosuaq at 4:22 PM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


there's something really wrong with you apart from racism and/or sexism if you're a SWM and you're thinking Trump is a reasonable choice.

Cishet white dude as well, and have come to the sad conclusion that preserving white supremacy and patriarchy is all it takes for most. Racism/misogyny is a helluva drug.
posted by chris24 at 4:24 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


And if there's two of you doin' it, nowadays they can even marry you there while you wait.
posted by delfin at 4:24 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not convinced that a multiparty system has any benefits over a two party system.

It allows nuanced approaches to situations that don't fit nicely into either-or solutions, and people don't have to ally themselves to the platform where the best they can say is "I don't hate 51% of these goals" in order to get anything done.

It does add complexity, which needs to be supported by law to be effective, and there is no easy, simple way to get from where we are now to that complexity.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:26 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also, one blank ballot will be believed to be an accident. A handful of them would be a meaningless protest vote. More than that - several dozen in the same district - would cause head-scratching, and at least one loser of a local school board election to say, "okay, who are these people? Obviously, they didn't care for my opponent, so what could I have done to convince them to vote for me?"

Of course, the majority of the "I don't vote" protestors couldn't actually hold to that if faced with a ballot with boxes to mark in a state with measures as well as candidates on the ballot. They're not so much protesting the voting system as hiding from it.


It comes down to the representative government in the US breaking down over the last century. When they were first forming the Congress they posed the question of how many people to put into a district. They started at 40,000 people and after some debate brought the first Congress down to 30,000 people in a district. The number of house members hasn't increased since 1913. That has not nearly kept pace with the inflation in population. Now we're up to 700,000 people on average per congressional district.

It's trivial to not to care when you're 1/700,000th of a voice in the only process you get to directly control.

If we had districts with a reasonable number of people in them again with a chance to get a candidate more closely identifying with their views, we could get people excited again. IMHO the house just needs to turn every district into 15 seats and apportion the votes accordingly on a party basis. You only need 6.7% of the popular vote to get a seat. It lets people come together and see results as part of a process instead of just showing up to get blow the fuck out every election.

I'm not convinced that a multiparty system has any benefits over a two party system.

Multi-party leaves far more room for alliance and consensus building. For instance if we had a proper multi-party parliament style government in the US you could see probably six or seven parties. You'd have your Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Moderates, Eisenhowers, Tea Party/Constitutionalists and possibly, depending on the state of the nation, Libertarians.

No longer would a Republican be beholden to the primarying of the district. Progressives, Liberals and Moderates would probably do most of the governing with the Eisenhowers keeping them in check on spending and pushing the military side of things. Socialists would bitch that we still have capitalism while "constitutionalists" would sit there saying the whole thing is corrupt and only show up to draw a paycheck.

It's much harder for a multi-party system to break down when every party has a fair chance at fighting for representation. A majority can usually find consensus on most things.
posted by Talez at 4:29 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've noticed in the white dude commenter folks, largely on radio, that even when they are liberal, they have a real eagerness to sorrowfully shake their heads over everything Clinton is doing wrong--too open, too closed, too old, too loud, too soft-spoken. Whatever heat she's taking, she brought it on herself. And the pattern is really striking, because it reminds me a lot of how guys react when you tell them about some shit you got harassed on as a woman.

It's not necessarily coming from a bad place, I think; it's more than when you're a white guy, there is almost always a way to win. You just have to know the tricks, do the moves, say the thing. Like they did!

There is no ability to recognize that when you are not a white guy, the cheat codes don't work for you. Go around the system and you're illegitimate; go through it by the book and you're rigid, unimaginative. And then there's all the extra rules for women; be nice, be pretty, be soft but not too soft, flatter men, never make them feel threatened. They don't even know about those rules, but we women sure do.

And so when the polls drop or a woman doesn't overcome all the barriers, well, they sorrowfully conclude, clearly she just wasn't good enough.
posted by emjaybee at 4:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [86 favorites]


Well, Mothra 2016 beats Giant Meteor 2016 in my book.
posted by y2karl at 4:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


But I do not get the Green party in the US at all. They seem to have nothing in common with the European Greens. They don't seem to be doing much in local elections and Stein's positions on many things are frankly awful. I'm pretty far to the left, but I'd honestly prefer Johnson.

As a British Green, the US Greens remind me a lot of the 1990s UK Green Party (that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot bargepole). We've just had an attack of the sensibles over the last decade as the splintering of Labour's activist base post-Iraq meant that a number of their more sensible activists ended up in a party that looked left wing that wasn't interested in playing Judean Peoples' Front with the SWP and the rest.

Where that Green Party came from was a position of immense privilege and all the worst sides of Middle Class Hippiedom. Population Control was a regular thing on the agenda (as opposed to something most younger Greens look at each other and roll our eyes at before heading to the barricades). Highly eurosceptic (Nigel Farage was a member before he founded UKIP) that Green Party wanted to turn England into a nice country. Where nice = looks good and doesn't upset the middle classes. With the countryside being a rolling pastoral romantic fantasy based on an England that never was.

I'm exaggerating a little for comic effect but it's the same sensibilities I see in the US Green Party as we've worked to marginalise in the UK Green Party. The nice middle class people who just want everything to look and be nice.

And on another note Cthulhu 2016 had to give up his time honored slogan of "Why vote for the lesser evil?"
posted by Francis at 4:34 PM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]


For the record, my apparent swipe at clavdivs above was affectionate. I've been here on MeFi since 1874, and I can vouch for clavdivs as the Captain Beefheart/Firesign Theatre of commenters.
posted by argybarg at 4:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [20 favorites]


too open, too closed, too old, too loud, too soft-spoken

Yeah, that seems to be Clinton's lot in life. Which is why her HONY posts were so moving. She knows what she has to deal with, and instead of complaining, she just soldiers on. She has moved way up in my estimation in recent months.
posted by Surely This at 4:37 PM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]


It's trivial to not to care when you're 1/700,000th of a voice in the only process you get to directly control... If we had districts with a reasonable number of people in them again with a chance to get a candidate more closely identifying with their views, we could get people excited again. IMHO the house just needs to turn every district into 15 seats and apportion the votes accordingly on a party basis.

Are you proposing a 6,525 member house of representatives?
posted by dis_integration at 4:37 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you proposing a 6,525 member house of representatives?

Hmm... Couldn't be more dysfunctional than what we've got now.
posted by mikelieman at 4:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


Mother Jones: Donald Trump Is Teaching the Whole World How to Lie
Donald Trump lies practically every time he opens his mouth. That's hardly even notable anymore. What is still notable is the corrosive effect he has on nearly everyone who enters his orbit. His kids lie without compunction. His spokespeople lie without compunction. His campaign manager—until recently a fairly normal conservative—lies without compunction. His surrogates lie without compunction. Everyone who spends any time around him seems to inhale the lesson that in the modern media environment, there's simply no penalty for lying, no matter how obvious the lying is.[...]

Before he hooked up with Trump, Christie was a relatively normal politician. He'd spin, he'd exaggerate, he'd evade, and he'd conceal. But now he doesn't bother. He just tells simpleminded lies with no evident concern for the fact that he'll get called out on them. Trump has taught him that being fact checked doesn't matter. Getting air time for the lie is all that matters.
I think this is going to have a lasting effect on politics. I am particularly disturbed by the use of Trump's mirror because it works. So from now on when someone in politics has made an error or lied or has something disturbing in their background, they can just turn around and pin the problem on their opponent. And with social media, the canny politician can bypass the fact-checking media and tell the big lie directly to chosen audience.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [53 favorites]


And then some bastard calls for a roll-call vote and the government shuts down.
posted by delfin at 4:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


And then some bastard calls for a roll-call vote and the government shuts down.

Smartphone app. Done in minutes.
posted by mikelieman at 4:41 PM on September 18, 2016


Are you proposing a 6,525 member house of representatives?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm proposing.

And then some bastard calls for a roll-call vote and the government shuts down.

You have two fingerprint readers on a desk, one for yes, one for no. Every member just puts their thumb on the appropriate reader. Leave the vote open for however long is appropriate.
posted by Talez at 4:42 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's the TWENTY FIRST fucking century people. Let's evolve Democracy a bit.
posted by mikelieman at 4:42 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Smartphone app. Done in minutes.

Christ, have we not had enough phone-based political scandals already?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Let's evolve Democracy a bit.

blasphemer! democracy was created in 6 days, 240 years ago!
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [28 favorites]


Christ, have we not had enough phone-based political scandals already?

meh. If Google Pay is secure enough for Chase Bank to trust with my Visa account, it's not that it can't be done, it's all about priorities.
posted by mikelieman at 4:46 PM on September 18, 2016


The House already votes using an electronic system.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:46 PM on September 18, 2016


The fact that so many guys who fit my same demographics plainly don't give a shit about anyone else leaves me stunned. Like I don't get how they can just not care about the women in their lives, or how they can not care about anyone who isn't white--like you literally have no friends of color at all? Nobody you care about? You really live in that kind of a bubble?

This is my argument against voting third-party, as well. The idea that you have to "vote your conscience" is inherently self-serving. Who you vote for doesn't matter nearly as much as who wins.

If you consider yourself a progressive and are entertaining voting for Stein or even not voting at all, think about your reasons for doing so. Is it to appease your conscience? Or because you would feel icky voting for someone you don't like or respect? Or to prove your progressive bona fides to your peers? Because all of those are selfish reasons.

Because [spoiler alert]: Stein is not going to win. Your vote will result in one of only two outcomes: either helping Clinton win or helping Trump win. Which will it be? Because a true progressive would put aside their own personal needs and do what's best for those marginalized and disenfranchised people they claim to care about.

And that choice has never been clearer.
posted by rocket88 at 4:46 PM on September 18, 2016 [36 favorites]


I just don't know how a legislative body that size would function. Deliberative bodies like that function well when you can form coalitions and alliances. A congress of 6,000+ would need to form its own meta-congress and elect people to represent the representatives.
posted by dis_integration at 4:47 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Many of them are secretly (or not so secretly) anti-vax with their kids and go in for reading Natural News or other equivalently woo news sources and Stein seems like she wouldn't make them feel bad for that position.

Swap [anti-vax, Natural News, Stein] with [racist, Fox News, Trump] and you've got the basket of deplorables.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Doesn't the NH House have like a bazillion members? It doesn't seem to work out great for them most of the time.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Regarding "lock her up," I have this joke I make with my fellow educators.

Sometimes, we have to chaperone dances. Want to feel old? Chaperone a dance. Anyhow, the worst job as chaperone is dance sheriff. You watch the dance floor to make sure none of the kids are dancing inappropriately.

Now, back when your old Uncle Joey was in high school, my classmates and I were busted for doing inappropriate dancing ourselves. Like sometimes when we slow danced, our hips would come together. That sort of stuff. We were young and wild.

Kids these days, though! When they're not too busy hanging out on my lawn or playing their rock and roll too loud, they go to dances (often unwillingly) and then they don't even face their dance partners anymore. All the stuff we used to get busted for? That's all ok. Chaperones have ceded that ground. We now have to keep lap dances from actively happening at school sponsored proms and such.

The joke we make is that in twenty years, these kids will be chaperones and will be working in a world where lap dance is the norm and there will be some popular kinds of dancing that they have to patrol that make their dancing look tame. Haha! Jokes on them!

But the thing is, my generation helped normalize the dancing that allowed the current style of dancing to eventually arise. We didn't know what we were doing - we just wanted to shake shake shake our booties and maybe get to second base on the dance floor. We moved the Overton window on dirty dancing, I suppose.

So now Mitch McConnell has helped normalize the practice of trying to make your duly elected president illegitimate. I'm sure this gives him the same cheap 80's-prom boner-thrill that slow dancing to 'Islands in the Stream" (not proud) gave me back in my salad days. But you know, his "Freedom" caucus cohort is going to rue this day when the same or worse is done to their president in 4-8-12 years and they'll ask themselves (perhaps in David Byrne's voice) " how did we get here?" They'll likely blame the Democrats and probably Rap music.

On preview - same thing with Trump and lies.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:50 PM on September 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


People interested in the idea of a very large legislative body should check out New Hampshire's House of Representatives, with between 375 and 400 representatives for 1.3 million people, paid $200 per annum. It's a clusterfuck.

on preview: jinx
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:50 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just don't know how a legislative body that size would function. Deliberative bodies like that function well when you can form coalitions and alliances. A congress of 6,000+ would need to form its own meta-congress and elect people to represent the representatives.

In a typical parliamentary system you have ministers looking after major executive functions which doesn't really fly in the United States since the executive is its own discrete branch. I assume you'd develop some quasi-ministership for each party, devolve most of the sausage making to committees and have those committee members report back to their parties as a whole.
posted by Talez at 4:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


There is no ability to recognize that when you are not a white guy, the cheat codes don't work for you. Go around the system and you're illegitimate; go through it by the book and you're rigid, unimaginative. And then there's all the extra rules for women; be nice, be pretty, be soft but not too soft, flatter men, never make them feel threatened. They don't even know about those rules, but we women sure do.

And so when the polls drop or a woman doesn't overcome all the barriers, well, they sorrowfully conclude, clearly she just wasn't good enough.


That is almost painful to read, emjaybee, because it is so true. I know people get tired of hearing about the misogyny present in this campaign but it is almost as though Hillary Clinton is forced to carry a hundred pound weight on top of her head at all times and pretend it is invisible, while Donald Trump gets to waltz around free as a bird. There is always an extra burden whether you can see it or not and there are times I nearly break into a cold sweat thinking about how much more she has to prep for the debates. She has to be like this and not like that and use her voice in a non-threatening way but with authority and so on and so on. God forbid she just stand on stage an answer the questions normally and without thought.

What are the odds we will be reading about what she wears?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [46 favorites]


As an almost-lifetime resident of California (born in Ohio, but family moved long before I was old enough to vote), I am grossly resentful of the fact that the half-million residents of Wyoming have 76 times the voting power in the Senate than the 38 million people in California. And because of that, 3 Wyoming electoral votes (1 per under 200K) versus 55 for California (1 per 700K). What difference does it make? Do you know the most famous politician to come from Wyoming? Dick Fucking Cheney. I rest my case.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


So what happens if Trump gets elected and he doesn't lock HRC up, doesn't start building a wall, doesn't do anything he's said?

Blame it on anyone except himself, and his supporters will believe him.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


IIRC it's $200 per biennium. But yeah it's pretty far out towards the "catastrophic thunderfuck" end of the spectrum.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


People interested in the idea of a very large legislative body should check out New Hampshire's House of Representatives, with between 375 and 400 representatives for 1.3 million people, paid $200 per annum. It's a clusterfuck.

New Hampshire doesn't enforce party representation to popular vote results and instead uses the rather inferior plurality-at-large. They don't get minor party representation and the entire system is a clusterfuck.
posted by Talez at 4:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The House certainly needs to be larger, not to get people invested in democracy again, but because of Wyoming. As things stand now, lightly populated states are either massively overrepresented or underrepresented, because 740K blocks of people is not enough granularity to even remotely accurately scale the sizes of states downwards. Wyoming has one representative per 586,000 people, and Rhode Island has one per 528,000 people. Montana, unlucky enough to be right under a threshold in the last census, has one per 1,032,000 people. Yes, Rhode Island is nearly twice as powerfully represented in the House as Montana is, thanks to being right over the one-rep threshold.

Now, no apportionment scheme is perfect, but we'd basically need to increase the size of the house to at least 545 members in order to ensure that Wyoming isn't of necessity overrepresented (no matter how we do roundoff, since rounding to zero is not actually an option).
posted by jackbishop at 4:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


We have a 435-member Congress and look at some of the freaks, dingbats and full-blown wackaloons who get in. Imagine what could happen with one fifteen times as large.

On a related note, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party _really_ needs a solid American cousin.
posted by delfin at 4:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


What are the odds we will be reading about what she wears?

1?
posted by petebest at 4:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've begun to wonder if Clinton has plans on the off chance that she doesn't win. We are still a nation of laws and she can't just be locked up for losing an election but I worry for her. There are some pretty nasty, vindictive people in power who want her punished for daring to run.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've begun to wonder if Clinton has plans on the off chance that she doesn't win. We are still a nation of laws and she can't just be locked up for losing an election but I worry for her. There are some pretty nasty, vindictive people in power who want her punished for daring to run.

I worry about her becoming America's Tymoshenko if Trump wins.
posted by Talez at 4:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


If we had districts with a reasonable number of people in them again with a chance to get a candidate more closely identifying with their views, we could get people excited again.

State-level races offer a more reasonable ratio of constituents to members. Yes, they're gerrymandered; yes, ballot access makes it a mess; yes, state legislatures have become stenographers for DC lobby shops and single-interest groups; but states are the primary governmental agents for a lot of shit, and Americans mostly seem indifferent to the tier of government that their country invented. This translates into limited oversight of state government outside of media sources actually based in state capitals.

(435 for the House is ridiculous; 6,000 would also be ridiculous.)
posted by holgate at 4:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


The best solution would be to combine low population states into higher population states. That is, sadly, a political non-starter. But it would solve so many problems and be far more efficient.
posted by Justinian at 4:59 PM on September 18, 2016


I've begun to wonder if Clinton has plans on the off chance that she doesn't win.

Since she's wealthier than Trump, perhaps retire and enjoy the peace and quiet with the family?
posted by mikelieman at 4:59 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Seriously though, there's ZERO chance of her being arrested. The crazies with semi automatic rifles and 30 round magazines though? They're a real risk.
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Garrison Keillor op ed in WaPo: Hillary Clinton’s concrete shoes
Clinton didn’t have a prolonged adolescence and fiction was not her ambition. She doesn’t do dreaminess. What some people see as a relentless quest for power strikes me as the good habits of a serious Methodist. Be steady. Don’t give up. It’s not about you. Work for the night is coming.

The woman who does not conceal her own intelligence is a fine American tradition, going back to Anne Bradstreet and Harriet Beecher Stowe and my ancestor Prudence Crandall, but none has been subjected to the steady hectoring and jibber-jabber that Clinton has. She is a major-party nominee who is being pictured in prison stripes by the opposition. She is the first Cabinet officer ever to be held personally responsible for her own email server, something ordinarily delegated to I.T. The fact that terrorists attacked a U.S. compound in Libya under cover of darkness has been held against her, as if she personally was in command of the defense of the compound, a walkie-talkie in her hand, calling in reinforcements.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [57 favorites]


I mean seriously combining North and South Dakota into one state named Dakota is such a no brainer. DAKOTA.
posted by Justinian at 5:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


Well, because of her status as FLOTUS, she will always have secret service protection, so at least there's that.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


The (at least partial) antidote to gerrymandering and some other problems would be to legally require all congressional districts to be based on existing local political borders... cities and counties. If a county is too small for a congressional district, combine it with neighboring counties. If it's big enough for several districts, make all of them 'at large' seats that everyone in the jurisdiction all vote over. Or if you insist on making the Senate be based on geography and not population, change from 2 seats per state to 1 per county.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:05 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, Jeb! was just on the Emmys doing a bit with Jimmy Kimmel, so I guess he's doing okay.

2016, everyone. 2016.
posted by yasaman at 5:06 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Looking at other nations taken over by Fascists, I wouldn't think Hillary would be safe from malicious prosecution. And her Secret Service protection? Gone in 60 seconds. (Fortunately, since I don't consider Trump a true Fascist, just a true Kleptocrat, he may not bother)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:08 PM on September 18, 2016


So, just seeing what the Chuck was up lately, I was begoogled with links to right-wing "web sites" with titles like Chuck Todd, liberal media darling, warns GOP against going after Hillary

The story is about Chuckhead warning Das Trümp that health stories won't play as well anymore. But i was intrigued at how he's supposedly a liberal media (ha!) darling (ha!ha!).

I wonder if thats his, or his masters' influence to false-equivalate like a sales weasel. "Can't be seen as too hard on the Trumptatoes there Chuckles" they'd say before dosing his drink with codeine and vivarin.
posted by petebest at 5:12 PM on September 18, 2016


Looking at other nations taken over by Fascists, I wouldn't think Hillary would be safe from malicious prosecution. And her Secret Service protection? Gone in 60 seconds. (Fortunately, since I don't consider Trump a true Fascist, just a true Kleptocrat, he may not bother)

No Triumph is complete without a Vercingetorix to parade before the crowd in defeat and then have strangled.
posted by dis_integration at 5:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, third party presidential runs do provide the use of bringing some spotlight to groups that would be even more ignored during state and local elections.

I agree there's value in presenting a broader range of opinions during the presidential campaigns, but I think a better way to achieve this is by advocating for changes in campaign finance, campaign spending caps, or lowering the 15% polling threshold for candidates to participate in the debates.

Recently though, with so much media coverage already starting during the primaries, we already see a pretty broad range of ideas leading up to the general election.

And even with more representation of 3rd parties, I still think it will come down to a choice of two. Vote for "this" or "not this." Whatever policies the popular candidate represents, the next biggest party will take opposing stances to all of the controversial points and turn that into a platform.
posted by p3t3 at 5:13 PM on September 18, 2016


.....all the extra rules for women; be nice, be pretty, be soft but not too soft, flatter men, never make them feel threatened. They don't even know about those rules, but we women sure do.

And so when the polls drop or a woman doesn't overcome all the barriers, well, they sorrowfully conclude, clearly she just wasn't good enough.


If I had a nickel for all the times the many variants of the tone argument, or strangulation by the tightrope women must walk, came back up here on election threads alone - let alone the times I've seen it in the wild - I'd be richer than Trump.

It kills me, it really does.
posted by Dashy at 5:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


I am grossly resentful of the fact that the half-million residents of Wyoming have 76 times the voting power in the Senate than the 38 million people in California.

It took me a while to sort out that some of the imbalance was deliberately planned, and probably a good thing - agricultural regions have different interests from urban ones, and if you run straight population-based representations, the urban areas will blithely litigate the agricultural areas out of existence, not realizing what's important and essential to them.

However, I suspect the balance point may be in the wrong place; I am certain this should be regularly re-considered. I would love to see CA and OR split into seven states (with Jefferson spanning parts of both), because (1) 2 senators for 38 million people is ridiculous and (2) I don't know what the people of far-north-CA and "Central CA" need from the Senate, but I'm pretty sure they're not getting it now.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


slow dancing to 'Islands in the Stream" (not proud)

BE PROUD!!! (redeemed by one-half Dolly Parton. That's enough)
posted by Golem XIV at 5:23 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


agricultural regions have different interests from urban ones, and if you run straight population-based representations, the urban areas will blithely litigate the agricultural areas out of existence, not realizing what's important and essential to them.

An argument long invalidated... California has the largest 'agricultural industry' in the nation, and such non-ag industries as supermarkets and restaurants have the interests of their suppliers in mind. The 'influence of agricultural areas' have failed to prevent Big Agribusiness from killing off most of the 'family farms'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:35 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


BE PROUD!!! (redeemed by one-half Dolly Parton. That's enough)

It was the Bob Segar original, man
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know what the people of far-north-CA and "Central CA" need from the Senate, but I'm pretty sure they're not getting it now.

they're getting more money back than they pay in taxes so they should probably stfu and quit their bellyaching
posted by entropicamericana at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Has anyone noted this before? Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo said the bomb exploded "literally" across the street from his apartment. The second bomb was found on 27th between 6th and 7th (127 West 27th). That's the block where TPM has its headquarters (between 27th and 28th on 6th). It could be a coincidence or could someone have been trying to send a message?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


You'd have your Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Moderates, Eisenhowers, Tea Party/Constitutionalists and possibly, depending on the state of the nation, Libertarians.

Is there any country where this kind of political system currently exists?
posted by humanfont at 5:41 PM on September 18, 2016


Seems like a major stretch to me.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


> The House already votes using an electronic system.

The Texan legislator's electronic voting system is decidedly not secure, as re-aired on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, though I don't imagine the federal government is more secure in this regard.
posted by fragmede at 5:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there any country where this kind of political system currently exists?

Just about every parliamentary democracy in Western Europe?

They may not have those particular groups but I'd guess that's what the parties would mostly align down given a US multi-party system.
posted by Talez at 5:46 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Islands in the Stream" was written by the BeeGees, man.
[true]
posted by spitbull at 5:50 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Grease" is also basically a Bee Gees song.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:02 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


the urban areas will blithely litigate the agricultural areas out of existence, not realizing what's important and essential to them.

1. The political structure of the US contributes to agricultural consolidation and monoculture: why do all the potatoes have to come from Idaho and eastern Oregon?
2. The political structure of the US works against metropolitan areas divided by state lines. It sets up arbitrage opportunities (e.g. work in WA, shop in OR) but tends to prevent coordinated transit or development policy.
3. The current trend in state-level conservative governance is for representatives of rural areas to milk cities of their tax revenue (esp. sales tax) while imposing "country values" on them w/r/t guns and bathrooms.
posted by holgate at 6:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


Has anyone noted this before? Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo said the bomb exploded "literally" across the street from his apartment.

Well, he did and so did most of his readers by extension. It's worth noting, but NYC is pretty dense, so you have a surfeit of dots for your connecting pleasure.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:06 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


You forgot the aggressive corn price subsidies functioning as transfer payments from cities to rural areas which largely resent paying for social services in the city in return; as well as gas and oil subsidies which mask the true cost of rural/ex-urban car culture both in current dollars as well as climate externalities in perpetuity.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:08 PM on September 18, 2016 [22 favorites]


Ok well I'm off to Italy. If I get back and Trump is leading I will hold you all collectively responsible.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [26 favorites]


I will happily agree that the urban/rural split has gotten very problematic - a hundred years ago, agriculture was the most common industry in the US, and it comprised a much larger portion of our national activity than it does now. I would love to see the agri subsidies removed (pretty much all of them) and for some serious inquiry into the difference between rural communities vs rural-located large corporate activities, and what laws help which groups of people.

I don't think the solution is to eliminate the Senate (although I could see a coherent argument for having 2-5 senators per state instead of a flat 2); I'm not sure what to do about the population-per-Representative issue.

Maybe someone could post a MetaTalk about the hypothetical 6500+ person congress.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ha! I responded to an Italian who was complaining about Trump by mentioning Berlusconi ("we may have our own Berlusconi soon," I said). That was met with stony silence.
posted by argybarg at 6:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


In other news one of the top mods and boosters of Reddit's /r/the_donald community not an American, but a racist Dane living in Copenhagen.
posted by humanfont at 6:47 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


argybarg: Ha! I responded to an Italian who was complaining about Trump by mentioning Berlusconi ("we may have our own Berlusconi soon," I said). That was met with stony silence.

Well, to be fair, Berlusconi didn't have anywhere near the level of global responsibility and impact that a U.S. president shoulders, so he's somewhat more forgivable. It's been interesting to see my very lefty Italian friends practically defend Berlusconi for not being anywhere near as awful as Trump. Which, well, I dunno.
posted by Superplin at 6:48 PM on September 18, 2016


It was the Bob Segar original, man
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:36 PM on September 18 [1 favorite −] Favorite added! [!]


Oh... Well...
I don't think that's forgivable.
posted by Golem XIV at 6:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


So I'm mostly ignoring the Emmys and I realized that it's pretty weird that there's a televised award show for ... television. And movies. "You spent a lot of time watching and talking about these shows, let's watch and discuss them some more!" There are some political comments, so it's something.

But instead, I suggest political journalists create some annual awards show for politicians, to highlight the good while shining a light on the bad. I mean, it'll never happen, unless it's 100% glad-handing, but I can dream.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ok well I'm off to Italy. If I get back and Trump is leading I will hold you all collectively responsible.

I'll one-up you, there. I'm going to be in London from a couple days before until a couple days after the election. I got to watch the Brexit clusterfuck from US shores and really don't want to watch Trump win from Old Blighty. Please don't screw up my vacation. I might just decide not to come back.*

*I'm kidding. I'm really coming back exactly on my booked flight, Mr./Ms. HM Customs Enforcement Officer who may be reading this. Promise.
posted by tclark at 6:57 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean seriously combining North and South Dakota into one state named Dakota is such a no brainer. DAKOTA.

And Delaware needs to come back to Pennsylvania. We deserve a port on the ocean. Also beaches.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:00 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


Several Emmy winners tonight thanked or referenced Hillary for POTUS. But the best part about the Emmys was the "please welcome 4 time winner Dr. Bill Cosby" fakeout that left the audience kind of stunned before seeing it was a joke.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


You'd have your Socialists, Progressives, Liberals, Moderates, Eisenhowers, Tea Party/Constitutionalists and possibly, depending on the state of the nation, Libertarians.

You'd also finally get a U.S. equivalent to a Christian democratic party, perhaps the American Solidarity Party.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


You'd also get a Juggalo Party just sayin'
posted by spitbull at 7:08 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Clearly it would be the Insane Clown Party
posted by saturday_morning at 7:09 PM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


Well, after today's RNC threats against him, Kasich seems to have gone even more all in as anti-RNC, Reince and Trump. His campaign manager released a statement for the campaign that rips Priebus in no uncertain terms.

"Thankfully, there are still leaders in this country who put principles before politics. Throughout his life, Governor John Kasich has always made decisions based on what was best for the country. The idea of a greater purpose beyond oneself may be alien to political party bosses like Reince Priebus, but it is at the center of everything Governor Kasich does. He will not be bullied by a Kenosha political operative that is unable to stand up for core principles or beliefs. In fact, Reince should be thanking the Governor for standing for an inclusive, conservative vision that can actually win an national election and improve our economy. The Governor is traveling the nation supporting down ballot Republicans and preventing a potential national wipeout from occurring on Reince's watch."
posted by chris24 at 7:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [79 favorites]


Snap, Governor Kasich.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


The best thing about this is the Ohio GOP is controlled by and very loyal to Kasich. Makes it much harder for Trump to win a must-have state.
posted by chris24 at 7:26 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


In fact, Reince should be thanking the Governor for standing for an inclusive, conservative vision that can actually win an national election and improve our economy

I applaud his vision, but I've seen his results.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is there anything specific in "a Kenosha political operative" that Midwesterners can elucidate? Do Ohioans make Kenosha jokes?
posted by holgate at 7:35 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's the Wisconsin town Reince is from and got his political start in. It's basically trash talking him as small time.
posted by chris24 at 7:35 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


In fact, Reince should be thanking the Governor for standing for an inclusive, conservative vision that can actually win an national election and improve our economy

I applaud his vision, but I've seen his results.


The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:38 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]


The enemy of my enemy can help us win. I'll take it. I don't need to have him over for Christmas.
posted by chris24 at 7:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


Well exactly, therefore the "nothing less".
posted by saturday_morning at 7:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


The enemy of my enemy is an opportunity. And I trust Hillary's strategic game enough to feel confident she'll find one.
posted by erisfree at 7:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


When Kasich is the voice of moderation in the GOP...

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb!, Ryan, Kasich, these people are all extreme radicals, but have become the "voices of reason" simply because the Party of Trump has push the Overton window off the map.

You know the scene at the end of Interstellar where Matthew McConaughey is looking back through the weird 4th/5th dimensional window literally back into his own past to change humanity's future through gravitational waves or someshit? That's where we are in 2016 in relation to what counts as a "moderate". Richard Nixon is out there somewhere looking through a black hole and silently screaming, "I CREATED THE EPA AND YOU'RE VOTING FOR THESE IDIOTS?"
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:46 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


I'm glad Mitt didn't win but he's not an extreme radical. Calling basically everyone an extreme radical makes it harder when an actual one like Trump comes along.
posted by Justinian at 7:49 PM on September 18, 2016 [18 favorites]


Extreme Radical? Mitt? McCain?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:51 PM on September 18, 2016


I mean, if full embrace of the Ryan budget isn't extreme to you, I'm not sure what is.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's nothing I love more than somebody who clearly learned the lessons of American history. saturday_morning, I salute you.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


I had no idea Reince was from Kenosha. This will never happen, but if I meet him I'll be sure to ask him about the Mars Cheese Castle. Also someone should mail him some jelly bellys to help him through this trying time.
posted by dis_integration at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


You're defining "extreme" as "stuff I really disagree with" but that's not, I think, what it means.
posted by Justinian at 8:00 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]


Extreme right has become so extreme as to have become undefinable, I think that proves my point on its own.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


"i'm wanna reince priebus right outta my hair..."

[shrug] earworm. whatcha gonna do?
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:05 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Let me speak in semi-defense of Kenosha, which I have never visited, but where they have just held (ended Saturday) their annual Kenosha Festival of Cartooning, where among the guests of honor were two excellent (and Trump-bashing) woman editorial cartoonists, Ann Telnaes and Jen Sorenson, and which included a gallery show on women cartoonists. There are some classy people in Kenosha. Maybe that's why RNC PRBS left...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:16 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]


No need to defend Kenosha, it's a lovely place. Beautiful lakefront. Streetcars. Quaint downtown. Mars Cheese Castle. Last stop on the Metra line to Chicago.

You never did the Kenosha Kid?
posted by dis_integration at 8:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


By the way, since earlier in this thread (or was it last thread) a big point was made about not blaming Millenials for Clinton's current problems because they give her the widest margin of any age group... that didn't get any pushback but I'm not sure it's actually all that accurate at present.

In the last Quinnipiac poll, for example, Clinton gets 31% of the vote of 18-34 year olds. Johnson gets 29% and Trump gets 26%. That's only a 5 point edge over Trump and she's in danger of falling behind Johnson. If that's strong support I don't want to see what weak support looks like!
posted by Justinian at 8:21 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]


Here's the details. On page 4 you can see that Clinton leads among those 18-34 by 5 points over Trump and 2(!) points over Johnson. She leads among those 35-49 by 13 points over Trump and 25 points over Johnson.

So Clinton's best age demographic is not in fact Millenials, it's Gen-Xers.
posted by Justinian at 8:25 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]


Fucking hell. Pigs fly. Robert Kagan and I agree on something.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17
posted by adam hominem at 8:27 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


So Clinton's best age demographic is not in fact Millenials, it's Gen-Xers.

To be fair it's the Gen-Xers who A) have seen the full 30 years of exaggeration and outright lies about Hillary and are pretty inured to it, B) got the shaft first from the early Boomers who discovered that the golden ladder installed by previous generations was removable, and C) remember Gore v. Bush as an event in their adult lives rather than reading about it somewhere.
posted by tclark at 8:34 PM on September 18, 2016 [81 favorites]


Millenial support for Clinton does jump massively in the two-way race. I hope this election follows previous patterns where the third party candidates poll higher than their actual results but I am not sure it will.
posted by Justinian at 8:37 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Stein isn't on the ballot in North Carolina. Or Nevada.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]




Well if we Gen-Xer's save the world by getting Clinton elected, we fully expect to be ignored and overlooked for it like always.

/bitter
posted by emjaybee at 8:42 PM on September 18, 2016 [74 favorites]


So ... what'd I miss?

Hmm, the thread seems to have gone pretty quiet. Not much news over the weekend, sure, but that seems too quiet ... NEW THREAD? It's not even Sunday night, and the party has moved to a new thread?

Ok, so it's a new thread and already at over a thousand comments. I bet 500 of them are "re-litigating the primaries" and complaints about re-litigating the primaries, and ...here we go, Bernie, Stein, Gary Johnson, check, check, check.

So what was new in this thread so far? As a service to Monday skimmers, I offer the following:
(No links, sorry, what do you take me for? Skim the damn thread on your own.)

* A marriage proposal and an acceptance.
* Trump talking about a literal dumpster fire in Chelsea. Or maybe it's an IED in a trashcan, and it's not actually in Chelsea.
* A libertarian walks into a bar. (Ouch, should've seen that coming. The mods had to ask three times for people to knock it off.)
* Is America in decline? Was independence even a good idea in the first place?
* A primer on Duverger's law, and how first-past-the-post + Electoral college encourages a two party system. Also gerrymandering, and the virtues (or not) of a larger House.
* Chris Christie gets 4 Pinnochios in "possibly [the WP's] shortest fact check ever".

What did I miss?
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:43 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm glad Mitt didn't win but he's not an extreme radical. Calling basically everyone an extreme radical makes it harder when an actual one like Trump comes along.

I think that being afraid to call people out as extreme radicals helped pave the way for Trump.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:45 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Well, Trump has been tweeting about the NY, NJ and MN "attacks."

And NYDN is reporting that the FBI has arrested 5 people possibly related to the Chelsea bombing.

"Federal agents busted five people in Brooklyn in a possible connection to the Chelsea bombing late Sunday, law enforcement sources said.

The suspects were busted with a weapons stash inside an SUV along the Belt Parkway eastbound lanes.

Meanwhile, authorities discovered three pipe bombs and two smaller devices at a train station in Elizabeth, shuttering train service along the Northeast Corridor from Newark Airport due to the police investigation."
posted by chris24 at 8:46 PM on September 18, 2016


A New Yorker's response to the Chelsea Bombings

This gets +1 from me for "28th Street in the middle of the day is more dead than Anthony Weiner’s career"

But -1 for having a background that truly caused me to go get a screen cleaning cloth because I thought those stupid specks were stuck on my monitor. Why do people do this?
posted by zachlipton at 8:50 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]


Haha.. i assumed my screen was smudgey.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


So ... what'd I miss?

We've been inventing a new form of government. How was France?
posted by rokusan at 8:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [47 favorites]


I think we need to scrap this plan and ask King George to take us back, tbh.
posted by asteria at 8:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ok well I'm off to Italy. If I get back and Trump is leading I will hold you all collectively responsible.

Try the polenta while you still can
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:59 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's Queen Liz now, I don't even think there's a George in the current line of succession. And considering they've just Brexited, that may not be the best direction to go.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:00 PM on September 18, 2016


Okay, weirdly literal take on that. But there is a George as I am assuming Prince William's eldest is in line.
posted by asteria at 9:03 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't even think there's a George in the current line of succession.

Prince Charles is "Charles Philip Arthur George" and the people in the know about such things believe he's likely to pick George rather than Charles because Charles isn't a regnal name with particularly great historical mojo.
posted by tclark at 9:11 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Well if we Gen-Xer's save the world by getting Clinton elected, we fully expect to be ignored and overlooked for it like always.

I'm 32 and never felt remotely accurate to describe myself as a "Millenial", mostly because I remember when a 56k modem was the new hotness. But also not really "Gen-X", because I don't remember when my family bought the first Apple IIe, or when the Challenger happened, or when Prince was scandalous.

But I do remember what a bunch of bullshit 90s political media was, and hopefully there's another whole pseudo-generation-Y that does too.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]


goddammit no America you had your chance. Australia is the favourite child now you don't get to just show up on Britain's doorstep like nothing ever happened
posted by um at 9:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]


So ... what'd I miss?
I guess you basically missed the late 80s.

Then again, who didn't?
posted by Superplin at 9:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [19 favorites]


Prince Charles is "Charles Philip Arthur George" and the people in the know about such things believe he's likely to pick George

goddammit King Arthur is right there Chuck
posted by beerperson at 9:28 PM on September 18, 2016 [21 favorites]


Okay so apparently another set of pipe bombs were found in newark.

Someone pulled them out of the trash because it looked like something valuable, walked off a bit and realized it might be a bomb...

I dont know how to describe the dark dark humor, or bleak sadness where a homeless person searching through a trashcan is something positive...

Last night i came across a report that the someone stole the bag with the second pressure cooker, but ditched it when they saw what it was... which is why it didnt go off.
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:28 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm 32 and never felt remotely accurate to describe myself as a "Millenial"

We inbetweeners will be forever out-of-joint. What's infuriating is that we were snake-people first! But then they just kept using that word to describe a whole 'nother generation. Maybe if you were born between 1979 and 1989, rather than millennial, we should be the Analog to Digital Generation.
posted by dis_integration at 9:30 PM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]


never felt remotely accurate to describe myself as a "Snake Person", mostly because I remember when a 56k modem was the new hotness

Guard: "Halt right there! Now, Prove you're a Gen X-er. Make the sound of the new hotness in modems."
T.D.S.: "Uhm.. okay.. *busy signal*"
Guard: "Nice try. Now get on with it."
T.D.S.: "Okay.. brrring, brrrring.. click... fweeeeee"
Guard: ...
T.D.S.: "eee-eeeeeeee ttsshhhhhhhhhh"
Guard: ...
T.D.S.: "blingong bzlogn"
Guard: *BLAM*
posted by fleacircus at 9:31 PM on September 18, 2016 [43 favorites]


I was born in 1955 and was considered "late" for being a Baby Boomer because my father didn't run right home from WWII and get my mother pregnant (they hadn't MET yet), and I wasn't old enough to run off to Woodstock in 1969. And too early for "Generation X"; that didn't begin until well into the '60s. One thing for sure, when Tom Brokaw popularized the term "Greatest Generation" for my parents, I wanted to break his jaw... Tom Broke-jaw, yeah.

Anyway, I still often feel the need to apologize for 'my generation', although it was mostly the spoiled brats older than me.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:39 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


Metafilter: people who fit poorly into arbitrary generational constructs
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:47 PM on September 18, 2016 [32 favorites]


There are shits and stars in every cohort.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


goddammit King Arthur is right there Chuck

It would be cool to have a King Arthur in England once the Vatican elects a Pope Peter II. 21st century apocalypse let's bring back all the myths
posted by Apocryphon at 10:14 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Halt right there! Now, Prove you're a Gen X-er. Make the sound of the new hotness in modems."

this used to be my party trick

i went to some sad parties, i tell you what
posted by palomar at 10:28 PM on September 18, 2016 [31 favorites]


A New Yorker's response to the Chelsea Bombings
That was very well written, but I'm side-eyeing the default jihad assumption. As far as I knew the FBI and NYC Police Dept. hadn't announced anything about Islamist terrorism in connection with Chelsea and no group has yet claimed responsibility. I mean, Timothy McVeigh was a thing, yeah?

This incident has just highlighted for me how terrible Trump would be as a president. He steps off the plane knowing nothing, announces a bombing, then says we have to get tough. Compare that to Clinton who looked concerned but was measured and waiting for information. Johnson, who wants to get rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the NSA via executive order, was just glad everyone was ok.
posted by xyzzy at 10:34 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]


Paramilitary Organization Endorses Fascist, Nation Worries

Fascism and Democracy - "What Gramsci can tell us about the relationship between fascism and liberalism — and the rise of Donald Trump."

What Will Bernie's Legacy Be? Can he prevent the Left's suicide wing as friends don't let friends vote for Jill Stein - a lucky break for Hillary Clinton.
What sort of President will Hillary Clinton be, even with all those neocon fans, she's developed a powerful, unreliable coalition, to implement the most ambitions economic plans since WWII.

If you care about the Supreme Court, you need Trump to go down in a landslide, even as the GOP will never accept President Clinton. GOP, the Party conquered by Trump. Well, not so much 'conquered' as 'natural, predictable development.'" (how soon you forget that bloody, bloody Andrew Jackson). Ignore the laughable attempts to blame liberals or the misguided economic anxiety argument. Are we in the midst of a realignment or just a recalibration? Since Trump is conservatism (and embolding its more virulent forms), let's leave conservativism behind.

Making sense of a divided America. This election isn't about right vs. left. It's about "we" vs. "I."

How Breitbart Conquered the Media - "Political reporters were taken aback by Hillary Clinton’s charge that half of Trump’s supporters are prejudiced. Few bothered to investigate the claim itself." An effect of outrage fatigue and 'political incorrectness' as strategy

The Holocaust Historian Who Loves Donald Trump, Trump: chaos monkey, [white] working-class hero or psychopath. The subtle, dangerous way Donald Trump has changed American political discourse. Is Trump an agent of Putin, or an all-American disaster? Don't ignore the lessons of the far-right and The Great Paradox. See people become disenchanted with democracy[PDF]

How Rousseau Predicted Trump. fuckin' Rousseau.

more at
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
OMNIVORE
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:42 PM on September 18, 2016 [62 favorites]


prevent the Left's suicide wing

They prefer People's Front of Judea.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]


Heh. Yeah, Omnivore has been bringing the anti-Trump links daily for months now. Good stuff.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:57 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, if America really NEEDS a third party, THIS is the party America needs.
sorry, tacos, but pizza's got you beat
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:02 AM on September 19, 2016


The Meteor is a train though
posted by clorox at 12:20 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Holocaust Historian Who Loves Donald Trump

Excellent article. I don't know if it makes sense to describe Metaxas as a Holocaust historian, though: he's a lay theologist who wrote a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:30 AM on September 19, 2016


The Gramsci article is funny because it starts off interesting, pointing out lots of new connections based on research with an unexpected level of clarity and concision, then by the end of the interview the tone is simultaneously grim due to the sociologist's predictions, and fraught because he doesn't mince words about his political views.
posted by polymodus at 12:52 AM on September 19, 2016


Metafilter: the tone is simultaneously grim and fraught.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:03 AM on September 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


From the "suicide wing" link above:
By voting for Ralph Nader in 2000, you got precisely the opposite of everything you wanted: a Republican presidency; continued conservative control of the Supreme Court, culminating in Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, to name just two of the recent court decisions liberals despise the most; and the war in Iraq, with all its devastating consequences in blood and treasure. There’s a word of fairly recent coinage that perfectly describes your choice 16 years ago: Derp. While you were patting yourselves on the back for making a “statement,” progressivism lost a generation.
I think it's interesting to consider this. Did leftists voting for a third party in presidential election lead to many of the problems millennials have faced as they come of age? I mean, it's pretty impossible to predict what would have happened in eight years of a Gore presidency. But still, it's an interesting question.
posted by threeturtles at 1:27 AM on September 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


it's pretty impossible to predict what would have happened in eight years of a Gore presidency

True enough, but it isn't impossible to predict what wouldn't have happened. Roberts and Alito wouldn't haven't been nominated. There wouldn't have been tax cuts for the wealthy which bankrupted the country. We wouldn't have invaded Iraq when bin Laden was in Afghanistan. And So Much More!

What would have happened? I can't say. But that stuff wouldn't have.
posted by Justinian at 1:35 AM on September 19, 2016 [58 favorites]


Excellent article. I don't know if it makes sense to describe Metaxas as a Holocaust historian, though: he's a lay theologist who wrote a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

A very bad book about Bonhoeffer which twists him into a modern-style evangelical and was written largely to take one of the most courageous Christian voices of the 20th century and distort it until it becomes a dull cheer for Metataxas' political priorities, something that was reasonably clear when it hit the shelves, and is only more obvious now that he is taking his status as an "expert" on the extremely uncompromising Bonhoeffer and using it to urge evangelicals to engage in the greatest act of political compromise imaginable: voting for a crass, greedy, lying, violent, faithless degenerate because he'll keep taxes low on the rich and deport the destitute.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:44 AM on September 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


Eight years of a Gore presidency? I think you could only assume four and then it's all speculation. We could also wonder if a 2nd Bush Sr. term might have been preferable to Clinton's triangulation that may have moved both parties rightward too, but that too is only speculative and has no real provable answers.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:45 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


While you were patting yourselves on the back for making a “statement,” progressivism lost a generation.
I didn't vote for Nader, but the travesty of the 2000 election was where all of my starry-eyed idealism went to die. In 2000 I was in my 20s. I was environmentally-conscious, pacifistic and non-interventionist, and I hated that carpetbagger Hillary Clinton. Then came 9/11, Citizen's United, and the invasion of Iraq. My pacifism and non-interventionist leanings went out the door when I learned that Bill Clinton's repeated withdrawals from military conflict, primarily due to poor optics, inspired Bin Laden to issue his fatwa against the US and plan 9/11 with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. My hatred for HRC disappeared when she worked her ass off to get help for the responders working the pile at Ground Zero. My tolerance for protest votes went out the window after Cheney's victory with the Halliburton Exception, which exempts frackers from vital portions of most federal environmental laws. And that's on top of the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance of Americans, terrible Supreme Court nominations, and about 1,000 other things that we can thank Shrub and his henchmen for.
posted by xyzzy at 1:57 AM on September 19, 2016 [59 favorites]


once again, people have forgotten that we were already at war with iraq during the clinton administration and that the escalation of this war had significant democrat support, including from a certain senator from new york

but let's just rewrite history, shall we?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:29 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


A very bad book about Bonhoeffer which twists him into a modern-style evangelical and was written largely to take one of the most courageous Christian voices of the 20th century and distort it until it becomes a dull cheer for Metataxas' political priorities

Yes, I still remember how disappointed I was when I read it -- a flat cardboard-cut version of history as good v evil conflict, where both good and evil are not really defined or analysed at all. Nazis are evil, Christianity is good, Bonhoeffer was Christian-and-not-Nazi, what an example to us all. He makes some attempt to explain the origins of Nazi thought but it's pretty cartoonish and there's an undercurrent of how foreign it all is to a decent upright American Protestant. So I'm unsurprised that he can't see the parallels between Hitler and Trump, and can't see that plenty of Nazis would also have been someone's crazy-inappropriate can't-take-everything-he-says-seriously uncle in 1932.
posted by Aravis76 at 2:30 AM on September 19, 2016


people have forgotten that we were already at war with iraq during the clinton administration
If by "war with Iraq" you mean the bombing of the Iraqi intelligence services after the attempted assassination of Bush, Sr. and the maintenance of the no-fly zone as part of the UN resolutions after Desert Storm, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The Clinton administration didn't love Saddam Hussein, but there was never an AUMF designed to topple the regime during his administration. But yes, I was highly annoyed at the transparent fictions designed to create the coalition for Junior's invasion and I was also annoyed that so many Democrats, including HRC, went along with it.
posted by xyzzy at 2:42 AM on September 19, 2016 [17 favorites]


There's a subtle or blatant hypocrisy in either attributing or blaming leftists for not meeting a political alliance. I'd like to think that liberalism entails a bit of self-reflective capacity and knowing how to prioritize/inculcate that attitude. If majority liberals, i.e., the dominant privileged political group on the left could not win over progressives further on the Overton spectrum, maybe the way to do it, as said majority, is to tailor and improve the outreach process.

Understandably, that's a difficult onus because there's gonna be conflict in value systems and very different self-interests. But how about Democrats, especially those Washington-based "analysts", spend less time speculating about various groups of leftists from within their hegemonic liberal bubble and generating prejudiced, propaganda pieces and grenade terms like "suicide wing"; stop othering and get out there actually meet and engage with them. Start with the healthy, liberal recognition that their context and experiences are not the same as yours. My god, there could be learning from one another!

Don't just identify as a liberal. You gotta act it, too.
posted by polymodus at 3:24 AM on September 19, 2016 [7 favorites]


"but there was never an AUMF designed to topple the regime during his administration."

Don't need a AUMF to authorize regime change. Bob Baer tried in 95' and almost got arrested for sandy bergers fickleness. But there was that feckless thing called the Iraq Liberation Act, which congress cited in the 02' AUMF. Etc., etc.

When Iraq was Clintons war.
posted by clavdivs at 3:33 AM on September 19, 2016


once again, people have forgotten that we were already at war with iraq during the clinton administration

Wha... WHAT?

I remember the build up to the Iraq War. I remember Colin Powell in the UN. I remember Cheney on morning talk shows. I REMEMBER Bush kicking out the weapons inspectors while saying he was doing this to keep Hussein from getting weapons of mass destruction. I remember the implications that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and how carefully weasel worded they were, because there was actually no connection. I remember the implications that you were unpatriotic if you didn't back the president, that Saddam Hussein was Hilter and anyone who opposed the war was Neville Chamberlin. I also remember showing up at protest marches in Seattle and Chicago, and watching with horror and feeling sick to my stomach whehn the bombs started dropping in March, 2003. I remember the posturing in Congress leading up to the AUMF and the fawning of "embedded" journalists and the night vision cameras.

We were already at war during the Clinton administration, though, so I guess none of that ever happened. I guess I imagined all that? Nothing changed under Bush? No more Americans and Iraqis died than one of under a Gore Administration? No additiinal veterans were maimed or permanently disabled?

Ugh. What a horrible thing to say! "I hate being blamed for what happened when I refused to vote strategically, so I'll just pretend it didn't happen. Both parties really are the same." Except they are not. The scale and meaning our actions in Iraq underwent a shift in 2003 that I still shudder to recall. Under Clinton there were no fly zones and weapons inspections and saber rattling. Under Bush we sent an inavding army, toppled the government, and occupied the country. Qualitatively different. Different in the eyes if everyone who lived through it, and everyine who died as a result of it. Different in the eyes of history. Different.

and that the escalation of this war had significant democrat support, including from a certain senator from new york

but let's just rewrite history, shall we?


I can't believe how shamelessly you are doing exactly that.

That senator prefaced her vote with “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible."

She was voting to give the president the authority to threaten war if Hussein did not readmit weapons inspectors. She did not expect Bush to then kick them out, and begin bombing.

Had Clinton or Gore been in office, THAT'S what would have happened -- weapons inspections.

To pretend the Iraq War would have happened just the same without Bush is some pants-on-fire level of false history.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:49 AM on September 19, 2016 [123 favorites]


"part of the UN resolutions after Desert Storm, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The Clinton administration"

and others used resolution 688 to justify continuing an Iraqi no-fly zone which the UN Seceratry General called Illegal.
Momento Mori indeed.
posted by clavdivs at 3:49 AM on September 19, 2016


Jesus, that Jacobin article! God, I can't believe this is a Thing. Clinton came into office on the heels of the first Bush's war with Iraq. Also, Saddam Hussein really was a master troll who really did gas people and try to develop nukes. So no, we did not exactly have a normal relationship with Iraq during the Clinton years.

But what Bush did was NOT more of the same. No more weapons inspections; let's occupy Hussein's palaces! It was DIFFERENT!
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:01 AM on September 19, 2016 [17 favorites]


I remember the build up to the Iraq War.

I remember too. The build up, the "quiet war", Albright's 500,000 dead children

Suggest you read that jacobin artlcile
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:20 AM on September 19, 2016


Yes, that's the problem though when talking about Iraq. At the time, Clinton was heavily criticized from the left for the sanctions he was imposing which according to numerous sources in the moment were connected to the deaths of 200,000 to 500,000 children. Clinton claimed that was on Saddam for shuttling money and resources throughout the country inappropriately, and perhaps it was, but that still might be seen as constituting something like an act of war, and several high ranking administrators resigned over it.

Combine that with the fact of Hussein using chemical weapons against the Kurds and his aggressive tendencies towards his neighbors and stated desire to build nuclear weapons and the whole situation was an incredibly difficult one.

Because of that, I'm not entirely convinced Gore's solution, though it would have been different than Bush's, would have necessarily been better just because he wasn't Bush. I'm willing to think it very well might have been, but I'll only allow that speculation to go so far.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:25 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


[Gentle nudge to steer back to the actual 2016 Election rather than another few hundred comments about what if Gore had won, and general arguing about Iraq.]
posted by taz at 4:29 AM on September 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


Taz, can I buy you a drink when all of this is over? The election threads surely must be trying your soul, and there's still months to go...

*sobs*
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 4:46 AM on September 19, 2016 [14 favorites]


Derek Willis ‏@derekwillis
In past month, 1/3rd of Trump mobile display ads have been on http://breitbart.com , says @Pathmatics:
So at this point they're basically openly pillaging campaign accounts.
posted by Talez at 4:46 AM on September 19, 2016 [23 favorites]


The NY/NJ bombing investigation has yielded a "person of interest" said to be an "American of Afghan descent" per AP and NYPD.

And the Bridgegate federal trial starts today. Popcorn futures through the roof.

We are gonna need a bigger thread.
posted by spitbull at 4:47 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump's again gloating with 'I told you so' on a terror attack this morning.

Trump takes credit, once again, for "calling it" -- on the bombs in New York:
"I should be a newscaster! ... I called it before the news."

posted by chris24 at 4:53 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]


God he's a fucking insufferable schmuck.
posted by spitbull at 4:56 AM on September 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


I really liked that the pinned tweet on HRC's Twitter is "What Trump just did is a disgrace."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:04 AM on September 19, 2016 [21 favorites]




"I called it before the news."

Because the one thing I want in a president is a rush to judgment to rival the shitty media.
posted by chris24 at 5:10 AM on September 19, 2016 [36 favorites]




In other news, Jeb! had a guest appearance during the Emmy awards

The race for 2020 has already started
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:21 AM on September 19, 2016


In other news, Jeb! had a guest appearance during the Emmy awards

Please clap?
posted by Francis at 5:22 AM on September 19, 2016 [13 favorites]


I feel like this thread as opposed to x% of America is like when I speak to fellow people with spinal cord injuries and we're all, A thing happened, yeah, it's really fucked up. Yep, violation of federal joke. And then various obscene jokes follow, because there's only so much hating one can do before one's soul gets all shriveled and shit.

So what I'm saying is that misery loves company, and y'all are good company. I personally don't know why Clinton isn't leading about 15%, because I'm just some joe. And I think that we're all in the same boat with that sense of disbelief, more or less.

But apparently, 50% of the U.S. is like what are you talking about calm down it was better in the fifties, right. And I'm like whoa. I mean, that's my best take on it. Whoa, that's fucked up.

My friend got into this rant about armchair diagnoses of Trump, Libertarians, and others, and I understand why it's tempting to understand history while it's happening, but my response is just: Whoa. That's fucked up.

I was across the river from the towers at 9/11 and that was of course an instantaneous do do do WHOA THAT'S FUCKED UP and it might have been the moment that I came into the office and the receptionist was talking about a firefighter she knew who had found a bunch of human bones that my mind went NOPE. I mean there was a bunch of other horrifying details, not that I was personally affected except that at that time my roots in New York were pretty deep, so you kept running into it, you know.

But I pretty clearly remembered that NOPE moment. NPR, off. Reading the NYT, no more. I was engaged, of course, but I had to limit my engagement to bonding with friends and doing my job and try not to hate the rest of the country for embarking on such a disastrous foreign policy agenda with the deaths of my goddamned neighbors as a rallying cry.

For this election, I've gradually narrowed my focus. It started by avoiding NPR (so I wouldn't hear Trump's voice and the false equivalency thing) and now I'm just reading the NYT for movie reviews and to see when some articles about Hamilton in Chicago come out.

I think that's the thing that I was maybe projecting or maybe accurately depicting in other threads: People are not talking casually about it in Philly. It's become a dangerous thing, because even if somebody votes HRC, they may be all lesser of two evils, and given the shit I've seen in my student essays, which has to be reflecting something in the air, people are ANGRY. On both sides.

I may need to bow out of these threads if my NOPE factor increases further, just so I can maintain some peace of mind.

But thank you for all of your comments.
posted by angrycat at 5:23 AM on September 19, 2016 [16 favorites]


NYT: Letter From Former Officials Urges Trump to Detail Foreign Dealings

"More than 50 former government officials and national security and military figures have signed an open letter to Donald J. Trump, urging him to disclose details of his overseas business investments before Election Day...

...The signers — who also include prominent Republicans such as Michael Chertoff, who led the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bush’s deputy secretary of defense — add that Mr. Trump should “pledge that he will divest himself of his overseas business interests should he win the presidency.”
posted by chris24 at 5:29 AM on September 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Politico: Trump has diplomats abandoning vows of silence:

"Analysts struggle to recall another U.S. election where so many foreign leaders have so directly weighed in on the merits of a particular candidate. Even in 2004, when much of the world detested George W. Bush due to the debacle in Iraq, foreign leaders and their envoys generally held back during the campaign. But in 2016, the Mexican president has compared Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler; the German foreign minister has warned that the Republican’s fear-driven brand of politics would be “dangerous” for the whole world; and the French president has said the real estate mogul’s “excesses” provoke a “retching feeling.”

And related...

WaPo: Foreign-policy experts grow more hostile to Trump as N. Korea tests missiles

"Eliot Cohen, an active anti-Trump voice, said that he has never seen foreign-policy professionals so stridently hostile to a candidate. “He is not only an ignoramus, but he’s a dangerous ignoramus who doesn’t know the first thing about foreign policy and doesn’t care and has some very dangerous instincts,” Cohen, who served in the George W. Bush administration, told The Washington Post in a recent interview. “Part of what is so dangerous about him is not just his ignorance and contempt for our alliances, but his failure to understand how important these have been to our security since 1945. And he has already done a lot of damage. Our allies are deeply shaken by this election.”
posted by chris24 at 5:34 AM on September 19, 2016 [27 favorites]


Why would anything about Trump's campaign be given the benefit of the doubt? He'll lie, say he didn't, and do the thing he thinks will make him rich.

Quit treating him like an actual presidential candidate, MSM. He's an incompetent salesman who lacks the conviction to actually be a mobster.

NYT, that's particularly for you. You know that, don't you?
posted by petebest at 5:43 AM on September 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


Trump was on Fox & Friends getting the machismo out there:
Trump: "we’re going to have to do something extremely tough"

Doocy: Like what?

Trump: "knock the hell out of them"
The full quote in context is even scarier. It's pretty much Iraq War Reaction 2.0.

If the country votes Trump we're not going to be limited interventionist. We're going to have imperialist boots on the ground in the middle east. Guaranteed.
posted by Talez at 5:43 AM on September 19, 2016 [24 favorites]


Trump just retweeted someone named TrumpThatBitch2016.
posted by chris24 at 5:46 AM on September 19, 2016


And of course, the human cheeto is right back to Syrian refugees. Poorly vetted. Despite Ahmad Khan Rahami being a US citizen of Afghani descent.

At least Trump removed the "Welfare 4 bombs!" catch phrase when he retweeted the asshole.
posted by Talez at 5:48 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Election 2016: You can eat all the bigotry you want and because it's fact-free it won't increase your IQ!
posted by Talez at 5:50 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm still pretty confident that Hillary will win this but the fact that over 40% of the American voters are going to vote for this vulgar talking yam makes me horribly sad for our country.
posted by octothorpe at 5:54 AM on September 19, 2016 [22 favorites]






GOTV report from South Carolina: I phone banked for 3 hours on Saturday for the SC Democratic Party. (I had signed up to phone bank for Hillary on Saturday afternoon, but I got a call Friday night from the local Democratic Party to ask me to make calls -- since they call for local races as well as the presidential ticket, I figured that would probably make more sense, at least for now.) And it's good that I did because I was the ONLY person making calls. My organizer has ELEVEN counties that she's working for and did some door-knocking while I called, checking in by text from time to time. She lives 3 hours away.

The list I was given to call was about 90-95% Millennials, which I thought was really interesting in the wake of all the posts about how the Dems aren't reaching out to Millennials. Turns out my list was of "infrequent" voters, which makes sense... the frequent voters are going to vote anyway, so they're starting with those less likely to vote. So I got a lot of disconnected, wrong number, moved away, etc. because Millennials do move around a lot and probably the reason they haven't voted here in SC lately is because they don't live here anymore.

I mostly left voicemails, and I got a few Republicans (2 of those were wives who were like "my husband is a Republican and will not consider voting for a DEMOCRAT" and I swear in the background of one call I heard the husband in question arguing that they wanted to talk to me before the wife hung up on me which was interesting, I marked him "not home" so we'll call again).

BUT my favorite call was one guy who was like "my wife's not home, but I'm a Democrat too and can I volunteer for you?" which I was like OMG YES we have so many things you can do!! Here is all the info! and it was an awesome conversation and totally made my day.

I'm also training as a poll watcher tonight and will probably do some door knocking next weekend, and let me tell you it feels so good to DO SOMETHING. And even for a shy person like me, at least the phone calling is totally not hard! You have a script and mostly people are at least civil! Do it if you can!
posted by rabbitrabbit at 6:09 AM on September 19, 2016 [72 favorites]


I wonder if Kasich and Cruz will have to fight to the death in a nationally televised cage match or if they'll just be secretly executed by a Trump death squad. Probably the TV version. Imagine the ratings.
posted by dis_integration at 6:09 AM on September 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump on Fox: "I'm totally in favor of freedom of the press ... but how do you allow magazines to be sold" that "tell you how to make bombs"

So this morning in just one interview on Fox, Trump has called for a purge of his party, restrictions on the 1st Amendment, stoked fears of violence and/or encouraged violence, called for profiling of refugees and Middle Easter immigrants, and suggested increased military action in the Middle East.
posted by chris24 at 6:12 AM on September 19, 2016 [34 favorites]


And he doesn't believe any of it. Unless he does. He'll let you know.
posted by petebest at 6:18 AM on September 19, 2016 [10 favorites]


Speaking of Iraq, Trump admits he was for the war before he was against it, but says that's "the same thing" as being against the war the whole time.

Can you imagine Trump's response to the famous question posed about Nixon: What did he know and when did he know it? "I knew all about it beforehand, which is to say I didn't know anything and I just learned about it now. It's the same thing. Yes I knew about it, no, I didn't. See? Same thing"

All that is solid melts into air.
posted by dis_integration at 6:25 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton Maintains Lead Over Trump Despite Health Scare

Clinton maintains her 2% lead with likely voters over Trump in a 4 way race in a poll taken after the health scare.

In a head to head match up, her lead went up 3% points to 4% with likely voters.
posted by chris24 at 6:25 AM on September 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


As an example, WSJ: 5 years of DJT birther statements

Which is essentially when (2011) Obama releases his birth certificate.

Just before: He doesn't have it! He's Kenyan!
After: Who knows? It's a mystery. You tell me.

Also "pledging" $5M if he releases his birth certificate (I hope you're sitting down, this may shock you); didn't do it.
posted by petebest at 6:32 AM on September 19, 2016 [9 favorites]


Field report: our 5e D&D group got together this weekend, and since we're late Gen-X'ers/early millenials with money to spend, there were amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing sous-vide ribs, apple-cabbage slaw, and polenta (DM), craft beers (the bard), peach cobbler (us, the ranger and the paladin and a blink dog), and homemade sourdough bread from starter purchased at the King Arthur factory store (barbarian).

Since we're late Gen-X'ers/early millenials, we also had a brief and deeply unfortunate exchange, where the guy who plays the bard pulled out some Hillary Health Truth nonsense, saying that he thought that it was obvious from watching the 9/11 memorial video that she was HIDING SOME MUCH MORE SERIOUS because SHE'D CLEARLY HAD A SEIZURE ON HER WAY INTO THE CAR. This guy has previously said that his #1 issue is getting big money out of politics, which is why he is ???? voting ???? for Gary fucking Johnson ???????

Then our barbarian player said that she hoped Clinton got elected, and then died a year into the term so that she wouldn't have to hear her die-hard BUILD THAT WALL!!!!!!!!!!!! white working-class husband talk about Clinton for the full term, but she could also feel confident we wouldn't die in a nuclear war four days after inauguration.

I attempted not to shoot fire out of my face, or make snide comments about jet fuel and steel beams, and limited myself to one COME ON, HILLARY TRUTHER.

And then we all awkwardly went back to massively fucking up our rolls against a winged shadow lord demon with red-glowing eyes.
posted by joyceanmachine at 6:37 AM on September 19, 2016 [20 favorites]


I don't think this has been posted here before but, this is Hillary's appeal to Millennials and I think it's pretty good. I'm biased, of course, and I'm not exactly that age group (32) but I think it addresses what I perceive to be their concerns.
posted by Tevin at 6:39 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've just turned twenty-nine (so definitely a Snake Person) and she's really missing a note on mass surveillance and foreign military adventurism.
posted by stolyarova at 6:41 AM on September 19, 2016 [6 favorites]


but how do you allow magazines to be sold" that "tell you how to make bombs"

Someone ought to tell him about all the gun enthusiasts who buy large quantities of tannerite and film themselves done blowin' it up to announce whether it's a boy or a girl. Or just pack it in a lawnmower and blow their own legs off.
posted by holgate at 6:50 AM on September 19, 2016 [8 favorites]


Well, the phone bank I went to last night had a very good turn out. All the organizers are millennials and most of the volunteers were Gen Xers and Boomers, probably as it should be. More women than men among the volunteers but not totally one-sided gender-wise.

The lists we were working on were purported Hillary supporters or at least likely supporters we were calling to try to get involved in volunteering so the worst result I had all night was an undecided (wtf 20-something dude?)who immediately hung up on me. A few strong HRC supporters not interested in volunteering, a couple who I got far enough with to describe the opportunities. I have out the /events URL off-script a couple times because honestly I'm not going to commit to something on the spur of the moment over the phone either. I'm busy, I need to check my calendar then check with my spouse. But I figure it's probably a win just to remind folks that the campaign is active in town and a new office just opened and mention where it's located and there's always people there.

And of course 90% no answer or wrong number or disconnected. And a couple folks who don't live in PA any more. I did get one guy who's not a citizen so he can't vote but is defiantly going to volunteer and had already done the research on how to get involved. So that was awesome.

Just listening in to other callers there were some Trumpets who got called somehow. I'm glad that didn't happen to me because I'm not sure I would have been able to contain my wtf.

Then I went to Target and bought the organizers a bunch of coffee making supplies and junk food.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:51 AM on September 19, 20