Joe Biden is officially not running for President.

October 21, 2015 10:26 AM

This closes the door on one of the biggest potential challenges to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second attempt at capturing the Democratic nomination. Back in August, Mr. Biden was already running for president in the invisible primary. Like most candidates who test the waters, he didn’t find enough support to justify entering the race.
posted by Sleeper (211 comments total)

I'm glad he's not running, if only because made up Joe Biden stories are so much better than the actual guy.
posted by drezdn at 10:28 AM on October 21, 2015 [19 favorites]

This closes the door on one of the biggest potential challenges to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second attempt at capturing the Democratic nomination a bored political press desperate for something to contrast with the clown show Republican primary.

Fixed.
posted by Gelatin at 10:29 AM on October 21, 2015 [82 favorites]

Great, can we finally stop including him in polls now?
posted by Bringer Tom at 10:30 AM on October 21, 2015 [14 favorites]

"And we're gonna teach 'em how to say good-bye

Say good-bye

You and Iiiiiiii" - Biden to Obama about twenty minutes ago

There's going to be so many Hamilton references this election cycle and I'm here for it. Probably the only thing that I can stand about this election cycle, now that I think about it.
posted by kmz at 10:31 AM on October 21, 2015 [23 favorites]

Great, can we finally stop including him in polls now?

Now the polls will be Hillary, Bernie, and Force Ghost Biden.
posted by drezdn at 10:32 AM on October 21, 2015 [57 favorites]

I never could understand interest in Biden joining the race. He's done fine as a VP but he was a pretty centrist New Democrat as a senator and never generated much interest as a presidential candidate before.
posted by octothorpe at 10:35 AM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

I caught his speech on NPR.... I thought it was a pretty good speech.
posted by valkane at 10:35 AM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

Great, can we finally stop including him in polls now?

Now the polls will be Hillary, Bernie, and Force Ghost Biden.

Original Force Ghost Biden or Remastered Special Edition Force Ghost Biden?
posted by Etrigan at 10:35 AM on October 21, 2015 [18 favorites]

I thought Bernie needed Joe to run to have a shot at wresting the nomination away from Hillary's status quo, so I'm a little bummed at this news.

I was happy to vote for Obama (whose election was the first I was eligible to participate in) but voting for Hillary -- who represents more of the same without any of Obama's ridiculous charm -- feels like a chore. Woman, good. Establishment, bad. Bad. Bad.

I will do it to spare the country from Trump or whoever, but I don't care and I think this is why young people don't vote.
posted by an animate objects at 10:35 AM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

Force Ghost Biden.

Force Ghost Biden vs. Nixon's Head 3016?
posted by pan at 10:35 AM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

It was easy to miss, but Jim Webb dropped out yesterday.
posted by Sleeper at 10:37 AM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

I never could understand interest in Biden joining the race.

It's not so much about Biden joining the race as it is some national Democrat with a chance in hell who is not Hillary Clinton joining the race. As Gelatin notes above, the horse-race aspect is a big part of it, but there is also a distinct portion of the Democratic party (workers and voters) who A) don't want her to be President, and/or B) don't think she'll be the strongest possible candidate in the general election. They just don't really have an alternative, so they latch on to the guy with the best resume.
posted by Etrigan at 10:38 AM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

I might vote for Onion Joe Biden. But RAVE ACT Joe Biden, I'd pass on (in the primaries, in the general, I'd vote for him, of course, if he won).

I thought I saw in previous polls (ha! as if it matters now) that Biden entering would have actually been bad for Bernie, so perhaps this is a boon.
posted by symbioid at 10:38 AM on October 21, 2015

Does this mean Lincoln Davenport Chafee has a chance?
posted by sammyo at 10:39 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

Yes, and as an American over 35, so do I.

How much of a chance for both of us is left up as an exercise for the reader.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:40 AM on October 21, 2015 [18 favorites]

well there goes any chance I had to replace my biden beer koozie
posted by logicpunk at 10:42 AM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

I really don't understand the hostility that many Democrats showed toward the notion that Biden should be included in polls, discussed by the press, etc.

If anything, this is how a democratic primary is supposed to work, and shows a glimmer of hope that the public might nominate the person that they felt was best suited for the job, rather than the one who did the most campaigning.

We wouldn't have a viable Sanders candidacy if he hadn't been included as a fringe candidate in the early polls. Even if Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to run, her supporters are sending a clear message by continuing to support her hypothetical candidacy, and should continue to do so. If nothing else, it might inspire another Senator to stand up behind the ideals that Warren has championed, and run for President a few years from now.

Disclaimer: I like Joe Biden a lot. Apart from the fact that the Democratic Primary needed more than one viable contender (and the Clinton/Sanders pairing is working out spectacularly well -- no matter who wins, they will be better off for having the other as an opponent), Biden's political career is reasonably impressive -- he is unquestionably qualified to be President.
posted by schmod at 10:43 AM on October 21, 2015 [8 favorites]

FORCE GHOST BIDEN / MCMIKENAMARA 2016
posted by Etrigan at 10:43 AM on October 21, 2015 [14 favorites]

Uh, so, Bernie or Kodos.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:44 AM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

kmz , I was singing "Never gonna be president now" up Wall Street a few minutes ago to try and drown my sorrows.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

Disclaimer #2: I don't understand at all what Hillary Clinton's fervent supporters see in her. I think she's a very competent politician, and was a fantastic Secretary of State. However, as far as I can tell, her positions are a bit of a yawn, and defer to the status-quo on virtually every single issue.

So, there's that too.
posted by schmod at 10:46 AM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

I also hear good things about this guy, Goldie Wilson.
posted by Muddler at 10:47 AM on October 21, 2015 [22 favorites]

Does this mean he's now in the running for Speaker of the House?
posted by schmod at 10:48 AM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

I knew this would happen, because Bill Kristol tweeted this.

Bill Kristol: always astonishingly wrong.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:49 AM on October 21, 2015 [41 favorites]

Even if Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to run

Baloney, she is just a canny realist, the run warren run campaign was so lame and unexciting, basically "she's a better Hillary". I think they should have gone quieter then exploded with a huge viral campaign. If one tuesday morning everyone saw a simple "DRAFT LIZ" bumper sticker everywhere the and got trumpesque soundbites for a few weeks it may have been different.
posted by sammyo at 10:51 AM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

That was a good speech. He's not always been right on the issues (at times he's been horrifically wrong, and his mistakes have cost many families unnecessary years of their loved ones' lives), but Joe Biden is as sincere and as loving of his family and his countrymen and women as any politician has ever been. We would be lucky to have someone with his heart in the White House.
posted by sallybrown at 10:53 AM on October 21, 2015 [15 favorites]

I don't understand at all what Hillary Clinton's fervent supporters see in her. I think she's a very competent politician, and was a fantastic Secretary of State.

That's what we see in her.

However, as far as I can tell, her positions are a bit of a yawn, and defer to the status-quo on virtually every single issue.

A yawn? She's running for president, not reality TV star.

I like and respect Bernie Sanders, but I think his ability to actually get things done in Washington is just about nil. I want someone who can play the game (even if the game sucks.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:57 AM on October 21, 2015 [42 favorites]

A yawn? She's running for president, not reality TV star.

The problem is that she may well be running against a reality TV star.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:01 AM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'm not a fervent supporter of anyone running.

They're, you know, politicians.
posted by kyrademon at 11:01 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

I think she's a very competent politician, and was a fantastic Secretary of State.

I probably hate Hillary a lot less than most people who hate Hillary. But... objectively, she's never been much of a politician. I mean, she's only been elected to office once, for a seat hand-picked for her and riding a lot of coat-tails. Which is fine, right, because everyone hates politicians anyway. But then, objectively again, US foreign policy has been a disaster in the Ukraine and Libya. The State Dept. was heavily involved in the run-up to the Maidan massacre but in both instances a policy of implicitly or explicitly destabilized a government we didn't like has proved to be both a humanitarian disaster and a hard blow against the ability of the US to exert power in each region.

However, when it comes down to it, since no one has paid any price for the complete nightmarish horror disaster of what we did in Iraq, why should Hillary pay any price for her comparatively minor disasters.

Biden was for people who wanted a candidate even closer to corporate american and wall street than hillary, who also liked to blow shit up.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:01 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

I agree on that count, but have yet to see either of the Clintons show much of a backbone (her comments on Edward Snowden really underscored this for me).
posted by schmod at 11:02 AM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

It's not so much about Biden joining the race as it is some national Democrat with a chance in hell who is not Hillary Clinton joining the race.

I think this is fairly on the mark, and then some. Biden may have been the backup candidate if it looked like Clinton was going to take a critical hit to her candidacy--either a debate performance that brought her (further?) out of touch with voters, a scandal that does damage, etc.

However, she did very well at the debate, and, at worst, the Benghazi/E-Mail Server committee isn't landing any punches (and may well be producing significant blowback). This worry seems to be addressed, at least for a period stretching beyond registration deadlines. Biden's continued ghost campaign was probably working against the cause of rallying around a single, strong candidate. Dropping out was best for the party.
posted by MrGuilt at 11:03 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

I like and respect Bernie Sanders, but I think his ability to actually get things done in Washington is just about nil.

In all fairness, H. Clintons' ability to get anything past a Republican Congress -- one that just threw a Republican Speaker under the bus at the behest of a rump caucus of ultraconservative loonies -- is just about nil as well.

It's vital to keep a Democrat in the White House because the balance of the Supreme Court could change markedly depending on who can appoint nominees. Of course, Republicans -- already playing defense due to unfavorable demographics and the fact that their actual policies, as oppose to the well-honed soundbites that tout them, aren't at all popular -- are well aware of the fact, so I expect there could be quite the Constitutional crisis if and when the Republican Senate refuses to move on any nominee Clinton (or Sanders, for that matter) puts forward.
posted by Gelatin at 11:04 AM on October 21, 2015 [14 favorites]

Well there goes my planned, "Fuck Yeah Diamond Joe 2016" bumper sticker scheme.

I'm glad Biden dropped out. In 2016 democrats need to look and act like the adults in the room. Tuning a contested two way primary into a protracted three way primary between the establishment candidate, the insurgent candidate, and the establishment candidate for voters who don't want to vote for Clinton wouldn't help the party at all in the general.

Still I'd like to see a consolation bracket debate where Biden slowly destroys Trump, possibly throwing back a shot of Jameson instead of giving an opening statement.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:07 AM on October 21, 2015 [15 favorites]

I am voting for Sanders in the primary, but I will vote for Clinton for president if she takes the nomination and don't have serious reservations about doing so. I have serious reservations about a lot of her positions, but I live in Ohio and I know what that means about my vote and I'm okay with the notion of supporting the wayyyyyy lesser of evils. But looking at this coming election, I feel like Warren has a lot of value in doing exactly what she's doing. By staying out of it early, if we get a Republican, we have a sitting US Senator from Massachusetts who will be able to spend four years effectively running against that person's re-election. If we get a Democrat, that's one more established name in the Senate producing very quotable support for the President. I would much rather she stayed where she is than turn into an also-ran.
posted by Sequence at 11:09 AM on October 21, 2015 [40 favorites]

Can Biden pinch hit in the debate?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Wrong sport, especially if Trump is in the general. You need to tag-in Biden
posted by nathan_teske at 11:12 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

Not that I think this is super likely, but is there any precedent for Biden being veep for a third time?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:13 AM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

There is no Constitutional reason at all why Biden cannot seek a third term as vice president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:18 AM on October 21, 2015 [18 favorites]

No one has served more than two terms as a US VP.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:23 AM on October 21, 2015

(Directly replying to showbiz_liz there; not intending to contradict the notion that it's perfectly constitutional if he were to do so)
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 11:24 AM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

I like and respect Bernie Sanders, but I think his ability to actually get things done in Washington is just about nil.

This isn't particularly accurate, though. Sanders might not make big news with his achievements, but he's made as much incremental progress in Congress as anyone could possibly be expected to - you'd just have to pay really close attention to know about it. There's a pretty decent rundown of his track record of getting progressive amendments added to otherwise awful legislation here:

Amendments in the House of Representatives are often seen as secondary vehicles to legislation that individual members sponsor, but they are an important way to move resources and build bipartisan coalitions to change the direction of the law. Despite the fact that the most right-wing Republicans in a generation controlled the House of Representatives between 1994 and 2006, the member who passed the most amendments during that time was not a right-winger like Bob Barr or John Boehner. The amendment king was, instead, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders did something particularly original, which was that he passed amendments that were exclusively progressive, advancing goals such as reducing poverty and helping the environment, and he was able to get bipartisan coalitions of Republicans who wanted to shrink government or hold it accountable and progressives who wanted to use it to empower Americans.

posted by dialetheia at 11:26 AM on October 21, 2015 [26 favorites]

I mean, she's only been elected to office once

That describes four of the last six presidents (if you're referring to the number of distinct offices, rather than the number of elections, since Clinton won her Senate seat twice).
posted by Etrigan at 11:26 AM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

Biden would make a better Secretary of State than POTUS.
I'd bet it's probably the deal he set with Hilary recently.
posted by artdrectr at 11:28 AM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

Oops, double post, ah well. It would have been interesting to see how he impacted the race.
posted by Fizz at 11:29 AM on October 21, 2015

If there is a Democrat in the White House in 2017, I also hope he or she will drop the odious practice of appointing a Republican as Secretary of Defense.
posted by Gelatin at 11:31 AM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

FORCE GHOST BIDEN / MCMIKENAMARA 2016

My slogan would be "If you liked Onion Crazy Uncle Joe Biden as your VP, you'll LOVE Gay Onion Crazy Uncle!"
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I think this is why young people don't vote

Nah. Young people don't vote because the opportunity cost of their time is high, because they're less likely to be tightly connected to their communities, and because they're still, well, immature and ignorant enough that the costs of gathering and processing information are high. How exciting or interesting the candidate is makes only a marginal difference.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:39 AM on October 21, 2015 [18 favorites]

Several counties in North Carolina, including where I grew up, do this thing called Kids' Voting. At every polling place, there's a side area with little cardboard voting booths and paper ballots. Kids can go in there and fill out a ballot while their parents are voting for real, they can get the little 'I Voted' sticker, and best of all, the ballots are actually tallied and the results reported on by the local news.

It's fucking fantastic, and I wish they did it everywhere in America. It took voting from this mysterious thing for grownups and made it accessible and relevant to kids. Plus, I know for a fact that teachers giving extra credit for proof you did Kids' Voting actually made at least a few parents remember to go vote themselves. (Plus plus, in 2000 it was nice to be able to vote against Bush, even in a fake election!)
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:50 AM on October 21, 2015 [60 favorites]

Did the No Bedtimes On Weekends referendum pass?
posted by Etrigan at 11:52 AM on October 21, 2015 [13 favorites]

CNN Wept.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:53 AM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

That describes four of the last six presidents

Building on that, I think our brutal and long presidential election requires a fairly thin resume. Democrats want hope and Republicans want someone to have a beer with them. Both of these impulses reward a candidate with just enough of a blank slate you can project your views on them.

Her biggest flaw is that her entire political career has been in the spotlight. But that was true of Reagan. And means that her negatives won't go lower.

That's not the case with anyone else. Bernie has hurt his ideological halo with the blunt reminder of his position on guns. He hasn't successfully resolved the fact that his rhetoric is fine tuned to white rural voters and sounds a bit deaf to urban voters on plenty of critical issues.

And we're constantly cycling through the shitshow of Republicans, seeing who can weather the scrutiny of the media without breaking. While someone will come out on top, they're all emerging with higher negatives than they started.
posted by politikitty at 11:57 AM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

There is no Constitutional reason at all why Biden cannot seek a third term as vice president.

For that matter, we could have a Clinton / Clinton ticket. (Just imagine the heads exploding on Fox News."
posted by Zonker at 11:59 AM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

Is it allowed for a former two term president to be in the line of succession?
posted by Mitheral at 12:01 PM on October 21, 2015

Several counties in North Carolina, including where I grew up, do this thing called Kids' Voting.

I was teaching a kindergarten class in 2008, and we held a classroom vote for President in November. Several kids cried when their (parents') preferred candidate didn't win our mini election. Nice to see that level of voter engagement.
posted by aka burlap at 12:04 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I like and respect Bernie Sanders, but I think his ability to actually get things done in Washington is just about nil. I want someone who can play the game (even if the game sucks.)
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:57 PM on October 21 [5 favorites +] [!]

The problem with this is that you've got to be careful not to let the game play you. My feeling with Hillary is that this happened a long time ago.
posted by SPUTNIK at 12:05 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

Mitheral: I don't believe it's ever been tested, but the 22nd Amendment repeated uses the phrase "elected president," so on a bare-bones plain-text reading it would seem to be allowed, yes.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:05 PM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

Is it allowed for a former two term president to be in the line of succession?

Apparently so.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:06 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Is it allowed for a former two term president to be in the line of succession?

No; Bill Clinton could not be vice president. The twelfth amendment states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 12:06 PM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

Is it allowed for a former two term president to be in the line of succession?

I don't think the constitution deals with this issue. Maybe only the Supreme Court could work it out, and then only if it happens and someone sues.
posted by dis_integration at 12:06 PM on October 21, 2015

No; Bill Clinton could not be vice president. The twelfth amendment states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

But the line of succession goes farther than VP.
posted by dis_integration at 12:07 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

Mitheral: I don't believe it's ever been tested, but the 22nd Amendment repeated uses the phrase "elected president," so on a bare-bones plain-text reading it would seem to be allowed, yes.

Probably not.
posted by Etrigan at 12:07 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

No; Bill Clinton could not be vice president. The twelfth amendment states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

But the line of succession goes farther than VP.

People ineligible to be President are not in the line of succession, even if they hold an office that normally would be -- Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, was not in the line of succession. And people don't move up into the next office in line when it becomes available -- when Agnew resigned, the Speaker of the House didn't become Vice President.
posted by Etrigan at 12:11 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

However, there's nothing in the Constitution to proscribe Bill Clinton's being named Speaker of the House, which would put him back in the line of succession, were some ill fate to befall the V.P.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:12 PM on October 21, 2015

I don't understand at all what Hillary Clinton's fervent supporters see in her. I think she's a very competent politician, and was a fantastic Secretary of State. However, as far as I can tell, her positions are a bit of a yawn, and defer to the status-quo on virtually every single issue.

From a practical standpoint, I am with OnceUponATime. I think she has a good track record, is a canny politician, I agree with her positions, and she'll make a good president.

From an emotional standpoint, I am thrilled at the idea an ambitious, intelligent, career-driven woman who has been plagued by abuse her whole life for her ambition, intelligence, and drive might overcome that noise and bullshit and reach the Presidency. In my fantasy she strides into an office across a carpet of screaming right-wing punditbabies, sits behind the desk, and yells "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?"

Part of the reason every "woman gets empowered" movie ever gets a rep for being schmaltzy and terrible is because fundamentally we know that these situations never end that way. Her career takes the backburner to her husband's, or she gets stuck in middle management, or gets ostracized by her colleagues for being "such a bitch", or has to choose between work and family, or endures her relatives' endless questions about when she's going to find a husband or stay at home or have more children. Clinton achieving the Presidency is the triumphant ending in real life. Obama's presidency demonstrated a man can be Black and still achieve the highest elected office in the USA. Clinton would be a demonstration that a woman is allowed to be her own damn person and still find success.
posted by Anonymous at 12:20 PM on October 21, 2015

People ineligible to be President are not in the line of succession

The 12th Amendment states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

However, the 22nd Amendment doesn't say that Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office, only that he can't be elected to that office.

Right?
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:23 PM on October 21, 2015

However, there's nothing in the Constitution to proscribe Bill Clinton's being named Speaker of the House, which would put him back in the line of succession, were some ill fate to befall the V.P.

Not in and of itself. Holding an office in the line of succession does not mean one is in the line of succession. If the Supreme Court ruled that the 22nd applies to any means of becoming President, then Bill Clinton could be Speaker without being second-in-line. Vice President is the only job with a requirement that one be able to be President.
posted by Etrigan at 12:25 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Seems to me that they clause implies he MUST hold that position, unelected, forever!
posted by blue_beetle at 12:26 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Does this mean Lincoln Davenport Chafee has a chance?

No.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:27 PM on October 21, 2015

This is good news.


FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:31 PM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

Charles Pierce just before the announcement: Does Joe Biden Really Think Praising Dick Cheney Is the Way to the Nomination? Say it ain't so, Joe. There's no room to Hillary's right.
posted by homunculus at 12:38 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

From an emotional standpoint, I am thrilled at the idea an ambitious, intelligent, career-driven woman who has been plagued by abuse her whole life for her ambition, intelligence, and drive might overcome that noise and bullshit and reach the Presidency. In my fantasy she strides into an office across a carpet of screaming right-wing punditbabies, sits behind the desk, and yells "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?"

YES. Thank you! I like Bernie and love many of his principles. But I want a woman president for myself and especially for my daughter. When she was four I told her about the role of the president, showed her video of Barack Obama and tried to explain elections. Her only question to me about it was, "Can a girl be president?" This is a child raised by feminist, working parents with very strong women role models in her life. And yet, she knew. She knew that this was a man's job. I was a little surprised that she thought to ask that question already. I suppose I knew she'd ask it eventually, but at 4? And then I had to tell her no, and I still get tearful remembering the resignation on her little face. It matters to kids. It matters to me! If Clinton has a shot at winning, I want her to take it.

(When I tell this anecdote to men in my life, they are often surprised that my daughter thought to ask this. They know how strong and independent she is. But I was not surprised and the other moms I talk to aren't either. I remember asking my mom the same question. My mom told me when she learned women can't play professional baseball she didn't believe it and she told her brothers, "I'm going to ask dad when he gets home!")
posted by areaperson at 12:41 PM on October 21, 2015 [17 favorites]

That's well and good, but it's also okay to want a woman president, but not THIS woman president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2015 [27 favorites]

I was teaching a kindergarten class in 2008, and we held a classroom vote for President in November

My first grade class also did this (for the 1988 election). Except the "ballots" weren't secret. And I was the child of lefty ex-hippies in the district that was currently in the middle of electing Newt Gingrich again. I was the only one in my first grade class to vote Dukakis and it won me no friends.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:46 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

Bill Clinton could be Speaker without being second-in-line

OK, but what if when Hillary gets elected she unleashes her dragons to burn down Congress and declares herself Queen of the Oval Office. Then she reveals that she and Bill are siblings directly descended from George Washington. Also, we need to build a wall across the 49th Parallel because of Canadian Ice Zombies.

What does the 22nd amendment say about that?
posted by Panjandrum at 12:50 PM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

When I was in middle school, we had a mock election, complete with someone pushing Commodore PETs from class to class to record everyone's votes. The programming was quite thorough, and fringe candidates were there side-by-side with the majors.

And that's how our middle school elected Gus Hall, Communist Party USA candidate, by a resounding majority.
posted by delfin at 12:51 PM on October 21, 2015 [15 favorites]

> They're, you know, politicians

Why is that a negative? "President" isn't an entry-level position.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:53 PM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

That's well and good, but it's also okay to want a woman president, but not THIS woman president.

But I do want this woman president. First off, if Clinton was a dude I still vote for "him" over Sanders because I'd prefer "his" viewpoint on guns and track record of working within the system.

Second, the emotional connection is specifically not simply that she's a woman, but she's the type of woman who's been labeled an unfeminine, screaming, family-destroying harpy her whole life for behaving the same way and playing the same game as her male colleagues. I wouldn't feel as enthusiastic about a woman president who'd been happier to fit into proscribed social roles throughout her career.
posted by Anonymous at 12:55 PM on October 21, 2015

not THIS woman president.

Seriously, she's been senator and Secretary of State, as well as being in the White House for eight years already as a first lady who took a bigger role than most Vice Presidents, including drafting a universal health care plan 20 years before Obamacare. She's survived everything the press can throw at her.

I just can't imagine a more qualified candidate. Why not this woman? Oh, she's "establishment"? When I hear that word, I hear "experienced" and "electable." Who was the last "anti-establishment" candidate to actually get elected?
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:57 PM on October 21, 2015 [16 favorites]

I remember our mock election for the Clinton/Bush I/Perot election. The teachers assigned us all to parties, but we could vote for whoever we wanted. I was assigned Democrat and I got really upset because I knew my dad was a Republican and I wanted to match him. I had no idea about the differences between the parties of course. I was maybe seven years old. But I threw a fit in class about it. Looking back now and seeing how far removed I am from any Republican ideas, I mostly laugh at the whole thing. But it still haunts me to a certain degree.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:57 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Who was the last "anti-establishment" candidate to actually get elected?

We have "anti-establishment" candidates in the House. They're called Tea Partiers. They're just great.
posted by Anonymous at 12:59 PM on October 21, 2015

In 2016 democrats need to look and act like the adults in the room. Tuning a contested two way primary into a protracted three way primary between the establishment candidate, the insurgent candidate, and the establishment candidate for voters who don't want to vote for Clinton wouldn't help the party at all in the general.

FWIW, I think the 2016 Democratic Primary has been one of the most civil and mature political contests in living memory. Sanders and Clinton are actually debating policy, have meaningful differences in their beliefs and philosophies, and neither is taking cheap shots at the other.

Given what we know about Joe Biden, I'd argue that he's also capable of this kind of debate, and strongly disagree that we should discourage candidates from running in a primary for being a "distraction" -- that same criticism could very easily have been levied against Sanders.

If the public is unhappy with the direction of the party, or any of the presumptive candidates, the primary season is exactly the time to bring that up.
posted by schmod at 12:59 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

The corpse in the library: "Why is that a negative? "President" isn't an entry-level position."

One of the problems (and not to say this applies to Clinton) with the current system is someone who is good at getting elected (a successful politician) isn't necessarily good to run a school district/city/county/state/country. Inherent in the system; can't see how one could control for it.
posted by Mitheral at 1:01 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I was happy to vote for Obama (whose election was the first I was eligible to participate in) but voting for Hillary -- who represents more of the same without any of Obama's ridiculous charm -- feels like a chore.

Steadily improving economy, steadily expanding civil rights. *Yawn.*
Keeping the Supreme Court from gaining a conservative majority. *Ho hum.*

Wish it were more exciting to vote for keeping the country sound and gradually getting better. Trump would sure be an interesting president!
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:04 PM on October 21, 2015 [21 favorites]

While I agree that she's very qualified, I think it's also perfectly OK to want Hillary Clinton to be president just as a giant fuck-you to everybody who dumped and ragged on her and said she wasn't being the right kind of deferential decorative First Lady and loudly announced how much they couldn't stand her but could never articulate any particularly cogent reasons why, to say nothing of the people who were more than happy to just be completely awful misogynistic shitlords about her. Just as a fuck-you to them and for no other reason, totally OK. 100% cromulent. As good a reason to vote for her as any other.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:05 PM on October 21, 2015 [25 favorites]

OnceUponATime: "I just can't imagine a more qualified candidate. Why not this woman? Oh, she's "establishment"? When I hear that word, I hear "experienced" and "electable.""

In the case of the Clintons, I'd say that "establishment" is a short way of saying that Hillary and Bill almost always voted with the majority, enforced the status quo, and adopted centrist viewpoints that ultimately did a lot of damage (Bill let DADT slip through; Hillary was all for going to war with Iraq).
posted by schmod at 1:07 PM on October 21, 2015 [10 favorites]

Why not this woman?

For me personally it's because she looks kind of like my late mom and I would spend the next 4-8 years becoming increasingly paranoid that she would suddenly for no apparent reason bring up on live TV something I said or did 25+ years ago as a reminder that to her I will always be a huge worthless fuckup.

im still going to vote for her though
posted by poffin boffin at 1:08 PM on October 21, 2015 [11 favorites]

And now that I have read Etrigan's and roomthreeseventeen's links I'd really like to see the Clinton/Clinton match up. Both for the supreme court fight and because it would keep the tea partiers focused on something stupid instead of expending effort on things that matter.
posted by Mitheral at 1:10 PM on October 21, 2015

I remember watching an interview with Bill and Hillary back in '92 and about half-way through both my ex-wife and I both said almost in unison, "I want to vote for her". 23 years later and I'm not as enthusiastic mostly due to the Iraq War vote and the way that she ran her '98 campaign but I'm still happy to vote for her and think that she'd make a great president.
posted by octothorpe at 1:15 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

as well as being in the White House for eight years already as a first lady who took a bigger role than most Vice Presidents

If she gets credit for the experience of being part of Clinton's administration, she gets credit for dismantling welfare and deregulating the banks, too. One of the most frustrating things about Clinton's campaign in 2008 was the way she tried to simultaneously take credit for all of the good stuff about the Clinton years because she was First Lady, but disclaim all of the bad stuff because she had no formal role. If being First Lady is political experience in the sense that people are arguing, she should have to take responsibility for the bad stuff, too.
posted by dialetheia at 1:17 PM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

Just as a fuck-you to them and for no other reason, totally OK.

Yeah, I started out lukewarm on her, but after seeing all the shit thrown at her from (all) directions, I'm practically jumping out of my seat to cast my vote for her, and that's -before- factoring in where we agree on policy and goals. She's going to be a great candidate and I'm really looking forward to the debates between her and the eventual GOP nominee.
posted by longdaysjourney at 1:21 PM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

If the public is unhappy with the direction of the party

Biden is too similar to Hilary on policy issues for that to be a credible reason to put him in the race. The fact the Biden has been so loudly touted as the alternative to Hilary is proof to me that this is about her gender. If Biden was a woman, he would be portrayed in the press exactly the same way.

If you support Bernie, I find the "not THIS woman" a bit more credible. But he's still a politician. His argument on guns is that you shouldn't go against such a strong contingency in your electorate. Yes, he has beliefs. But like any politician, he'll gladly set them aside to guarantee a seat at the table. He understands that his ability to be the liberal lightning rod is attributable to being a Senator with a liberal electorate. That's not the case once he's elected POTUS.

There are legitimate reasons to dislike the centrism that Hilary represents. But even then, I still think it would behoove everything to consider how must embedded sexism exists in America's portrayal of her.
posted by politikitty at 1:25 PM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

Biden is too similar to Hilary on policy issues for that to be a credible reason to put him in the race. The fact the Biden has been so loudly touted as the alternative to Hilary is proof to me that this is about her gender. If Biden was a woman, he would be portrayed in the press exactly the same way.

This is exactly how I feel. Biden is even more conservative than her on some issues. He's been touted for his honesty and outspokenness--how well would that go over if he was a she?
posted by Anonymous at 1:36 PM on October 21, 2015

If she gets credit for the experience of being part of Clinton's administration, she gets credit for dismantling welfare and deregulating the banks, too.

This makes absolutely no sense. As a member of the White House staff, you have the experience of being able to influence the President's decision. You get enormous insight into the process. But at no time do you get to override the President's decision.

It's two different things to run on the achievements of the Clinton presidency and running on the experience gained as a part of the Clinton presidency. She oversteps when she tries to take credit for the first. But even Bill doesn't deserve credit for our rosy economy, but gladly takes it.

Economically, I think there's plenty of evidence that Hilary is more progressive than Bill or Obama. That has especially put her in a hard position on the TPP, where her job was to sell it regardless of her opinion on it. Socially, she seems similar to all Democratic politicians. Refusing to act on their political beliefs unless politically advantageous.
posted by politikitty at 1:39 PM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

I will vote for Hillary. Or for Bernie. Or for whoever the Democratic nominee is as long as they don't put Joe Lieberman on the ticket, in which case I'll write in Dick Gregory and drink heavily.

I will expect very little direct good to come of it. Yes, it will prevent the Republicans from putting John Bolton on the Supreme Court, put a damper on the race to trash America's government and economy and environment and future, and give at least fifteen talk show hosts and pundits daily aneurysms. None of those are bad things. But I'm still voting against someone instead of having someone to enthusiastically vote for.

And the majority of governorships and state legislatures and House members and Senate members will remain Republican, and we will skate through four more years of uncomfortable gridlock. That's the best I can hope for, realistically.
posted by delfin at 1:46 PM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

Supreme court appointments. Just keep this in mind and you will find either Democrat palatable.
posted by notreally at 2:07 PM on October 21, 2015 [8 favorites]

The fact the Biden has been so loudly touted as the alternative to Hilary is proof to me that this is about her gender.

Consider that the last time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, with all the same establishment advantages she enjoys now, she was beaten in the primaries by the clown show of a relatively unknown, junior senator without any significant backing. I don't recall anyone saying that voting for Barack Obama then was the act of a misogynist. Then, as now, it seems the voters understood that Mrs. Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate.

The Democrat establishment has put all of its eggs into a candidate that won't even suffer a real primary challenge, but instead has her challengers making campaign commercials for her "we sick of hearing about your e-mail." Can you imagine any Republican challenger throwing a line like that to Donald Trump?

Go ahead and imagine it's about gender, or race, but the track record of American elections is grounded in retail politics. Bill Clinton had it, Obama had it, even Bush had it. Trump seems to have it in spades.

Al Gore did not. Hillary Clinton does not. And I don't know how you ignore that math.
posted by three blind mice at 2:07 PM on October 21, 2015

> Clinton / Clinton ticket. (Just imagine the heads exploding on Fox News."

Chelsea is 35 and has no tricky constitutional questions attached.
posted by morganw at 2:10 PM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

she was beaten in the primaries by the clown show of a relatively unknown, junior senator without any significant backing

You mean the twice-undefeated, iron-disciplined, well-oiled political machine that was the Barack Obama campaign team? Yes, quite the clown show, that.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:21 PM on October 21, 2015 [13 favorites]

Consider that the last time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, with all the same establishment advantages she enjoys now, she was beaten in the primaries by the clown show of a relatively unknown, junior senator without any significant backing. I don't recall anyone saying that voting for Barack Obama then was the act of a misogynist.

Wow. Obama's campaign was a "clown show"? Where were you in 2008?

And there were accusations of misogyny because plenty of Obama's supporters were of the same Anybody-But-Hillary camp that you see in Sanders's campaign--though not quite as many because there is a good overlap between the Anybody-But-Hillary and All-Lives-Matter crowd.

Can you imagine any Republican challenger throwing a line like that to Donald Trump?

Because the Republican field is currently an actual clown show, complete with all twenty of them rolling out of the tiny car.
posted by Anonymous at 2:23 PM on October 21, 2015

Chelsea is 35 and has no tricky constitutional questions attached.

I would watch this movie.
posted by valkane at 2:28 PM on October 21, 2015 [10 favorites]

Something that nobody ever mentions is that Obama actually lost the popular vote in the 2008 primary, beating Clinton through delegate math.
posted by gngstrMNKY at 2:34 PM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

> I was happy to vote for Obama (whose election was the first I was eligible to participate in) but voting for Hillary -- who represents more of the same without any of Obama's ridiculous charm -- feels like a chore.

Welcome to adulthood. Sure, you can have candy for dinner if you want to, but it's also entirely up to you to make sure the trash gets taken out.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:42 PM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

Welcome to adulthood. Sure, you can have candy for dinner if you want to, but it's also entirely up to you to make sure the trash gets taken out.

While it may have strengths as a moral code, this turns out to be a really bad way persuade people and drive voter turnout. Unless I'm forgetting the incredible success of the "John Kerry: Eat Your Broccoli" campaign, that is.
posted by dialetheia at 2:48 PM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

I don't recall anyone saying that voting for Barack Obama then was the act of a misogynist. Then, as now, it seems the voters understood that Mrs. Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate.

I don't think voting for Obama was the act of a misogynist. But I did think that many Obama voters held misogynistic views of Clinton. If you were in the weeds, there was absolutely grumblings on either side. But bringing up gender necessarily brought up race, making it an issue difficult to bring up on a larger scale.

Obama won because he was an unknown. As a candidate, he was the equivalent of George W Bush. Short resume, willing to let you project your hopes and dreams for his administration. Both selected policy advisers who indicated a different approach to governance than their stump speech indicated.

Ignorance fueled Obama's primary efforts. But I think that's the case of the modern campaign. Some of that ignorance was incredibly optimistic. Some was cynical and hateful.
posted by politikitty at 2:55 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Something that nobody ever mentions is that Obama actually lost the popular vote in the 2008 primary, beating Clinton through delegate math.

Meh, some states caucus for delegates instead of vote count, and Obama won a lot of these states, so it's kind of hard to play that card in a primary.
posted by dis_integration at 2:57 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

*Full disclosure. Ardent Obama supporter. But I supported him because I felt he was more centrist than Clinton. Many people make the assumption that Hilary will hold similarly centrist positions as Bill. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption, though the record is thin on that point.
posted by politikitty at 3:01 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Economically, I think there's plenty of evidence that Hilary is more progressive than Bill or Obama

She's only aping some progressive policies because that's the mood of the party. Her college funding plan is enlightening on this score, because it has a work requirement, eerily similar to one of the more onerous components from the Clinton era welfare reforms. She doesn't support single-payer healthcare and she sure as shit shouldn't get a Mulligan for her Iraq vote - She is no progressive; she is part of DLC move to the right that has completely sold out the liberal/progressive members of the democratic party - and frankly we're fucking sick of it.

As for Biden as an alternative to Clinton being misogyny though, that seems spot on, he's certainly no progressive either. About the only good thing I can say about a vote for Clinton is that it is a vote for the first female president, which is unequivocally a great thing, but why couldn't it be Warren.
posted by Colby_Longhorn at 3:12 PM on October 21, 2015 [13 favorites]

Damn. I had "weary of email fooferall, Clinton says fuck it, decides not to run/is pressured to bow out, then, due to centrist panic at the idea of Sanders being nominated, Biden is begged to run as a centrist white guy candidate" in the election pool. I guess that's kind of like picking a World Cup bracket heavily based on a final four involving Japan, Australia, England, and America. I guess I'll have to wait for the next election betting pool.
posted by Ghidorah at 3:17 PM on October 21, 2015

I also voted for Obama over Clinton in 2008 in part because I thought he was more centrist than Hillary, or at least more willing to work with Republicans to get things done (and that Republicans might be more willing to work with him.) That was a big theme of his famous 2004 Democratic National Convention speech -- that we need to be able to respect each other and work together. (Didn't work out that way, unfortunately.) Also, I was been living in Illinois, voted for him in the senate in 2004. He was always a centrist.

And I was still holding the Iraq war vote very much against Hillary, but 1) she has publicly admitted that this was a mistake and 2) I don't think a former Secretary of State is likely to undervalue the importance of diplomacy and multilateralism. I am now willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on having learned her lesson.

And 3) I thought she took the loss to Obama with very good grace and diligently supported the man who beat her. This improved my opinion of her character and her sincerityr.

I actually see very little daylight between her policy positions and Bernie's (I was looking at both their "issues" pages today, and they're strikingly similar.)

I am pretty sure that Hillary would love to implement single payer health care but knows it won't happen any time soon. And if college subsidies are going to happen at all, work requirements are a good counter-argument to the "lazy students begging for handouts of my money" rhetoric that the Republicans will inevitably deploy against it, which makes it slightly more likely to actually happen (though still not very likely.) I think both of these are examples of Hillary being less ideologically pure but significantly more practical than Bernie, and thus likely to achieve more net good.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:22 PM on October 21, 2015 [8 favorites]

Consider that the last time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, with all the same establishment advantages she enjoys now, she was beaten in the primaries by the clown show of a relatively unknown, junior senator without any significant backing. I don't recall anyone saying that voting for Barack Obama then was the act of a misogynist.

I didn't work on the primary campaign but I spent five months working for the Obama campaign for the general election and it was the most organized, well oiled and professional campaign that I've ever been involved with. I've campaigned for Dukakis, Kerry and a house rep named Altmire and none of those organizations were even in the same league as the Obama campaign.

I'd show up at the neighborhood headquarters for canvasing and immediately get handed a packet with a printed script, flyers to hand out, a print-out of voter addresses and voting history, and a Google map with each house circled. The packet always had just enough houses to hit in about a two-and-a-half hour shift. I'd never seen anything like it.
posted by octothorpe at 3:26 PM on October 21, 2015 [20 favorites]

The 6 biggest policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

Personally, I see a lot of daylight.
posted by saul wright at 3:28 PM on October 21, 2015 [4 favorites]

This morning there was a clip of the head of a firemens association commenting that he had a meeting and he was sure Joe was going to run. Is that disinformation by Biden? I suspect Biden has been getting increasingly annoying pressure from the anti-hillory faction to jump in as an alternate.

It'll be interesting to see if that faction moves towards Sanders. No stats but I get a general feel of the zietgiest that there is a significant chunk of dems that can't stand her but have not confidence in Sanders, perhaps some of the polls that show him beating Trump will even that out.
posted by sammyo at 3:28 PM on October 21, 2015

No; Bill Clinton could not be vice president. The twelfth amendment states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

He's not constitutionally ineligible to the office of President. The twenty second amendment (which I assume is the one you think excludes him) says:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Bill Clinton is not able to be elected President. He is not, however, constitutionally banned from being President (as he meets the other requirements). As such, he can be elected as Vice President.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:30 PM on October 21, 2015

She's only aping some progressive policies because that's the mood of the party.

THIS. For those who asked, "why not this woman" -- this why I don't want to cast a vote for her. I don't believe that she believes anything that she says. She wants to be President. She like Aaron Burr, if we're going down the Hamilton road.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:31 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

> Clinton / Clinton ticket. (Just imagine the heads exploding on Fox News."

Chelsea is 35 and has no tricky constitutional questions attached.
posted by morganw at 10:10 PM on October 21 [+] [!]

George Clinton is the same age as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden (and there's precedent).
posted by rollick at 3:33 PM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

work requirements are a good counter-argument to the "lazy students begging for handouts of my money" rhetoric that the Republicans will inevitably deploy against it, which makes it slightly more likely to actually happen (though still not very likely.)

Hasn't this been categorically disproved by now? Work and need requirements weaken support for programs like this by making it something that only poor people need or care about, as opposed to an entitlement for everyone like Social Security.
posted by dialetheia at 3:33 PM on October 21, 2015 [5 favorites]

The 6 biggest policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

Those are philosophical and rhetorical differences, maybe, but I don't actually see any policy proposals on that list. Their policy proposals are less different than their rhetoric.

I think this quote from that link really does get to the heart of what kinds of differences in policy there are, though. As to why Hillary didn't support single payer in 2008: Her reasons were pragmatic. "Talking about single-payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine," she's said. ... Clinton did support one key proposal that never became law — a public option to let people choose government-provided insurance. And she suggested that if it was popular, it could lead to a more extensive overhaul of the system. ... Clinton's belief that single-payer had no chance of getting through even a Democratic Congress (let alone a Republican one) is very widely shared in Washington. Indeed, Sanders would likely agree with her. To pass broad policy changes like single payer, he believes, we need a "political revolution" in this country that would elect a very different Congress. Still, it's clear that Sanders would loudly and consistently advocate for single-payer, attempting to build support for it.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:35 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

There is a very thin line between pragmatic "what is possible" thinking versus accepting your opponents framing that an idea is so bad as to be "impossible". It's part of why I don't want to vote for Hilary. She seems to accept her opponents views of what the American people will support over and over. That's not principled. That's not pragmatic. That's defeatist.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:40 PM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

downtohisturtles: as a kid, I felt obligated to be a Republican because my mother was, and Ronald Reagan seemed like a nice dude with all of those jelly beans. Grew out of that during the teen years.

I'm with schroedinger: "Obama's presidency demonstrated a man can be Black and still achieve the highest elected office in the USA. Clinton would be a demonstration that a woman is allowed to be her own damn person and still find success." Damn right. And how lucky we'd be to be alive right now if that happened?*

* BECAUSE WE'RE NON-STOP WITH THE HAMILTON REFERENCES!
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:43 PM on October 21, 2015 [7 favorites]

If you're not a liberal-progressive then she's a great candidate with a very strong chance at winning, and her presidency would be historic, but my point was she's not progressive.

The reason I, and other progressives, want someone to stand up for single-payer is that anything short of single-payer is bad policy. Our current model is completely broken; it doesn't take advantage economies of scale the way single payer does and it doesn't take advantage of the free market pricing model the way an actual free market approach would (vs. employer provided insurance which causes enormous market distortions). We need leadership to move the nation back toward our progressive roots, not someone who is going to start negotiating from a weakened position and actually campaign for shitty policy because she's determined good policy is unattainable.

And as for saying that her Iraq vote was "a mistake", that's clearly unacceptable right. I mean maybe you accept it, but I don't have to go into a long winded explanation of why someone would think that that is ridiculous, cause that's just ridiculous on its face. Now if she would have given a "Did I Do That?" a la Steve Urkel, I would consider giving her a Mulligan - style points at least.

Progressives want a leader, and she just votes for the popular position. We'll vote Sanders this time around and see what happens.
posted by Colby_Longhorn at 3:54 PM on October 21, 2015 [11 favorites]

Mulligan

HERCULES MULLIGAN

Sorry, I'll stop.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:55 PM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

I am 31, so I am going to briefly recount my perceptions of the Clintons through the years because I think that I am on the older edge of the younger side of a generation gap in perceptions of the Clintons among left leaning Americans. Visible evidence of that gap exists in polling showing that Sander's support skews remarkably young, and in perceptions of the recent debate, where younger people online thought Sanders won, while polling that was more representative of the range of ages in the population of Democratic primary voters indicated most people thought Hillary did better.

My first memory of Bill Clinton was watching his speech at the 92 Democratic convention accepting the nomination. I was too young to understand what he was talking about, but he seemed like a commanding speaker. My first conscious awareness of politics was the Lewinsky scandals, and I remember sharing the opinion of most people around me that "what happens between a man and his wife is their business" and basically thinking the Republicans were awful. I also was a bit of late night comedy show junky, so I remember a lot of the jokes.

Also around that time, I became almost obsessively interested in politics and history. As I compared what I knew of traditional Democratic positions and left politics to what Bill Clinton seemed to represent, I came to the conclusion that Bill Clinton and the rest of the democrats actually were very right wing. Of course, with time I came to understand that those positions were in reaction to the electoral success of conservative Republicans, but even so the impression stuck.

I was too young to vote in the 2000 election, but I still followed it closely and even helped at a Gore rally. It was around that time that I really started to notice that Democrats didn't really seem to share my values. You might think that would have led to me supporting Nader, but even then I was afraid of what Bush would bring, so I would have voted for Gore if I could. Still, I remember wishing the Democratic party would more aggressively take on issues such as climate change, racial inequality, and campaign finance, to name a few. I also remember reading that Hillary was going to run for Senate in New York, but I didn't really pay much attention.

The next political event, aside from 9/11, that I really remember was the Iraq War, and how it seemed like every institution of power in this country suddenly decided to lie. I also remember Hillary Clinton being part of that lie with her vote for the war. I supported Howard Dean in the primarily because he was the anti-war candidate, but his campaign was over by the time the primary got to my state. I voted for Kerry because I was afraid of what four more years of Bush would bring, but of course he lost and fears were realized.

For the next four years, it seemed the entire country was falling apart. The Iraq occupation blew up into a quagmire; an entire U.S. city drowned; and finally the economy collapsed. What was disturbing to me, though, was how unsurprising everything that happened was and how it seemed like I could see everything coming all the way back in the late 90's. As it relates to the Democrats, they seemed almost as responsible for the problems as the Republicans, Hillary Clinton included. If the Democrats weren't lighting the fires, they sure didn't seem like they were doing anything to put them out.

So, that is why I supported Obama in the primary, and my support of Obama came even before I learned of the role the deregulation of the financial sector Bill Clinton signed into law played in the financial crisis. Since that time I have come to the conclusion that my perception that Obama was to the left of Hillary on economic issues was probably wrong, but at the same time, the distance between the two was narrow either way. Plus, I grew to learn that the problems I perceived with the political system in this country were larger than any one candidate, and I appreciate that Obama seems to have repaired at least some of the damage caused by the aggressive U.S. foreign policy of the Bush years, particularly the agreement with Iran.

Still, as I look around, I see may of my peers who don't seem to be doing well. Most now have healthcare, but housing and higher education are more expensive, while employment paying "middle class" wages seems scarce. As far as retirement, it doesn't seem likely that many of us will have the pensions or even healthy 401ks that many individuals in older cohorts do. Plus, the infrastructure around us seems old, every day we hear stories about cuts to schools and colleges, and stories about the immanent damage of climate change and the suffering caused by continued systemic racism also seem to predominate.

All of that is why, when I look at a politician like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, although I would vote for them against a Republican, I wouldn't do so excitedly. To me, they both seem connected to the forces that seem to be preventing this country from making necessary changes: powerful entrenched economic interests. While it is plausible to me that personally Hillary is more progressive than both her husband and Obama on some issues, I see that progressivism as being within a narrow band of political thought constrained both by fears of a right wing electorate and the need to appease financial backers. After the collapse of 2008, I am ready for a different kind of politics, and I think many people my age and younger are as well. While some might attribute that to youthful idealism, I attribute it more to necessity and even self interest. What people my age also didn't grow up with was constant propaganda denigrating "socialism". Instead, over the past 15 years, the failure of the post-1980 American model of economics have become all too apparent.

All that being said, I recognize that the current Democratic primary doesn't matter domestically because its basically a contest to see who gets to see their agenda die in a Republican congress. I also recognize that it is important for Democrats to at least hold the White House, so of course I would vote for Hillary in the general if she is the nominee. Finally, I am sure that Hillary is very competent as far as establishment politicians of her generation go, and I am happy that she has adopted progressive positions in the primary, even if those positions are watered down and I can't really take them seriously. I just feel it is important to express why everybody isn't "Ready for Hillary" in the sense that they are excited about voting for her, and why they might actually want "the crazy socialist guy".
posted by eagles123 at 4:00 PM on October 21, 2015 [25 favorites]

If we're going to continue the Hamilton references:

Can we please acknowledge that it's insane elitism that he endorsed Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr? That is Bernie Sanders backing Paul Ryan, because he's a pretty wonkish fellow, over Arlen Specter. He knows Thomas Jefferson will pursue policies he disagrees with, but will make bad policies in a principled way.

Can you imagine voting for someone who would restrict abortion, but it's cool, because at least he's authentic and pursued it in a principled way?

And yet people think it's a reasonable decision because we can't identify with the political issues of the era.

While it's easy to mock Burr, Burr and Washington stand on the side of democracy. Jefferson and Hamilton were elitists who liked democracy because it created a power vacuum in which they could pursue their own vision of good government. (I'm sure a careful reading of history blurs that line. But this is a pretty straight read from the mythos as presented in the musical)
posted by politikitty at 4:27 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I like Biden like that regular guy who's great to have a drink with or have at a dinner party, but maybe not in the role of a business partner or representing the company. There's been a few too many gaffs and off-the-cuff remarks and friendly hands-on with female constituents for my liking.
posted by King Sky Prawn at 4:33 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

That's well and good, but it's also okay to want a woman president, but not THIS woman president.

Yes, of course it's okay. There were voters who said "Not this president" about Obama. Maybe they hoped to wait for Colin Powell to run, for example. But I'm not sure if Powell supporters, again for example, were quite so..... dismissive .... of African Americans who primarily wanted to vote Obama because they wanted a president who looked like them, and because of what that symbol could mean to their kids.
posted by areaperson at 5:21 PM on October 21, 2015

"He knows Thomas Jefferson will pursue policies he disagrees with, but will make bad policies in a principled way.
Can you imagine voting for someone who would restrict abortion, but it's cool, because at least he's authentic and pursued it in a principled way?"

My impression of the situation is that in the case of Burr, you would have no idea what he's for until he's in office (if then), and it could be anything, and he was more likely to go with what everyone else was doing at the time. So maybe it was more of a case of buying something you know you don't like but you know what it is, vs. ending up with god knows what in the surprise bag that might be even worse?

But either way, "we know it's lose-lose" and when you hope EVERY candidate loses and think they all suck, but people are insisting that you pick a side....you come up with something to base your decision on. You look for SOME small positive trait in your enemies so that you pick one.

*shrug?*
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:42 PM on October 21, 2015

I stick (like, uh, Aaron Burr's peanut butter) to my prediction that Hillary will win in a landslide.

The more interesting question is that of VP. To which I say - anybody but O'Malley, please.
posted by sallybrown at 5:58 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

I like and respect Bernie Sanders, but I think his ability to actually get things done in Washington is just about nil. I want someone who can play the game (even if the game sucks.)

That's the main reason why I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary. But ugh, the sense of entitlement just radiates off her. It's as if she thinks the Dems owe her for staying with Bill through all the bimbo eruptions, the blue dress mess, and when the wing nuts tried to impeach him. It's gonna pay off I guess because nobody campaigns better than Bill and she'll do well to have him in her corner.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution to proscribe Bill Clinton's being named Speaker of the House, which would put him back in the line of succession, were some ill fate to befall the V.P.

That sounds like a future plot line on House of Cards.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:33 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

I understand the argument. It just doesn't hold up. Give me an instance you would ENDORSE a pure ideologue of your opposing party over a flip floppy moderate.

Storm Thurmond vs George Wallace. Ted Cruz vs Mitt Romney. I can't find the ideologue I'd prefer.
posted by politikitty at 6:36 PM on October 21, 2015

Once or twice a week I put on my Sanders t-shirt and my US Navy unit hat and go about my business. I enjoy putting some people in a quandary--should they thank me for my service or call me a pinko? (I live in a pretty red state.)

Thus far, politics and policy in the 21st century has been mostly defined by two critical dynamics: the wildly destabilizing imperial foreign policy of the US in the wake of 9-11 and the late-to-end-game push to consolidate a soft form of corporate fascism.

My choice of candidate depends upon the respective orientations each pol has towards these tendencies. Hence, in my view Biden would be the worst choice of the three viable candidates in the Democratic party. (Nice guy...but Delaware!)

Personally, I'm playing the gadfly long game. In my view, the most critical need of the Democratic party is to develop a fairly deep roster of up-and-coming potential office holders who roughly share my orientation with respect to the two dynamics noted above. Sanders campaign is an opening to discuss such matters with younger citizens who want to be engaged but lack a "bibliography," so to speak.

I'm glad that Biden is such a jovial fellow who means well. I'm content to suggest that his influence ought to be as one voice among many--and not the head honcho.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:42 PM on October 21, 2015 [9 favorites]

Some interesting points, politikitty. Here's some counterpoint.

Hamilton's preference for Jefferson wasn't elitist, imo, though it is true that Hamilton had deeply held beliefs about the vagaries of uninformed mob-like political constituencies. Rather, Hamilton knew that there were certain "lines" that Jefferson would not cross. For example, he knew Jefferson would not run off to the west to try to either a) collude with the Spanish or b) set up an independent Burrland. Hamilton's judgment was a character-based assessment of Burr, contrasted with Jefferson.

Lumping Washington and Burr together as pro-democratic is an unusual take. I think it's mistaken. Washington was preoccupied with his personal "elitism" as demonstrated by his lifelong obsession, on occasion with Hamlet-like waffle-ishness, with rectitude, honor, and other characteristics associated with contemporary notions of what is meant to be a true gentleman. So, aside from the fact that Washington and Burr did not like each other, the way they respectively presented themselves to the public was at odds, too. Burr was always the self-indulgent, "what's in it for me" kind of person. And that is why so many people did not trust him.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:03 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's as if she thinks the Dems owe her for staying with Bill through all the bimbo eruptions, the blue dress mess, and when the wing nuts tried to impeach him. It's gonna pay off I guess because nobody campaigns better than Bill and she'll do well to have him in her corner.

This is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. Let's ignore Clinton's entire political career and pretend like all of her successes are due to her husband. She's just a grubby ladder-climber who latched onto to a talented man and used him for her devices.

Jesus fucking Christ. Hillary Rodham was accomplished before she met Bill and she's fought her entire life to maintain an independent career. Which is apparently a cardinal sin for First Ladies, as we saw during the Bill Clinton years.

I would seriously like to know where you get the impression she feels she's entitled because of Bill. Seriously, I need some kind of indication other than your feelings.
posted by Anonymous at 7:58 PM on October 21, 2015

Looks like Jeb! is trying to up his creeper factor now that Uncle Joe isn't running.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

I plan on voting for Sanders in the primaries, because he best represents my positions, but part of me feels like yes, Clinton would be the most effective President of all of the nominees. Her time as Secretary of State doesn't just speak to her capacity for solid and nuanced foreign policy - though it does. It speaks to her ability to manage a large and unwieldy governmental bureaucracy.

This is also why I give her a bit of a pass on her Snowden answer. To me, that wasn't triangulation. That was her being asked to comment on a transgression that was committed more directly against her in her office than against anyone else. Did we really expect her, on the national stage, to say that she was okay with that?
posted by Navelgazer at 9:29 PM on October 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

This is also why I give her a bit of a pass on her Snowden answer. To me, that wasn't triangulation. That was her being asked to comment on a transgression that was committed more directly against her in her office than against anyone else. Did we really expect her, on the national stage, to say that she was okay with that?

I didn't expect her to, but if she wanted me to respect her, then yes. She's the "Hold your nose and vote for less-evil" candidate, so she'll fight for SCOTUS picks, which has value, but there's no hope or optimism there. Not that she's campaigning for my hope/support/money, just my vote. So fair's fair, if she wins the primary.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:30 PM on October 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Biden was for people who wanted a candidate even closer to corporate american and wall street than hillary, who also liked to blow shit up.

Isn't Clinton more hawkish than Biden? I thought Clinton and some other women in the administration were the most supportive of invading Libya, while Biden and some other men in the administration were more skeptical.
posted by John Cohen at 10:51 PM on October 21, 2015

In 2008 I was in the tank for Obama mainly because I liked his books and he was from hometown. I expected him to break my heart just like Bradley and Dean had done before and I would suck it up and support the Democratic nominee just as I had in the past. I didn't dislike Hillary but I wasn't looking forward to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle continuing.

On the other hand, I really hated the Edwards' supporters insistence that the nom HAD to be a centrist Southern white male to win the general. Better Obama than Clinton but better Clinton than Edwards.

Then, Obama started winning. More importantly - he survived all the attacks and mudslinging. The impossible was possible and I now wanted Obama to be the nom.

However, even then I knew the difference between Obama and Clinton was slim. Just like the difference between Clinton and Sanders is slim. (For the two years they were in the senate, they voted the same way 93% of the time.) As for Clinton being too much of a politician and y'know if she stands for nothing, what will she fall for? She has been consistent on some things like health care, gay rights, and reproductive rights. As for the rest, she can "evolve" just like Obama has. And it will be our job to help her evolve the right way, just like with our current president.

As for Burr, it's interesting to wonder what would have happened if an abolitionist who supported a strong central government had been our third president instead of a states right's slave-owner. It seems at the very worst, he would have been John Adams part II.

But hey, at least Mr. Age of Enlightenment had convictions, right?
posted by bgal81 at 11:02 PM on October 21, 2015 [6 favorites]

I'm not supporting Sanders, simply because the standard bearer of the Democratic Party should not be an old white guy. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of the old white guys. The Democratic Party is about inclusion, diversity, and looking towards the future. We genuinely need more young people, minorities, women, and marginalized groups to run and win offices and I think Obama and hopefully Clinton will give a boost to that.

Plus, Sanders seems a little grumpy and occasionally even angry. I understand he's passionate and there's a lot of anger about issues like income inequality. But I don't think a potential president should be grumpy or angry as often as that. It doesn't make the Party look good and it doesn't make the US look good either.
posted by FJT at 11:57 PM on October 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

I dunno, after 8 years of cool as ice Vulcan Obama I'd like a President to lose his shit every now and then and go "Jesus Christ, what the FUCK is wrong with you assholes?!"
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 2:14 AM on October 22, 2015 [9 favorites]

Hillary Clinton worked against workers rights as legal council for Walmart. Just repeat that fact barbecue that's really all you need to know about her. Almost anyone the real left side of the Democrats runs against her will be better.

I'd imagine Sanders would be exactly the same sort of disappointment as Obama. At least when Sanders trots out TPP, it'll be because the institutions like the USTR that control all the information he sees want it, not because he truly believes in giving corporations ownership of everything.

In concrete terms, Sanders might slightly weaken the corporations' hold on the USTR through "moderate" appointments, not promoting the most extreme free trade ideologues, etc., while Clinton would strengthen it by appointing free trade ideologues the corporations support irregardless of their connection with reality.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:15 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

How many times has someone castigated Bill for staying in a marriage whose trust he violated?

He got impeached for the violating-trust part, so it's not like he's skated by any marriage-related angst because he's a man.
posted by Etrigan at 6:14 AM on October 22, 2015

Mod note: A few comments deleted. Sorry for the delayed delete and deleting some well-put-together responses. Going after Hillary for how she handles her marriage is just weird and ends up being pretty sexist even if it's not meant that way, and combining it with a sarcastic "aw poor baby" thing is, at best, terrible judgment. Go ahead and critique her political positions, and leave this other stuff out of it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:14 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. Let's ignore Clinton's entire political career and pretend like all of her successes are due to her husband. She's just a grubby ladder-climber who latched onto to a talented man and used him for her devices.

Jesus fucking Christ. Hillary Rodham was accomplished before she met Bill and she's fought her entire life to maintain an independent career. Which is apparently a cardinal sin for First Ladies, as we saw during the Bill Clinton years.

I would seriously like to know where you get the impression she feels she's entitled because of Bill. Seriously, I need some kind of indication other than your feelings.

Well, my earlier mostly (and apparently poorly expressed) sarcastic comments to this got deleted so all I'll say is this:

I don't like Hillary, haven't liked her probably ever, for many political reasons that I'm not interested in getting into here. The most significant of them have nothing to do with her being a woman, or being an accomplished woman, or being a woman who was cheated on by her husband.

The next presidential election is probably the most critical one in recent memory given that having the GOP control all three branches of the government would be a disaster, in my opinion. Hillary appears to have the far best chance of being elected and I'm prepared to vote for her if she wins the nomination. But I don't like her, much the same way many didn't like Obama--for reasons--but voted for him anyway.

I think the hardcore Hillary supporters might be well-advised to stop expecting everyone to have the same amount of ardor for her that they do because some might find it off-putting enough just to stay home and not vote at all. I think those who consider themselves left-leaning, progressive, liberal, etc., can agree that would likely lead to an outcome none of us want or wish for the future of our country.
posted by fuse theorem at 7:28 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yes, it's best if people stop campaigning a full year before the election and just hope the coronation goes smoothly.

Anyway, Happy Benghazi Day everyone! Will Hillary finally admit to her nefarious scheme involving a US consulate, Planned Parenthood, Vince Foster, and Obamacare? Can the Republicans finally impeach Obama and vanquish the Clintons???
posted by bgal81 at 7:38 AM on October 22, 2015 [3 favorites]

I think the hardcore Hillary supporters might be well-advised to stop expecting everyone to have the same amount of ardor for her that they do because some might find it off-putting enough just to stay home and not vote at all. I think those who consider themselves left-leaning, progressive, liberal, etc., can agree that would likely lead to an outcome none of us want or wish for the future of our country.

I'm not on Team Hillary by any means, but there's a certain amount of defensiveness that one should expect when making arguments about her marriage and not her qualifications. With that in mind, this:

for many political reasons that I'm not interested in getting into here. The most significant of them have nothing to do with her being a woman, or being an accomplished woman, or being a woman who was cheated on by her husband

is really not helping your cause. The political reasons you're not voting for her would actually be a perfectly fine thing to get into here in a thread about another candidate who many are comparing to her on the issues, but for some reason you're not willing to get into those political reasons. At the same time, you had some comments deleted that talked about some other things, and now have chosen to reiterate that those other things are still reasons, even if they're not the "most significant."

Look, vote for who you want, for whatever reasons you want, but if you're going to keep raising the issue of her marriage, Hillary supporters would be right to question exactly why that's relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:52 AM on October 22, 2015 [7 favorites]

I thought he was more centrist than Hillary, or at least more willing to work with Republicans to get things done (and that Republicans might be more willing to work with him.)

Then-Senator Clinton was lauded by Republicans for her ability to work with Republicans and still is.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:02 AM on October 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

Look, vote for who you want, for whatever reasons you want, but if you're going to keep raising the issue of her marriage, Hillary supporters would be right to question exactly why that's relevant.

It's not relevant. I'm sorry I ever brought it up, even sarcastically. I'll probably not be expressing anything that could be remotely considered negative about Hillary on Metafilter again since I don't seem to be able to do that without drawing fire and making myself look like something I'm not.

Anyway, Happy Benghazi Day everyone! Will Hillary finally admit to her nefarious scheme involving a US consulate, Planned Parenthood, Vince Foster, and Obamacare? Can the Republicans finally impeach Obama and vanquish the Clintons???

This right here I agree with. It's insane to me the way the Clintons are attributed the blame for all manner of political "problems" and mysteries. Listening to right-wing talk radio is often a scary experience; I only subject myself to it because it's often beneficial to know how the other side thinks.
posted by fuse theorem at 8:15 AM on October 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'll probably not be expressing anything that could be remotely considered negative about Hillary on Metafilter again since I don't seem to be able to do that without drawing fire and making myself look like something I'm not.

Well, this is an overreaction. If you scroll up you will see plenty of criticisms of her that have not drawn the same ire. The difference is they are all policy-focused, and yours were explicitly gendered. You'd can expect a similar response if your criticisms of Obama were "I think he pulls the race card" or "He only got to where he is through affirmative action."
posted by Anonymous at 8:49 AM on October 22, 2015

Clinton is a formidable pol. I say this with measured respect even though I have some disagreement with her on both foreign and economic tendencies. If she is elected, I hope she proves me wrong. Interestingly, bgal, I was a strong Clinton supporter in 2008 and was very skeptical of Obama--a skepticism which has been validated by these past two terms (at least for me.)

A lot of my discontent comes down to this: I want a candidate that is closer to Main Street than Wall Street. Not only for economic reasons, but also with the knowledge that even the old "white shoes" foreign policy crowd comes from the same milieu. In short, we need a mini-revolution in leadership in this country, drawing inspiration from different sources than those which have guided both parties into the quasi-monolithic corporate condominium sharing of power we've experienced in the past 40 years.

Part of the responsibility for ensuring that whomever becomes president is truly responsive to Main Street is ours, as citizens. Forgive me for forgetting the precise circumstances just now, but the FDR anecdote about "pressures" is true. Once, when presented with a policy proposal that he personally favored, but felt politically was not possible at that moment, FDR replied, more or less: "That's a great idea, now go out and make me do it." In other words, creating the right political climate for certain changes is something that regular folks have to actively participate in.

Lastly, on Burr: Isenberg's recent attempt to "rehabilitate" Burr falls short, imo. More balanced is Milton Lomask's two volume bio. (1, 2) It's my view that the fellow was a scoundrel, but I'm biased. It seems to me that the best way to challenge one's bias is to keep digging deeper. So, my personal bias, as well as Isenberg's tendency to commit the fallacy of "presentism" and Lomask's somewhat sympathetic account of Burr needs context. A quick intro to that would be to read Gordon Wood's, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, in which his main theme is the transition from the Founder's attachment to the concept of disinterested public service into what we are more familiar with today--a more competitive politics more oriented towards the self-interest of various factions and groups within our diverse community.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:49 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

I think the hardcore Hillary supporters might be well-advised to stop expecting everyone to have the same amount of ardor for her that they do because some might find it off-putting enough just to stay home and not vote at all.

Also, this is a nasty bit of tone-policing, blackmailing crap. Do you say the same thing to people "feeling the Bern"?
posted by Anonymous at 8:51 AM on October 22, 2015

Today's Benghazi hearing is 100% a fishing expedition designed to collect Hillary Clinton sound bites that can be used against her, context-free, in GOP attack ads during the general election.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:02 AM on October 22, 2015 [6 favorites]

What We Would Have Said if Joe Biden Had Run
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:20 AM on October 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

What We Would Have Said if Joe Biden Had Run

"Chief, I bet this stone has at least one more drop of blood in it!"
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 AM on October 22, 2015 [5 favorites]

What We Would Have Said if Joe Biden Had Run

Jesus, was someone out sick today or what?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:29 AM on October 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

"I dunno, after 8 years of cool as ice Vulcan Obama I'd like a President to lose his shit every now and then and go "Jesus Christ, what the FUCK is wrong with you assholes?!"

Much as I'd enjoy that, I don't think it would go over well with the general population.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:35 AM on October 22, 2015

Much as I'd enjoy that, I don't think it would go over well with the general population.

Tell that to the Republican frontrunner! That's basically his entire shtick, and people are loving it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:39 AM on October 22, 2015 [9 favorites]

It's my view that the fellow was a scoundrel

I don't disagree with that point. But so what?

Imagine proof comes out that Hilary literally murdered Vince Foster and there was no recourse to removing her from the ballot, would you endorse Ben Carson because the dude fully drinks the koolaid he's drinking?

Should LBJ have not been president because he was a bully? Kennedy and Clinton were certainly scoundrels. Thank God we didn't elect Nixon, because that President Goldwater really believed his policies.

I promise I'm not trying to derail. I think this point is incredibly relevant to the political decisions we're making today. You say you understand Hamilton's decision. Under what circumstances would you make a similar one?
posted by politikitty at 9:42 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'll skip the insulting tone, which implies that I am not a thoughtful person, and go right to your question:

"You say you understand Hamilton's decision. Under what circumstances would you make a similar one?"

Hamilton threw his support to Jefferson to ensure that Burr was defeated in the House. He did so because his assessment of Burr's character was such that he did not think that Burr would be a good President. I think Burr's activity around the election support Hamilton's views. Burr could have done the decent, honest, thing but he did not. He choose instead to grasp for the ring on pretty specious grounds--the idea that people preferred him for President rather than Vice President. If you disagree with this summary, then please review both the history as well as later scholarship which treats this moment in history.

I have, in fact, on a number of professional occasions (though on a lesser scale of importance, naturally) made decisions based on my assessment of another person's character. Not only was it my duty to do so on these occasions, it was/is also my duty exert some level of self-examination regarding the quality of my judgment to ensure that I was making the best decision I could possibly make.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:30 AM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Tell that to the Republican frontrunner! That's basically his entire shtick, and people are loving it.

Huge difference in the perception of "Angry White Man" versus "Angry Black Man".
posted by Anonymous at 10:37 AM on October 22, 2015

Tell that to the Republican frontrunner! That's basically his entire shtick, and people are loving it.

While I think any support for Trump is pretty foolish I also don't think it is right to exaggerate his appeal. In a recent poll his support stands at 20%. Then when you factor in that this is 20% of "likely Republican caucus participants" it becomes a much smaller percentage of all Iowans. And of course this is still over 3 months away from the Iowa caucus. I imagine most people are focused on their daily lives, Halloween Thanksgiving and Christmas rather than the elections for it to be super indicative of the results come Feb 1, 2016.
posted by mmascolino at 10:50 AM on October 22, 2015

Huge difference in the perception of "Angry White Man" versus "Angry Black Man".

We were talking about theoretical President Sanders, not Obama.

-Plus, Sanders seems a little grumpy and occasionally even angry. I understand he's passionate and there's a lot of anger about issues like income inequality. But I don't think a potential president should be grumpy or angry as often as that. It doesn't make the Party look good and it doesn't make the US look good either.

-I dunno, after 8 years of cool as ice Vulcan Obama I'd like a President to lose his shit every now and then and go "Jesus Christ, what the FUCK is wrong with you assholes?!"
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:55 AM on October 22, 2015

I think this point is incredibly relevant to the political decisions we're making today. You say you understand Hamilton's decision. Under what circumstances would you make a similar one?

I agree that this historical situation has some relevance today, but I do think the context is very different in some pretty critical ways. When Hamilton made this decision, the nation was young, and still very much an experiment. It was not unreasonable to fear that electing the wrong person to be president could bring the whole thing crashing down in any number of ways. (And given what Burr later pulled with his little conspiracy, I'd say Hamilton's concerns were justified.) Hamilton throughout his life demonstrated that he was thinking long-term when it came to nation-building. I mean, he was thinking about and working on the US financial system while still on Revolutionary War battlefields!

So I can absolutely reconcile and support his decision to support Jefferson, as odious as I find Jefferson to be, because Hamilton was playing the long game. He had his eye on the stability of the nation, on maintaining the viability of the institutions he helped create. He figured, "Well, I don't like Jefferson or his policies, but I'm pretty certain he won't literally destroy the nation. Can't really say the same about Burr!"

The analogous situation here is to vote for Hillary despite not supporting her policies or character, because having a Democrat in office for the likely upcoming Supreme Court justice vacancies is the most important thing, the thing that has an influence decades and maybe even centuries down the line. Or, consider the even more analogous situation from the Republican side of things. Say Trump gets the nomination, and a hypothetical Republican takes one look at that crazy train and thinks, "This would be bad for the nation. I hate Hillary Clinton, but I can at the very least be certain she won't irreparably ruin the country. I'm voting for Hillary."
posted by yasaman at 11:02 AM on October 22, 2015 [5 favorites]

So let me break this down:

The most important aspect of a presidential candidate currently is their ability to prevent the Court moving in your opponent's ideological bent.

So it's most logical for a Democrat to vote for the Democrat, but also most logical for the Republican to vote for the Democrat.

Please explain to me how your political beliefs aren't framing your interpretation of what "logical" people should do.

I agree that Hamilton sided with Jefferson because he thought it was best for the country. But those reasons are entirely elitist. The people cannot be trusted. The leaders should be aristocratic, to ensure that their decisions are led by their beliefs and not self interest. Being a wealthy man of privilege was a requirement to being allowed a seat at the table.

Hamilton suffered at the hands of this elitism. He's the definition the Model Minority that had to work 100 times to achieve what most Founding Fathers were born into. And on this point he doubles down and makes sure he locks that door of opportunity behind him.

Never mind that we fought a revolution out of self-interest. Wanting freedom is self-interested. Acknowledging that would demeaning and unseemly in nation building. Instead, thank god for those wealthy white male landowners willing to set the tone for this great nation. Right or wrong, how is that not elitist?
posted by politikitty at 1:04 PM on October 22, 2015

I don't know where you're getting that it's the most logical thing to do, I don't see that anyone said anything about what the most "logical" thing to do is. I was only talking about what's more closely analogous to the Hamilton supporting Jefferson thing, namely a concern for the long-term stability/prospects of the nation winning out over more short-term concerns and party alliances. In my hypothetical Republican-voting-for-Hillary situation, that's someone, like Hamilton, deciding that the more wild-card, flip-flopping candidate more closely aligned with their views (Trump or Burr) is a bad choice compared to the known enemy whose character and actions they're more certain of, and who they're certain at least won't ruin the country (Hillary or Jefferson).

As to the importance of the Supreme Court moving in "my" ideological direction, yeah, that's a personal political belief and an example of when/why I would vote for a candidate I otherwise dislike. Sorry for not qualifying it as such. Though I am a Hillary supporter, I'm pretty sure I would vote for a literal turnip over anyone on the current slate of Republican nominees, as long as said turnip was the Democratic nominee . I'm not making any pronouncements on whether that's the most logical thing to do or not.

While discussion of the elitism of Hamilton's choice is interesting, it's probably derailing from the topic at hand. It was maybe elitist in Hamilton's case, but I don't think you can make a case that the people voting in similarly strategic ways now are doing so out of elitism or anti-democratic sentiments rather than pragmatism, or the sense that it's their least bad option. It's just a different way of being a single-issue voter, only your single issue is "what will fuck us over the least, by my standards."
posted by yasaman at 2:03 PM on October 22, 2015

Brad DeLong: Nate Silver's http://fivethirtyeight.com is killing it on the 2016 election story. If I had simply thrown away and not read anything else on the 2016 election not published by http://fivethirtyeight.com, I would be as well-informed as I in fact am.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:45 PM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Thanks for clarifying. I read your two analogies as part of the same analogy.

For the first, I think in your example you are voting for Burr. You are choosing defense of your federalist/abolitionist views, no matter how watered down.

For the second, I think it's telling that you have to imagine it from a Republicans view. It's much easier to imagine a Republican moving towards your position than you crossing party lines.

We have a dream of quality candidates. But I think it shows just how low it truly ends up in political matters. Even in a primary, we debate how centrist or liberal we dare to be without losing the general election.
posted by politikitty at 2:50 PM on October 22, 2015

For the second, I think it's telling that you have to imagine it from a Republicans view. It's much easier to imagine a Republican moving towards your position than you crossing party lines.

Ha, that is true. I'd say the only thing similar to Hamilton's situation (as he possibly perceived it in terms of "the future of the country hangs in the balance!") is if I had to choose between a climate change denying Democratic candidate and an otherwise odious Republican candidate who nonetheless promised action on climate change. That, I think, would be a pretty tough call given how alienated I and a lot of other progressives feel from the modern Republican party.
posted by yasaman at 3:14 PM on October 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

Heeeey, look, I have the Chernow book and he wrote it down, right there! Page 632.

From Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Jr:

"As to Burr, there is nothing in his favor. His private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He is bankrupt beyond redemption, except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement... If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure to himself permanent power and with it wealth. He is truly the Catiline of America."

This was a powerful indictment: in ancient Rome, Catiline was notorious for his personal dissipation and treacherous schemes to undermine the republic. In order to stop Burr, Hamilton decided to back his perpetual rival, Thomas Jefferson, telling Wolcott that Jefferson "is by far not so dangerous a man and he has pretensions to character." He also thought that Jefferson was much more talented than the overrated Burr and that the latter was "far more cunning than wise, far more dexterous than able. In my opinion he is inferior in real ability to Jefferson."

So there you go.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:42 PM on October 22, 2015

I appreciate that Chernow faithfully recorded Hamilton's opinion. It tracks closely to the reasoning as stated in the musical as well. I don't disagree that was his opinion.

But the opinion is hella elitist. Hamilton also pushed Washington to remain as a benevolent dictator, with elections a formality.

Catiline did not bring down the republic. Burr might have been a selfish president, setting himself for a comfortable retirement. But that doesn't mean he would bring down the republic.

Hamilton thought it preferable for power to stay with an American aristocrat. That was the more important choice. More important than his abolition or Federalist tendencies.

I understand that decision. But I don't think it says anything benevolent about his priorities.
posted by politikitty at 7:53 PM on October 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

All of that is why, when I look at a politician like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, although I would vote for them against a Republican, I wouldn't do so excitedly. To me, they both seem connected to the forces that seem to be preventing this country from making necessary changes: powerful entrenched economic interests.

crossing anglosphere electoral streams a little on some lessons, perhaps, for how to rehabilitate a sclerotic liberal/labour/democratic party (after being taken hostage by neoliberal political machines... and then eclipsed by neoreactionary conservative movements) to reemerge from the wilderness, i found this profile of trudeau interesting:

Mr Trudeau’s sunnier message in this year’s election was a marked change in approach. He ran a near-flawless campaign, performing well in the crucial leaders’ debates and engaging voters in person and on social media. He also set himself apart from his opponents, pushing to borrow money to invest in infrastructure at a time of low interest rates rather than reaching for the hair shirt of austerity.

In the first days since the election, he has continued doing things differently. He has announced that Canada would stop participating in coalition bombing raids against Isis and committed to appointing a cabinet evenly split between men and women. Mr Trudeau even found time to go his local metro station to thank voters — a scene that was captured for all to see on social media.

But for all that messaging, his success was built on two things: being able to come out of the shadow of his father, the former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, and good timing.

The new prime minister wisely came to politics late. As the son of Canada’s most influential premier, that was understandable. Not only was Pierre Trudeau the country’s defining political figure but he bequeathed a complicated legacy. He was the architect of some of the country’s most important institutions, but in his native Quebec he was despised by many for opposing special constitutional status for the majority francophone province.

Yet when Mr Trudeau first ran for parliament in 2007, later than some had expected, he did it the hard way. Instead of being parachuted into an easy seat, he chose a Montreal riding that was far from a shoo-in for a Liberal federalist. He won by pressing the flesh and pounding the pavement, connecting with voters in a way that the stiff Mr Harper always found awkward. That earned him the respect of those who had been unable — or unwilling — to dissociate the son from the father.

By the time Mr Trudeau ran for the leadership six years later, the Liberal party had followed his lead and shaken off its own baggage. Many of the MPs associated with previous governments, who Mr Harper was able to tar as the old guard, had moved on. Mr Trudeau became the figurehead of a party that looked more modern and relevant to voters. That helped free him from the long shadow of his father but it also diminished the power of Mr Harper’s attacks.

now consider whether miliband, clinton, corbyn, sanders, et al. fit or break the mold...
posted by kliuless at 1:01 AM on October 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton lied when she said Snowden could have gotten whistleblower protections. I call that a slimeball move.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:15 AM on October 23, 2015

I'm progressively viewing the election through a much more international lens :

At face value, any Republican would be overall worse for average Americans than any Democrat, but (a) Hillary Clinton is absolutely a wolf in sheep's clothing for average Americans, and (b) Hillary Clinton appears far more likely to do serious damage internationally.

Donald Trump has run specific types of tightly controlled companies, but his leadership style cannot run a party, much less a country. Imagine if Trump so offended the world that future U.S. whistleblowers gained asylum in Europe easily, or China and Europe forge a trade deal that excludes the U.S. and actually benefits the environment.

If it's a choice between Donald Trump appointing another loon to SCOTUS, but also completely wrecking U.S. credibility abroad, and further wrecking the Republican party, or Hillary Clinton saving abortion right, but doing immeasurable damage to human rights through trade deals, keeping U.S. military adventurism vaguely palatable, killing privacy by killing the E.U. data protection directives, etc., then yeah Trump might actually be preferable.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:52 AM on October 23, 2015

I haven't seen Hamilton and only vaguely know the relevant history, but if your comment, jeffburdges, is trying to paint Hillary as Burr and Trump as Jefferson, then we are living in different universes.

Military adventurism? Hillary Clinton is not George W. Bush. She is probably much closer to, well, Bill Clinton, who intervened in the former Yugoslavia (about which I had deep misgivings at the time, but I think history has judged him kindly. That really was about humanitarian issue it would seem, not, eg, oil.) But he didn't try to occupy it for decades. Who bombed Iraq and imposed no fly zones and multilateral sanctions in response to the perceived WMD threat (which was apparently effective?) but didn't try to invade and occupy it for decades... Who probably should have intervened in Rwanda to stop a genocide, but didn't. And who is rarely accused by anyone in or out of the US of "military adventurism."

I care deeply about this particular issue, and it is one of the reasons the prospect of a Trump presidency terrifies me. Donald Trump, like George W. Bush, seems to feel the need to exert dominance, to rattle sabers. He clearly sees compromise as failure. He swaggers. He has exactly the kind of egotism which, combined with disdain for foreigners and with ignorance of history and international affairs, leads to real "military adventurism," the kind that shoots its way into a situation with no plan as to how to get back out, because the plan is just "we win." The US Military in the hands of Donald Trump? I shudder to think.

As for trade, well, my feelings are mixed. Any given trade treaty can be bad, and maybe TPP is. But treaties in general are exactly how you prevent wars. And historically that includes trade treaties. Also they are a tool that the US uses to spread humane labor conditions and tamp down corruption worldwide. As well as furthering our own economic interests of course. But often it's in the interest of poorer countries to trade with us too, and helps raise the standard of living of people who have less than most Americans can even imagine. To some extent trade isolationism is selfish (or tribalist.) And I think, based on his rhetoric and my complete lack of faith in his ability to be diplomatic, that Donald Trump would basically negotiate no treaties at all. That would be a disaster.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:30 AM on October 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

Does this mean Lincoln Davenport Chafee has a chance?

Not anymore.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:04 AM on October 23, 2015

It's cool how neoliberals love themselves some third-world living standards whenever anyone opposes their favored trade deals, but are completely indifferent to third-world lives whenever anyone opposes their favored wars.

How could anyone say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton is not a military adventurer when she voted for the Iraq War as a Senator and pushed hard for the Libyan War as Secretary of State, the latter mistake showing she had learned nothing from the former? How could anyone who paid attention believe that, say, NAFTA has made Mexico's working conditions more humane, its government less corrupt, and its standard of living more tolerable for its poor? These treaties' proponents claim that they're good for everyone involved, including America, but when anyone questions that, suddenly their proponents become Maoist/Third Worldists and accuse their opponents of naked first-world chauvinism for opposing treaties that would make life worse for ordinary people in the Global South and the Global North alike.

Such hypocrites ought to be ashamed. At the very least, they should argue their senseless opinions with vigor rather than waffling them out in nervous, unreadable prose.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:12 AM on October 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

zombieflanders: "Does this mean Lincoln Davenport Chafee has a chance?

Not anymore."

So after one debate it's down to Clinton, Sanders and that guy from the Wire. Has anyone of the 27 candidates for the republican nomination dropped out yet? Oh yeah, Walker. So again, the democrats are down to pretty much a head to head contest but the Republican clown car rolls on.
posted by octothorpe at 6:41 AM on October 23, 2015

I seriously wonder about "liberals" who are so in love with their own liberal purity that they really think anyone in the current Republican crop would be better than the candidates we have now.

I know they do it because they care so much and not because they're unaware of their own privileges that would allow them to survive those 4-8 years unscathed while the poor and the POC get fucked over even more but still...
posted by bgal81 at 7:15 AM on October 23, 2015 [8 favorites]

Has anyone of the 27 candidates for the republican nomination dropped out yet? Oh yeah, Walker.

Rick Perry did as well.
posted by mmascolino at 7:20 AM on October 23, 2015

Yes, Donald Trump would be more likely to say invade Iran or risk conflict with Russian by invading Syria. Yet by that same token, Trump is much more likely to lose the existing limited international support for action in Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. Trump is much more likely to fail to sell bad trade deals to foreign governments. etc.

America has an empire built more on economic power and soft power, than on military power, so America's empire can collapse merely by them growing even more isolated and others simply walking away. That benefits everyone, including average Americans ultimately.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:21 AM on October 23, 2015

ftr I do not support any right-wing candidate, never mind Trump. like accelerationism, he is bugfuck nuts
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:28 AM on October 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Donald Trump, like George W. Bush, seems to feel the need to exert dominance, to rattle sabers. He clearly sees compromise as failure. He swaggers. He has exactly the kind of egotism which, combined with disdain for foreigners and with ignorance of history and international affairs, leads to real "military adventurism," the kind that shoots its way into a situation with no plan as to how to get back out, because the plan is just "we win." The US Military in the hands of Donald Trump? I shudder to think.

"Jeb, why did your brother attack and destabalize the Middle East by attacking Iraq when there were no weapons of mass destruction? Bad info?" --@realDonaldTrump

also btw, re: principled hypocrisy, weakness is strength, etc.
-In Praise of Hillary Clinton's Shameless Pandering
-Why Hillary Clinton deserves credit for changing her mind about TPP
posted by kliuless at 7:42 AM on October 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

The difference between 'pandering' and 'representing your constituents' beliefs' seems sort of academic to me. Like, fucking pander away, please. Unless the idea is that Clinton won't actually try to do any of the things she says she wants to do, which would be atypical.

Like many others, I said back in the spring that Sanders would pull Clinton to the left, and I don't think I've been wrong. I'm voting for him and I'll be pleased if he wins, but I'll also be fine with Clinton, especially a Clinton who's come out of a primary against Sanders.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:15 AM on October 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

When somebody changes their position that quickly and without any explanation of what changed, I have no reason to believe that they actually mean it this time. I don't believe her for one second about TPP and Keystone, for example; why should I believe her about TPP when she called it one of the crowning achievements of her time as SecState? Some throwaway blog post by Ezra Klein notwithstanding, I have zero trust that she would actually stand by these positions if she made it to the general election, much less if she were elected.
posted by dialetheia at 8:24 AM on October 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

i guess what i'm thinking is that, to me, it seems like the same way that the liberals have 'slingshotted' off the NDP (and labour off the SNP?) clinton is trying for a gravity assist around sanders... but is she (perceived to be) enough of an outsider -- as the front runner -- to pick up sufficient angular momentum?

oh and!
Her greatest weakness is also her greatest strength :P
posted by kliuless at 8:42 AM on October 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Lincoln Chafee Drops Out After Hillary Becomes President Of Benghazi
posted by homunculus at 11:57 AM on October 23, 2015

Drops out after he realizes there isn't money in it on the Dem side, more like.
posted by Etrigan at 12:20 PM on October 23, 2015

it seems like the same way that the liberals have 'slingshotted' off the NDP (and labour off the SNP?) clinton is trying for a gravity assist around sanders

Try simulating it in Kerbal Politics Program.
posted by Bringer Tom at 12:20 PM on October 23, 2015

So again, the democrats are down to pretty much a head to head contest but the Republican clown car rolls on.

Evidently Jeb's (excuse me, JEB!'s) campaign has reduced salaries again and asked some staffers to start volunteering, so there's a campaign that is totally doing well.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 2:37 PM on October 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Appears Hillary isn't the candidate for law enforcement reforms :
Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton
posted by jeffburdges at 1:43 AM on October 24, 2015

So I guess it's looking less and less like Jeb! Is running , so the battle of the dynasties won't be a thing.
posted by Artw at 9:50 AM on October 24, 2015

Jeb Bush hunkers down with family to assess his candidacy (auto playing video)
posted by octothorpe at 10:12 AM on October 24, 2015

Try simulating it in Kerbal Politics Program.

so after running some simulations, it looks like sanders won't do! since she has to compensate for dragging her feet on surveillance, civil liberties, and whistleblowing she'll need to course correct around jill stein to stretch the overton window* and build up enough outsider cred to achieve escape velocity from the gravitational pull of crazy repuglican fundamentalism :P

---
*"Guaranteed jobs for all who need work. 100% clean renewable energy by 2030. Abolishing student debt. Implementing a racial justice action plan to end police brutality, mass incarceration, and institutional racism in education, housing, health and employment."
posted by kliuless at 8:26 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]

Jeb!:

"If this election is about how we're going to fight to get nothing done, then ... I don't want any part of it. I don't want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation," he said.

"I've got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that," Bush added.

"Fuck you, I never wanted this job anyway."
posted by Artw at 1:22 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

It annoys me that media outlets all call him "Jeb Bush". The b in Jeb stands for Bush. "Jeb Bush" means John Ellis Bush Bush. ITS JUST JEB. NOT JEB BUSH.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

He will be JEB! forever. Or just JEB?, most likely.
posted by Artw at 5:58 PM on October 25, 2015

JEB Bush like GOB Bluth, apparently.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:52 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

politikitty: "Catiline did not bring down the republic. Burr might have been a selfish president, setting himself for a comfortable retirement. But that doesn't mean he would bring down the republic. "

Overthrow of the government to maximize his personal power was pretty much Catiline's explicit goal. He only failed due to vigorous opposition by Cicero. He was not a good guy, and Hamilton's comparison of the two says quite a bit.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:51 PM on October 25, 2015

So apparently the reason Ben Carson is so weird is that he's in a cult.
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

JEB Bush: the PIN number of people
posted by Copronymus at 8:44 AM on October 26, 2015 [5 favorites]

It annoys me that media outlets all call him "Jeb Bush".

Bush has been listed as "Jeb Bush" on every ballot he's ever appeared on. Most places allow that sort of thing (see also Willard Mitt Romney) as long as it's not attempting to deceive voters.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on October 26, 2015

So apparently the reason Ben Carson is so weird is that he's in a cult.

Seventh Day Adventists might be one of the wackier flavors of Protestant, but they're not a cult, unless you stretch the definition of cult so far as to render it practically meaningless. There are like 18 million of those guys.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:07 AM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's at the cultier end of the culty religions Republicans favor.
posted by Artw at 10:29 AM on October 26, 2015

Actually the Seventh Day Adventists are commonly considered a cult by other Christians, showbiz_liz. It's not Scientology, or even Mormonism, level of cultness, but still. In fact, Christians have an incredibly crappy definition of cult, basically anything that disagrees with their reading of the bible, so whatever.

In modern colloquial parlance, we describe a group as a cult if it applies particularly strong social pressures to keep people in the group and keep people from questioning the groups beliefs. Almost all Christian denominations are cults by this definition, maybe the only exceptions being non-Christian offshoots like Unitarians. The military is definitely cult.

An interesting question is "Is X a cult?" where X is some academic discipline. I'd argue the answer is usually no because, while X has many practitioners who'll discourage other practitioners from quitting, increasingly X has many practitioners who'll show sympathy and support when others consider quitting. Instead, academics are slower to quit than they should be simply because they've invested a lot of time.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:10 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

jeffburdges: Appears Hillary isn't the candidate for law enforcement reforms :
Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money
posted by caryatid at 11:20 AM on October 26, 2015 [4 favorites]

Plus, you know, flat earthers and all that.
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on October 26, 2015

Yow! I did not know that Carson was an Adventist. I figured Evangelical or Baptist. Can we really have a president who thinks that the Pope is the Antichrist, and that a global crisis brought on by the New World Order will precipitate the second-coming of Jesus sooner rather than later? Like, I know a great way to get a global crisis going: give nukes to Ben Carson!
posted by dis_integration at 11:39 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

In fairness ICBMs cannot possibly function without the earth being a sphere.
posted by Artw at 11:40 AM on October 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

In fairness ICBMs cannot possibly function without the earth being a sphere.

Sure they can. Satellites cannot possibly function if the Earth is flat but ballistic missiles which just go up from point A and fall on point B certainly could.
posted by Bringer Tom at 12:44 PM on October 26, 2015

He was not a good guy, and Hamilton's comparison of the two says quite a bit.

Sure it does. But this was a personal letter and Hamilton is not a reliable narrator.

It says that Hamilton considered self-interest to be tantamount to treason. He considered owning people to make yourself richer immoral. But owning people because the noble savages couldn't handle the responsibility of freedom was the sort of thing you could overlook.

We're talking about the deepest stain on American history. The most ugly political compromise made in securing our freedom. It's awful that Jefferson actually believed the noble savage clap trap. But according to Chernow, Hamilton was an unwavering abolitionist. He understood the compromise he was making.

He knowingly made a decision that would slow abolition. Because he was so caught up in the aristocratic values of the society he married into that he felt people who worked to create wealth and gain influence were literally treasonous.
posted by politikitty at 1:00 PM on October 26, 2015

Vice President Joe Biden accuses "people" of very bad journalism
posted by tonycpsu at 4:21 PM on October 26, 2015