Super Tuesday: it's going to be huge
March 1, 2016 1:11 AM   Subscribe

The March 1st round of voting in US primaries and caucuses is today. Since 1988, no candidate has won his party’s nomination without winning Super Tuesday. With early voting and absentee voting already happening, the people of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia will turn out for both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans in Alaska will hold caucuses, as will Democrats in Colorado. Democrats in American Samoa also nominate. On the Republican side, with 661 delegates to be allocated today, Donald Trump currently holds the delegate lead. On the Democrat side, with 865 delegates to be delegated today, Hillary Clinton currently holds the delegate lead. (A more visual delegate tracker) The actual POTUS election odds continue to make Hillary the favorite, from Donald with the rest at long odds. Politico has more information on today, as does the Wall Street Journal and 538. With variable weather for voters, Nate Silver being cautious about assumptions and Obama's surprise endorsement of Trump, it's all to play for.
posted by Wordshore (2675 comments total) 48 users marked this as a favorite
 
Good post, Wordshore.

I've been expecting a Republican victory this year because of lukewarm support for Hillary Clinton on the Democrats' side and rabid opposition to her on the Republican side.

As the "cautious about assumptions" 538 link notes, Hilllary Clinton is "quite unpopular". (I think she'd do a great job as president, but I'm just one person). As we get closer to the election, her approval falls and disapproval rises.

So whether it's Rubio, Cruz, or Trump, to me it seems like there's a strong chance of a Republican victory.

Yet the oddschecker.com link seems to show everyone favoring Clinton to win.
posted by Sleeper at 1:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


From news media here in the UK this morning:

BBC - US election 2016: Super Tuesday to test candidates.
Guardian - Super Tuesday: crisis for Republican party as Trump heads for victory.
Independent - Super Tuesday: By the time today is over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could be set for a show-down.
Telegraph - Super Tuesday: Donald Trump looks stronger than ever as opponents launch toxic attacks.
The Sun - Donald Trump's dark secret: How baby scandal on a Scottish island haunts presidential hopeful's family.
posted by Wordshore at 1:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


That's the best summary I've seen recently of the respective focuses of the Sun versus news outlets.
posted by frimble at 1:52 AM on March 1, 2016 [36 favorites]


reagan:obama::ghwbush:hillary [??]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow, the Sun's "baby scandal" is a story dating to 1920.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Installed the Drumpfinator extension for maximum fun in this thread.
posted by Pendragon at 2:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Oh, boy. Stupid Tuesday.

People here keep asking me to explain Trump. And I say, "Look, I don't ask you to apologize for Toru Hashimoto. Or Shinzo Abe for that matter. ..."
posted by oheso at 2:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


My other answer being, "Why the hell do you think I'm here?"
posted by oheso at 2:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [46 favorites]




I found out this morning that the the 40 million Hillary received from Wall Street has been more than matched by (over) 40 million that Bernie Sanders has received from, well, not Wall Street.
posted by Juso No Thankyou at 2:52 AM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


A friend is dragging me to a pub in Sydney's inner west to watch cable tv so we can see this unfold in the morning. It really does feel ghoulish. If America was a poor country, I'd be accusing my friend of ugly voyeurism. But because I'm a smug (unjustifiably) Australian, and my friend is a smug (justifiably) kiwi, we'll suck it up and eat popcorn while sipping our sav blancs. (After skimming flattened white Campos, hey taz?!)

Looking forward to it. Mwhaha.
posted by taff at 2:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'll be at work, with no access to a TV, when the results start to roll in. I'm counting on you wonderful fellow Mefites for updates.

And praise Bob for early voting, such a sanity saver.
posted by 1066 at 3:02 AM on March 1, 2016


Voting stations, or whatever they are called there, have just opened in Virginia.
posted by Wordshore at 3:02 AM on March 1, 2016




And Fark.com has changed their "Politics" tab to "Ow! My balls!" to mark the occasion.
posted by 1066 at 3:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


I can't believe how much resigned Chicken Littling I've been seeing from people this time around. The election is SO far away, the Republican side is SO in chaos, the Dems are, despite deep disagreements, pretty damn well placed to win regardless of who the nominee is, and yet I see people throwing up their hands as if Presidente Trump's boot was already on their necks so why even bother? It's downright perverse. I think some people just get off on the worst case scenario.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [131 favorites]


Voting stations, or whatever they are called there
"shame cubicles"
posted by thelonius at 3:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [67 favorites]


wanking boxes
posted by pyramid termite at 3:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Democratraps
posted by Molesome at 3:32 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Meanwhile here in North Carolina, early voting starts on Thursday and the general primary is on March 15... for national races (President, Senate, House). State and local races have been postponed to this summer due to the battle over gerrymandering which led to a Supreme Court case that upheld the lower court's decision due to Scalia's death, meaning the republican majority here is required to redraw two districts (which actually means redrawing all but one of them, since the two in dispute are so snakey) and then resubmit their plans for approval before candidates know who their constituents will be, and voters know who their candidates are.

I half wish North Carolina had been on the Super Tuesday slot just to see more political operators get heart attacks over the winter's turns of events, but this will do. Stakes are high and there is a lot of injustice to rectify but that doesn't mean we can't take our pleasures where we find them.
posted by ardgedee at 3:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Mod note: Quick note: I appreciate the fun stuff, but this is going to be a long thread (yes, I know, it's going to be YUUUGE!) for people to keep loading, so let's try to avoid filling it up with a ton of jokes, snark and repeated comments from other threads. Thanks
posted by taz (staff) at 3:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


And so it begins.
posted by pxe2000 at 3:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think some people just get off on the worst case scenario.

The sooner people start thinking about the impeachment campaign, the better prepared they'll be.
posted by Segundus at 3:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Any republicans, please please please spread the vote around between all three, a throw just enough to Kasich to keep him in. A "brokered" conventions entertainment value is totally worth... oh heck vote for Bernie if you can...
posted by sammyo at 4:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't believe how much resigned Chicken Littling I've been seeing from people this time around.

It's a long standing Democratic Party tradition to catastrophize the situation even when things are going your way. That why we have things like the "Everybody Chill The Fuck Out, I Got This" Obama meme.
posted by octothorpe at 4:13 AM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


I can't believe how much resigned Chicken Littling I've been seeing from people this time around.

Well, after tonight a dangerously megalomaniacal racist who openly advocates violating the Geneva Conventions and ending journalistic freedom of speech will be the virtually inevitable presidential nominee for one of America's two major parties. It's been a scant few months from "that's impossible!" to "dear God, please let him lose the general election." People are off balance.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 4:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [69 favorites]


When you americans elect Drumpf, we will be safe here in europe, right ? RIGHT ?
posted by Pendragon at 4:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter: Even when things are going your way.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 4:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


the basic problem is that the opportunity for moderate "pragmatic" politics is already over. when, not if, but when the next crisis comes there's no room for an Obama to come in and make a tweak here and there, give a blandly inspiring speech and exit to a lucrative public consultancy because we've tried that and it hasn't worked, it wasn't "pragmatic", it was just a reaction against the feeling of crisis.

so, the question is whether "real" change is going to come from the right or the left.
posted by ennui.bz at 4:31 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, seriously. Go read threads from August and see what people were saying about Trump. Since then he's only become more of a caricature, and has only gotten more and more popular. And even on the D side, Bernie Sanders is doing way better than anyone thought possible at the beginning of the campaign. This election has contradicted everyone's expectations and that means no one knows what's going to happen in the general and that is scary.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 4:33 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, but to go from 'it's scary' to 'we have no chance of winning' is patently ridiculous. It's MARCH!
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I am voting after work today with the two millennial voters I spawned. Voting has always been a big family event for us because I am a nerd. I am a little bit envious of them, because they are so enthusiastic about their candidate of choice. When I was their age it was Reagan2.

Because of their enthusiasm, I am also a bit nervous for them (and their cohort) -- their candidate losing will teach hard lessons about the political machine, the value of a vote, and settling. It's one thing for a former non-voter to get fired up. It's another thing for a former voter to become discouraged. I fear that a lot of first-time voters will end up as one-time-only voters.
posted by headnsouth at 4:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


The op-eds are rolling as well...

As Europe knows, democracies do die. Often, they are the midwives of their own demise. (NYT)

Sanders is thus an almost perfect secret weapon against Trump. He can pull off the only maneuver that is capable of neutralizing Trump: ignoring him and actually keeping the focus on the issues. (Current Affairs)

Yes, we could be like the good citizens who voted for a 'tameable' Hitler back in 1933 to get things back on track. But the alternatives look worse. (Unknown)

Warren Buffett has a message for presidential candidates and others who are down on the U.S. economy: You are “dead wrong.”
(WSJ)

Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. (HuffPo)

White women may be flocking to the socialist dream of Bernie Sanders, but black women aren’t buying it. (Telegraph, UK)

“The Republican Party would be split apart if he became the nominee,” Rubio said about Trump on Friday in Oklahoma City. (Bloomberg)

Trump and his troops are killers in making. (Rolling Stone)

If young people come out in a large number to oppose [Trump], he could be in trouble, perhaps not in primaries but if he is nominated, definitely in the general (Mother Jones)

Having reduced the Republican establishment to quivering jelly, Mr Trump will now turn that voice, language and values, or lack of them, on the rest of the country (Financial Times)
posted by nickrussell at 4:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's one thing for a former non-voter to get fired up. It's another thing for a former voter to become discouraged. I fear that a lot of first-time voters will end up as one-time-only voters.

Isn't that true for all generations of voters, though? Candidates lose. In the US, if only 40% of the voters have a candidate who loses, that's considered a blow-out election.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 4:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


In my experience, it's easier easier for a voter to become discouraged after their candidate of choice wins.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 4:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


I can't believe how much resigned Chicken Littling I've been seeing from people this time around...

The Republican Party ain't done until they're done. I expect to go out canvassing this cycle because I don't want him in the white house.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 5:00 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oh what a lovely day!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


I knew Jon Oliver's rebaptism reminded me of something:

"Er griff sein vorpals Schwertchen zu,
Und suchte lang das manchsam' Ding;
Dann, stehend unterm Tumtum Baum,
Er an-zu-denken-fing.

Als stand er tief in Uldacht auf,
Des Jammerwochen's Augen-feuer
Durch tulgen Wald gar wifflich kam,
Ein drumpfend Ungeheuer!

Eins, Zwei! Eins, Zwei! Und durch und durch
Sein vorpals Schwert zerschniffer-schnück,
Da blieb es todt! Er, Kopf in Hand,
Geläumfig zog zurück."

Of course, had Robert Scott checked his Upper Austrian Volksmund dictionary, he'd have found the word exists - and quite aptly, at that: (dahin) drumpfen - eilfertig und trutzend fortgehen = to act in pigheaded haste.
posted by progosk at 5:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Today also marks the start of in-person voting for the delegates assigned to Democrats Abroad. There are polling places all over, scheduled on various days over the next week, and you can also vote by remote ballot. And as Gotanda pointed out, it actually counts for something!

Of course you could also vote absentee in your former state's primary, if it's a primary; you can't do both. And if you're wanting to vote in the Republican primary from abroad, you can only do that via your state's absentee process; there aren't delegates in that primary specifically assigned to overseas voters.
posted by nat at 5:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was honestly snookered by that Obama endorsement article until I finished it. Why is this not real?
posted by Trifling at 5:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looking a little closer at the betting markets (and bearing in mind that odds can and do change, and if you lose then you lose), there are other options.

At Ladbrokes:
- Cruz to end/suspend his campaign before March 8th: 2/1
- Donald Trump NOT to be Republican nominee: 5/2
- Hillary Clinton NOT to win 2016 presidential election: 6/5
- Bloomberg to announce run for president: 3/1
- Donald Trump to run as a 3rd party candidate: 8/1
- Biden beats Cruz in the 2016 presidential election: 500/1

Over at Paddy Power:
- Republicans - Virginia Primary: Trump (1/33), Rubio (15/2), Cruz (12/1)...
- Republicans - Texas Primary: Cruz (1/14), Trump (5/1), Rubio (10/1)...
- Republicans - Oklahoma Primary: Trump (1/25), Rubio (7/1), Cruz (7/1)...

Over at Coral:
- Democrat Candidate: Clinton (1/20), Sanders (9/1), Biden (22/1).

And William Hill:
- To Become President Of The United States In Their Lifetime: George Clooney (100/1), Kanye West (200/1), Will Smith (250/1), Lady Gaga (500/1), Tiger Woods (500/1).
posted by Wordshore at 5:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


A new CNN poll today had Clinton beating Trump 52-44, and Sanders beating Trump 55-43. As others have said, it's a long way until November, so those numbers aren't predictive. But I think they do show that most people are not entirely excited about voting for Trump.

I was one of the people who was convinced that Trump wouldn't win the Republican nomination because my thinking was that at some point, the entire party would try to take him down. Well hey, I was at least partly right! It's just... what took them so long?

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Clintons know how to play dirty in politics. I think the range of outcomes for November are anywhere from "holy shit narrow Trump win" to "holy shit landslide Clinton victory and Trump's name is forever garbage, his kingdom in ruin."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think the problem is that the party did try to take him down, but that just made the base love him more.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


My optimistic take is that Trump as GOP candidate kills GOP GOTV and helps the Dems get the Senate back. But I guess we'll see!
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


A new CNN poll today had Clinton beating Trump 52-44,

Even if that's considered a win, the thought that 44% of Americans are okay with this is terrible.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


Not 44% of Americans, 44% of American voters.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:10 AM on March 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


I think the problem is that the party did try to take him down, but that just made the base love him more.

They hoped he'd go away, while they fought each other to occupy the "establishment" lane. Look at the advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire. It was all circular firing squad, leaving Trump untouched. The thinking was: don't attack Trump, because you want his voters when he leaves the race.

The other thing is that as a Republican, it's hard to criticize Trump for his super racist, misogynistic, I-love-war-crimes rhetoric. You can't criticize that when that's your base! Democrats won't have that problem.

I mean, the Republicans are just now attacking Trump for being a bullshit artist who sucks at business and peddles scams, swindling dupes out of their money. They waited this long... why?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Not 44% of Americans, 44% of American voters.

That might be worse, considering most of those people why stay home are just voting "I don't care."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


That might be worse, considering most of those people why stay home are just voting "I don't care."

They could be voting, "I don't trust that the computers will accurately tabulate my vote, so since we're just getting the prearranged results, so there is literally no point."
posted by mikelieman at 5:14 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Hey, be fair, don't forget the mass disenfranchisement of the poor!
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:15 AM on March 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


( And for disclosure, that's my view, but I Vote Left! just in case they're not rigged. )
posted by mikelieman at 5:15 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


They could be voting, "I don't trust that the computers will accurately tabulate my vote, so since we're just getting the prearranged results, so there is literally no point."

And also: I don't want to go outside and absorb more chemtrails.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:16 AM on March 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


To Become President Of The United States In Their Lifetime: George Clooney (100/1), Kanye West (200/1), Will Smith (250/1), Lady Gaga (500/1), Tiger Woods (500/1)

I would definitely vote for Zombie George Clooney.
posted by Dr Dracator at 5:16 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The other thing is that as a Republican, it's hard to criticize Trump for his super racist, misogynistic, I-love-war-crimes rhetoric. Democrats won't have that problem.

but they will have the problem that Trump will attack Clinton *from the left* on jobs, the economy, banking, inequality even (i bet). If you think about it, it's really not good regardless of who wins.

also, who loves war crimes more, Trump or Kissinger-is-my-foreign-policy-guru Hillary?
posted by ennui.bz at 5:16 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


also, who loves war crimes more, Trump or Kissinger-is-my-foreign-policy-guru Hillary?

It's the guy who very recently suggested targeting the families of terrorists. I don't love Hillary's connection with Kissinger either either, but the answer to your actual question isn't hard.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [83 favorites]


I still have a hope that some inside maneuvering or a gaffe will sideline Trump, but that is probably just wishful thinking.

As a measure of anger at business as usual, the support for Trump and Sanders should say a lot.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


When the choice is the lesser of two evils, you may as well vote for the Best Evil.

Could Cthulhu trump the other Super Tuesday contenders?: The US goes to the polls on 8 November. Who knows, if the voting goes Cthulhu’s way, maybe the national motto, In God We Trust, has had its day. The question after that will be whether this will fit on a dollar bill: Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn (“In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming”).
posted by sapagan at 5:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I know it is not a good idea to mention Hitler when addressing an issue that is not about Hitler and WWII, but having spent some time working and teaching Holocaust courses and issues, I can better appreciate the spell the German leader cast on the needy Germans as he rose to power; how bamboozled they were by his promises and accusations and the emptiness of his rhetoric when I see the GOP front runner getting such massive support from true believers, those white middle class folks threatened by Others, non-whites, taking over "their" country.

On the bright side, whereas the volk of Germany mostly supported their imagined messiah, in our country there seems a lot of people who just might stand up to Der Trump and say Never Again.
posted by Postroad at 5:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Trump is the Republican candidate who is:

--against the Iraq war
--against war with Russia
--for 'not letting people die in the streets' due to lack of health care
--willing to speak in defense of planned parenthood
--in favor of affirmative action for minorities
--in favor of gay rights
--against cutting Social Security or Medicare

I'm rooting for him to win the Republican nomination.

The other guys are worse, just smoother about how they say it.
posted by zipadee at 5:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]




In case anyone here thinks this is the most important election ever, the great Samantha Bee has a reminder for you (discussion over at FanFare).
posted by lmfsilva at 5:27 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Postroad, I love your comment, but I also love that zipadee's is directly below it. In your research, what did you find about the spell he cast not just on those who were drawn to his racial and ethnic rhetoric, but on reasonable people who thought to themselves "you know he might not be as bad as he lets on; there are a few things that I like about him?"
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Why is Trump not business as usual, in America if not in politics? A guy getting ahead, strictly on the basis of his sales and marketing appeal? His whole career is, at this point, built around funny money, personal branding, and letting others take on his risk, by having shell companies file for bankruptcy protection. Over the years, I've witnessed some of his shenanigans on the Miss. Gulf Coast and New Orleans, and there are plenty of other examples, as "Next Week Tonight" demonstrated. He is, in part, the 2007 recession causes personified. His campaign financing is funny money-oriented as well. Then there's the racism, which isn't exactly different than "business as usual," except that he's quasi-open about it (as in, say something blatantly racist today, then say the opposite or deny you said it later).
posted by raysmj at 5:30 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's the guy who very recently suggested targeting the families of terrorists. I don't love Hillary's connection with Kissinger either either, but the answer to your actual question isn't hard.

we are already targeting the families of "terrorists" although we keep the body count down by counting any male relative of a terrorist as a terrorist.

but, Kissinger was front and center for the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the genocide in east Timor, mass political murder in Chile, and more! he's a for real war criminal and Hillary is an admirer.

it's really not an easy question.
posted by ennui.bz at 5:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


also, who loves war crimes more, Trump or Kissinger-is-my-foreign-policy-guru Hillary?
It's the guy who very recently suggested targeting the families of terrorists. I don't love Hillary's connection with Kissinger either either, but the answer to your actual question isn't hard.


To me, the distinction here seems to be not whether either of them would do this, but whether they would brag about it afterward.
posted by indubitable at 5:41 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump is the Republican candidate who is:

Donald Trump is the candidate whose website lists positions on five issues total: Trade reform with China, Veterans Administration Reform, Tax Reform, the Second Amendment, and Immigration. He's not running a traditional campaign where you stake our policy positions and try to enact them when you get into office. I don't think it's wrong to say that we've have zero clue what Trump will actually do on any of the issues you've named, if he even cares enough to do anything on them. He's not running on those issues, and he's made it clear that he's someone for whom honesty, thoughtfulness, and consistency are of no importance.

A Rubio presidency will be Bush-44 with better hair, but a Trump presidency seems totally unpredictable. Given that his most recent appearance is as the megalomaniacal id of the Republican party, I have little faith that it will look like his older positions, though. I'm not saying vote for Rubio (don't, he'll be a terrible president, vote for the Democrat), but the assumption that Trump is more middle of the road candidate seems to be based on an assumption that Trump is a normal politician, which I think is a mistake.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:41 AM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


> "Trump is the Republican candidate who is: --against the Iraq war"

Although in an interview at the time, he said he supported it.

> "--for 'not letting people die in the streets' due to lack of health care"

Although he wants to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with "Health Savings Accounts" (i.e., screwing over anyone who can't afford health care), and has not stated exactly HOW this will prevent people from dying in the streets.

> "--willing to speak in defense of planned parenthood"

Although not to fund it.

> "--in favor of gay rights"

Although he specifically wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn same sex marriage and unmarry literally hundreds of thousands of currently married people.

And so on.

I'll agree that Cruz and Rubio are horrible. As in, no, I would not support Cruz or Rubio over Trump, they're that bad. But if Trump is better, I'm not really seeing it.
posted by kyrademon at 5:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [38 favorites]


Surely Trump is America's Berlusconi, not its Hitler or its Mussolini. A businessman who sees running a country as a good business move, nothing more.

Which, Lord knows, is not good, but it's not Godwinningly bad.
posted by ardgedee at 5:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


The most frustrating part so far of how this whole shitstorm has unfolded is that, despite Sanders's successful-beyond-all-dreams campaign, it's not going to change the Democratic platform at all. It's going to be for nothing.

In a normal year, the tremendous response to his message would force the Overton window significantly to the left. But now, Clinton can't tack left at all, or she will think she can't -- rather than being opposed from the right, Trump is going to attack her from the strong-arm, bulldog, 50's-flavored white-populist-economic-Left. He'll call her weak, corrupt, out of touch. She's going to decide the winning strategy is to seem level-headed, competent, experienced, and capable of reaching down both sides of the aisle. That's the gameplan that she and Bill wrote the book on, that's what she will fall back to in times of crisis. And meanwhile, when the left wing complains, they'll be told to stop whining and vote for her -- it's not the right time to make that move yet! and Don't you care about the Supreme Court?

I still think she'll win (and I plan to vote and volunteer to get her elected) but the increasingly rare opportunity to motivate people, to move the frame to the progressive side, and to maybe GOTV and pick up some downballot territory, is lost.
posted by penduluum at 5:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


It's going to be Trump versus Clinton.
Nelson Muntz versus Lisa Simpson.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


> "A businessman who sees running a country as a good business move, nothing more. Which, Lord knows, is not good, but it's not Godwinningly bad."

A call for "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims coming to the U.S." is not just a businessman planning business things.
posted by kyrademon at 5:50 AM on March 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


We Found the Coolest Populist in America, and He’s Running for U.S. Senate
Donald Trump’s slogan is “Make America Great Again.” Is there an alternative narrative that you’d like to advance?

My campaign has released a one-sentence press release calling Donald Trump a “jagoff ,” which is Western Pa. for jerk. Populism has a dark side and Donald Trump is mining that for all it’s worth by saying reprehensible things about Muslims, about immigrants, about you name it. If you get to live vicariously through that and cheer him on, I don’t expect to get your vote, and frankly, I don’t want it.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


One of the few reasons I actually keep my landline is so I can influence pollsters. I'm on the lists as an independent so I tend to get a lot of calls. For robopolls, I usually troll towards the craziest opinions and show little consistency. This actually confuses the robot sometimes, especially when I express very negative opinions of the candidate I previously indicated I support.

For actual people calls, both polls and campaign, I play the role of a Single Issue Voter. This year, my Single Issue has been UFO Disclosure. This has lead to some awkwardly nice conversations (Hillary's campaign chairman is a UFO nut like me), some awkward ones (Bernie doesn't care about cryptids yet he was TOTALLY HAPPY to accept Champ tourist dollars as Mayor of Burlington), and some weird ones (arguing with a Carson caller about whether or not aliens are demons and if they were, who built the pyramids then? GOTCHA *click*).

So what I'm saying is, don't trust the polls. There are a lot of nuts out there getting it out of our system before seriousness hits in November.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [60 favorites]




He was born in New York City.
He's got eye-catchingly odd, and much commented on, blonde hair.
He's rich.
He's an outsider and a maverick in his own party, and has no problem rubbishing the leadership.
He has a morally dubious historical private life.
He's been hostile, occasionally threatening, to journalists.
He's politically opportunistic.
He's the author of several books.
He's been described as the Berlusconi of our time.
He runs as a right-winger, but has a hotch potch of right wing, libertarian and liberal views, which change to suit the situation.
His vocabulary, as politicians go, is unusual.
He has massive grass roots support, which baffles many looking in.
He can work the media like no other. Everything he says and does becomes major news.

And he could, very well, be elected to the top political post in the country by this time next year.

Help us all.
posted by Wordshore at 5:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


All this talk of the Republican party splitting apart or revolting over a Trump nomination is just wishful thinking. The GOP always gets behind its nominee. Remember how much they hated the traitorous John McCain? They all fell in line even after his ludicrous choice of Palin for a VP. Remember how unexcited the fundies where about a Mormon nominee? It didn't matter. I'm betting the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will be paying back Trump's loans to his campaign this fall.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Bernie Sanders has also raised millions from Wall Street for the Democratic Senate Campaign Comittee.
posted by humanfont at 6:05 AM on March 1, 2016


I read "The Rise of Hitler's Empire" a few years ago, and I'm not afraid to go Godwin. The echoes are just plain there. It's not about Trump, it's not about Palin, it's the followers. It's all the organizations, the KKK, the Militias. All wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
posted by Trochanter at 6:05 AM on March 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


If we're going to descend into fascism, insurrection, and civil war, why couldn't we have done it back in my 20s?
posted by entropicamericana at 6:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


A Rubio presidency will be Bush-44 with better hair, but a Trump presidency seems totally unpredictable.

My Inverse Black Mirror Theory of presidential politics predicts Trump will defeat Hillary in a landslide, execute the office of President wisely and prudently for eight years, heal our partisan wounds, marry Gloria Steineim, and be remembered by history as the second coming of George Washington.
posted by echocollate at 6:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


their candidate losing will teach hard lessons about the political machine, the value of a vote, and settling. It's one thing for a former non-voter to get fired up. It's another thing for a former voter to become discouraged. I fear that a lot of first-time voters will end up as one-time-only voters.
posted by headnsouth at 4:40 AM on March 1 [3 favorites +] [!]


Glad so much has changed since I cast my first ever presidential vote for Kerry as a college sophomore.

No really, i hope a fuck ton has changed because George W Bush taught me all those lessons in his second term and there are several hundreds of thousands of dead people who cant unlearn them.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 6:22 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Voting stations, or whatever they are called there, have just opened in Virginia.

Actually we opened them on Jan 15. While we theoretically don't have "early voting" the requirements for absentee are exceptionally easy to meet. I happen to be away but simply being outside your home county for work is enough.
posted by phearlez at 6:23 AM on March 1, 2016


Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Let's drop the derail about the computers being prearranged to tabulate voting a certain way, please.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:33 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Greg Sargent: Democrats are taking the Trump threat very, very seriously. They’re right.
Trump is making a very different kind of appeal. He is not arguing that the way to help struggling Americans is to get government out of the way; it’s to get stupid, corrupt, and/or weak elites out of the way. He is not an economic technocrat. He’s an economic bull-in-the-China shop who knows the elites’ scam from the inside and is here to bust up their party. Judging by the months of polling and voter interviews we’ve seen, he appears to be connecting with a sense among many people that the system is cheating ordinary people on a profound level — on behalf of illegal immigrants, multinational corporations, China, and Mexico (the “new China) — and that he’d set all this right with smarts and, above all, strength. Trump relentlessly repeats two phrases: “Politicians are all talk and no action,” and “we’re going to make America great again.” In this telling, Hillary Clinton — another establishment politician who takes lots of Wall Street money and is openly sounding defeatist tones about the limits of the possible — would simply be cast as part of the problem.

Judging by the New York Times’s reporting, Democrats get this and are starting to think seriously about how to counter it. Obviously Trump would start out at a tremendous demographic advantage, and it’s very possible that even if Trump did win over a lot of blue collar whites, he’d still get swamped by the Democrats’ advantage among core their constituencies, who might be inspired by Trump to turn out in astronomical numbers. A Trump nomination would also encourage Dems to redouble their focus on Rust Belt swing states, which are probably Trump’s best hope for surprise inroads, with the result that Trump could end up facing an insurmountable electoral college map, as well. Still, it’s good to see Dems operating from the premise that a cakewalk defeat of Trump is anything but a certainty, particularly in a year as strange as this one.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:35 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


All this talk of the Republican party splitting apart or revolting over a Trump nomination is just wishful thinking. The GOP always gets behind its nominee.

Yeah. Just wait until the Fox News Machine gets behind him 24/7. They would LOVE him as a presidential nominee. It will literally be Trump 24/7. How great Trump's policies are. How great he's going to protect the country. How you all have to get out and vote otherwise the evil muslims and liberals are going to win and destroy our country. Even the most respected of Republican candidates will say something like "I don't like the man, but I believe he's Americas best hope!"

Surely Trump is America's Berlusconi, not its Hitler or its Mussolini. A businessman who sees running a country as a good business move, nothing more.


I largely agree with this, but man what he'll do just out of arrogance and grandstanding scares the piss out of me. I also feel like he's a fairly incompetent man and would have some fairly successful backroom corruption to make him and his cronies even more money, but in the long run he'll actually get ran over and eaten by the real backroom players. And these are the backroom players that play for keeps on the world.
posted by mayonnaises at 6:35 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


All this talk of the Republican party splitting apart or revolting over a Trump nomination is just wishful thinking. The GOP always gets behind its nominee.

Anecdata only but my Father-in-Law and a number of other die hard Republicans I know hate Trump. HATE him. They all plan to not vote if Trump gets the nod. My FiL has multiple framed photos of Reagan and Bush I, and countless Reagan memorabilia. The GOP stands behind their guy, but Trump aint their guy.
posted by Twain Device at 6:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


People really need to stop trying to sell Trump as "maybe not so bad" to the left. He's fucking horrible just like Ruboto and Cruz are fucking horrible. He's wrapping himself in an insane bubble of faux populism like he's actually planning on doing anything to the entrenched interests when he is a part of the .01% that the game is rigged for.

I understand that Hillary is not so popular with progressives for a variety of reasons (she's relatively hawkish, she's cozy with bankers, etc) but to pretend that she's not vastly better than any of the Republicans is fucking nuts.

So vote for Sanders in the primary to show your displeasure with the Democrats and DNC for rigging the game and if you absolutely cannot support Hillary on moral grounds in November then vote for someone like Jill Stein especially if you live in a state that is reliably Red or reliably Blue. But don't even consider voting for Trump unless you are willing to admit that you want to go full accelerationist.

Because while a good number of people here are well insulated by their privilege there are also plenty of people whose lives would be appreciably worse without ACA or if the Republicans are able to get an ironclad 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS. I know progressives are tired about hearing "but what about the SCOTUS" but please stop and consider your fellow Americans for a bit before racing down the accelerationist highway.
posted by vuron at 6:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [71 favorites]


They all plan to not vote if Trump gets the nod.

My question is whether they stay home or vote for Hillary Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just staying home is good enough.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Update from Massachusetts! I was in line when the polls opened, with half a dozen people in front of me. Somehow, folks in line got the idea that it was necessary to produce ID before being allowed to vote, and the woman behind me in line started talking about needing to go back out to the car to get her driver's license, but that would mean she'd be late for work so maybe she'd just leave.

Fortunately, at just this moment, I was next in line, and the poll worker (not an elections official, but they're paid workers who nominally train for this in MA) asked me for identification. Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor this day, I can tell you.
posted by Mayor West at 6:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [71 favorites]


My question is whether they stay home or vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's the problem, I think - there's a snowball's chance that a few would flip for Bernie, but none at all that they'll vote for Hillary. The Rs in my office are all SHOCKED!!! that Trump is going to be their candidate, but have all stated that they'll just stay home, they can't in good conscience vote for Hillary, even to block Trump.

In the race against Trump, Bernie's advantage is that he's another white guy, and Hillary's advantage is that she is not. Which advantage is stronger?
posted by Rat Spatula at 6:47 AM on March 1, 2016


Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) is using hatred of Trump in a pretty brutal anti-McCain TV spot.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:47 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


It is conventional wisdom that people do not turn out to vote *against* someone. But I think this will be different if Hillary can succeed in demonizing Trump with Nazi imagery.
posted by spitbull at 6:47 AM on March 1, 2016


I absolutely love voting. I haven't missed an election (national, state, or local) since I became of voting age. The polling location I go to is a sad little event space, but it was humming with a lot of early voters and the dear, dear older people who man the check-in and check-out tables.
posted by xingcat at 6:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


but in the long run he'll actually get ran over and eaten by the real backroom players.

they'd better be as good at hiding what they eat as orlotan diners, because if trump is seen as being defeated, or worse, by dirty tricks, you will see real rage in this country
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


That Kirkpatrick ad is exactly what I'm talking about.
posted by spitbull at 6:49 AM on March 1, 2016


Fortunately, at just this moment, I was next in line, and the poll worker (not an elections official, but they're paid workers who nominally train for this in MA) asked me for identification. Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor this day, I can tell you.

I salute those doing this where it is still possible. Sadly, Virginia is no longer one of those states; photo ID is now required by law.
posted by indubitable at 6:50 AM on March 1, 2016


All this talk of the Republican party splitting apart or revolting over a Trump nomination is just wishful thinking. The GOP always gets behind its nominee.

I'm not so sure. My parents are diehard GOP loyalists, and my father in particular is a Fox News casualty. We don't discuss it much, but my mother divulged last night that this might be the first primary election in which they don't cast a vote since 1972, because the inmates are running the asylum. The GOP may have out-crazied themselves this time.
posted by Mayor West at 6:51 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


It is conventional wisdom that people do not turn out to vote *against* someone. But I think this will be different if Hillary can succeed in demonizing Trump with Nazi imagery.

I think it's a lot easier to motivate conservatives to vote against a candidate, because they're used to being powered by hate. We liberals are softer and more prone to despair, so we need someone to excite and enthuse us before we take action. And that's why I'm worried about Clinton's chances against Trump in the general, in contrast to Sanders'.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Basically Trump's entire strategy depends on GotV of disaffected working class whites in battleground states. Even then simply increasing numbers of voters isn't going to help him unless he also increases his winning percentage among working class whites.

At the same point in time he's got to hope that shenanigans about Voter ID laws will somehow depress minority voting vis-a-vis 2012. And let's be honest he's going to get crushed by Clinton in regards to the Latino community especially if she chooses a charismatic Latino for VP like Julian Castro.

Even the most ardent Republican strategists understand that a base only strategy is a loser for the Republican party moving forward because winning whites by more than 60% is very difficult and if you assume roughly 90% of African-Americans will vote for the Democrat and Asian and Latino voting will hover around 50% turnout with a 65-35 split towards the Democrat and it's exceedingly difficult territory for a Republican to win the presidency.

Republicans are terrified because Trump is putting loser stink all over their crop of Latino candidates (who were supposed to be the new face of Republicans reaching out to the Latino community) while simultaneously engaging in the worst sort of race-baiting aimed at Latinos. This not only damages their shot at the 2016 election but weakens the brand and the Republican Brand is the valuable thing.
posted by vuron at 6:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Last I saw in Minnesota, Clinton and Rubio are leading the polls. On the GOP side, Cruz is second and Trump is third. Although this isn't up to the minute polling, so things could have changed. Rubio will also be stopping here today - I think the only candidate to do so. Though Hillary was/is leading on the Dem side, this is a strong state for Bernie and he has been here a LOT over the past couple of months, including (I think) just this last weekend. We have 77 delegates. I will be heading out to caucus after work.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:58 AM on March 1, 2016


Proposed initiative would switch Colorado presidential nomination process from caucus to primary.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Among people likely to vote in the Republican primary, people are 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Donald Trump as the first-choice nominee relative to all the others if they “somewhat” or “strongly agree” that “people like me don't have any say about what the government does.” Using statistical techniques, we can conclude that this increased preference for Trump is over and beyond any preferences based on respondent gender, age, race/ethnicity, employment status, educational attainment, household income, attitudes towards Muslims, attitudes towards illegal immigrants, or attitudes towards Hispanics.

The role of “people like me don't have any say…” is not significantly related to preference for Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, or Sanders as the first choice for party nominee (where Clinton and Sanders are rated by likely Democratic primary voters).
(See Figure 6.)

source: RAND Presidential Election Panel Survey

posted by bluecore at 7:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Getting rid of caucuses would be a good thing, they tend to be anti-democratic as hell.

Yes caucus states allow for lower cost campaigning and more retail politics because you are mainly focusing on party loyalists but they are also a relic of an older time and less and less acceptable as a way of selecting candidates.
posted by vuron at 7:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


So, I fondly (read: not fondly at all) remember how all the "PUMA" Clinton supporters in 2008 were intimated to vote and campaign for Obama or else!!! and how Clinton herself was responsible to get her base in line. And they did and she did.

What I hear from the Sanders side this time is how Clinton, in the event she wins the nomination, is herself responsible to get the Sanders supporters to vote for her or else!!! she will lose the election for the Dems and it will be all her fault and we should just nominate Sanders regardless because no one will want to vote for her anyway.

Hmmmm. How odd.
posted by lydhre at 7:15 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


I found out this morning that the the 40 million Hillary received from Wall Street has been more than matched by (over) 40 million that Bernie Sanders has received from, well, not Wall Street.

Bernie's daily emails asked people (who haven't contributed yet) for $3 for a while, and now it's down to $2.70. I don't know if the ask has decreased to get more people to donate, or if they're pushing people who haven't donated yet to give anything.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:16 AM on March 1, 2016


Good news, everyone! Sanders has won New Zealand!
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Another stupid Trump sound bite, unpacked for all it's errors: How Donald Trump Got Everything Wrong About Apple in One Sentence
I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we’re gonna get things coming … we’re gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries.
It’s hard to quantify exactly how much Trump gets wrong with that one statement, and how little power he will have, if elected, to do what he says.

But Recode tries, and does a good job of breaking it down.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]




instead of another 800+ comments on trump vs rubio vs cruz vs clinton vs sanders, i was wondering if anyone has any interesting, neat, weird, or otherwise notable downballot votes this election? i early voted yesterday and got to give a vote for a city council person running for judge who helped our anti-discrimination ordinance pass, i got to vote against a judge who is getting too cozy with the local big money (and for a judge who favors treatment focused drug courts instead of long prison sentences). i got to decide if the incumbent judge who has a strong history of domestic violence advocacy was better than a new comer with a history of really understanding the foster care system and vowed to consider families when sentencing people. every single thing on my ballot was more interesting than the big question.
posted by nadawi at 7:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


What I hear from the Sanders side this time is how Clinton, in the event she wins the nomination, is herself responsible to get the Sanders supporters to vote for her or else!!!

From Sanders' New Hampshire victory speech:
I also hope that we all remember -- and this is a message not just to our opponents, but to those who support me as well. That we will need to come together in a few months and unite this party, and this nation because the right-wing Republicans we oppose must not be allowed to gain the presidency.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [40 favorites]


roomthreeseventeen: Vox: Donald Trump ditched free market ideology for nationalism — and it's working

A different spin: Trump understands the grand-stand politics better than his counterparts - say what will rally the most voters, even if it doesn't hold water and is nigh impossible - but what will he actually do if he wins?
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on March 1, 2016


TBH, I'd just like to vote for this guy again.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


As someone who grew up going to integrated schools in a segregated city, I say fuck Donald Trump. I don't care if he is left of the rest of the Republican field. I'd rather see President Rubio, or anyone else. No one who openly courts white supremacists, advocates violence against protestors, and puts forward openly racist policy positions should ever be elected. It's the 21st century. Leave this Strom Thurmond-Bull Connor shit to the dead past where it belongs.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Yes, Bernie supports party unity even if he's not the nominee. Too bad so many of his vocal supporters do not.
posted by palomar at 7:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


That attack ad from Kirkpatrick on McCain is fucking brutal. Can you imagine similar ads running against every endangered Republican Senator? That is the sort of shit that demolishes campaigns and political careers and basically everytime that the DRUMPF speaks he's providing a massive amount of ammo to be used in attack ads at Republicans. Yeah he might be driving disaffected brownshirts into a frenzy but he's also scaring the fuck out of a lot of Americans who wanted to retain the polite fiction that the nice Republican couple next door weren't about to send you off to a concentration camp the first chance they get.

Yes I'm playing up he fascist similarities a lot but that is the sort of thing that Trump's rhetoric is mimicking. Naked unabashed racism directed at minorities as a way of scapegoating them for the declining privilege of a panicked white majority. I'm sure if Sanders was the nominee he'd play up the anti-semitism that is lurking under the surface as well but right now he mainly is focusing his vilification on Latinos that are coming into the country and stealing jobs and raping women. This is incredibly dangerous rhetoric that amplifies the dogwhistles that "polite" Republicans have been using since the 60s.
posted by vuron at 7:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Too bad so many of his vocal supporters do not.

I dunno, everyone I know says "Bernie in the primary HRC in the general."

Please don't put words in our mouths.
posted by Max Power at 7:27 AM on March 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


> Trump [...]
--against the Iraq war
--against war with Russia
--for 'not letting people die in the streets' due to lack of health care
--willing to speak in defense of planned parenthood
--...


Something about that reminds me of the man pages for unix utilities. I suspect it's less the double-dashed arguments and more just the overriding sense that he's a tool.
posted by Westringia F. at 7:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Please don't put words in our mouths.

palomar said many, not all, which is correct. There are plenty of folks (I include myself) who cannot stomach a Clinton vote, and won't. Hopefully, most of us live in states that will go blue, anyway.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


are you guys really wanting to have another hillary/bernie supporters fight? are you not utterly bored with that?
posted by nadawi at 7:30 AM on March 1, 2016 [73 favorites]


are you guys really wanting to have another hillary/bernie supporters fight? are you not utterly bored with that?


NO THIS WILL BE THE TIME IT IS SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL

Next we will determine with 100% accuracy and for all time whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and arrive at a final and definitive answer in the eternal battle of sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:32 AM on March 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


Well TBH just tired of the "oh noes Trump" crap too.
posted by Max Power at 7:33 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Mod note: Officially gonna second the suggestion that this not become the nth open thread for "Clinton supporters are bad" vs "Sanders supporters are bad". We've done it, it drives discussion into a spiral of suck, let's see if we can talk about literally anything else in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


I concur with dropping the Sanders and Clinton thing and would be willing to have my last comment deleted so this doesn't become yet another relitigation of that (which seems to be a relitigation of 2008 and even a relitigation of 2000).
posted by vuron at 7:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


if your state is all but guaranteed to go in a specific direction, vote your conscious. if your state has any chance of changing color this election, vote the party line. it's a stupid system, but it's the one we've got. fighting with people in strong red or strong blue states about who they'll vote in the general is pretty silly, i'm more interested in what else they'll vote for now and in november.

and really the important thing is VOTE. people always complain about terrible local reps and school boards and judges and city councils, but they don't get out there and vote for better candidates. we have shitty federal representation because we let the petty tyrants get a foot in the door in our local communities. these are the races that matter the most and the ones you can change the outcome of, not this glorified rigged reality show that is the presidential election.
posted by nadawi at 7:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


New York Magazine: Imagining President Trump: A Conversation
By Jonathan Chait , Rebecca Traister , Ed Kilgore , Annie Lowrey , Gabriel Sherman , Rembert Browne , Marin Cogan , Margaret Hartmann , Eric Levitz and Ben Williams
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Cheers, vuron, intervening comment deleted.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder how Trump's lack of filter would play out if he were in office. All my life there has been speculation that newly elected presidents are taken aside by Those That Truly Are In Power and given a briefing on The True State Of The Planet that they must keep secret at all costs.

If this were really the case, could someone like Trump not let it slip?
posted by sourwookie at 7:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


When I start feeling sad that President Obama is leaving office, I think about how GLEEFULLY he is going to stump against Trump for the Dem nominee. You thought the Correspondents' Dinner speech was brutal? Our beloved President (whom even the Republicans I know have come to respect on a personal level - as a husband and dad) is going to take it to the limit against Trump and all the frothing-at-the-mouth racists who support Trump. All those times Obama held his tongue against the birthers and the Teapublicans and the "You lie!" jerk and everyone else...defeating Trump is going to be Obama's big final victory in office.
posted by sallybrown at 7:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [35 favorites]



instead of another 800+ comments on trump vs rubio vs cruz vs clinton vs sanders, i was wondering if anyone has any interesting, neat, weird, or otherwise notable downballot votes this election?


The only other thing on the ballot here in Nashville is the property assessor race, but it is sort of a (local) big deal because there will be a new assessment next year and property values have skyrocketed since the last one.
posted by ghharr at 7:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that there are very many safe Democratic states in this election. I don't think we really know who Trump is going to be able to mobilize. I think that conventional electoral math may not work this time around.

Anyway, I live in a total purple state, so I will be out knocking doors every weekend starting in May or June. If you live in or near a similar state, it would be awesome if you would volunteer too.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


(That article linked upthread about Hillary and aliens is one of the most...remarkable things I've read recently. I can't believe that's not an April Fools joke. Podesta, who knew?)
posted by sallybrown at 7:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


mpbx- if your state is all but guaranted to go in a specific direction, there is no pragmatic benefit to voting party line. There's no terrible urgency for a voter in Texas or New York to vote party line when the electoral college has predetermined where all of the electors of that state will go.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


When I start feeling sad that President Obama is leaving office, I think about how GLEEFULLY he is going to stump against Trump for the Dem nominee. You thought the Correspondents' Dinner speech was brutal? Our beloved President (whom even the Republicans I know have come to respect on a personal level - as a husband and dad) is going to take it to the limit against Trump and all the frothing-at-the-mouth racists who support Trump. All those times Obama held his tongue against the birthers and the Teapublicans and the "You lie!" jerk and everyone else...defeating Trump is going to be Obama's big final victory in office.

I can see the memes already: on the left, a photo of the President owning the shit out of Donald Trump in a big speech, and on the right, a photo of the President watching Trump take the oath of office.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


If your conscience is telling you to do anything other than vote the party line in a presidential election, it's mistaken.

Democracy!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


sallybrown: You thought the Correspondents' Dinner speech was brutal? Our beloved President (whom even the Republicans I know have come to respect on a personal level - as a husband and dad) is going to take it to the limit against Trump and all the frothing-at-the-mouth racists who support Trump. All those times Obama held his tongue against the birthers and the Teapublicans and the "You lie!" jerk and everyone else...defeating Trump is going to be Obama's big final victory in office.

Except he won't. Why? Because they're still Americans who will be voting, and at this point, anyone attacking Trump just bolsters his supporters. He's doing that now with Cruz and Rubio (and they're doing the same with comments from him, and I imagine Sanders and Clinton are doing the same thing for all comments against them).

You can't just attack someone and say "that person is a stupid, angry, racist," because there are people who are serious fans of the guy, or at least identify with a number of things he says, so when you attack him, you're attacking them and their views.

How do you take down Trump? Offer something better, in an exciting way. Or spend time reaching out to individual voters and communities to show them why it's dump to want to deport all Muslims and why Mexicans aren't evil people who are both trying to steal your jobs and lazy criminals who want to rob you and get free health care.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Next we will determine with 100% accuracy and for all time whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and arrive at a final and definitive answer in the eternal battle of sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe.

Or when "wiping: sit or stand?" hits the ballot in November.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Down here in Texas it's generally about selecting whatever sacrificial lambs we will hopelessly vote for in November who will be crushed by Republicans outspending them 10-1.

There are some local races that are getting pretty contentious as Latino politicians seem to be angling to create new power blocks as more and more cities become majority minority. It will be interesting to see how African American and Latino politicians manage to share power as increasingly it's apparent that they will need to do so to avoid white Republican business candidates from dominating the local landscape by playing minority groups against each other.

As always low voter turnout is the biggest challenge Democratic politicians face in Texas though.
posted by vuron at 7:47 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


i am nearly positive i voted next to a wiping: stander yesterday and i'm still unsettled by the experience.
posted by nadawi at 7:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's sock sock shoe shoe, what is wrong with you people?
posted by dinty_moore at 7:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [51 favorites]


TBH, I'd just like to vote for this guy again.

The tragedy of my voting life is that I never got to support Lawton Chiles for president.
posted by phearlez at 7:51 AM on March 1, 2016


i've decided that i'm going to go forward viewing this as the death of the GOP and the strangled cries of angry white people, do my part to GOTV for the Dems, and laugh until it's time to start crying

also, I'm volunteering for the Dem convention in Philly, the City of Brotherly Love! The city of many black and brown people! The city with many Muslims! We are going to take the power of love and reach into Trump's throat and pull out his tongue with the power of love

ARE YOU WITH ME
posted by angrycat at 7:52 AM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


sock shoe sock shoe

what
posted by cortex at 7:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [70 favorites]


I really hope this all works out. I look at this election terrified for the people who are going to be seriously affected by it. Like life and death levels of affected by it.
posted by Talez at 7:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Count me in the group amazed that sock shoe sock shoe even exists. Next you'll be telling me there are people who pour the milk before the cereal.
posted by sotonohito at 7:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


I'm just waiting for the dust to settle so we can all focus on the Thatcher vs. Mussolini general election.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


PPP: Democrats Lead Most FL-Sen Match Ups
-It looks like there's a good chance the second time will be the charm when it comes to getting a medical marijuana initiative passed in Florida. 65% of voters say they'll vote for one this fall to only 28% who are opposed, passing the 60% threshold with some breathing room. There's bipartisan support for the measure with Democrats (75/18), independents (70/22), and Republicans (53/40) all expressing their favor for it.

-Florida is another great example of how the politics have changed on Obamacare. Voters in the state narrowly support it, 42% to 41%, a big departure from the old days when it used to be very unpopular in key swing states like Florida. There's 47/31 favor for it among independents.

-Bill Nelson is Florida's most popular politician, with a 40% approval rating to 32% of voters who disapprove of him. That puts him ahead of the perennially unpopular Rick Scott, who comes in at 38/48, and even further ahead of the newly unpopular Marco Rubio whose Presidential bid has hurt him at home and caused his approval spread to drop down to 31/55.

-Floridians take progressive stances on a trio of key issues we've been polling across the country. 76% of voters in the state support increasing the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour, compared to only 11% who think the status quo is fine and another 11% who would like to eliminate it altogether. That includes 92% support from Democrats, 74% from independents, and 62% from Republicans for going to at least $10 an hour. There's also 69% support in the state for the EPA's Clean Power Plan, with only 25% of voters opposing that. It has 86% Democratic, 72% independent, and 51% Republican support. And there continues to be a broad mandate for background checks on all gun purchases. There's 86/8 support for that overall, including from 89% of Democrats, and 84% of both independents and Republicans.
It's kind of weird (and pretty hilarious IMO) that Rubio is more unpopular than Obamacare by double digits in his home state.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


A decade back, my father (resident in Ted Cruz's hometown of Calgary) was in Toronto with my stepmother. When they picked up their rental car the rental agency was out of the midsize they had reserved as well as several other calibres of car and they wound up with a swanky town car.

A day or two later, Pa Biscuit was waiting in the pick-up area of the convention centre for the missus when a tangerine-coloured man inexplicably climbed into the back seat and barked an order to head for the airport. My dad turned and said, "Sorry, Mr. Trump, this is not your car." Trump cursed and sullenly climbed back out.

So what I am saying is that my father could have said, "Yes, sir" and sped away with Drumpf in the back seat to who knows where and maybe saved the USA a lot of trouble ten years down the road.

Sorry.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:57 AM on March 1, 2016 [220 favorites]


I am honest to god terrified that if we end up with Emperor President Trump he's going to start blithely going after other progressive issues that get his goat that morning.

"Mental illness? That's just a bad excuse from the political correct of our society. If you do something wrong you go to jail."
"Drugs? If you don't want to go to jail for drugs then either get a good lawyer or don't break the law!"
"We need to make sure we're all equal. This whole giving women and minorities extra opportunities to level some mythical playing field has to stop!"
posted by Talez at 7:59 AM on March 1, 2016


MetaFilter: what is wrong with you people?
posted by Wordshore at 7:59 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm a sock sock shoe shoe person myself, but there are times when sock shoe sock shoe is the prudent choice -- such as when you fear a bear attack or sudden flood may interrupt you between sock sock and shoe shoe, and as everyone agrees, danger is wiser met with one foot shorn than none.
posted by notyou at 8:01 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I go sock shoe shoe sock.
posted by kyrademon at 8:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


sock sock shoe shoe sock shoe sock shoe
posted by shakespeherian at 8:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


danger is wiser met with one foot shorn than none

Wait, you shave your feet?
posted by aramaic at 8:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


Sock Sock / Shoe Shoe '16
Make America's Feet Warm Again
posted by saturday_morning at 8:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


Socks by the bedside, shoes by the door. That's a lot of extra walking.

Sock shoe, sock shoe will collapse of its internal contradictions.
posted by Trochanter at 8:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]




Sock shoe sock shoe ONLY if wearing lace up boots. I need something to break up all the lacing. Otherwise, sock sock shoe shoe.
posted by chainsofreedom at 8:04 AM on March 1, 2016


I'm just waiting for the dust to settle so we can all focus on the Thatcher vs. Mussolini general election.

I wonder what Merkel and Berlusconi's working relationship was like.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:05 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Shoes in the streets, socks in the sheets
posted by shakespeherian at 8:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [50 favorites]


Jesse Ventura was interviewed by local media at a Sander's rally yesterday in Minnesota. He said he is split between Trump and Sander's and mentioned that he is considering getting in the race as the Libertarian candidate. The race keeps getting more interesting.
posted by misterpatrick at 8:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Gently and with love: let's maybe let the sock shoe controversy drop, it's too hot for Mefi.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [46 favorites]


Wait, you shave your feet?

I was going for a word that sounds like "shorn" but means "foot clad in sock and shoe" and decided screw-it, bears may be approaching there's no time for a thesaurus.
posted by notyou at 8:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Shod?
posted by kyrademon at 8:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


On the Democrat side,

I can't believe I'm seeing "Democrat" being used as an adjective on Metafilter.
posted by John Cohen at 8:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


You meant "shod".

Back on track . . . I am seriously considering volunteering to GotV this fall, and I have NEVER volunteered politically before. I am that scared of Trump.
posted by chainsofreedom at 8:10 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wait what? How the fuck can you be a fan of Sanders (who would undeniably be a statist) or Trump (who has absolutely no respect for human rights) and then go lol I'll run as a libertarian when by no stretch of the imagination do either candidates represent the small government ideal preached by libertarians?

I mean Ron Paul was a fucktard but at least he seemed to believe at least some of the bullshit that Libertarians try to preach about but thinking populism is somehow compatible with libertarianism is really sketchy snake-oil Jesse is trying to sell.
posted by vuron at 8:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


A couple of live reporting websites from here in Ye Olde Motherlande*:

- BBC News
- Guardian

*The Western Colonies are welcome back into the fold at any time (and we can do a rebranding e.g. rename them Outer Cornwall, or something) but you have to renounce President Trump and swear loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Deal?
posted by Wordshore at 8:12 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


That Civ V mod is OK but it would have been better to have the the unhappiness scale up as you adopt more social policies, which are limited to the Tradition, Honor, and Commerce trees. The Landschrect are replaced by Border Patrol and cannot be upgraded, but their defensive bonuses scale up over time. For ideology you can only choose autocracy and the offensive bonuses only apply within your own borders.

When great people are born you can publicly execute them for a spike in happiness equal to the number of times the barbarian hordes have been repelled from your borders.

The only Victory Condition is Time, when the entire map is devoured by the sun along with all our suffering.
posted by Tevin at 8:12 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Fully expecting the 2020 election to be decided via cagematch. Trump rallys around look and sound like a WWE event.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:13 AM on March 1, 2016


I see we're laughing so we don't cry. We're going to have to figure out how to move forward after this. I have no desire in seeing all these people - friends, coworkers, acquaintances - feeling emboldened enough to let their hatred show now that Drumpf's popularity makes them think its okay for them to do so. Basically I just realized that 8 years later, I'm back here again, thinking about resources that help you navigate personal and professional relationships and conversations.
posted by cashman at 8:14 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I was encouraged by the number of minority voters at my polling place, all asking for Dem ballots. There were only two downballot races with a real choice, in both cases I picked the woman because we need more women but also because the dudes talked about cutting taxes while they talked about infrastructure and education.
posted by emjaybee at 8:16 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


John Cena/The Rock vs Brock Lesnar/Triple-H would make for an interesting GE no-hold barred cage match in Madison Garden for the Presidency of the USA entropicamericana.

Just as Brock Lesnar is about to pin John Cena the lights would go out and Taker would explode out of the middle of the ring to usher us into a new zombie future.
posted by vuron at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Except he won't. Why? Because they're still Americans who will be voting, and at this point, anyone attacking Trump just bolsters his supporters.

Anybody willing to vote for Drumpf now is pretty much Drumpf always.

Never, ever, EVER let the other side decide your actions. If 51% of the voting population is voting Trump, there's nothing you can do. If 35% is voting Drumpf, then who you need to convince are the people who definitely aren't voting for you. Not the Drumpf voters. They hate you regardless of what you do. Saying "but that will just encourage them!" is insane. They're already encouraged! Anybody willing to go all in for Drumpf is NEVER going to vote D.

You don't win by attract the sure voters for the other side. You win by attracting the unsure voters, and a large part of the unsure population is going to be thinking "But...Drumpf?" Those are the people you need to win the election with, and the best thing you can do is show just what a clusterfuck the Drumpfidency would be.

the drumpty dance is your chance to do the Drumpf
posted by eriko at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Fully expecting the 2020 election to be decided via cagematch.

My email signature was recently changed to read "Elizabeth Warren/Joseph P. Kennedy III 2020: Retrieving America from Four Years of Trumpocalypse".

Actually, there's a thought; perhaps time for a 2020 US election thread here on MetaFiOW CORTEX STOP IT THAT HURTS OKA
posted by Wordshore at 8:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


If you've NEVER shaved your big toe, even once, just to see, then you are lacking in the experimental spirit upon which the American Dream is based.

Or you're less hairy than I am.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


*The Western Colonies are welcome back into the fold at any time (and we can do a rebranding e.g. rename them Outer Cornwall, or something) but you have to renounce President Trump and swear loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Deal?

I'm good with that, I'm good with footie, I *love* real ale, but the u in color is going to be a friction point, I think.
posted by eriko at 8:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


It's kind of weird (and pretty hilarious IMO) that Rubio is more unpopular than Obamacare by double digits in his home state.

Both opinions are the result when people get to know them better.
posted by phearlez at 8:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


instead of another 800+ comments on trump vs rubio vs cruz vs clinton vs sanders, i was wondering if anyone has any interesting, neat, weird, or otherwise notable downballot votes this election?

I spent a few hours online last night researching my local downballot races, and I'm glad I did. I wasn't particularly impressed by the statements from one of the judge candidates in the League of Women Voters Guide, so I was planning on voting for the other guy. And then I ran across information that Other Guy had a history of voting in more Republican than Democratic primaries, and that his wife was one of the Republican candidates for the same spot on the primary on the other side. (So that, if they both won their primaries, someone in their family would be guaranteed to wind up with the job, you see - and they'd admitted it!) So research does mean something. I also found a site that had organized a table for the contested races showing who had picked up which endorsements, which was also helpful.

Maybe most of these people will end up slaughtered in the general, who knows. I'm in a blue county in a red state that is gerrymandered to hell, but there are lot of very cool referenda items on the Democratic ticket, all of which I was excited to vote for.

So I voted this morning, and I've got my little sticker to show for it, and I couldn't be happier. And just for the record, not everyone on the left side of the fence thinks Hillary Clinton has a likeability issue or will only vote for her while holding their noses. I'm very excited about the choice I made.
posted by Salieri at 8:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Also there is a guy with Trump signs down the street but also two houses with Hilary signs. As soon as we know who the nom is, we'll be getting signs for them. We're still a red state, but we need to encourage our fellow Dems.
posted by emjaybee at 8:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just want to throw something out there...

So, I've listened to lots of Trump, and also listened to lots of Trump speech in the past. He's always been boastful, but back when he was the Reform Party candidate he really did sound like a different person. His tone and style had much more moderation and nuance to them. Not only did he sounded pretty reasonable, but he had an entirely different personality. Hillary's commented to this effect in her comments on meeting Donald in the past. Some folks are attributing this change to Trump just playing his audience, but I don't think that's it at all. The personality change he displays has a series of worrying traits, with hyper-aggression, the wild opinions, and the disturbing repetition which I think indicate something else entirely.

Donald Trump turns 70 in June. Trump's own father died from Alzheimer's Disease. We know now that dementia is known to manifest itself far earlier than would be indicated by more overt symptoms.

I think Donald Trump is in the early stages of senility.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [63 favorites]


*The Western Colonies are welcome back into the fold at any time (and we can do a rebranding e.g. rename them Outer Cornwall, or something) but you have to renounce President Trump and swear loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Deal?

I'm good with that, I'm good with footie, I *love* real ale, but the u in color is going to be a friction point, I think.


I already spell like a Brit, because I'm just That Kind Of Asshole, so if Old England decides to take back New England, I'll probably be fine. If Canada wants to take us, that's even better. I like the cut of Trudeau's jib. (Maybe I should write him in.)
posted by tobascodagama at 8:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


One Muslim likes what he sees in Trump. Farrakhan! Shakes fist at sky.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:27 AM on March 1, 2016


I think Donald Trump is in the early stages of senility. So was Reagan but no one cared.
posted by emjaybee at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think Donald Trump is in the early stages of senility.

hey, it worked for ronald reagan ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


jinx
posted by pyramid termite at 8:29 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I mean Ron Paul was a fucktard but at least he seemed to believe at least some of the bullshit that Libertarians try to preach about but thinking populism is somehow compatible with libertarianism is really sketchy snake-oil Jesse is trying to sell.

Ventura is deeply weird. Apparently he thinks "libertarian" and "liberal" are basically the same thing (his words) but doesn't seem to actually be either of them. He's also of the very questionable "social liberal, fiscal conservative" persuasion, which usually just means "fuck poor people anyway."

Last I heard, he was pro-Sanders, and would run against Trump and Hilary as an independent if that's how it goes. But I just don't know. I still think Jill Stein is the one to vote for in that scenario, for those who like Bernie but are disinclined to play the "any Democrat" game.
posted by Foosnark at 8:30 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


So that, if they both won their primaries, someone in their family would be guaranteed to wind up with the job

that's nuts! so glad you did the research. do what you can to keep those yahoos out of power.
posted by nadawi at 8:33 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Surely Trump is America's Berlusconi, not its Hitler or its Mussolini.

Perhaps, but his supporters are America's Brownshirts, and there are a hell of a lot of them.

I honestly don't think it matters whether Trump can pull off the election or not. There are enough monsters out there to give him the GOP nomination. They'll be out there even if Bernie Sanders somehow ends up in the White House. This is America now, and God help us all.
posted by Naberius at 8:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I do like how the 11th commandment has completely incapacitated the GOP. "Well, we can't criticize a Republican!!!!" Between that, and the stupid amount of candidates in the race, Trump has been able to feast.

Meanwhile, both the Clinton and Sanders teams are spending time looking at how to beat Drumpf. They still have their primary yet to run, but it's been clearly those two for basically as long as Sanders has been running. They don't have to worry about splitting the "Not That Guy" vote, which is what the GOP races have been doing.

Again: Drumpf isn't winning because he's getting 51% of the vote. He's winning because he's getting less than 35% of the vote and the rest of them are getting a slice of what's left. Here's the percentages after the first four races -- that is, of *all* votes so far.

Drumpf: 32.73%
Cruz: 20.69%
Rubio: 20.01%
Kasich: 8.35%
Carson: 6.29%
Other: 11.93%

The huge tactical mistake the GOP made was not dragging Cruz and Rubio into a room and doing whatever -- flip a code, play Jenga, pistols at 25', offering the Vice Presidency -- whatever to get one of them to fold a week ago and let the other make a play for those 20%. Then, of course, go tell all the other idiots that they're done. Then, suddenly, you're looking at.

Drumpf: ~33%
Cruz or Rubio: ~20%
UNDECIDED: ~47%

And given that Rubio's supporters are likely to cross to Cruz (and visa versa), you're probably looking at the end of the Drumpf run. However: They didn't do that. They're all still in there, slicing up 2/3rds of a pie, and walking away with less than 1/3rd. And thus, Drumpfageddon.

So: I fully expect both of these to be true.

Drumpf gets about ~33% of the vote.
Drumpf wins most-to-all of the states in play.

Drawing 33% in a multi-candidate first-past-the-post race makes you very strong. Drawing 33% in a head-to-head FPTP race give you an electoral beatdown. There was a time the GOP understood this, but they just don't seem to be able to control the party anymore.
posted by eriko at 8:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


The huge tactical mistake the GOP made was not dragging Cruz and Rubio into a room and doing whatever

The GOP has about as much to do with Cruz as it does with Drumpf. Cruz wouldn't listen to them, and why should he?
posted by jimmythefish at 8:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I honestly don't think it matters whether Trump can pull off the election or not. There are enough monsters out there to give him the GOP nomination. They'll be out there even if Bernie Sanders somehow ends up in the White House. This is America now, and God help us all.

This always was America; it's just in the open now.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Something to note you're a Minnesota Democrat- even though tonight is a caucus, you can just show up to vote for the presidential candidate at 6:30 and then leave...you don't don't have to stay for the whole thing. So, go vote your conscience! Especially if you're voting for the right candidate and not that other bad candidate.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 8:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Bulgaroktonos: It's the guy who very recently suggested targeting the families of terrorists. I don't love Hillary's connection with Kissinger either either, but the answer to your actual question isn't hard.

indubitable: To me, the distinction here seems to be not whether either of them would do this, but whether they would brag about it afterward.

Wait, this isn't a very clear-cut question either.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Classy.
posted by Wordshore at 8:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I see we're laughing so we don't cry. We're going to have to figure out how to move forward after this. I have no desire in seeing all these people - friends, coworkers, acquaintances - feeling emboldened enough to let their hatred show now that Drumpf's popularity makes them think its okay for them to do so.

Some comfort:

I do not think that anything can keep the Vulgar Talking Yam from the Republican nomination at this point. Fine. The Republican nomination was, after all, always going to someone who wants the Middle East flattened, the Muslims shunned, the fetuses hallowed, the budget slashed, the government flattened and the environment pillaged. Trump may be senile or he may be a savage carnival barker, or both, but he's doing the best job of playing the media game as it exists in TYOOL 2016 and thus he is coming out on top. If I was a 70-year-old billionaire egomaniac I might've done the same just to have some serious fun before I go.

So. We have Hillary vs. a Republican Cartoon Character in the fall as we all pretty much knew we would. About 90% of the eventual vote is in place already because of how polarized this country is; no one is flipping Oklahoma or Massachusetts this year. Those who are somehow still undecided are going to watch debates and see Hillary vs. a yammering demagogue, which reminds me of the last Benghazi hearing in tone. Who came out way ahead in that? That's right.

The "moderates" aren't going to shift to Trump dramatically unless one of two things happens:
1) A Hillary scandal finally sticks because somebody in DC fucks up very very badly.
2) A major terror event involving Muslims that scares the living shit out of America.

#1 is rather unlikely. If they had anything worthwhile they'd have used it by now. So, for MANY reasons, root against #2 and all should end well.
posted by delfin at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Man the 'Drumpf' low-level xenophobia thing sits really uneasily with me.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


I'm very excited to note that here, in the most notoriously red state ever, at my polling station there were two huge lines for the Democrat ballot and you could walk right up for a Republican one. Admittedly, where I live is gerrymandered to hell--the upside of this is that my representatives are all Democrats which is a pretty nice upside actually--but even so I thought it was a great sign.

So, let's turn Texas blue again?
posted by librarylis at 8:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's highly unlikely, but what if Trump the (potential) President turns out to be much, much more moderate than Trump the candidate? What if he's just saying what he's saying in order to become President? That would be hilarious.

Don't get me wrong: I'm with Sanders all the way. Sometimes, though, you've gotta create fantasy worlds when the real world gets too horrific.
posted by oozy rat in a sanitary zoo at 8:45 AM on March 1, 2016


The "moderates" aren't going to shift to Trump dramatically unless one of two things happens:

3) a market correction triggered by Wall Street malfeasance
posted by Apocryphon at 8:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


@DinkMagic: Per Jon Oliver: anglosaxon sounding names= reliable, luxurious foreign sounding names= liar, alien bitch
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Man the 'Drumpf' low-level xenophobia thing sits really uneasily with me.

Yeah, making fun of the weird, foreign name isn't a good look.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Anybody willing to vote for Drumpf now is pretty much Drumpf always.

It's interesting for you to say that, when the whole Drumpf thing came out of a John Oliver segment very much directed at persuading Trump voters or potential voters.

Like, Oliver really, really specifically went after Trump, but not by hitting hard on the racism and misogyny and xenophobia like I thought he'd do. Sure, there was the one bit about how Trump is totes OK with war crimes, but Oliver prefaced that by showing how even Fox commentators were shocked. There were a couple jabs about Trump's appearance, but contrast that to how Oliver treated the anti-choicers in his recent abortion segment, for example. There was no fuck you. He didn't go on to mock or yell at them nearly as much as he could have.

Importantly, instead of going on and on about the stupidity of the standards being used by Trump supporters, like he could have done, the bulk of Oliver's segment was showing how Trump didn't didn't come up to their standards. He flip-flops! He is not a successful businessman! He lies! He is petty! He is a hypocrite who does not tell it like it is!

It was really nifty bit of work.
posted by joyceanmachine at 8:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


2) A major terror event involving Muslims that scares the living shit out of America.

I don't know if even this would do it. Republicans don't exactly have a solid lock on this issue anymore.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:47 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am a Canadian, and I live in Toronto. Having seen my city elect Rob Ford as its mayor, I am watching all of this with horrified fascination. The interviews with Trump supporters sound exactly like interviews with Ford supporters.

Trump understands the grand-stand politics better than his counterparts - say what will rally the most voters, even if it doesn't hold water and is nigh impossible - but what will he actually do if he wins?

I don't think he's even thought of that. His focus is on the prize, and on having as much of what he thinks of as fun while focusing on it.

Because they're still Americans who will be voting, and at this point, anyone attacking Trump just bolsters his supporters.

Again, recalling the Ford experience: there's likely a hard core of about 30% of voters who identify very strongly with Trump now, and nothing will sway them. But, at general election time, there might be people who strongly object to the Democrat nominee (whoever he or she turns out to be), who might think to themselves, "How bad could Trump be, really?" It is important to point out that a Trump presidency (like the Ford mayoralty) will be an unimaginably awful horror show.
posted by tallmiddleagedgeek at 8:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Man the 'Drumpf' low-level xenophobia thing sits really uneasily with me.

Did you watch the segment? It's not xenophobia. It's a satirical play against dog whistle antisemitism.
posted by Talez at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I can also see voting for Drumpf if you want to see a Gibsonian Dystopia Immanetized in your lifetime. I mean I like Blade Runner and Brazil and Johnny Mnemonic (the book not the film) and Neuromancer and the idea of having go-gangs terrorizing urban centers while the lumpenproles huddle around their Megacorp masters seeking handouts and safety from their corporate masters sounds fun for a Cyberpunk 2020 or Shadowrun game on a friday night but do you really think that you and your family will somehow live at the top layers of an arcology enjoying fresh nouveau cuisine while the rest of humanity eats their soyvat mycoprotein shakes?

Man I've almost talked myself into voting for Drumpf now...
posted by vuron at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Also: if I were a canny Trump political operative, I would be stroking the egos of potential third-party presidential candidates. If you can split the non-crazy vote, it increases Trump's chances of election.
posted by tallmiddleagedgeek at 8:50 AM on March 1, 2016


The GOP has about as much to do with Cruz as it does with Drumpf. Cruz wouldn't listen to them, and why should he?

You offer him the carrot and stick.

The carrot: If he wins the draw, the entire GOP falls in line behind him. This means he has a chance of being the president.

The sticks: He keeps on going, and Trump wins the nomination, and he will never be president. Why? Because the GOP will destroy him. If he gets the Tea Party to split off and hands the entire country to the Democrats, he will never be president either.

His *only* chance at winning, and his only chance at stopping Clinton or Sanders, is to play ball. He wins the draw, he's the candidate. He loses, he's the first one to announce his support for Rubio.

Now, I'm personally hoping he'd say "fuck you" and cause the Tea Party split. But you can't win if you don't make the finals, and 20% is not going to make the final.

But that's the ONLY way the GOP can save itself from Drumpf.

Man the 'Drumpf' low-level xenophobia thing sits really uneasily with me.

It's not xenophobia. It's mocking Drumpf for demeaning Jon Stewart for using a stage name instead of his real name, when his family in fact *did the exact same thing*. It's calling out a hypocrite.

See, I'm not willing to forgo calling out a hypocrite bascially ever, but esp. in a political campaign. And if he's going to demean people for changing their names for whatever reason, I'm going to Drumpf him until his Drumpy Drumpf is Drumpfed.
posted by eriko at 8:52 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


john oliver is a master satirist - everyone repeating the punchline are not. it's a very short trip from satirical xenophobia to actual xenophobia. i trust john oliver with that line, but i squint a little bit more at every repetition from the audience.
posted by nadawi at 8:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [31 favorites]


there are other ways to make the point that aren't exactly mimicking the thing you think is terrible.
posted by nadawi at 8:55 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I suppose Shicklgruber or Jughashvili doesn't have the same ring to it, either.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:57 AM on March 1, 2016


Whether it's Clinton or Drumpf, win or lose, I expect neither party will really learn anything from this experience. In the end, each side (especially the losing side) will look back at this and say, "Wow, what a crazy election" and then write the whole thing off as an aberration. They'll decide that no, none of this was a repudiation of the politics of the last 25+ years, that this is just the result of primaries with wacky non-establishment candidates...and they'll go right back to business as usual.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Here's the other thing that puzzles me a bit. People are talking like this is just How The Electorate Is and it won't ever change. But that's not what's happening. We're still moving left as a country. Right now the Right is fired up and everything's gerrymandered and disenfranchised all to hell, but these trends are not random noise.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:59 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I voted for Bern and my wife voted for Hillary so you're welcome I guess.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency

The real fight is for the soul of the Democratic party. (Cliché alert, but there it is)
posted by Trochanter at 9:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I hadn't thought about "Drumpf" being xenophobic, but yes, that is absolutely a valid point.

It doesn't quite seem that way to me because "Drumpf" sounds like an American name just, phonemically speaking, silly sounding.

Glad the xenophobic angle was brought up though.
posted by Tevin at 9:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Down here in Texas it's generally about selecting whatever sacrificial lambs we will hopelessly vote for in November who will be crushed by Republicans outspending them 10-1.

Fantasy Theory: Trump is a ruse planted by the Clintons to out maneuver the Koch brothers.
posted by Emor at 9:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm just an interested NZer living in Canada but...
Assuming Trump becomes the nominee it seems to me that the GOP establishment will have no choice but to fall in behind. I think this would make for a very different race than that suggested by the early polling for the general, where so far Trump has been going it alone.
posted by piyushnz at 9:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Democrats supporting payday lenders usurers is gross. And electorally counter-productive.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:07 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


john oliver is a master satirist - everyone repeating the punchline are not. it's a very short trip from satirical xenophobia to actual xenophobia. i trust john oliver with that line, but i squint a little bit more at every repetition from the audience.

I am reminded of what Chapelle said about his work.
posted by phearlez at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The carrot: If he wins the draw, the entire GOP falls in line behind him. This means he has a chance of being the president.

Not a chance in hell. The GOP isn't getting behind him and Cruz supporters are at least as likely to support Trump as they are Rubio. Cruz is not winning the nom in any scenario, and the establishment hates him. His support is based in evangelicals and Tea Party Republicans.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:10 AM on March 1, 2016


The Republicans have always been able to bandage up their divisions before, but each cycle it gets a bit harder for them. Hopefully this is the year they splinter entirely. I would dearly love to see the Democratic Party become the mainstream center-right party that party leaders seem to want it to be, opposed by an actual social democratic party to its left. Like all the other Western nations have. The white nationalists can go have their fringe group by themselves, eat up the carcass of that once great party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

We need a reasonable conservative party and a reasonable social-democratic party. Right now we have an unholy amalgam of the two in the Democrats, and an even unholier nationalist party to its right. It's fucking up public discourse in this country.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:12 AM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]




Move aside, “cellar door,” the new two most beautiful-sounding words in the English language are “dangerous nincompoopery.”
posted by nicepersonality at 9:18 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


This should reappear over and over in this thread.

This is why people are turning to Sanders and Trump.
posted by Max Power at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2016 [29 favorites]


John Oliver rightly pointed out that Trump was an ass towards Jon Stewart regarding his choice of (professional) name. Fine, point taken, done.

john oliver is a master satirist - everyone repeating the punchline are not. it's a very short trip from satirical xenophobia to actual xenophobia.

It was funny when the master did it, but now the Drumpf thing has these uncomfortable echoes of when people pointedly still only said "Cassius Clay".
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Can I still insult him for being Orange? I mean he does that to himself.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


If I could verbally abuse Donald Trump directly to his face (and how I would dearly love to do so), this is what I would say:

"You are unlovable. You don't have a single friend in the world. People say that they like you, but they're lying, and they're laughing behind your back. You have sycophants and hangers-on, but they're only in it for the money and the power, and any one of them would betray you in an instant if they thought it would get them one step ahead. All those people who say they want to vote for you? They don't like you. They like the evil, racist, bigoted bullshit you spew from your mouth-hole when you're on the campaign trail, but do you think they'd really give you a hand if the chips were down? They'd sooner rob you blind, and then they'd use your money to buy more guns to take potshots at Muslims and gay people. Even your family hates you. They're waiting for you to die so they can collect their inheritance and never have to look at your worthless face again. You're just a chicken waiting for the plucking. The world doesn't want you, and neither do I. Now get out of my sight."
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wow, DWS is running for president?

Look I don't agree with everything that Hillary does or says but let's be clear DWS was chosen by the DNC to be the chair. Want to replace her get your state Chair or Vice chair to speak up against her.
posted by vuron at 9:35 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


This should reappear over and over in this thread.

This is why people are turning to Sanders and Trump.


Those links appear to be identical? Just thought I'd mention it. Unless that was somehow the point EDIT - oh, nevermind, I just got it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:35 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Voted this morning in my usually Republican-voting town -- as in most local offices don't even have a Democrat running, just independents, teabaggers, and Republicans. No lines at the polls, which isn't really a good sign, but it may just have been my timing. I did overhear the poll workers say that they had prepared 100 folder/ballot sets for each party's primary, and noticed that the Democrat pile was almost gone, while the Republican pile had apparently gone through a lot less ballots and had about twice as many left, maybe more. An older lady ahead of me dithered a bit between parties, preferring Clinton to be the candidate she'd vote for in the fall, but ultimately getting a Republican ballot so she could vote against Trump. I'm wondering if others in her shoes are voting in the opposing party's primary in the hopes that at least one candidate will be palatable to them later, or if Republican turnout is just low.
posted by Blackanvil at 9:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is why people are turning to Sanders and Trump.

I can't believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't fired, after getting caught putting her hand on the scales for Clinton. This payday lender stuff is just icing on the cake, to explain why the Democrat machine has virtually no credibility with anyone on the left.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [43 favorites]


Those links appear to be identical?
With one you get autoplaying audio. Surprise yourself!
posted by achrise at 9:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm wondering if others in her shoes are voting in the opposing party's primary

Stephanie Stradley, a sports blogger and lawyer from Houston tweeted this morning that she does that.
posted by Trochanter at 9:39 AM on March 1, 2016


DWS was chosen by the DNC to be the chair. Want to replace her get your state Chair or Vice chair to speak up against her.

Umm, it's perfectly legitimate to complain about the direction DWS is taking the Democratic party. Who cares what the mechanism of her appointment by the DNC was? She's now the leader. She's wrong on this, and perhaps the DNC folks were wrong to select her too. Why should we be limited to criticizing party functionaries?
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Funny thing, I came over to share the Shakesville link and my reactions to it.

Half of me said: this is wise and a well-needed corrective.

Half of me said: oh for Christ's sake. Do you think he and his don't call us fat weak SJWs at every turn? Why play to type?

It is one of them moral dilemmata.
posted by Countess Elena at 9:42 AM on March 1, 2016


get your state Chair or Vice chair to speak up against her.

The DNC vice chair from my state resigned to support Sanders.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Why is everybody rewriting Trump as Drumpf? Is this some clever in-joke that I haven't yet heard about?
posted by theorique at 9:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, it's not clever...
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is no insult sufficiently piercing, no meme dank enough, to do real damage to Trump among the people supporting him.

Pull for whoever ends up running against him, get enthused, get hype, and GOTV
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think it's a legitimate position to show that DWS is in support of payday lenders and should be primaried from the left (which I believe is what is happening with Tim Canova) but that DWS is not Hillary Clinton and that there seems to be a conflation of the two.

Keep in mind that DWS was Obama's pick for the DNC so is he automatically in favor of payday lenders?
posted by vuron at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


(It's from John Oliver's latest show, referencing Trump's family's originally-spelled name, and people are perhaps a bit too in love with it)
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is this some clever in-joke that I haven't yet heard about?

Metafilter:
posted by Trochanter at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Mod note: One deleted. theorique, seriously do not pick a fight in here or I will ban you.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Since he slaps his name on everything like other animals piss to mark their territory, I feel like poking fun at his name is fair game. But on reflection, I'm more comfortable doing so in a non-ethnicity-specific way.

So, Donald Dumptruck it is.
posted by Foosnark at 9:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Why is everybody rewriting Trump as Drumpf? Is this some clever in-joke that I haven't yet heard about?

Last Week Tonight - Donald Trump (Feb 28)
posted by cashman at 9:49 AM on March 1, 2016


Obama and DWS are not close:
"Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose term has two years to run, is deeply at odds with White House staffers, they say, and has rarely even spoken to President Barack Obama since she took over in 2011. ...

According to people who spoke with [DWS], when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic. Under fire last fall for her leadership, she took Obama’s decision not to remove her then as evidence of renewed strength and said she was confident no one could get her out of the DNC before her term is over at the beginning of 2017, according to sources who’ve spoken with her."

And besides which, the idea that nobody can criticize Democratic party actions just because Obama liked them is stupid. If Obama was supporting GOP anti-regulation stances in favor of payday lenders, yes, I would be angry with him too.
posted by dialetheia at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


I've voted in every presidential election since 1996 but this morning I voted in my first primary. I live in not Austin, Texas so it was pretty dead in the democratic primary voting place but I am proud that I voted.

GO BERNIE!!!
posted by shmurley at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Trump has demonstrated that his name alone serves as a racial epithet that one must apologize for using. It should be enough that just stating his name is an insult.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:52 AM on March 1, 2016


I think part of the appeal of Drumpf is that Trump literally means a winning move, and that's repulsive to his opponents.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Is A Family Friend And He’s Full Of S*** -- Cooper Hefner.
posted by mazola at 9:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump, Clinton, Sanders, all around 70 years old. I'm amazed by the energy they have. The campaign has been going for months, it could continue for months and then there's the general, day after day of travel, and speeches, high level decision making. And tweeting. I'm half their ag... Okay, a BIG number younger, and I'm done for the day soon after lunch. Including the tweets.

I don't think they're actually human, honestly.
posted by notyou at 9:55 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]




I'm wondering if others in her shoes are voting in the opposing party's primary in the hopes that at least one candidate will be palatable to them later, or if Republican turnout is just low.

Some people vote in the opposing party's primary for whoever they think will be easier for their party's candidate to beat in the general.
posted by amarynth at 9:58 AM on March 1, 2016


I don't think they're actually human, honestly.

Don't be silly.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


*after results of Suoer Tuesday are called in* So, what role do you wanna do in The Resistance?
posted by The Whelk at 10:00 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Let's go back to "Fuckface Von Clownstick" it was funnier and we let it go way too soon.
(and it was working)
posted by Trochanter at 10:00 AM on March 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


I don't think they're actually human, honestly.

One out of three ....
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:00 AM on March 1, 2016


Let me make this more realistic, Faint of Butt:

If I could verbally abuse Donald Trump directly to his face (and how I would dearly love to do so), this is what I would say:

"You are unlovable. You don't have a single fri-OW OW OW STOP CHOKING ME AIEEEEEEEEEE[thud]"

posted by phearlez at 10:00 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Voting starts to close in six hours time.
posted by Wordshore at 10:02 AM on March 1, 2016


I mean, I don't entertain fantasies of confronting Trump, because it's quite obvious that he's immune to shame. So what would be the point? Getting choke-slammed is merely the shit-icing on the waste-of-time cake.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:03 AM on March 1, 2016


Eh, I assumed I already had him duct-taped to a chair at that point.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I mean, I don't entertain fantasies of confronting Trump, because it's quite obvious that he's immune to shame.

Well, get it out of your system now - I give it six months after he's elected it'll be effectively illegal.
posted by Mooski at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


OK, we don't want to be xenophobic, but we still want to mock the implicit power of his name?

Donald Bingo. Donald Yahtzee. Donald You Sank My Battleship. Donald Pretty Sneaky Sis.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


He would probably regard at least half of that rant as a compliment.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:09 AM on March 1, 2016


This is why people are turning to Sanders and Trump

Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced a bill supported by the payday lending industry because it showered her with campaign donations. Elizabeth Warren was in favor of ending the tax on medical devices because she represents a state where a lot of medical device companies are headquartered. Politicians gonna politician.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 10:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Um...
posted by Wordshore at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


So, what role do you wanna do in The Resistance?

I was thinking we should call our anti-Trump-Occupation resistance movement The Helpers, after Mr. Rogers.
posted by sallybrown at 10:13 AM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced a bill supported by the payday lending industry because it showered her with campaign donations. Elizabeth Warren was in favor of ending the tax on medical devices because she represents a state where a lot of medical device companies are headquartered. Politicians gonna politician.

Right! That's why I'm thrilled to get a chance to vote for someone who is supported by small donations from regular people. Whether he is legit about it or not, many people feel the same way about Trump not taking corporate money, god help us. It's his second biggest talking point after that damn construction scam/"wall" he wants to build.
posted by dialetheia at 10:13 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Um...

The resemblance to Poochie is deliberate, right? There's no way it can't be?
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:14 AM on March 1, 2016


Um...

i don't think that account is entirely serious
posted by nadawi at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I assume so. (Sadly, under Poe's law obvious parody account is not in fact obvious.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2016


Not that DWS is anywhere near my idea of a great representative, but the fixation with her and venemous flavor of some of the stuff said about her is kind of uncomfortable. I half expect someone to accuse her of being a witch next.
posted by sallybrown at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


(Sadly, under Poe's law obvious parody account is not in fact obvious)

I'm suckered again. My apologies. Carry on, everyone.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2016


It's impossible to know if @GOPTeens is serious. What would a Republican Twitter account designed for youth outreach actually look like? It's like asking what's in the middle of a black hole.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Okay FINE I won't use Drumpf.
Mostly I thought he should suffer the pain of having a name that comes off as unwieldy and unusual in English, like mine.

Ugh. Metafilter.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


@GOPTeens is one of my favorite twitter satire accounts, so, no, not serious.
posted by dis_integration at 10:18 AM on March 1, 2016


I've been down in Florida for a week, with folks who love to ask waiters, Uber drivers, hotel clerks and golf pro shop clerks about the election. Trump lovers, overwhemingly. Even the ones who like Clinton still look they're drinking a glass of buttermilk when they say so. Trump's got more play with the working class than any Republican since Reagan ... very, very real.
posted by MattD at 10:18 AM on March 1, 2016


I'm looking down the @GOPTeens tweets and thinking ... "But a GOP account aimed at teens *would* say that". Repeatedly. #confused
posted by Wordshore at 10:18 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Donald Rump.
posted by gurple at 10:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




There are Democrats and Republicans both retweeting GOPTeens thinking they are helping their respective parties. It's rabbit holes all the way down.
posted by Tevin at 10:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's sexist to critique DWS. But it seems like there's this compulsion to find literally every single thing she has ever done wrong, and then relentlessly pillory her about it over and over - the nature of the critique is what feels a little sexist to me. The fact that she's become villainous instead of just a bad politician to some people.
posted by sallybrown at 10:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


waiters, Uber drivers, hotel clerks and golf pro shop clerks

If I was a service industry worker and I had customers hassling me about who I was voting for I'd probably go with the one least likely to get me berated
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Ugh, I just figured out that DWS does not stand for Dancing with the Stars. That makes more sense now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Can i just say I would have loved to hear what HST would have to say about this election?
posted by entropicamericana at 10:23 AM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


I half expect someone to accuse her of being a witch next.

Well, can you prove that she's not?

The fact that she's become villainous instead of just a bad politician to some people.

I agree, and I feel the same way about Clinton, frankly. And the same in reverse about Sanders. There's no Kind and Virtuous Saviour, there's no Malevolent Evil Witch, it's just a bunch of people who want political power for one reason or another.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Not that DWS is anywhere near my idea of a great representative, but the fixation with her and venemous flavor of some of the stuff said about her is kind of uncomfortable. I half expect someone to accuse her of being a witch next.

Oh for crying out loud. She's the chair of the Democratic National Committee, one of the most important people in the party. The "fixation" makes a lot more sense in that context. I don't like the idea of shutting down political criticism of someone who just today came out in support of scummy payday lenders - it's not like people are digging stuff up, she did this today - and I don't think it's at all fair to imply that it's sexist. If anything, it's sexist for people like her to support the exploitation of poor women who are forced to use those places.
posted by dialetheia at 10:24 AM on March 1, 2016 [44 favorites]


Can i just say I would have loved to hear what HST would have to say about this election?

HST would commit suicide all over again, so it's probably just as well he isn't around.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hunter S. Thompson? DWS HRC NSA JFK!
posted by dis_integration at 10:26 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sadly, the reaction of lots of sexist assholes to a woman being criticized for legitimate reasons is OH BOY, FREE PUNCHING BAG

I am not calling anyone in this thread a sexist asshole
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Hunter S. Thompson? DWS HRC NSA JFK!

It's like the 2016 version of We Didn't Start the Fire.
posted by Talez at 10:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Hunter S. Thompson? DWS HRC NSA JFK!

NBD.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:28 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I keep thinking it's going to be about sock puppets, but then there are shoes. Election season is confusing.
posted by theora55 at 10:28 AM on March 1, 2016


Sadly, the reaction of lots of sexist assholes to a woman being criticized for legitimate reasons is OH BOY, FREE PUNCHING BAG

I am not calling anyone in this thread a sexist asshole


Yeah, I don't think anybody here is calling out DWS for anything other than legitimate reasons. But there's this whole undercurrent of "Little Debbie" shit that just gets my fuckin' goat, regardless of what "side" it's coming from.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:29 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Just don't be so fucking terrible. That's all I ask. Just everybody person up and act like a decent goddamned human being, for fuck's sake.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:31 AM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


I don't like the idea of shutting down political criticism

Not asking for shutting down, just consideration of the fact that women in power are critiqued very differently -- and often with a lot more venom -- than men would be in their places, and asking people to chew on that a little.
posted by sallybrown at 10:31 AM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Noticing that the odds for Ted Cruz to be the GOP candidate have been gradually lengthening through today. Diehard Cruz supporters can now get 50-1 (!) on him being their candidate. Only 2 of the bookies on there offer conventional odds shorter than 40-1 now.

Is this really Cruz's last stand, today? Could he be out of the race in a day or two? Tempted to have a few quid on the 2-1 Ladbrokes are offering that he's out of it by March 8th.
posted by Wordshore at 10:35 AM on March 1, 2016


Just don't be so fucking terrible. That's all I ask. Just everybody person up and act like a decent goddamned human being, for fuck's sake.

If HRC (<g>) said this, do you think she'd get some Trump-esque credit for telling it like it is? I'd love to hear this come out of her mouth when Trump starts spewing his nonsense in the first general election debate.
posted by dis_integration at 10:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


As a counterpoint, I think women's political actions should be subject to just as much legitimate criticism as men's - to do otherwise is to treat them as if they can't hold up to the political process without special protection. For example, I'm a woman scientist, and if anyone tried to protect my work from legitimate criticism just because I was a woman I would take it as grave insult to my work. It can stand on its own. So can Debbie Wasserman Schultz's record. There are definitely a lot of gendered elements to this and lots of people say explicitly sexist shit, certainly! And I wouldn't be surprised if there was plenty of that about Debbie Wasserman Schultz, too, and I don't think any of that would be right or fair. But that isn't what's happening here. To protect her from substantive criticism maintains this idea that we have to be protected from legitimate criticism because we can't take it. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a very powerful politician - I'm pretty sure she can withstand substantive criticism on her policy choices.
posted by dialetheia at 10:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Remember, just before Cruz drops out of the race, he changes into his final demon form. You have to jump over his triple fireballs and keep hitting him in the head with your fully upgraded whip until he concedes. If you have holy water, use it.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [52 favorites]


Trump, Clinton, Sanders, all around 70 years old. I'm amazed by the energy they have. The campaign has been going for months, it could continue for months and then there's the general, day after day of travel, and speeches, high level decision making. And tweeting. I'm half their ag... Okay, a BIG number younger, and I'm done for the day soon after lunch. Including the tweets.

I don't think they're actually human, honestly.


There are a lot of people behind the scenes. I mean, it's still massively stressful and enegy-intensive, but there's a whole support infrastructure designed to make sure they only have to do the stuff that they really have to do because none of the staff can. And they have been doing this (or a variant of it, in the case of Trump) for decades. Being able to be on, on on when you need to be is a skill like anything else.

And it's not going to get any easier from Inauguration Day onwards, so in that sense, whatever else can be said (and there ain't a lot of good) about our crazed eighteen-month election extravaganza, it is something of an endurance test to see who can really take the heat.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I say this as someone who regularly thinks how much he'd like to throw a molotov cocktail through the window of payday loan/title loan shops - I'm not sure how much point there is in judging any candidate/office holder on this issue anymore.

Carter signed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, nobody stepped up and passed some federal usury legislation after Marquette, and year later we'd have the massive giveaway with bankruptcy "reform" in the 2000s.(which 17 Ds voted for; Clinton was a no-show) The idea that borrowers should be protected by some remotely sensible limits on how big the vig should be is long dead on both sides of the aisle.
posted by phearlez at 10:37 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Steve Benen: Paul Ryan gets stuck in the Republican Party’s dilemma
“Today I want to be very clear about something, if a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games, they must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals. This is the party of Lincoln,” Ryan said.
It all sounded quite encouraging, right up until the end of the Republican leader’s appearance with reporters. Asked specifically about Trump and Ryan’s general election plans, the House Speaker conceded he plans “to support the nominee” in the fall, no matter who it is.

And this, in a nutshell, helps capture one of the Republican Party’s principal dilemmas.

Ryan’s posture, while heartening at first blush, is burdened by flaws. The Speaker said all the right things about rejecting bigotry and appealing to Americans’ highest ideals, but this is the same Republican leader who’ll make no effort to restore the Voting Rights Act, and who continues to support Steve Scalise’s leadership post despite the Louisianan’s highly controversial background on race.

But more to the point, while Ryan seems uncomfortable with Trump’s approach to race, the Wisconsin congressman isn’t yet prepared to take meaningful action. Ryan said this morning that anyone who expects to be the Republican nominee must renounce bigotry, but in practical terms, what exactly does Ryan intend to do about it?
posted by zombieflanders at 10:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Welp, we voted!
posted by kyrademon at 10:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I say this as someone who regularly thinks how much he'd like to throw a molotov cocktail through the window of payday loan/title loan shops - I'm not sure how much point there is in judging any candidate/office holder on this issue anymore.

The legislation she's supporting would explicitly gut the CFPB protections that people like Elizabeth Warren worked so hard to build. It's not like she's just signing onto some foregone conclusion bill - she's actively pushing for the gutting of consumer protections that other Democrats worked hard to build: "Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill"
posted by dialetheia at 10:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [31 favorites]




the DWS thing could maybe go in another thread, maybe?
posted by angrycat at 10:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Why, it's almost like establishment Democrats don't actually represent the people, but rather represent the moneyed interests who give them scads of money. That can't be right, though, because I was told the establishment candidate is a progressive who will work for me!
posted by entropicamericana at 10:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


Yeah I'm not disagreeing that it's garbage and should be stopped. But I'm saying it's not remotely unfamiliar territory for democrats anymore, so talking about DWS being a bad dem party leader because she would do such a thing... it's not a position the party has been good on for most of my lifetime.

It would be great it they WERE good on it and I'd love to see some ursery protections that say maybe 10% over prime per year should be plenty good enough for almost any purpose. But that would be a big move for the party.
posted by phearlez at 10:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


This letter to the editor may be the least persuasive case for Donald Trump
Electing the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party seems purposeless. The neanderthal Republicans barely respected the legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s election, let alone that of Hillary who would arrive tainted with scandal and the email lapses hanging over her head. We would get four years of gridlock and "hearings". The Republican tribunes, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are backward, foolish and inexperienced. John Kasich, a moderate with extensive governmental experience and a willingness to compromise, is an also-ran. That leaves The Donald, really a moderate in wolf’s garb, who would owe nothing to either party and might strike deals, for instance on tax reform. Yes, we could be like the good citizens who voted for a "tameable" Hitler in 1933 to get things back on track. But the alternatives look worse.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:45 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Asking people to consider (not even change! Just consider) their tone when discussing DWS is not shutting down substantive critique, unless you interpret the request as a bad faith way to stop people from talking about her. I assure you, I'm making the request in good faith.
posted by sallybrown at 10:47 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


One reason that I am in favor of "Drumpf" is because Trump is a brand. His name appears in giant gold letters on nearly every piece of real estate he owns. We've probably all heard of Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, etc... without trying to seek it out. Every time his name appears in an article headline, it's essentially free advertisement for his business/brand. Not to mention his last name, as a verb, literally means "to excel; surpass; outdo." Interesting, since he appears to be doing just that as the Republican nominee.

I honestly wasn't aware of the xenophobic connotations, but it is not why I'm preferring to refer to him as Drumpf. Renaming him is a way of dismantling his power a.k.a. the Drumpf brand.
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 10:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Renaming him is a way of dismantling his power a.k.a. the Drumpf brand.

Intent does not equal impact. Please don't use that name.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It would be great it they WERE good on it

I mean, that's my point - they were in the process of "being good on it" via these new CFPB regulations, and now she wants to stop other Democrats from doing that. It is an especially bad look for the party leader, and is just one more point of evidence to help explain why so many Democrats are fed up with the party this year.
posted by dialetheia at 10:49 AM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


(It's from John Oliver's latest show, referencing Trump's family's originally-spelled name, and people are perhaps a bit too in love with it)

Ah, got it. I mean, Drumpf is kind of odd sounding in English, but the joke is kind of ... meh?

(To me, it sounds a lot like "Schtroumpf", the original French nonsense word for what became "Smurf" in English. I thought people were obliquely calling Trump a Smurf.)
posted by theorique at 10:49 AM on March 1, 2016


Perhaps, but his supporters are America's Brownshirts, and there are a hell of a lot of them.

We don't call them Brownshirts here. They're Red Shirts.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:50 AM on March 1, 2016


there is so much horrible awful evil easy to mock shit that trump has actually done - resting on the punchline of easily the least hitting part of that entire piece and clinging to it seems silly at best.
posted by nadawi at 10:52 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Renaming him is a way of dismantling his power a.k.a. the Drumpf brand.

Well, you can do that without dragging his family (or people who happen to share a name) into it. Every comedian misfires once in a while, this was just weak humor on Oliver's part.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:53 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hahaha, wow. Trump on his small hands: "“He said I have small hands — actually I’m 6-3, not 6-2 — but he said I had small hands. They’re not small, are they?” Mr. Trump said, referring to a joke Mr. Rubio said on the campaign trail two days ago. He raised his hands, staring at them and turning them over, before waving them at the crowd. “I never heard that one before. I’ve always had people say, ‘Donald you have the most beautiful hands.'”"

I especially love the "I never heard that before" part in light of the thoroughly documented small-hand correspondence between Trump and Graydon Carter from Spy Magazine/Vanity Fair.
posted by dialetheia at 10:54 AM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm open to other renames. Donald Poopface isn't quite as catchy.
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 10:55 AM on March 1, 2016


sock shoe sock shoe

what

posted by cortex
So, looks like the first hour of the next podcast is already set!

I mean, to suddenly discover a hidden schism in the MeFi community is one thing. But when such a difference is previously unknown by the Mods -- well, even ignoring how definitionally wrong the "SoShSoSh" crowd are, seeing that the Cabal was unprepared for this is unsettles me.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I voted for "Donald Yahtzee" over in the other thread.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:57 AM on March 1, 2016


look I will scream into a pillow for two hours if Trump is elected but the whole calling-people-by-the-names-they-want-to-be-called thing has p much been litigated and settled on MetaFilter already sooooo
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm so sick of Donald Trump and the people who can't shut up about him that I would like to hibernate until this is all over. His opinions and the support for them makes me physically and emotionally pained.
posted by chonus at 10:57 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


serious query: is all the short-fingered shit penis size related? because although I'm delighted by the gold-sharpie tinged email correspondence, i really don't get this emphasis on his fingers.
posted by angrycat at 10:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm inclined toward "Got Rump" and "Tornado of Bigotry" but there's so many treasures to choose from!
posted by Tevin at 10:58 AM on March 1, 2016


Intent does not equal impact. Please don't use that name.

It's kind of a dumb "joke", but is the negative impact anything other than hypothetical at this point?
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


fuckface von clownstick is still my winner.
posted by nadawi at 10:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm no fan of Trump, but it seems just as shitty to make fun of his appearance as it would anyone else. He's said and advocated plenty of things you can attack him on.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:59 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm open to other renames. Donald Poopface isn't quite as catchy.

In the last days of Spy they tried to make "Donald Mayonnaise" happen. It never caught on at the time.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:00 AM on March 1, 2016


"fuckface von clownstick" is good for pure vitriol but it smacks of bitterness and cynicism with a hint of desperation. The name must have a bit of insouciance and point to one of his many insecurities to really be a dig.*

*a dig at whom, I'm not really sure, but whatever
posted by Tevin at 11:01 AM on March 1, 2016


I would argue that making fun of Trump for anything other than his terrible ideas at this point is just playing into the bitter resentment of all the jackwagons who love him.

People spent eight years posting memes of GWB looking like a monkey, but the only thing that substantially hurt his popularity was his fucking abysmal response to Katrina, followed by a grudging acknowledgement that everything he said about Iraq was a total lie. Obama won in 2008 because he spoke to people's pain and offered them a way out, and he was classy as fuck toward his opponents.

Sneering down your nose at "NASCAR dads" or "low-information voters" or whatever is now and has always been a losing proposition.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


serious query: is all the short-fingered shit penis size related? because although I'm delighted by the gold-sharpie tinged email correspondence, i really don't get this emphasis on his fingers.

I cannot speak to the original intent behind the term, but my take is that it's meant to show how insecure he is. Having someone call you short-fingered in borderline meaningless, but when it's leveled against him, Trump starts showing his hands off and taking about how beautiful they are. It'd be like calling him pointy-elbowed and him only donning short sleeves for a while to "disprove" it.
posted by defenestration at 11:02 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


i don't view fuckface von clownstick as a comment as his appearance, instead more of his entire aura of being. he personifies the clownstick fuckery.
posted by nadawi at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


You could always call him Biff Tannen.
posted by Foosnark at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


In the last days of Spy they tried to make "Donald Mayonnaise" happen.

Because he's white, rich, oily, and smells faintly of egg?
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also, I think the Spy writer literally thought he had short fingers. Could be misreading the whole situation, though.
posted by defenestration at 11:03 AM on March 1, 2016


ooohhh about the fingers. that makes more sense. i view that one as free game because he's been so weird about it for decades now. it could just as easily be the pointedness of his shoes or shape of his ear lobes.
posted by nadawi at 11:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm going to call him Don T. As in Don'T. Please, just don't vote for him.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:04 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why is everybody rewriting Drumpf as Drumpf? Is this some clever in-joke that I haven't yet heard about?

Heh.

Heh. heheh.


< high-school-style social anxiety intensifies >
posted by theorique at 11:04 AM on March 1, 2016


I'm not a big fan of silly names, but those saying "Drumpf" is xenophobic --- are you claiming John Oliver, who isn't American himself, is against foreigners? Including himself? Or just that _other_ people are using it in a xenophobic way?
posted by thefoxgod at 11:06 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


xenophobic or not, "Drumpf" peaked too high, too soon, and the sun has melted its wings. are there any exit polls coming in yet or something?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:08 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Personally, I think that people continuing to legitimize the use of schoolyard-level taunts as an appropriate way to refer to political opponents is ultimately going to end up helping Donald Trump's campaign rather than hurting it.
posted by kyrademon at 11:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


(Also it's gross.)
posted by kyrademon at 11:09 AM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Also, something to keep in mind is that Oliver specifically intended for people to use Drumpf outside of the context of his show. So it's not just people mimicking a satirist and losing the satire along the way. He wants people to use the name.

Not saying that makes it good or bad or anything. It's just a fact that has been missing from the discussion here.
posted by defenestration at 11:10 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is all too much for me. Gonna go stock up on some Brawndo and hope for the best
posted by localhuman at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I just want tell you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by schmod at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I haven't seen the John Oliver segment, but I doubt a schoolyard level taunt will push anyone over the edge and make them vote for Trump.

A silly joke does not turn you into a racist asshole.
posted by Tarumba at 11:13 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think people are primarily amused that a guy whose family hails from Bavaria would import the ideas of a guy that is famous for trying to seize control over Bavaria through a populist uprising and failing.

As the cool kids on the 4chan would say it's like pottery.
posted by vuron at 11:13 AM on March 1, 2016


thefoxgod: “I'm not a big fan of silly names, but those saying 'Drumpf' is xenophobic --- are you claiming John Oliver, who isn't American himself, is against foreigners? Including himself? Or just that _other_ people are using it in a xenophobic way?”

It's totally possible for non-Americans to be xenophobic. And to be selective about their xenophobia. Not sure why it wouldn't be.
posted by koeselitz at 11:14 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Personally I'm not using "Drumpf" either as I think its better to concentrate on the many, many horrible things he says and does, but I just saw it as silly / taunting stuff not xenophobic, and I think I didn't even consider it that way partially because John Oliver is clearly positioned as an outsider commenting on the US)
posted by thefoxgod at 11:14 AM on March 1, 2016


Just checked when my primary (DC) is.

June 14th. A week after the next-to-last primaries. Nothing quite says that the DNC takes DC for granted like scheduling our primary so late as to make it virtually impossible for our votes to matter.
posted by schmod at 11:14 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


It's totally possible for non-Americans to be xenophobic

Looking up the definition, I guess you're right, though I usually think of it in terms of "I don't want foreigners in my country" which would be a weird position for someone whose comic identity is a foreigner commenting on US culture/politics.

But having watched the segment I don't see it that way, nor do I see it being used that way. But I'm not a fan of the silly names thing and don't do it with any politicians, so meh.
posted by thefoxgod at 11:16 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Based upon how well Hillary Clinton does with AA voters you'd think that a primary in DC would be very favorable to her.
posted by vuron at 11:16 AM on March 1, 2016


Personally, I think that people continuing to legitimize the use of schoolyard-level taunts as an appropriate way to refer to political opponents

That's been his whole campaign. He did it to the freaking pope.
posted by Trochanter at 11:17 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


FYI: There's an open FanFare thread on the John Oliver episode. Maybe some of the Drumpf/is-Oliver-xenophobic commentary fits better over there.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I would argue that making fun of Trump for anything other than his terrible ideas at this point is just playing into the bitter resentment of all the jackwagons who love him.

On further reflection, I agree with this and retract my previous comments about calling him some other name.

I think maybe there should be an exception for the short-fingered trolling thing though, because it is just so bizarre that this weird little thing gets under his skin like it apparently does.

I'm for anything that gets under his skin, throws him off his game and reveals him for the insecure, egotistical, dangerous fool that he is. I'm picturing a parody pharma ad:

(voice-over)

"Do you have trouble hitting a fifth on the piano? Do you find yourself wearing mittens in summer to keep people from looking at your hands? Have people ever mistakenly asked you what kind of an industrial accident caused your fingers to be cut off?

"IF SO, you may be suffering from Small Digit Syndrome, or SDS. SDS affects millions of Americans, impacting their ability to easily grab shiny objects hidden in tree knots. Prosthetic fingers are now available which can dramatically increase your quality of life. Talk to your doctor about whether prosthetic fingers are right for you.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I suspect this has something to do with the DNC taking its "reliable" demographics for granted.
posted by schmod at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "That's been his whole campaign. He did it to the freaking pope."

That was my point.
posted by kyrademon at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2016


In the last days of Spy they tried to make "Donald Mayonnaise" happen.

I take offense to that!
posted by mayonnaises at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Via projects
posted by The Whelk at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Then we can start a campaign to send prosthetic fingers to Trump's campaign headquarters.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:20 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's totally possible for non-Americans to be xenophobic. And to be selective about their xenophobia.

Continuing my DC politics derail, this happens all the time in our local elections. (See also: Marion Barry)
posted by schmod at 11:20 AM on March 1, 2016


If I was a service industry worker and I had customers hassling me about who I was voting for I'd probably go with the one least likely to get me berated

Yeah, as someone who works retail, please don't ask people in those jobs about their opinion on anything other than the product they sell. Especially not politics or religion. There are so many many ways that it could go badly for them.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:21 AM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


You can't teach people to be cool. Or smart. I think Democracy proves this. If we end up with a reality show president, then, well, ratings win. Right?
posted by valkane at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2016


Embarrassing? Most voices here are encouraging or choosing the high road. Hell, I've conceded the point and won't use the name. Metafilter definitely has its ugly moments, but this isn't one of them.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, it's not really America's finest hour. I think we're just tired and frustrated and anxious.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


“At a rally on Sunday in Roanoke, Va., Rubio took the low road. Acknowledging that Trump has taken to calling him 'Little Marco,' Rubio said, 'he's like 6'2, which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who's 5'2.' He added: 'You know what they say about men with small hands.' He paused. 'You can't trust them.' So here we are, a penis joke and on the Lord's Day, with kids in the audience. It was only a matter of time before all the candidates started playing by the front-runner's rules... Unlike Trump, the slapdown isn't Rubio's natural medium. He is more comfortable inhabiting the persona of the optimistic young senator telling us the sun will come out tomorrow. But he's growing — or regressing, depending on how you see it. ‘Donald is not going to make America great. He's going to make it orange,’ or ‘Donald Trump likes to sue people. He should sue whoever did that to his face.’ Next Rubio will say his mom wears combat boots.” Margaret Carlson at the Chicago Tribune: By going nuclear, Rubio may only strengthen Trump.
posted by koeselitz at 11:25 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The full SPY Magazine insult was "short-fingered vulgarian", so the message was rather classist.

Anyway, Trump has fire hands: long palms, short fingers:
The palm is long and rectangular and the fingers short by comparison. Most people with this hand are outgoing, persuasive and have a tendency to always be the life of the party. They excel when on the go and thrive on it, but do not realize that this can cause burnout and incomplete undertakings. They are usually fun to be around; however, they can turn on a dime. They also can be extremely impatient. This hand shape corresponds to the astrological signs of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius.
posted by maudlin at 11:27 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


whoa at the hand phrenology man
posted by angrycat at 11:29 AM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


(To me, it sounds a lot like "Schtroumpf", the original French nonsense word for what became "Smurf" in English. I thought people were obliquely calling Trump a Smurf.)

Oompa Loompa, surely.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:30 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This hand shape corresponds to the astrological signs of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius.

See, if we're gonna have a bloody weird election season, we really need to go all out exactly like that. Debates over interpretations of astrological charts. Dire prognostications from the reading of entrails. Divination rituals taking place on national television. Literal augury.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:33 AM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


Y'all, I live in small town Texas. I just went to the polling place at the local library, and it was a two hour wait. There were hundreds of cars. The overflow parking lots were full, and volunteers were shuttling people back and forth from the next closest parking. It was madness. They had to open a second polling location, and the only reason I got out of there in under 30 minutes is because the Dems line was waaaay shorter than the R line. Polling place worker said we were on target to match 2008 turnout.

I talked to a lot of folks while I was killing about trying to figure out where the secondary polling place was, and if this little rural burb is anything to judge by, Cruz is getting his ass handed to him. Everyone I talked to was either Trump or Bernie.

The Dem political machine is freaked out enough that they cancelled the caucus after polling that determines delegates. They rescheduled it for the middle of the day in a week or two. Which, I gotta tell you, smacks of collusion, the machine really wants Hillary, and it seems an underhanded way to get what they want.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Does the White House even have an official Augur? If not, why not? Surely, the auspices must be taken before every State of the Union.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Trepanation.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


...i had recently considered rebuying the tarot deck i bought as a baby-pagan in the 90s...maybe i can get an election show on msnbc.
posted by nadawi at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


At a rally on Sunday in Roanoke, Va., Rubio took the low road. Acknowledging that Trump has taken to calling him 'Little Marco,' Rubio said, 'he's like 6'2, which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who's 5'2.' He added: 'You know what they say about men with small hands.' He paused. 'You can't trust them.' So here we are, a penis joke and on the Lord's Day, with kids in the audience. It was only a matter of time before all the candidates started playing by the front-runner's rules...

Like I said, this all reminds me of a WWE match. (Admittedly, I wouldn't mind seeing one of those chuckleheads smacked with a folding chair.)

(Never thought I would be concerned about the coarsening of culture in America. Then again, I never thought presidential candidates would be trading insults about genital size, either.)
posted by entropicamericana at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "Debates over interpretations of astrological charts. Dire prognostications from the reading of entrails. Divination rituals taking place on national television. Literal augury."

13 bald eagles found mysteriously dead near Washington, DC
posted by kyrademon at 11:36 AM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


The stars are right!
posted by The Whelk at 11:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


13 bald eagles found mysteriously dead near Washington, DC

WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:38 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


And of course there was that super blood moon last fall. There may also have been dragons.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:39 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Iä! Trump-Niggurath! Iä! Trump-Niggurath!
posted by zombieflanders at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


KEEP BEACH CITY WEIRD
posted by nadawi at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The great part about this is that nobody is going to cut and run until the convention if Trump can't crack 50% - Mike Leavitt on NPR this morning already has the gameplan laid out. Cruz and Rubio and Kasich steal juuuuust enough votes from Trump to send it to a brokered convention where party leadership will pick whoever the hell they want to fill the ticket (He bluntly said it would be Rubio and Kasich, to cement FL and OH and to bring in the conservative Latino vote) and send Trump third party and Cruz back to whatever rock he scuttled out from under.

Look to Colorado, where Republican voters are not allowed to caucus, only delegates. The winners there will be the nominees after the convention.

It will blast apart the party. Voters don't like to be told their vote is worthless because they are stupid.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Is Trump the Beast from Transmetropolitan? I think it was implied the Beast was a Republican.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:41 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Dem political machine is freaked out enough that they cancelled the caucus after polling that determines delegates. They rescheduled it for the middle of the day in a week or two.

Huh, how is that possible? I thought all Super Tuesday voting/caucusing had to be done by today?
posted by kyp at 11:42 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is Trump the Beast from Transmetropolitan? I think it was implied the Beast was a Republican.

The Beast was Clinton. The Smiler was Dubbya. Warren Ellis is scarily on point sometimes. We're into a new realm of electoral sci-fi horror.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]




Slap*Happy: “It will blast apart the party. Voters don't like to be told their vote is stupid and worthless.”

Well, Democrats seem to put up with it pretty well.
posted by koeselitz at 11:43 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It will blast apart the party. Voters don't like to be told their vote is worthless because they are stupid.

Totally agree, especially in light of that RAND link above that indicated that the single best predictor of a Trump supporter (at least alongside their penchant for authoritarianism) is feeling like they have no say in what happens in government. What could possibly go wrong with proving them right on a grand scale in front of the entire country?
posted by dialetheia at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


"Being able to be on, on on when you need to be is a skill like anything else. And it's not going to get any easier from Inauguration Day onwards..."

Tons of vacation. I look forward to the days of the Summer White House at the Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, and the Winter White House at Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale. All the news reports will be infomercials.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2016


Look to Colorado, where Republican voters are not allowed to caucus, only delegates.

What? Is this a recent change or has it always been that way?
posted by Tarumba at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2016


What? Is this a recent change or has it always been that way?

Recent change. They're allowed to caucus. The caucus just won't have a presidential preference poll and will have no effect on the CO presidential nomination.

Another reason I'm supporting efforts to change the CO caucus to a primary vote for presidential nominations.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:46 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Don't underestimate how many working class white Democrats are going to vote for Trump in the general.

Or the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. Hell, my mother has been the one reliable Democratic vote in Bedford County, Virginia, for decades now, but she swears she won't vote for Hillary. I don't know why, but something about her really sets my mom off. I don't think she votes for Trump, but I'm thinking she sits this one out, so don't assume Clinton gets everybody that doesn't want Trump.

I'm really not joking when I say, start organizing resistance cells now. That Klan march in Anaheim is going to look like a garden club outing by the time this is over, no matter who wins the White House.
posted by Naberius at 11:48 AM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The Dem political machine is freaked out enough that they cancelled the caucus after polling that determines delegates. They rescheduled it for the middle of the day in a week or two.

Huh, how is that possible? I thought all Super Tuesday voting/caucusing had to be done by today?


I tried looking for info on this, and it seems like the Texas Democratic Party did away with the caucus entirely last year? I don't know what caucus is even happening down there unless it's something purely ceremonial that doesn't affect the appointment of state delegates.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2016


Colorado Independent run-down on this year's CO caucus process.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




The Beast was Clinton. The Smiler was Dubbya.

I'm not sure if you mean that literally, but it can't be true: the Smiler storyline started in 1998.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:53 AM on March 1, 2016


Austin radio station flooded with reports of voting machines switching votes from Trump to Rubio

It's never too early to come up with an excuse for why you lost. But even if it were true, how would anyone know unless they either pulled some of the machines out of service early and knew how people had voted or waited until the morning of election day to test the machines?

ETA: Ah, now I see. Their machines give a digital receipt.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2016


man, i get that people might disagree with Clinton's policies and tendencies, but it's the visceral reaction i do not get. she was a feminist hero a while ago, but not like, eons

i say this not to vote shame anybody anywhere but to express my bemusement at the intensity of some (not pointing to anybody in this thread, really, don't hate me) the anti-clinton crowd
posted by angrycat at 11:55 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


If Transmet's characters are to be taken as historical figures at all, then the Beast was Nixon and the Smiler was Reagan. I didn't realise there was any doubt about this?
posted by tobascodagama at 11:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'm really not joking when I say, start organizing resistance cells now.

There's got to be a better use of your time than Trumpsday prepping.
posted by knuckle tattoos at 11:56 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


she was a feminist hero a while ago, but not like, eons

But you're talking decades, which is more than a generation. Young women by and large do not support her, necessarily.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:57 AM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


But more seriously (and more on-topic): what is the strategy for defeating Trump in the fall?

I think a lot of it will come down to the question of how he got this far. I'm hoping that the Republican primary has mostly been a case of an opportunistic infection in a body that has been deeply compromised by decades of pandering. I also know that a lot of people are not really paying attention yet, or have just started paying attention in the last few weeks. So it's still entirely possible that Trump has a ceiling in the broader electorate, even if it's as high as 40 - 45% he is probably not going to get anywhere close to defeating the Democrat.

If that turns out not to be the case, though, conventional political strategy may or may not work. It may be that running a standard campaign will be fine and that low-information voters who aren't particularly ideological don't respond well to Trump's antics. We should have a better idea about this as the race narrows down to a two-person face-off this summer.

Democrats understand how to run a race against an ideological opponent. But how do you race against someone who's not particularly ideological? Attacking Trump's proposed policies may not help because people are not supporting him based on his policies but based on his tone and posture. Democrats (and progressives, and everyone who is anti-Trump) need to do a lot more thinking about how to handle this.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:57 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes, I will vote for Bernie and I don't love Hillary, but I have heard a lot of really extremely unpleasant opinions about her and I just don't get it.

Also, from that article about Liberals voting for Rubio:

Numbers aren't exact," wrote Cox, "but the bottom line is I'd have to be like 99 percent sure that Hillary would beat Trump to be OK with a Trump nomination. I'm pretty sure she'd win, but an indictment, a recession, a terrorist attack, etc. leave Trump with way too many winning possibilities."

It is interesting to think that anything panic worthy would make people vote for Trump. My gut would tell me to do the exact opposite.
posted by Tarumba at 11:58 AM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Dem political machine is freaked out enough that they cancelled the caucus after polling that determines delegates. They rescheduled it for the middle of the day in a week or two. Which, I gotta tell you, smacks of collusion, the machine really wants Hillary, and it seems an underhanded way to get what they want.

Delegate counts are entirely decided by the primary. They killed the old, weird Texas system last year.

This stuff is confusing but the best I can tell is that there is still an event called the Texas Democratic caucus but the only decisions it can make are to determine which X people pledged to Clinton and which Y people pledged to Sanders to send to the next convention up.

...so you couldn't do it today even if you wanted to. You need the primary results to be definitively in before you can run the caucus.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


she was a feminist hero a while ago, but not like, eons

90s feminism suffered from a lack of intersectionality, a lack of sex positivity, and, in some (Clinton-specific) cases, an endorsement of rape culture. Luckily, 2016 feminism aims to do better.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Voted on the way to lunch, yay! Then promptly ate a large plate of nachos.
posted by jet_pack_in_a_can at 12:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Super Tuesday is Taco Tuesday but nachos are allowed too.
posted by Tarumba at 12:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


i've seen quite a bit of weird vitrol for clinton - and while there is lots to legitimately critique - it's hard to ignore that in a lot of irl places (here in her home state), there's a strong current of misogyny to it.
posted by nadawi at 12:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


PLATE OF NACHOS 2020
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Don't underestimate how many working class white Democrats are going to vote for Trump in the general.

Or the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. Hell, my mother has been the one reliable Democratic vote in Bedford County, Virginia, for decades now, but she swears she won't vote for Hillary. I don't know why, but something about her really sets my mom off.


Yeah. My mom was a Reagan Democrat, then she became an Obama Republican. I was talking with her on the phone the other day, and she will very reluctantly be voting for Clinton in the general but I think she would stay home if the choice were between Clinton and someone who was reasonably moderate.

A lot of people just do not trust Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying this as a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm just saying it as a thing that I've observed my whole life. Doubtless some of this is latent sexism, and some of it is the massive anti-Clinton propaganda campaign that happened in the 90s. But whatever the reasons, the result is scary. She has a hard time connecting with middle-aged white Midwesterners and that is the very demographic that Democrats absolutely need to connect to in the fall.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]




> The Speaker said all the right things about rejecting bigotry and appealing to Americans’ highest ideals, but this is the same Republican leader who’ll make no effort to restore the Voting Rights Act, and who continues to support Steve Scalise’s leadership post despite the Louisianan’s highly controversial background on race.

Speaking of the VRA: 16 States Face New Voting Restrictions in First Election in 50 Years Without Full Voting Rights Act
posted by homunculus at 12:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


but it's the visceral reaction i do not get

To give one perspective,

My visceral reaction has almost everything to do with how she (and other establishment politicians) are funded. The current state of campaign finance is tantamount to soft corruption.

I can also acknowledge at the same time that she has made some good decisions, and some bad decisions, and that how she is perceived has a lot to do with being female.
posted by kyp at 12:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


As a data point I have two millennial daughters, both big Hillary supporters one to the point of being super sensitive to the Bernie support that surrounds us as she sees it as knee jerk misogyny. I am trying to get her to chill, I don't quite see it that way. There's a bit of zealotry that comes with insurgency.
(also have one Bernie supporter among the offspring)
posted by readery at 12:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's pretty ridiculous to say that Robert Reich is "endorsing" Bernie Sanders just this week. He's basically been campaigning for him for months, since at least January, and telling everyone who would listen that Sanders is better than Clinton as far as he can tell. It seems like trotting out his "endorsement" now is mostly strategic.
posted by koeselitz at 12:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I was actually thinking last night that if legislators were serious about campaign finance reform they would relabel it Anti-Corruption Act or something with "corruption" in the title. That's what it is, really, and much sexier sounding than campaign finance reform.
posted by Tevin at 12:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Mike Huckabee Hearts Donald Trump, How Donald Trump won over a former Baptist minister — and millions of people like him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:14 PM on March 1, 2016


Works for me, Tevin.
posted by Trochanter at 12:16 PM on March 1, 2016


I feel silly (for not knowing sooner), but an email from Amanda Palmer came through, and when I opened it, she told me that GA was an open primary state - I thought I had to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary.

So I am going to go and vote after work for someone who is not Trump. Hillary is showing a greater than 99% change of winning the Democratic Primary here, and I was thinking of not voting at all, since a vote for Bernie wouldn't make much of a difference at this point.
posted by needlegrrl at 12:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Unfortunately until we can get an unassailable majority on the SCOTUS Citizens United is here to stay. I pretty much think a campaign finance amendment is doomed to failure, I mean if the right can't even pass an anti-flag burning amendment what chance in hell does a campaign finance amendment have.

So yeah pillory Clinton for her connections to corporations but realize that there is going to be billions of dollars spent in this election cycle and trying to avoid even the appearance of corporate favoritism is like being the one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Vote for Sanders in the primary as a repudiation of campaign financing and a need for reform but realize the only way you are going to get that reform is under a Democratic president putting forward liberal justices.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Mike Huckabee Hearts Donald Trump, How Donald Trump won over a former Baptist minister

Worst. Romcom. Ever.
posted by dinty_moore at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


now now, lets use his official title, close friend of multiple pedophiles mike huckabee.
posted by nadawi at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


"Are Donald Trump’s fingers weirdly short? An investigation" attempts to quantify the issue with charts, graphs, and photo analysis.
posted by exogenous at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


As I was idly poking around on Gallup today I saw this:

What woman that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?


There aren't any options given, this is just off the top of peoples' heads. HRC has topped this thing for 20 of the the past 23 years! And two of those other years were Mother Theresa!

Like, obviously this doesn't mean all that much, hell it probably means there just aren't enough women in positions of power, but man. It is clearly not the case that no one will be genuinely excited to vote for her.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]




I just bought a purrnie sanders mug to remember how cool it was when that was a possibility.

;_;
posted by Tarumba at 12:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Anna Palmer: Top Rubio adviser preparing donors for dismal Super Tuesday
Sullivan responded to multiple questions from attendees on everything from the campaign's floor strategy to how do they deal with Ohio Gov. John Kasich not dropping out of the race.

"A vote for Kasich is a vote for Donald Trump," Sullivan said, according to multiple sources.

The campaign also continued to assert that Ted Cruz winning Texas would be a high water mark for the campaign, given that so much of his strategy is based on doing well in the South.

Sullivan also got several inquiries about Florida and how Rubio would deal with a loss there. Sullivan said that he thought Jeb Bush would ultimately endorse Rubio and that he would win the state.

Not everyone who attended left the meeting thinking the campaign had a workable plan to dethrone Trump as the party's expected nominee.

"It was a presentation that defied reality," said one Rubio backer. "They said their convention strategy was not contingent on winning any states... Even if you go to the [second ballot] why would anyone say Marco Rubio is the guy to give it to?"
posted by zombieflanders at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2016


Unfortunately until we can get an unassailable majority on the SCOTUS Citizens United is here to stay.

We could also start by pushing back on party hacks who removed Obama's rules against taking donations directly from lobbyists. Campaign finance corruption might be inevitable, but we don't have to escalate it on our side. It makes us look like gigantic hypocrites - everyone knows Republicans are supposed to be the big business party, but Democrats are not credible on those issues as long as we keep changing things to keep the corporate firehose pointed in their direction.
posted by dialetheia at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


When people talk about the problem of campaign finance they wrongly tend to focus on the Presidential election, and wring their hands over who gave money to which Presidential candidate.

The influence of SuperPACs and corporate donations is overstated, at least at the Presidential level, otherwise Jeb! would have the R nomination.

The problem of campaign finance is much greater in the legislative and state-level races that much fewer people think about. Though even then, as Meg Whitman showed in California, despite popular opinion you can't just buy a race.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Taylor Megon-Rose Thompson went 2 vote in TX today. Name spelled Tayllor Megan Rose Thompson on voter reg card. Disenfranchised by TX ID law

And it looks like the poll worker may have broken federal law by not providing her with a provisional ballot.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


So I am going to go and vote after work for someone who is not Trump. Hillary is showing a greater than 99% change of winning the Democratic Primary here, and I was thinking of not voting at all, since a vote for Bernie wouldn't make much of a difference at this point.

Just a reminder that the Democratic primaries are proportional not winner-take-all, so even if Clinton "wins," Bernie will get a portion of the delegates, provided he gets at least 15% of the vote.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


I think it's actually quite likely that Bernie will not break 15% in most Southern states, since he's basically not campaigning in them at all.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:28 PM on March 1, 2016


I just bought a purrnie sanders mug to remember how cool it was when that was a possibility.

;_;


Thump! Thump! Puff! Puff! DON'T YOU DIE ON ME!!
posted by Trochanter at 12:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Also a reminder to check if you have any important or competitive down ballot races before pulling the ballot for the "other" party. I'm not giving up my chance to vote for progressive, reform Democrats in local races just to vote for/against Trump.
posted by misskaz at 12:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Re Texas Dem convention nee caucus, I stand corrected, in that I didn't know the caucus rules had changed.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 12:36 PM on March 1, 2016


Also a reminder to check if you have any important or competitive down ballot races before pulling the ballot for the "other" party. I'm not giving up my chance to vote for progressive, reform Democrats in local races just to vote for/against Trump.

Or any at all. In Virginia the only office on the ballot is president.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:37 PM on March 1, 2016


The influence of SuperPACs and corporate donations is overstated, at least at the Presidential level, otherwise Jeb! would have the R nomination.

I think this is stating the problem backwards. The issue isn't that corporations and SuperPACs can buy elections, it's that they can buy elected officials. If Jeb! had won the nomination and then the general, it's reasonable to assume he'd be beholden to those donors.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie will get a proportional share of the votes and with the fundraising numbers he put up in February will still likely be able to campaign heavily throughout this month. However he's looking at being in more or less the same position that Clinton was 8 years ago where the gap in terms of delegates is simply unsurmountable.

Without winner-take-all primaries the Democratic nomination process is really predictable because once a leader locks in a significant lead (100+) it's damn near impossible for that to change because there simply aren't enough states with big delegate totals that will be blowouts for the opposing candidate.

Clinton is projected to be up by close to 200 delegates after today and 3/15 isn't looking much better for Sanders. Yes he can continue to campaign but increasingly the media will tend to ignore him because there just isn't any drama present and there is still a 20 car pile-up on the Republican side.

Sanders staying in might actually be a decent thing for Clinton as it will keep some of the Republican Super PAC money from flowing and it should help for fundraising.
posted by vuron at 12:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not giving up my chance to vote for progressive, reform Democrats in local races just to vote for/against Trump.

Exactly. Let the Rs figure out how to feed this tiger they've been riding - I've got my own house to get in order.
posted by eclectist at 12:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


If we eliminate the money corruption in politics, that's like one-third of our economy.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


See, I read HST as Harry S Truman and I was wondering how we could try to map late-1940s politics onto the current situation.

Or, because I am Canadian, I also pondered whether Harnonized Sales Tax might have political views.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sounds like Bloomberg isn't going to run (I believe the filing deadlines to get on the ballot have already passed for a number of states anyway).
posted by dialetheia at 12:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sounds like Bloomberg isn't going to run

I'm thinking he was only going to do that if Hillary got in serious trouble. Gotta have a candidate who's willing to stand up for those poor poor corporations.
posted by Gaz Errant at 12:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


See, I read HST as Harry S Truman and I was wondering how we could try to map late-1940s politics onto the current situation.

That's who I thought it was. What does HST actually mean?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 12:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not even sure who would get hurt more by Bloomberg running as a third-party

Presumably he'd win over some Democrats that are in the "Hell No to Clinton" camp but it also seems like he'd win over a huge number of fiscal conservatives that look at the Republican party and it's obsession with identity politics and say "This sort of nuttiness is bad for business". Because at the end of the day fiscal conservatives want the status quo maintained and are playing the game for the long haul.

From a business perspective Clinton sounds a fuckton more reliable as a President than a Republican candidate that is inexplicably anti - free trade. I actually wouldn't be shocked if there are some Republican Super PACs that will actually run attack ads against Trump but for the most part I think they'll be focused on down ballot races and Trump is radioactive for a lot of Senators.
posted by vuron at 12:57 PM on March 1, 2016




> I think this is stating the problem backwards. The issue isn't that corporations and SuperPACs can buy elections, it's that they can buy elected officials. If Jeb! had won the nomination and then the general, it's reasonable to assume he'd be beholden to those donors.

But those donors exert their influence on candidates based on the perception that donors' support matters for winning elections. If SuperPACs can't buy elections, then they'll only wield influence if they can convince candidates that the opposite is true.

I would argue that large donors can turn the tide in some elections, but clearly not this one. To argue “if X were true, Y would happen, and since Y hasn’t happened, X must be false” is to live outside of the messy, multivariate real world. Politics is too complex for axioms.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Radiophonic Oddity: “What does HST actually mean?”

Presumably Hunter S Thompson, whose best book (in my humble opinion) was a piece on a campaign cycle, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.
posted by koeselitz at 1:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Radiophonic Oddity: What does HST actually mean?

Hunter S. Thompson, the originator of "gonzo journalism" and writer of books like "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72."

I loved him when I was 15. *shrug*
posted by wenestvedt at 1:03 PM on March 1, 2016


(Since the Democrats in '72 did what many are saying the Republicans are likely to do now: they imploded, and went to egregious lengths to try to avoid nominating a candidate many saw as unelectable, ultimately essentially sabotaging what could have been a good campaign if the party had gotten behind it.)
posted by koeselitz at 1:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Obviously, YMMV. Jinx, koeselitz! :-)
posted by wenestvedt at 1:04 PM on March 1, 2016


Oh! I too read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 in my early teens, I guess my heart and brain agreed to ignore the datum of his passing.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 1:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


From a business perspective Clinton sounds a fuckton more reliable as a President than a Republican candidate that is inexplicably anti - free trade. I actually wouldn't be shocked if there are some Republican Super PACs that will actually run attack ads against Trump but for the most part I think they'll be focused on down ballot races and Trump is radioactive for a lot of Senators.

This is why 2016 is so crazy, because it's just as polarized over personalities as it is about actual policies. If the realignment was between less controversial figures, there would be pro-business Chamber of Commerce R's crossing over to vote for the Dem, and working class protectionist Mom and Pop D's crossing over for the Repub. Hillary can probably win over some amount of centrist/pro-status quo Rockefeller Republican types, but not as many as she would have, if she wasn't the demonized boogeyman they've been ranting against for decades.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


"This sort of nuttiness is bad for business"

Is there any chance that this mess will go so badly for Republicans that it'll drive a fatal wedge between their fiscal conservatives and their social conservatives? Because I really have to believe that deep down, a lot of Republican politicians and donors truthfully could not give a damn about abortion and school prayer and all that, but know they have to play along with that crowd for the sake of maintaining a winning coalition.

Or, to paraphrase Chris Rock, less "burning cross" racist and more "sorority" racist.

I keep wondering if this might finally be the election where the Republican party realizes they can't stand their fellow Republicans. Or maybe I'm just a dreamer.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


(Since the Democrats in '72 did what many are saying the Republicans are likely to do now.)

On that note, I really liked this recent article: What Democrats still don't get about George McGovern
posted by dialetheia at 1:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


or what would DFW write about it
posted by angrycat at 1:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The music business Politics is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

-- ( with apologies to ) Hunter S Thompson
posted by mikelieman at 1:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm thinking he was only going to do that if Hillary got in serious trouble.

He explicitly threatened as much, didn't he?
posted by tobascodagama at 1:09 PM on March 1, 2016


or what would DFW write about it

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


No, Debbie Fasserman Wultz.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


David Foster Wallace, presumably.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:14 PM on March 1, 2016


Is there any chance that this mess will go so badly for Republicans that it'll drive a fatal wedge between their fiscal conservatives and their social conservatives?

That's been happening since the end of the Bush era. Bush was the crest of the social conservative wave that began in the late 70s. The Republicans have been fracturing since then, the Tea Party movement being a particularly visible symptom. The social conservatives have seen their power ebb nationally, and have also seen that they've largely been duped by the other factions of the Republican Party. Even under Bush when they basically had one of their own in charge they didn't really make much progress on the social goals they had.

They've made some progress on the abortion front, but otherwise? Homosexual rights have only continued to expand, the "culture war" was lost ages ago, etc. What do they have to show for all their efforts? The social cons get the boots on the ground at the polls, but they get jack shit when the Rs win. The neocons got their war, the fiscal cons got lower taxes and less regulation, what did the social cons get?

This election is the fatal wedge that was already there making its way through the party. They can't pretend to be a monolith in lockstep behind a single motivating ideology any more.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:16 PM on March 1, 2016


I'm not sure that it will happen this election cycle or if the Republicans will pretend it was all a bad dream and go back to business as usual.

But yeah I know a pretty large number of fiscal conservatives and in public they are all "Rah, rah go team Republican" but they could not give a shit about 99% of the social conservative issues. Abortion isn't that big of a deal because they can always fly a teenager out to a clinic in some liberal oasis, Muslims/Blacks/Latinos are fine as long as they don't get any ideas about joining the country club, etc.

They just smile and pretend and let the social conservatives do all the GotV activities while they write checks with their country friends and drink a couple of scotches. Casual sorority/fraternity racism is extremely prevalent and some of them might even profess to be really good friends with a couple of black people (you know some lawyers or doctors) but they generally aren't the cross burning types. They definitely would be uncomfortable with their daughter dating a black man though, just saying.

These are the type of Republicans that look at someone like Trump and get freaked the fuck out because what he's saying is bad for business. You know when you have a meeting with an international client and suddenly you have to explain why Trump wants to go to war with China or something stupid.
posted by vuron at 1:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I loved him when I was 15. *shrug*

sick burn brah
posted by entropicamericana at 1:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


entropicamericana: sick burn brah

Lighten up, Francis. I mean that I hadn't been particularly engaged with politics before I read it, and reading HST as the entree into thinking seriously about the whole topic (maybe any topic) was…perhaps a poor choice. When I knew more about history and had listened to the people involved say stuff and then deliver on their promises (or not), I was able to reconsider the book actually in context.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




Mod note: One comment deleted. markkraft, don't start.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


He explicitly threatened as much, didn't he?

Not to my knowledge, but I easily could have missed him saying that.
posted by Gaz Errant at 1:33 PM on March 1, 2016




Honestly a non-endorsement from Larry Summers is like a prediction from William Kristol. You take the opposite of what it says and assume that's the truth. What I mean by this is: I agree with Larry Summers. The whole world has gone mad.
posted by dis_integration at 1:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Counterpoint: Larry Summers is also a serious threat to American democracy
posted by dialetheia at 1:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


So, does that mean there is some non-American democracy that Donald Trump isn't a threat and we can just unleash him there?
posted by FJT at 1:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there any actual news at this point? Should we not expect dependable data until later tonight?
posted by chonus at 1:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is there any chance that this mess will go so badly for Republicans that it'll drive a fatal wedge between their fiscal conservatives and their social conservatives?

This is happening in small town politics in Connecticut. In Brookfield, population 16000, there's a not so civil war between mainstream and tea party conservative elements over who controls the town Relublican party, with extremist elements currently in control and ejecting insuffiently politically pure members from the party rolls.

The mainstream is fielding a huge slate of candidates to take the party back.
posted by zippy at 1:48 PM on March 1, 2016


Hillary's scandals bother me, but not enough that I wouldn't vote D. The reason I would never vote for Hillary (if I were allowed to) is simply that dynasties scare me. It's the same reason I refused to support Justin Trudeau even though he is objectively wonderful. Surely there is someone else out there who would be just as good at the job without stinking of dynasty?
posted by 256 at 1:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bernie Sanders?
posted by Naberius at 1:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


The Washington Post has a decent-looking page for monitoring returns, if you want an alternative to the Bloomberg link in the FPP.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 1:52 PM on March 1, 2016


The pro-impeachment hashtag (#DumpTrump) writes itself. That's gotta count for something.
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:52 PM on March 1, 2016


I don't think Bernie Sanders is eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


"dynasties scare me."

I highly recommend you listen to this episode of Decode DC. Really interesting.
posted by Tevin at 1:53 PM on March 1, 2016


I don't really buy the 'dynasty' argument. Two married people running for the same office is lightyears away from the same thing as a parent and child running for the same office.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


So, does that mean there is some non-American democracy that Donald Trump isn't a threat and we can just unleash him there?

Iran.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Maybe light-minutes.
posted by 256 at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's the difference between "two likeminded people finding each other" and "being groomed from birth."
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


So, does that mean there is some non-American democracy that Donald Trump isn't a threat and we can just unleash him there?

He would do excellently as the successor to Kleptocrat and all-around capo di tutti capi Vladimir Putin.
posted by dis_integration at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Two married people running for the same office is lightyears away from the same thing as a parent and child running for the same office.

Exactly. This is a "power couple" or whatever. The Bushes are a multi-generation family dynasty whose success is explicitly built upon previous generations of Bushes.

I hope/suspect we will see more couples like Bill and Hillary, since if women are truly equal and able to be politicians its natural to see some amount of "good at politics" people find each other and get married, like you see in other industries. I think its rare largely because women being successful at that level of politics is still relatively new.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Neil deGrasse Tyson @neiltyson: Who would Jesus vote for? To him walls, wealth, & torture are non-starters, so probably the Jewish New Yorker from Vermont.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


Why all of a sudden, unlike 4 years ago, are we pretending that super delegates have already voted.? They don't vote until the election and it is really frustrating to me that reputable news source, like the Washington Post are acting like their 'votes' are set in stone.
posted by goneill at 1:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]




So, does that mean there is some non-American democracy that Donald Trump isn't a threat and we can just unleash him there?

As much as Europeans enjoy looking down at us stupid Americans, there is a wave of right-wing populism sweeping the Continent right now, from UKIP in the UK to Poland's Law and Justice party that just won an absolute majority in their Parliamnt in October.

Trump may be a particularly loud and flashy specimen, but the factors that put him where he is in the US are in play all across the West right now.

I feel like we're going to keep on laughing at guys like Trump until we wake up one day and they're all in charge.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't think Bernie Sanders is eligible to be Prime Minister of Canada.

Oh, but Stephen Harper is? Is that really the world you want to live in?
posted by Naberius at 2:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why all of a sudden, unlike 4 years ago, are we pretending that super delegates have already voted.?

I think it's because this year they're using superdelegates for what Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitted is their intended purpose: "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."
posted by dialetheia at 2:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


Why all of a sudden, unlike 4 years ago, are we pretending that super delegates have already voted.? They don't vote until the election and it is really frustrating to me that reputable news source, like the Washington Post are acting like their 'votes' are set in stone.

Because, despite the hope & change thing, Obama was still a mainstream, establishment candidate. This other guy is talking about real change, and that could be bad for ConglomCo Media's bottom line.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh, I get that, but it's still seems like a perversion of American democracy to let Bill Clinton have his two terms and then decide: well, since we can't vote for him any more, let's vote for his wife. I get that two people with similar levels of skill and ambition are likely to find each other and hit it off, but I still think that electing two people from the same family to the highest office in the country is a gross contradiction of democracy, whether they are family by blood or choice.

I will personally not vote for someone whose candidacy is in any large part based on who they are related to, regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of how important the election may be.

And, yes, I recognize that precedent goes all the way back to POTUS #6
posted by 256 at 2:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


It's hilarious on the Politico data that in states reporting 0% for both Clinton and Sanders, they show for example 18 delegates for Clinton.

Shit, I apologize. Who needs to hack the computers with shit like this going on?
posted by mikelieman at 2:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Polling stations start to close in two hours. Currently, in the bunker on MetaFilter island, the mods are drawing straws to see who has to moderate this thread when the results start coming in.
posted by Wordshore at 2:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


By "hilarious" I mean, "I'm going to refill my bourbon glass"....
posted by mikelieman at 2:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Heading home from work, will sip dahlwinie as the returns come in...
posted by vrakatar at 2:07 PM on March 1, 2016


FDR was a pretty cool guy and arguably the best US president ever. I would hate to see him ineligible to run simply because he had a cousin who got into Office before he did. Granted Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty impressive figure but I still prefer FDR.

And I'll be honest I would vote for Michelle Obama in a fucking heartbeat if she wants to run a decade from now.
posted by vuron at 2:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


> "I will personally not vote for someone whose candidacy is in any large part based on who they are related to ..."

Hillary Clinton was a U.S. Senator, and the Secretary of State.
posted by kyrademon at 2:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [47 favorites]


Is there any chance that this mess will go so badly for Republicans that it'll drive a fatal wedge between their fiscal conservatives and their social conservatives?

One of the peculiarities of the American system is that it's very winner take all. So whoever wants to be the winner and take all needs to have these odd big-tent coalitions in which there's a lot of different views grouped under a large umbrella.

In parliamentary, proportional-representation systems such as in Israel, you get a lot of odd little parties (ethnic parties, single-issue parties, etc) that win one or two seats and then a lot of horse trading after an election so that one of the major parties can form a government in coalition with a group of allies.

If you had this in the US, the Republicans would fragment: you'd get the Tea Party constitutional conservatives, the anti-abortion crew, the evangelicals, probably a Catholic conservative party, a few regional secessionist parties, the Second Amendment party, the III-percenter/prepper party. None of these are "obviously" linked together - why should a Constitutional conservative automatically be devoutly religious? Yet because of this Republican umbrella, they inevitably get bundled together in US electoral politics.

On the Democratic side, you'd see fragmentation into a variety of ethnic-identity parties (black, latino, etc), an environmental lobby, a pro-choice party oriented toward women, an gun-control party, some social democrats, some more radical Leftist parties (antifa, anarchist, etc), etc.

On the whole, it would probably be more interesting and heterogenous, compared to the way things coalesce around two major, centrist parties now.
posted by theorique at 2:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie Sanders' Plan to Survive Super Tuesday

Is this just pie-in-the-sky stuff, or could any of it be true?
posted by chonus at 2:10 PM on March 1, 2016


As a Native New Yorker, even though she got herself elected to the seat from New York, she never represented *me*, and I would use the word "carpetbagger" to describe her fulfillment of the residency requirements for that office.
posted by mikelieman at 2:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, her husband's presidency gave her visibility and certainly made it possible for her to run for the Senate.

But I doubt/hope many people are voting for her as President based on her time as FLOTUS, given that she had 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as Secretary of State to judge her on...
posted by thefoxgod at 2:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


kyrademon:
"> "I will personally not vote for someone whose candidacy is in any large part based on who they are related to ..."

Hillary Clinton was a U.S. Senator, and the Secretary of State.
"
Yeah, that's kind of the definition of 'power couple'. They're both competent in their own rights. The Clinton name helps, but it isn't the largest part of who she is.
posted by charred husk at 2:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Because, despite the hope & change thing, Obama was still a mainstream, establishment candidate. This other guy is talking about real change, and that could be bad for ConglomCo Media's bottom line.

Or, Obama actually did his job. He did change things and he managed to shift the window for more leftward movement for the Democratic Party. The Establishment is really a catch all term for a number of different forces and actors that are out there and not all of them are even working towards the same objectives.
posted by FJT at 2:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]




Bernie Sanders' Plan to Survive Super Tuesday

Is this just pie-in-the-sky stuff, or could any of it be true?


The article is sticking to the facts of Sanders' plan, which is to literally ignore every state he doesn't poll well in. So, that part is definitely true.

Whether Sanders can actually win the nomination by ignoring the South (read: non-white voters) entirely, despite the extremely racially-charged context of this election... He's banking on it, but I have my doubts.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


A remind to people operating cells, using your Mefi name as a code name is considered sloppy tradecraft
posted by The Whelk at 2:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Yeah, her husband's presidency gave her visibility and certainly made it possible for her to run for the Senate.

That's enough for me.

But I doubt/hope many people are voting for her as President based on her time as FLOTUS, given that she had 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as Secretary of State to judge her on...

EVERY dynastic candidate has their own personal track record that you can judge them on. But there are enough people whose relatives have not been head of state that I feel okay choosing my candidate only from that pool.
posted by 256 at 2:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The fact that she's married to Bill Clinton is a huge barrier to me voting for her in the general (note: not living in a swing state, though I guess anything is possible this year). Not because of a dynasty or her qualifications or anything, but because he's a rapist and I don't want to see his face ever again, particularly in the White House. I know divorcing Bill would be bad for her in many demographics but it would win the melissasaurus demographic.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'd feel better about Clinton if she had held any elected office before her husband was elected President.
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


It seems pretty unfair to judge her by his actions.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


mikelieman: “It's hilarious on the Politico data that in states reporting 0% for both Clinton and Sanders, they show for example 18 delegates for Clinton. Shit, I apologize. Who needs to hack the computers with shit like this going on?”

I'm not sure whether you're actually asking why Clinton has 18 delegates with 0% reporting, but: Hillary Clinton starts with 18 delegates because she's already won a few states. The delegate count isn't just for today; it's for the race overall.
posted by koeselitz at 2:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Beast was Clinton. The Smiler was Dubbya.

I'm not sure if you mean that literally, but it can't be true: the Smiler storyline started in 1998.

Yeah, I thought Warren Ellis pretty obviously based the Smiler on Tony Blair.

The Beast is an amalgamation of multiple shitbag politicians, but the scene where Spider uses the bowel disruptor on him is a clear homage to Hunter S. Thompson's apocryphal restroom chat with Richard Nixon in Where The Buffalo Roam.
posted by Strange Interlude at 2:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly Chonus it's pretty pie-in-the-sky stuff even ignoring some of the recent polling coming out of Massachusetts that show Clinton significantly up. I think even the most ardent Sanders supporters know today is going to be a bloodbath and 3/15 is going to be very similar. I think the idea is that they can keep the delegate total reasonable and then come from behind in states that are more favorable to Sanders from a demographic perspective.

I think what's interesting is that there is a significant portion of the Democratic base that wants a more progressive figurehead to rally behind (Sanders/Warren/etc) while there is still very much a dominant faction that is more risk adverse based upon past election failures. The question mark will be whether progressives can forge a new coalition based around progressive policies that wins over older voters and minorities.

As the Boomers start exiting the demographic snake and are increasingly replaced by millenials at the other end you'll see a more significant shift in Democratic policies but right now we have what is in effect a generational conflict that is being largely decided by minority voters that have been decidedly cool on Sanders.
posted by vuron at 2:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It seems pretty unfair to judge her by his actions.

I have separate thoughts about her statements with respect to his victims, on which I judge her. I am not judging her for him being a rapist, but I will not vote to have a known rapist be a figurehead (i.e., F[L]OTUS) of my country. If a vote for her was no longer a vote for Bill to be first man (I will not call him a gentleman), then I could consider voting for her.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


initial poll reports coming in
intense wailing from voters higher up
those who have slid down returning mostly moans
few voters on the bottom opt to answer polling questions
based on that i am calling it for pleas to end this misery
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


"I will personally not vote for someone whose candidacy is in any large part based on who they are related to ..."

1. She's vastly more qualified for the office than anyone else in the running except, argruably, Bernie Sanders. Arguably.
2. With all the flaws and problems and scandals to detract from Hillary...that's the deal-breaker for you? Seriously?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Just to be clear, I am not the DWS that everyone is talking about.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [35 favorites]


Also, its completely unfair to me for people to say "Hillary only got to be Senator because of Bill". Its just as real to say "Bill only got to be Governor/President because of Hillary", as both he and outside accounts show she did have a huge presence/influence in his political life. They are a team, not a dynasty.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I feel like the First Gentleman should have a mandatory outfit consisting of a fedora, anime t-shirt, cargo shorts, long coat, socks, and sandals. There would be monthly Mountain Dew and Doritos consumption quotas.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sweet, the Eagles signed Sam Bradford. I can celebrate one good decision our nation made today.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:25 PM on March 1, 2016


Of all the reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton "she is married to a former President" has got to be the worst.
posted by Justinian at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Hello M'SCTOUS, I know this is awfully forward but you mind terribly to send your favor my way? I'd be so grateful xD
posted by Tevin at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Monarchy really wasn't that bad of a system guys.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


"I will personally not vote for someone whose candidacy is in any large part based on who they are related to, regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of how important the election may be."

Yeah... screw you FDR. You suck(ed)!
posted by markkraft at 2:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Move aside, “cellar door,” the new two most beautiful-sounding words in the English language are “dangerous nincompoopery.”

Right up there with “bulbous salutation”.
posted by acb at 2:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is this the corner where the best view of the train wreck can be seen?
posted by infini at 2:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


They are a team, not a dynasty.

Consider for a moment: Barack Obama without Michelle's influence.
Does he go as far professionally, or as fast?
Is he still cool?
Does he still win elections?
Some first ladies are far more relevant than others, and any good marriage is a team.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Move aside, “cellar door,” the new two most beautiful-sounding words in the English language are “dangerous nincompoopery.”

Understandably, the time for "Jiggery pokery" has come and gone.
posted by delfin at 2:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am scared we will run out of comments by the time things start happening.
posted by mazola at 2:31 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Exit polls must look pretty one-sided...

CNN now has a headline saying "How Big Will Their Wins Be?" with pictures of Clinton and Trump underneath.
posted by markkraft at 2:31 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sigh.

Nation of Islam leader hails Trump for resisting ‘Jewish money’
Louis Farrakhan claims GOP front-runner is only candidate to stand up to ‘those who con­trol the politics of Amer­ica’

posted by Joe in Australia at 2:33 PM on March 1, 2016


mazola this is just the warmup.
posted by Tevin at 2:33 PM on March 1, 2016


I am scared we will run out of comments by the time things start happening.

Are you tired of Chinese commenters taking all the comments that used to be made by good honest American commenters? Vote for me and make MetaFilter great again!
posted by Sangermaine at 2:33 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


The three party system - "There are three major political forces in contemporary politics in developed countries: tribalism, neoliberalism and leftism (defined in more detail below). Until recently, the party system involved competition between different versions of neoliberalism. Since the Global Financial Crisis, neoliberals have remained in power almost everywhere, but can no longer command the electoral support needed to marginalise both tribalists and leftists at the same time. So, we are seeing the emergence of a three-party system, which is inherently unstable because of the Condorcet problem and for other reasons."

[cf. shirky on 3rd party candidates, viz. "So here we are, with quasi-parlimentarianism. We now have four medium-sized and considerably more coherent voter blocs. 2 rump establishment parties, Trump representing 'racist welfare state' voters, and Sanders representing people who want a Nordic system."]

Democrats always prove the commies right - "Lucy will never let you kick that football."
My commie friends said it was all a smokescreen for business as usual. Obama immediately proceeded to give people like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who had a hand in the creation of the financial crisis, seats of power in his administration. That’s the definition of business as usual. I pushed hard for Obamacare, arguing against left-wing critics that the reforms were worthwhile even while they were inadequate. My Democrat friends assured me that we would get a public option in through the back door. My commie friends said that the bill was a way to give even greater control over our medical system. Today reforms that go beyond Obamacare look less possible than ever. My Democrat friends said that 2016 would be the year of a truly emboldened left-wing within the Democratic party, that even if Bernie Sanders didn’t win, Hillary would feel such pressure to move left that we’d win either way. The commies said that Hillary was the epitome of the Democrat’s embrace of the affluent and powerful. Hillary has spent the primary denouncing cherished left-wing goals like single payer health care, universal access to higher education, meaningful reform of investment banks, and similar. Her campaign has also worked tirelessly to drive a wedge between the traditional constituencies of the left, engaging in vicious smear tactics against Sanders and his supporters, playing feminism against the campaign for economic justice and treating any concern for class as ipso facto racist and sexist. All of this before her inevitable hard-right turn in the general election.

This is the kind of post that inspires the most intense pushback I get — posts that question whether people of a left-wing persuasion have an obligation to support the Democratic party no matter what — and yet no amount of invective can change the fact that the paragraphs above are accurate. All of that stuff happened and has continued to happen. The Democrats prove the commies right. Every time.

It’s essential to understand: the purpose of the scorched-earth campaign waged against Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment and its mouthpieces at Vox, the Daily Beast, the Washington Post, etc., is not merely to prevent a Sanders nomination. The point is to so tar Sanders supporters with slurs and empty accusations of bigotry as to ensure that they gain no appreciable influence within the party in the future. And the purpose of that is to reassure the donor class that all of the populist talk going on within the party is just that: talk, a way to try and revive the dormant enthusiasm of the 2008 election and secure the presidency. The attitude of career Democrats is that the left should simultaneously be subject to constant ridicule and marginalization, and yet should be expected to vote in lockstep along party lines with unerring fidelity. That’s the Democrat message to the left: “we get your votes; you get nothing.” And nothing is precisely what we have to show for it... history demonstrates that the party has consistently been a tool of establishment power and an impediment to changing the class hierarchy of our society.
"We Must & Can Aim High": Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Endorsing Bernie Sanders

Why I'm Voting for Bernie Sanders on Tuesday - "if we want to move our party and our country in a certain direction, we have to start off by aiming in that direction"

also btw...
I wonder why people are so angry - "One of American liberalism’s many abundant problems is an ingrained sense that the people it most needs to convince are somehow not worthy of the effort. Well, it’s a terrible mistake to support Trump. But in democracy, your job is to convince the people who believe terrible things to stop. Merely judging them makes you feel better. Convincing them makes the world better."
posted by kliuless at 2:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [41 favorites]


Yeah... screw you FDR. You suck(ed)!

I'm sure Justin Trudeau will be awesome too, but I still wish we had elected someone else.
posted by 256 at 2:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Farrakhan is a clown. I remember seeing him going on a diatribe about jewelry.

Or, as he said it JEW-el-ry.
posted by markkraft at 2:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Gotta admit, if nothing else I'm kind of impressed that Trump may be the first and only person on earth to snag endorsements from both Louis Farrakhan and the KKK.
posted by Itaxpica at 2:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [49 favorites]


We're here all day twiddling our thumbs while kliuless diligently gathers material for more incredible sub-posts.

*slow clap*
posted by Tevin at 2:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


CNN now has a headline saying "How Big Will Their Wins Hands Be?" with pictures of Clinton and Trump underneath.

FTFY
posted by Itaxpica at 2:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ugh mellissasaurus, I was a 10 year old kid living in another country when Bill Clinton was president so I had no idea. I just did some research and I must admit he sounds like a total pig.

I can't find info on what Hillary's reaction to these allegations were, did she attack the women involved? How did she handle these issues?
posted by Tarumba at 2:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


CNN now has a headline saying "How Big Will Their Wins Hands Be?" with pictures of Clinton and Trump underneath.

Imma let you finish, but Ben Carson has the best hands of all time. "These hands... several years ago, someone made a movie about these hands!"
posted by dialetheia at 2:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Attacked the women involved... It was all very ugly and classist.
posted by goneill at 2:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]



Is Trump the Beast from Transmetropolitan? I think it was implied the Beast was a Republican.


IIRC, the Beast was Nixon, and the Smiler was modelled primarily on Tony Blair.
posted by acb at 2:41 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


That Rolling Stone article posted above refers to Colorado as a Midwestern state. Whaaat.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's awful how bad the Nation of Islam has become. I've never been a big fan of the organization but it seems like they did have a place in presenting an alternative image of African-Americans with things like the Million Man March but Farrakhan has seriously gone way the fuck off into the deep end with hardcore anti-semitism and all the weird-ass Scientology stuff.
posted by vuron at 2:45 PM on March 1, 2016


I really liked this thoughtful piece in the Guardian about how some young women feel about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in particular. I'm probably about the same age as the author and remember having a lot of similar feelings at the time.
posted by dialetheia at 2:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Weirdly prophetic Onion video from 4 years ago: After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016
posted by mmoncur at 2:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


I can't find info on what Hillary's reaction to these allegations were, did she attack the women involved? How did she handle these issues?

This is a decent/quick overview: ’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women

Seconding dialethia's link -- very similar to my experiences/thought process.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]




Worth remembering: Trump will throw everything and the kitchen sink at Hillary, and that includes Bill's alleged crimes. The issues around those alleged crimes & how Hillary handles them are real. It's a conversation worth having.

The notion that it should give Donald Trump of all fucking people some sort of traction in an election is nauseating as hell. Do not think for a second that it will somehow improve the situation of survivors of sexual abuse or assault.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:53 PM on March 1, 2016


A remind to people operating cells, using your Mefi name as a code name is considered sloppy tradecraft

Fuck.
posted by mikelieman at 2:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't have much to predict, but I have been wondering if this is going to be Cruz's swan song. I see him dropping before Rubio making strategic sense, but his odious and vain personality could very well keep him in the running well past eligibility. If Cruz does drop, then that gives Rubio a fighting chance, right? Rubio would get the firehose of "not Trump" money, would possibly be able to win Florida, and could fight DT down to the convention.
posted by codacorolla at 2:54 PM on March 1, 2016


"Let's be done with wiggle and wobble."
posted by CincyBlues at 2:54 PM on March 1, 2016


Remember when "Life Imitates The Onion" used to be, like, news of the weird-type "Cat Fends Off Alligator" stories?
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


The notion that it should give Donald Trump of all fucking people
Also a rapist.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Let's all not forget that Vermin Supreme is still in the race.

Inside the Boot with Vermin Supreme
posted by homunculus at 2:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Remember when "Life Imitates The Onion" used to be, like, news of the weird-type "Cat Fends Off Alligator" stories?

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' Jan 17, 2001.

So, no.
posted by mrnutty at 2:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


"The neanderthal Republicans..." I ask respectfully you keep the ancestors out of this. They don't deserve the comparison. The others also are not worthy.
posted by Oyéah at 2:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It seems pretty unfair to judge her by his actions

Absolutely. It is however fair to judge her on the policies she advocated for at the time.
posted by Lyme Drop at 3:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Meet the Press' twitter has released some exit polling.

Looks like only 35% of white Democratic voters in Virginia want a candidate more liberal than Obama.

Meanwhile, 50% of GOP voters sampled across all the Super Tuesday states want a leader who is outside the establishment.
posted by markkraft at 3:04 PM on March 1, 2016


For some reason I've had 'Gay Bar' by Electric Six going through my head all day.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 3:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


CNN now has a headline saying "How Big Will Their Wins Hands Be?" with pictures of Clinton and Trump underneath.

Imma let you finish, but Ben Carson has the best hands of all time. "These hands... several years ago, someone made a movie about these hands!"


Trump: "Big, Masculine. My hands tell a story... of greatness!"
posted by dhens at 3:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


That is only because you aren't aware of the best, classic version of 'Gay Bar'.
posted by markkraft at 3:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]




Trump's new theme song
posted by melissasaurus at 3:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump: "My hands tell a story... of greatness!"
It is SO telling that Trump's hissy fit over the "short fingered vulgarian" quote was NOT about being called a "vulgarian". THAT he apparently liked.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


That is only because you aren't aware of the best, classic version of 'Gay Bar' .

This has made my day SO MUCH BETTER.
posted by chainsofreedom at 3:12 PM on March 1, 2016


Iimma let you finish, but Ben Carson has the best hands of all time. "These hands... several years ago, someone made a movie about these hands!"

Manos!!

Trump's new theme song

Seriously, how is Crazy Train not his theme song already?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Duh, his song is clearly Cocaine and Toupees by MSI.
posted by chainsofreedom at 3:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Obviously, you're both wrong. This is Trump's song.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


...aaaaaaand I see that joke's been done.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




And then there's this
posted by melissasaurus at 3:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Vote Torgo
posted by Drinky Die at 3:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Last orders, please!
posted by markkraft at 3:22 PM on March 1, 2016




Last call , everyone!

Last call for your freedom of speech.
Drink up. Happy hour is now enforced by law.
Don't forget our house special, it's called a Trickie Dickie Screwdriver.
It's got one part Jack Daniels, two parts purple Kool-Aid,
and a jigger of formaldehyde
from the jar with Hitler's brain in it we got in the back storeroom.
Happy trails to you. Happy trails to you.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is it worth it to watch Fox News election returns tonight, given a very likely Trump Trouncing?
posted by codacorolla at 3:30 PM on March 1, 2016


I thought Fox News was officially Anti-Trump, has that changed in the last couple weeks?
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:33 PM on March 1, 2016



I thought Fox News was officially Anti-Trump, has that changed in the last couple weeks?


No, that's what would make it funny and worth watching.
posted by codacorolla at 3:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Murdoch needs to wire FoxNews pundits with electrical implants to make sure they smile this time around.
posted by markkraft at 3:37 PM on March 1, 2016


Remember when "Life Imitates The Onion" used to be, like, news of the weird-type "Cat Fends Off Alligator" stories?

"Bin Laden called for Americans to rise up over climate change", Reuters

Osama bin Laden wrote a letter calling on the American people to help President Barack Obama fight "catastrophic" climate change and "save humanity", in the latest evidence of his worries about environmental issues, newly released documents show

The letter was among materials that were seized in the May 2, 2011, U.S. raid on bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan that killed the al Qaeda chief and which were released on Tuesday by the Obama administration.

The undated, unsigned letter "to the American people," which U.S. intelligence officials attributed to bin Laden, appeared to have been written shortly after Obama began his first term in 2009, based on the letter's references to events.

Bin Laden's preoccupation with climate change also emerged as a theme in the first tranche of documents from the raid that was declassified in May 2015, as well as in an audio recording released via the al Jazeera network in January 2010.

In the rambling letter made public Tuesday, bin Laden blamed the 2007-8 U.S. financial crisis on corporate control of capital and corporate lobbyists, and the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He called on Americans to launch "a great revolution for freedom" to liberate the U.S. president from those influences.

That would enable Obama to make "a rational decision to save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its destiny," bin Laden continued.

In a separate letter, bin Laden urged a close aide to launch a media campaign for the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that included a call for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Bin Laden contended that the world would be better off fighting climate change than waging what he claimed was a war against Islam.

"...the world should put its efforts into attempting to reduce the release of gases," said the undated, unsigned letter to someone identified as Shaykh Mahmud that U.S. intelligence officials said they believed was written by bin Laden.

"This is a struggle between two of the largest cultures on Earth, and it is in the shadow of catastrophic climate conditions."

(Reporting by Jonathan Landay; editing by Stuart Grudgings)


uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
posted by Apocryphon at 3:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is it worth it to watch Fox News election returns tonight, given a very likely Trump Trouncing?


Ann Coulter vs Sean Hannity twitter war
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:43 PM on March 1, 2016


The "Sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe" controversy that exploded in this thread earlier has now become a MetaTalk thread.
posted by Wordshore at 3:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Tomorrow's GOP talking point:
"When we fight global warming, the terrorists win!"
posted by markkraft at 3:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC has a scroll that Trump will be holding a press conference tonight at 9pm rather than giving any speech. Interesting.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:45 PM on March 1, 2016


that taibbi piece is some grade-a bile like the stuff we used to enjoy back in the 90s. it's like somebody found an previously unreleased suck.com post.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


the press conference is gonna be about his hands
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I would love for Trump to get on stage and say "Take a look at these hands! The hand speaks! The hand of a government man".
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Maybe he's decided to drop out of the race.
posted by mazola at 3:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hopefully at the press conference he pulls off the mask to reveal... it's actually Al Gore. "Take that, Republicans!, he shouts. Now me and ZOMBIE OSAMA will band together to implement a CARBON TAX!!!!!"
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Maybe he's decided to drop out of the race.

I can't understand a single thing that's happened in this election cycle, but what would even happen if he did?
posted by codacorolla at 3:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ten minutes till the first polling stations today close.
posted by Wordshore at 3:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I proved my point, America"

drops mic and walks away, toupee carries him off majestically into the sunset
posted by Tevin at 3:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Eight minutes left, until polls close in a lot of the EST states... and then the detailed exit polls and election results start to drop.
posted by markkraft at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2016


Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been “reminded” not to solicit votes near polling sites after President Bill Clinton ventured into a polling location in Boston on Tuesday, the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office said.

Look, I'm all for defeating Trump, but I'm also really deflated by the thought of 4 years of people reminding the Clintons not to break the rules.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Keep your eyes on Texas. If Fuckfacce Clownyguy can't win that tonight he'll drop out by Florida.

Bernie will lose but do well in some places and demographics.
posted by vrakatar at 3:52 PM on March 1, 2016


I can't understand a single thing that's happened in this election cycle, but what would even happen if he did?

Cruz and Rubio would tear each others' throats out. Maybe literally.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:53 PM on March 1, 2016


Keep your eyes on Texas. If Fuckfacce Clownyguy can't win that tonight he'll drop out by Florida.

You're going to have to be more specific because there's a lot of Fuckface Clownyguys in this race.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [60 favorites]


Oh come on. That's just basic rules; even here in Chicago, home of the dirty tricks, people know not to do electioneering past the orange cones in front of the polling entrance.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


wow. a press conference is super weird, especially given his relationship with the press these days.
posted by angrycat at 3:55 PM on March 1, 2016


I hope that The Rube and Crude-io stick it out to the bitter end, and try to form a unified anti-Trump ticket at the convention.

It wouldn't work, mind you... but really, the longer they spend their money attacking each other, the better.
posted by markkraft at 3:56 PM on March 1, 2016


Ten minutes till the first polling stations today close.

This is my first major election since moving from NYC to Hawaii. One of the unexpected benefits is that the mainland polls start closing at 2pm (Hawaii time) and the delegate count is more or less determined well before dinnertime. Same thing with the debates -- most start around happy hour and finish before dinner. It's so much better than attempting to stay up past 10pm (something I have a very hard time doing).
posted by melissasaurus at 3:56 PM on March 1, 2016


Cruz and Rubio would tear each others' throats out. Maybe literally.

Then it would just be Kasich standing between DR Ben Carson MD and the nomination!
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz and Rubio would tear each others' throats out. Maybe literally.

And then Jeb and Romney trip over each other on the stairs to the convention for the failed fortunate son spot.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Just when Jeb thought he got out, they pull him back in!
posted by Elementary Penguin at 3:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Exit polls regarding political experience and outside establishment. 16% of Dems said outside establishment, compared to 50% of Republican voters today.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:58 PM on March 1, 2016


> "One of the unexpected benefits is that the mainland polls start closing at 2pm (Hawaii time) ..."

I moved from Hawaii to Europe.

Gonna be a late night.
posted by kyrademon at 3:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm hoping the GOP convention turns out like the ending of Reservoir Dogs.
posted by markkraft at 3:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


It's time.
posted by Wordshore at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe this is his way of controlling the narrative? Perhaps someone dug up some really damaging dirt on him and is threatening to put it out; so he has no choice but to drop out!?!?

Not getting my hopes up, though.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:00 PM on March 1, 2016


In Bridge no-trump is more powerful than trump.
posted by Bistle at 4:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


NBC: Georgia for Clinton and Trump, Virginia for Clinton and too close to call (Trump/Rubio), Vermont for Bernie and either Kasich or Trump.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:01 PM on March 1, 2016


Oh yeah, I guess the candidates who have dropped out technically "suspended" their campaigns, so they could get back in?
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:01 PM on March 1, 2016


Ann Coulter vs Sean Hannity twitter war

This more than anything makes the world of politics feel upside down to me. Ann Coulter is now trolling Sean Hannity instead of liberals.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mr. Pink '16.

It's time we had a professional
posted by cmfletcher at 4:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


maybe he's going to announce the successful completion of his god-emperor sandworm apotheosis
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


GA and VA to Clinton, VT to Sanders
posted by zombieflanders at 4:02 PM on March 1, 2016


As a non-Democrat looking from the outside in, if Sanders loses the nomination, I'll be very sad to lose his contribution to the national stage as a candidate; but I think I'm even more dreading the months of vote-shaming by people who for some reason think my vote is their birthright and who actually believe that the real problem is a handful of stubborn leftist voters, not half the country being Nazis
posted by threeants at 4:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


This more than anything makes the world of politics feel upside down to me. Ann Coulter is now trolling Sean Hannity instead of liberals.

2016 - The year 4chan ./pol pwned the GOP.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


ABC just called Vermont for Sanders, Virginia and Georgia for Clinton.
posted by markkraft at 4:03 PM on March 1, 2016


Maybe this is his way of controlling the narrative?

He's going to announce his new reality TV show, to be carried on all the networks and cable TV, called: "Who Wants to be POTUS?" with Trump and Hillary as the two contestants.
posted by ennui.bz at 4:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Jeff Weaver (Bernie's CM) just told CNN they're going all the way to the convention. Good on him.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are they calling the states based on exit polls?
posted by localhuman at 4:05 PM on March 1, 2016


"Take a look at these hands! The hand speaks! The hand of a government man".

this is a concept album on the 2016 election. "Facts continue to change their shape"; "She has messages for everyone ... She is moving by remote control ... She is only party human being"; "This isn't the time-So nothing was done"; "He wonders if he too might have made a similar mistake."; "THE CENTER IS MISSING THEY QUESTION HOW THE FUTURE LIES"

"And you may ask yourself-Well...How did I get here?"
posted by andrewcooke at 4:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


> "I'm even more dreading the months of vote-shaming by people who for some reason think I owe them my vote and who actually believe that the real problem is a handful of stubborn leftist voters, not half the country being Nazis"

I understand your dread and sympathize, but if it helps, I suspect that part of the reason it happens is that people are operating under the assumption that you are probably a rational human being with good intentions who might listen to sincerely meant argument, whereas the Nazis are ... probably not.
posted by kyrademon at 4:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yes. Apparently, they were pretty overwhelming in GA, according to a GA exit poller. Absentee and early votes in Georgia were about double what they were in the last election.

The fact they would call Virginia so early surprises me.
posted by markkraft at 4:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


MSNBC says there will be some sort of "surprise" at the press conference.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:10 PM on March 1, 2016


Mayhaps an endorsement -- any guesses?

Probably not Jeb!
posted by notyou at 4:12 PM on March 1, 2016


I don't like "surprises".
posted by daq at 4:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


hah, that is genuinely unsettling!
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump will shed his faux human skin and eat a guinea pig.
posted by delfin at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Can Trump preemptively select a vice presidential candidate before the RNC even happens?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016


Good lord. Do I even want to know? Unless he declares that it was a social experiment all along and "I edged towards saying the KKK is okay and you fuckers still voted for me! lol enjoy your party of Nazis, GOP! Peace out," I'm not interested.
posted by yasaman at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I am also quite done with surprises.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016


> "MSNBC says there will be some sort of 'surprise' at the press conference."

Free cookies?

VP announcement?

Cage match?

I swear to God, I have no idea what to expect anymore.
posted by kyrademon at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


MSNBC says there will be some sort of "surprise" at the press conference.

Donald trump sucking up all the air in the room again. Perhaps the media should hold a strike today and tell him to broadcast his own press conference.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


> "Donald trump sucking up all the air in the room again."

Yeah, on reflection, that sounds like the most likely "surprise".
posted by kyrademon at 4:15 PM on March 1, 2016


This "calling" states stuff kind of annoys me, what with this being the primaries where (for the most part) the actual breakdown of votes/delegates makes a real difference.
posted by uosuaq at 4:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


This "calling" states stuff kind of annoys me, what with this being the primaries where (for the most part) the actual breakdown of votes/delegates makes a real difference.

Actually, because of the shiate that happened in 2000, the prediction desks are nowhere near anyone actually broadcasting, and these are done in a vacuum with actual data.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just got a Bernie call here in Massachusetts, 45 minutes before the polls close. That's pretty impressive.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe he'll reveal the classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2016


MSNBC says there will be some sort of "surprise" at the press conference.

Wait, this is all wrong! Trump needs to wait until after he's officially the Republican nominee to reveal that he's been trolling us this whole time and that actually he's a socially liberal reality TV star who just wanted to prove how crazy the Republican party is.
posted by litera scripta manet at 4:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is there anywhere to watch results on line that has a grid or list of states that is updated every few minutes? I feel like everybody's switched to live blog format this year so all the updates from all the states (and a bunch of commentary) are all mixed into the same stream. Ughhhhh.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 4:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I dunno, the mad frenzy of the remaining candidates to claim the prize as it is lowered back into the pit might be fun to watch until June.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


joey: http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/super-tuesday-dem/
posted by joeyh at 4:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


A result grid (NYT).
posted by kickingtheground at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is there anywhere to watch results on line that has a grid or list of states that is updated every few minutes? I feel like everybody's switched to live blog format this year so all the updates from all the states (and a bunch of commentary) are all mixed into the same stream. Ughhhhh.

NPR has you covered, although their system is a little weird. (Calling Virginia for Clinton with "<% of precincts reporting"? Seriously?)
posted by fifthrider at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2016


I have this theory that Trump is basically an inferior version of Nathan Jessup. Inferior in that he has much less control than Jessup. But the same ego, the same sense of invincibility, the same arrogance and the same compulsion and lack of self-control around saying what he really wants to say. Except he has even less control than Colonel Jessup and I think he's gotten lucky so far in that his lack of a filter has found a receptive audience so far, but I don't think it can last forever, especially with Trump. He's already shown bad judgement with things he's said multiple times, most recently in his refusal to disavow the David Duke endorsement and I kind of think he's going to start running up against the limits of what kind of bullshit he spout before he starts to slide backwards. He may not lose his true believers, but I think he has some support that he can lose with a Romney-style 47% type of comment.

If he wins the nomination, the scrutiny on him and pressure to slip up will be intense - not just from the Democrats but likely from his own party. He is remarkably vulnerable to being shaken on stupid shit like the size of his hands, and him being off-center like that is I think what hurts him with his supporters, who seem to like his confident, aggressive arrogance. Because it seems powerful. But he doesn't look powerful when he's left stuttering on stage after a little needling from Marco Rubio. He loves to spout off, seems to have little self-control and doesn't seem to have great judgement on things. Rubio was able to turn him into a flustering idiot at the debates the other night for a few minutes and while he might not be able to do that again on the same issue, I think it's easy to do it, if they can find what other kinds of things shake him up. Whether it's making him lose his aura of power by catching him off guard or goading him into saying something that actually offends his supporters, I tend to think it's only a matter of time before he slips up.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is there anywhere to watch results on line that has a grid or list of states that is updated every few minutes? I feel like everybody's switched to live blog format this year so all the updates from all the states (and a bunch of commentary) are all mixed into the same stream. Ughhhhh.

At the top of this page you can use the little arrows to look at the polling results for all the primaries and just ignore all the commentary below it.
posted by litera scripta manet at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2016




Can you imagine if, after all the sturm und drang, the race ended up being Clinton v. Bush? Poetic, that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


CNN calls GA for Trump.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:23 PM on March 1, 2016


Can you imagine if, after all the sturm und drang, the race ended up being Clinton v. Bush? Poetic, that.

I would also accept Biden vs. Romney.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mordor is definitely Cruz territory. I think Trump does better among the dwarves, actually. And he might play surprisingly well in more rural, economically depressed areas of Rohan.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


Clint Eastwood's not looking so crazy now, huh?
posted by Room 641-A at 4:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump to announce he's realy running for Veep, will swap with last surviving runner-up candidate.
posted by joeyh at 4:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"(Calling Virginia for Clinton with [very small percentages] reporting? Really?)"

How journalists "call" races with very few precincts reporting.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:27 PM on March 1, 2016


I have my air horn ready to blast for each state where the Nimble Navigator stumps the opposition. I predict I will fire off at least ten blasts tonight. I've started with Georgia. *BLAST*
posted by Tanizaki at 4:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


we all know the ents are feeling the bern
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


My expression improved slightly when I learned that Trump would for sure not be on the property.
posted by phearlez at 4:28 PM on March 1, 2016


If Rubio manages to squeak by in Virginia at least we won't have to listen to yet another THIRD PLACE VICTOOOORY! speech.
posted by Justinian at 4:28 PM on March 1, 2016


Mordor is definitely Cruz territory. I think Trump does better among the dwarves, actually. And he might play surprisingly well in more rural, economically depressed areas of Rohan.

Bernie's push for medical pipe weed and a less interventionist foreign policy definitely puts him ahead in the Shire.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:29 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Bah everyone knows Rivendell fixes these things, they are like an elegant unwordly Tammany Hall.
posted by vrakatar at 4:31 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The NYT is "calling" Vermont for Sanders with ZERO precincts reporting. I'm rooting for Sanders but that kind of not-even-trying faux-reporting burns me up.
posted by threeants at 4:31 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thanks, all. That NPR link didn't work and threw me into a live radio listener...? Anyway the other links are great.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 4:32 PM on March 1, 2016


If they know that Sanders won Vermont how is it faux-reporting?
posted by Justinian at 4:32 PM on March 1, 2016


no yeah, hobbits definitely have that social-democratic tendency with a strong isolationist streak
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:32 PM on March 1, 2016


It would be pretty startling if Sanders didn't win Vermont. I assume the exit polling was so overwhelming that they feel confident in the assumption that it couldn't possibly be wrong.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on March 1, 2016


this just in, gondor going for clinton
posted by pyramid termite at 4:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


no yeah, hobbits definitely have that social-democratic tendency with a strong isolationist streak.

The Shire is basically New Hampshire. The problem is Saruman's been selling everyone copies of Atlas Shrugged ever since he showed up.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


People have been counting ballots and keeping a running total, I imagine. You know, so they won't be there all night.
posted by vrakatar at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2016


"The NYT is "calling" Vermont for Sanders with ZERO precincts reporting. I'm rooting for Sanders but that kind of not-even-trying faux-reporting burns me up."

They probably got the "zero hour" report with early (and absentee, probably) votes totalled up. No precincts have reported yet but they have a chunk of numbers from early ballots they can make their prediction off. "Zero percent of precincts reporting" may also mean one or two precincts out of a couple thousand, and that may well be enough to make the prediction.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am not unaware that it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will win Vermont. I'm honestly just sick of the relentlessly deterministic bent of the mainstream media. It's suffocating.
posted by threeants at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


everyone knows Rivendell fixes these things

Bullshit, Rivendell isn't half as powerful as it used to be, it's really limited nowadays to moral persuasion. They barely even coordinate actions with Lorien anymore.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


A result grid (NYT).

Is this new that the NYT is breaking out the super delegates separately?
posted by Room 641-A at 4:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Gondor has no democracy.

Gondor needs no democracy.
posted by dragstroke at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Sure, math is deterministic. Reality is like that sometimes.
posted by Justinian at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


News outlet "calls" state 1 for candidate A (at 60%) over B (at 40%). "Calls" state 2 for candidate C (at 60%) over B (at 40%). If both those states have the same number of delegates, candidate B is now ahead, despite "winning" neither state.
posted by uosuaq at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2016


Is Shelob a superdelegate?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


yes, and so are the nazgul
posted by entropicamericana at 4:37 PM on March 1, 2016


Sanders would lock down the Radagast endorsement, as he's definitely the candidate most likely to have a bird living in his hair.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


I don't care if he has no chance at the nomination. Bombadil or bust.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I know this is a bit off topic of the results streaming in... but why do states like TX or GA get so many Democratic delegates when they haven't voted for a D presidential candidate in the past 30 years?
posted by localhuman at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I am not unaware that it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will win Vermont. I'm honestly just sick of the relentlessly deterministic bent of the mainstream media. It's suffocating.

That's just reality. Doesn't change based on how you feel.

What's bad is when the media pushes a false "it's a real horse race, anything can happen!" narrative.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Frodo is basically the archetype of a faithless delegate, so there's that.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2016


Orcs are suprisingly prone to vote Sanders, while elves are fickle and vote for whoever tells them they're the best and prettiest. They're in a snit because Trump isn't doing that, plus he's terribly crude.
posted by emjaybee at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


No, Shelob is a SuperPAC, pumping poison into the body politic in order to consume it.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


but why do states like TX or GA get so many Democratic delegates when they haven't voted for a D presidential candidate in the past 30 years?

Assigning delegates based on how likely a state is to vote Democratic is also problematic. Really, you'd want the states which are closest to 50/50 in terms of likelihood to vote Democratic to get the most delegates. But that's hard to arrange and justify.
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2016


Appropos of nothing, Mrs. Sanders seems like a genuinely excellent person.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm honestly just sick of the relentlessly deterministic bent of the mainstream media.

Whether the media reports the results as the polls close or two hours after the polls close, the votes have already been cast. The time the media reports the results won't change the votes. Not really sure what the media is doing wrong here.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


grima wormtongue is expected to win georgia and virginia i guess
posted by entropicamericana at 4:41 PM on March 1, 2016


"By the end of tonight, we are going to win many hundreds of delegates." -- Bernie Sanders, reminding the crowd that this isn't a general election, and he's going to be going to the convention.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:41 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I know the LoTR jokes are funny, but I fear this thread is going to get long enough without people going through every single location/person in the books and how they would vote...
posted by lesbiassparrow at 4:41 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sanders speech live
posted by melissasaurus at 4:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm honestly just sick of the relentlessly deterministic bent of the mainstream media. It's suffocating.

I know what you mean, though. I work with statistics a lot and have always wondered how e.g. Nate Silver deals with the fact that his own reporting impacts the phenomenon he's trying to describe through statistics - it would be a big methodological problem for me in my work. Amy Goodman had some great comments about polls influencing opinion instead of just measuring it on CNN recently: “People should just count the times that every network flashes the polls,” she remarked. “Are we telling people what to think?”
posted by dialetheia at 4:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Bombadil is like Cincinnatus, the best candidate to lead because he has literally no interest in power.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


> "I know this is a bit off topic of the results streaming in... but why do states like TX or GA get so many Democratic delegates when they haven't voted for a D presidential candidate in the past 30 years?"

I assume that the reasoning is that the many democrats living in those states would actually like a proportional voice in selecting the candidate that is supposed to represent them.

In fact, this is perhaps ESPECIALLY true since they have little chance of affecting things in the general once the nominations are over.
posted by kyrademon at 4:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Mod note: Folks, it's going to be a long night and a long thread - can we lay off the LoTR jokes for a while? Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I was going to vote and run but my precinct lines are LONG AS HELL so I guess I just get to stand here and read mefi.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Pennyworth to Obama "You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand"
posted by lalochezia at 4:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


triggerfinger, thank you for staying in line.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Booooo, let's not let the lamestream palantir set the narrative of the thread.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sure, math is deterministic. Reality is like that sometimes.

If "math" were truly sufficient to determine the outcome of an electoral contest, the actual voting part wouldn't be necessary. I am not disputing the existence of likelihoods. I am positing the unhealthiness of our mainstream discourse's deep faith in foregone conclusions, and the suspicious extent to which it collaborates with forces that suppress dissension and exchange of ideas.
posted by threeants at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you suppose the press conference "surprise" might be that Trump plans to release some or all of his tax returns?
posted by carmicha at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2016


Re: votes and the media calling the election. There was a lot of debate about that in the Presidential Elections in 2000.

We report. You decide. Does President Bush owe his controversial win in 2000 to Fox cable television news? -Washington Post
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]



Is this new that the NYT is breaking out the super delegates separately?


No, I've seen most places doing that. Which is good, since pledged delegates are fixed and superdelegates are not, so they're not at all the same thing. I'm pretty sure the NYT has been doing it in at least some of its presentations this whole cycle.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Voted in Tejas and was pleasantly surprised at how busy the polls were. Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans and there was a YUGE number of latino voters.

No hope of Texas turning blue but some local races will be very interesting. Maybe the sleeping giant of Latino voters will finally awaken to their true electoral potential.

That would be worth thanking Trump for. Maybe I can send him a steak or maybe some bricks for his wall
posted by vuron at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I was going to vote and run but my precinct lines are LONG AS HELL so I guess I just get to stand here and read mefi.

Stick with it. In socialistic Celcius, it's -5 where you're at. Not crazy cold by MN standards, but still chilly. Stay warm. Rock the vote.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


If "math" were truly sufficient to determine the outcome of an electoral contest, the actual voting part wouldn't be necessary.
Ok, but voting has been over for nearly an hour in Vermont. They're not going to change the outcome. If they call it incorrectly, the only thing that happens is that they look stupid.

I can see an argument when the media calls elections before the polls are closed.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think this "calling the winner" stuff the news media is doing is both nonsense and extremely misleading. They need to be predicting delegate counts, not winners of states. How many supporters of various candidates didn't bother to go to the polls because they knew their candidate was going to "lose", but didn't understand that it was proportional allocation?
posted by zug at 4:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


There is the matter of polls being closed in some states and not others. People like to vote for a winner, so it wouldn't surprise me if states on the east coast being called influences states further west.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I have no problem with the media "calling" the race, but I do think the narrative they've been using implies that it's winner take all, when (for the Dems) it's not.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


>There is the matter of polls being closed in some states and not others. People like to vote for a winner, so it wouldn't surprise me if states on the east coast being called influences states further west.

Exactly. A big part of me thinks that public polling of candidates pre-election should be illegal - it unfairly influences elections.
posted by zug at 4:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is a derail but ..
I don't believe that math is necessarily deterministic. I could be wrong, though. This is a philosophy of math question I lack expertise in.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was really excited about attending my first caucus tonight (as an observer, since I didn't register as a party affiliate in time) but turns out the regular city council meeting is still on as usual, at the same time as the caucus. There's going to be a presentation about converting the city's street lights to LED -- I can't miss that! I have to make sure they're including light pollution reduction as a criterion!

Civic involvement is hard.
posted by asperity at 4:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


50 ways to insult Donald Trump that aren't ablist, looksist, name-mocking, eliminationist, or gendered.

… that also aren't very compelling and often fall to the same nominal problems — Nogoodnik? Ooh, sweet Boris and Natasha burn, based on anti-Soviet stereotypes!

As a German-American with a changed name, fuck it, Drumpf works if you think "Short-fingered Vulgarian" is too patrician or long. It echoes Drunk in English, as well as being onomatopoeically reminiscent of a fart.

All that Shakesville post did is highlight that yes, some progressives should eschew matching insults because they're not actually very good at insults.

Counterpoint: Larry Summers is also a serious threat to American democracy

game recognize game
posted by klangklangston at 4:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


the press conference is gonna be about his hands

It'll just be the Rock Biter's speech, and then he'll break down sobbing before The Nothing consumes them all
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well, why shouldn't voters be allowed to take a candidate's general popularity into account? That's a perfectly valid factor to consider in considering your vote. Who are you to tell voters they can't know that?
posted by Sangermaine at 4:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have to go somewhere tonight, but it will be possible to look at my phone discretely. What app do you like for getting regular bulletins? Is there an app like "Team Stream" but for politics?
posted by carmicha at 4:55 PM on March 1, 2016


I dunno, I'm thinking Trump's press conference will be about "I'm a winner" and not much else.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 4:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


A big part of me thinks that public polling of candidates pre-election should be illegal - it unfairly influences elections.

Why is that unfair? Strategic voting is a perfectly reasonable option and is helped when you have at least some idea how people are leaning. If O'Malley was still in the race and I hypothetically supported him as my "first choice", I would want to know he had no real chance and pick a winner between Clinton and Sanders.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Lt. Governor of Texas is on MSNBC getting booed by a crowded bar for saying that if Trump wins the nomination, the party needs to back him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I could do without the gendered Trump insults. A really gross one was deleted here earlier.

We can be better than that.
posted by zarq at 4:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


andrewcooke: “this is a concept album on the 2016 election”

yep – but somehow you forgot the most relevant part
posted by koeselitz at 4:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


pledged delegates are fixed and superdelegates are not, so they're not at all the same thing.

Yeah but I don't think it's a secret ballot at the convention and a superD that votes against the machine better plan on changing parties at the very least.
posted by sammyo at 4:57 PM on March 1, 2016


If we had IRV I would be more OK with the idea of not having polling, since it would reduce the need for strategic voting in the way I described. I would love to have that, but its not going to happen anytime soon.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Maybe the sleeping giant of Latino voters will finally awaken to their true electoral potential.

We already do that by voting for the candidates of our choice on election days.
posted by Tanizaki at 4:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


can someone explain why american samoa isn't include in the nyt results page? am i just missing something in front of my eyes?

also, i see restless_nomad drew the short straw :)
posted by andrewcooke at 4:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know there is going to be endless analysis of these results, and there has already been a lot of talk about Sander's weakness with black voters, but I knew yesterday that Sanders was going to get blown out of the water in Georgia. I didn't have to look at any polls or do any sort of detailed analysis, I just had to drive home yesterday.

There, on the corner of one of the busiest intersections in Atlanta, were some nice, well-meaning white people stumping for Bernie. They had signs, were handing out flyers, and had the whole "honk for Bernie!" thing going on. And people were were honking! And taking flyers! And generally being amenable as anyone can be towards people on street corners pushing a political candidate.

I knew, however, at that moment, that Bernie gonna get Super Smashed on Super Tuesday. Prominent among the signs being held by the Bernie supporters was one comparing the minimum wage to slavery. In a city that is 2/3 black, there were white people comparing a minimum wage to slavery. It really crystallized everything that has been said about how tone deaf the Sanders campaign (though not Bernie himself, I would say) has been towards race in the US, and drove home why his campaign has really not gotten any traction among black people.

I still voted for him. I am one of those white liberals which form his base, and I genuinely believe he is what this country needs. Then again, I also voted for Nader in 2000, so maybe my voting record shouldn't be held up as an exemplar of pragmatism and victory. Not that my presidential vote has ever matter in the general election anyways, thanks to the electoral college.
posted by Panjandrum at 5:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [45 favorites]


It's the difference between "two likeminded people finding each other" and "being groomed from birth."

Being born in the purple carries a significant vassal opinion bump.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


MA, Alabama, and Tennessee are all being called for Trump. Looks like Clinton is winning all of them too.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on March 1, 2016


NBC: Mass for Trump (Dems too early to call), Alabama for Trump and Clinton, Tennessee for Trump and Clinton and Oklahoma too early to call on both sides.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 PM on March 1, 2016


The press conference will be to announce his big match against Hillary Clinton at Wrestlemania in the general.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:03 PM on March 1, 2016


congrats to hil for pulling a page from the republican playbook and getting people to vote against their own self-interests
posted by entropicamericana at 5:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


5pm PST, finally time for me to join the whiskey brigade. Ah, sweet Old Weller, make the Trump pain bearable.
posted by Gaz Errant at 5:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's going to be a presentation about converting the city's street lights to LED -- I can't miss that! I have to make sure they're including light pollution reduction as a criterion! I saw a new technology in Bargara, Australia: red LEDs. They were installed to help sea turtles, but they really helped with the light pollution too.
posted by carmicha at 5:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


congrats to hil for pulling a page from the republican playbook and getting people to vote against their own self-interests

Did you read Panjandrum's comment? You're doing the thing.
posted by Justinian at 5:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


Maybe the sleeping giant of Latino voters will finally awaken

I'm reminded of Clive Barker's "In the Hills, the City" and now I'm terrified.
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah but I don't think it's a secret ballot at the convention and a superD that votes against the machine better plan on changing parties at the very least.
There are a few (not a whole lot) of super-delegates who have said they'll vote for Bernie. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Bernie himself is a super-delegate.

Maybe the sleeping giant of Latino voters will finally awaken to their true electoral potential.


We already do that by voting for the candidates of our choice on election days.
Latinos actually have pretty low rates of voting. One of the things that terrifies Republicans about Trump is the potential for him to convince non-voting Latinos to vote and to vote for Democrats. In places like Texas, that could change things significantly.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


"We already do that by voting for the candidates of our choice on election days."

You already overcome the relatively low turnout of Latinos that diminishes their ability to win policy preferences by continuing to vote at relatively low levels?

Are you perhaps an eight-foot-tall narcoleptic Cuban-American confused by the difference between a metaphorical sleeping Latino giant and a literal one?
posted by klangklangston at 5:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Did you read Panjandrum's comment? You're doing the thing.

i'm really not.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


congrats to hil for pulling a page from the republican playbook and getting people to vote against their own self-interests

Well, good for you that you know whats good for other people. It is, however, possible that they actually know what is important to them better than you do, despite your psychic powers.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


congrats to hil for pulling a page from the republican playbook and getting people to vote against their own self-interests

Did you read Panjandrum's comment? You're doing the thing.
I agree it is presumptuous.

If this is going to be a rule, though, would it be preferable if the rule is applied in an egalitarian manner? So, say when poor white people - who people derisively call rednecks vote for Trump then should it not be said that they are voting against their self-interest?

I don't know- just throwing it out there.
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


No, I am a 5'11" Basque-American. I have to wait until Super Tuesday II to cast my vote for the Nimble Navigator but I am already getting hype!
posted by Tanizaki at 5:11 PM on March 1, 2016


I doubt anybody knows what's good for them. Least of all us. That's the trouble with life.
posted by koeselitz at 5:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah can we not generalize people who voted for Clinton. I understand that people are feeling a sense of loss but this isn't r/politics and we should be better than that.
posted by vuron at 5:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Re Sanders, Clinton, and "the black vote" (a term I really dislike): I would like to note that as with people of any race, the demographics of the Black votership differ from the demographics of the Black citizenry. The significant impediments to voting that disparately affect low-income working people-- which are rightfully pointed out time and time again when it comes to Democrat vs. Republican contests-- don't magically disappear when it's a primary.
posted by threeants at 5:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


If this is going to be a rule, though, would it be preferable if the rule is applied in an egalitarian manner?

Absolutely it should. Its a terrible strategy for changing peoples minds, and its wrong to boot, as you don't actually know what is important to people.

In the classic Republican example, some people really do value the social factors over economic ones. Thats the kind of choice everyone gets to make.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


this isn't r/politics

I dunno, I think I just saw a centipede
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've got a HILLARY TAKE MY ENERGY queued up and ready to go if things get hairy
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:14 PM on March 1, 2016


Hilarious that the same Republican establishment who jizzed their pants when Palin claimed NVa wasn't "Real Virginia" is outright praying that they save Rubio.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wonder what colours the NYT chose for the other Republican candidates. I guess we may never know...
posted by acb at 5:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


How long before we see some kind of delegate estimates?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:17 PM on March 1, 2016


No, I am a 5'11" Basque-American.

This makes you significantly more European Caucasian than most Americans.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's also not "Latino," as the Basques are neither Latin American nor a significant portion of the European colonists of same.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're using the background colors from the photos on the left. For a while we saw a purple box for Rubio.
posted by blurker at 5:19 PM on March 1, 2016


I think the best way to do this is to have an alcoholic beverage, grab a coloring book, and sit back to watch the newscasters struggle to use their technology. Then they get told off by Brian Williams: "This is why we can't have nice things!"
posted by jet_pack_in_a_can at 5:19 PM on March 1, 2016


MetaFilter: onomatopoeically reminiscent of a fart.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


congrats to hil for pulling a page from the republican playbook and getting people to vote against their own self-interests

I've always been a bit skeptical of this criticism and I think it's ultimately condescending and an excuse to write off the opinions of people you disagree with. Consider the following:

(1) It's not just an evil / dumb conservative thing. People do it on "our side" too - for instance, me. My wife and I are not exactly "the 1%" but we are relatively high-income property owners who derive most of that income from salaried work (i.e., not capital gains). This means we are in almost the highest marginal tax bracket and almost any Republican tax plan would be in our economic best interest. So are we some kind of clueless morons for supporting democrats anyway? "Ha ha, you're voting against your best interest, idiots!" I mean, I guess you can think that but obviously I disagree. I tend to think that affirmative action, access to abortion, less racism, and so many other policy issues are more important than whether my taxes go down. Hell, I think that low income people getting better services is more important than whether my taxes go down! I must be a real idiot. What persuades you that low-income republicans (or even low-income moderate dems) are making any less of an intelligent decision simply because that decision might not seem to favor them financially?

(2) there is a thing called altruistic punishment. (That link goes to a contemporaneous, and accordingly very angry, post about the Freddie Gray situation in Baltimore, if you choose to click through). Basically "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" writ large. It's a self-sacrificial approach to making a statement when the situation is really desperate. When a certain societal norm simply must be enforced even at great cost to the enforcer. I can't help but think that anti-establishment people supporting Trump are motivated at least in part by something akin to this. It scares the hell out of me that they are willing to go to the mat in favor of such racist demagoguery, but I am beginning to understand the desperation that leads to it, after they have been left out in the cold so many times by the mainstream republican party.

I know point #2 doesn't really apply so much to the "Hillary supporter" scenario, but it's a powerful reason why people, in general, might be willing to act "against their own self-interest." It doesn't mean they're being irrational - not at all.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


So glad I early voted, lots of griping about computer systems having problems/long lines.

I think every time Clinton wants to rattle Trump in a debate she mentions fingers.
posted by emjaybee at 5:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


this isn't r/politics
oh god, here we go with that reddit shit

quick pony request: since it's going to be a very long thread and some of us never read reddit, could we all try to avoid in-jokes and references to things that happen over there so that the rest of us can follow along? I have no idea what r/politics is like, or what "that reddit shit" is (and I'm assuming from the reply chains that the centipede thing and... something about being Basque?) but I would love to talk about the primaries
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's also not "Latino,"

You can take that up with the US Census Bureau, which made up the weird category in the first place and has applied it to those descended from Europe or the Americas. If it helps you, I have approximately one billion cousins in Puerto Rico.

Basques are neither Latin American nor a significant portion of the European colonists of same.

Simon Bolivar would like a word with you.

You seem low energy. Get high energy!
posted by Tanizaki at 5:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just decided I want a soundtrack to my Super Tuesday. First track, in honor of The Donald: CCR's "Fortunate Son" (apologies to the youths, I'm old). Suggestions?
posted by Lyme Drop at 5:24 PM on March 1, 2016


I think the best way to do this is to have an alcoholic beverage, grab a coloring book

Not necessarily relaxing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Taking a cue from an adjacent thread, JUST SAY THE WORD, OH! RU-RU-RUBIO!
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:25 PM on March 1, 2016


cobra_high_tigers: “quick pony request: since it's going to be a very long thread and some of us never read reddit, could we all try to avoid in-jokes and references to things that happen over there so that the rest of us can follow along? I have no idea what r/politics is like, or what "that reddit shit" is (and I'm assuming from the reply chains that the centipede thing and... something about being Basque?) but I would love to talk about the primaries”

Agreed completely.

"Nimble navigator" is a redditism for Donald Trump stemming from the beginning of this "CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP" fan video of Donald's sick burns.

Tanizaki: “You seem low energy. Get high energy!”

where's my downvote button
posted by koeselitz at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


How late do I have to stay up to see who wins in American Samoa?
posted by peeedro at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ohh boy The_Donald dank memes have arrived in force to Metafilter. This truly is the darkest timeline
posted by vuron at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


YAAAAY STAV IS HERE HI STAV!!!!!!!!!!
posted by vrakatar at 5:28 PM on March 1, 2016


As a non-political aside, picking color schemes for plots of this sort is a difficult task when you're dealing with 4 or more sets, and an audience that processes colors differently (such as minorities of different classes of color blindness). Colorbrewer palettes are one approach. Selecting from a color space is another, with the aim to maximize distance between subsequent colors, once a starting "seed" color is picked.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:29 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Looks to be a real nailbiter so far on the Dem side here in Mass.
posted by threeants at 5:29 PM on March 1, 2016


Taking a cue from an adjacent thread, JUST SAY THE WORD, OH! RU-RU-RUBIO!

I can feel it Trumping in the air tonight
Hold on

YAAAAY STAV IS HERE HI STAV!!!!!!!!!!

Heyo. It is good to be around friends during dark times...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


The moderator in charge of this thread deserves our admiration and a paid vacation
posted by vuron at 5:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


(51.4% Clinton / 47.7% Sanders at the time of posting this.)
posted by threeants at 5:30 PM on March 1, 2016


I wonder what colours the NYT chose for the other Republican candidates. I guess we may never know...

Looks like a nice pus-evoking yellow for Ted Cruz.
posted by fifthrider at 5:32 PM on March 1, 2016


Question! As expected, Cruz is leading in Texas at the moment. Could someone give me some idea of the realistic percentage he would need to to arguably stay viable? Like, he's not going to pull 50%, but would any plurality be a win in his book? (Take "win" to mean whatever you want, in this case. He probably will.)
posted by Salieri at 5:33 PM on March 1, 2016


Mass seems to have gone trumpy on the gop side, if he loses okla I will have to compute that people in okla are smarter than massholes does not compute error error
posted by vrakatar at 5:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


This means we are in almost the highest marginal tax bracket and almost any Republican tax plan would be in our economic best interest. So are we some kind of clueless morons for supporting democrats anyway?

Only in the naive sense that ignores the economic benefits from paying taxes, which provide benefits such as roads, fire, police and emergency services, legal and social infrastructure that protect your larger economic interests (like the physical property you own, your bank accounts), etc.

What persuades you that low-income republicans (or even low-income moderate dems) are making any less of an intelligent decision simply because that decision might not seem to favor them financially?

To some extent, because they do not benefit from paying higher taxes (such as when Republicans dismantle or reduce progressive taxation rates) for services that are intended to benefit wealthy people.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


How late do I have to stay up to see who wins in American Samoa?

Clinton won American Samoa
73% to 27%
posted by melissasaurus at 5:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Trump is ahead of Rubio by 7 points in VA, which of course means that Rubio will be declaring victory.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't believe at least 78 people still voted for O'Malley in MA so far.
posted by TwoStride at 5:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Mass seems to have gone trumpy on the gop side

AskMe: I have a Mass in my fridge. It looks a little trumpy on the gop side. Can I eat this?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


Only if voting for Ted “Republic of Gilead” Cruz is smarter than voting for Trump. And I'm not entirely convinced that it is; while Trump's actual agenda beneath the kayfabe can only be speculated about, Cruz' ideology is simple and harshly fanatical.
posted by acb at 5:37 PM on March 1, 2016


I can't believe at least 78 people still voted for O'Malley in MA so far.


Littlefinger is a wily one.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


For whoever asked about American Samoa, NPR says "American Samoa and Democrats Abroad also vote today. AP is not providing live results."
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:42 PM on March 1, 2016


"I dunno, I'm thinking Trump's press conference will be about "I'm a winner" and not much else."

To be fair, no matter what the results are, even if he's not the GOP nominee in November, I expect Trump to declare that he won and is the president.
posted by klangklangston at 5:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Wow, Hillary trounced Bernie in Virginia. i haz a sad :-(
posted by indubitable at 5:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


30% margin w/ 78% reporting
posted by indubitable at 5:43 PM on March 1, 2016


I feel you. I'm in Richmond and I also haz a sad.
posted by Tarumba at 5:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cruz is leading in Texas at the moment. Could someone give me some idea of the realistic percentage he would need to to arguably stay viable?

538's pacetracker (?) already has Cruz behind on what he needs to be viable. For Texas, they put him as needing to win 104 Texas delegates.
posted by Panjandrum at 5:44 PM on March 1, 2016


I am taking a hit for every state the Nimble Navigator wins. Good thing I have a lot of pizza rolls in the freezer!
posted by Tanizaki at 5:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tanizaki: “You seem low energy. Get high energy!”

I will say:

It's not a terrible surprise for me, finding out how big the centipede brigade of Trump supporters has gotten on Reddit; and it's not a terrible surprise to me that a lot of otherwise-rational conservatives I know are now pulling for him, even though he's diametrically opposed to all the ideals they've ever espoused. There's something liberals don't get about Trump, and often don't get about themselves: we liberals can be terribly haughty, and sometimes it can be very pleasurable to troll us, to get our goat, to mock us and to see us sigh in defeat. Trump is a rarified, pure form of this pleasure. He has absolutely no goals, no ideals of his own; even his ridiculous blather about building a big wall is really just trolling, as everybody can tell (he said it so he'd get attention, he got attention – it worked, and he's happy with that.) Milo Yiannopoulis is a huge Trump fan, and it figures: he's in exactly the same business. They're both just trolling liberals; they don't care how they do it, they just want goats gotten.

Donald Trump really is an ideal candidate in this light, of a purity that has never been seen before and may never be seen again. If you don't really care about politics in the United States; if you don't really care about history; if you don't really think any of this stupid bullshit matters; if literally the only thing you care about is pissing off liberals – then Trump is a godsend, because he stands for exactly that, nothing more and nothing less. He is a candidate unencumbered by pesky moral dignity or opinions about what's right or ideas about justice of any of that bullshit. He's just there to knock the fuck out of everybody, particularly liberals.

So, Tanizaki: I have to say I get it, and I respect your purity of vision. Nihilism makes it hard to stand behind anybody, but once in a great while even nihilism gets its hero.
posted by koeselitz at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [71 favorites]


The New York Times Upshot is the best tracker of delegate pickups in real time. Let's hear it for dynamic infographics.
posted by humanfont at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Looks like the Sanders insurrection has been put down, and the coronation can proceed as planned. I wonder whether it'll be reflected in the Dow Jones.
posted by acb at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I have no idea what r/politics is like, or what "that reddit shit" is (and I'm assuming from the reply chains that the centipede thing and... something about being Basque?)

Yeah, I was not expecting to see references to Can't Stump The Trump here.

Then again, I wasn't expecting a lot of what's been happening in this primary.
posted by theorique at 5:46 PM on March 1, 2016


Super excited to see Sanders keeping it so close in Oklahoma and Massachusetts. Even if the polling was close, he had been sliding in MA and most people didn't really seem to expect him to do as well as he seems to be doing in those states.

It's kind of hilarious that Rubio is putting up such a strong fight in Virginia. It's probably the crucial thinkpiece/pundit vote that could push him over the top - truly, his strongest base.
posted by dialetheia at 5:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


TwoStride, I'm trying to figure out who got 8% of the vote in OK. O'Malley?
posted by joeyh at 5:51 PM on March 1, 2016


He is a candidate unencumbered by pesky moral dignity or opinions about what's right or ideas about justice of any of that bullshit. He's just there to knock the fuck out of everybody, particularly liberals.

In that, Trump is less the successor to Bush, and more the successor to Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Does anyone know where I can see the Green-Rainbow votes come in for Mass? Like I know nobody else cares about this but presumably the data is coming in, from the same sources we're seeing numbers for Dems and Reps? Or is it the party infrastructure rather than local government that reports precinct results?
posted by threeants at 5:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


That Taibbi article is wonderful.
posted by persona au gratin at 5:51 PM on March 1, 2016


GO TEXAS GO!
posted by vrakatar at 5:51 PM on March 1, 2016


Wait. TX has one poll reporting already? There's ten minutes to go.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:52 PM on March 1, 2016


I guess it's good that a Trump supporter showed up h here. It's a nice to change from the ongoing debate as to whether Sanders is the greatest man who ever lived or whether a vote for him is the equivalent of voting for Nader in 2000. But there's nothing nimble about that talking yam.
posted by dis_integration at 5:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Caucusing in MN. Lots of people for a small district. Lots of youngin's. Lots of older folks. Omg it's hot in here. Open a damn window. And jeez DFL, provide pens!!!!!
posted by ian1977 at 5:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Koeselitz, I like the cut of your jib and favorited your comment. Milo had a great AMA today - one of my favorite people! If I don't eat all my pizza rolls tonight, I will send you one in the mail if you favorite my comment on this web zone.

And I think I am going to need a bigger air horn.
posted by Tanizaki at 5:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Durn, threeants, thanks for reminding me. Could I have voted for Bernie today and the greens?
posted by vrakatar at 5:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


And jeez DFL, provide pens

You millennials, always wanting free stuff!
posted by dhens at 5:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


How the hell does Trump take MA, one of the most highly-educated and Catholic states in the US?
posted by middleclasstool at 5:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


TwoStride, I'm trying to figure out who got 8% of the vote in OK. O'Malley?

Maybe it was that Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente" person on the ballot?
posted by TwoStride at 5:55 PM on March 1, 2016


uh, there are a lot of um, ignorant angry white people in MA.
posted by zutalors! at 5:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Because those people vote in the Democratic primary, middleclasstool.
posted by Justinian at 5:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


How the hell does Trump take MA, one of the most highly-educated and Catholic states in the US?

Well, without being too terribly snarky about it, the smart ones are probably in the other party.
posted by Mooski at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Durn, threeants, thanks for reminding me. Could I have voted for Bernie today and the greens?

No, you can only take the ballot of one party. If you're unenrolled with a party you can take any party's ballot, and if you're enrolled you can only take that party's ballot.
posted by threeants at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2016


How the hell does Trump take MA, one of the most highly-educated and Catholic states in the US?

MA is very rural outside of Boston, and there is a lot of resentment towards those Cambridge elites
posted by dis_integration at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


How many rats do you think Cruz is sullenly swallowing whole tonight?
posted by The Whelk at 5:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


Any one of them would be a complete catastrophe for the nation if elected president.

While all of them would indeed be awful, I think that there are two things that propel Trump to greater depths of terribleness:
1. His unpredictability would be more disastrous in the foreign arena than that of other candidates.
2. I fear that his election would be interpreted as license for his supporters to start enacting more vigilante "justice" on the hated minority of the day.
posted by dhens at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I wonder how many Bernie supporters were registered independents who therefore could not participate in states with closed primaries.
posted by Tanizaki at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "How the hell does Trump take MA, one of the most highly-educated and Catholic states in the US?"

Exit polls are showing him winning a majority of the Republican Catholic vote in MA.

In fact, he's doing better there among Catholics than he is among Protestants.

Don't ask me, man.
posted by kyrademon at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


How the hell does Trump take MA, one of the most highly-educated and Catholic states in the US?

He "took" Republican voters in Massachusetts. He appeals to Republican voters. He says all the shit they want to hear from their presidential candidate. How is anybody surprised by his popularity any more?

Yes, even in Massachusetts, there are racist fucks who want a wall between us and Mexico and all the Muslims kicked out of the country. Lots of them.

Liberals keep forgetting that white supremacy is a foundational value of American democracy, and it keeps biting them in the ass.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


"How many rats do you think Cruz is sullenly swallowing whole tonight?"

as many as will fit in his vacuous gullet

or is this a riddle?
posted by Tevin at 5:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hey now, let's be fair. The measure is education, not smarts. Republican voters in MA are more likely to be low income and less educated.
posted by yasaman at 5:58 PM on March 1, 2016


Am I reading this thread wrong or do people actually feel like Trump is worse than the other GOP candidates?

There's been some debate about that. He's the frontrunner so he gets the heat regardless.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Personally I would not bet money on the claim that Republicans in Massachusetts are less educated than the general population. I literally don't know-- but my hunch is that Republicans are either more educated on average or the difference is not very significant.
posted by threeants at 5:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, its kind of like Nevada where there was talk about Trump "winning" the Hispanic vote, when the number of who voted in the Republican primary was tiny so it means he won like 5% of Nevada Hispanics.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




The Whelk: "How many rats do you think Cruz is sullenly swallowing whole tonight?"

He just absorbs them using his Zero Matter powers.
posted by octothorpe at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Oh right, like my idiot cousin, and that trainwreck of a line cook i know.
posted by vrakatar at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]




Hillary Clinton can do a relatively good Bernie Sanders impression when she puts her mind to it.
posted by Glibpaxman at 5:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Don't forget that Tom Brady is a huge Trump fan. Ugh.

(Also, MA is a state that briefly sent Scott "I Drive a Truck" Brown to the Senate, so...)
posted by TwoStride at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "Am I reading this thread wrong or do people actually feel like Trump is worse than the other GOP candidates?"

No, not at all, Cruz and Rubio terrify me. But Trump also terrifies me, so I've been tending to point out that he's just as nightmarish when people say things like, "Isn't he just a centrist businessman type, really?", as if he isn't talking about barring people from the U.S. based on their religion.
posted by kyrademon at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Am I reading this thread wrong or do people actually feel like Trump is worse than the other GOP candidates?

Trying to pick which of them is worst is like trying to compare which is the smelliest turd in a septic tank. You can make a convincing case for any of them.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think that's right at all, threeants, at least from my experience living in MA for seven years (mostly college).
posted by zutalors! at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2016


so I'm thinking hard about the appeal of Trump himself — not the white supremacist movement he's found himself as a figurehead for, but Trump himself, Trump the man.

I mean, obviously, to me he reads as a dangerous incompetent, visibly insecure about himself, with the sort of out-of-control temper that would quickly land a poorer man in jail. And the trappings of wealth he surrounds himself with all seem tacky and fake no matter how expensive they are; I can't remember who described him as a "stupid man's idea of what a rich man is like," but that's what I keep coming back to when thinking about him.

And I could just assume that all of his supporters are dumb, that they actually fall for his passing-off-tacky-as-classy schtick, that they believe it... but I think that would be equivalent to thinking that wrestling fans think that wrestling is real.

There's something about Trump's kayfabe life that is more appealing to his supporters than any genuine quality, intelligence, or style would be. I don't get it. But I think my inability to get it indicates a hole in my worldview, a misunderstanding of how people work.

All I have is:
  1. A lot of people in America are looking for a movement where they get to kick the everliving shit out of people who aren't them — Black people, immigrants, Muslims, the poor, whatever.
  2. That movement has coalesced around a whited sepulcher of a man, a man who's a shell of kayfabe bravado and kayfabe success (and the most halfassed kayfabe parody of Christianity possible) pasted over a morass of moral, physical, and financial failure and rot.
The best I can guess is that the leadership of a rotten man makes other rotten people feel better about themselves; if Trump can declare himself classy and powerful despite how he's so obviously classless and weak, then other rotten people can keep being rotten but feel good about themselves, covered by the reflected glow of Trump's patina of bravado.

Or something. I honestly don't get it at all.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


The "Cambridge elites" don't really do a good job of hiding their scorn for the rest of the state. This really jumped out at me today, having lived in Western Mass during grad school:

"Tom Paquin, a resident of Cambridge, Mass., said in an email that his decision to back the Florida senator “might be the only Republican vote in this part of town.”

“Given Trump’s support in my state among the Neanderthals in western Massachusetts, I doubt it’ll make much of a difference,” Paquin added. “But I’m hopeful enough common-sense conservatives will rally behind the establishment choice, as vague a choice as it is with such a diluted field.”"

WaPo
posted by permiechickie at 6:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hillary Clinton can do a relatively good Bernie Sanders impression when she puts her mind to it.

Wall Street vanquishes Socialism, wears its skin.
posted by acb at 6:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


Trump is a rarified, pure form of this pleasure. He has absolutely no goals, no ideals of his own; even his ridiculous blather about building a big wall is really just trolling

The one friend* of mine that I know has voiced support for Trump fits perfectly into this. He is, for most part, profoundly apolitical on a party basis, but has very strong personal opinions on things that directly effect him. It gives him a view on issues that does not easily map onto the party platforms of either the Dems or the GOP. He holds that these idiosyncratic positions make him smarter than the average sheeple who just votes the party ticket.

I would argue (and have argued with him) that such positions actually just make him someone who is simply making kneejerk reactions with no thought to their effects on the larger society. This is not an argument that really has any sway with him though. This is someone who has identified in their life as everything from socialist to libertarian, from wiccan to born again. He's not looking for a coherent party platform or social milieu, he's looking for a reaction, and he is voting Donald Trump, running on the Troll Party USA ticket.

Of the "we have known each other since we are children, even though we now have very very very little in common as adults" variety.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


TX called for Cruz, with Rubio in 3rd. The nomination is within his grasp!
posted by zombieflanders at 6:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


And jeez DFL, provide pens!!!!!

For those not familiar with the Democratic Party affiliate in Minnesota - the Minnesota DFL.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who told Clinton's audience to boo and cheer like they are on a 50s sitcom?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:04 PM on March 1, 2016


Another glorious third place victory!!!
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I keep wondering, seriously: "Is Trump that bad or do I just feel as unjustifiably scared as conservatives felt in 2008?"

Rationally, I think he is that bad but ... I don't know. It's veering into existential angst territory.
posted by Tevin at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has Trump announced his surprise yet?
posted by melissasaurus at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2016


can't wait to see how quickly clinton does a 180º on the speech once she's in office.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump cant win texas.
posted by vrakatar at 6:05 PM on March 1, 2016


I don't think that's right at all, threeants, at least from my experience living in MA for seven years (mostly college).

I've got a bit under thirty years logged here (not to try and trump you [heyo! see what I did there]) and my impression has been that the prototypical Republicans are wealthy, educated people in Metro West-ish and the Cape-ish. Of course it is a bit silly that we're hunching over info that presumably is readily accessible as real data (not casting aspersions, as I'm doing it equally).
posted by threeants at 6:06 PM on March 1, 2016


It took me forever to tell Cruz and Rubio apart. Maybe other people also think they're too similar, which is why neither has really broken away from the pack.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:06 PM on March 1, 2016


Who told Clinton's audience to boo and cheer like they are on a 50s sitcom?

This is what crowds do. They boo and cheer.
posted by zarq at 6:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


I appreciated the meticulously chosen rainbow of ethnicity in the crowd. Like the solitary burka girl and the hastily written Spanish sign.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:07 PM on March 1, 2016


> can't wait to see how quickly clinton does a 180º on the speech once she's in office.

You've reached that point, the point where you wish for bad things to happen so you can be proven right.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


Trump, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, is the "raised middle finger" vote.

Lots of people voting for him like seeing the stuffed-shirt, establishment Republican professional pundits and consultants (Rick Wilson, Matt Walsh, etc) left spluttering for words and punching ineffectually at the air.
posted by theorique at 6:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Am I reading this thread wrong or do people actually feel like Trump is worse than the other GOP candidates?

I do think he is worse, although thats partially because if people elect him it means they've given up any pretense of not being racist authoritarians. While most Republicans have racist policies, I still am worried about where the country will go if people decide its OK to just be openly, unapologetically racist.

Also, I think his foreign policy of "bully everyone into submission" could backfire spectacularly in a way that the other Republicans would not. The chance of more wars or massive economic failure from loss of trade/etc is higher with him.

Lastly, his unpredictability means he could be either worse or better than I expect, but I'd rather not bet on "better".
posted by thefoxgod at 6:09 PM on March 1, 2016


Is Trump that bad

That's the thing, NOBODY KNOWS how bad he is. We know he's a phony. He could have a "surprise" announcement tonight that he's quitting to write a book, or that he's endorsing Bernie Sanders, or that he's voting for the aliens that live in his toothbrush cup. Or that he's got Marco Rubio locked in his closet and won't let him out until Election Day.

He could be less racist than we think. He could be WAY MORE racist than we think.

He's an actor playing a part and nobody knows the man himself. At least with Cruz or Rubio we know what we're dealing with. Trump is a true wildcard.
posted by mmoncur at 6:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [24 favorites]


kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature. Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.

Kayfabe: very appropriate
posted by theorique at 6:10 PM on March 1, 2016


In socialistic Celcius,

Hell yeah.
posted by Celsius1414 at 6:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


MSNBC saying Cruz wins Oklahoma.
posted by cashman at 6:11 PM on March 1, 2016


Yeah, I think he's worse--upside is about the same, downside is way, way worse.
posted by box at 6:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Okay, I'm sure I've been reading here and there that Cruz is kind of a lost cause at this point (based on delegate math maybe? Idk), and that Rubio stands the best chance of stealing the nom from Trump (if anyone can). But Cruz seems to have won TX and possibly OK so I'm not sure what's making people pin their hopes on Rubio. Anyone know?
posted by triggerfinger at 6:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


There's something about Trump's kayfabe life that is more appealing to his supporters than any genuine quality, intelligence, or style would be

The GOP has, basically since St. Ronnie, run on a platform grounded in the mutually exclusive promises of both lower taxes and better services. It was one thing when Reagan was cutting high tax rates and deficit spending in a proxy war with the USSR, but its a position that has basically spiraled out of control so that the actions are no longer goal oriented, they are dogma. Every modern GOP candidate is running on smoke and mirrors, promising to pour money into the military while slashing taxes, all the while maintaining 3rd rail services like social security and medicare (though with nods towards "reforming" them).

Since the GOP has become the party of bread and circuses (all the while cutting funding for bakers and lion tamers), its no surprise that a huckster like Trump has captured their audience. The GOP stopped being rational a while ago; it's been running on pure gut feeling for a while. Trump is just the candidate that recognizes that GOP candidates no longer have to say anything that makes sense or is even true, and he is running with that all the way to the convention.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


He could have a "surprise" announcement tonight that he's quitting to write a book, or that he's endorsing Bernie Sanders, or that he's voting for the aliens that live in his toothbrush cup. Or that he's got Marco Rubio locked in his closet and won't let him out until Election Day.

And all of those scenarios would boost him by 5 points in the next poll.
posted by sammyo at 6:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm going to be sure and let both the state and national Democratic parties know that the only way I'll vote for Hillary in November is if she stands with Elizabeth Warren during the convention and declares the economy to be rigged.

I figure the degree of association with Warren on the national stage makes for a good litmus test to know how committed Hillary really is to progressive causes. If Hillary ignores Warren during the general election, then she really doesn't deserve my vote.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, I just learned a new word: kayfabe

This is way off-topic, but as much as pro wrestling does not appeal to me at all, it's contributed a lot of very interesting and useful terminology to popular critical analysis.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


Okay, I'm sure I've been reading here and there that Cruz is kind of a lost cause at this point (based on delegate math maybe? Idk), and that Rubio stands the best chance of stealing the nom from Trump (if anyone can). But Cruz seems to have won TX and possibly OK so I'm not sure what's making people pin their hopes on Rubio. Anyone know?

100% establishment wishful thinking. Nearly every pundit and Republican higher-up on Earth is pulling and spinning hard for Rubio because a) they need to stop Trump, but b) literally all of them hate Ted Cruz.
posted by dialetheia at 6:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Cruz is doomed because there aren't enough winner take all states in his favor to steal the nomination. The best that he can do at this point is be a spoiler.

Ruboto is likewise doomed but perhaps between the two of them they can force a brokered convention.

Of course if a brokered convention happens then the Donald will announce he's running independent and all hell will break loose.
posted by vuron at 6:14 PM on March 1, 2016


But Cruz seems to have won TX and possibly OK so I'm not sure what's making people pin their hopes on Rubio. Anyone know?

He's at or below the threshold for getting any delegates in four states, which means he's now a shoe-in!

In all seriousness, it's because (as Lindsay Graham put it), you could murder Ted Cruz on the Senate floor and would still get an acquittal if the rest of the Senate was the jury.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


MSNBC just called Oklahoma for Bernie
posted by zug at 6:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


Trump is the worst because we have no idea how bad he actually is, because he's playing with absolute fire with overt racism and xenophobia, and I'm not sure he could control it even if he wanted to, and because it's really hard to know how to run against him or whom he could possibly convince to vote for him. Cruz would also be the apocalypse, but I think a Cruz presidency is very, very unlikely to happen, even if he gets the nomination. I can't really say the same about Trump.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Apparently Cruz is now positioning himself as the establishment candidate, since he's the only one who (projected) beat Trump anywhere. (Source: NPR)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:15 PM on March 1, 2016


OK so I'm not sure what's making people pin their hopes on Rubio. Anyone know?

The Republican establishment dislikes Cruz as much (if not more than) as Trump.
posted by drezdn at 6:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think maybe Trump's deal, and the support for Trump among the apolitical, is wrapped up something like what Walter Benjamin talked about when he critiqued the aestheticization of politics that happened under fascist regimes. Trump, and the Trump movement, isn't about a political effect, it's about an aesthetic effect. It's about the glorious freedom involved in treating public debate as a site of pure spectacle rather than a means to work out political disputes.

Under this interpretation, the act of beating the shit out of a Black person at a rally isn't a political act, it's an artistic one; the Black person's body stops being a person's body; their blood isn't treated as real blood but symbolic blood, red paint used to paint a picture of raw white power. The blood of a Black person isn't the blood of a Black person — it's just a means to annoy political types. Mexican immigrants stop being seen as people, and their forcible ejection is less about throwing out people and more about establishing an aesthetic of domination and control. America stops being a country and starts being a canvas, across which a dark spectacular fantasy is drawn. A blank sheet of paper on which a massive epic of cruel mastery can be written. And so on and so on and so on.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [42 favorites]


I have a feeling (not just based on wishful thinking, I don't think) that Sanders will come out on top in Massachusetts. From a quick eyeball of which communities have had precincts reporting and to what extent, the early results seem disproportionately to come from wealthy suburbs, and expected Sanders strongholds like Cambridge and Somerville are so far under-reported compared to the statewide percentage.
posted by threeants at 6:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]




Trump's a wild card.

Cruz and Rubio are relatively more predictable (senators with some kind of track record, big money donors to bring them to heel).

So Trump is more of the chaos vote, the others are the establishment vote.

And Rubio's considered more "liked" and "likeable". Cruz is very intelligent and often correct, but not well liked.
posted by theorique at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just for a recent example of how much everyone in DC hates Cruz, he went to Scalia's funeral and nobody would even let him sit with them (even though he was one of Scalia's former clerks!): "#SCOTUS sources say Cruz asked to sit w Scalia clerks @ funeral. They said no. Then GOP leadership said no bc he wasn't 1 of them either."
posted by dialetheia at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Also, I'd like to congratulate each and every one of you for being tied with Rubio in number of states won so far. I know it's been hard work, but if he can declare himself a winner, so can you!
posted by zombieflanders at 6:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


So, here's what I'm seeing as I head to bed (it's 2 AM here ...)

On the Republican side, Trump is winning in Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. He is also nearly certain to win Virginia, although the race may tighten up a bit with Rubio edging closer to him before it's over.

Cruz is winning in Oklahoma and Texas (but probably not by enough to keep the delegates from being split, which frankly he would need to have a realistic shot at this point.) Vermont looks like a tossup between Kasich and Trump. Arkansas looks like a tossup between Rubio and Trump. There's no word yet from Minnesota or Alaska, both of which are supposedly states where Rubio has a chance of doing well.

On the Democratic side, Clinton is winning in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Massachusetts looks like a tossup between her and Sanders. Sanders is winning Vermont and Oklahoma. No word yet from Minnesota or Colorado.
posted by kyrademon at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2016


I feel like we're a room full of sixth graders and the teacher wrote "Trump is the worst because..." on the blackboard.

That said, Trump is the worst because he has managed to make it acceptable in much wider circles to be racist again. For that alone, he needs to eat a fiery bag of hell.
posted by Mooski at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


But Cruz seems to have won TX and possibly OK so I'm not sure what's making people pin their hopes on Rubio. Anyone know?

Cruz is possibly more disliked by the party establishment than Trump. They are pushing Marco as the alternative because they don't want to hold their noses while they campaign for Cruz in the general. But Cruz is also unelectable in the general. He's too Evangelical even for America, and anyway he's obviously an alien. I mean, nobody has ever liked him. So Rubio is the hope. He at least can smile without looking like he's trying to figure out which part of you to serve for dinner.
posted by dis_integration at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm going to be sure and let both the state and national Democratic parties know that the only way I'll vote for Hillary in November is if she stands with Elizabeth Warren during the convention and declares the economy to be rigged.

I think Elizabeth Warren is staying out of this whole thing on purpose, and will probably continue to do so unless her endorsement becomes a literal win-or-lose proposition for the general. Can't say as I blame her, either, she's got a long career ahead of her and a lot to lose by backing the wrong horse.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Ruboto is the scariest general election Republican because he's just as fucking nutso as Cruz on social and economic issues but packages it up in a nice veneer of compassionate conservatism whereas you just know Cruz would sell his grandmother to organleggers for spare cash.

The reality is that Clinton or Sanders will beat Trump like a rented mule in the general election and Republicans know this and they are watching their last best hope to prevent Trump going down in fucking flames.

Now Ruboto will have loser stink on him and Republicans hate losers.
posted by vuron at 6:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, according to Walter Benjamin, the jock bully slamming the nerdy kid into the locker to impress the cheerleader is being a supreme aesthete?
posted by acb at 6:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I sort of believe that Trump would never have gotten this far, or anywhere at all, if the middle class were thriving and available.
posted by prefpara at 6:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]




Trump is the worst, because he really has no idea what government fundamentally is, and would bring a completely wrongheaded view to the office. He's a one-sided bully with no history of compromise, and all of his business ventures have failed, and disastrously. He would destroy a lot of things given the power of the executive office. Not just take them in a bad direction, but potentially sell off public resources, close agencies and throw ongoing work into chaos, get us embroiled in horrible international conflicts through hamhanded and blustering management, that sort of thing. YES. He's worse.
posted by Miko at 6:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


The reality is that Clinton or Sanders will beat Trump like a rented mule in the general election

That's debatable. There's a case that Trump the Barnumesque Showman Of Wonder could wipe the floor with Clinton the Business-As-Usual Beltway Insider, especially if, once he has the deep-red states locked in, he pivots away from the firebreathing act and starts hammering Wall Street.
posted by acb at 6:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


6 New Jersey Newspapers Call On Christie To Resign

As a scion of the Garden State, that makes my blood boil. On that list are papers that totally, uncritically aided and abetted his rise.
posted by Miko at 6:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]




So, according to Walter Benjamin, the jock bully slamming the nerdy kid into the locker to impress the cheerleader is being a supreme aesthete?
Benjamin was a German Jew who committed suicide in 1940 at the French border when it became clear he wasn't going to be able to outrun the Nazis. I don't think he was saying that to minimize the badness of fascism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [28 favorites]


I'm not really sure Warren's endorsement would add much, to be honest. Now that I think about it, don't "endorsements" kind of seem like a symptom of a system where politicians never have to commit to a set of political values? Even if it turns out Warren is for some idiosyncratic reason starry-eyed for Clinton, it doesn't particularly matter who she endorses, because her platform speaks for itself and so does Sanders'.
posted by threeants at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2016


Reporting in from MA right now, please be aware that because our primary is open, a lot of Trump votes in the primary are in hopes of setting him up against Hillary - many don't reflect votes he's going to get in the general. I have heard enough of my peers gloating about their strategic ballot pull for Trump today that I suspect the effect is non-insignificant.
posted by Miko at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


You've reached that point, the point where you wish for bad things to happen so you can be proven right prediction is not the same thing a wish, champ.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2016


Re November elections, if Hillary doesn't come out strong against the bill DWS just let the payday lenders buy from her, then I am officially done with the national party. Ill still support and vote for local leftists, but I will wash the DNC right out of my hair. Between the payday lender bill announced on the day of super Tuesday voting that is a direct attack on Elizabeth Warren, and the bullshit with Bill delaying voting for two hours in areas where Bernie was polling well, I am really pretty pissed off at the Dnc shenanigans around this primary.

Also, could the people behind Hillary during her speech have been a Benetton ad or what.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


God, I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the rooms of the some of the Republican establishment tonight. Their two most-loathed candidates picking up so many delegates? It's delicious. (And scary. But also delicious.)

I have no idea how this is all going to play out and I can't get off the damn internet to get work done.
posted by Salieri at 6:24 PM on March 1, 2016


all of his business ventures have failed

I don't know about that, but what I do know is that mine and Mrs. Tanizaki's next Las Vegas trip, we will be staying at the Trump International. It will be very elegant.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:24 PM on March 1, 2016


Regarding Texas: Don't forget about the delegate math. Just because they called it for Cruz doesn't mean it's all over. If Rubio stays just under the 20% threshold, Cruz will take around 86 delegates (assuming he ends with around 40% and Trump with around 30%) and Rubio gets nothing. If it ends with Rubio above the 20% threshold, Cruz will only take 69 delegates and Rubio gets 34. While overall this probably doesn't matter much, if Rubio leaves Super Tuesday with zero delegates, it'll be a harder sell to keep him in the race until Florida comes around in two weeks during Super Tuesday 2: Electric Boogaloo.
posted by mhum at 6:25 PM on March 1, 2016


Haha Trump will never attack Wall Street because they would start calling in all his debt. It's abundantly clear that Trump worth nowhere near 10 billion under any valuation and is quite likely leveraged to the hilt. That's probably why he's being so reticent to release his tax records because then it will be apparent that he's actually a conman who is doing all this just to boost his "brand" valuation.
posted by vuron at 6:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Oh shit. I fucked up the math. The proportional allocation in Texas is for the at-large delegates (of which there are only 47). The bulk are allocated by district.
posted by mhum at 6:26 PM on March 1, 2016


Ill still support and vote for local leftists, but I will wash the DNC right out of my hair. Between the payday lender bill announced on the day of super Tuesday voting that is a direct attack on Elizabeth Warren, and the bullshit with Bill delaying voting for two hours in areas where Bernie was polling well, I am really pretty pissed off at the Dnc shenanigans around this primary.

Yeah, the DNC is literal garbage. Most actual Democrats in office are basically fine, but the party machinery is totally broken.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Maybe he's running for the presidency just so he can nationalize his creditors.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie Sanders supporters booted AFTER Bill Clinton gives speech at polling station
#MoveBillGetOutoftheWay twitter tag

Freeeeaky, I wonder what people think of this. My friend (a Sanders supporter) who was voting at the Nevada caucuses, a Hillary supporter gave her wrong directions for where to put her ballot, so shady!
posted by yueliang at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Elizabeth Warren is staying out of this whole thing on purpose, and will probably continue to do so unless her endorsement becomes a literal win-or-lose proposition for the general.

I'd like to think that, but given that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is pushing legislation to cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I'd like some reassurances from Hillary's campaign that they support Warren.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I'd like Hillary to announce her support for Warren on this issue, too, but people were talking about Hillary bringing Warren out on stage, which is not giving support so much as demanding an endorsement.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:29 PM on March 1, 2016


The DNC has been awful for ages with a brief respite under Dean. Kaine was mediocre, DWS is bad, McAuliffe was bad, etc.

For the most part the DSCC and the house version are generally a lot better although I'm pretty sure Schumer would totally shiv you in a knife fight.
posted by vuron at 6:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh I get it. The reason why the DLC disbanded a few years and election threads ago is because they scrawled in another line to their middle letter and became the DNC.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Here's Trumps' press conference stream if you're curious about the "surprise."
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:31 PM on March 1, 2016


"Leadership" Council. That's like Trump levels of cartoonishly blatant villainy.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2016




Those flags Trump will be speaking in front of all have gold fringes! The sovereign citizen types are gonna cream themselves.
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apropos of nothing, I just love this picture of Bernie Sanders leaving the Woody Guthrie museum in Oklahoma (from this post, I think).
posted by dialetheia at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


*pfft* That's why I have my MeFi stream on.
posted by Mooski at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2016


Reporting in from MA right now, please be aware that because our primary is open, a lot of Trump votes in the primary are in hopes of setting him up against Hillary - many don't reflect votes he's going to get in the general. I have heard enough of my peers gloating about their strategic ballot pull for Trump today that I suspect the effect is non-insignificant.

I have no doubt that many people say they're going to do this, so I'm not disputing your personal experience, but I really suspect the overwhelming majority of these claims are fully in the realm of fantasy, along the lines of "I'll move to Canada". I really do think a lot of Americans have a cultural taboo around breaking what feel like major rules, including a not-rule rule like voting for the party you actually identify with-- even if it doesn't bother them on a theoretical level. I see these stories as a sort of political version of mumbling to yourself the insult you wish you could shout without repercussion.
posted by threeants at 6:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]






Here's Trumps' press conference stream if you're curious about the "surprise."

Here's what's NOT a surprise: The comment stream on the right full of bleating about "white genocide."
posted by dhens at 6:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Can't wait for Bernie to concede and Clinton to pick him as her VP. Gonna be great watching all the stans collide and annihilate one another like a matter-antimatter reaction.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Yeah, the only thing that surprises me about that comment stream is that they allow emojis in it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:35 PM on March 1, 2016


Rumor on the Twitters is that Rick Scott is going to endorse Trump. Don't know if that's the surprise, but if so, it's definitely another big get for presumptive nominee Marco Rubio.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:35 PM on March 1, 2016


For the whole campaign I've believed that Sanders value was in pushing Clinton left. That being said... Clinton is kicking ass in regions and states that the Democrats have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Seems like someone should be talking about that.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


See, this is the thing I can't get my head around — and for reals this is a problem with my head rather than a problem with the world. Trump's empire is a potemkin empire, the cardboard front of a business operation rather than a real business operation. He's continually riding the edge of bankruptcy while describing himself as a multi-billionaire, squaring that circle by claiming his name itself — pure image unattached to anything real — as an asset worth billions.

BUT as Tanizaki has so ably documented in this thread, Trump's kayfabe performance of wealth is vastly more aesthetically satisfying than the real wealth of conventional capitalists like Romney. Trashy-riche hotels in Vegas are more dirty fun than real money, trashy halfassed performances of Christianity are more dirty fun than any real religious beliefs could ever be, and on the whole living, for as long as you can, in the consensual hallucination of kayfabe is more fun than having to deal with the resistant material of reality.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:36 PM on March 1, 2016 [33 favorites]


Even though the Blue Dogs and DLC are largely extinct now I don't know that it's entirely practical to exile every non-progressive Democrat from the caucus as some really are representing their districts despite being mediocre Democrats as a whole. I don't like DWS and would prefer that she wasn't the national chairwoman but I also understand that Democrats like her are representative of the views of a lot of people.

Still it's less than an opportune time to be coming out in favor of payday lenders.
posted by vuron at 6:36 PM on March 1, 2016


Clinton won Iowa and Virginia. Those are battleground states. Might as well argue that Sanders is winning in states that the Democrats have a snowball's chance in hell of losing.
posted by Justinian at 6:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's a stream of the Trump press conference from Fox that, blessedly, doesn't have comments.
posted by sagc at 6:37 PM on March 1, 2016


Well, Oklahoma is a surprise tonight. Somehow Cruz managed to thread the right combination of Southern Baptists and Tulsans to overcome Marco Rubio in OKC and the strong pull for Trump in Little Dixie. Bernie, meanwhile, rolled with the conservative Democrats of Eastern Oklahoma... and Hillary was hurt by the 8% "other" on the ballot, which tells you just how dissatisfied they are with both candidates.

Oklahoma has always been a weird, contrarian, populist, xenophobic, go-fuck-yourself-y'all state. Seems right that Cruz would win. Bernie, though... still weird.
posted by dw at 6:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Chris Christie, I feel vicarious embarrassment for you. And pity. But mostly disgust.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


CHRIS CHRISTIE hauled out again despite being dissed on a hot mic. wow
posted by dhens at 6:38 PM on March 1, 2016


Here's Trumps' press conference stream if you're curious about the "surprise."

Christie out first to announce the Trump. Man, he's really hitching all his wagons to the Trump train. What happens to Christie if Trump crashes and burns?
posted by dis_integration at 6:38 PM on March 1, 2016


Chris Christie is introducing Trump. How's that shit sandwich taste, governor?
posted by peeedro at 6:38 PM on March 1, 2016


the overwhelming majority of these claims are fully in the realm of fantasy

I really don't think that's true, threeants. Both when I lived in NH and here, it was a fairly common event. I know for a fact my friend's wife did it, because she pulled the ballot in front of us. It may not be enough to be significant, but it does exist.

we will be staying at the Trump International

Which was initially built to be a condo complex, but that failed, so it was last-minute-morphed into a hotel.
posted by Miko at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can't wait for Bernie to concede and Clinton to pick him as her VP.

Won't happen. Bernie won't be relegated to a pointless role as VP, he won't assuage concerns about Hilary's age, and he doesn't have a separate regional base of support different from her New York / East Coast base. His only argument would be appeal to young voters, but if they're not turning out in enough numbers for him to win then it's a hard sell that he can deliver them for Clinton from the VP slot.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Even though the Blue Dogs and DLC are largely extinct now I don't know that it's entirely practical to exile every non-progressive Democrat from the caucus as some really are representing their districts despite being mediocre Democrats as a whole.

I'm fine with these people being allowed in the tent. I'm less fine with them being the ones in charge of setting it up.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Wow, I can't believe Christie really came back for more.
posted by zug at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Surprise! Christie has no spine!
posted by Mooski at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Christie looks so miserable. He looks like he'll get an electric shock if he says something wrong.
posted by zutalors! at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


You can see the black dog Christie met down by the crossroads in his dead, dead eyes.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


"Not a campaign, but a movement".

Yes, a bowel movement.
posted by dis_integration at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The youtube comment stream on Trump's live stream is RIDICULOUS ... never seen comments stream by so quickly before.
posted by theorique at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's what's NOT a surprise: The comment stream on the right full of bleating about "white genocide."

Yeah, so, I tuned in to this stream on time (because I was curious about the "surprise," I guess) and the video source was initially doing a split screen. And while they waited for Trump to speak, they started showing a Marco Rubio speech on the other half of the screen, and he was going off on Trump as a "fraud" etc., of course. The Trump fans in the live comments were LOSING. THEIR. SHIT. Like 10 comments per second of "GET HIM OFF" and "SHUT UP POOL BOY" etc. It was hilarious in that "if you don't laugh you're going to cry" sort of way.

Oh and now we have Chris Christie bagging on Hillary. Lovely.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 6:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Has anyone on any of the other networks talked about how or why Sanders won in Oklahoma? Total radio silence on it on MSNBC. Normally they'd at least do a quick spin through the demographics. I was so looking forward to them being forced to admit that it isn't just pointy-headed liberals and dumb kids voting for him.

Can't wait for Bernie to concede and Clinton to pick him as her VP.

He wouldn't take it in a million years. I would be willing to put a good deal of money on it.

BUT as Tanizaki has so ably documented in this thread, Trump's kayfabe performance of wealth is vastly more aesthetically satisfying than the real wealth of conventional capitalists like Romney.

It's not just about the wealth - it's about how he's a wealthy person, but still obviously an outsider, someone whose social class will preclude him from being accepted by the real big-money Lloyd Blankfein types. They relate to his "persecution" by elites. This piece from David Frum from when Palin endorsed him sort of gets at it. It's part of why attacks and condescension from elites are backfiring so badly - since people relate to him as some perpetual outsider, the attacks just confirm what they believe about elites looking down their noses at them.
posted by dialetheia at 6:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Christie was pretty well consigned to the halls of obscurity after dropping out so why not throw in for a chance with von Clownstick?
posted by Tevin at 6:40 PM on March 1, 2016


It will be fun to watch Trump beat Rubio in Florida in two weeks.
posted by peeedro at 6:41 PM on March 1, 2016


The youtube comment stream on Trump's live stream is RIDICULOUS ... never seen comments stream by so quickly before.

The live stream of the closing hours of the Malheur standoff was a lot like this. The mixture of trolls, /pol/, and SovCits makes for some very weird times on YouTube.
posted by fifthrider at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is actually happening at this press conference?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016


I have nothing really insightful to say about the results tonight or the horse race or anything, but I just want to say that I'm having such a better time this election season keeping the TV turned off and using MetaFilter as a pinhole projector through which I can safely observe the election spectacle without harming my eyes by staring directly at harmful objects like Donald Trump or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Thanks, everyone.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [52 favorites]


Like seriously Ive never seen someone as unhappy as Christie looks right now, while "winning."
posted by zutalors! at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is this the "vote for me Florida or you'll lose your jobs" speech?
posted by melissasaurus at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016


I really want Trump to be the President. Ever since I watched Idiocracy, I became fascinated by the idea of using Mountain Dew for plant production. I strongly feel a Trump presidency is our best attempt in years to get closer to a true Idiocracy. I want to see Mountain Dew used on plants instead of water. A boy can dream.
posted by RedShrek at 6:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I am irate! I was in Palm Beach earlier today. I could have stuck around for The Donald' press conference.

I notice that he is hosting the conference at The Mar-a-Lago Club, which he used to fight racist Palm Beach private clubs in the 90s. He is a uniter, you see.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:43 PM on March 1, 2016


What is actually happening at this press conference?

Trump is trumping it up in a trumpy way (china! florida! winning! great!)

So far it seems like a speech, not a press conference.
posted by dis_integration at 6:43 PM on March 1, 2016


Christie looks like he'd rather be anywhere else on earth. He's trying to sleep standing up.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


What is actually happening at this press conference?

He's just vomiting three-second soundbites right now. Still waiting on that "surprise."
posted by fifthrider at 6:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


man, the stream of consciousness of the american id thing is really great
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah he honestly looks distraught.
posted by defenestration at 6:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump seems to think his campaign is a company?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


does he ever use three-syllable words?
posted by angrycat at 6:44 PM on March 1, 2016


Wow, Trump "playfully" dissing New Jersey right in front of Christie. He really is a big bully.
posted by dhens at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


'Tremendous.'
posted by box at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Christie eats a shit sandwich with a phony smile in response to the lame NJ joke.
posted by defenestration at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


literally
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016


You guys. Please don't make me feel bad for Chris Christie. I don't think I could handle that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


I would like to thank whomever it was above that cautioned Dems pulling a ballot for the other party to try to influence results, because of possibly interesting Dem primaries that need your votes. My better half mentioned he was considering doing just that, so then I mentioned he should look at the ballot first.

We've now found out that in the Dem primary for our local Congress seat (currently and probably almost certainly again occupied by a crazy Tea Party guy), we have our choice between a guy who makes his own maple syrup and my better half's former barber, who is also claiming to have been endorsed by Willie Nelson. We are now weirdly excited about the primary, even though neither has a chance against Tea Party dude.

The laboratories of democracy, my friends!
posted by mostly vowels at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


'Escalator.' 'Literally.' 'Cameras.'
posted by box at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2016


does he ever use three-syllable words?

He has the best words money can buy, the best.
posted by dis_integration at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


does he ever use three-syllable words?

He managed "escalator" a moment ago.
posted by fifthrider at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


He just called himself courageous!
posted by dis_integration at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Tanizaki are you being legit serious or just putting on an act because honestly at a certain point in time it all kinda blurs together but you are sounding more and more like a redpill.
posted by vuron at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


He's hitting the populism & trade stuff hard in this speech - probably pivoting to the general already.
posted by dialetheia at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016


Christie looks like he's being held hostage.
posted by defenestration at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump seems to think his campaign is a company?

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. is a corporation, just like every other organized political campaign. That's how they can accept donations, enter contracts, that sort of thing.
posted by Tanizaki at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2016


Please don't make me feel bad for Chris Christie.

Chris Christie is now ruined
posted by peeedro at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016


Christie has to be running for something like Secretary of Transportation at this point.
posted by drezdn at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is anyone going to ask for the surprise?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


You think he projects himself to win 51 states by the end of the press conference?
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the "surprise" is that he's actually deigning to answer questions from the press.
posted by vverse23 at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


LOL. The Globe has Jim Gilmore taking Chelsea, reporting at 100%, with 47.2%-- 366 votes. I have literally no idea what to make of this and am supremely tickled.
posted by threeants at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016


I want to see Mountain Dew used on plants instead of water

Not Mountain Dew, it was Brawndo—The Thirst Mutilator.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Apparently the Oklahoma Democratic primary was open to independents.
posted by drezdn at 6:47 PM on March 1, 2016


Frankly I'm surprised Trump didn't make Christie come out there wearing a gimp mask and a leash.
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


'Democratic.' 'Democrats.' 'Democrat.'
posted by box at 6:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]



does he ever use three-syllable words?


Yu uuu ge
Mex i cans
Rube i o
Biz Ness man
posted by futz at 6:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can i just say I would have loved to hear what HST would have to say about this election?

Or Molly Ivins.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Is that the equivalent of saying someone's name over and over while trying to make a sale? Subtle, cutting edge stuff.
posted by defenestration at 6:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Christie has to be running for something like Secretary of Transportation at this point.

Well, he does have hands-on experience in the administration of toll bridges...
posted by theorique at 6:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


The surprise is going to be nothing, I predict. He just wanted the media to be pointing at him. It bugs me that the media never dares say that they are being manipulated.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Benjamin was a German Jew who committed suicide in 1940 at the French border when it became clear he wasn't going to be able to outrun the Nazis. I don't think he was saying that to minimize the badness of fascism

Benjamin thought he would not be able to outrun the Nazis, but the reality is that his party was let into Spain the day after he committed suicide. It's a double tragedy.
posted by OmieWise at 6:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


The only thing I like about Donald Trump is that he at least mentions women's healthcare.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump with this Planned Parenthood thing again.
posted by dhens at 6:51 PM on March 1, 2016


While saying he won't fund them while they do "the abortion thing."
posted by defenestration at 6:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Via Reddit: "Christie, blink three times quickly if you need viewers to send help. I have the 9 and the 1 already dialed."

Also, some Sanders supporters are blaming his (probable) loss in Mass. on Bill Clinton's appearance at that polling station.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe Christie's secret plan is to get close enough to Trump to murder him
posted by Automocar at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


The only thing I like about Donald Trump is that he at least mentions women's healthcare.

Except for the part where he just implied that he'd defund Planned Parenthood until they stop providing abortion services. So, basically, the "reasoned" position in the current GOP is splitting the baby between regular old misogyny and firebombing doctors' offices.
posted by fifthrider at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


trump - 'says very clearly planned parenthood does very good work for women planned parenthood... needs to be defunded if they do not stop abortions.'
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016


So, current odds with the bookies for which party wins the general election are (roughly):

Democrats: 1/2
GOP: 6/4

But if you break down the odds of the winners by candidate the odds are (roughly):

Clinton: 1/2
Trump: 2/1
Rubio: 10/1
Sanders: 25/1
Bloomberg: 40/1
Cruz: 80/1

It seems to me that:
1. The bookies agree that Rubio is more likely to win the GE than Cruz (but still less likely than Trump)
2. The GOP (as an entity) has a better chance of winning than any of its current individual candidates, though I'm guessing that the party odds are dependent on if the they have a better candidate than Trump, which is not likely to happen, according to the current odds.

I could be interpreting this wrong.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know how some of those benthic zone fish with black eyes and 1,000 needle-like teeth have a little glowing lure growing out of their heads?

That's Trump talking about women's healthcare
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]


You Can't Tip a Buick: consensual hallucination of kayfabe is more fun than having to deal with the resistant material of reality

It's Baudrillard and the hyperreal. The simulacrum. This is it. We are here.

Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.... It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real
posted by Cuke at 6:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Looking at the delegates, is this the night Carson finally quits? I know he himself has a hard time with reality, but I have to imagine at least someone working for him knows about it.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:53 PM on March 1, 2016


Also, some Sanders supporters are blaming his (probable) loss in Mass. on Bill Clinton's appearance at that polling station.

Damn Bill Clinton for stopping 25,000 Sanders supporters from voting at one station!
posted by Justinian at 6:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Maybe Christie's secret plan is to get close enough to Trump to murder him

I definitely had this same thought. I'm half-waiting for him to pull a piano wire out of his jacket.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The only thing I like about Donald Trump is that he at least mentions women's healthcare.

On his terms. Which do not include abortion rights, or a right to control their own bodies.

Mentioning it isn't a high enough bar, imo.
posted by zarq at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Does trump have batteries wired to Christies balls? Chris looks terrified.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Can someone explain the Jim Gilmore / Chelsea thing? Surely there's an actual reason that one of Trump's only defeats in the whole state is to a complete non-entity who received almost no votes in any other municipality.
posted by threeants at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016


What Bill Clinton did was illegal, end stop.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


The GOP (as an entity) has a better chance of winning than any of its current individual candidates,

That makes sense. You would expect entirely predictive polls to have all of the GOP candidates sum to the total party chance of winning.
posted by fifthrider at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2016


the rapist republican frontrunner mentioned womens healthcare


...i hate this timeline.
posted by nadawi at 6:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Looking at the delegates, is this the night Carson finally quits? I know he himself has a hard time with reality, but I have to imagine at least someone working for him knows about it.

Carson's still in it?
posted by theorique at 6:55 PM on March 1, 2016


Damn Bill Clinton for stopping 25,000 Sanders supporters from voting at one station!

Damn Bill Clinton for possibly breaking the law and possibly disenfranchising voters.
posted by yertledaturtle at 6:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


Carson is running as a financial scam. So he will never stop.
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Looking at the delegates, is this the night Carson finally quits? I know he himself has a hard time with reality, but I have to imagine at least someone working for him knows about it.

Nah, he said people still have enough time to have an Awakening.

And he still has books to sell.
posted by futz at 6:56 PM on March 1, 2016


Does trump have batteries wired to Christies balls? Chris looks terrified.

It's this or jail for him in 2020 once all those probes go to sourc.
posted by The Whelk at 6:56 PM on March 1, 2016


Jeff Weaver (Bernie's CM) just told CNN they're going all the way to the convention.

That's too bad. I thought Sanders cared about America.
posted by OmieWise at 6:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is what I'm on about, btw, for those not familiar with the area. Wtf?
posted by threeants at 6:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This press conference is amazing for Christie's face. I think it's because he's been used to being the biggest dog in the room for so long, and he knows that he's going to be a hanger-on for the foreseeable future.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


"I've had thousands of people work for me that are hispanic" is hopefully going to be the next "binders and binders of women."
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Damn Bill Clinton for possibly breaking the law and possibly disenfranchising voters.

Yeah. I don't think he affected the outcome in MA at all. But that was some bullshit anyway.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Christie looks like he's going to pass out.
posted by defenestration at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2016


That's too bad. I thought Sanders cared about America.

Keeping Hillary from having that much extra time to slide back to the "center" (read: somewhere between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon) is the very definition of "car[ing] about America" right now.
posted by fifthrider at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [34 favorites]


Christie looks like the Trashcan Man standing in front of the Walkin' Dude.

I mean, you can almost SEE him mouthing 'my life for you'
posted by Mooski at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


That's too bad. I thought Sanders cared about America.

Oh, spare me. Last I checked we still lived in a country with a semi-functioning Democratic process, at least for now. Clinton kept running in 2008 under very similar circumstances and nobody accused her of "not caring about America."
posted by dialetheia at 6:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [49 favorites]


Yeah. I don't think he affected the outcome in MA at all. But that was some bullshit anyway.
Either do I. But this kind of stuff is disgusting to me. Our voting franchise is very important on principle.
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016


Chris Christie's face at the press conference.
posted by Justinian at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I can't believe anyone is like "Trump's not any worse" when he's going on about this wall that Mexico is going to pay for, and goes higher as some punishment or something. It makes me furious. He mentioned healthcare but not with "abortions going on in there." So what? This man is vile and yes, has ticked racism way up already, which matters to brown people.
posted by zutalors! at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mexico's going to pay for that wall so we can keep the heroin out of New Hampshire.

what
posted by emelenjr at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


What is the Left supposed to do electorally?: "So, you can’t run as a third-party because you might split votes. You also can’t run in the primary if you have any chance of winning the nomination because then you increase the risk that the “party” (so defined) will lose the general election. What, then, can you do? What is the center-left’s view on how the left is supposed to interact with electoral politics? It seems that the actual view is that they shouldn’t involve themselves at all, except as voters to a centrist party that does not accomplish (or even aim to accomplish) the left’s political goals."
posted by dialetheia at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [38 favorites]


Well, we finally have a candidate entering the fray who's an equal to Trump.

Still, it is cathartic to imagine The Donald getting this kind of treatment from Ol' Mean and Green.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't really see why it's a problem for Bernie to stay in until the convention.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


The reason I don't cite Baudrillard is that he's so mournful about the loss of the real and the replacement of the real by simulacra — I think the interesting/terrifying/wonderful thing about simulacra are that they have a material realness all their own, without regard to whether or not they reflect or represent anything but themselves.

But yeah we're precessing our way through simulacra with a vengeance these days, aren't we?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Christie looks like he's on a huge dose of mushrooms and barely holding it together as Trump's face grows strange appendages.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 7:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


can this press conference just go on forever?
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


honestly bernie staying in it is good for hillary if she comes out on top. if we keep fighting among ourselves the gop will keep fighting their own weird battles, bernie will make her keep answering to liberal issues, it'll show she can win a hard fought contest and isn't just waiting on the coronation. and if he wins? well, i'm for that as well.
posted by nadawi at 7:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


my TV keeps freezing on Trump's speech. It doesn't want me to see him bragging about getting Muslim/Hispanic/black voters.
posted by zutalors! at 7:02 PM on March 1, 2016


Jeff Weaver (Bernie's CM) just told CNN they're going all the way to the convention.

That's too bad. I thought Sanders cared about America.


As much as I think this primary is essentially over for the Dems and Hillary has it in the bag, I do think Sanders keeping up his campaign until the convention is a good thing. For one thing, he's demonstrably moved Clinton to the left, and that effect will get stronger the more desperate she gets to tie a bow on the primary. For another, it delays the inevitable Republican smear campaign and gives the Democrats more time to sell themselves positively before things get ugly.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Sanders running isn't hurting anything, in many ways it is probably helping. Some of his supporters (like Clinton's) may be a different story but that's not his fault.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


Bernie has to be in until all states have voted. Having only one candidate left in the race before a huge number of voters could even exercise their right to vote is not a democratic process in any way.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [27 favorites]


I would love to see how much the Trump Campaign is paying Mar-a-Lago to host this evening. That may have been the reason he self described it as a press conference rather than a campaign victory party, some way of paying himself. He is always looking for the scam.

Can a campaign declare bankruptcy?
posted by readery at 7:04 PM on March 1, 2016


exercise their right to vote

it's not a right to vote in primaries. They're party events, not public elections.
posted by Miko at 7:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


As much as I think this primary is essentially over for the Dems and Hillary has it in the bag, I do think Sanders keeping up his campaign until the convention is a good thing.

Not to mention that if Loretta Lynch actually does wind up rolling out felony indictments this summer, having a backup candidate would be a very, very good thing.
posted by fifthrider at 7:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The parties love to be private when they want and public when they want. That's why I say fuck 'em.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, I'm kind of wrong in that primaries are governed by the Voting Rights Act and there can't be mechanisms to ban people from voting. But it's routine for primaries to offer a ballot vote that doesn't matter because the other candidates have already dropped out or will not win the nomination by any chance.
posted by Miko at 7:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


so what was the surprise
posted by angrycat at 7:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


What is the center-left’s view on how the left is supposed to interact with electoral politics?

How about not making the issue the biggest prize? What about running local candidates?

As I've said before, the problem with Sanders candidacy isn't that he has it wrong, it's that someone is going to be president. The stakes are very very high here.
posted by OmieWise at 7:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bernie doesn't have to stay in if it's impossible for him to win and it's just causing people to donate in a needless way.

That being said if he doesn't go nuts on spending with big Ad buys he probably has enough cash on hand to last until the convention. The reality is that the media is going to basically ignore him from now on in favor of watching the shit show that is the Republican party.
posted by vuron at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2016


What about running local candidates?

Indeed. Guaranteed, all this passion will vanish overnight.
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


The justice department of a democratic administration is not going to "roll out" anything on the Democratic frontrunner in an election year. Never in a million years.
posted by dilaudid at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clinton kept running in 2008 under very similar circumstances and nobody accused her of "not caring about America."

I think Sanders should stay in the race as long as he wants, but hahahahahaha OMG yes they did.
posted by Salieri at 7:07 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


so what was the surprise

Christie's soul was in the box.
posted by cashman at 7:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


So it looks like Hillary is going to win 6 or 7 states and Bernie is going to win 4 or 5, at least according to NY Times estimates. Why on earth would people expect him to drop out?
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Sanders staying in can serve a very useful purpose: voter registration. He just blows all his money paying for state organizers to register voters and to push the message. Seems legit to me.
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


This is way off-topic, but as much as pro wrestling does not appeal to me at all, it's contributed a lot of very interesting and useful terminology to popular critical analysis.

Trump has fought as a professional wrestler. Here he is clotheslining WWE CEO Vince McMahon and repeatedly punching him while he is down.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


What is the Left supposed to do electorally?: "So, you can’t run as a third-party because you might split votes. You also can’t run in the primary if you have any chance of winning the nomination because then you increase the risk that the “party” (so defined) will lose the general election. What, then, can you do? What is the center-left’s view on how the left is supposed to interact with electoral politics? It seems that the actual view is that they shouldn’t involve themselves at all, except as voters to a centrist party that does not accomplish (or even aim to accomplish) the left’s political goals."

Yeah, we see this time and time again, thanks for the link. It's so strange to me that the center-"left" seems genuinely baffled and offended that essentially serving as an aphid farm, expected to continually supply votes for literally nothing in return, doesn't strike leftists as a universally appealing arrangement.
posted by threeants at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Honestly, shit like this is why I'm no longer a registered Democrat. The smug contempt from centrists for the left wing of the party is palpable and extremely off-putting.
posted by dialetheia at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


This is way off-topic, but as much as pro wrestling does not appeal to me at all, it's contributed a lot of very interesting and useful terminology to popular critical analysis.

I have a twitter feed that contains A LOT of pro wrestling goings-on tweeted by GLBT POC folks in their 20's. A bald man with an impressive beard in a tuxedo named Sheamus got everyone weeping with a speech about wrestling at one point, everyone wants John Cena to cage-match Roman Reigns so they both die, and OPINIONS on Kevin Owens and Dean Ambrose are voiced loudly. (They're for 'em!)

I remember when I was far, far away from home at college, and desperate for something that was at once complex and simple to understand. Tugboat was a good guy (who was enormous and athletic), and the really, really bad guys all had to beat him before they could take on (insert popular Face-wrestler here), and it was always a close, close match. (And almost all of them lost, depending on how close it was to a PPV event.) His worst enemy ever was Avalanche! Avalanche was a "Monster Heel", he was about the only wrestler operating at the time who outweighed Andre The Giant while still being able to do acrobatic off-the-ropes stuff. Avalanche, as a monster heel, always won (unless it was pay-per-view), but his battles with Tugboat were epic! Easily half the length of the (then) WWF show on Monday nights on TBS.

Then, one day, a new MONSTER HEEL TAG TEAM was announced! The Natural Disasters! Earthquake (Not even pretending to be anyone but Avalanche) ... and Typhoon! Who was John Ott, who played Tugboat previously. He was still 380 and could backflip over a Buick with his mullet cemented in place by hairspray, just like he could when he was Tugboat! He wore his old tugboat costume, but now it was all shiny and metallic-spandex!

The announcers pretended like this was a completely new wrestling team, so I immediately set out to create a head-canon at how this iniquity could ever happen in a just multiverse, which is too inane to recount here.

But here's the curve-ball, tho. Audience polling became A Thing in the early nineties. The WWE was very forward thinking as a media enterprise, even then. These were incredibly talented, athletic, skilled, charismatic showmen (who weighed above 400lbs each at that point, in a time when that kind of weight Just. Didn't. Happen.) They were also created as Monster Heels who could simply crush whoever they went up against... and that appealed more than corporate thought it might.

So, John "Tugboat I mean Typhoon" Ott and John "Kototenzan I mean Earthquake" Tenta - as Typhoon and Earthquake - won the tag-team championship as 900lbs combined worth of heel-face turn.

Kayfabe. Anyone can be a champion, so long as their story is awesome. I really like my twitter feed when wrasslin' comes up, tho they all think I'm completely in the bag for Andre as best-ever. I know better, and will never correct them as I like to watch as they react and live in the moment, imagining themselves in the ring.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Indeed. Guaranteed, all this passion will vanish overnight.

Yup.
posted by OmieWise at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2016


so what was the surprise

His hands are bigger. His fingers are much longer than before
posted by oulipian at 7:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


He shouldn't drop out, but things aren't as close as the top line "states won" suggests. The delegate difference is much higher.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I was told there would be a surprise.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I thought there was going to be a surprise?
posted by Arbac at 7:10 PM on March 1, 2016


How about not making the issue the biggest prize? What about running local candidates?

Exactly. I would love to be able to support socialists for city council, state assembly, state senate, possibly governor and house rep, and then vote dem for President and Supreme-Court-justice-picker. Possibly if this works out for a few election cycles, also support socialists for Senate.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 7:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Surprise: no surprise.
posted by defenestration at 7:11 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


God, I would love, love, love, love, love it if the Bernie people would get involved in local politics. They could make such a huge, massive difference. About 650 people caucused in my precinct, mostly for Bernie. By contrast, 11 people voted in the last county supervisor election. That is not missing a 0: eleven people. 73 people voted for city council in November. The Bernie people could make a huge impact locally if they showed up. Hell, they could run candidates. I really hope they do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [60 favorites]


Was Christie the surprise? That's a shitty surprise.
posted by yasaman at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The delegate difference is much higher.

Is that counting "superdelegates" or no?
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The surprise is Colorado.
posted by box at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016


but anyway, let me get to my main point, which is WAKE UP SHEEPLE, JIM GILMORE NATION IS ASTIRRING IN CHELSEA
posted by threeants at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


The progressive movement needs to start stocking the bench with competitive candidates and plan for the long haul. Changing the trajectory of the US is a massive undertaking (look how long it took the Republicans following Goldwater to achieve even a fraction of their objectives).

Civil Rights movement was not won overnight and it seems quite likely that a progressive revolution is going to take decades to accomplish and is going to take a whole lot of outreach to communities that quite honestly feel "whitesplained" when progressives drop in and lecture them about how to be a good Democrat.

Just keep in mind that time and demographics are on your side as the US has consistently veered slowly to the left over the decades and that is likely to continue despite the attempts of reactionaries to slow progress.
posted by vuron at 7:12 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Possibly if this works out for a few election cycles, also support socialists for Senate.

I'm pretty sure that's how Sanders ended up running for President in the first place. And how dare he run for office when he's damn near splitting the country's Democratic support with someone who was supposed to have a simple coronation?

God, I would love, love, love, love, love it if the Bernie people would get involved in local politics.

Maybe if people didn't condescend to them constantly and treat them like idiots, they would be more inclined. I am involved, but this sort of thing is rampant and, again, extremely alienating.
posted by dialetheia at 7:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


Jeff Weaver (Bernie's CM) just told CNN they're going all the way to the convention.

That's too bad. I thought Sanders cared about America.
posted by OmieWise


You brought this up yesterday in the Nevada post. The answers are still the same.
posted by futz at 7:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


Indeed. Guaranteed, all this passion will vanish overnight.

Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think Sanders should stay in the race as long as he wants, but hahahahahaha OMG yes they did.

I fully expect Sanders supporters to conduct themselves with as much grace and dignity as 2008's PUMA crowd.

Sanders staying in can serve a very useful purpose: voter registration. He just blows all his money paying for state organizers to register voters and to push the message. Seems legit to me.

I would love if he did this, but it seems like one of the big reasons he's losing despite being a candidate with popular policies is the utter lack of a solid ground game. So I'm not sure how much help he could actually provide here.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


House and Senate Hopefuls Betting on Bernie Sanders

Long shot candidates are trying to use their endorsements of Sanders to gain support from his coalition
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that's how Sanders ended up running for President in the first place. And how dare he run for office when...

You'll notice that I didn't say a single bad thing about Sanders or his supporters - I just said I would love to see some socialists in down-ticket races.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 7:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I, for one, hope that Tanizaki's stay at Trump's hotel is every bit as pleasant and relaxing as Trump himself.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


(look how long it took the Republicans following Goldwater to achieve even a fraction of their objectives).

Right, but this is exactly the point - Goldwater changed national politics and set that entire movement off in the first place with his run! They didn't get their state legislatures voting 100% movement conservative first - that's an incrementalist view that doesn't square with that story. His run created political space for that movement. That What Democrats still don't get about McGovern piece (not to mention Nixonland) covers most of that territory. Big political change in American history doesn't happen through incremental legislature shifts over time, it happens through national movements.
posted by dialetheia at 7:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


The progressive movement needs to start stocking the bench with competitive candidates and plan for the long haul. Changing the trajectory of the US is a massive undertaking (look how long it took the Republicans following Goldwater to achieve even a fraction of their objectives).

Hear, hear. It took eight years for the Democrats to produce a really viable candidate in Barack Obama, and then they kind of forgot that that was a thing after he won. Bizarrely short-sighted.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


as much as pro wrestling does not appeal to me at all, it's contributed a lot of very interesting and useful terminology to popular critical analysis.

This time next year, we will have the first president to be a member of the WWE Hall of Fame.
posted by Tanizaki at 7:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: OmieWise, if we have to have the same conversation as yesterday, it's going to end differently. Please make an attempt to be civil. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Clinton kept running in 2008 under very similar circumstances and nobody accused her of "not caring about America."

Endless editorials in 2008 attacked her for running a scorched earth campaign against Obama. To the point that her campaign had to defend the intra-party feud they were perpetuating. Meanwhile, forums and commenters on Dem sites like TPM were absolutely vicious towards Hillary supporters.

This is not new behaviour. It sucked back then. It sucks now.
posted by zarq at 7:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


Vuron has it. If the left can learn to play the long game as opposed to the Hail Mary, we will get somewhere.

I would love, love, love, love, love it if the Bernie people would get involved in local politics.

Absolutely. Now, this is what was supposed to happen after 2008 with Obama for America, which transitioned to Organizing for Action. The idea was we would take our local organizations and plow them into local races and reps. It fell apart. In fact, the same thing was supposed to happen with Dean/Democracy for America. Both these organizations are relatively toothless at this point; I am sure they connect some people but they are not forces with wide traction.

It seems to be very, very hard to rally interest in local and midterm races on the left. This is a big difference between the left and the right. On the right, they've learned to develop infinitely deep benches, starting with town councils and school boards and working the pipeline up from there. On the left, we seem mainly interested in big grabs and highly visible statements, not in the long slog. Where are the Greens and Democratic Socialists in local races? Maybe we've reached a tipping point where we've galvanized enough people to take on the boring part of politics, but the last two waves broke on the shores of late November. There's reason to be skeptical.
posted by Miko at 7:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


You know the alienation that you are feeling is shared by people who also hold deeply held positions of their own dialethia. Just because they aren't as progressive in many areas as people want doesn't make them bad or wrong or evil. People have a lot of reasons why they vote like the do and it shouldn't come as a surprise that a large number of Democrats like Clinton for any number of reasons and resent being told that they are stupid or doing democracy wrong.

We don't get to pick the electorate that we feel like we deserve and the consequences are that often we don't get what we want.

I'm incredibly progressive on a ton of issues but I also believe in fundamental democratic principles like consensus building and compromise. I fucking loathe how the Republican party enforces ideology over practicality and good governance and I definitely don't want the Democratic party to try to resemble that.

So yeah I'm content that the Democrats are choosing a centrist because they are exerting their democratic rights in doing so just like they did in 2008. Yeah I'd like a more liberal candidate but I am sure as fuck going to do everything I can to elect Clinton assuming that she's the nominee because I respect the will over my fellow voters.
posted by vuron at 7:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


To be perfectly fair, Hillary was posting pictures of Obama in traditional clothing and accusing him of being muslim, and generally digging up dirt that the GOP would use for the next 8 years against him.

Bernie has been sticking 100% to the issues. They're very different campaigns.
posted by zug at 7:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [26 favorites]




There is a movement to remove that clown from the wwe hall.

I love spending time with you yahoos and wonks but I have a long long day tomorrow so good night, have faith in the better angels out there in the electorate, chill the fuck out and see you at the next primary. We do this every four years, it is never the end of the world.
posted by vrakatar at 7:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


My county had so few Democratic voters in this primary that my 1 vote upped Sanders by a full percentage point. Good grief.
posted by joeyh at 7:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


Got back from caucus in MN. It was a literal nightmare. The one where you're supposed to be at class but nobody knows where it is and you wait in line for no fucking reason. Yea, I wrote my choice on a piece of scrap paper and handed it to one of the ancients with an envelope. Excuse me for not thinking of this shit show as a "quaint " example of democracy in action, rather than the failure it was. You're totally fucked of you actually want to be involved in the discussion itself, farce that it was, or if you're for any dozens of intersectional reasons not able to make it out.

Yeah, my husband was excited to caucus until he realized that Minnesota caucusing is just voting, but less organized and more time restraints*. This is the second time I've meant to stay for the local resolutions , but by the time I've voted I'm always so angry at the process that I just go home.

*You can kind of vote absentee, but your vote is taken as a consideration and doesn't really count as the total. You have to vote between 6:30pm and 8pm. Instead of a modern voting apparatus, you're putting an X on a sheet of paper. There's no privacy, and the counting is done by hand.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sorry, Brawndo not Mountain Dew but still. Imagine Trump and Putin on the world stage. It tickles my heart.
posted by RedShrek at 7:25 PM on March 1, 2016


Just because they aren't as progressive in many areas as people want doesn't make them bad or wrong or evil.

Hell, some of us are as or more progressive and just have accumulated some experience from having been around this block a few times, and have come to have a longer-term strategic critique.
posted by Miko at 7:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Absolutely. Now, this is what was supposed to happen after 2008 with Obama for America, which transitioned to Organizing for Action.The idea was we would take our local organizations and plow them into local races and reps. It fell apart. In fact, the same thing was supposed to happen with Dean/Democracy for America. Both these organizations are relatively toothless at this point; I am sure they connect some people but they are not forces with wide traction.


Why did these organizations fall apart? Was it due to the lack of enthusiasm and motivation of the voters/participants after Obama was elected or was it lack of support from the Democratic Party?
posted by yertledaturtle at 7:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Maybe we've reached a tipping point where we've galvanized enough people to take on the boring part of politics, but the last two waves broke on the shores of late November. There's reason to be skeptical.

From what I remember as a big Obama booster in 2008, a lot of the enthusiasm for him dissipated when he signaled his support for Wall Street by appointing Tim Geithner, and the youthful enthusiasm for his campaign was redirected first into Occupy Wall Street and now into the Sanders campaign. He squandered some of it as well, just by not calling on those folks to help fight for health care. It's not like these are all totally separate phenomena, though - all protest movements like this submerge and reconstitute themselves this way. It's a lot of the same people involved in all three of those movements. They are signaling hard that they won't be involved in supporting more centrist neoliberal economics - it's just that nobody in the centrist wing is listening.
posted by dialetheia at 7:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


Hell, some of us are as or more progressive and just have accumulated some experience from having been around this block a few times, and have come to have a longer-term strategic critique.

I get what you're saying and this is not an attack on you or anyone. But you can see how that sort of phrasing can seem condescending to people, right?
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]




If the Dems continue to campaign from the left and Trump starts to move to the middle (and I'm guessing he will do this whenever he feels the nomination is a lock-in), Trump could start to capture some of the moderates, which is a huge proportion of likely voters. On top of this, if the GOP starts a smear campaign against Trump, one of their talking points is going to be that he's really a moderate, or a RINO. So if they do succeed in driving Trump away from the GOP base, they're driving him to the moderates. They'd actually be playing right into his hands. At that point, the only way I see a leftist Democrat winning (no matter who it is), is if the GOP runs a third party candidate and splits the vote.

I mean, I like Bernie, I really do, and I would love to see Hillary move to the left. But I just don't know what to say about this.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:29 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


"So yeah I'm content that the Democrats are choosing a centrist because they are exerting their democratic rights in doing so just like they did in 2008."

Oh come on...everybody's exerting their democratic rights if they go out and vote. You can't follow the word "because" with that kind of pablum.
posted by uosuaq at 7:29 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Listening to Cruz is painful.
posted by carmicha at 7:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Democracy for America, for whatever it's worth, is still a going concern / effective organization.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


he one where you're supposed to be at class but nobody knows where it is and you wait in line for no fucking reason.

Yep! Did this in Maine. Worst system EVER.

a lot of the enthusiasm for him dissipated when he signaled his support for Wall Street

I don't know if you can pinpoint that as an actual event, but from what I observed, in the very deep trenches of local-first activism, even in the first six months of his term it was simple fatigue, and feeling like victory had been declared and people needed to get back to their families and stuff. I can fault the administration for not giving more leadership in this area, for not better transitioning David Plouffe and his message, sure. There might have been a moment. But should it depend on that, if the motivation is so deep and true and sincere in the followers? If they are gifted with the true vision and passion, why would such things matter?

Was it due to the lack of enthusiasm and motivation of the voters/participants

Yes. These were not Party organizations. They were meetings in church basements at which there were a handful at first, but within weeks, no one showed up but the convener and a couple of half-hearted volunteers who faded away rapidly.
posted by Miko at 7:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


So forgive me if this is like American Electoral Politics 101—I'm a dilletante—but to what do the soothsayers attribute Clinton's astounding advantage among African-Americans?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:31 PM on March 1, 2016




Why did these organizations fall apart? Was it due to the lack of enthusiasm and motivation of the voters/participants after Obama was elected or was it lack of support from the Democratic Party?

I would love to see a full accounting for this, because I think the answer is very, very important for the future of leftist politics in America.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:31 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Looks like Sanders is cleaning up Minnesota, except for the wealthy Lake Minnetonka DFLers.
posted by localhuman at 7:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


escape from the potato planet: "So forgive me if this is like American Electoral Politics 101—I'm a dilletante—but to what do the soothsayers attribute Clinton's astounding advantage among African-Americans?"

Great question. I'd like to know too. Could it be that Bernie's liberalism reminds black voters of FDR and the Democrats' white supremacist policies in the 30s and 40s?
posted by crazy with stars at 7:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Who is that guy who looks like an imperfect clone of Jeb Bush who's always on stage with Cruz?
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:34 PM on March 1, 2016


The problem is that the centrist wing sees progressive positions and candidates show up in Presidential election years and then the Democrats get fucking slaughtered in the midterms because the only people showing up are the old grumpy white guys who vote straight party Republican.

Millenials will definitely be a force to be reckoned with but until they start showing up consistently for every political event not just media frenzies like the Presidential election but also state and local elections- hell city council meetings so that it's not just 20 cranks talking about some stupid conservative stuff. When progressives can turn the people power that is fueling Sanders into a sustained movement not just a temporary blip then those centrist Democrats will sit up and take notice and start moving in a more progressive manner rather than triangulating the fuck out of everything.

It requires a sustained push or a breakthrough candidate and the reality is that Sanders isn't a breakthrough candidate.
posted by vuron at 7:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Parenting success: my wife and I managed to cast our caucus votes with our four-year-old along for the ride. Our precinct voted 23 for Sanders and 6 for Clinton. Turnout was much higher than 2014.

Speaking only for myself as a Sanders supporter, I will be helping where I can with my state House representative's race. The incumbent Democrat is in a competitive district, especially when Democrats don't turn out to vote.

I'm also looking ahead to how I might help revitalize the local Party, though Democrats locally and nationally face some difficult challenges. I extend my hand to any willing to work for change, even if we don't agree on primary candidates. That's not always easy to do, given the inevitable bad feelings and bad behavior that emerge on all sides.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


So forgive me if this is like American Electoral Politics 101—I'm a dilletante—but to what do the soothsayers attribute Clinton's astounding advantage among African-Americans?

Sanders has been completely ignoring them. Hasn't even shown up to campaign in states that aren't lily-ass white.

Clinton -- for all her massive and well-known flaws on racial justice issues -- has been actively doing outreach in the black community and at least making noises in the direction of an apology for her past stances.

I think it's as simple as that. Black voters are turning out for Clinton because she actually bothered to ask for their votes.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [16 favorites]


The Natural Disasters! Hell yes, Slap*Happy. I was still a kid at the time and I believed it was all real. How can Tugboat go evil? But still as a fat kid I loved that tag team.

So many traumatizing moments being a mark as a little kid. The Ultimate Warrior was almost killed by the Undertaker by locking him in a coffin. Shawn Michaels throwing Marty Jannetty through a window! Then you accept that your Dad isn't lying when he says it's fake and somehow you become even a bigger fan.

And then eventually you realize Vince McMahon is a scumbag in real life and his friend Donald might be President.

It's funny, even when I was young enough to believe wrestling was real, I still knew Donald Trump was a jackass. I remember playing some real estate based board game with this kid down the street and I thought owning the Taj Mahal would be cool, but then he berated me about how much of an idiot Trump is and I decided he was right. This was two little kids. In the 80s. We knew better.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


You can see how that sort of phrasing can seem condescending to people, right?

Uh...it's in response to condescension. The condescension is flying in both directions, but I'm not going to not respond to the idea that I am just not enough of a True Believer. Experience matters. After you've been part of two Democratic "revolutions" you evaluate the third one differently. I would be delighted to be wrong, but I think rather than a sudden groundswell of progressivism that sends Sanders into office and brings us all our Socialist dreams overnight, I think (as a historian too) what's much more likely is the usual long, difficult fight over several major elections to get the train rolling in a vaguely acceptable direction, with lots of slips and backslides and increments. That's generally how American history evolves in the absence of wars and cataclysms that allow rapid change. So yeah, we need the excitement and pure vision of new energy to fuel that process, but that alone is not actually how the polity changes over time.
posted by Miko at 7:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


Trump and Bernie are still the only one speaking to what could broadly be called "labor". Middle to working class, mostly whites, who have been completely and utterly failed by neoliberal top down economics from Reagan to NAFTA now to TPP. If Trump can make it a contest of economic populism running to Hilary/Obama's left, that's a winning coalition almost the exact mirror image of Obama in 2008.

Be scared. He's winning it all.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]




So if they do succeed in driving Trump away from the GOP base, they're driving him to the moderates.

I think it's less about moderate in a strict left-right sense, and more about economic liberalism paired with social conservatism (whereas the center of gravity in the ruling parties is more about economic conservatism and social liberalism). That RAND presidential election survey linked above goes into more detail about this, but Trump's voters are much more in favor of liberal economic policy already but are also in favor of socially conservative policies like controlling immigration.

So forgive me if this is like American Electoral Politics 101—I'm a dilletante—but to what do the soothsayers attribute Clinton's astounding advantage among African-Americans?

Mostly just her familiarity with the community - Sanders hasn't been a national figure for very long at all, and there's a lot of goodwill for the Clintons leftover from his presidency, and they have a lot of experience knowing how to reach Black voters. This piece from Cedric Johnson has some good insights. I also think that the religiosity in the South hurts Sanders' chances there, but I rarely hear anyone mention it.
posted by dialetheia at 7:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I wasn't that involved in 2008, but I think part of it may be a lack of coordination (and to some extent active antipathy) between the OFA people and local party people. The local party people saw the OFA people as a bunch of interlopers who didn't have respect for local know-how or tradition, and the OFA people saw the local party people as a bunch of condescending, out-of-touch oldsters who were constantly lecturing them on how things had been done since Kennedy was elected. I really tried to reach out to the local party after 2012, and I would sit at meetings where they would talk about how lazy OFA people were and how they would never come to local party meetings because they weren't interested and blah, blah, blah. And I would be like "I am here. I want to help. Please give me something to do." And they would ignore me and go on badmouthing us.

I do think that part of it was burnout. There's now way to maintain that level of intensity and still have a normal life, and the less-intense day-to-day isn't nearly as heady as the lead-up to a big election.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Massachusetts keeps getting tighter and tighter. Worcester and Amherst have yet to report anything and are Bernie friendly. Looking forward to a nail biter!
posted by kyp at 7:38 PM on March 1, 2016


And while we're at it:
"There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization."

posted by zarq at 7:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Eh, some people just want to see the world burn.

...myself, I prefer to see the world scorched with cobalt-60. Actual oxidation is somewhat less important than the cobalt-60, and you may all feel free to thank me for that.
posted by aramaic at 7:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


escape from the potato planet, she has a better ground game with black leaders/communities, more history with black voters and they remember a better economy under Bill Clinton. Overall I think it's because she's much more of a known quantity than Sanders. Sanders can promise a lot but there isn't evidence to these voters that he can deliver it like the Clintons have.
posted by stavrogin at 7:39 PM on March 1, 2016


It always seemed to me like resenting the Democratic party's complacency should lead to a hardcore push to change the two-party system, or voting in general (a massive undertaking) but people mostly seem to stop at the resentment part.

The party's complacency isn't surprising, given how voting/parties are set up in this country. So long as the other guys are more conservative/hateful, they are going to look good by default and have no real reason to push leftward. Sanders and Warren are an exception, but also encouraging, in that they seem to signal a change brought about by larger societal shifts. But if you want true socialists/Greens/etc. running for office, you're not going to get it in our current two-party system.

The only other alternative is to get involved, run for office, and push from inside without getting co-opted.

But just bitching about DWS or the party in general does nothing. Neither does refusing to vote, unless you like where the Republicans want us to go. You should vote Democratic because it is the responsible thing to do if you oppose the Republican party's goals. Full stop.

I guess saying these things might make me seem condescending, but that's not my intent. I'm not saying that people are wrong to want a better system. I do too! But I don't have a lot of patience for people who flounce in every 8 years, gasp at how buggered up things are, make noises about not voting to Show Those Democrats, and then promptly move on to forgetting about it till the next election.

So: you hate that the party is too corporate/conservative. What are you personally doing about it? I know some of you are doing things, but I don't think it's the ones doing most of the griping.

This is the kind of problem that is going to take sustained effort to solve.
posted by emjaybee at 7:41 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Jon Favreau@jonfavs
He's already sanding off the rough edges, moderating the tone, and focusing on economic populism. Watch out, people.

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 10m10 minutes ago
Democrats getting nervous after Trump's press conference, for good reason. It was skillful, a sign of what's coming:

posted by Trochanter at 7:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton is cleaning up with AA voters because it's a power block that the Clintons have aggressively courted for decades. Bill wasn't called the first Black president for nothing. Hillary in particularly has been aggressively doing outreach to the AA churches and speaks a language of faith that feels very at home to a large percentage of AA churchgoers. Keep in mind that in a large percentage of the US the AA church is the absolute center of the AA experience. Clinton has understood that and has locked in that support.

The ease that Bernie has in speaking to crowds of college-aged millenials is very apparent in regards to Clinton when she speaks to the AA community. Bernie quite honestly never stood a chance and then his supporters had a tendency to aggressively court AA voters with language that demeaned them and didn't relate to them where they were. That's why Sanders completely failed to reach out to the AA community and it's quite honestly doomed his campaign.
posted by vuron at 7:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Bernie winning Minnesota wouldn't surprise me - Minnesota has a pretty long history of favoring anti-establishment candidates, with strong third party showings in local elections. Even this summer, the Sanders booth at the state fair seemed to have a lot more energy than the Clinton booth (enough that someone from out of state commented on it to me). The fact that Rubio is currently beating Trump in Minnesota is far more surprising.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Democrats getting nervous after Trump's press conference, for good reason

I am goddamn FRIGHTENED after watching that press conference.
posted by Gaz Errant at 7:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


The local party people saw the OFA people as a bunch of interlopers who didn't have respect for local know-how or tradition, and the OFA people saw the local party people as a bunch of condescending, out-of-touch oldsters

So, maybe you would say that generationally divisive politics did not move the left agenda forward?

I do think that part of it was burnout. There's now way to maintain that level of intensity

Absolutely true - so why do we keep having very short-term, insanely passionate pushes behind a single candidate for a single office, instead of playing the long, slow ground game that wins House and Senate seats, governships, mayorships, city councils and school boards, and develops a truly progressive pipeline? Why do we save it all up for the Big Show and then do nothing but slash at each other throughout it?
posted by Miko at 7:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]



I am goddamn FRIGHTENED after watching that press conference.

Well, he threatened Paul Ryan in it. I don't see a lot of unifying or Presidenting.
posted by zutalors! at 7:45 PM on March 1, 2016


I think Trump is not as bad as Cruz. Cruz has no soul.
posted by RedShrek at 7:45 PM on March 1, 2016


I do think Bernie should have done more outreach with black voters, but black voters are also just more conservative overall, so it's not a huge surprise that they prefer hillary, both on policies AND on personal appeal.
posted by zug at 7:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


they remember a better economy under Bill Clinton

yup, https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3Epa shows how 1999 was peak employment, and the current recovery has just gotten us up to the starting point of the late 90s boom.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:46 PM on March 1, 2016


So forgive me if this is like American Electoral Politics 101—I'm a dilletante—but to what do the soothsayers attribute Clinton's astounding advantage among African-Americans?
Ok, I have a theory, which I've seen floated elsewhere, but I can't remember by whom. So Obama didn't accomplish everything that people wanted him to accomplish. Bernie says this is Obama's fault: he was a bad person and a bad politician, and that's why he failed to live up to expectations. But many black voters don't think that's the reason. They think that Obama is a good person and a good politician, and he did the best that he could in a very challenging political situation. They are not convinced that Bernie could do any better. But when you press Bernie and his supporters on how he is going to accomplish his lofty goals, they can't really answer. So a lot of black voters draw the conclusion that Bernie thinks he could do better because he is confident that he is better and smarter than Obama. He doesn't really have any reason to think that: he's been over on the margins of American politics, and he has never had to negotiate with hostile people to get the best deal he could. But he has the confidence of the mediocre white dude. And that's both galling and worrisome. Hillary isn't so great, either, but at least she seems to be dealing with reality and to understand the limitations of what one person can accomplish.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [23 favorites]


“The Latter Days of a Better Nation, Part I,” Jim Wright, Stonekettle Station, 16 February 2016

“The Latter Days of a Better Nation, Part II,” Id., 29 February 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 7:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Trump is not as bad as Cruz. Cruz has no soul.

I mean, he is the Zodiac Killer.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I, for one, would like to see Trump's birth certificate.
posted by mazola at 7:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie says this is Obama's fault: he was a bad person and a bad politician, and that's why he failed to live up to expectations.

whut
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [25 favorites]


Bernie says this is Obama's fault: he was a bad person and a bad politician, and that's why he failed to live up to expectations.

?! When has he said that?! His most substantive criticism of Obama is exactly what we've been discussing - that he wasn't able to keep the energy of his movement going. Sanders has also said repeatedly that Republicans were historically obstructionist because they are racist and wanted to delegitimize Obama as president. I know he did make noises about primarying Obama, but only because they were in the middle of a big debt ceiling negotiation where the White House was about to propose offering to raise the retirement age and lower benefits for Social Security.
posted by dialetheia at 7:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


I think Sanders is very weak on organization, ground game, and outreach to black voters all for the same reason: he never really expected to be here. And even if he did, he couldn't build the infrastructure for that kind of outreach without resources, resources that only became available to him very recently. Unlike Clinton who has been swimming in money and on the ground connections to local organizers and community leaders since before some registered voters were even born.

Thats the sort of disadvantage being a cool black man with a pastoral speaking style and experience in community organizing can overcome (if he has enough money and a little bit of populism on his side).
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I do think Bernie should have done more outreach with black voters, but black voters are also just more conservative overall, so it's not a huge surprise that they prefer hillary, both on policies AND on personal appeal.


African American voters are more conservative on some issues, but even that's pretty overstated. You can't just compare AA views on, say, abortion against those of White liberals - a more reasonable view would be to compare it to white voters as a whole. And of course, they're more liberal on issues like gun control, police violence, voter ID laws, ect.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bernie did do outreach with southern black voters. He went to prayer breakfasts, and toured HBCUs. He got Killer Mike on his side, and other black public figures, and he let the BLM folks push him to the left on racial justice almost immediately, while Clinton is still pretty wobbly on it. If you look at his numbers with black voters, the more they learn about him, the more they like him. I really think that if he were 20 years younger, and this was his starter-run at the presidency instead of the only run he's going to be able to make, in 4 or 8 years, if he kept himself in the public eye he'd be doing a lot better with black voters in the south. I think black voters are more comfortable with the devil they know, since they know that no matter what they're voting for the devil.
posted by dis_integration at 7:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


Bernie says this is Obama's fault: he was a bad person and a bad politician, and that's why he failed to live up to expectations.

I don't think Bernie himself has said this specific thing, though he's probably implied it somewhere or other. However, his loudest supporters DEFINITELY believe this, and he hasn't done anything to shut them down.

Hillary isn't so great, either, but at least she seems to be dealing with reality and to understand the limitations of what one person can accomplish.

This is entirely the same as my own personal take on these candidates. I don't actively back either one, but I think that Sanders, for all that I like his politics, fails as a presidential candidate on a couple of core qualities, like flexibility, the ability to appeal to more than just one narrow demographic, and more important the ability to actually implement all those very nice policies he talks about. IMO, Clinton is promising a lot less but probably will deliver slightly more than Sanders would.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yep, keep in mind that a major subtext of Clinton's campaign is essentially "4 more years" of Obama style politics where things that Obama started under his watch continue to get stronger and stronger (like ACA as only now is polling coming around to show people actually kinda like Obamacare).

There is a perception that Sanders (or maybe just his campaign and proxies) are coming in and saying you know Obama was really just a Republican all along and we really need someone truly progressive who won't sell us out to the corporations like Quisling.

And for a sizeable percentage of the AA community that sort of shit is annoying as fuck and tends to get people to ignore the rest of what you are saying even if you have some good points.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


?! When has he said that?! His most substantive criticism of Obama is exactly what we've been discussing

I think this could partially be from Hillary positioning herself as a continuation of Obama's policies. So attacks on Hillary's polices became partly attacks on Obama's too. And it could also be Sanders' being an anti-establishment candidate. Even a couple of posts here group Obama as part of the Establishment and that's hard to argue with since he is the president.
posted by FJT at 7:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


> African American voters are more conservative on some issues, but even that's pretty overstated. You can't just compare AA views on, say, abortion against those of White liberals - a more reasonable view would be to compare it to white voters as a whole. And of course, they're more liberal on issues like gun control, police violence, voter ID laws, ect.

I didn't mean "more conservative than white people", I meant "more conservative than Bernie". Particularly the southern religious crowd, which is a big chunk of who was voting tonight.
posted by zug at 7:56 PM on March 1, 2016


I read somewhere that black voters aren't single-issue voters the way other demographics are, and that makes sense to me. Sanders really pushed a few specific issues and I'm not surprised that it didn't really resonate with black voters.

Also, he frequently pivoted from racial issues to economic issues. Some of his colleagues in Vermont felt he wasn't comfortable talking about the realities of racism.

Also, the conservative issue. It's not necessarily that he's more liberal than them, it's that he's more liberal than Obama and they saw how difficult it was for Obama to get anything done as a moderate.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


MSNBC just called Colorado for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


mental note: never try to post a comment on a thread like this using an iOS device, especially if you're trying to quote somebody.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:58 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


When has he said that?! His most substantive criticism of Obama is exactly what we've been discussing - that he wasn't able to keep the energy of his movement going.
I think that, for instance, Bernie's stance on healthcare reads this way. I don't think that most Democrats are delighted with Obamacare, but Obama didn't have the ability to wave a magic wand and get the policy he wanted. He got the best he could considering what he was dealing with. Bernie acts as if Obama chose Obamacare because of a moral failing or ineptitude, and Bernie will be able to get single payer through the power of Bernie magic. When you ask his supporters how this is supposed to work, they call you names. This seems both naive and insulting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:59 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


For another take on Sanders and black voters, see this post, and especially this chart. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but it's an interesting illustration of how hysteresis works. The differences in appeal may reflect mostly how long they've been on the national stage and how well they are known to a demographic that is in many ways hard to reach via traditional media, and like many other factors at play here, it's something that might well have changed significantly given more time.
posted by chortly at 8:01 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Even this summer, the Sanders booth at the state fair seemed to have a lot more energy than the Clinton booth (enough that someone from out of state commented on it to me)

I have photos of the DFL booth at the state fair, which prominently featured the Sanders banner, making it seem very much like they were giving him top billing (though I don't think it was intended).
posted by triggerfinger at 8:01 PM on March 1, 2016


As Obama has said repeatedly he's the President of the United States not the president of the people who voted for him.

Bernie's purity of thought and purpose make him a good standardbearer for a progressive vision, a mirror to hold up to the party and get it to re-evaluate where it's going but it's not always the most appealing thing for an actual candidate that needs to not just represent a movement but also govern afterwards.

I sincerely believe that the people that are voting for Clinton today and throughout the nomination process are looking at both candidates and saying to themselves that while Sanders has a great message they feel like Clinton is the better candidate and will be the better President if elected.
posted by vuron at 8:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


MSNBC just called Colorado for Sanders.

DNC to the bat pole! Super Delegates, assemble!
posted by Trochanter at 8:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]




Bernie acts as if Obama chose Obamacare because of a moral failing or ineptitude

I mean, I don't really agree with this - Sanders was involved in that process and managed to substantially improve funding for community health centers by $11 billion in that legislation. He understands exactly what went into it. As far as I've been able to gather, he just thinks we still need to improve on it in the future and that we have the best chance of doing that by aiming high, not that Obama was a failure for enacting Obamacare. That said, thanks for explaining that point of view, I can understand that.
posted by dialetheia at 8:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [18 favorites]


ABC analysis of exit polls for all Democratic primaries

Does anyone have a good set of exit polls by state? I'm not sure that combining a bunch of southern states and northern states and western states gives a very useful view of things.
posted by dialetheia at 8:07 PM on March 1, 2016


I didn't mean "more conservative than white people", I meant "more conservative than Bernie". Particularly the southern religious crowd, which is a big chunk of who was voting tonight.

I'm pretty sure the AA electorate is still to the left of Bernie on some issues. The other thing is that pivoting to economics is a common ploy to deny that racism is at work, so him tying everything back to economics can have a sour taste, or at least just not read as well to PoC (evidenced by a facebook litmus test).

The 'Blacks are just more conservative about some things' has been used in the past to explain why liberal measures have failed - think prop 8 - but really, it's pretty easy to go through and see a failure to outreach. It's just a very lazy answer to a more complex question.
posted by dinty_moore at 8:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


ABC analysis of exit polls for all Democratic primaries

I like the result showing that Sanders is more popular with Republicans than Clinton is, despite the fact that, if you were looking at it solely in terms of policy positions, Clintons has traditionally been much closer to your traditional Republican voter.

I think it entirely comes down to the stuff YCTAB is talking about. The image of Sanders is more palatable to them, and most voter (not just Republican voters, most voters, period, though it's a lot more obvious with the GOP right now) are ultimately reacting to an image of the candidates they have formed rather than a list of policy positions.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


MSNBC just called MA for Clinton. Time to refill the bourbon.
posted by Gaz Errant at 8:11 PM on March 1, 2016


ABC analysis of exit polls for all Democratic primaries

Looks like young white guys for Sanders and pretty much everyone else for Clinton.
posted by octothorpe at 8:12 PM on March 1, 2016


Ouch, Bernie did not say that he thought Obama was a bad president or a bad person, that's Hillary attacking Bernie and manipulating the tide so people think that Bernie hates Obama, when Bernie questioning of some ways that Obama worked. It's part of how Clinton is positioning herself as "4 more years of Obama." Her campaign looks more 'doable' to a lot of people because of that. Also, people need to stop phrasing 'black voters' as some kind of weird othering monolith, it's creepy language. Second link
posted by yueliang at 8:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


MSNBC just called MA for Clinton. Time to refill the bourbon.

Hey, that's great!
posted by OmieWise at 8:14 PM on March 1, 2016


Looks like young white guys for Sanders and pretty much everyone else for Clinton.

Honestly, I'm really tired of this erasure of his female and PoC supporters. She won the majority of those groups (among mostly southern states) but that doesn't mean nobody else supported him. I've been increasingly offended by efforts to spin his support as mostly male, in particular.
posted by dialetheia at 8:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [49 favorites]


I think it's as simple as that. Black voters are turning out for Clinton because she actually bothered to ask for their votes.
posted by tobascodagama


This is just a completely ridiculous nonsense.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Of course Bernie should stay in.

Policy or philosophical reasons aside, validation of the democratic process aside, there is a very practical reason for him to stay in -- the Dems need a backup.

Clinton still faces some legal difficulties. It is not inconceivable that those difficulties might mean that she can no longer run, or is no longer a viable candidate. And if she can't run or is too damaged to continue -- then what? Then you need someone else who can step in, someone with an arguable claim of legitimacy to the nomination.

Plan B for Bernie. At the very least.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah those breakdowns of Republicans voting for Democrats in the primary are really weird.

Is there a desire by Republicans for Sanders to continue to play spoiler? Or is there a genuine passion for his message? Or is there just a sad resignation that the Republican nominees are fucking horrible but they still aren't quite desperate enough to pull the lever for Hillary?

I'm beginning to see more and more conservatives actually voice the very real chance that they would be willing to cross party lines in an Anybody But Trump effort. And these aren't just random Redditors. Conservatives are fucking terrified about what Trump and the brownshirts are doing to their party and it's long term viability.
posted by vuron at 8:15 PM on March 1, 2016


Yes, bourbon IS great!
posted by Gaz Errant at 8:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'm disappointed in Massachusetts. This maybe goes back to the "dynasty" idea from a while ago...it's not that Hillary isn't well-qualified in her own right, but it's hard to picture her beating Bernie here without a well-established machine; and that does have something to do with being married to the other Clinton.
posted by uosuaq at 8:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or is there a genuine passion for his message?

I've linked to a number of these pieces, but yes, there are a decent number of Republicans who support Bernie. They are particularly interested in his campaign finance message, which transcends the boring reductionist left-right axis everyone insists on applying to everything.
posted by dialetheia at 8:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Anecdotally, I've noticed that a lot of women and POC supporters are already stretched at capacity due to organizing at other realms (at least in my friend groups). Combined with how there isn't much of a strong central grass-roots organizing that isn't the subreddit, and it's been really hard to get our voices and support out there.
posted by yueliang at 8:17 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


it's not that Hillary isn't well-qualified in her own right, but it's hard to picture her beating Bernie here without a well-established machine

Well, Romney was Governor of MA. He was elected and everything.
posted by OmieWise at 8:17 PM on March 1, 2016


Aw. I have no longer won as many primaries as Rubio.
posted by kyrademon at 8:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [21 favorites]


but it's hard to picture her beating Bernie here without a well-established machine

Because Bernie has such a well-established machine himself? What's your counterfactual here? Like sure, the chances of any one person making it as far as Hillary has in politics are astronomical, but if she had been Senator and a cabinet secretary but not first lady, do you think it's that hard to picture her winning?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Emjaybee, I like you a lot, and generally agree with you, but I disagree that we leftists continue to owe fealty to a party that is actively supporting ideas and legislation that are directly counter to our ideals. I cannot tell you how viscerally I felt the anger when I heard that DWS had sold out that blatantly to the payday lenders. I expect that from the republicans, I don't expect it from the person who chairs the dnc, the party nominally in favor of helping people, rather than sacrificing them on mammon's altar.

I am furious that the head of the dnc introduced legislation that benefits payday lenders to the detriment of all the work that Elizabeth Warren has done, and the poor people she is trying to serve. Thus, the head of the dnc, and those who do not immediately condemn this legislation, no longer meet my definition of left or liberal or democratic, and thus they have done nothing to EARN my vote.

That's the thing. I don't owe anyone my vote, they need to earn it. If Hillary wants my vote, she will need to disown DWS's legislation hard and fast.

That said, I live in Texas, so it's not like my vote counts anyway. But I did call the dnc and told them to take me off the donor call list as long as DWS is the party head. The party does fuckall for local democratic candidates anyway. They gave up on Texas decades ago.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [30 favorites]


I don't think it's erasure so much as a comment that his message hasn't been effectively communicated across racial/ethnic boundaries, across generational divides, and has made limited traction across gender boundaries.

I think the biggest takeaway that I see from this is that progressives are going to need to brush up on their understanding of intersectionality and approach prospective voters not just from an economic justice perspective but from a broader social justice perspective that acknowledges differentials across racial, gender and generational divides.
posted by vuron at 8:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


That's the thing. I don't owe anyone my vote, they need to earn it.

Are her policy positions more reflective of your ideals than those of Trump or any of the other possible opponents in our two party system? If so, she's earned your vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think the biggest takeaway that I see from this is that progressives are going to need to brush up on their understanding of intersectionality and approach prospective voters not just from an economic justice perspective but from a broader social justice perspective that acknowledges differentials across racial, gender and generational divides.

Out of favourites, so I'll just quote you and say: Yes, exactly, this.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


I actually wonder how much of a problem it is that most of Bernie's grassroots efforts were in the bernie subreddit. The rest of reddit is a cesspool of toxic misogyny and racism, so it's entirely possible that Bernie's supporters seem like they're all bros when in reality, people who aren't on reddit never saw the calls to action.
posted by zug at 8:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are her policy positions more reflective of your ideals than those of Trump or any of the other possible opponents in our two party system? If so, she's earned your vote.

Not everyone lives in a swing state.
posted by dialetheia at 8:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


MSNBC just called Minnesota for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Carson is running as a financial scam. So he will never stop.

Right Now, What's the Difference Between Ben Carson and Marco Rubio?
What's the difference between these two guy right now? As far as can see, the only difference is that Carson is staying in the race so that the flow of small to medium-size checks from churchgoing heartlanders won't stop altogether, and Rubio is staying in the race so the flow of somewhat larger checks from Republican one-percenters won't dry up. They both like the money. They both like the attention. Carson's hoping to sell a million copies of a godly campaign memoir and Rubio's hoping to position himself for 2020. But it's still all about that grift.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's eleven 30 or so EST. If everything's on schedule, Scott Kelly just touched down after a year in space. So, I guess that's neat, at least.
posted by Trochanter at 8:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


shows how 1999 was peak employment,

"This is a simulation of the late 20th century, the peak of your culture..."
posted by The Whelk at 8:27 PM on March 1, 2016 [12 favorites]


General statement: given the disruptive nature of this election, and the high expectations (and we haven't even hit a national crisis yet), any candidate who is sworn in come January needs to put up or else be prepared to be primaried in 2020. Let's try to retain this spirit, regardless what happens.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:27 PM on March 1, 2016


I just want to confess/admit for the record that earlier on in this primary season, several times on the blue, I said that Christie was the least of evils among the GOP candidates (not precisely, but words to that effect). I thought he was someone who could at least put aside partisanship in the midst of a crisis to get shit done, and I thought that was important.

Then he started talking his crazy shit about not even letting in Syrian refugee orphans, and I lost it. So yeah, my "I was so horribly wrong" moment was pretty far back down this highway. Yet I want to take this moment to recognize that Holy Shit, I Was So Wrong.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I think this is the first election where I'm starting to understand it when other people have said that they don't like following politics.
posted by FJT at 8:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Honestly, I'm really tired of this erasure of his female and PoC supporters. She won the majority of those groups (among mostly southern states) but that doesn't mean nobody else supported him. I've been increasingly offended by efforts to spin his support as mostly male, in particular.

Indeed. Completely anecdotal but my precinct caucuses had a surprising number of Somali women wearing Bernie Sanders stickers. Something tells me they're not Bernie Bros. Lots of Hmong voters as well, though the t-shirt and sticker exit polling was closer to 60/40 for Sanders.

And echoing Odinsdream, Triggerfinger and the other Minnesotans: Caucuses are a fucking mess. Mark an X on a piece of paper and shove it in an envelope. There isn't a log ensuring that there's one ballot per voter and, even if there was, we ran out of "official" ballots forcing us to write down our vote on scratch paper. Once that ordeal is over you can stick around while people read their rambling, ill-conceived platform resolutions to a room of people who don't even have a rudimentary understanding of parliamentary procedure or sense for that matter.

Oh and MSNBC just called MN for Bernie.
posted by nathan_teske at 8:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


Christie is from the McCain school of opportunistic decision making apparently. He's like a bully who lost out to a bigger bully and immediately pledged his fealty without considering his options.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:30 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Not everyone lives in a swing state.

And not everyone who makes the "send a message / candidate needs to earn my vote" argument doesn't.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:31 PM on March 1, 2016


Props for the comment, scaryblackdeath. We've all been wrong at some point, not everyone faces up to it.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Haha yep, Christie has shown since last Friday that he has absolutely no moral fiber whatsoever. He's effectively destroyed as a politician now and deserves his fate as Trump's lapdog.

"Does Christie want a sausage? Beg, Christie, beg!"
posted by vuron at 8:32 PM on March 1, 2016


It looks like Sanders is winning or neck-and-neck in about half the states in play. That's considerably better than the narrative that I've been hearing in the last week or so had indicated. Good on him.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


And not everyone who makes the "send a message / candidate needs to earn my vote" argument doesn't.

So maybe keep reading the rest of the comment, because the person you were responding to explicitly said that they didn't live in a swing state. More people live in safe states than swing states - maybe we could stop jumping down everyone's throats when they express the way they want to use their vote, which is none of our goddamned business.
posted by dialetheia at 8:33 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


I was wrong when I thought America was too good to make Trump the nominee of its conservative party. But this is just a way to say "I was wrong" and still feel smug about myself.
posted by dis_integration at 8:33 PM on March 1, 2016


I'm a little afraid that Trump seems to be far less of a warhawk than Hillary. This is a country that is utterly sick of wasting money on empire building abroad, and I think it's going to bite her in the ass in the general.
posted by zug at 8:33 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]



but it's hard to picture her beating Bernie here without a well-established machine

Because Bernie has such a well-established machine himself? What's your counterfactual here? Like sure, the chances of any one person making it as far as Hillary has in politics are astronomical, but if she had been Senator and a cabinet secretary but not first lady, do you think it's that hard to picture her winning


I simply meant based on their respective political positions. I would have expected Bernie to do better here on a "level playing field", meaning, without...well, a political "establishment" already on the side of his opponent. That's all.
posted by uosuaq at 8:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Caucuses are a fucking mess.

WA has a caucus. It's great for people like me who benefit from most or all of the societal privilege checklist (straight, white, male, etc), and who don't suffer from any sort of social anxiety, and are healthy enough to show up, and don't suffer from anything like social anxiety, and aren't targeted by any form of voter intimidation--be it nasty neighbors or an abusive domestic partner--and can make it to the caucus on that one specific time slot on one specific day. I mean if you can meet all those requirements, it's great.

Which amounts to it totally disenfranchising a shit ton of people. Oh, and it's arbitrary as hell, too.

...oh, hey look: I have an conflicting commitment of serious importance on Saturday March 26th at 10am. Like literally any weekend would be better than that one. Guess the caucus system doesn't work for me, either.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


CNN just called CO and MN for Sanders.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




Trump's just bringing Christie on stage as an intentional humiliation. He'd have Jeb up there looking ashamed too if he could. Like heads on pikes.
posted by ctmf at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


So maybe keep reading the rest of the comment, because the person you were responding to explicitly said that they didn't live in a swing state.

Yes, I read that loud and clear. People can vote for whoever they like, but perpetuating the meme that candidates must do X or they don't deserve your vote has harmful consequences no matter where you live when you say it. There are a million reasons to stay home / vote for Mickey Mouse when you're dealing with a two party system, the corrupting influence of money, etc. I detest what DWS is doing with the loan shark legislation, but it doesn't give anyone moral justification for supporting the idea of only voting for the purest candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Heh, the Grauniad is messed up right now. They've got a green check mark next to Bernie with him down by 2.2% in the numbers they're showing. Or maybe they know something they're not telling us yet...I'd be okay with that.
posted by uosuaq at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2016


NYT called MA for Bernie even tho he's down 3 points???
posted by ian1977 at 8:39 PM on March 1, 2016


Caucuses are a fucking mess. Mark an X on a piece of paper and shove it in an envelope.

Yes please.

I mean, it was sorta nice sitting and talking with fellow Democrats from my neighborhood (to the small extent that I was able to do so while helping keep my son occupied). And I learned that I live a few streets over from one of my county comissioners. But the process was a mess: loud, crowded, one person voted who wasn't in our precinct and we had to correct the vote, etc. The nature of a caucus also means that many, many people who could have participated in a vote-by-mail primary were unable to participate.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


As a MA voter and Bernie it's depressing to feel so close and so far away. Same way I feel when we elect Scott Brown or Mitt Romney or Charlie Baker. Western Mass is truly a liberal bubble I must admit, I could barely find a Clinton supporter to talk to but clearly there are a lot of them.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:39 PM on March 1, 2016


To be fair, I thought that Christie was supposed to be finished every since Bridgegate broke out all those news cycles ago? I mean, what else is he or Rick Perry or Huckabee supposed to do after they lose nominations.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:39 PM on March 1, 2016


NYT *and* the Guardian? Maybe some results just came in from one of the bigger precincts?
posted by uosuaq at 8:40 PM on March 1, 2016


http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results has Sanders winning Mass, but shows Clinton with 51% of the vote so far with 59% of precincts reporting. Interesting. (Or glitch. One site had my hometown down as having 200% of precincts reporting for a while there.)
posted by joeyh at 8:40 PM on March 1, 2016


CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord just called the KKK "a leftist terrorist group that killed to further the progressive agenda" - analyst Van Jones did not let that slide. Well worth 4:39 of your time.
posted by dnial at 8:40 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I assume it's based on which precincts are still out.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:41 PM on March 1, 2016


Props for the comment, scaryblackdeath. We've all been wrong at some point, not everyone faces up to it.

I won't say I was for the Iraq war, 'cause I wasn't, but I had mixed feelings that led to resigned acceptance. I wrote to my Senators to say "don't vote for this bullshit," but at the same time, it's not like I was out protesting. I honestly believed that our media & "the system" would've sussed out the truth if it really was all bullshit, and I never felt like they did that until it was too late.

To a lot of folks, that would mean basically the same thing. And I'm willing to concede that and say I was wrong.

What bugs the living fuck out of me is how many other people were like me, or even more approving than I was, who can't admit it now. 'cause today you'd think that all those polls and all those voices raised in approval were as phony as the WMDs.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:41 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Now she is shown as winning again. Glitch i guess.
posted by ian1977 at 8:41 PM on March 1, 2016


Weird - my screen has Mass called for Hillary.
posted by zug at 8:42 PM on March 1, 2016


Uhh no they've given it to Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:42 PM on March 1, 2016


I'm a little afraid that Trump seems to be far less of a warhawk than Hillary.

Nobody knows what his real ideology is on anything, especially foreign policy, which he knows fuck all about. He can certainly campaign as less of a war hawk, but anyone who wants that asshole holding the nuclear football is too stupid to bother trying to campaign to. She'd do better improving her messaging on other issues than chasing the ghost of whatever foreign policy Trump is supporting this week.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:42 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Lindsey Graham: GOP may have to rally around Cruz to stop Trump

The thing about that is that 50% of people in a lot of Repub. exit polls say that they feel betrayed by the GOP. What better way to alienate those people than to back the candidate that a lot of them have expressed open hatred for? I really don't see a good strategy for them other than backing trump, like Christie.

I feel like that's a good thing, but I really can't enjoy the victory too much...
posted by codacorolla at 8:43 PM on March 1, 2016


NYT called MA for Bernie even tho he's down 3 points???

They called it for Clinton. They deleted the tweet that listed it as a Bernie win.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:43 PM on March 1, 2016


Guardian and NYT must be getting their numbers (and faulty projections) from the same place. Bastards.
posted by uosuaq at 8:43 PM on March 1, 2016


Anyway, I'm really heartened by how big Sanders' wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and even Oklahoma were tonight. I didn't expect him to win by such big margins there (and I would love to see some separate exit polls for those states if anyone has seen any, since lumping everything together with all those southern states totally washes out any geographic variability). I wish he could have pulled it out in Massachusetts but he kept it closer than most people expected, and I feel good about tonight. On pledged delegates, he's back a ways but I expected that with so many southern states front-loaded into the schedule. The primaries look better for him from here on out, for the most part, and I hope he continues to gain steam as he has throughout this process.
posted by dialetheia at 8:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


Tumps's got absolutely zero experience with foreign policy. Who knows if he's a warhawk? What I do know is that he has terrible impulse control and no propensity for patience or considered, protocol-observant negotiation, which to me doesn't spell "dove."
posted by Miko at 8:44 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


CNN is all in on Trump.

CNN Host: "How did Trump become so popular? How did we get to this?"
CNN Co-Host: "That's an interesting question..."
Wolf Blitzer: "I'M SORRY TO DO THIS BUT WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS IN THE SITUATION ROOM"

::cuts to 38 minutes of uninterrupted feed of Trump's victory rally::
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [20 favorites]


I wish he could have pulled it out in Massachusetts

It was incredibly close, a squeaker - and just a couple of months ago, it was predicted to be a Hillary landslide. I'd count it among his victories in that sense.
posted by Miko at 8:45 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wasn't referencing a tweet. It was on their info graphic page. People on dailykos saw the same thing.
posted by ian1977 at 8:46 PM on March 1, 2016


Yeah I'm surprised how far Sanders got, considering. That's a big sign,
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 PM on March 1, 2016


CNN is all in on Trump.

CNN is just hot garbage, and has been for years and years.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:46 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


I'm not going to disagree with anybody here, but I think it's pretty significant that he's positioning himself as a dove, and I think because he's such a "straight shooter" a lot of people are going to believe him. It's part of his anti-establishment appeal.
posted by zug at 8:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


It was incredibly close, a squeaker
Man, the difference in Worcester appears to only be about 500 votes. So close!
posted by TwoStride at 8:48 PM on March 1, 2016


FWIW, NPR said American Samoa went Clinton.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:49 PM on March 1, 2016


CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord just called the KKK "a leftist terrorist group that killed to further the progressive agenda"

Bless his pea-pickin' little heart. His momma must be so proud of how hard he tries.
posted by middleclasstool at 8:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [8 favorites]


Let's be honest here Republican leaders wouldn't be running this far away from Trump unless they have internal polling that shows that Trump is absolutely toxic to their brand. Keep in mind this is the party of Saint Reagan where the party cannot fail it can only be failed by lesser mortals.

These aren't the back benchers either these are the most connected members of the Republican caucus that are either hearing from pollster/strategists that they are looking at losing the Senate (hell maybe even the house) or their corporate donors who are saying "shut it down now" or both and they are looking desperately for a hail mary pass.

They have to move swiftly and decisively now to prevent Trump from meeting the minimum threshhold of delegates because they don't have a superdelegate system to prevent this sort of shit from happening. You can basically guarantee that Preibus is going to be told to deliver a superdelegate system before 2020 though (that is assuming he doesn't get sacked for this monumental fuckup).
posted by vuron at 8:50 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord just called the KKK "a leftist terrorist group that killed to further the progressive agenda"

I just watched that. My jaw is... That's a nutbar statement. Shoved into the conversation like I don't know what. Like there was an agenda to say that.

This guy works there full time? WTF?
posted by Trochanter at 8:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [14 favorites]


I'm not going to disagree with anybody here, but I think it's pretty significant that he's positioning himself as a dove, and I think because he's such a "straight shooter" a lot of people are going to believe him. It's part of his anti-establishment appeal.

Yeah, he hammers the "I was against Iraq" and "we aren't the world's police" stuff pretty hard (though it doesn't really even seem to be true about Iraq, and those comments are interspersed with commentary about bombing the hell out of ISIS, so....). It will be interesting to see him and Clinton argue about regime change and intervention re: Libya in the debates, though, assuming they are the nominees. I'm not sure I can handle the Democratic candidate being on the defensive and holding the bag for the Iraq war though - it makes me feel kind of ill just thinking about it.
posted by dialetheia at 8:51 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


She'd do better improving her messaging on other issues than chasing the ghost of whatever foreign policy Trump is supporting this week.

No, she'd do better by regretting her hawkish actions in the past, pledging to seek path for international peace, and repudiating neocon endorsements like they're from the Klan.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [13 favorites]


the difference in Worcester appears to only be about 500 votes

There's a meme going around about Methuen - about 6500 votes were cast there - and the count tonight differed by ONE vote.

Vuron, I think you are right; there has been a party decision. The turn in the positioning from R guests on talk shows yesterday was palpable - someone had said "finish him," and all hell broke loose.
posted by Miko at 8:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jeffrey Lord is a fucking racist.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:52 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


How is Trump going to square a "dove" stance with his carpet bombing comments? Just Trump gon' Trunp and keep talking?
posted by strange chain at 8:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jim Gilmore won in Chelsea, Mass with 366 votes, so there's that.
posted by joeyh at 8:54 PM on March 1, 2016


CNN doesn't mind having a few racists opining their bullshit as long as they have two Ds and two Rs sitting at the table. Because that's "balanced coverage" in their world.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:54 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


>I'm not sure I can handle the Democratic candidate being on the defensive and holding the bag for the Iraq war though - it makes me feel kind of ill just thinking about it.

Maybe that's the smartest way for Clinton to fight back, actually, to argue that it was overwhelmingly a republican fuckup and that GWB should be holding the bag, not her. It's not all that convincing, though. I don't actually know what she's going to do about that. That vote has already bitten her in the ass once, I will be 0% surprised if it bites her again.

I still have a faint hope that Sanders can pull this out somehow. "Somehow" probably involves a scandal sticking to Hillary or a big shifts in the votes of PoC. Bernie is really behind in the name recognition, which means that there is hope, that if he can really get his message out there he has more than zero shot. But, I admit, it's a long one.
posted by zug at 8:55 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Actually, the CNN clip I linked starts too late, watch this one (youtube)
posted by dnial at 8:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


How is Trump going to square a "dove" stance with his carpet bombing comments? Just Trump gon' Trunp and keep talking?

I mean, probably that! No doubt that none of his crap is coherent. But he could pretty easily make some distinction between "taking out the bad dudes" like ISIS vs. wholesale regime change and 70-year presences, like Clinton was talking about in Libya at the last town hall.
posted by dialetheia at 8:56 PM on March 1, 2016


CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord just called the KKK "a leftist terrorist group that killed to further the progressive agenda"

Holy shit I noped out of that faster than Trump's hair in a tornado. Why does cable news put these argue fests on the air so often? I can barely stand KCRW's Left Right and Center. These people are just yelling at each other. If you want to know what made Trump possible, the blame lies squarely with the monster Ted Turner created.
posted by dis_integration at 8:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Jim Gilmore thing was a frameshift error.
posted by zug at 8:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


People who are watching this all from the p.o.v. of wrestling kayfabe: is there a wrestling-world plot logic that leads to Trump's downfall? Like, what events would the script contain or what emotional/character beats, to lead to the crowd turning on him?
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Maybe that's the smartest way for Clinton to fight back, actually, to argue that it was overwhelmingly a republican fuckup and that GWB should be holding the bag, not her. It's not all that convincing, though. I don't actually know what she's going to do about that.

Yeah - I think if she does that, he'll pivot to Libya, unfortunately.
posted by dialetheia at 8:57 PM on March 1, 2016


ISIS:Libya/Syria :: al-Qaeda:Iraq, to some degree
posted by Apocryphon at 8:59 PM on March 1, 2016


lazyweb: has Trump ever held an elected office? (Or any other position where you can't declare bankruptcy and get a do-over)
posted by strange chain at 9:01 PM on March 1, 2016


Trump has a hard time being consistent even within the reference point of a single speech. He can't be expected to be consistent from day to day because he's the Donald and he's too busy for that.

The reality is now Republican party elites are in full on panic mode because their handpicked candidate Ruboto cannot close the deal and they are being forced to choose between the asshole they don't like who will lose them the general election by a landslide and the coworker who they'd rather see dead but who is less of a shitshow in the general election.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. I'm just waiting to see how they Willie Horton Trump. Illegitimate child used to be a good stunt but I figure they need something even more visceral.
posted by vuron at 9:02 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


People who are watching this all from the p.o.v. of wrestling kayfabe: is there a wrestling-world plot logic that leads to Trump's downfall? Like, what events would the script contain or what emotional/character beats, to lead to the crowd turning on him?

After Trump announces his intention to drive a steamroller over a box filled with adorable kittens, Chris Christie rips off his mask to reveal that he's really been Terry Crews in disguise all along, grabs a chair and leaps into the ring....
posted by zarq at 9:03 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


The NYT just did a great two-part series on our involvement in Libya, in case anyone missed it:
Part 1: Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall: "The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven."
Part 2: A new Libya with very little time left: "The fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge."
posted by dialetheia at 9:04 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


what events would the script contain or what emotional/character beats

What if he started saying vile things about a beloved media personality on the Republican party's cable news channel?

oh wait
posted by tonycpsu at 9:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I actually think Cruz is the worst shitshow for them in the general potentially, if Trump manages roughly on the same path as now. I still think he loses but I think Cruz loses worse, but I don't think Cruz would take the Republican party down with him. Trump just might.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


After listening to his speech tonight, I was reminded of how much I fear Cruz. Trump's a buffoon, but Cruz is a True Believer fanatic cut from a Handmaid's Tale cloth.
posted by Windigo at 9:06 PM on March 1, 2016 [32 favorites]


Gotta love that election results are being reported via error-prone copy-n-paste in spreadsheets. Then too, probably the paste goes via a server that hasn't been updated with the openssl security fixes that had their release helpfully scheduled for this morning.
posted by joeyh at 9:06 PM on March 1, 2016


Trump publically ridiculing St Reagan during an episode of SNL ala Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of JPII would be an excellent heel turn, you know or ripping off his skin and outing himself as a reptilian.
posted by vuron at 9:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ted 'Grease Lizard' Cruz gets massacred in the general by either Sanders or Clinton, no question, I'd say. Donny (Shut the fuck up, Donny)... I'm still not sure. Not sure at all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:08 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yesterday I watched Better Call Saul. It was so much better than this, reality TV sucks.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [10 favorites]


People have been saying in this thread and others that Carson's campaign is just some kind of finance scam. And it makes sense, just look at his numbers. He's raised, and "spent", an absurd amount of money for someone who is basically competing with Vermin Supreme for votes at this point. What's his scam exactly? And how is it legal, if it's a scam?
posted by dis_integration at 9:13 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


honestly bernie staying in it is good for hillary if she comes out on top. if we keep fighting among ourselves the gop will keep fighting their own weird battles, bernie will make her keep answering to liberal issues, it'll show she can win a hard fought contest and isn't just waiting on the coronation. and if he wins? well, i'm for that as well.

I feel pretty similarly. I definitely am glad that Bernie is giving Hillary a run for her money. I think it's made her a better candidate, and if he succeeds in pushing her to the left on some issues, all the better.

Personally, on most issues I feel like I'm much more aligned with Bernie than the more centrist views that Hillary espouses. But I also feel like all that's really going to be accomplished in the next four years by other Bernie or Hillary is just to get a Justice on the Supreme Court, and then try to maintain the status quo. Unless things really work out in the Dems favor in November when it comes to the House and Senate elections, I doubt the next president will be able to get much of anything else done.

I mean, I would love love love to have single payer health insurance, but that's not going to happen in the next four years, lbr.

The Dems really need to focus on building up their liberal base from the ground up. That's really the only way we're going to be able to get much of anything accomplished on the national level.
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


Dank meme from Matt Oswalt.

I keep thinking about "Falling Down" too.
posted by Trochanter at 9:14 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah Ted Cruz gets destroyed in the General Election but he doesn't take down the party (because he believes all of that shit) and who knows he might even win over some Latinos.

I think the Republicans are willing to tolerate a loss in 2016 at this point as long as they still have the Senate because then they can continue to filibuster like crazy.

Hell they might even just being willing to permanently keep the SCOTUS at 8 members because they are megadicks.

Trumo scares them because not only is he a wildcard but he's fucking up all the rebranding efforts they've been trying out.
posted by vuron at 9:15 PM on March 1, 2016


I think Trump looks like he's doing better than his overall support would be. He has been burning bridges with demographic groups left and right, and something's gotta give there. Trump will be unacceptable to a larger number of people than maybe anyone else out there. I think that'll sink him and the fact that he's trying for a coalition no one has tried before makes it hard to predict but doubly difficult for him to win.

Of course I also said he couldn't win the Republican Primary and bet as such on Predictit....
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


What's his scam exactly?

Ask Sarah Palin.

And how is it legal, if it's a scam?

Because there's no "you must be campaigning in good faith to accept peoples' money" clause in the FEC's rules.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:15 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


People who are watching this all from the p.o.v. of wrestling kayfabe: is there a wrestling-world plot logic that leads to Trump's downfall? Like, what events would the script contain or what emotional/character beats, to lead to the crowd turning on him?

No no, not downfall, the trope you're looking for is "heel-face-turn."

For example, the Rock was once a heel, and became a face. So perhaps that is Trump's destiny.

Remember, "babyface" does not mean "Trump Jr."
posted by My Dad at 9:16 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


...unless Trump is currently a face...
posted by My Dad at 9:17 PM on March 1, 2016


And how is it legal, if it's a scam?

Same might be asked of Citizens United.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:17 PM on March 1, 2016


Trump is going undergo a miraculous transformation into a centrist technocrat; he'll try to out-Hilary Hilary, and be like, 'oh all that racist stuff I said, that demagoguery and warmongering? Pfft, I didn't mean any of that, I was just doing what I had to do to win the nomination, come on, you guys knew that.'
posted by Flashman at 9:18 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because there's no "you must be campaigning in good faith to accept peoples' money" clause in the FEC's rules.

Well, but I'm pretty sure there's a clause in there somewhere that says you can't just make out checks to yourself from the the campaign coffers. How does he benefit if he's just blowing it all on TV and internet ads?
posted by dis_integration at 9:18 PM on March 1, 2016


Gosh, this thread moves fast! Been skimming my way as quickly as I can.

I still have a faint hope that Sanders can pull this out somehow.

I know I'm slightly shifting your meaning, but he has already pulled this out in some important ways. Tonight has gone about as well as Sanders could have expected; even better, imo.

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned and I just missed it, but the most important reason for Sanders going to the convention is because of the development of the party platform. Not as important nowadays as it used to be, but still, hashing out the planks is a pretty important element of a national campaign. The more Sanders delegates there are, the more leverage there will be to insert some important ideas into the platform. People say Sanders is doing good by forcing Clinton to the left and the best way to hold her feet to the fire is to make some of the Sanders' campaign ideas into actual party platform planks.

So, despite the earlier claim that a Sanders-to-the-convention strategy is un-American, it is, on the contrary, quite American. Citizens gonna citizen and all that jazz... .
posted by CincyBlues at 9:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [22 favorites]


Some polling I've seen shows Cruz doing worse than Romney with latinos, which if true, is just delicious and a sign that this inability of theirs to not attack immigrants is going to have generational consequences for their ability to win elections.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also trying to decide which Republican candidate would be preferable for President is basically like deciding which whether you'd like to cut off your arm or your leg, but I still would take Trump over Cruz and probably over Rubio too. I think Trump is a terrible person and a racist and a misogynist and all that shit, but I don't think he's actually going to build a fucking wall, and I honestly feel like Cruz or Rubio would be far more likely to get us into another shitty war. Not to mention the fact that I think Rubio or Cruz would be motivated to dismantle Obamacare and do everything in their power to take away women's rights.

So yeah, any of these Republican candidates would basically be a nightmare, but I'd probably choose the Trump nightmare over the Cruz or Rubio nightmare. And with a little luck Trump's victory would cause the Republican party to completely implode, so there's always that.

But PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING do not let a Republican win in November. Eight years of Bush was bad enough. i can't take this shit again.
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:19 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, but I'm pretty sure there's a clause in there somewhere that says you can't just make out checks to yourself from the the campaign coffers. How does he benefit if he's just blowing it all on TV and internet ads?

I think the scam is by the people running the campaign, who happen to also have an ownership interest in the TV and internet ad creators.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


'oh all that racist stuff I said, that demagoguery and warmongering? Pfft, I didn't mean any of that, I was just doing what I had to do to win the nomination, come on, you guys knew that.'

Of course. Hell, he just did in in the last few days! Disavow Duke/KKK endorsement, then just before the south votes weasel out of disavowing, then as soon as the vote is over, disavow again. It's transparent and craven, but goddamn if it doesn't seem to be working.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:22 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


He's raised, and "spent", an absurd amount of money for someone who is basically competing with Vermin Supreme for votes at this point. What's his scam exactly? And how is it legal, if it's a scam?

Two possibilities. Carson's staying in the race because it's effectively free publicity for his books and future speaking gigs -- he can run ads saying "Ben Carson sure is swell, people say he has amazing hands, etc." without spending a dime of his own money. Second is that a lot of the direct mail vendors Carson uses are run by large Carson fundraisers. It's basically legalized graft where the fundraisers are keeping the campaign going just to rack up millions in direct mail contracts.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:24 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think the reality is that there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of animosity between the Clinton camp and the Sanders camp at the high levels. Down in the trenches it's a different story of course but I think at a high level there is a general acknowledgement that no matter what Trump must be stopped and I think Clinton and Sanders will team up like Super Saiyans fighting Freiza rather than waste energy and resources fighting each other.

I'd be shocked if both of them don't start using their campaign cash in a more or less concerted effort to weaken Trump. At a minimum the Clinton Super PACs are going to be charging their Lazers.
posted by vuron at 9:25 PM on March 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hell they might even just being willing to permanently keep the SCOTUS at 8 members because they are megadicks.

Quorum for the US Supreme Court is six judges. They could conceivably keep the court shorthanded for years, even if a couple more justices die, especially if the right justices die...
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:27 PM on March 1, 2016


I can't remember who described him as a "stupid man's idea of what a rich man is like,"

I like to watch the real estate listings for super expensive housing. Trump is not significantly different in tastes from other rich people who live in mansions.
posted by srboisvert at 9:28 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Obama could recess appoint if it got that bad though right?
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:32 PM on March 1, 2016


Well, but I'm pretty sure there's a clause in there somewhere that says you can't just make out checks to yourself from the the campaign coffers. How does he benefit if he's just blowing it all on TV and internet ads?

His speaking fees will be higher, and he'll also have a lot of people in his campaign apparatus that owe him favors for letting them be in on the grift, travel around the country, put some things on their resume. Even if you assume he's not benefiting right now and that there's no quid-pro-quo where they reward him financially later, it's impossible to set the system up such that someone who has millions of dollars flowing through them isn't enriched in some way by that power.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:32 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Clinton and Sanders will team up like Super Saiyans fighting Freiza rather than waste energy and resources fighting each other.

Clinton/Sanders 2016.
(or Sanders/Clinton 2016. I'm not picky.)
posted by zarq at 9:33 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Obama could recess appoint if it got that bad though right?

If the Senate ever went into recess. They have parliamentary tricks to prevent that.
posted by Justinian at 9:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


To be fair, recess appointments are a "trick" too. Congress is supposed to get the chance to give its advice and consent, but it's also supposed to made up of adults and not toddlers so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by tonycpsu at 9:37 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


vuron: Let's be honest here Republican leaders wouldn't be running this far away from Trump unless they have internal polling that shows that Trump is absolutely toxic to their brand.

I hope so, because otherwise I'm expecting a sea-change real soon now as they get behind him. After all, he loves rich people and thinks the laws should be written to benefit them, which is all the Republican moneymen care about. And he offers subaltern people to kick and blame for everything, which all the Republican 'base' cares about. He's really the perfect candidate for them.
posted by tavella at 9:41 PM on March 1, 2016


It's not like Carson's the only one running a grift. All those campaign donations have to go somewhere -- why not straight back into Trump Inc?
Between June 16, when he announced his candidacy from the lobby of Trump Tower, through the end of 2015, the Trump campaign spent $2.2 million patronizing Trump businesses.

The majority—$2 million—was spent on Tag Air Inc., where Trump is CEO.

Trump owns a commercial-sized plane, a Boeing 757-200, which is equipped to safely transport 43 passengers in seat belts plated with 24-carat gold—although they might prefer to sit in the dining room, one of two bedrooms, or in the shower, (or they might prefer to travel in his smaller jet or one of his two helicopters).

His aircraft ferry him around the country, from New York to Des Moines to Manchester to Biloxi, at a steep cost.
The bill paid by the campaign on June 16 alone—the day of his formal announcement—was $506,846.

[...]

And paid $90,000 in in-kind rent to Donald J. Trump, Trump CPS LLC, and Trump Plaza LLC.

Rent and utilities were also doled out—to the tune of nearly $74,000—to Trump Restaurants LLC and Trump Tower Commercial LLC.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [17 favorites]


I too am one of those who suspects that Trump may end up running to the left of Hillary on a number of dimensions. This isn't about what he believes or what he has said in the past, but about what he will say in the next 6 months. He is already to her left on campaign finance, and may end up to her left on military interventions and her general Kissingerian real-politick. And many of his populist positions -- the identification of the problems, not the solutions he proposes -- are also to her left, eg arguing that unemployment is larger than it looks (a traditional left-populist view), or that many people are silently suffering under the costs and complications of health insurance and Obamacare. He might even have ended up to her left on TPP or social security, if she hadn't been forced to disavow TPP and "saving" social security in the last few months.

Of course, his solutions to these problems are right-wing, but in many ways the identification of the problems and the proposed solutions are separate dimensions: people respond as much, if not more, to hearing their suffering affirmed, as they do to specific policy solutions -- and those affirmations of the problem can be very leftish. In some ways, we may be seeing conservatism redefined, with HRC becoming the standard-bearer of the status quo (or mild gradualism), vs the populism of the other side. And that populism isn't always to her right, and I imagine there are other ways it may end up to her left as things progress. A center/right populist free from both the evangelical and establishment shibboleths may be a very powerful thing.

Sleep tight!
posted by chortly at 9:47 PM on March 1, 2016 [15 favorites]


the guy who very recently suggested targeting the families of terrorists. I don't love Hillary's connection with Kissinger either either, but the answer to your actual question isn't hard.


Well, Spetsnaz:

"Six years later, in October 1985, Alpha Group was dispatched to war-torn Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin was informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[19] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. Through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task-force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis, and once identified, began to take the relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of no negotiations with terrorists, one the hostages taken by Alpha Group had his testicles removed and sent to the militants before being murdered. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately.[20] The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq."
posted by yoyo_nyc at 9:47 PM on March 1, 2016


Oh yeah Trump is totally running a grift. He's self-financing by giving his campaign a loan which he can use donations to pay back (until the convention). He's largely been lucky because the media is basically giving him free exposure and he's one of those guys that thinks that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

The very fact that he's the leading Republican candidate but he's trying to do things on the cheap make me extremely suspicious.
posted by vuron at 9:48 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


ricochet biscuit: "See, I read HST as Harry S Truman and I was wondering how we could try to map late-1940s politics onto the current situation. "

Well, Truman could be a pretty salty guy, and he had a low tolerance for assholes, so it could be pretty juicy actually.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:57 PM on March 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


"I too am one of those who suspects that Trump may end up running to the left of Hillary on a number of dimensions. "

As long as Sanders is in the running, he's a guard on that left flank. I think his halo effect on the party is underrated. The longer we go without Hillary clinching the nomination, the better for her (or the eventual D nominee) in the general.
posted by klarck at 10:00 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


This isn't about what he believes or what he has said in the past, but about what he will say in the next 6 months.

Yes, I think he'll attempt to pivot on certain issues (infrastructure spending, health care, taxes, campaign finance), but I would be surprised if his stance on climate change, immigration, refugees, abortion, policing, and guns isn't remembered at all. And none of those are left wing in any way.
posted by FJT at 10:05 PM on March 1, 2016


Ben Carson actually won a precinct (in Alaska).
posted by melissasaurus at 10:05 PM on March 1, 2016


tonycpsu: "recess appointments are a "trick" too. Congress is supposed to get the chance to give its advice and consent, but it's also supposed to made up of adults and not toddlers so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

Supreme Court recess appointments are a trick that Washington pulled, so at the very least they've got long precedent. But they are of limited value, because "advise and consent" doesn't go away for Supreme Court nominees; it just gets postponed. Obama could nominate during the one time when there actually is a recess anymore (that is, between congresses) but it would only last until the next congress sat down and got around to holding hearings on the nominee.

So basically recess appointments of Supreme Court justices have never been spectacularly strategic. The only purpose is to fill the court when it's empty and congress isn't around. Otherwise, you're just going to piss them off, and they won't confirm your nominee anyway - which is incidentally what happened to Washington, too.
posted by koeselitz at 10:06 PM on March 1, 2016


Maybe I've got my head in the sand but I just don't see Trump as the electoral savant so many other people do. He is trying to thread an electoral gauntlet and the longer he has to actually maintain his schtick the harder it is to balance this insanely incoherent set of arguments he's trotting out. I know the Trump true believers have bought that their line is supposed to be "He's just saying what everyone's thinking!" If the Democratic party can't successfully paint Trump as the racist liar we all see than they've just failed miserably.
posted by haveanicesummer at 10:09 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


It certainly would be great if Obama sat someone on the court and then when congress came back they pretended that person didn't exist.
posted by haveanicesummer at 10:10 PM on March 1, 2016


Are we absolutely certain that Trump isn't really Andy Kaufman in disguise?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:34 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Ever since I watched Idiocracy, I became fascinated by the idea of using Mountain Dew for plant production. I strongly feel a Trump presidency is our best attempt in years to get closer to a true Idiocracy.

Here's the Dark Movie Donald Trump's Campaign Most Resembles​. It's no longer a comedy.
posted by homunculus at 10:38 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Y'know, that "he's going to rip his mask off any minute" joke has gotten pretty damn old.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 10:39 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think this blog post overemphasizes class and also seriously downplays the importance of race (and racism) but it also has this insight into Trump's appeal that I haven't seen anywhere else that makes so much sense:
The man is brilliant. I mean that without the smallest trace of mockery. He’s figured out that the most effective way to get the wage class to rally to his banner is to get himself attacked, with the usual sort of shrill mockery, by the salary class. The man’s worth several billion dollars—do you really think he can’t afford to get the kind of hairstyle that the salary class finds acceptable? Of course he can; he’s deliberately chosen otherwise, because he knows that every time some privileged buffoon in the media or on the internet trots out another round of insults directed at his failure to conform to salary class ideas of fashion, another hundred thousand wage class voters recall the endless sneering putdowns they’ve experienced from the salary class and think, “Trump’s one of us.”

The identical logic governs his deliberate flouting of the current rules of acceptable political discourse. Have you noticed that every time Trump says something that sends the pundits into a swivet, and the media starts trying to convince itself and its listeners that this time he’s gone too far and his campaign will surely collapse in humiliation, his poll numbers go up? What he’s saying is exactly the sort of thing that you’ll hear people say in working class taverns and bowling alleys when subjects such as illegal immigration and Muslim jihadi terrorism come up for discussion. The shrieks of the media simply confirm, in the minds of the wage class voters to whom his appeal is aimed, that he’s one of them, an ordinary Joe with sensible ideas who’s being dissed by the suits.

Notice also how many of Trump’s unacceptable-to-the-pundits comments have focused with laser precision on the issue of immigration. That’s a well-chosen opening wedge, as cutting off illegal immigration is something that the GOP has claimed to support for a while now. As Trump broadens his lead, in turn, he’s started to talk about the other side of the equation—the offshoring of jobs—as his recent jab at Apple’s overseas sweatshops shows. The mainstream media’s response to that jab does a fine job of proving the case argued above: “If smartphones were made in the US, we’d have to pay more for them!” And of course that’s true: the salary class will have to pay more for its toys if the wage class is going to have decent jobs that pay enough to support a family. That this is unthinkable for so many people in the salary class—that they’re perfectly happy allowing their electronics to be made for starvation wages in an assortment of overseas hellholes, so long as this keeps the price down—may help explain the boiling cauldron of resentment into which Trump is so efficiently tapping.
posted by overglow at 10:49 PM on March 1, 2016 [19 favorites]


How is a campaign a grift ?

Campaigns employ people such as a Marketing Director. The Director draws a salary and contracts for printing and polling with their friends. Marketing results in a database of marks who will contribute more later or buy books. Money is also spent on consultants, lawyers, and web developers who are friends and relatives who owe their fortune to the candidate. If the candidate is suspending a paying gig in order to campaign, then the candidate can draw a salary equal to what their paying gig was. If the candidate travels for political purposes, the campaign pays for travel, food, and lodging at whatever level of luxury the candidate deems necessary. Care for a vacation in Miami ?

There are campaign finance rules. These are overseen by the Federal Elections Commission. The Commission is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans. There is never a majority vote to take action. The rules are loose enough that the IRS considers Karl Rove's Crossroads organization to be a public service, not a political, organization. Christine, I am not a witch, O'Donnell did get in trouble for campaign spending. Her campaign was paying for the rent of her campaign offices but that address turned out to be the same as her home address. A rookie mistake. If she had a decent campaign lawyer, a property management company and a PO Box would have been inserted between her office and her home.

Sarah Palin still draws in about 800,000 dollars a year. After endorsing Trump, her marketing requested donations so she could continue her good work.
posted by llc at 10:56 PM on March 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump's Insurgency

Trump is trouncing the competition. He's doing so well that the prediction systems give him a 81% chance of winning the nomination -- despite the opposition of the entire Republican establishment.

What's most surprising to many pundits and analysts is that Trump has done this without presenting all of the detail plans, voluminous position papers, etc. that we've come to expect over the last couple of decades.

He has simply refused to play by those rules, and he's not paid a price for it.

Trump is able to pull this off because he's not running a political campaign. Instead, he's running an insurgency.
...



posted by yertledaturtle at 11:05 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Billmon deleted his twitter account today.
posted by Auden at 11:10 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Billmon deleted his twitter account today.

Noooooo! I really loved his commentary. Does he write anywhere else?
posted by dialetheia at 11:14 PM on March 1, 2016


dialetheia he writes here:

Moon Of Alabama

This was his last message on twitter:
So, I'm signing off now. I don't particularly want to live tweet what's comes next. Good luck, everybody.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:20 PM on March 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Articles like that feed the narrative that he's a genius. I don't think it's true. Or if it is true he's a genius with gigantic glaring flaws. One that may win the battle of the Republican nomination but doesn't speak to the war. Trump's inability to not juvenilely respond when his looks are criticized or other personal attacks is not some genius chessmaster outthinking his opponents. He just goes with his gut and tells everyone he's perfect and they are shit. This sort of pointless bravado appeals to many, but turns off others. Trump's genius messaging might work with a subset of voters but we literally have no evidence it will work with a broader base, and the leaping on the side of some liberal publications to decide he's a genius because he can convince a bunch of racists and rubes to vote for the loudest, most famous, most racist guy around. Liberals should view Trump as the biggest opportunity we've had in generations.

We get to have these conversations out in the open, and we have the winning and more American argument. We normally have to pretend the Republican isn't racist because calling them racist would go beyond the bounds of political decency. With Trump, we don't have that problem.
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:21 PM on March 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Re November elections, if Hillary doesn't come out strong against the bill DWS just let the payday lenders buy from her, then I am officially done with the national party.

"Abusive payday lenders take advantage of families trying to get ahead. Glad to see @BarackObama & @CFPB take a stand." - Hillary Clinton, 27 Mar 2015 (via)

I hope Clinton responds to DWS's bullshit now.
posted by homunculus at 11:23 PM on March 1, 2016 [11 favorites]


How is a campaign a grift ?

A campaign is not by definition a grift. Some campaigns, however, quite clearly are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:24 PM on March 1, 2016


Articles like that feed the narrative that he's a genius. I don't think it's true.

I don't think they feed that narrative. I think they describe what is happening.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:26 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


FASCISM ISN’T FUNNY


On Sunday, the staff of the gossip website Gawker were extremely pleased with themselves. After months of trying, they finally managed to get
Donald Trump’s Twitter account to post a quote from Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. They accomplished this by setting a robo-account to barrage Trump with Mussolini quotes, in the hopes that eventually he would pick one up and send it out to his followers. He did. This scandalous “event” was then covered in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The Washington Post, TIME, and the BBC. Some were swift to see Trump’s posting of the quote as confirmation of the oft-cited allegation that Trump is a fascist, while Gawker said it confirmed their theory that Trump was an “idiot” who would “retweet just about anything.”

Isolated from its context, the quote in question appears completely innocuous: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” If you didn’t know it was from Mussolini, you might expect it to be the epigraph to a business book, or simply one of the thousands of anonymous platitudes that percolate incessantly across the culture. The advice itself seems sound, if not terribly helpful; after all, few people would consciously aspire toward a lifetime of sheepdom. It also hardly seems much different in its general flavor from “it is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees,” a maxim associated with both Che Guevara and Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata. At the very least, this sort of sentiment is hardly confined to one particular political faction.

The question about Trump and the Mussolini quote, then, is: what does it prove? Is it news? And what is the use of pulling this sort of glib micro-stunt? The first two questions can be confidently answered with a resounding “nothing” and “no,” respectively. As to the third, it’s very likely that, far from successfully undermining or humiliating Donald Trump, tactics like these enable him to grow even stronger. Those with liberal political sympathies (like the staff of Gawker), who profess to fear a Trump presidency and think him akin to an actual fascist, may want to consider whether this sort of mischief is useful or simply childish. And if it is childish and useless, as one may suspect it is, one may wonder why people on the left are spending their time taunting Trump on Twitter rather than trying to stop the danger they believe he poses to the country. ...


Rest of the article at the link.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:35 PM on March 1, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump voters don't know what Gawker is and probably not a Mussolini either for many of them. This meme that mocking Trump helps him is just baseless. Effective characterizations have worked to damage Sarah Palin in the past. No reason Trump is permanently immune to it.
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:43 PM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump voters don't know what Gawker is and probably not a Mussolini either for many of them. This meme that mocking Trump helps him is just baseless. Effective characterizations have worked to damage Sarah Palin in the past. No reason Trump is permanently immune to it.

What evidence do you have that Trump Voters do not know what Gawker is? Regardless, that was not the point of the article.

Also - Trump is a symbol. Trump is - for a fairly large portion of our fellow citizens a tabula rosa.
It does not matter what you say about him to the people that support him they project whatever they want on to him.

His movement is large and growing - snarky jokes while they may be fun are not turning people away from Trump like they did Sara. Feel free to go ahead and make snarky memes and ridiculous characterizations while Trump and his supporters arm up, (There are 100,000 armed militia members now), and prepare to take the levers of power.

To me, this is very scary not funny.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:01 AM on March 2, 2016


CNN has exit polls by state here. I wish they had caucus entrance polls too, but it looks like it's just the primary states. Are Minnesota and Colorado included in the grouped polls from 538? It sure seems like nobody has entrance polls for the caucuses, and if those weren't included, that would probably change some of the overall results that are being reported for today. Seems a little misleading to report overall results that leave both of his big win states out, but caucuses are tough.

I glanced at some of the results, and the ideology categories are interesting. In the states where he did well like OK and MA, there's a pattern where he wins the most liberal and the most conservative, but loses the centrists (he won them all in VT). In Oklahoma, he won liberals and conservatives, but lost moderates. In Massachusetts, he won the very liberal, lost the somewhat liberal, and won the moderates, with not enough conservatives to say; when those subcategories are combined, Clinton won liberals and Sanders won moderates/conservatives.

The only other thing that really jumped out at me was how affluent the MA electorate was - 37% of Democratic voters made more than $100k!
posted by dialetheia at 12:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


How is a campaign a grift ?

First class travel and accommodations "at the expense of the Campaign" sounds pretty sweet to me. Where can I sign up?
posted by mikelieman at 12:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


mikelieman's campaign sure is spending a lot of time in Hawaii...
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:04 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Campaigns are huge wealth transfers to media companies
posted by thelonius at 12:04 AM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


And it appears that Trump is a master at transferring wealth from his contributors to his own pocket..

He takes the donations to the campaign, uses them to pay his expenses staying at his properties, and the check from the campaign committee is cut to his company.
posted by mikelieman at 12:05 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


As plebes make the Donald increasingly acceptable, expect elite Trump supporters to come out of the closet.

In America, Donald Trump — who many of the experts thought had no chance — is dominating the polls. In Britain, meanwhile, much of the public seems to be mobilizing in favor of exiting the troubled European Union — a British Exit, or Brexit.

Writing in The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill puts this down to a class revolt on both sides of the Atlantic. And he’s right as far as he goes, but I think there’s more than just a class revolt. I think there’s also a developing preference cascade. O’Neill writes: “In both Middle America and Middle England, among both rednecks and chavs, voters who have had more than they can stomach of being patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated as diseased bodies to be corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged are now putting their hope into a different kind of politics. And the entitled Third Way brigade, schooled to rule, believing themselves possessed of a technocratic expertise that trumps the little people’s vulgar political convictions, are not happy. Not one bit.”

...



Rest of the article at the link.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Twitter - Short video file:
Trump supporters repeatedly assault Black woman at his KY rally

Shaun King is documenting and naming the people who were a part of it.
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:17 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Liberals should view Trump as the biggest opportunity we've had in generations.

I understand this impulse, and not too long ago shared it

Now I'm disgusted by it. Trump's campaign has normalized hate, and the best the GOP can do is mock his spray tan. The Klan is back. American Nazis are back. Hate groups are spreading.

Democrats might win the election, but our country has been damaged. An election won't fix that.
posted by kanewai at 12:50 AM on March 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


“5 Ways We Got The Trump Campaign Wrong: An Insider Explains,” Robert Evans , Cracked, 01 March 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 1:06 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is the guy Shaun King named: Matthew Heimbach
posted by kanewai at 1:14 AM on March 2, 2016


The GOP could run Pol Pot and CNN and NPR would still report on the race in measured tones. Because anything is better than being accused of being liberal.

"Democrats accuse him of being a genocidal maniac. Pol Pot denies the charges." And they'd leave it at that.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:22 AM on March 2, 2016 [36 favorites]


Chris Christie is such a jackass. Somehow he managed to end up looking even more pathetic than Jeb Bush. There is no political value or personal reward in this humiliation. It just makes him look like the exact sort of crooked valueless bully who would shut down a bridge for political revenge. There's nothing of value or vision in his contribution to public life. You can't be dumb enough to think Trump is going to win. So why are you doing this? For who? For what?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


managing some trump property in Atlantic City once his political career tanks?
posted by lmfsilva at 1:53 AM on March 2, 2016


By the look on his face at that press conference I imagine he's asking himself those same questions, DD.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:15 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Honestly, shit like this is why I'm no longer a registered Democrat. The smug contempt from centrists for the left wing of the party is palpable and extremely off-putting.

This is due to the enforced "big tent" of American electoral politics, in which there are two (and only two) major parties and third-parties tend to be low-profile and irrelevant protest votes.

My earlier comment points out that it hurts the right-wing of the Republicans too (if it's any consolation). Both of the extremes have to hold their nose and pile into one of the electable parties if they want any hope of influencing things within the government (as opposed to as activist groups and non-profits).
posted by theorique at 2:25 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Now the dust has settled, the betting markets say:

- Democrats: Extremely likely to be Hillary.
- Republicans: Very likely to be Donald. Outside chance now of Marco, remote chance of anyone else.
- Winner in November: Probably the Democrat candidate, and likely to be Hillary, possibly Donald, with everyone else having at best a remote chance.
posted by Wordshore at 3:14 AM on March 2, 2016




Maybe it is because I'm a queer woman of color leftist, and have come face to face with a bunch of bullshit in my life that is from systematic, historic oppression, but I always thought Trump was going to win the nomination from the first moment that he was going to enter the race. He speaks for the population of awful bigots that still want the old good days of no more civil rights for those who suffer. I don't know why people were so convinced it was otherwise - he is so blatantly evil, so stupid, and always so consistently on message, that it is easy to follow him and vote for him. There is nothing complicated about him, and the anti-intellectuaism establishment LOVES IT.
posted by yueliang at 3:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Predictwise summarises the various betting sites and prediction markets with a very nice graph that I find much easier to understand than the other sites. Even better, it uses percentage probability rather than fractional odds!
posted by adrianhon at 4:14 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


kyrademon: I WANT a woman president, just not her.
posted by Chitownfats at 4:18 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


New York Daily News: MAKE AMERICA MIGRATE: our cheat sheet if Trump wins
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


kyrademon: I WANT a woman president, just not her.

Unfortunately for you, the Republicans are going out of their way to hand it to her.
posted by dances with hamsters at 4:45 AM on March 2, 2016


I think Clinton is in for a very tough fight if Trump is the nominee. His press conference last night was, I think,just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Now I'm disgusted by it. Trump's campaign has normalized hate, and the best the GOP can do is mock his spray tan. The Klan is back. American Nazis are back. Hate groups are spreading.

Those things haven't gone away. The best thing from this campaign may be that we have to finally face those things instead of pretending that they are ghosts of the past.
posted by dances with hamsters at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


My main take aways are as follows:

Clinton has a crushing lead over Sanders but she still has to pivot to the left at least through 3/15. Yeah she basically has the nomination locked up and that is reflected in the betting market but she still needs to be careful not to alienate Sanders supporters.

Progressives cannot successfully create a candidate without outreach to minorities and across the generational gap.

Trump is deeply unpopular on the right with the ABT vote being the majority still. This is awful for the party because nobody is going to catch him and he is going to suck as a GE candidate.

Ruboto and Cruz are clowns

Stick a fork in Kasich he is done

Carson is a total grifter
posted by vuron at 4:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hate has been central to the Republican party since the failure of the Dixiecrats to repudiate LBJ for the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Yeah it's been implicit rather than explicitly transmitted but hate is a great GOTV strategy.

Playing off of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religious intolerance, etc are proven winners time and again.

Post racial America my ass.
posted by vuron at 5:08 AM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Progressives cannot successfully create a candidate without outreach to minorities and across the generational gap.
I would say that there cannot be a successful progressive movement in the US unless people of color are central to the coalition. Seeing it as "outreach to minorities" is, I think, part of the reason that Sanders and his supporters were doomed pretty early on.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:16 AM on March 2, 2016 [39 favorites]


If you didn’t know it was from Mussolini, you might expect it to be the epigraph to a business book, or simply one of the thousands of anonymous platitudes that percolate incessantly across the culture.

It *is* an anonymous platitude that dates to antiquity.
posted by Tanizaki at 5:16 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


WaPo: Chris Christie's Wordless Screaming
When he asked to be part of Trump’s cabinet he never thought to specify “presidential cabinet, of course, not a literal cabinet underground where the ventilation is poor and there is no light.” It just did not occur to him. Why would it?

Chris Christie has the glazed and terrified look of someone who has traded his inheritance for no pottage at all, who has watched his credibility dry up and is about to be led back to his basement cage, having lost Winterfell for good.
posted by schmod at 5:24 AM on March 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


It will be interesting to see how soon Christie ends up in prison for corruption now that he has pissed off the entire GOP party apparatus and has no friends left.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:31 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


It will be interesting to see how soon Trump ends up in prison for corruption now that he has pissed off the entire GOP party apparatus and has no friends left.

It will be interesting to see how soon Cruz ends up in prison for corruption now that he has pissed off the entire GOP party apparatus and has no friends left.

For what it's worth, I don't think Rubio has salted the earth behind him.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:41 AM on March 2, 2016


Tanizaki: It *is* an anonymous platitude that dates to antiquity.

A.k.a. "go big or stay home"? Totally agree.

When I was a brash young lad, and few other brash young lads and I worked for a guy we thought was a stuffed shirt. We tricked him into using an obviously-wrong technical term in a presentation to a bunch of similarly-ignorant customers. We thought ourselves quite clever, but a decade or so later I realized it was both a shitty thing to do (on a human level) and also career-threatening if my bosses had found out (they didn't).

So while I think it's somewhat revealing of Trump's character that he re-tweets management/motivational speaker-grade pablum like a True Believer, it also lowers Gawker closer to his level.
posted by wenestvedt at 5:42 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Unexpected turnout throws Boulder caucus into chaos
“We were expecting 12-15 percent. We could have managed that,” said Mike, holding up all the leftover registration cards in two small stacks.

“I think we were closer to 20 percent,” he said.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm hearing that the Rubio campaign has concluded that Rubio's attacks on Trump were ineffective because they were still a little too highbrow. Before the next primaries, they're planning to hit Trump for eating his own poo-poo and drinking his own pee-pee.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 5:44 AM on March 2, 2016


I would say that there cannot be a successful progressive movement in the US unless people of color are central to the coalition.

Absolutely. I'm not at all convinced that on a broad scale people of color ascribe to quite the same progressive platform as, e.g., Sanders. This may well be generational.
posted by OmieWise at 5:53 AM on March 2, 2016


The most consistent part of Trump's appeal, and something he'll probably keep if he tries to move toward the center, is 'tells it like it is.'

But, like, dude is totally full of shit. He's always been full of shit, he surrounds himself with people who are full of shit, being full of shit is kind of his thing.

If somebody, R or D, can make that case, and make it stick, they can take him down.
posted by box at 5:54 AM on March 2, 2016


MetaFilter, thank you. You do election dissection better than anybody. Much gratitude from an interested bystander in Australia.
posted by valetta at 5:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Honestly, I'm really tired of this erasure of his female and PoC supporters. She won the majority of those groups (among mostly southern states) but that doesn't mean nobody else supported him. I've been increasingly offended by efforts to spin his support as mostly male, in particular.

But this isn't an attempt at erasure, it's the standard way of talking about population groups during an election cycle. The phrase "candidate X won group Y" is always understood to mean the majority (not everyone), which is why it is so frequently followed by the percentage difference in support. There would be no percentage difference if there weren't some people in the group who voted for the other candidate.

I get very confused by the mixing of legitimate criticisms (for instance, superdelegates are undemocratic) with idiosyncratic choices to try to wish away how things actually work (e.g., putting superdelegates who have pledged to Clinton into her column is unfair and bad math). It's one thing to remind people that there are lots of women who support Sanders, which is obviously true, and another to read a bog standard bit of well understood reporting as if the intent is nefarious.
posted by OmieWise at 6:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump "tells it like it is" because he says things racists want to hear. Just like when my wife asked what it means when Trump says he'll "Make America Great Again" and I responded that he means he's going to put minorities back "in their place" like they were in the '50s.
posted by graymouser at 6:03 AM on March 2, 2016


MetaFilter, thank you. You do election dissection better than anybody. Much gratitude from an interested bystander in ...........
posted by infini at 6:07 AM on March 2, 2016


dialetheia he writes here:

Moon Of Alabama


that's not billmon, just some camp followers who borrowed the template from billmon's old blog and have a conspiratorial world view.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:07 AM on March 2, 2016


Election coverage is hard, so CNN are shifting their focus back to their core incompetency.
posted by schmod at 6:14 AM on March 2, 2016


Trump "tells it like it is" because he says things racists want to hear. Just like when my wife asked what it means when Trump says he'll "Make America Great Again" and I responded that he means he's going to put minorities back "in their place" like they were in the '50s.

But it also has perfect plausible deniability. A person who's racist and wants what you describe can map that onto MAGA. A person who's not racist but wants America to be economically competitive and repatriate steel, auto-making, and other manufacturing and industry can map that onto MAGA as well.

It's a perfect content free ink-blot test for whatever issues are on your mind.
posted by theorique at 6:23 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]




The most consistent part of Trump's appeal, and something he'll probably keep if he tries to move toward the center, is 'tells it like it is.'

The other edge of this sword is that he may have picked the worst possible year to run as a Republican on the platform of blaming the government for not fixing things. We have eight years' worth of sound bites, video clips, and press releases from GOP politicians and political operatives saying their entire purpose is to be obstructionist. And it's not as if this is just the deranged Tea Party wing that already lovesTrump saying that, it comes from the "establishment" types just as much as the extremists and trolls. Better yet, there's a SCOTUS opening where the GOP is nearly unanimous in not even considering talking to anyone (let alone fulfilling their Constitutional duties) even when one of their own is chosen.

So it may very well be that both Trump and the anti-Trump coalition are in a bind here. If the GOP falls into lockstep behind him, even begrudgingly, they provide the Democrats with a boatload of ammunition that undercuts his core message. If they don't, the party risks splintering in a way that could make the election a bloodbath for them. This may have been why Christie criticized GOP senators for it last week, but it seems impossible for Trump to control the frothing-at-the-mouth types that are already glomming on to his campaign for eight months about it.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:29 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah Metafilter is great about roughly 95% percent of topics (Pizza not being one of them) and for the most part it's a shining star among the heap of rubble that is election coverage in the US.

I think even when we agree to disagree such as with the handful of nominal conservatives and across all flavors of the left there is generally a deep respect for their fellow posters. Sometimes that is hidden behind some deeply rooted and forceful opinions and sometimes it's hidden behind extreme snarkiness but in general even when people disagree on Metafilter there is a basic level of decency that respects that person as having legitimate concerns and opinions. That is definitely not present on almost any other site. Everwhere else the rule is don't read the comments but consistently the comments are almost always the best part of Metafilter and for that I'm extremely grateful.

Cheer to my fellow Mefites and especially the moderators in this season of extremely massive threads.
posted by vuron at 6:30 AM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]




"The most consistent part of Trump's appeal, and something he'll probably keep if he tries to move toward the center, is 'tells it like it is.' But, like, dude is totally full of shit. He's always been full of shit, he surrounds himself with people who are full of shit, being full of shit is kind of his thing."

I watched the PBS/HBO doc on Reagan earlier this week, and the parallels were pretty frightening. All this self-promotion, empty rhetoric that could mean anything to anyone, the complete disregard for facts and law to serve that self-promotion... Reagan was a complete, utter, empty phony of no substance whatsoever -- only self-created image. He was a joke, and people knew he was a joke. It didn't matter. Facts didn't matter. Only the image mattered.

The same applies to Trump. And I'm sure that he will hold much the same attraction to American voters that Reagan did.

I hear much the same talk now as was said then, that surely this and surely that, and no-one can take him seriously. I hear it said that Hil has this in the bag with Trump as her opponent, that she'll expose him as the phony he is.

I'm not at all convinced. Quite the opposite.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:33 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I get very confused by the mixing of legitimate criticisms (for instance, superdelegates are undemocratic) with idiosyncratic choices to try to wish away how things actually work (e.g., putting superdelegates who have pledged to Clinton into her column is unfair and bad math). It's one thing to remind people that there are lots of women who support Sanders, which is obviously true, and another to read a bog standard bit of well understood reporting as if the intent is nefarious.

I don't particularly care about this myself—you're correct that it's simply portraying how things actually work—but Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the one who I've heard saying this is inappropriate.
posted by XMLicious at 6:34 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Saw this tweeted a couple of days ago. Got a kick out of it:

“It’s scary,” South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has endorsed Rubio, said on ABC’s “This Week.” She added: “I think what he’ll do to the Republican Party is really make us question who we are and what we’re about. And that’s something we don’t want to see happen.”

from Wapo
posted by Trochanter at 6:37 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Looks like those of us here in Austin have ourselves a mini-Trump as the new Travis County GOP Chair: Travis County GOP Apoplectic Over New Chairman
“We will explore every single option that exists, whether it be persuading him to resign, trying to force him to resign, constraining his power, removing his ability to spend money or resisting any attempt for him to access data or our social media account,” Mackowiak told the Tribune. “I’m treating this as a coup and as a hostile takeover.”

“Tell them they can go fuck themselves,” Morrow told the Tribune.
posted by marshmallow peep at 6:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Mod note: A handful of comments deleted: please remember the Spiral of Suck. Thank you.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


So what do Cruise and Rubio need to do to make it to the (wild, wacky, crazy fun) brokered convention?
posted by sammyo at 6:49 AM on March 2, 2016



This is simply counter-factual. Bernie won white people and lost literally every other demographic. He lost black voters by an 80-20 margin. And it's nobody's fault but his own.


of the analysis i've read, i've found this by Glenn Ford to be the most cogent:
Statistically, they will be correct. But Bernie Sanders, whose domestic politics is a much closer fit with the historical and current Black world view, is not losing to Hillary because of his positions on the issues, or because Blacks trust in Clinton’s honesty and integrity (huge numbers don’t, in every demographic). It is also no longer the case that most Blacks are unfamiliar with Sanders’ platform. African Americans are, by some measures, more tuned in to the “news” than whites (although Blacks trust the media less). But they tune Sanders out, because their main purpose for voting in national elections is to keep the White Man’s Party, the Republicans, out of the White House, and believe Clinton has a better shot. Almost everything else is bullshit.
Sanders didn't lose the black vote, he never had the black vote and didn't get the huge surge that he got in other demographics. He was worse than 80-20 with white people when he started his campaign.

But the really interesting thing is what will happen if Clinton wins the presidency. Obama, as the first black president, got a huge pass from black democratic voters during his administration. Black homeowners were decimated by the financial crisis and in most other economic indicators. The anti-police riots were much calmer than they could have been. Clinton is going to owe her presidency to black voters and she will not get the same pass that Obama did.

(also, Clinton may lose the election if she can't keep black voters. She is going to try mightily to campaign towards "hard working Americans, white Americans" once the primary ends and, contrary to the "first blackprez" legend, the Clintons have always run race-baiting campaigns.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:49 AM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]




I don't particularly care about this myself—you're correct that it's simply portraying how things actually work—but Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the one who I've heard saying this is inappropriate.

I read it from a Sanders supporter in another thread. The rhetoric was pretty condemnatory:
Total delegate numbers according to AP are 544 Clinton to 85 Sanders, with 2,383 needed for nomination.

More like 80 to 60. Including unpledged superdelegates at this point only serves one purpose: to deceitfully suggest that the Sanders campaign is hopeless. Shame on folks who do this.
posted by CincyBlues at 7:20 AM on February 28 [19 favorites +] [!]
posted by OmieWise at 6:51 AM on March 2, 2016


So does Sanders stand a chance still? Please let me cling onto something...
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 6:52 AM on March 2, 2016


I still just can't wrap my head around liberals who love Bernie Sanders, but hate -- white hot, fiery hate -- a person who voted with him 93% of the time in the Senate.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:53 AM on March 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


Oh god that Travis County Chairman!

It's like the biggest racist douchebag out of the racist douchebag fraternity at your university just crowned himself king and he's going to be free with his opinions even though they make everyone else cringe and look like utter tools.

Stay Classy Texas (and that's coming from a Texan)
posted by vuron at 6:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I still just can't wrap my head around liberals who love Bernie Sanders, but hate -- white hot, fiery hate -- a person who voted with him 93% of the time in the Senate.

This comment cannot be in good faith. Being President has a lot more to do than policy positions in the Senate.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Capt. Renault: I hear it said that Hil has this in the bag with Trump as her opponent, that she'll expose him as the phony he is.

Well, Rubio will take a first crack at exposing him - that's what he credits with his "strong" 3rd place position with 87 delegates (compared to Trump's 285 and Cruz with 161).


joeyjoejoejr: So does Sanders stand a chance still? Please let me cling onto something...

Hillary has 1,001, with almost half from super delegates, while Bernie has 371. Either needs 2,383 to win the party nomination. I'm not sure how many super delegates there are, so this might be the last of Hillary's SD bump, or there may be more that could come.

(All this from NPR's handy graph that is on their front page and links to this article that doesn't include the graph)
posted by filthy light thief at 7:01 AM on March 2, 2016


So does Sanders stand a chance still? Please let me cling onto something...

Nate Silver wrote last night that Bernie is running about 16 points lower than what they project he needs to simply split the remaining proportional delegates. Since he's already losing proportional delegates, that 16-point hole is pretty unsurmountable.

This comment cannot be in good faith. Being President has a lot more to do than policy positions in the Senate.

It is entirely in good faith. I can see why people prefer Bernie over Hillary. But I just don't get the pathological need to despise every word that comes out of her mouth, every action she takes. I see it on my Facebook wall, Twitter, everywhere. It's like a certain group of Democrats hates her more than Republicans. I find it odd, is all.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:01 AM on March 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


So... do the Republicans not have superdelegates? You'd think that the party would jump on that to retain control.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:02 AM on March 2, 2016


i voted for bernie in yesterday's election and i'll gladly vote for hillary in the general. i think this is the same for the majority of bernie voters. the ones loudly proclaiming they won't are outside the norm as far as i can tell.
posted by nadawi at 7:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


I'm generally an undecided, but I will say this: I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I think she'd make a good president, one I'd be happy with. Any anticipated ill will I feel for her has little to do with her performance in office, and more to do with her potential performance in the campaign.

I mean, I didn't really hate John Kerry, either. I didn't love him (probably liked him less than Clinton overall) but I didn't really hate him. Not before.

But remember: there was a time when we all knew that there was no way in hell that that guy was going to get elected again – and that everything we'd been through in the past four years made it absolutely inevitable that the American people could not possibly choose to reelect the incumbent. So... yeah.
posted by koeselitz at 7:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sanders has a very very outside chance but the reality is pretty much that he has no hope of winning the nomination now. Ignoring the superdelegates (which should be ignored because they can change their mind up until the last minute) she has a delegate lead off over 200 delegates. When Obama got a 100 delegate lead in 2008 it was effectively over because even with strong performances in alot of later states Clinton just couldn't close the gap with Obama.

This election is similar except that Clinton has a even bigger lead and is polling much much better than Sanders in almost every major state. Sanders would need to move the dial dramatically to create the winning percentages he'd need to rack up big delegate totals.

On the other hand he's apparently got a ton of cash on hand and a very supportive base and so there really is no harm in having him stick around and continue to campaign until the convention. I figure the major thing he'll focus on is trying to keep Hillary adopting progressive positions and attacking Trump.

I think there will be a significant shift toward Clinton in polling though because Americans like to join with the winner and increasingly Clinton looks like a lock.
posted by vuron at 7:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hate is a strong emotion, and emotions aren't logical. People may be latching on to one of many issues, topics, comments or things they think she might have said or stood for.


So... do the Republicans not have superdelegates?

Nope, it's only a Dem thing.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:04 AM on March 2, 2016


FiveThirtyEight says Hillary Clinton's Got This. The delegate math is brutal for Sanders, who has to outperform Clinton to the tune of almost 200 pledged delegates through the rest of the race.
posted by graymouser at 7:06 AM on March 2, 2016


Oh and no Republicans don't have super delegates which is no doubt making some party elites very very angry right now because they are running out of options to stump the Trump. I anticipate though the the RNC will put a super delegate system into place after this election because they aren't going to ever want a repeat of this mess.

It would be interesting to see if they abandon the winner take all model that they still have in some states. That would probably be less likely but I could still see it happening.
posted by vuron at 7:07 AM on March 2, 2016


On the other hand he's apparently got a ton of cash on hand and a very supportive base and so there really is no harm in having him stick around and continue to campaign until the convention. I figure the major thing he'll focus on is trying to keep Hillary adopting progressive positions and attacking Trump.

Not only this- I think that even if HRC wins the nomination decisively, the long term future of the American left looks more like Sanders. And by remaining engaged, and encouraging his supporters to get out there and vote in the general and impact the downticket races, Sanders will be laying the groundwork for his platform to be implemented. If not in 2016, then later on.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:09 AM on March 2, 2016 [27 favorites]


running out of options to stump the Trump

They could bank roll a tonne of litigations against him. I doubt there's a shortage of people wanting to take him to court.

(I know nothing of American courts. What I mean is: fuck the guy with lawyers.)
posted by popcassady at 7:10 AM on March 2, 2016


Not only this- I think that even if HRC wins the nomination decisively, the long term future of the American left looks more like Sanders.

This is a very good point. If Sanders isn't the nominee, a more progressive, young candidate could come and challenge Clinton in 2020 if she is the president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on March 2, 2016


Not only this- I think that even if HRC wins the nomination decisively, the long term future of the American left looks more like Sanders. And by remaining engaged, and encouraging his supporters to get out there and vote in the general and impact the downticket races, Sanders will be laying the groundwork for his platform to be implemented. If not in 2016, then later on.

Seconded. I'm a Hillary supporter and I think she'll win this but the party's future clearly belongs to Bernie's supporters, as long as they stick to it for the next decade.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:11 AM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Aggregated prediction markets put Hillary at over 95% to win the nomination.
posted by OmieWise at 7:11 AM on March 2, 2016


I read it from a Sanders supporter in another thread. The rhetoric was pretty condemnatory

Oh well if CincyBlues agreed with the chairwoman of the DNC in a condemnatory fashion I guess that adds up to their common point not being a legitimate criticism then
posted by XMLicious at 7:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Seconded. I'm a Hillary supporter and I think she'll win this but the party's future clearly belongs to Bernie's supporters, as long as they stick to it for the next decade.

I very much hope so.
posted by OmieWise at 7:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can see why people prefer Bernie over Hillary. But I just don't get the pathological need to despise every word that comes out of her mouth, every action she takes.

I can't speak for all Sanders supporters, but I don't hate Hillary, I'm just very, very suspicious of her. She's under FBI investigation. She is very clearly bought and paid for by Wall Street. She doesn't take a stand on anything unless it appears favorable. And my gut feeling when she speaks is that she comes across as really fake.

We really, really could have health care for everyone in this country if we just made the wealthy and the corporations pay their share of taxes. She might broaden the ACA in some small way, but I expect Hillary to do little to nothing about this.

I would have loved the opportunity to vote for Elizabeth Warren in this election. I suppose she feels that she's fighting the good fight where she is, but I would have been proud to elect her as our first female president.

Hillary I won't be proud of.
posted by Fleebnork at 7:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [29 favorites]


When you factor out the bullshit "superdelegates" it's a pretty close race, considering that Hillary Clinton appears to be doing very well in states, which I as a New York Jew, think three times before visiting, and consequently aren't going to go Democrat in the General anyway.
posted by mikelieman at 7:15 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh well if CincyBlues agreed with the chairwoman of the DNC in a condemnatory fashion I guess that adds up to their common point not being a legitimate criticism then

On the contrary, I agree with you that my example was flawed. I didn't know about DWS' position prior to your post, and was just trying to explain why I reached the conclusion I did.
posted by OmieWise at 7:17 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just don't think the world can endure the consequences of her making another bad decision like the one giving the Bush Gang AUMF-Iraq, and all the death, destruction, and chaos caused.
posted by mikelieman at 7:17 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


That Travis county GOP chairman is a piece of work and gives great soundbites, but I think the real money quote is
"Although Morrow was elected with just more than 25,000 votes — 6,000 more than his one challenger, the incumbent chair James Dickey — Mackowiak said he and others would consider leaving the county party altogether to form a new Republican organization if they could not remove Morrow from office."
Watch those down ticket fissures grow into cracks into canyons.
posted by klarck at 7:26 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


VP Russ Feingold!
posted by ian1977 at 7:27 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Nikki Haley: "I think what he’ll do to the Republican Party is really make us question who we are and what we’re about. And that’s something we don’t want to see happen."

Introspection, what's that?
posted by Tanizaki at 7:32 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


These are the same people who literally booed the concept of "facts" at a recent GOP debate.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:39 AM on March 2, 2016


This is a quote from Ted Cruz, at the Redneck Country Club, where he held his post super Tuesday celebration, via The Guardian, with regard to Donald Trump, “America shouldn’t have a president whose words would you make you embarrassed if your children repeated it.”
posted by Oyéah at 7:40 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Last night, Christie looked like he was listening intently so that he could bolt through the crowd the moment the phrase "annex the Sudetenland" was spoken.
posted by delfin at 7:41 AM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


On stopping Trump.
posted by Wordshore at 7:41 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


In one city in Massachusetts, Sanders won by one vote (Globe article).
posted by Melismata at 7:42 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]




> "Hillary Clinton appears to be doing very well in states, which ... aren't going to go Democrat in the General anyway."

I've seen this floating around, and it's silly. Take away every state that went to McCain instead of Obama, and Hillary still won primaries or caucuses in Nevada, Virginia, Iowa, and Massachusetts. And even if she hadn't, so what? States Barack Obama lost in the 2008 primaries included California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (and I could go on longer with more blue states), and he won in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina (and I could go on longer with more red states.) The supposed relationship between who wins which state in the primary and who wins them in the general seems pretty much fictional, and the end result of this line of thinking is silencing the opinions of a lot of Democrats who would like a voice in where their party goes even if they live in Tucson or Atlanta, thanks very much.
posted by kyrademon at 7:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


My Facebook feed is full of Minnesotans proud to see that Trump did worse here than anywhere else. This is such a scary year that I guess we are looking for some consolation, however small.
posted by Area Man at 7:49 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


On stopping Trump.

That John Oliver piece cost him Minnesota, you know.
posted by Tanizaki at 7:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The idea that the voices of southern Democrats shouldn't matter is frankly offensive. Maybe African-American voters should only get 3/5ths of a vote since they obviously don't vote their interests.

And people wonder why progressives struggle to find traction in many communities. It is extremely off putting to be whitesplained by an earnest young white college student about how minimum wage is equivalent to slavery.
posted by vuron at 7:55 AM on March 2, 2016 [34 favorites]


proud to see that Trump did worse here than anywhere else.
truth be told, the republican primary at this point shares the tag line with Alien vs Predator.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:55 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


The supposed relationship between who wins which state in the primary and who wins them in the general seems pretty much fictional, and the end result of this line of thinking is silencing the opinions of a lot of Democrats who would like a voice in where their party goes even if they live in Tucson or Atlanta, thanks very much.

Is it really surprising that Hilary is winning bigger in more purple-ish states? If Bernie can't carry the Democratic primary vote in Virginia or South Carolina, what does that say about his ability to do it in the general when he will have to appeal to actual moderates and marginal Democrats who aren't engaged in the primary process?

I'd love to see a Bernie nomination strictly based on policy goals, which I emphatically believe Hilary does not and has never shared, and will not support as President. But Bernie has a real coalition-building problem that is undeniable at this point, and he doesn't appear to have any idea how to overcome it. He can still do good for the party future by staying in the race, taking it to the convention and refusing to let Hilary conduct Wall Street's business as usual campaign that she would have otherwise run absent the Bern. But it's looking like that's going to be his ceiling absent a dramatic turnaround with minority voters.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is part of Bernie's problem with minority voters that he's just never had to try to woo them before? Is there a set of relationships and strategies that a politician in a more ethnically diverse state develops that Bernie just hasn't had to?
posted by Area Man at 8:10 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is Stephen White's Storify on "Why I Don't Fuck With Bernie Sanders"

White is a former NFL player and current sports blogger/journalist.
posted by Trochanter at 8:11 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Obama was further to the left of HRC, and his presidency was one shifting to the center and full of disappointments for progressives. Maybe it's better that way. Keep Sanders in the Senate and in the loyal opposition, and keep dragging the new Clinton administration to the left every step in the way. But that's the rub, right? Presidential horse races are fun, but a movement needs to be more than a man. The Sanders movement needs to survive this race. It needs to keep on marching on.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Now there's a petition for the DNC to cancel Hillary's delegates in MA because of Bill's shenanigans.

A little absurd, I guess. But there should be some kind of consequence for breaking that polling-place law, or we're going to see the Trumpians doing worse things than this come Nov. 4.
posted by dis_integration at 8:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I still just can't wrap my head around liberals who love Bernie Sanders, but hate -- white hot, fiery hate -- a person who voted with him 93% of the time in the Senate.

Maybe the friends, families, and ghosts of half a million dead Iraqis, 4,400 dead U.S. soldiers, and god knows how many else affected by US-led destabilization could explain it to you. For starters.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


I agree she should have some punishment, even if it isn't taking away delegates.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "So what do Cruise [sic] and Rubio need to do to make it to the (wild, wacky, crazy fun) brokered convention?"

Basically, their best bet is to keep Trump from winning a bunch of the big winner-take-all states coming up on the Republican side. If on March 15th other people win, say, Florida and Ohio, that's 165 delegates he's not getting any of, even if he wins 49.9% of the vote.

The problem is, that probably means that the divided field is working for Trump. It's been theorized (hoped?) that he may have a high floor but a low ceiling -- that is to say, it may be that 35% of the people in State X will vote for him no matter what, but only 45% of the people there would vote for him even if all the other candidates suddenly dropped dead. If that's true (and bear in mind it's an if), then his high floor likely means he's going to start cleaning up the winner-take-all states 35%/30%/27% or whatever, just like he's been doing, which would quickly start making him unstoppable.

I can only see two paths out of it -- 1) At least one of his major opponents drops out, clearing the field. 2) His major opponents agree to split the field, and focus all their advertising and efforts on any state they individually have the best chance of winning and completely ignore the rest, basically punting wherever they aren't favored. That could end up with Cruz and Rubio picking up enough states between them to keep Trump from crossing the threshold. These are the scenarios where Trump's theoretically low ceiling could stop him.

Both paths frankly seem unlikely to me.
posted by kyrademon at 8:14 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


The only way to stop him at the polls would be to unify Cruz and Rubio's support, but I don't see how that happens. They're not going to share a ticket (Cruz/Kasich or Rubio/Kasich would be possible, but Kasich doesn't have enough support to lend for that to be worthwhile), Cruz will never drop out if he's still getting any votes at all, and the GOP establishment barely prefers him to Trump; they're not going to force Rubio out so Cruz can win. It's a clusterfuck.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:29 AM on March 2, 2016


Honestly I don't think the Republicans can stop Trump.

He seems to be slowly losing support to Ruboto and Cruz in some races but fortunately/unfortunately they also seem to be keeping each other from achieving the critical mass necessary to stump the trump.

I think the reality is neither Cruz or Rubio want to bend their knees to the other candidate (because the Republican party really doesn't care for loser stink) but there might be some pressure put on both of them to join up and fight crime.

I was unfortunate enough to listen to a snippet of conservative talk radio and they were bragging about how well Cruz did and how Rubio needs to drop out and become Cruz's running mate and somehow get Rand Paul in on the whole schtick.

I was a social conservative wet dream and of course it was desperate wish-making but the reality is that there are a lot of social conservatives that absolutely loathe Trump and all he stands for and they want him stopped no matter what. What will be interesting is if their loathing is enough to overlook their loathing of Hillary and vote for her in November.
posted by vuron at 8:35 AM on March 2, 2016


You know what I'd love to see? I want to see someone who could run for President, someone who has the name recognition and the policy chops to try for the nomination but instead says, "Nah, I'm not running for President, I'm taking donations and traveling from state to state so we can get every single up for grabs chair filled with a progressive candidate, Democrat or not."

Man, I'd donate to that so frigging hard.

Wait, that's the Democratic Party, right? Who's running that again? Oh, yeah, the payday lender stooge.

*sigh*
posted by Mooski at 8:36 AM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


You know what I'd love to see? I want to see someone who could run for President, someone who has the name recognition and the policy chops to try for the nomination but instead says, "Nah, I'm not running for President, I'm taking donations and traveling from state to state so we can get every single up for grabs chair filled with a progressive candidate, Democrat or not."

Elizabeth Warren. But she is too busy kicking ass to do this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


But Bernie a real coalition-building problem that is undeniable at this point, and he doesn't appear to have any idea how to overcome it.

Yes and no. I think you are right if the frame of reference is limited to primary season. It's my opinion that Sanders is trying to build beyond this election cycle, too. He's frequently mentioned that a key goal of his is to get folks who feel a sense of powerlessness to realize that democracy ought to work for us all. For myself, I try to keep in mind that this has always been an uphill struggle and that the primary process, while not rigged, is certainly not in favor of an outsider taking on the establishment. It is remarkable, especially given the complexity of the economic ideas that are central to his critique of the establishment, that he has done so well. And yet, it is no surprise that many folks prefer what they deem to be the safer route to the presidency by supporting the establishment candidate. After all, the goal is to prevent a highly dangerous and dysfunctional Republican party from capturing the presidency.

Even so, as much as some folks would like to insist that the Sanders campaign is now a failure, it rolls on and will have an impact at the convention (and beyond.) There is still a long way to go--they've only chosen approx 1/4 of the delegates thus far and while it is true that Clinton is in a better position, it is also true that Sanders will win a lot more delegates to take into the convention.

Last night, while wading through the Trump commentary (here and elsewhere) I was reminded of the urging of a mentor of mine back in the early 80s. I was working on a graduate degree in History (which, sadly, I eventually abandoned) and a professor who had taken me under his wing kept strongly suggesting that I do my thesis on Elias Canetti's book, Crowds and Power. It wasn't my main area of interest but I did read it. It's a very thought-provoking book. It was written in 1960 and is a wide-ranging rumination in the wake of WWII, when trying to understand just how things went so wrong was a common theme. It's not everyone's cup of tea (here is a critical review) but as I said, it makes one think. Anyhow, I scooped my copy off the shelf last night and put it into my pile of "books-in-the-queue." Folks interested in the interplay between crowds and power from a sociological perspective might find it worth a read. I'm looking forward to the re-read.
posted by CincyBlues at 8:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Look guys, this whole "Republicans wouldn't be fighting Trump if they thought he could win" is just stereotyping us all into a Trump-sized grave. Republicans of principle do actually love the country, and Trump is bad for all America stands for. We are way more afraid of him winning than losing.
posted by corb at 8:40 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Look guys, this whole "Republicans wouldn't be fighting Trump if they thought he could win" is just stereotyping us all into a Trump-sized grave. Republicans of principle do actually love the country, and Trump is bad for all America stands for. We are way more afraid of him winning than losing.

Exactly. Only 30-35% of Republicans want to see the country burned to the ground.
posted by Talez at 8:44 AM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I hope that is the case, corb, and we'll be able to clearly know this in November. The metric is how many Republicans hold their nose and vote for Hillary.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


We are way more afraid of him winning than losing.

Versus who, though? Cruz or Rubio?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Look guys, this whole "Republicans wouldn't be fighting Trump if they thought he could win" is just stereotyping us all into a Trump-sized grave. Republicans of principle do actually love the country, and Trump is bad for all America stands for.We are way more afraid of him winning than losing.

Only you're not. Not unless you're willing to vote for Hilary to stop him.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


It'd be cool if Sanders uses his concession speech to announce the building of some sort of mass movement that will continue voter mobilization for progressive causes, regardless who's in the White House. All of this infrastructure that's grown up around his campaign must march on.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Trump's campaign has normalized hate, and the best the GOP can do is mock his spray tan. The Klan is back. American Nazis are back. Hate groups are spreading.
- - - - -
Those things haven't gone away. The best thing from this campaign may be that we have to finally face those things instead of pretending that they are ghosts of the past.


(White) Me and my (Black) wife have a conversation along these lines on an almost-daily basis now, especially now that we're expecting our first child in less than two months.

When we find ourselves despairing about the re-mainstreaming of race hate in American politics, we comfort ourselves--comfort ourselves!--with the idea that things were always this terrible, and it's just that it's impossible to ignore now.

But then we remember that we've been together for 7+ years, and only in the last six months or so have we started getting nasty looks from strangers, seen a pickup with a Confederate flag sticker slow to a crawl as the driver leered at us, had a cab driver wordlessly refuse to take us home. My wife and I live in what's probably one of the safest areas of the US for mixed-race couples (DC suburbs/Maryland), and we've been really lucky in that we haven't seen/noticed those types of reactions for most of our relationship. But that has changed. And yeah, it could be confirmation bias now that we're constantly on our guard, but it reeeeeeeeeeeeally doesn't feel that way.

My point is that Donald Trump (and the Tea Party, and plenty of others) have done more than simply tear off America's post-racial mask. Trump is not simply uncovering white supremacy, he is emboldening white supremacists. He is creating white supremacists.

When we talk about this stuff with well-meaning friends and family, they often tell us how much better it is to have overt racism than subtle/implied racism. This is something I used to say, too. That's because, as a white man in America, I never had to personally deal with the consequences of either "overt" or "subtle" racism. And now it really makes me twitch when I hear people talk about how much better it is when race hate is overt. Today's overt is tomorrow's normalized.
posted by duffell at 8:50 AM on March 2, 2016 [98 favorites]


Republican Disaster (via bngbng):
GOP has for a long time been destroying trust in press, experts, basically everyone ppl don't know personally.

At the same time, they have been amping up importance of politics by telling ppl that America is being destroyed by Dems, etc.

So their followers think politics is a matter of insane urgency, but have no one to help them get good info about what to do.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:52 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Even if I was remotely willing to vote for a Republican (pro-tip short of Zombie Lincoln entering the race it's not happening) the slate of Republicans was godawful corb.

Trump- Bully and quite possibly deranged
Christie- Bully
Carson- Pretty sure this guy isn't actually running for president but merely engaged in the best long con ever
Cruz- Total asshole who is hated by his own party, brilliant sociopath and my desire to have Hannibal Lecter as president approaches zero unless he's played by Mads Mikkelsen
Rubio- almost as abhorrent of social positions as Cruz, also painfully unprepared for the Presidency
Paul- hahahaha

So basically you guys put two candidates (Bush and Kasich) that were even remotely palatable to centrists and let's be honest neither of them has even the slightest bit of charisma so they were always doomed outside of the party elite.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


corb: “Look guys, this whole 'Republicans wouldn't be fighting Trump if they thought he could win' is just stereotyping us all into a Trump-sized grave.”

Certainly Republicans aren't all like that – but the Republican establishment (which I have to say, is very distinct from the Republican population at large, in my experience) has said that a lot. Mitch McConnell has said over and over again that if Trump wins the nomination, we need to prepare for a Trump loss in the general, because that is inevitable. Lindsay Graham has said twice in as many days that Republicans are "about to lose to the most dishonest person in America," and lamented that it's gotten to this point. In general, among higher-ranking Republicans who are against Trump, their reasoning seems to be: they're against him because they regard him as unelectable, and as guaranteeing a Hillary Clinton presidency.

And – this is the thing to notice – their golden boy, Marco Rubio, is now pulling precisely the same trash talk and gross personal attacks that Donald Trump is famous for. He's making penis jokes ("You know what they say about a man with small hands, right? – You can't trust him.") and saying things like "Donald Trump should sue whoever did that to his face." He's playing exactly the same game. So clearly, if Marco Rubio is against Donald Trump, it's not because he regards Trump as a dirty dealer; Rubio's willing to get right down there in the pigpen with him, so it's not that. It's electability.

Meanwhile, I've heard from a lot of Trump supporters that they're "trolling" – even Breitbart's young star, Milo Yiannopoulis (you remember, the guy that likes to say that women are naturally dumber than men, and that women should be worried about sex robots because they'll make women obsolete) has said it outright, that they're "trolling establishment conservatives in particular."

This is the young generation of Republicans. This whole thing appears to be a battle for the soul of the Republican party, and I'm a bit worried, because the establishment doesn't seem to understand that or care; they are more concerned about electability.

Honestly, down to a woman, every single conservative woman I know personally is disgusted with this whole thing and trending hard libertarian, because they see the Republican party tossing the few actual, honest-to-god conservatives out of the boat (what the hell happened to Rand Paul, anyway?) and sticking with people like Trump. Frankly, if Trump and Cruz weren't up there, Rubio wouldn't seem like such a nice guy, either. As it is, he seems like the sane option, even though his commitment to conservative ideals is very much in doubt.
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


vuron: “Paul- hahahaha”

There are days, god help me, when Rand Paul seems much preferable to Hillary Clinton. Usually those are the days when I think about our foreign policy.
posted by koeselitz at 8:56 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


From The Atlantic, another angle on Why Trump? Plus some advice for the GOP:

Donald Trump: The Protector
Like many people, I have been wondering: What on Earth explains Donald Trump’s remarkable appeal to voters?

I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is fairly simple. The message of his Republican opponents has effectively been: We are more faithful to conservative principles. Trump’s message has been entirely different. He essentially says: I will protect you. I’m conservative, but if protecting you requires jettisoning conservative ideology, I will do so. Protecting you is the prime directive. This message has powerful resonance, especially for voters who feel the Republican Party has failed to protect their interests.

You see this pattern in all of Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy. Take the debate over Planned Parenthood. Like all conservatives, Trump opposes abortions. But he stresses he does not want to stop funding their wonderful work protecting women from cervical and breast cancer. The other Republican candidates simply express a desire to destroy Planned Parenthood outright. Trump’s message to voters: The other candidates will adhere rigidly to ideology, even if it needlessly fails to protect millions of women from cancer. I won’t.

...

They also need to stress that protection through a strong man has a dark side. Here, Trump has given them plenty of ammunition, like his suggestion that he would like to change constitutional law so he could use libel laws to suppress critique. Voters who crave protection must be directly confronted with a new question: If you empower a strong man to protect you, who is going to protect you from the protector?
posted by valetta at 8:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


(pro-tip short of Zombie Lincoln entering the race it's not happening)

Zombie Eisenhower would at least weep, raise the gas tax and rebuild the Interstate system. Then he'd hopefully make another "damn fool mistake" and appoint Zombie Warren to the Supreme Court.
posted by Talez at 8:59 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Meanwhile, I've scouted out National Review's coverage this morning so you don't have to.

On to Cleveland: The Republican Nomination Will Be Decided at the Convention:

"If anything, taking this to the convention and fighting until the bitter end is a necessary battle for the soul of the party of Lincoln and the movement it has come to be associated with. There can be no catharsis unless the resistance is fierce."

"Trump would lose the Senate for the GOP... [he] would expose the House conference to deep losses. And he would devastate the party in... the state legislatures."

"What happens in the voting booths will be mere political prologue, as the electoral universe shrinks to 2,472... on the convention floor, stump speeches and messaging go out the window — at that point, it will all be about the art of the deal."

Jonah Goldberg, "For Trump Supporters, a Reckoning Is at Hand":

"I don’t know whether Trump will win the nomination or the presidency. But I am fairly certain that if he does, a great many people will one day say, 'My God, what have I done?'"

Victor David Hanson, "Donald Trump: How to Fight Him":

"But if Trump can snag the nomination in March or early April, and with it the machinery of the Republican establishment, then he will get airbrushed with endorsements and big money, as he turns his invective toward Hillary Clinton. An array of friendly party experts will comb his past to provide the usual contextualizations, half-truth defenses, and excuses of the sort Hillary has mastered in the last 20 years to explain away her serial lying and hypocrisies. In other words, get Trump through March with a hold on the nomination, and then his glaring flaws and abysmal record are reduced to 'He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard,' or 'Hillary does even worse stuff.'"
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:59 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


they're against him because they regard him as unelectable, and as guaranteeing a Hillary Clinton presidency.

This is highlighted by their insistence that they will vote for him if he is the nominee. "I'm a loyal Republican" is the phrase I've heard from more than one GOP leader. Not "I'm a loyal American," mind you, a loyal Republican.
posted by OmieWise at 9:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


So... do the Republicans not have superdelegates? You'd think that the party would jump on that to retain control.

As a party, right at this moment I think they're lucky they don't have superdelegates. I don't have any idea of who will end up being president, nor do I think anybody really has, given the absolute chaos this presidential election season has been for all concerned. But I think that if Trump wins the most delegates by any significant portion, there is no way the Republican Party can shut him out without descending into chaos. Even if he doesn't run as a third party candidate, it would be disastrous for anyone in charge (if there is anyone in charge at this point) in this election and the next. Whatever they or we think of him, he's tapped into a large and enthusiastic groundswell of support. I don't think those people will go away quietly: they'll just vote for more and more appalling down ticket candidates or against whomever seems anointed by anyone in authority. And that runs counter to having a cohesive block that can pass whatever legislation the Koch brothers need passed today.

Or, they could all gather and sing kumbaya at the convention while sitting around a fire made of burning effigies of the democratic candidate. That also would not surprise me.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 9:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rubio didn't do well enough in the contest, and there's still a real dislike of Cruz (almost as much as Trump); but it's moot anyway: if we reach the end and there's a brokered convention that anoints Cruz or Rubio, roughly 33% of the 50% of the electorate that is the Republican Party is either going to 1-Split and do an independent run (I know Trump said he wouldn't; he also said he didn't know who David Duke was), or 2-Stay home in a funk because their favorite celebrity didn't win. Those are, essentially, votes for Hillary.

If they split, it may be permanent. If it's permanent, I fear for the future: the New Republican Party, the one Trump is energizing and turning out, would be unrecognizable to Eisenhower Republicans, and is barely recognizable to Reagan Republicans
posted by eclectist at 9:01 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


That and if they really were so smart about Trump's electability, they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:01 AM on March 2, 2016


Over the last few days as I've slowly began to accept the reality of Donald Trump, I can't stop thinking about White Noise, by Don Delillo. One obvious corollary being that the main character is a pioneer in the field of Hitler Studies, the other being the deep, collective human desire for spectacle and disaster, especially beautiful disaster.

“Words, pictures, numbers, facts, graphics, statistics, specks, waves, particles, motes. Only a catastrophe gets our attention. We want them, we need them, we depend on them. As long as they happen somewhere else. This is where California comes in. Mud slides, brush fires, coastal erosion, earthquakes, mass killings, et cetera. We can relax and enjoy these disasters because in our hearts we feel that California deserves whatever it gets. Californians invented the concept of life-style. This alone warrants their doom."

Substitute Californians for whatever you wish.
posted by localhuman at 9:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Pundits.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


We were having a conversation about electoral math and Trump on FB, and I thought some folks here might be interested in these vote totals as well. These are from the NY Times, and I didn't do every state. The number at the bottom (xx) is the Electoral College number.

What I find most interesting here is that VA went (D) in both '08 and '12, but had a bigger showing in the (R) primary yesterday than the (D).

Also, in MA, HRC and Sanders BOTH got more votes than the TOTAL of votes cast in the (R) primary.

Cruz got 1.2M votes in TX, very close to the total of all (D) votes combined.

MASS (primary)
R - 593,223
D - 1,182,842 +
Obama '08 '12
(12)

VA (primary)
R - 953,393 +
D - 780,329
Obama '08 '13
(13)

TX (primary)
R - 2,617,887 +
D - 1,403,985
(Repub Nom) '08 '12
(34)

ARK (primary)
R - 372,871 +
D - 207,000
(Repub Nom) '08 '12
(6)

MN (caucuses)
R - 105,099
D - 185,312 +
Obama '08 '12
(10)

TN (primary)
R - 789,651 +
D - 365,637
(Repub Nom) '08 '12
(11)
posted by anastasiav at 9:06 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Primary vote totals aren't necessarily correlated to presidential vote totals though so I'm very cautious to infer much from the vote totals other than the Republican race is attracting a lot of interest.
posted by vuron at 9:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


> "If anything, taking this to the convention and fighting until the bitter end is a necessary battle for the soul of the party of Lincoln and the movement it has come to be associated with.

"Come to be associated with." Like the Republican Party just caught a cold, even though they wore a hat and scarf! NRO is still pushing this "Trump just happened" narrative to absolve themselves and the rest of the Republican establishment of blame. What a bunch of assholes. It's going to be even grosser when they swallow their collective pride, like Christie already did, and rally behind him in the name of stopping Hillary.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:14 AM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


The interest the Republican race is attracting is interesting, though – if only because the Republican establishment thinks Trump will lose specifically because many, many people will turn out to vote against him.
posted by koeselitz at 9:14 AM on March 2, 2016


I think any attempt to correlate primary turnout numbers to electoral votes in November is going to shed more heat (noise, really) than light. For instance, Sanders has done abysmally with black voters to date, but is there any real question that black voters would turn out hugely for any Democratic nominee vs. Trump? My exhibit A is the fact that in South Carolina, Clinton actually did better among African-American voters this year than Obama did in '08. Does that mean she's more popular than Obama in the black community? I rather think not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:15 AM on March 2, 2016




The thing I still don't understand about Cruz & Rubio's plans to take it to the convention is that they need to have majorities of the delegates in eight states to even make the first ballot, which will be really difficult for them to achieve (Trump already has five, Cruz just got one). They can't force a second ballot if they aren't even on the first one. I believe that was a recent rule change that was intended to prevent e.g. Ron Paul from making some insurgent showing at the convention, but now it's Rubio and Cruz who are trying to play the insurgents and it's working against the establishment. @taniel has had great coverage of the Republican delegate math.

I think my favorite thing that happened last night is that a democratic socialist won Oklahoma by ten points. I never thought I'd see the day in my lifetime and I'm totally shocked that everyone is like "yeah, no surprise, whatever" about it. I've identified as a democratic socialist for the last 15 years and if you told me back at the beginning that a democratic socialist would win a Democratic primary in Oklahoma, I would have laughed myself half to death.

It looks like Sanders did much better among non-white people in MA (he got 40%, much better than his showings in the South) and appears to have had great showings with Latinos and Native Americans in both Oklahoma and Colorado too, though I wish I could find real entrance polls for the latter.
posted by dialetheia at 9:18 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]




Trump might be rich (although I have my doubts) but there is absolutely no way he survives a general election without the Republican Party bankrolling him.

The smarter money is to sock away that half billion the Koches were planning on spending on use it on downticket races in an attempt to limit the bloodletting.
posted by vuron at 9:21 AM on March 2, 2016


It's going to be even grosser when they swallow their collective pride, like Christie already did, and rally behind him in the name of stopping Hillary.

He didn't swallow his pride so much as light it on fire on a Jersey beach and walk away into the night with a Springsteen power ballad playing over the credits.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:22 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Sanders' showing in Oklahoma reminded me of this good anthology of essays on Oklahoma's leftist and radical history: An Oklahoma I Had Never Seen Before: Alternative Views of Oklahoma History.
posted by audi alteram partem at 9:23 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


More on the GOP delegates (no superdelegates, but they have a handful of "unbound" delegates, who, due to a recent rule change, would still be obliged to vote as their state did - either proportionally or winner take all). If Trump doesn't get 1237 delegates (50%), there will be a contested convention.

The continued candidacies of Cruz, Ben Carson and Kasich are of great significance even if none of them any longer have a credible path to the nomination. The more delegates they siphon off on Super Tuesday and beyond, the greater the odds neither Rubio nor Trump racks up 1,237 delegates by June, raising the prospect of a multi-ballot Cleveland convention in July.

And what could possibly compound the chaos of a contested convention? Just imagine a convoluted scenario in which Trump winds up with fewer delegates than Rubio despite having won the most votes heading into a contested convention, while Cruz and Kasich delegates are the ultimate arbiters of the nomination on a second or third ballot. Cue an angry press conference at which a red-faced Trump accuses the Republican National Committee of fixing the rules against him and thwarting the will of GOP voters. But the RNC’s rules predate Trump’s rise, and they may be party leaders’ only hope of averting a likely Trump shipwreck in November.


Data, Not Dirt, Is the GOP’s Last Defense Against Trump

How it would work if no one gets 50% of the delegates and the party doesn't have a nominee:

That's where things get interesting. The delegates have to keep voting until more than 50 percent of them rally behind one candidate, and so multiple rounds of voting are held. In between these rounds (which are officially, and confusingly, called "ballots"), the candidates and their supporters will lobby individual delegates, attempting to convince them to change their votes. This keeps going until one candidate secures the support of more than half of the delegates.

But wait, you're asking. Aren't all of the delegates, even superdelegates, required to support the candidate that their state voted for? If that's the case, how can they change their vote midway through the convention?

The answer is that some delegates will suddenly become free agents if the convention is contested. Whether this happens, and how, is different for each delegate, simply because each statewide branch of the Republican Party sets its own delegate rules.


Campaigns secretly prep for brokered GOP convention

Here are the GOP delegate allocation rules by state.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:27 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


It's going to be even grosser when they swallow their collective pride...

Yeah, it's pretty gross particularly coming from people like Jonah Goldberg who wrote a whole book on "Liberal Fascism". As was pointed out above, if you spend decades saying that the other side are fascist/communist/socialist tyrants and don't put forward a positive, workable program of your own, eventually your supporters are going to go for the real deal.

This applies to the Democratic Party as well. Business-as-usual politics is not going to cut it any more; the faster the DNC and the presumptive nominee understand that, not in a "we have to do more outreach to progressives" sense, but in the "the era of centrist government is over" sense, the better off the country and the Democratic Party will be.

Republicans have already tossed their responsibility for the Iraq War down the memory toilet, and Donald Trump's about to hit the flusher. It's not going to work for Democrats to be the party of neo-liberal economics and cautious social progress anymore. They'll get outflanked by the Republicans' Brand New Populist Day messaging, probably not this year but certainly in the 2018 midterms and possibly in 2020, if trends continue and the Democrats have to defend ten full years of being in the White House and accomplishing almost nothing. (Yeah, it'll have been the Republican Congress' fault. But the voters will hold the President accountable. The Executive owns the gridlock, it's just the way it is.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:29 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


If this goes to a brokered convention, I expect the media and the internet to break themselves.
posted by nubs at 9:29 AM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


It is entirely in good faith. I can see why people prefer Bernie over Hillary. But I just don't get the pathological need to despise every word that comes out of her mouth, every action she takes. I see it on my Facebook wall, Twitter, everywhere. It's like a certain group of Democrats hates her more than Republicans. I find it odd, is all.

The Democratic party is currently dominated by supporters of the Clintons. How does that work? The Clintons are able to get people jobs, either within politics or outside of politics. How do they do this? They do this because they have access to money and people who have money, specifically big business and Wall Street. The Clintons have raised over 1 billion dollars in political contributions over their career, which translates into two generations of political operatives who owe their careers to the Clintons. The Obama administration was defined by the fact that the people brought into the White House were largely old Clinton hands.

What the Clintons represent is a Democratic party that is dominated by the interests of Wall Street and big business. Senate votes are entirely a distraction from this basic fact. IMHO, US politics has very little to do with political belief or "ideology," it's about personnel.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:32 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]




How it would work if no one gets 50% of the delegates and the party doesn't have a nominee

Worth also noting that Ohio is an open carry state. There's a non-trivial chance of Trump supporters literally holding a brokered convention at gunpoint.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:36 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




What I hope Bernie Sanders is doing is developing an opposition organization *within* the Democratic party, regardless of whether he wins the nomination (which has always been unlikely). Again, building that organization is about being able to find jobs for people who don't like what Wall Street and big business have done to America, which comes down to raising money. But, if you aren't willing to fight against the people who currently run the Democratic party (see: Howard Dean) then it will have been for nothing.

So, there's a lot to hope for, even if Bernie won't win. But it will require supporting him even when Hillary starts screaming disloyalty as he continues to campaign against her.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:37 AM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


This is the young generation of Republicans. This whole thing appears to be a battle for the soul of the Republican party, and I'm a bit worried, because the establishment doesn't seem to understand that or care; they are more concerned about electability.

It is a battle for control of the Republican Party, but not being won by people who self-identify as Republicans.

The conservative think tanks spent forty years reinforcing a message: If you are not in line with what we want, you are neither a real conservative nor a real Republican. Talk radio and TV talking heads and newspaper pundits and howling bloggers all repeat the same mantra; conservatism never fails, it can only be failed by weak-willed politicians. Compromise, even compromise tilted in your favor, is the mark of the RINO. All taxes are always evil and unnecessary. All liberals are always wrong. Always attack, never retreat, and dehumanize whoever doesn't fall in line.

So, slowly, the rank-and-file realized that they need the party apparatus to achieve their goals but _not_ its current leaders. When you have the fabled 27% of Americans who've been carefully sculpted to respond with knee-jerk anger to even the smallest deviation from what they want (and what they keep hearing they're entitled to), why even pretend to show respect to the old wheel-and-dealers? Even the hardliners are pilloried once they get into power and acknowledge reality outside the ultraconservative bubble, as Paul Ryan is finding out currently.

Trump is... interesting in that regard. He deviates when he wants to -- what other modern Repub candidate could say "Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for women" and not get pelted with tomatoes? -- because he has read the anger in 27% America and their desire for authoritarian leadership and their dissatisfaction with Mainstream Republicans and plays it like a Stradivarius. He can say "You want an outsider? I'm a REAL outsider" and he carries the anger wave off with him like a trophy.
posted by delfin at 9:38 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Look guys, this whole "Republicans wouldn't be fighting Trump if they thought he could win" is just stereotyping us all into a Trump-sized grave. Republicans of principle do actually love the country, and Trump is bad for all America stands for. We are way more afraid of him winning than losing.

I will point out that boy wonder Paul Ryan took a principled stand to say “If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices,”

Then he concluded by answering questions where he said he'd support whoever the nominee is.

So color me skeptical that these supposed republicans of principle would take a Dem president over a Trump win.
posted by phearlez at 9:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


@rickwtyler: Looming Disaster: GOP donors will not give to a "Trump RNC". Even Donald can't fund the GOP and a general election campaign.

Is there any reporting to back this up? I would be really interested to read comments by actual donors.

Cue an angry press conference at which a red-faced Trump accuses the Republican National Committee of fixing the rules against him and thwarting the will of GOP voters. But the RNC’s rules predate Trump’s rise, and they may be party leaders’ only hope of averting a likely Trump shipwreck in November.

Anyone in the GOP who thinks that Trump won't run independently if he doesn't get the nomination at this point is, I think, deluding themselves. I mean, right now, as of today, I consider a Trump candidacy for President to be pretty inevitable, with or without the GOP. I think the GOP, if they are smart, are gaming out which of those scenarios is best for them.
posted by OmieWise at 9:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


What the Clintons represent is a Democratic party that is dominated by the interests of Wall Street and big business.

Woe to the triangulators once the American left finds its equivalent to Trump.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Speaking of alternative political organizations, I was at a march last week and the organizers belonged to the Socialist Alternative party. They seem to be organizing in a big way to get grassroots support for lower level candidates.

They were behind Kshama Sawant's successful bid for a Seattle City Council seat, and she was very much a factor in the passing of the $15 minimum wage in Seattle.

I'm still in the process of checking them out, and I'd encourage anyone else interested in the political process to do the same.
posted by kyp at 9:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


What I hope Bernie Sanders is doing is developing an opposition organization *within* the Democratic party, regardless of whether he wins the nomination

This is why I think it's important for him to take it all the way to the convention. I think it is important for the party to see how much progressive support there is in each state and nationwide. Fine, he will likely lose the nom, but we may be able to get a better party platform and agitate for better DNC support of progressive candidates at the state and local level and hopefully get a DNC chair who understands the importance of the local races and grassroots movements (anyone else counting down to when DWS's term ends?).

Non sequitur to that, I'm starting to get really anxious about the inevitable sexist and racist rhetoric in the general election. Not necessarily the impact on the outcome of the race, but the psychological impact on all of us who will be subject to it.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:48 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


David Brooks, coward that he is, has retreated fully into his bookish tower while the torch-wielding masses crowd the streets below. Perhaps they will allow him to live, a broken man scratching out his writings in the forgotten language of Russell Kirk and Leo Strauss. Perhaps they will drag him out after all.

Ultimately, he reflects, all paths lead to the same end. Vita brevis.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Trump is... interesting in that regard. He deviates when he wants to -- what other modern Repub candidate could say "Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for women" and not get pelted with tomatoes? -- because he has read the anger in 27% America and their desire for authoritarian leadership and their dissatisfaction with Mainstream Republicans and plays it like a Stradivarius. He can say "You want an outsider? I'm a REAL outsider" and he carries the anger wave off with him like a trophy.

For a lot of people, a Trump vote is an anger vote against the mainstream GOP and the associated punditocracy (consultants, media, etc). The GOP establishment has been tiptoeing around the issue of illegal immigration. Trump confronted the illegal immigration issue head on, from a genuinely conservative standpoint. The GOP establishment has been tiptoeing around the fiasco of the neocon quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya, Syria, and let's hope not Iran). Trump confronted the Iraq war directly.

There's a lot of irritation at the GOP establishment. It's getting expressed in this groundswell of Trump support.
posted by theorique at 9:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think its tired when we patronized working class Rs and even worse if we were to do the same to AA voters regarding Clinton. As a Bernie supporter the only thing I think he can do is keep trying to make his case that he supports their interest, rather than wondering what they are thinking.
posted by localhuman at 9:53 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


For years we patronized working class Republican voters by declaring that they were not voting in their best interests. Now perhaps it is time that we do the same to Black voters supporting Clinton in droves. I have no idea what they are thinking they will get out of that deal.

I think it's better to assume that each person is best positioned to evaluate what their own self interest is and how to best pursue that interest.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


I think it's better to assume that each person is best positioned to evaluate what their own self interest is and how to best pursue that interest.

Sure, although with the caveat that many of these people are voting for Clinton against their own interests. They just haven't done enough research.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on March 2, 2016


many of these people are voting for Clinton against their own interests. They just haven't done enough research.

What's the matter with Kansas black people?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:57 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bernsplaining.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Funny how anyone can say the same thing: you only support your candidate because you don't know enough.

One day you'll come around, I promise. Mark my words.
posted by aramaic at 9:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


As a Bernie supporter the only thing I think he can do is keep trying to make his case that he supports their interest, rather than wondering what they are thinking.

I think making the case for Sanders is a better strategy than continually criticising Hillary Clinton. I think in the last two months I've waded through a lot of it all over the internet and while it's made me want to engage less with the election it hasn't really translated into me wanting to support Sanders more.
posted by FJT at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Yeah, I think it's really insulting to minority Clinton voters that they just haven't researched enough. Like, astronomically insulting. Also, there's plenty of information on what black voters are thinking, and it's not just "I have nothing going on in my brain so will just push this Clinton button here."
posted by zutalors! at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2016 [35 favorites]


For years we patronized working class Republican voters by declaring that they were not voting in their best interests. Now perhaps it is time that we do the same to Black voters supporting Clinton in droves.

I think it's more the opposite - we should trust that people know their own interests better than we do, including working-class white people. In the end, I think if Sanders had believed he could make a serious run at this when he started the campaign, he might have made a more concerted effort earlier on to win votes in southern states; instead, he mostly just made overtures to younger activists like Black Lives Matter folks, not to e.g. the older, more conservative churchgoing populations of the South (and I'm still amazed I haven't seen anyone mention the idea that his being Jewish and not outspoken about believing in a higher power might have anything to do with his trouble in southern states). His criminal and racial justice platform is still the best on offer, including Clinton's, and I think he specifically intended to build bridges with the young Black activist community but never really had much hope for winning over southern voters en masse. I agree with people upthread that the biggest challenge to his campaign is that I don't think he thought he had a serious chance at all until around Iowa, and he probably didn't have the resources to do it before then, either.

For anyone looking for a replacement for Nate Silver's underwhelming turn toward lazy-punditry this year, cafe.com's (nominally satirical) Carl Diggler outperformed every pundit last night! The chart on that page makes it clear that Sanders vastly outperformed expectations last night, regardless of the spin - he wasn't expected to win Oklahoma, Colorado, or Minnesota by most pundits, and he almost pulled it out in Massachusetts (which is a bigger win than it seems like, given that MA went to Clinton by 12 points against Obama in 2008). My expectations going into last night were that he would lose MA by 5-10 points or so, squeak out a win in one of MN or CO, and lose OK by 10-15 points. He did much, much better than I expected.
posted by dialetheia at 10:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


What's more likely - that when I see a person voting in way I think is counter to their interests, it means I know their interests better than they do, or that I'm not fully understanding what their interests are?
posted by sallybrown at 10:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I know people really don't like Clinton, and that it's a different world now than it was 20 years ago, but economic growth and employment were both very high under Bill Clinton. Many people remember that. I'm not sure I know why the world would collapse during a H. Clinton presidency, even though I would much rather have Sanders' policies. Can someone explain it concretely (that is, non-rhetorically)? Not why Sanders would be better, but why Clinton represents the risk of collapse.
posted by OmieWise at 10:01 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


What's more likely - that when I see a person voting in way I think is counter to their interests, it means I know their interests better than they do, or that I'm not fully understanding what their interests are?

I don't think either of those are likely. Maybe I am misunderstanding what is most important to those voters, though.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on March 2, 2016


VP Russ Feingold

~be still my heart~
posted by sallybrown at 10:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would like to formally register my extreme opposition to "let's be patronizing to black people" being adopted as a driving campaign strategy for economic leftists.
posted by kyrademon at 10:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [39 favorites]


For years we patronized working class Republican voters by declaring that they were not voting in their best interests. Now perhaps it is time that we do the same to Black voters supporting Clinton in droves. I have no idea what they are thinking they will get out of that deal.

Interesting. I like Bernie Sanders. I like Hillary Clinton. Increasingly, my fellow lefty friends are treating this as an untenable position.

Anyway, literally this morning a friend of mine, a hardcore Bernie supporter, asked me to show him "literally one example" of Bernie supporters being patronizing toward Black voters. So thank you.
posted by duffell at 10:03 AM on March 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


I still just can't wrap my head around liberals who love Bernie Sanders, but hate -- white hot, fiery hate -- a person who voted with him 93% of the time in the Senate.

Maybe the friends, families, and ghosts of half a million dead Iraqis, 4,400 dead U.S. soldiers, and god knows how many else affected by US-led destabilization could explain it to you. For starters.


This makes me really impatient. Since when did Hillary's vote launch us into war? The Iraq war was precipitated by a huge push and plenty of disinformation about WMDs from the Bush administration. Hillary is not wise the way Barack Obama is and I agree that the vote to go to war was a mistake, but it was also not determinative and she got the same bad data everyone else did. (Case in point: Tony Blair's ringing speech in favor of attacking Iraq to take out WMDs. Another pretty decent person who got fooled.)

Also, whatever the merits of Sen. Sanders' positions on domestic issues, and particularly income inequality and government surveillance, he is no leading light of foreign affairs. He really has no chops or background in the area. And some of his past votes on Iraq and use of force against terrorists were a mistake too.

We are all going to have to start thinking fairly soon, since Hillary is likely to wrap up the nomination in the next couple of months, about how to incorporate the excellent domestic policy issues Sanders has raised into the platform, and turn to unify against Trump (or the almost as awful Cruz.) And it is time to get real about her policy positions -- she may be more centric than Sanders, but she is by no means the same as her husband. She has always stood to the left of Bill.
posted by bearwife at 10:06 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Maybe think of it in an Econ framing - that people tend to act rationally. When you have a model of predicted outcome based on known, identified facts, but then the real outcomes differ sharply, you don't go "whoa all those people are coincidentally acting in an irrational way," you go "hey something about my model is lacking because it's not taking into account some factor that is driving choices here."
posted by sallybrown at 10:06 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


and I'm still amazed I haven't seen anyone mention the idea that his being Jewish and not outspoken about believing in a higher power might have anything to do with his trouble in southern states

I raised this in an earlier conversation about electablity and all the Sanders supporters said I was nuts to be concerned about Sanders being Jewish. zarq raised the same issue. I am fairly sure you were part of the conversation.
posted by OmieWise at 10:07 AM on March 2, 2016


OmieWise: “I know people really don't like Clinton, and that it's a different world now than it was 20 years ago, but economic growth and employment were both very high under Bill Clinton. Many people remember that. I'm not sure I know why the world would collapse during a H. Clinton presidency, even though I would much rather have Sanders' policies. Can someone explain it concretely (that is, non-rhetorically)? Not why Sanders would be better, but why Clinton represents the risk of collapse.”

Collapse? Why would people be afraid of that? It sounds a teensy bit like an exaggeration of the Sanders camp's feelings about Hillary Clinton – that they think the country would collapse during her presidency – but maybe you mean something I'm not getting.

In any case, Clinton is problematic for me specifically because she doesn't represent collapse. To put it another way: where foreign policy is concerned, America can go very, very far down the road we started on with Reagan and Bill Clinton (who could be wonderfully moderate in domestic affairs, but who learned exactly the wrong lessons from Bosnia). It would be the easiest thing in the world to continue with a foreign policy that emphasizes containment through strategic strikes against acceptable and healthily demonized targets. We could go on like that for a long, long time. And that's the worst thing I can see happening under Hillary Clinton.
posted by koeselitz at 10:08 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Russ Feingold would be great but we need him to win back the Senate seat in Wisconsin that he lost to some republican idiot in the '10 bloodletting.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:08 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I've been guilty of saying that a poor Republican is basically a mark, voting against their own interests, so it stings a little bit to realize it's elitist as hell to do so.

But it is. Elitist as hell. A person is either voting for something they want, or against something they don't want, and I'm guessing that if they're not voting the way I am, there's something they want that I don't, or something they don't want that I do.
posted by Mooski at 10:09 AM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


Unfortunately, I have seen several Bernie supporters being horribly awful regarding their outreach to minorities, including all over the Bernie subreddit. The fact that there are so many Bernie supporters out there who don't see the horribly patronizing tone is probably not a small part of the reason why Bernie has made few inroads with black millennials, when by all indications he should be.

I was thinking about this last night, and after sleeping on it I feel even more strongly, that one of Bernie's biggest mistakes was relying solely on a racist and misogynist platform to organize grassroots support. The people he's inducting to help in his campaign are a self-selected group of his most racist and misogynistic supporters because reddit itself is a self-selected group of people who are willing to wade through racism and misogyny on a daily basis.
posted by zug at 10:10 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I feel that way too, Mooski. Here on out I won't be doing that anymore.
posted by sallybrown at 10:10 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


collapse? Why would people be afraid of that? It sounds a teensy bit like an exaggeration of the Sanders camp's feelings about Hillary Clinton – that they think the country would collapse during her presidency – but maybe you mean something I'm not getting.

Sorry, the thread moved as I was commenting, but I was responding to S. Zamboni above, who basically seems to suggest that our electoral process will be non-functional after 8 years of Clinton. Maybe I'm the one reading wrong, but this seemed like a reference to some sort of collapse.
posted by OmieWise at 10:10 AM on March 2, 2016


Not that "one blog by a black guy" translates to "here is how black voters feel," but SoLetsTalkAbout's take on Clinton v Sanders is worth a read. The whole thing, really, but the pull-quote is from the final summary of his points.

That moment when Bernie Sanders slayed the debate but you still votin’ for Hillary Clinton

[...] I don’t need an ideal vs reality scenario with Hillary Clinton because I don’t trust her so much as I believe she’s a politician who supports her beliefs in the context of what’s attainable. I don’t see any room for idealism in American politics unless that idealism is widespread. Otherwise, you’re a lone wolf going against a power structure that was expressly set up to prevent one single person or branch of government from gaining too much influence. Hillary Clinton is a smart politician which is why she’s managed to remain relevant. The laws of politics and socialized misogyny should have prevented Hillary from ever being able to step out of her husband’s shadow to forge her own path to this point. Hillary got herself into the Senate against a barrage of attacks that called her too progressive! And now we’re arguing over whether she is or isn’t. Politically, she’s not, and that’s OK with me because she’ll actually be able to get things done. Hillary’s current platform is “Hey guys, Obama has us on the right course, I plan to continue down that course.”

That’s not dreamy enough or fiery enough for most of us who see all of the problems with the system and want someone to come and smash them down and rebuild. But it’s realistic. The best we can hope for at this point is to stay the course and keep building upon what’s working[...]

Does that mean I think Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate? Absolutely not. She’s got some votes and some positions and some explanations that don’t quite square with me. However. If the choice is between a not-quite-perfect candidate with the ability to play the game and get half of it done versus a perfect candidate who will passionately champion all of the impossible ideals (in American politics) I wish would happen, I’m voting for the half.

posted by showbiz_liz at 10:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


For years we patronized working class Republican voters by declaring that they were not voting in their best interests. Now perhaps it is time that we do the same to Black voters supporting Clinton in droves. I have no idea what they are thinking they will get out of that deal.

Yes, I agree that would be patronizing. Though the word that came to mind when I read this started with an "r."

Maybe African American voters know because they have lived it that Hillary has been a real and true friend to the cause of equal rights and social justice for decades now, and that like many, she has evolved over those years into a better and more insightful person on this topic.
posted by bearwife at 10:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Can someone explain it concretely (that is, non-rhetorically)? Not why Sanders would be better, but why Clinton represents the risk of collapse.

I don't think this is being asked in anything approaching good faith, but for me it comes down to a) her terrible judgment on Libya and how she convinced Obama to aim for regime change (see those NYT pieces, which are generous to her if anything), b) her extreme lack of commitment to climate issues, which are a dealbreaker to me as someone who would like this planet to have a future for human beings; and c) the fact that I don't believe for a second that she will do anything to substantially address this terrible economic state of affairs, given that she's largely funded by the people who created this situation.

I raised this in an earlier conversation about electablity and all the Sanders supporters said I was nuts to be concerned about Sanders being Jewish. zarq raised the same issue. I am fairly sure you were part of the conversation.

It was raised in a general electability sense, not in a specific-to-the-southern-Black-vote sense - instead people are now taking his weakness among those voters as some implicit evidence that his platform sucks on racial issues, which isn't necessarily the case at all (and he does talk about specific racial disparities and not just general economic issues much more often than he gets credit for).
posted by dialetheia at 10:13 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Also, I 100% concur with this (despite being a Sanders supporter, though I'm ultimately fine with either candidate):

My biggest gripe against Sanders supporters is this continued insinuation that people aren’t allowed to change, that Bernie is a better person because he’s believed X, Y, and Z from the beginning while Clinton has changed her position. Since when is personal growth a negative characteristic? When someone says Clinton was against gay marriage in 1992, I’m like “OK? So was my dad. Next.” When the country evolved to a point where it was OK to think “Hmm…maybe everyone just deserves to be happy and this ‘traditional’ thing is outdated” – thanks to folks like Bernie Sanders – Hillary and a lot of other folks (including Barack Obama) grew, evolved, and changed their position. I appreciate anybody, especially a politician, who can reassess.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]




Can someone explain it concretely (that is, non-rhetorically)? Not why Sanders would be better, but why Clinton represents the risk of collapse.

I have serious doubts about who she will appoint to cabinet/administration positions. I think we are at risk of another major financial collapse absent actual implementation of Dodd-Frank (which set up the legislative authority for regulations, but those regulations have mostly not been promulgated). I don't think she will be as effective in combating systemic risk.

Secondly, looking longer term, we have a generation of people (e.g. millenials and just-older-than-millenials) that have significant student debt and no real assistance for them. I know she has some plans for college affordability, but without significantly tackling current student debt (not just fed loans, but also private loans), millenials will be paying off their student loans well into when their children should be enrolling in college. This means that that younger generation, absent tuition free public colleges, will also need to take out significant loans for their college education, and the spiral continues. I am financially worse off than my parents were at my age, despite breaking into the "professional class." My husband has dual citizenship with a progressive EU country, if we don't succeed in moving to that country in the next 10 years or so, our kids will be worse off than we were. This isn't the way it's supposed to be.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Last night we were discussing keeping the grass roots energized and growing the left wing of the party. I had stuff to do and did not get a chance to respond but Miko addressed this pretty well.

The Tea Party Republicans (or what ever they are called now, Trumpists? Tear-It-All-Down-Got-Mine-ists?) have been very active getting voted on to school boards, county boards and community college boards. People have a tendency to pay attention to their local school boards as property values are tied in to the school districts. What has largely gone unexamined is their attempted take down of community colleges, due to their basis of being partially funded by local taxes. It's one of their starving the beast activities.

So Community College Boards, another way that we can be involved and keep the USA great for all of us, not just the rich and connected.

Also hey, Trump University. I hope this is the travesty that brings him down.

Due to my employment I am all too aware of the fights going on in local community colleges to continue to grow and offer services, but can't take part myself due to job constraints.
posted by readery at 10:15 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


OmieWise: “Sorry, the thread moved as I was commenting, but I was responding to S. Zamboni above, who basically seems to suggest that our electoral process will be non-functional after 8 years of Clinton. Maybe I'm the one reading wrong, but this seemed like a reference to some sort of collapse.”

Ah – yeah, that comment didn't make a lot of sense.

dialetheia: “I don't think this is being asked in anything approaching good faith...”

Nah, what OmieWise was responding to is really weird, and non-standard for Bernie support as far as I can tell:

Seymour Zamboni: “For years we patronized working class Republican voters by declaring that they were not voting in their best interests. Now perhaps it is time that we do the same to Black voters supporting Clinton in droves. I have no idea what they are thinking they will get out of that deal. If they care anything about economic inequality and where they fall on that spectrum, they should be propelling Sanders to victory. Clinton will beat Trump--no doubt in my mind. And when she does she will fall back in line and push through the massive TPP and whatever else global capital demands. And things will become so bad after 8 more years of that (and it will be 8) along with a completely broken immigration system that I worry that next time around an orderly and lawful primary/election might not even be possible. We will look back at the ascendant Trump and wish for that level of sanity.”

Er – Mr Zamboni – what exactly does that mean? Collapse? We've had plenty of business-connected presidents before, right?
posted by koeselitz at 10:16 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The people he's inducting to help in his campaign are a self-selected group of his most racist and misogynistic supporters because reddit itself is a self-selected group of people who are willing to wade through racism and misogyny on a daily basis.

As a reddit user, I reject this premise wholeheartedly. Yes, reddit as a whole has a lot of nasty corners, but a lot of subreddits are moderated in very much the same way as MetaFilter, i.e., with a lot of care and attention.

I don't wade through racism and misogyny on a daily basis because I choose the subreddits I want to subscribe to, downvote the trolls that want to inject their hate, and depend on the moderators to do their job.
posted by kyp at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think this is being asked in anything approaching good faith

It absolutely was being asked in good faith in the context of Seymour Zamboni's comment, which did seem to threaten collapse. Your answer, and melissasaurus' were both helpful in helping me understand how a comment like that develops. Thanks.
posted by OmieWise at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Also, whatever the merits of Sen. Sanders' positions on domestic issues, and particularly income inequality and government surveillance, he is no leading light of foreign affairs. He really has no chops or background in the area.

Yeah, I think this is partly because all the domestic policy stuff has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for any foreign policy beyond business as usual. For me, it's been very disappointing that for most of the election the only time foreign policy has been mentioned has been about war, terrorism, or trade.

It's as if the US sees most of the world as a place to either fight or do business with. What about climate change, responding better to epidemics like Ebola or Zika, taking in Syrian refugees, and supporting democracy (without bombing) in places like Myanmar and Hong Kong?
posted by FJT at 10:19 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think maybe it's less that the people on reddit are largely racist/sexist (because there are a lot of genuinely great people on reddit, and a much smaller group of really gross people) and more that there's a group of people who could be helpful and beneficial to the Sanders campaign who don't go on reddit because of that small group of bad users. So because it's on Reddit, the Bernie subreddit (largely filled with good users) is missing out on some people who would have been helpful.
posted by sallybrown at 10:21 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Since when did Hillary's vote launch us into war? The Iraq war was precipitated by a huge push and plenty of disinformation about WMDs from the Bush administration. Hillary is not wise the way Barack Obama is and I agree that the vote to go to war was a mistake, but it was also not determinative and she got the same bad data everyone else did. (Case in point: Tony Blair's ringing speech in favor of attacking Iraq to take out WMDs. Another pretty decent person who got fooled.)

Well, she voted for it. Granted, it won by more than a margin of one. The whole "how could we have ever have guessed" thing rings beyond hollow for me, since a bunch of people knew it was bullshit, for example: 1 million marching in the streets of NYC. So I guess admitting you got suckered is not really a compelling argument in favor of supporting you to me.

Also, whatever the merits of Sen. Sanders' positions on domestic issues, and particularly income inequality and government surveillance, he is no leading light of foreign affairs. He really has no chops or background in the area. And some of his past votes on Iraq and use of force against terrorists were a mistake too.

Never said he was perfect, just the best option. Again, this is not a compelling argument.

And it is time to get real about her policy positions -- she may be more centric than Sanders, but she is by no means the same as her husband. She has always stood to the left of Bill.

Regardless of what rabid rightwingers tell you, left of Bill doesn't necessarily mean "left wing."

Her policy positions include a perpetual panopticon. Indeed, let's get real about them.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:23 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's odd to me that everyone sees Sanders as weak on foreign policy. His foreign policy is far more realist than Clinton's - she wants us to have a presence in Libya for 70 years! That's supposed to be more realistic than universal health care? Sanders' understanding of how we ended up embroiled in so many conflicts that boil down to us having to clean up our own unintended consequences is far more reassuring to me than Clinton's undying faith in American power and the benefits of regime change. This article sums it up for me: Clinton talks of possibly decades-long occupations and orderly regime changes, yet somehow Sanders is the fantasist.

I would love to hear some of her supporters talk about how her judgment and experience in Libya relates to her foreign policy cred. It's not just about the Iraq war - by all accounts, she was the one who convinced Obama of the benefits of regime change in Libya, and so far it has been a disaster.
posted by dialetheia at 10:24 AM on March 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


As a reddit user, I reject this premise wholeheartedly. Yes, reddit as a whole has a lot of nasty corners, but a lot of subreddits are moderated... with a lot of care and attention.

I hang out on the subreddit for my small-ish city (therefore it ought to not trend "bad" or "nice") and the sub is full of clueless Yahoo! Answers-level ignoramuses at best, but there are a lot of racists and general jerks.

Reddit just has a bad fucking vibe, period.
posted by My Dad at 10:24 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


RE: Reddit. It's possible to avoid the racism and misogyny by only staying on certain subreddits, but you have to know what those subreddits are in the first place. That's a hurdle for a lot of people.
posted by dinty_moore at 10:25 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Look, I'm not trying to shit on Bernie, I am a big fan of his and I've been very active - I've done a fair bit of phonebanking for Bernie and I crossed state lines to canvas for him during the Nevada caucus.

But I'm on reddit too, and frankly I don't see how anyone can possibly avoid gross stuff, even if you never step foot into a default sub. The vileness spills over into even niche subs occasionally, and even the best mods take time to deal with it. Reddit also has a horrible reputation in general, due to said vileness. A lot of my progressive friends refuse to even go there (I am only there because I am a fan of a queer TV show whose only real forum is on reddit).

I've seen a lot of patronizing racist overtones in the Bernie subreddit itself, so even if you ONLY go there, you're still not avoiding it, and I could see people who were curious about Bernie noping out of there real quick.
posted by zug at 10:26 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Maybe I'm the one reading wrong, but this seemed like a reference to some sort of collapse.

The slow-motion collapse has already been going on for some time. The political process is non-functional at the federal level, and has been since 2010.

Budgets are cobbled together at literally the last minute before default on sovereign debt, and remember sequestration? That happened and the government is trying to meet its mandates under austerity conditions. Middle-class folks don't notice it as much but people who actually rely on direct federal programs, or pass-throughs to the states, are quietly suffering. They won't be quiet forever.

Immigration reform, already a major crisis six years ago, has been absolutely untouched. Major banking reform -- the breakup of too-big-to-fail-banks and proper regulation of the financial industry -- has barely happened and to the extent it is happening, is the result of the limited legislation passed in the immediate wake of the Recession. Nothing is being done about globalization (well, nothing good). The Middle East is lurching from crisis to crisis. Noises are being made about police & carceral reform but is there any hope of something getting through Congress? The ACA, another unfinished project from the '08-'10 session that can't be fully built out without further legislation.

Things are running on fumes. It's not so much that Obama or Clinton will have been responsible for that, but as I said above the executive owns the problem, fairly or no. So if the executive doesn't actually have the constitutional power to fix the problem(s), they had better have a good narrative to explain themselves to the electorate.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:26 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


For example, I regularly get gifted Reddit gold (wtf is that, anyway???) on that sub just because I try to be nice about pleas to help find missing teenage girls — some members of the sub doxxed her by posting her Facebook account on r/trashy.

And this is just a community sub, not anything remotely weird or political.
posted by My Dad at 10:27 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


God help us let's maybe not dig in deep on a Reddit: Good Or Bad? rehash of all thing in here.
posted by cortex at 10:27 AM on March 2, 2016 [41 favorites]


So because it's on Reddit, the Bernie subreddit (largely filled with good users) is missing out on some people who would have been helpful.

But that's always going to be a double-edged sword, isn't it? A popular online platform will attract bad apples, but at the same time it has the potential to reach and educate a much larger base than smaller ones. Already you can see that the Sanders subreddit is educating a whole new generation about the importance of organizing and participating in the political process.

If there was a better (not just in tone, but in reach, configurability, etc.) alternative for organizing and energizing Bernie supporters, no question decent folk would flock there. But there isn't. So we Internet users do the best with the tools we have.
posted by kyp at 10:28 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just think it's important to think about where and why he's failing to win over PoC, particularly black americans, so that the next progressive candidate that comes along doesn't shoot themselves in the foot by making the same mistakes. I'll drop it now, I don't want this to turn into either reddit vs the world or bernie vs hillary.
posted by zug at 10:29 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


> Speaking of alternative political organizations, I was at a march last week and the organizers belonged to the Socialist Alternative party. They seem to be organizing in a big way to get grassroots support for lower level candidates.

They were behind Kshama Sawant's successful bid for a Seattle City Council seat, and she was very much a factor in the passing of the $15 minimum wage in Seattle.

I'm still in the process of checking them out, and I'd encourage anyone else interested in the political process to do the same.
posted by kyp at 9:46 AM on March 2 [5 favorites +] [!]


SA is an utterly fascinating organization, and I'm of at least three minds about them. On the one hand I cannot speak highly enough about Kshama Sawant, and I really respect how well the organization was able to capitalize on the support for socialism in Seattle and in the Seattle alternative media to raise their national profile. (not to say that they were ever just a Seattle thing; they've long been semi-serious political players in other cities, most notably Minneapolis).

However, often the official SA party line (inherited from their international) includes a lot of politically unproductive and occasionally blazingly stupid attempts to reduce all forms of oppression to class.

However however, the party has grown by leaps and bounds since Sawant's election and especially since Sawant's re-election, and most of the new people in the party are primarily there because of Sawant and because of a desire to join a left organization that's more concerned with success than with purity. As such, the often reductive party line is often (thankfully) completely ignored in favor of more intelligent, nuanced approaches to understanding oppression and to opposing it.

It's real complicated. I give them money on a regular basis (something I would never dream of doing for any of the other international socialist organizations that I won't name), but one key reason I feel comfortable giving SA money is that the party has so far been reacting to its success by shedding a lot the purity-centric, reductive ideas and practices that you find in other left formations.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:29 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


I'll freely acknowledge that Reddit contains horrible people and gives them horrible places in which to voice their horrible opinions, but how is that any different from the world at large? Am I too soft on Reddit or too harsh on literally the entire planet?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:30 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


bearwife: “This makes me really impatient. Since when did Hillary's vote launch us into war? The Iraq war was precipitated by a huge push and plenty of disinformation about WMDs from the Bush administration. Hillary is not wise the way Barack Obama is and I agree that the vote to go to war was a mistake, but it was also not determinative and she got the same bad data everyone else did. (Case in point: Tony Blair's ringing speech in favor of attacking Iraq to take out WMDs. Another pretty decent person who got fooled.)”

For one thing, this is not about intel. People often talk about Iraq as though, if Saddam Hussein had WMDs, a full-scale invasion would have been totally justified. But it clearly would not have; it was the wrong thing for a lot of reasons – and learning those lessons has been difficult.

Speaking of which, that's the actual foreign-policy problem with Hillary Clinton, in my view. She has absolutely learned lessons from Iraq; she would never again advocate for or support an action like that, I don't think. But why? Because that's not how containment – her general philosophy on this, and the philosophy of every president at least since Reagan – works in the world. Wars are waged quietly; hot spots are identified and contained, by bombing the bad guys, yes, but largely by punishing whole regions until they know not to do things that are against our interests. That's been the strategy with ISIS thus far, for better or for worse; it was the strategy in Libya, it has been the strategy in Syria. It's the defining characteristic of her time as Secretary of State.

“Also, whatever the merits of Sen. Sanders' positions on domestic issues, and particularly income inequality and government surveillance, he is no leading light of foreign affairs. He really has no chops or background in the area. And some of his past votes on Iraq and use of force against terrorists were a mistake too.”

Exactly. So we have a choice between someone who has long foreign policy experience, in which she has reliably followed along with the old pernicious paradigm that is arguably destroying America's standing in the world and harming millions of people abroad every year – and someone who doesn't have much experience at all, and who hasn't said anything to convince anyone that he'd be a foreign-policy genius. It's not a great choice, to be honest.
posted by koeselitz at 10:31 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just think it's important to think about where and why he's failing to win over PoC, particularly black americans, so that the next progressive candidate that comes along doesn't shoot themselves in the foot by making the same mistakes.

I'm honestly still not convinced he made that many mistakes. Isn't it much more likely that a lot of folks just prefer Hillary Clinton?
posted by dialetheia at 10:31 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Romney just announced he will be giving a speech tomorrow on the state of the Presidential race.

Is it too late for him to jump in? Is he just going to try and scold the Trumpists into Rubio's camp?
posted by sallybrown at 10:31 AM on March 2, 2016


I went to check out Socialist International just now, and I love that it exists, but the FB page for my local chapter was demanding that Sanders run in the general as an Independent, and that is a position I simply cannot support.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:31 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The thing that strikes me about the /r/s4p subreddit is how very, very young it seems to skew. Like, not-old-enough-to-vote young. Sometimes it seems like half the posts on there are "help me convince my parents to vote for Bernie."
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:34 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Will Romney's speech have a surprise?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:34 AM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Will Romney be photobombed by Chris Christie?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2016


@showbiz_liz Check out Socialist Alternative, they are much more US focused. I don't know what your local chapter of SA advocates though.
posted by kyp at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2016


As I said upthread, I do think the southern churchgoing crowd of black folks probably support Clinton's positions moreso than Bernie's and there's just not much Bernie can do about that, but I do think his message should have resonance with black millennials, but he doesn't seem to be winning them over either.
posted by zug at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2016


Well, you have a country split right down the middle, population-wise, with the Senate following, and very polarized on tip of that, a gerrymandered House for years to come, and how exactly are these great changes going to be made, again, no matter who is elected ?
posted by y2karl at 10:35 AM on March 2, 2016


I've been guilty of saying that a poor Republican is basically a mark, voting against their own interests, so it stings a little bit to realize it's elitist as hell to do so.

But it is. Elitist as hell. A person is either voting for something they want, or against something they don't want, and I'm guessing that if they're not voting the way I am, there's something they want that I don't, or something they don't want that I do.


One of the perennial American issues is that these big, monolithic parties collect a lot of "stuff" under a big umbrella as they strive to make a majority. Evangelicals for whom their Christianity is really important? Republicans. Pro-choice single-issue voters? Democrats. Gun-loving patriots? Republicans. And so forth.

Most people are more complex and nuanced than the "average" Democrat or Republican voter - they agree more with some aspects of the party platform, less with others. And most people are going to have to hold their nose on some issues that matter less to them in order to vote in favor of the party that is stronger on those issues that matter more to them.

I was thinking about this last night, and after sleeping on it I feel even more strongly, that one of Bernie's biggest mistakes was relying solely on a racist and misogynist platform to organize grassroots support.

Wait - I think I missed this. Which platform are you talking about?
posted by theorique at 10:36 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the surprise from that little press conference last night was that Trump can ring a bell and the media comes salivating?
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:38 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is it too late for him to jump in? Is he just going to try and scold the Trumpists into Rubio's camp?

"Fox News said there was no sign that Romney was set to enter the 2016 race, citing people close to the 2012 White House hopeful."

Reuters.

The speech is at 11:30am.
posted by cashman at 10:38 AM on March 2, 2016


Maybe I'm the one reading wrong, but this seemed like a reference to some sort of collapse.

The slow-motion collapse has already been going on for some time. The political process is non-functional at the federal level, and has been since 2010.


Great comment, agree with everything you said. I kind of feel like our government is experiencing a heart attack because of the Republican obstruction. You can elect Trump which would be a fatal result or you can elect Hillary which would be a risky surgery attempt with little chance of solving the underlying problem.

If we didn't have as many immediate issues I would be more inclined towards attempts at incremental change, but I feel like we are running out of time here.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:38 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Is he just going to try and scold the Trumpists into Rubio's camp?

I can't think of a single thing that would backfire harder on establishment Republicans than a scolding lecture from Mitt Romney, of all people. They don't seem to get it at all. If they understood what was going on, Rubio would be making a keynote speech about adopting some economic populist positions. Marginalize and co-opt should be their strategy - exactly what Clinton is doing to Sanders.

Wait - I think I missed this. Which platform are you talking about?

I think it's reddit. It's worth noting that Sanders didn't have much to do with reddit at all at first - the subreddit was an organic user-driven thing, not an intentional campaign strategy. There are also tons of Sanders supporters organizing on twitter and in other social media (like here!) - reddit just sucks up all the attention.

Anyway, how do socialist folks feel about Democratic Socialists of America?
posted by dialetheia at 10:38 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think making the case for Sanders is a better strategy than continually criticising Hillary Clinton.

I wonder how much of that would have been as vehement without the Clinton practicality scolding. Seems to me you can't tell one side their preference is unelectable and they should just vote for this other person who is just as good a D without inviting refutations of both assertions. Which isn't an excuse for anyone to refuse to stop swinging their cudgel and try to start some reconciliation, but I have a hard time figuring out if there's a discernible chicken or egg.
posted by phearlez at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


I just think it's important to think about where and why he's failing to win over PoC, particularly black americans, so that the next progressive candidate that comes along doesn't shoot themselves in the foot by making the same mistakes.

I concur. I rarely get into politics on Facebook but just felt compelled to respond to a white Bernie supporter who posted that clearly Bernie isn't getting support from blacks because they are OK with the status quo, layered with a "because the status quo is better than 40 years ago" rationale.

On preview - this isn't about specific missteps in the 'gotcha moment' sort of way. But, it definitely is about building a foundation and supports of connection so that major swathes of the electorate are seen by those both in and out of the movement as part of the movement, rather than a demographic that needs movement 'outreach'.

We aren't going to get there by talking about what we think. We will get there by really listening.
posted by meinvt at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


It was mildly surprising, at least, that no one even bothered to ask what the surprise was. So maybe that was the surprise? It's all very meta.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


@showbiz_liz Check out Socialist Alternative, they are much more US focused. I don't know what your local chapter of SA advocates though.

Ah, sorry Socialist Alternative is actually what I meant to type.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016


> I went to check out Socialist [Alternative] just now, and I love that it exists, but the FB page for my local chapter was demanding that Sanders run in the general as an Independent, and that is a position I simply cannot support.

Yeah, the thing Socialist Alternative is really good at is municipal-level politics (which is exactly where you need to focus if you want to build a real movement; jumping straight to national-level politics is silly). I really, really hope that when Sanders inevitably leaves the race, they keep their focus on providing people with positive local-level outlets for their political energy, instead of wasting their time and organizational energy opposing the national-level Democrats.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'm not being disingenuous when I ask: Can someone explain how four years of Secretary of State is "a lot" more experience? I mean, I get it is a four years more than Sanders has, but it's hardly a lifetime of foreign policy work. Also, Sanders has just as much time as Clinton in the Senate, plus sixteen years more in the House. He has more experience than Obama had when he was elected, too.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:39 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


MITTMENTUM NEVER LEFT IT WAS JUST WAITING FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO STRIKE BACK

HE'S GOT A BINDER FULL OF WHOOPASS TO CRACK OPEN

THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE 47% OF YOU LEFT WHEN HE'S DONE
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2016 [32 favorites]


I think it's reddit. It's worth noting that Sanders didn't have much to do with reddit at all at first - the subreddit was an organic user-driven thing, not an intentional campaign strategy. There are also tons of Sanders supporters organizing on twitter and in other social media (like here!) - reddit just sucks up all the attention.

Thanks - I reread the comment and it does appear to be reddit. Didn't realize that so much grassroots Sanders support had emerged from there.
posted by theorique at 10:40 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


If we didn't have as many immediate issues I would be more inclined towards attempts at incremental change, but I feel like we are running out of time here.

See, and I see a Clinton presidency as essentially running out the clock on the increasingly elderly population of American conservatives.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:41 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Speaking of alternative political organizations, I was at a march last week and the organizers belonged to the Socialist Alternative party. They seem to be organizing in a big way to get grassroots support for lower level candidates.

Socialist Alternative is the American branch of the Committee for a Workers' International, a British-based group that came out of the former Militant group in the Labour Party, currently organized as the Socialist Party of England and Wales. Anyone who knows the politics of what Militant was should have an idea of what's up with SALT. For those who don't ... it's sort of complicated.

Formally the CWI is Trotskyist, and their sections are organized along democratic centralist lines. However, they are notorious for being very sectarian to other socialist groups, and for their top-down domination of movements they work in. Anyone involved in the movement against the poll tax in the UK can confirm that, as can people who've run afoul of SALT's approach in the "Fight for 15" movement here in the US. Generally they are considered right-wing and opportunist as far as Trotskyists go.

Socialist Alternative is in a weird place. They've had a lot of success recently with the Sawant campaign and the Fight for 15 campaign, but decided late last year to throw a lot of their energy and resources into the Sanders campaign, and actually endorsed Sanders. This is a bridge too far for a lot of people, including within Socialist Alternative. (Trotskyists have, traditionally, never endorsed candidates from capitalist parties.) There is a lot of pushback right now within Socialist Alternative and a sizable number of people who are heavily critical of the group's leadership taking this stand.

The bottom line is that Socialist Alternative is not a very democratic organization. Its leadership is very top-down and I've known people who were bullied and/or pushed out of the organization when they presented reforms. I am some kind of Trotskyist myself and don't want to be sectarian in bashing SALT, but this isn't the first time I've seen them come up on Metafilter and I don't think they are well understood.
posted by graymouser at 10:41 AM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Romney is going to announce he's going on a cross-country, perhaps cross-continental, motorcycle ride to escape the stress of being idealized as a brokered convention unity candidate. Biden's coming, too.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


You know, it's honestly shocking to consider how mild those 47% remarks seem now, in contrast to half the shit that's already come out of the Republican candidates' mouths this time around.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2016 [32 favorites]


Yeah, the thing Socialist Alternative is really good at is municipal-level politics (which is exactly where you need to focus if you want to build a real movement; jumping straight to national-level politics is silly).

I kind of disagree with this. Sanders is sort of fulfilling a Goldwater-esque role in the sense that he's dramatically changing the Overton window on a national scale, which should allow a lot of municipal- and state-level politicians the space to be a little (or even a lot) more successful than they ever could have been before there was a national-scale democratic socialist demonstrating that he can win in red states. Both aspects are important, but I think it's a mistake to understate the importance of what he's doing in terms of its effects on the kind of success downballot people who share his politics can hope to achieve.
posted by dialetheia at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Romney is going to announce he's going on a cross-country, perhaps cross-continental, motorcycle ride to escape the stress of being idealized as a borkered convention unity candidate. Biden's coming, too.

I would watch this movie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


What I haven't been able to stop thinking about is the exhortation to have empathy for the Republicans and/or the Trump supporters, and what's driving them towards Trump. I am really trying not to be elitist and condescending and dismissive towards them, but it's really, really hard. Because while I don't deny they're voting for what they see as their best interests, I don't know how you engage with people who you can't reach with facts or with appeals to decency. I agree with the hilzoy series of tweets that a fundamental lack of trust is the problem, and I have no idea how to fix that.

Empathy and willingness to listen are good and all, but what good are they when it's a one-way street? Why should I open my arms and ears when rhetorical and actual violence are being done against me? If the problem is that a significant percentage of the Republican base just straight up doesn't trust and won't listen, and that's on top of the racism and sexism and xenophobia...honestly, I don't see a way forward other than waiting for that portion of the population die off or be pushed into irrelevancy by shifting demographics.
posted by yasaman at 10:44 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE 47% OF YOU LEFT WHEN HE'S DONE

I'LL GET YOU...AND YOUR BIG BIRD TOO!
posted by sallybrown at 10:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


The thing that frustrates me most about Bernie detractors (not the same as Hillary supporters, just to clarify) is this idea that he's in some fantasyland and doesn't know how politics works and that he ideas are going to be magically supported by elves or something.

He's said, over and over again in his speeches, that a president cannot do ANYTHING alone and that what he's calling for is a political groundswell of progressive support at all political levels that makes his policies possible. Bernie has spent 20 years in congress being really effective in an incremental way, building bipartisan support whenever he can and inserting funding and support for things that are important to him whenever he can. He knows how to be an incrementalist, he's really really good it at, and he knows that's what he'd have to do as president.

He just dares to dream bigger.
posted by zug at 10:46 AM on March 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Both aspects are important, but I think it's a mistake to understate the importance of what he's doing in terms of its effects on the kind of success downballot people who share his politics can hope to achieve.

A thousand times this. I cannot begin to measure the level of disillusionment and apathy I had before the Sanders campaign came along. Within the last month, I have already donated more to downballot progressive candidates than I ever have in my life.
posted by kyp at 10:47 AM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


Romney's going to announce a right-wing alternative to Ben & Jerrys, with flavors to include "Separate But Equal Neopolitan," "FDA Deregulation E.coli Sherbet," and 38 varieties of vanilla.
posted by duffell at 10:47 AM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


I've been reading conservative blogs today, to try to get a read on how movement conservatives understand/react to Trump and the political situation--it's fascinating how so many of them seem to view themselves as fighting for the little (white) guy against Wall Street/corruption/the Democrats...

But what I was most struck by was this narrative that Trump has been winning so far mostly in open primaries because Democrats are voting for him. And that the upcoming primaries are closed so he's going to stop winning. I'm sure that some, especially white working class, Democrats are voting for Trump. On the other hand, those reactions seems like a lot of denial, too, some No True Republican mixed with a healthy heap of Everything Is The Democrats Fault.

I'm wondering if anyone knows of any commentary or data about the open versus closed primaries issue from a more reality-based viewpoint?
posted by overglow at 10:47 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


entropicamericana: “I'm not being disingenuous when I ask: Can someone explain how four years of Secretary of State is ‘a lot’ more experience? I mean, I get it is a four years more than Sanders has, but it's hardly a lifetime of foreign policy work. Also, Sanders has just as much time as Clinton in the Senate, plus sixteen years more in the House. He has more experience than Obama had when he was elected, too.”

I am absolutely not a Hillary or Bernie supporter, so take this with that grain of salt:

Experience is neutral; it is not just an unalloyed good, even when it's listed on a job resume. A person can have experience doing a lot of things to a lot of different levels of proficiency. One thing experience is very good for, however, is showing us what someone is like, and showing us what they're likely to do in the future. That's particularly useful when you're dealing with a segment of the population that is not known for their forthrightness when telling us what exactly they plan to do with the power we give them.

Hillary Clinton has a lot more foreign policy experience than Bernie Sanders. Being in Congress isn't really foreign policy experience to any great degree; people vote for or against bills all the time, for a lot of different reasons, so it's difficult to extrapolate a foreign policy from a voting record. But being Secretary of State means shaping and guiding the Executive's foreign policy almost independently; it's your game. We have four years of Hillary working in foreign affairs, at the prime of her career, to look back on and see what she's likely to do when she's president.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is really up to us to decide, I guess.
posted by koeselitz at 10:48 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


> Both aspects are important, but I think it's a mistake to understate the importance of what he's doing in terms of its effects on the kind of success downballot people who share his politics can hope to achieve.

Oh, absolutely, I don't think Sanders's run was a bad idea at all. I just don't think that Socialist Alternative as a party is anywhere near ready for national-level politics.

Basically Sanders (and his people) put in long decades of hard work at the municipal level and then at the state level before Sanders was able to make a plausible run at the presidency. SA isn't there yet, and though their support for Sanders was a good idea, once Sanders is gone they need to get back out of national-level politics ASAP instead of indulging in utopian fantasies about fracturing the Democratic Party and clearing space for left formations.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:49 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Can someone explain how four years of Secretary of State is "a lot" more experience? I mean, I get it is a four years more than Sanders has, but it's hardly a lifetime of foreign policy work.

I'm not really sure how to answer this. Sec State for four years is a grueling round of meeting world leaders, engaging with some of the biggest international issues of the day, and being the representative abroad (at the high high executive level) for the world's foremost superpower.

I would argue that it is analogous to being a brain surgeon. Four years might not be as much time as you would want your brain surgeon to have, but it's significantly different from none.

That said, many people have been President without even those four years (including, of course, Bill).
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Kissinger is probably the most experienced living Secretary of State. Does anyone want to vote for him?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think anti-gerrymandering and pro-voting efforts need to be a priority, and that's one thing that can happen through the Voting Rights Act if we can get a progressive Supreme Court majority. Yeah, it's always dangerous to play the silent-majority card but at this point, Democrats do actually have a reasonable majority on the popular vote for Congress in presidential years -- it just doesn't get efficiently translated into seats because gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The good thing is that any Democratic House going forward is going to be even more progressive than the fantastically productive session of 2010 because the Blue Dogs are almost completely wiped out. Add to that the fact that the nuclear option has been pressed, and 218 House Dems + 50 Senate Dems/Independents + Democratic President means that the machinery of government can actually be used for progressive legislation in a way that couldn't happen then.

But what to do, what to do in the meantime? We can't have an entire lost decade. Because every year that the government fails to act is another year of lost trust in government, and that is fatal to the we-can-get-things-done movement.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


pony request: metafilter subsite entirely devoted to socialists pseudonymously subtweeting at each other.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Provocative piece here: "Why Super Tuesday Isn't Really That Super"

I disagree with some of this, but a few good points made.
posted by CincyBlues at 10:51 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would argue that it is analogous to being a brain surgeon. Four years might not be as much time as you would want your brain surgeon to have, but it's significantly different from none.

/goes into trance trying to pick from menu of related Ben Carson jokes
posted by Celsius1414 at 10:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Hah. I didn't even catch that.
posted by OmieWise at 10:55 AM on March 2, 2016


Can anyone link to a decent overview of the Congressional math and what it would take to change it? I believe I read somewhere that Dems would need 60% of the popular vote nationwide to break 50% in the House, is that true? (I mean, I know that in NC alone we ought to have like 3 or 4 more Dem Representatives than we actually do, if it went by statewide popular vote...)
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:55 AM on March 2, 2016


I'm not really sure how to answer this. Sec State for four years is a grueling round of meeting world leaders, engaging with some of the biggest international issues of the day, and being the representative abroad (at the high high executive level) for the world's foremost superpower.

I should have added that part of that experience is just the education of learning what is going on in the world (from this perspective) and being briefed at a very very high level.
posted by OmieWise at 10:57 AM on March 2, 2016


Random thought:

Some people have said Bill is a liability to Hillary in various ways – some people worry about "dynasties," and other people worry about the support she gave Bill against those who accused him of rape. These are things she's going to have to navigate, particularly since Trump is clearly prepared to hammer her on them, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, particularly in saying she was an "enabler" for his rapes. And there are various ways to approach those things; although I can't say I can think of an easy one, I'm sure there are hundreds of Dem political strategists sitting in a room somewhere working on it.

But for my part, while I haven't decided to vote for Hillary quite yet, that would personally be a nice thing, if only for this reason:

Decades from now, when I'm old and grey, with grandchildren on my knee, I would love to be able to look back on these times and know that, when people in those future times happen to mention "President Clinton," it's a safe assumption that they mean Hillary.
posted by koeselitz at 10:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


What I haven't been able to stop thinking about is the exhortation to have empathy for the Republicans and/or the Trump supporters, and what's driving them towards Trump.

I think it's less about empathy and more about understanding the economic underpinnings of their anger. Just like we were all agreeing above, it's a mistake to think people don't understand their own interests better than we do. Economic issues aren't the ultimate cause of their racism - inherent white supremacy is the cause - but it is definitely a multiplier, and economic despair has fed and escalated their hatred. I'm in no way denying that his supporters are horribly racist and dangerous - even just the resurgence in open white supremacy we've seen since he started running is terrifying and needs to be universally condemned and stopped ASAP - but there is an economic reason they're voting for him, too.

A lot of the people voting for him are people who would have been working at plants like Carrier (which just moved to Mexico, taking thousands of jobs with it - he mentions Carrier in every speech). It's notable to me that Democrats don't talk about the trade issues he mentions anymore - even Sanders doesn't hammer it as hard as I would expect him to. Trump's comments on trade are a huge part of his latent union-Democrat support (SEIU and AFL-CIO leaders have already mentioned being worried about how much Trump support they're seeing in their membership). There is a whole group of people who feel that the Democratic party has left them behind economically, and in some ways they aren't entirely wrong about that. The expression of that anger as racism and hatred is 100% abhorrent, don't get me wrong at all - but there is some economic basis to that situation that Democrats probably need to reckon with, too. It's not necessarily even true anymore that voting for Democrats is in working-class peoples' best interests - the Democratic party has become more and more centered around professional salary-class folks than around working-class folks over the years.
posted by dialetheia at 10:59 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Decades from now, when I'm old and grey, with grandchildren on my knee, I would love to be able to look back on these times and know that, when people in those future times happen to mention "President Clinton," it's a safe assumption that they mean Hillary.

That's not necessarily a good thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Halfway expecting Republicans to do some nonsense to deny Trump the nomination, only to have Trump pull a Mirror Universe Teddy Roosevelt: storm out of the convention, shoot someone, and form the Regressive Party.
posted by ckape at 11:00 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Kissinger is probably the most experienced living Secretary of State.

Kissinger is actually lowest on that list unless you include Kerry (who will pass Kissinger in June).
posted by Etrigan at 11:02 AM on March 2, 2016


it's also not necessarily a bad thing. it's in fact a completely unknown thing, being about the future and all...
posted by nadawi at 11:02 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Back on the republican side, I'm seeing a lot of talk about Rubio trying to take this to a contested convention. But presumably pulling this off requires either Cruz to drop out, or icing him out of the convention. But given that he actually has more delegates than Rubio, there's no way Cruz is dropping out. And to ice Cruz from the convention, he has to use rule 40, which says that a candidate must win a majority of delegates in n states to be eligible to win the convention. N is currently set to 8, but will be changed at the beginning of the convention.

As of right now, here are the states where somebody has won a majority of the delegates:

Alabama - Trump (36/50)
Mass - Trump (22/42)
Tenn - Trump (31/58)
South Carolina - Trump (50/50)
Texas - Cruz (99/155)

Unless Rubio can win more states than Cruz there's no way to stop Cruz from going to the convention. And at least so far, he hasn't been able to capture majority support in a single state, and Cruz has only been able to capture it in his home state. Considering that Rubio is losing to Trump in his own home state (Florida), it doesn't look good. I think chances are very good the 'convention' strategy implodes and we're left with nominee Trump.
posted by zug at 11:05 AM on March 2, 2016


Rubio did win Minnesota.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:08 AM on March 2, 2016


But he didn't win a majority of the delegates, which is what counts for getting onto the first convention ballot.
posted by dialetheia at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2016


You Can't Tip a Buick: " (something I would never dream of doing for any of the other international socialist organizations that I won't name"

I see what you did there ;)
posted by symbioid at 11:12 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




> Romney is going to announce he's going on a cross-country, perhaps cross-continental, motorcycle ride to escape the stress of being idealized as a borkered convention unity candidate. Biden's coming, too.

I would watch this movie.


Wild Hogs 2: Bipartisan Boogaloo
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:14 AM on March 2, 2016


Romney's name has to be like poison to Trump supporters he may be trying to woo. What's he going to do, back Rubio? That just makes Rubio look like a lesser simulacrum of Romney, with the same stink of failure around him (that's really not far off the truth). Holy shit, the republican establishment is a shambles right now.
posted by codacorolla at 11:15 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Romney is going to announce he's going on a cross-country, perhaps cross-continental, motorcycle ride to escape the stress of being idealized as a borkered convention unity candidate. Biden's coming, too.

I would watch this movie.


They already made it: My Fellow Americans
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:16 AM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


GOP Voltron. Romney will form the head. None of them has as many delegates as all of them, and they'll be a lot taller than the Dem candidate which is great TV optics.
posted by cortex at 11:17 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Economic issues aren't the ultimate cause of their racism - inherent white supremacy is the cause - but it is definitely a multiplier, and economic despair has fed and escalated their hatred.

"Sympathy for the (blue-eyed) devil" by Chris Ladd at GOPLifer

For all his many insights, [Martin Luther] King seems to have failed to perceive what professor Derrick Bell would describe thirty years later. In the strictest sense, blue collar white workers were not voting against their interest by supporting racist politicians. They were rallying around their last tie to a form of racial solidarity that for centuries had delivered meaningful, material rewards. Voters in the Kentucky counties most desperately dependent on the welfare state voted overwhelmingly for Romney in 2012 and elected a Tea Party extremist Governor in 2015. By the same logic, that cohort of voters is flocking to Donald Trump and ignoring Bernie Sanders.

The material rewards of racism are as real as the bars that separated King from his jailers. On one side were men who held secure government jobs for life. Though their incomes were modest, they enjoyed guaranteed health care and a pension. The machinery of a deeply oppressive system was calibrated to spare them from its most violent tendencies. Those men saw (and sometimes meted out) the worst abuses that system could deliver. By virtue of the racial heritage they shared with wealthier whites, they enjoyed a thin, but vital degree of protection. Those jailers held down government jobs with pensions for one reason and one reason only – their skin color. And they knew it.

...

An obvious solution might be to deliver a basic level of income and lifestyle for everyone, without regard for old concerns about “need.” Pay for it with taxes on the higher earners who made it into the express lanes of the knowledge economy. Those who want to reap the rewards of the knowledge economy will be free to do so. Those who either don’t want that high-pressure, high-speed lifestyle, or for some reason cannot perform there, will be prevented from falling into penury.

One glaring political problem blocks this move. A large minority of US voters who might seem like the prime beneficiaries of this reform are determined not to go there. Lower income whites, especially in the South, are not interested in a new deal. They want to restore the old one.

Under the old deal, white men got preferential access to all of the best jobs available. Generations of white families earned their living in the fire or police departments, or worked in road construction, sanitation, or public works. Sons worked alongside fathers in union jobs at a local factory. They had every reason to expect that their children would have a chance to follow in the family tradition.

Global capitalism and the rise of the knowledge economy destroyed that simple, yet dignified way of life. As the demands of competition intensified, political will behind generations of racial preferences broke down. Race and gender-based protections for whites weakened or melted away.

...

Expanded access to Medicaid isn’t merely a poor compensation for what they’ve lost, it’s a stinging insult. White racial solidarity across income levels cannot be dismissed as a sentimental attachment, an opiate for the white masses. It has always been a cornerstone of their well-being. From the perspective of blue collar workers, affluent whites pushing “political correctness” or “diversity” are traitors. Having climbed the ladder they are sawing off the bottom rungs.

What the Trumps and Cruz’s of the world offer these voters is a chance to put the genie back in the bottle. They want to restore an America that reserves its bounty for “good, hard-working” white people, where women know their place and behave as humble, modest women should. Where a white man doesn’t need to slog through years of “socialist indoctrination” at some godless university to earn a chance at honest work. They offer a government that will ‘take my country back’ blocking a mythical wave of greedy newcomers who haven’t earned their place from stealing what little is left over after the wealthy take their share. They promise to put “uppity” minorities in their place, suppressing the supposed wave of crime and general thievery perpetrated by lesser races who would steal from the more deserving.

Want to convince lower income white Americans that they are voting against their interests? Explain how you can offer them something better than white supremacy. When we understand what white supremacy actually delivered for these folks, the scale of our challenge in building a just post-racial society becomes evident.

Perhaps King failed to recognize the depth of the challenge he faced in trying to forge an alliance with lower income whites. That said King didn’t become an American secular saint by setting modest goals. No one who is serious about challenging racism in America should ignore the structural, functional importance of bigotry.

...

Until we address this imbalance we will continue to be hounded by populist politicians profiting from fear and hate. The longer we ignore the problem, the more powerful will be our reckoning. This devil will have his due.

Just read it. Read the whole thing.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:19 AM on March 2, 2016 [48 favorites]


Romney's name has to be like poison to Trump supporters he may be trying to woo. What's he going to do, back Rubio? That just makes Rubio look like a lesser simulacrum of Romney, with the same stink of failure around him (that's really not far off the truth). Holy shit, the republican establishment is a shambles right now.

What if Romney is planning to bite down on the poison capsule and spray it into Lord HarkonnenTrump's face?

Like, if Trump's whole appeal is that he's anti-establishment, what better way to knock the wind out of his sails than getting uber-establishment former candidate Mitt Romney to endorse him?
posted by tobascodagama at 11:20 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


"'I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,' Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says in statement. Says he won’t attend tomorrow night’s debate in Detroit."
posted by melissasaurus at 11:22 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Like, if Trump's whole appeal is that he's anti-establishment, what better way to knock the wind out of his sails than getting uber-establishment former candidate Mitt Romney to endorse him?

"My fellow Americans, a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for everything I, Mitt Romney, stand for. I will now say Trump and Romney together 50 times. TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney Pleasemakeitstopiamscreaminginsideiamscreaming TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney screaming TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney screamingpleasemakeitstopTrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney aaaaaaaaah TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney TrumpRomney"
posted by duffell at 11:22 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I don't mean this to be dickish but can't think of another way to say it right now:

The thing that frustrates me most about Bernie detractors ... is this idea that he's in some fantasyland ...
He's said, over and over again in his speeches, that a president cannot do ANYTHING alone and that what he's calling for is a political groundswell of progressive support at all political levels that makes his policies possible.


That's just a specific and concrete form that fantasyland takes. It's a nice thing that people like to hear, but the idea that there will be a massive groundswell of progressivism inside the next four years is so utterly and over-the-top unrealistic that he must surely know that it's just pleasant bullshit. The parts you don't mention where he starts talking about how Republican MCs will change their tune out of fear of progressive voters are even moreso just pleasant bullshit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:22 AM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Just like we were all agreeing above, it's a mistake to think people don't understand their own interests better than we do.

Definitely. In fact it's usually more productive to start from the position that people always have a good reason for doing the things that they do, even if those reasons don't align with your worldview, and even if they are based on what you consider to be faulty assumptions and beliefs.

This is a thing that came up a lot in my anthro courses. The typical example was female genital mutilation. If you come at the issue from the perspective of "this is wrong and abhorrent and must be stopped immediately," well, you may be completely morally correct - but if you haven't stopped to ask why people are doing it in the first place, you have zero hope of changing things. If you come at the issue with a "I will enlighten the savages" mindset, the people you are trying to change will realize that, because they are not stupid. They have reasons for doing it, and if you want to change the practice you have to start with addressing the reasons.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:24 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Well. I will miss Dr. Carson's pleasant smile and soothing bedside manner at the debates. I wish him and his magnificent hands the best.
posted by sallybrown at 11:25 AM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]




At least in my personal experience, I think turning conversations about racism into conversation about class and the economy is far, far more problematic, both in and of itself, and in terms of electoral strategy.

But they're intersectional, and class matters too - I mean, I acknowledged and denounced the racism like fifty times in that comment! I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm just saying it might also be counterproductive to miss the class implications of what's happening with Trump's rise here. In no way was I denying the role of race, in fact I made it very clear that the racism is the ultimate cause of their racism, not class. But I still think it's a mistake to totally ignore the role of class altogether in this situation.

there will be a massive groundswell of progressivism inside the next four years is so utterly and over-the-top unrealistic that he must surely know that it's just pleasant bullshit.

Uh, isn't that sort of what's already happening? Did you expect Sanders to win so many states way back in July when he started running?
posted by dialetheia at 11:26 AM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


I mean, maybe I missed everyone saying "yeah yeah, he'll win uber-liberal Oklahoma, but..." back when he declared his candidacy..
posted by dialetheia at 11:26 AM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Uh, isn't that sort of what's already happening? Did you expect Sanders to win so many states way back in July when he started running?

Seriously. I'm still pretty sure he won't win but I'm shocked and delighted that my initial complete cynicism has been disproven. Because it definitely has been, even if the delegate proportions stay exactly the same through the rest of the primary.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Carson's bedside manner was only soothing because he was planning to lull you into slumber so he can get into bed with you to take a nap.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:31 AM on March 2, 2016


Sure, although with the caveat that many of these people are voting for Clinton against their own interests. They just haven't done enough research.

What if I told you that you would become a nimble navigator and vote for The Donald if only you did more research?
posted by Tanizaki at 11:32 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think Sanders has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what Hillary Clinton or the GOP is offering.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:32 AM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


I think Sanders has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what Hillary Clinton or the GOP is offering.

I think Trump has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what the GOP establishment or the Democrats are offering.

See how easy that is? You just need to do more research, yo.
posted by Tanizaki at 11:35 AM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think Trump has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what the GOP establishment or the Democrats are offering.

There's no need to be sarcastic or rude. I think Trump has also proven that point.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:36 AM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Omg, that Ted Cruz bad lip reading is genius. But now I want to mount a rescue for poor Mrs Cruz.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 11:37 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I agree wholeheartedly with Tanizaki; the liberal consensus that has dominated our political institutions and both major political parties for the past 70 years is breaking down, due to the way that market-oriented liberalism left unchecked tends to ruin the lives of the people at the pointy end of it, and as the liberal consensus disintegrates more and more Americans are realizing that they're not liberals, but instead either socialists on the one hand or fascists on the other.

Unlike Tanizaki, I am not certain that this is a good thing, since, like Tanizaki, I believe there is a very good chance that America is more fascist than it is socialist.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:38 AM on March 2, 2016 [27 favorites]


I think Trump has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what the GOP establishment or the Democrats are offering.

IDK why you've presented this as sarcastic when it's completely accurate. The fact that both Trump and Sanders are doing so well means something really significant.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:42 AM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think Sanders has done a good job proving his point that there are millions of folks out there who don't want to settle for what Hillary Clinton or the GOP is offering.

i voted for sanders and i'll vote for the democrat if it's clinton. my vote for sanders which you're counting doesn't prove what you say it does.

i voted for sanders and it's definitely not because of the bernie stans on mefi, rather in spite of, but you guys just keep at it.
posted by twist my arm at 11:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


Can anyone link to a decent overview of the Congressional math and what it would take to change it?

I don't think it's quite 60% -- and of course, it's a district-by-district thing. Let's see, in 2012 Democrats got 48.8% of votes for the House, to the Republicans' 47.6%. (That would translate into 50.6% of the two-party vote.) For this they received 242/535 seats, or 45.2%.

So, this is very hand-wavey, but I think it's fair to say that anything over 55% of the two-party vote will get Democrats a majority in the House.

Confounding factors:

--Redistricting. Right now things are pretty well tilted to the Republicans. What this does mean is that a solid blue wave could carry a lot of districts that are gerrymandered to deliver a 55% / 45% pro-GOP split. So depending on how that hypothetical 55% national Dem vote gets parceled out, you could see that delivering a lot of seats in light-red districts, primarily suburban-to-exurban areas in metros big enough to have a handful of congressional districts, and also congressional seats in smaller metros that only have one district.

As a (former) Michigander, I may be biased but Michigan is actually a good state to look at as a microcosm. It's heavily gerrymandered. Look at the 2012 MI results from the NYT. In 2012, Democrats only got 5/14 seats even as Obama spanked Romney 54-44%. But 5 of the 7 Republican-held seats were won by less than 10 points, so just a five-point swing to the Democrats in those areas would result in an overall congressional delegation that was 10D/4R!

--Of course after the 2020 census the maps will all change. So the 2020 state legislative elections will be crucial. You can bet that the deep pockets on the GOP side are well aware of this, so progressive organizers need to work there as well. It's to Democrats' advantage that unlike in 2010, that will be a presidential election year.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:43 AM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I kind of disagree with this. Sanders is sort of fulfilling a Goldwater-esque role in the sense that he's dramatically changing the Overton window on a national scale...

This is misunderstanding what Goldwater represented. He demonstrated how the business and banking Republican party could make a coalition with southern segregationist and other populist racist groupings along with a grab bag of te populist radical right. The current chaos in the Republican party is a result of those populist groupings within the Republican party struggling to shrug off the subservient role they have taken to traditional business and finance issues and assert control over both the top and bottom of the party.

Sanders Democrats are going to have to play chess with the Clintons to maneuver them into increasingly unpopular positions, until a coalition of Democratic party interest groups can be formed to force them out.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:45 AM on March 2, 2016


Well, as my then 5 year old niece said when, after stepping on the something pointy, I asked why she couldn't pick up her toys every so often: Too hard.
posted by y2karl at 11:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Romney is going to announce he's going on a cross-country, perhaps cross-continental, motorcycle ride to escape the stress of being idealized as a borkered convention unity candidate. Biden's coming, too.

I would watch this movie.


I would, but only if you give one a power ring and the other one a bow.
posted by phearlez at 11:45 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


He demonstrated how the business and banking Republican party could make a coalition with southern segregationist and other populist racist groupings along with a grab bag of te populist radical right.

Definitely fair enough. I do think his role in bringing together and inspiring the movement conservative activists who were able to build the intellectual argument for the Reagan revolution is still very important, and is what I was trying to get at.
posted by dialetheia at 11:47 AM on March 2, 2016


i voted for sanders and i'll vote for the democrat if it's clinton. my vote for sanders which you're counting doesn't prove what you say it does.

i voted for sanders and it's definitely not because of the bernie stans on mefi, rather in spite of, but you guys just keep at it.


Why misconstrue the intentions of all Bernie supporters?

In the primary, I support Sanders but I don't support Clinton.
In the general, I'll support whoever wins.

If someone says that millions of people don't support Clinton in the primary, it does not mean they don't support her in the general.

There's plenty of nuance to go around.
posted by kyp at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Sanders Democrats are going to have to play chess with the Clintons to maneuver them into increasingly unpopular positions, until a coalition of Democratic party interest groups can be formed to force them out.

Hence, this blaming of women and African American voters for supporting Clinton is divisive and unhelpful. For Sanders to pull off the Goldwater effect, he needs to show he's better than the Clintons on issues for traditionally disenfranchised groups. And he needs to continue tapping into the labor vote (how about proposals to bring back unions to this country?) before Trump steals more of them.

We've had our fun of laughing at the DLC and the DNC and the HRC for being pawns of Wall Street, but most people don't see it that way yet. The realignment is not yet complete.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:49 AM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I mean, maybe I missed everyone saying "yeah yeah, he'll win uber-liberal Oklahoma, but..." back when he declared his candidacy...

Oklahoma is obviously not uber liberal, however it is uber white.
Interesting that the only county Hillary won was the one that contains Oklahoma City, which has the largest proportion of African Americans of any city in the state.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:53 AM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Crap, I effed up my math in one spot above in a cascade of errors that somehow ended up at a reasonable approximation of the actual answer.

Dems got 201/435 House seats, or 46.2% of seats, on 50.6% of the two-party vote.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:53 AM on March 2, 2016




i voted for sanders and it's definitely not because of the bernie stans on mefi, rather in spite of, but you guys just keep at it.

Dialethia did more to persuade me to eventually support Sanders than Sanders did. I was pretty dead set on sitting this primary out and voting in the Republican one instead. I think the Bernie crew here is pretty cool.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on March 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


dialetheia should find an office to run for (not snark)
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:58 AM on March 2, 2016 [34 favorites]


Some interesting quantitative analysis of Sanders and Black voters: Black voters and the 2016 primaries, Part 1: Name recognition
posted by kyp at 12:04 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


If things don't work out for Donald Trump and he can get the Celebrity Apprentice restarted, Ben Carson would make a great contestant.
posted by peeedro at 12:05 PM on March 2, 2016


This is from way back in the thread but this statement:

Since when is personal growth a negative characteristic? When someone says Clinton was against gay marriage in 1992, I’m like “OK? So was my dad. Next.”

is really disingenuous considering she was against gay marriage for 21 years after 1992.
posted by saul wright at 12:13 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]




Dialethia did more to persuade me to eventually support Sanders than Sanders did.

Me too. I was on the fence because I am very concerned about electability, but Dialethia has been posting great links and pretty reasonable arguments all along, which got me off my butt to support Sanders.
posted by zug at 12:14 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


is really disingenuous considering she was against gay marriage for 21 years after 1992.

I mean, so were a lot of people's dads, probably.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Of course after the 2020 census the maps will all change. So the 2020 state legislative elections will be crucial. You can bet that the deep pockets on the GOP side are well aware of this, so progressive organizers need to work there as well. It's to Democrats' advantage that unlike in 2010, that will be a presidential election year.
Right, but that happens after President Bernie's first term, during which he's dealing with the Congress that will be elected under the current set-up. That means that he will either have to compromise in exactly the ways that he has criticized establishment Democrats for compromising, or he will accomplish nothing. And we're supposed to believe that after four years of either discrediting compromise or failure, we're going to see a massive political revolution that will sweep progressives into the statehouses and change everything? How? Isn't it just as likely that the opposite will happen: that President Bernie's failure to deliver on his rhetoric will totally discredit his fundamental vision and cause a conservative backlash?

I'm all for focusing on statehouses in 2020, and I think we probably need to build the groundwork now. So if Bernie's supporters want something to do with their disappointment if and when he loses the nomination, building strong grassroots coalitions to take back state legislatures would be a way to go. Hell, if you get involved now, you may be in a good position to run for state legislature in 2020.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


The thing that kills me about Hillary and gay marriage is that there was so much political activism work on that front by the main LGBT lobbying groups, and the democrats, Hillary among them, threw us under the bus again and again and again. If it had been up to Washington, we would still be waiting, and I guarantee President Clinton would not have been the one to fight for it.

It was a small taste for me of the ugly truth that mainstream democrats aren't willing to even acknowledge the injustice that abounds in America, let along fight it.
posted by zug at 12:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [21 favorites]


Day of the Diggler: The media's most accurate political pundit is a joke.
Carl Allison Diggler is the pundit 2016 deserves. Pontificating at a weekly column at Cafe.com, a new media startup peddling offbeat political commentary, Diggler is a self-described veteran of the Beltway, a common-sense straight talker who reports on location from his gut. He is smug, out-of-touch and visibly insecure — in other words, a natural political commentator.

Or, at least, that’s what his media colleagues believed when “The Dig” first came on the scene. In reality, the leering middle-aged D.C. hack has since been revealed as the creation of two twenty-something Twitter rascals, Felix Biederman (@byyourlogic) and Virgil Texas (@virgiltexas).

“Diggler is not an evil man,” Biederman told International Business Times. “He is an ignorant a--hole.”
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]




After yesterday's results, it looks like Carson is throwing in the towel.

Ben Carson Does 'Not See A Political Path Forward' For Presidential Candidacy
posted by vverse23 at 12:20 PM on March 2, 2016


I think the Bernie crew here is pretty cool.

In retrospect, I think a lot of the heat in those threads came from different perceptions of Bernie supporters based on where posters hang out On The Internet. Me, I don't really go anywhere online anymore except for Metafilter and a carefully curated list of RSS feeds. And of course facebook/cat gifs/etc. But to the point, my observation of Sanders supporters has largely been of intelligent, anti-racist, feminist and historically aware folks making good, self-aware and generally irenic points. So I can see how people with perceptions formed Elsewhere came back to Metafilter with their backs already arched in a way that left me (and maybe other Sanders supporters) feeling that his supporters were being unfairly maligned.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:20 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]




Carl Beijer followed up with Black voters and the 2016 primaries, Part 2: The establishment firewall

I think Beijer is making a really good argument there. Which just further underlines the foolishness of the Sanders campaign's decision to not campaign in states with a large number of black voters. He had a chance to win them over but didn't even try.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:22 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


That means that he will either have to compromise in exactly the ways that he has criticized establishment Democrats for compromising

I have seen very little of him saying anything particularly critical, except "it was a good start, but we need to build on this" with regard to Obamacare. And he's right. It was an improvement over what we had before but we all know that it has only put a bandaid on a much larger problem. I feel like saying that Bernie is being a hypocrite while blasting Hillary is mainly a Hillary talking point. I mean, to be fair the one place he really has been hammering at Hillary is on campaign financing, but he's put his money where his mouth is there.
posted by zug at 12:24 PM on March 2, 2016


Romney to Lay Out Case Against Trump in Speech Thursday

Nice of him to give Trump 24 hours notice to compose a variety of "elitist loser" tweets.

Is Mitt the designated "GOP elder statesman" role now? Can't help but wonder how many desperate "could you guys maybe help us out a bit here here" calls HW and G Bush are receiving now that Jeb's out of contention.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:24 PM on March 2, 2016




In retrospect, I think a lot of the heat in those threads came from different perceptions of Bernie supporters based on where posters hang out On The Internet.

I mean, while we're all patting ourselves on the back for how awesome we at Metafilter are, I've never felt particularly welcome or comfortable here as a Hillary supporter. Just another data point.
posted by Salieri at 12:25 PM on March 2, 2016 [29 favorites]


whoops, that might read as more critical than I meant. To be clear, I don't think you are intentionally parroting Hillary talking points or being unfair, ArbitraryAndCapricious, I just mean that the media has picked up this narrative and I haven't really seen the truth behind it.
posted by zug at 12:25 PM on March 2, 2016


Which just further underlines the foolishness of the Sanders campaign's decision to not campaign in states with a large number of black voters. He had a chance to win them over but didn't even try.

Strange you should say that, because I distinctly recall him trying in Atlanta.
posted by Fleebnork at 12:26 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Quote from a moderate Republican:

"My daughter is 13. She is interested in the election. I told her that I will vote for Trump because Hillary is a bad person with an evil plan and Trump is a bad person with no plan."
posted by clawsoon at 12:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Romney is like freakin' FDR compared to the current crop of idiots. I can't believe how far the GOP has fallen. And Romney was no great prize.
posted by Justinian at 12:28 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Uh, isn't that sort of what's already happening?

Nope. What's happening is that liberals, and especially white liberals, generally prefer Sanders. Doesn't mean that there are shitloads of progressives out there, just that the ones out there voted for Sanders. It sure as hell doesn't mean that there are so many progressives out there that Republican MCs worry about them. That bit is clap-for-Tinkerbell nonsense.

Did you expect Sanders to win so many states way back in July when he started running?

Oklahoma was kind of a surprise but otherwise, yeah. Admittedly not in July, and obviously you'll have to just take my word for it, but in late August I described pretty much what's been happening in the first meeting or two of the parties course I ran last semester. Not because I'm so fucking smart or such a great prognositicator, but just because that was the obvious consensus. This has not been a really exciting or shocking nomination contest on the Democratic side.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:28 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Helicoptering in for a couple of photo ops is not "trying". Trying is ad buys and people on the ground. And I'm fully aware that Sanders didn't have the funds or the established party apparatus that Hillary could rely on for hedging bets by showing up literally everywhere. But he had a choice, and the path he chose was to focus his campaign in northern states with relatively small non-white populations.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


is really disingenuous considering she was against gay marriage for 21 years after 1992.

I mean, so were a lot of people's dads, probably.


Are they running? Then who cares.

Really, changing opinions and how long ago they changed aren't that important in their starting and ending point or when they changed. Your opinions as a politician matter up until the moment you take action based on them. Two seconds after the vote/deal/speech, who gives a shit? You did what you did, so the changing opinion afterwards has about as much obviating impact on that action as telling me you felt bad about cheating the moment it was over, baby! Well how nice for you and your instant replay conscience, I guess?

We care about past differing opinions because they reflect a difference in how we each felt at that time and want to know what that means about opinions now where we might differ or how that other opinion might indicate your feelings on this current thing.

You were against it and now you're for it, fine. What I need from anyone - HRC or whoever - is some facts about why we differed then and what changed your mind, and some sense about what this means for our opinions now. Are you just on a tape delay from where I'm at? Are you just saying what you think I want to hear or what will get you out of some shit now? If you want me to believe that your shift in opinion reflects a narrowing in our differences then you can expect me to want some convincing.

So you don't get credit for just saying you changed your mind. It's not unreasonable to ask someone claiming movement to explain why they moved and it's not unreasonable to expect someone asking you for something (your vote) to prove they're not just saying the expedient thing.

I'm going to vote for HRC if she's the dem on the ticket because even if she's on tape delay that's still ahead of the other choice. But don't tell me I don't get to care whether stated changes in position are legit or believable.
posted by phearlez at 12:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Nothing evil about banning Muslims from entering the country, rounding up immigrants and deporting them, etc. Nope definitely not.
posted by defenestration at 12:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


People generally don't like to be around other people they disagree with (vocally, or who vocally disagree with them) on issues they believe to be of substance. Online or anywhere else.
posted by Phyltre at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2016


Helicoptering in for a couple of photo ops is not "trying". Trying is ad buys and people on the ground.

Sanders had 200 paid staffers in South Carolina and spent millions on ads there.
posted by dialetheia at 12:31 PM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Yeah, I mean I just don't understand where this "didn't even try" narrative is coming from?
posted by Fleebnork at 12:32 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


This has not been a really exciting or shocking nomination contest on the Democratic side.

Speaking personally, it has been by far the most exciting and shocking nomination contest on the Democratic side in my lifetime.
posted by saul wright at 12:33 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


... more than 2008?
posted by Justinian at 12:33 PM on March 2, 2016


Fine. Not shocking or exciting to polisci data nerds.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:34 PM on March 2, 2016


Speaking personally, it has been by far the most exciting and shocking nomination contest on the Democratic side in my lifetime.

Were you born after 1992?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:34 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ah, the moment when the American far left has been waiting for (at least, short-term), the #Bernout (or is it too premature at this point to declare it?). Might as well throw my hat into the ring here regarding this beauty pageant of far left organizations...

It's real complicated. I give them money on a regular basis (something I would never dream of doing for any of the other international socialist organizations that I won't name), but one key reason I feel comfortable giving SA money is that the party has so far been reacting to its success by shedding a lot the purity-centric, reductive ideas and practices that you find in other left formations.

I haven't had that much contact with SAlt members personally. But people whose opinions I trust say that they don't focus nearly as much on their analysis or program as they do winning tactical victories and meeting the workers ideologically where they are at. If that means that they have to explain the economy as a conspiracy of "the big banks" or go so far as to support capitalist politicians to win victories, so be it.

This seems to distance them from what I consider a socialist organization. The first, inviolable organizing principle of a socialist organization, in my view, is independent organization. Otherwise the organization just ends up getting swallowed by more powerful (capitalist) forces. If SAlt wants to be the left wing of the Democratic Party, fine -- just don't call yourselves socialist. I don't think this is a matter of "purity" so much as it is a matter of survival as an effective political organization.

The second downside of SAlt follows from their opportunism. One of the biggest advantages of being a socialist is the superior analysis of society that it affords one. If a party abandons that for conspiratorial/populist explanations of power and economics, it bequeaths a poorer understanding of reality both to the membership and to those in the party's orbit. This is a shame since as the political system / economy appears to be in crisis, there's a fantastic opportunity for expounding a Marxist perspective that can provide answers to questions that capitalists struggle to explain.

Granted, this is a rather superficial appraisal of the organization since, as I mentioned, I have had little contact with them. And, as others have said, there seem to be a variety of contending forces within the organization: old-school Trotskyists, hard-nosed labor organizers, a batch of fresh-faced youngsters curious about "socialism", etc. I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say about SAlt.

Anyway, how do socialist folks feel about Democratic Socialists of America?

I am extremely hostile to democratic socialism, generally. The democratic socialist (Second International) tradition is one of collaboration with capitalists, extreme hostility to further left forces, and general mediocrity. Today this tradition finds themselves in the position of administering austerity when more conservative forces fail to push it through.

DSA in particular is a very small (on the order of hundreds of actual activist members... there's a larger number of party roll paper members) organization that comes out of an anti-Communist tradition. They content themselves with, in effect, being the left wing of the Democratic Party.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:34 PM on March 2, 2016


Yeah I don't get this narrative that Bernie just abandoned trying to woo black voters. He tried. He failed. Speculating about why gets into dangerous territory sometimes, but he couldn't break through, clearly, in the time he had.
posted by dis_integration at 12:34 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I was born in 85 and yes, this has been way more exciting than 2008 for me.
posted by saul wright at 12:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I mean I just don't understand where this "didn't even try" narrative is coming from?

People reading too much into the last-minute focus on states where he was closer. Understandable kinda but as wrong as the surrender-monkey slur on France.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Jeez, I keep sidling up to Bernie, I want to feel the Bern!!! But this Phish thing is beyond the pale. Honestly, if Clinton says that too I might have to vote for Trump.
posted by OmieWise at 12:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Personally, nothing feels exciting, fresh or new about most of this election.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think seeing it simply as whether Black voters like Sanders is overly reductionist anyway - they've simply preferred Hillary Clinton so far. He's running against a specific opponent with a very deep history in Black southern politics, not in a vacuum.
posted by dialetheia at 12:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


Is no one else as excited as I am that we live in a time when the first viable crowd-funded Independent candidate has an actual shot (albeit small) of becoming President?
posted by kyp at 12:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]




I was on the hope and change train all the way to the station in 2008, and was one of those people hootin and hollerin' in the streets of Chicago when Obama gave his victory speech (although totally annoyed at how hard it was to get anywhere where I could even see him on stage in Grant park). Ahh, youth. This election is scary, and I find Sanders hard to get excited about, even though I should be excited, mostly because, I think, of learned helplessness. I went to Iraq war protests and that did nothing, I supported the Hope and Change candidate and basically we only put a weak dam up temporarily stopping the river of bullshit from washing us all away. I'm fresh out of hope and excitement. Save me president jesus.
posted by dis_integration at 12:43 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


From that first Pierce piece:
listening to Tailgunner Ted Cruz talking sweetness and light about party unity was like listening to a cobra whistle love songs.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:44 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Fine. Not shocking or exciting to polisci data nerds.

I'll take your word for it, but every single conversation I had with people around that time ended with outright scoffing contempt for the idea that a socialist could win anything past maybe IA or NH, if that. "He's a socialist, he's not even a Democrat, and he won't be able to raise enough money to really compete" was the near-universal party line until about January.

I've definitely considered running for office before, if only because I think we need more scientifically literate people in office. There are two things that have dissuaded me so far: the fact that I thought my politics were too far left, and the fact that I would have to go beg big companies for money if I wanted to compete. I've been heartened by Sanders' success on both counts - although it has made me more cognizant that internal resistance to left ideas within the Democratic party is more of a roadblock than I ever would have thought it would be, which really shouldn't be that surprising thinking back on my history of involvement with the Democratic party. Generally the older folks who run local politics are happy to have the labor and enthusiasm of young people, but are very hostile to listening to their ideas and often take a smug and condescending attitude about how young people just don't know any better. I haven't found that to be terribly different this time around, unfortunately, but I'm still encouraged by Sanders' success in a number of other ways that make it far more likely that I'd run for office if circumstances aligned.
posted by dialetheia at 12:44 PM on March 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


Save me president jesus.

You know, if we could all just collectively get in the habit of voting in midterm elections...
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:46 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, before the GOP taps Cruz for anything, they need reread the fable about The Scorpion and the Frog.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:47 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bernie Sanders took a strong policy position on Wednesday by declaring Phish one of the country's great bands.

I take back everything I've said, he's a monster.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:47 PM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Generally the older folks who run local politics are happy to have the labor and enthusiasm of young people, but are very hostile to listening to their ideas and often take a smug and condescending attitude about how young people just don't know any better.

This has been my experience as well. Along with witnessing what happens to women who dare to speak up and be politically active in their communities, particularly if those communities do not skew left. I have known more than one woman who lost their job or had to move because they dared challenge the local political establishment in their communities.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:49 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments removed. Please variously cool it, folks.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:50 PM on March 2, 2016


first viable crowd-funded Independent candidate has an actual shot (albeit small) of becoming President?

Do you not remember Perot? (Granted everyone tried to forget about him as quickly as possible, but still...)
posted by aspo at 12:53 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


> The second downside of SAlt follows from their opportunism. One of the biggest advantages of being a socialist is the superior analysis of society that it affords one. If a party abandons that for conspiratorial/populist explanations of power and economics, it bequeaths a poorer understanding of reality both to the membership and to those in the party's orbit. This is a shame since as the political system / economy appears to be in crisis, there's a fantastic opportunity for expounding a Marxist perspective that can provide answers to questions that capitalists struggle to explain.

Frankly, the opportunism is one of the reasons why I think they're possibly a worthwhile organization. It distinguishes them from the Marxist-Leninist groups that pride themselves on the superiority of their analysis without attempting to engage in any meaningful way in politics, and that tend to run screaming away from any actual political opportunities afforded to them, opting instead to do almost nothing outside of neurotically building capacity for a revolution that's always a generation away.

If I wanted political analysis separated from politics, I'd read academic Marxists and leave it at that — academic Marxists, whatever their faults, tend to both read and understand Marx, while Marxist-Leninist organizations outside the academy tend to focus on Lenin and Trotsky rather than Marx, and when they read Marx tend to only read the early Marx. Marx was smart when he was a kid writing the Manifesto, but his analysis didn't really get good until after he spent a couple of decades reading political economists instead of just philosophers.

I know I'm being somewhat incendiary (at least for this context) by insisting that the types of organizing that happen in Marxist-Leninist organizations tends not to be political organization, not exactly, but I'll stand by it.

Ultimately the thing that turned me off from a certain group for good was reading their introduction to Marxism, a book that's chiefly interesting for how it manages to drip condescension for non-Marxists on every page, while also utterly misinterpreting those few pieces of pre-Bolshevik Marxist writing that it actually engages with.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:53 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


clawsoon: Quote from a moderate Republican: "My daughter is 13. She is interested in the election. I told her that I will vote for Trump because Hillary is a bad person with an evil plan and Trump is a bad person with no plan."

That comment section was a disturbing window into the underbelly. For example:

#16 Nope. If Trump loses in November it can be blamed on two factors:

1. Importation of 3rd worlders into the US to get on welfare and vote for Democrats (Holy Scheisser, did you see that photo of the Somalis at that one polling station in Minnesota?!!!)

2. Voter fraud by the Hillary Clinton campaign in Republican No Go Zones of black precincts in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Northern Virginia, South Florida.

posted by bluecore at 12:55 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Do you not remember Perot? (Granted everyone tried to forget about him as quickly as possible, but still...)

Perot was self-funded.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:56 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'll take your word for it, but every single conversation I had with people around that time ended with outright scoffing contempt for the idea that a socialist could win anything past maybe IA or NH, if that.

Fair enough. I mean this sincerely and at face value, not an I-know-better way, but I expect we just have different networks of contacts and read different stuff to base our own priors on.

It would be really interesting to peer into the timeline where he'd started effectively campaigning in 2013 or 2014. He could maybe have won this thing if he'd started earlier. Yeah, fine, still could win if something weird happens.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:56 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


and was one of those people hootin and hollerin' in the streets of Chicago when Obama gave his victory speech (although totally annoyed at how hard it was to get anywhere where I could even see him on stage in Grant park)

Ditto. I was at an American Library Association conference in Chicago which finished that afternoon, and several of us managed to get a taxi there. That was a good evening, to put it mildly. One of our group also somehow got us a taxi back.
posted by Wordshore at 12:56 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


That was a good evening, to put it mildly.

Hah! The revcom.us banner in that photo collection gave me the giggles. All Hail Bob Avakian! It's BAsic!
posted by dis_integration at 1:00 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Personally, nothing feels exciting, fresh or new about most of this election.

I don't know, I see a through line from Occupy to Bernie to who knows where. And also the DNC has had it's mask slip a bit too.

As I said in one of the Occupy threads long ago, "Puff, puff, grow little fire, grow."
posted by Trochanter at 1:01 PM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


> That comment section was a disturbing window into the underbelly.

Aren't they all?
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:03 PM on March 2, 2016




I'm stunned that someone of voting age in 2008 didn't find electing our first black President exciting. I went to a viewing party in Brooklyn and I felt like the city erupted in joy, everyone was just running around thrilled all night.
posted by zutalors! at 1:09 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


what's really funny is going to protest marches and watching:
  1. The revcom people try to position their giant banner up front so that people think it's a revcom march
  2. Everyone who doesn't want to be photographed standing in front of a revcom banner (which is to say, almost everyone) scurrying out of their way.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:09 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Seriously, Election Day 2008 was one of the best nights of my life.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:10 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I remember 4th of November 2008. I was at my friend Frankie's place in the South Side of Chicago. The streets erupted that night. People came door to door huggin' and kissin' and the party never stopped that night.
posted by infini at 1:12 PM on March 2, 2016


While I'm generally interested in politics and keep up on all the day to day, I'm already sick of this election. So much vitriol flying in all directions at everyone of all political persuasions. One thing that does give me hope is that maybe in all of this (and this is probably wishful thinking) we're starting to see the parties fracture and hopefully someday they'll be gone. They're just too big. We have too many people in this country for two parties to represent everyone. I know structurally that's how our system defaults and it's going to be several decades at least before we're free of them, but hopefully with the number of independents increasing and the new forms of communicating and organizing that get developed (which we're starting to see now with the internet) we can someday be rid of them altogether. It's not how real people actually think about their political beliefs and leads to creepy tribalism.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


This has been my experience as well.
Mine too, to be honest. But I don't think that most revolutions are easy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:12 PM on March 2, 2016


My Republican, elected-official boss in 2008 took some time out of his day the morning after Obama won to tell us how goshdarned happy he was for everyone who was excited about the election. I got a real kick out of the fact that he felt like he kinda needed to do that.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:13 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]




Also, in light of the 2008 election, it's disappointing to me as a woman and as a queer person that the response to our first female president will most likely be "meh" at best.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:14 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just to be clear, I was saying the Democratic nomination process in 2008 wasn't (near as) exciting for me, not election night.
posted by saul wright at 1:14 PM on March 2, 2016


i feel like people are losing track of the conversation or moving the goal posts - the "exciting thing" was brought up explicitly about the democratic contest, not the eventual election.
posted by nadawi at 1:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Excellent commentary, Buick. Had a similar experience with the SWP way back when. I understood the impotence, never could understand why they preferred it that way.
---
Thought this piece by Kos mostly hit the mark.
posted by CincyBlues at 1:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


the response to our first female president will most likely be "meh" at best.

this will definitely be your response, but I don't think you can extrapolate that to everyone.
posted by zutalors! at 1:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]




Sec State for four years is a grueling round of meeting world leaders, engaging with some of the biggest international issues of the day, and being the representative abroad (at the high high executive level) for the world's foremost superpower.

Ok, so she starts with, 1460 days of experience as Secretary of State.

How many days of experience do we take away for each death resulting from her actions/inactions in office?
posted by mikelieman at 1:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


i'm a southern queer woman and i'll be giddy if i get to watch hillary clinton sworn in. she's not my perfect candidate but i always assumed the first woman (or, prior to 2008, the first black) president would have to come from the republican side.
posted by nadawi at 1:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]




Do you not remember Perot?

"Vast Sucking Sound" turned out to be pretty apt.
posted by mikelieman at 1:20 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


The main source for that Herald story is this totes impartial dude
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's not how real people actually think about their political beliefs and leads to creepy tribalism.

Still, if Donald Trump is a window to how "real people" think, then I'm kind of okay if political parties to not be dominant but still find a way to remain relevant.
posted by FJT at 1:23 PM on March 2, 2016


How many days of experience do we take away for each death resulting from her actions/inactions in office?

Uh, none? Dislike her all you want, but there isn't a Secretary of State who doesn't have Statist blood on their hands, nor a Senator either. This focus on Clinton's actions like she was shooting people out back is really strange. In grown up politics, at least in a repressive power like the US, there will be blood. I agree we should try to limit it, but it's a strange niavete to act like this disproportionally depends on one person.
posted by OmieWise at 1:26 PM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


I'm stunned that someone of voting age in 2008 didn't find electing our first black President exciting. I went to a viewing party in Brooklyn and I felt like the city erupted in joy, everyone was just running around thrilled all night.

Same in Seattle, one of the whitest cities in America. And it was 20-somethings who celebrated well into the morning. Whatever else happened the next seven-eight years, if Hillary can't inspire young voters the way that Obama did and the way that Bernie does now, then she — and by extension, the rest of us — are done.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:27 PM on March 2, 2016


yeah, i guess in that case we should just vote Trump since he hasn't sent any drones or cast any votes for war or...done anything in government at all.
posted by zutalors! at 1:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]



> Had a similar experience with the SWP way back when. I understood the impotence, never could understand why they preferred it that way.

This article, I think, has a pretty good take on / diagnosis of the tendency for left organizations to self-marginalize.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


All that inspiration and excitement didn't get those kids to the polls in 2010 or 2014, so as good as that energy is to see idk if it's the end-all be-all
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:30 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


In grown up politics, at least in a repressive power like the US, there will be blood

Well I'm just a silly little baby but maybe we could try not being a repressive power?
posted by Drinky Die at 1:30 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Trump's not racist, he's just “inexperienced in expressing himself.”

> “I think it’s up to us to make it clear that we don’t tolerate those types of racist organizations and I don’t know many people who would believe that [Republicans] do,” Hatch said.

What a ridiculous notion!
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:32 PM on March 2, 2016


I'm sorry, I didn't mean the "grown-up" to refer to a user, I meant it to refer to the real world of politics rather than the ideal world.

Yeah, I get trying to limit it, and trying to not be a repressive power. I fully support those things. However I also think that acting like Clinton is the person who is responsible for blood of the nation is a very strange thing, and ahistorical.
posted by OmieWise at 1:34 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm stunned that someone of voting age in 2008 didn't find electing our first black President exciting.

I found it very exciting! I loved working for Obama's election, was a very early true believer in his campaign, and found it very inspiring. But Sanders' campaign has given me hope for a real left-wing movement in this country more than Obama ever did, simply because Obama was still fairly moderate on most issues (and likely had to be to win that election - I'm not blaming him or talking him down in the least). I think a lot of Sanders supporters were some of the first people on board when Obama ran in 2008.

But yeah, Obama was very much a part of the Democratic party, whereas I feel like a lot of the energy behind Sanders is coming more from left-wing protest movements like the anti-Iraq war contingent, Occupy Wall Street, and even some of the WTO protest people from back in the day. I would love to have seen more alignment with Black Lives Matter, too, but I also think that many of those folks were smart not to endorse or get too involved with this election - it would allow their movement to be co-opted into party politics, and they're almost certainly better off and more powerful not doing that. This campaign has made it very clear that even though many of our interests might be aligned, the predominantly white (but not all white - there were a lot of non-white people involved in those protest movements, too, and I don't think it's fair at all to whitewash them out) groups that drove those movements need to do more to build working relationships with progressives of color in all contexts.

But it has been incredibly exciting to see nearly half of the Democratic party (just on back-of-the-envelope national polling) validate the protest movements I've been a part of since the Bush administration. I'd like to go back in time and tell everyone at e.g. the Kucinich rallies or Iraq war protests that I attended that in 2016 we'd have a real chance at making any kind of impact on the electoral process whatsoever, much less with a 74-year-old socialist winning whole states in the primary. Most people (including Sanders, I think!) expected Sanders' campaign to just be a protest campaign intended to push Clinton the left, not a real run at the Presidency - that he's gotten anywhere near as far as he has is just shocking and fantastic, after seeing most of my favorite candidates marginalized with 2-4% of the vote for most of my life.

All that inspiration and excitement didn't get those kids to the polls in 2010 or 2014, so as good as that energy is to see idk if it's the end-all be-all

They went to protest Wall Street instead. A great deal of the energy behind Occupy grew out of OFA and the Obama campaign. That seems instructive - kids vote when they have a reason to vote for somebody, much as we might wish that duty alone would do the trick.
posted by dialetheia at 1:35 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


yeah, i guess in that case we should just vote Trump since he hasn't sent any drones or cast any votes for war or...done anything in government at all.

It is still the primaries. I believe, in general, most of us here either favor one Democrat over another in the primaries. I think it is permissible to discuss what we find troubling about either of the two candidates and that does not imply voting for Trump. Overall my views align the most with Bernie, but I find some of his votes concerning foreign policy troubling as well.
posted by yertledaturtle at 1:35 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


if Hillary can't inspire young voters the way that Obama did and the way that Bernie does now

was their a higher youth turnout in primaries that translated into bernie votes? i know he's gotten a lot of juice in general excitement, but i haven't seen the demographic break downs/first time voter counts/etc yet. that was my big question for him - could he get people, young people - first time voters, to the polls in the way obama did? from what i've seen so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
posted by nadawi at 1:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Frankly, the opportunism is one of the reasons why I think they're possibly a worthwhile organization.

You may think that Socialist Alternative's opportunism is an indication of their having a greater degree of flexibility and non-dogmatism than the ISO, but that's the fun thing with the CWI: they're both opportunistic and dogmatic. You'll never meet more doctrinaire people, even when they're being heretics from traditional Trotskyist positions.
posted by graymouser at 1:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


However I also think that acting like Clinton is the person who is responsible for blood of the nation is a very strange thing, and ahistorical.

She did convince Obama to undertake full-on regime change in Libya, where he was not going to do it before. Acting like the Secretary of State has little influence over our foreign policy is as weird as personally blaming her for every death.
posted by dialetheia at 1:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]



He demonstrated how the business and banking Republican party could make a coalition with southern segregationist and other populist racist groupings along with a grab bag of te populist radical right.

Definitely fair enough. I do think his role in bringing together and inspiring the movement conservative activists who were able to build the intellectual argument for the Reagan revolution is still very important, and is what I was trying to get at.


The problem with the whole concept of the "Overton window" is the conceit that the Reagan revolution was based on winning an "intellectual" argument or even moving public opinion, rather than the complete destruction of the political and economic power of labor. This was accomplished through specific political action against unions i.e. Carter smashing the Teamsters (in the name of anticorruption), Reagan going after the air-traffic controllers, but, perhaps more important, the brutal policies of the Volcker Fed, which were designed to break inflation by breaking the economic power of workers in the economy. Volcker was appointed by Carter.

So, what you really see is the Democratic establishment, as much as anyone, abandoning the 'labor' and 'keynesian policy' pillars of the New Deal, while panicking about the end of the Democratic "solid South" in the wake of the civil rights act. Carter himself was the first attempt at pandering to white southern voters, Clinton the second. Political culture in the US shifted because the elite of both parties conspired to break the political power of "labor" as a class, not because of any intellectual jujitsu.

This is important because a lot of "left" arguments are really about returning policy to earlier eras: LBJ's social welfare programs, or the New Deal. Sanders, in particular, has succeeded in having the right-wing of the New Deal labelled as "socialist." But, there is a real suggestion that the economic stagnation of the 70s and the political turmoil of the Vietnam/Civil Rights era were the result of the essential failure of the New Deal, both as an economic and political project. Which makes the attempts to resurrect the New Deal politically reactionary and doomed to failure.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


nadawi, I don't know how many new voters he's getting, but of younger voters, he's getting the vast majority of votes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:37 PM on March 2, 2016


is he? i saw returns from...somewhere...probably southern -and it seemed like he got a lot of the young white male vote, but that as always that group was pretty small and was well outnumbered by the young poc vote.
posted by nadawi at 1:39 PM on March 2, 2016


I'll go a step further, and say that I don't really see how the US extricates itself cleanly from some of the messes it's currently in without a whole lot more blood. The world is a fucked up place right now. The US has done quite a lot to make it that way, but it won't not be that way just because the US retires into its own borders. Furthermore, isolationism isn't really an option. The US has a lot of interests and alliances to support. It isn't just in climate change that we are all complicit. Everyone in this thread enjoys quite a lot of privilege due to US belligerence.

I'd honestly be interested to hear what proposed solution is to US use of force in the world as we find it. I don't think anyone occupying the Oval Office would be able to keep their semi-dirty hands clean for long.

Acting like the Secretary of State has little influence over our foreign policy is as weird as personally blaming her for every death.

I'm not doing that. I don't know why you think I'm doing that.
posted by OmieWise at 1:41 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


from what I've seen, turnout on the Democratic side is down from 2008. I think whatever you think of Bernie, the revolution isn't happening at least with regard to him winning the nomination here in 2016.

Also, while I think Occupy was awesome I don't see why that excused young people from voting in midterms.
posted by zutalors! at 1:41 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


nadawi, I don't know how many new voters he's getting, but of younger voters, he's getting the vast majority of votes.

Sanders is getting the majority of younger voters but it isn't the vast majority in a lot of places. He won voters under 30 54-46, which isn't a huge gap. And he lost voters 30-44 by 75-25!
posted by Justinian at 1:42 PM on March 2, 2016


That's in South Carolina, sorry, I cut out the state by accident.
posted by Justinian at 1:44 PM on March 2, 2016


Sorry, yes, I was talking generally and not about South Carolina.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:44 PM on March 2, 2016


But, there is a real suggestion that the economic stagnation of the 70s and the political turmoil of the Vietnam/Civil Rights era were the result of the essential failure of the New Deal, both as an economic and political project. Which makes the attempts to resurrect the New Deal politically reactionary and doomed to failure.

I fail entirely to see the reasoning behind this claim. It's true that Roosevelt was only able to go so far with the New Deal, insofar as the Senate turned against him after the court-packing fight. But how do any of the social programs deserve the blame for the 70s stagflation and the failures of civil rights? Truman wanted a Civil Rights bill as a vindication of Roosevelt. The South blocked it. How is that the New Deal's fault?
posted by dis_integration at 1:44 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry, yes, I was talking generally and not about South Carolina.

Do you have general numbers?
posted by OmieWise at 1:47 PM on March 2, 2016


Sorry, yes, I was talking generally and not about South Carolina.

But it's not true generally. It's not true in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina...

What you mean without saying is that Sanders wins the vast majority of young voters in states where its only white people voting.
posted by Justinian at 1:47 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


If we'd gone and perfunctorily voted in a bunch of uninspiring DINOs in 2010 and 2014 we'd be living in a much more progressive country right now.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:47 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Here's my one-person data-point: I voted for Sanders in the primaries yesterday, most of my political conversation takes place either on Metafilter or with my spouse, and I think dialetheia's comments have been universally awesome. And I find that the depth of vitriol thrown at Clinton on this site, often to my mind completely unmerited (saying she can't win safe democratic states immediately after she wins Massachusetts; expressing a desire to disenfranchise southern democrats from the primary process because Clinton happens to be winning in the South; saying she's riding on her husband's coattails after she's spent over a decade working in government; etc.) has several times gotten so intense that I have found myself on the verge of typing, "If supporters of Sanders are going to ..." before remembering that I am one. I literally MOMENTARILY FORGET that I voted for him because I get so upset and defensive about how unfair some of the things being said about Clinton are.
posted by kyrademon at 1:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [40 favorites]


Also, while I think Occupy was awesome I don't see why that excused young people from voting in midterms.

I'm not sure the Democratic Party is doing a very good job at demonstrating cause and effect there - I mean, you say it's important, sure, but I don't know how many people give much thought to the fact that our sitting president wouldn't be facing a government shutdown to prevent him nominating a Supreme Court justice if they'd just voted during the unpopular election.

One thing I give the Republicans - they're apparently doing a damn fine job of keeping their pissed people pissed.
posted by Mooski at 1:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Furthermore, isolationism isn't really an option.

Yes it is. But step one for a realistic scenario is to stop making the problem worse with more unnecessary interventions so we can eventually back out of problem alliances. We have to stop digging, and Hillary is not going to do that.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


i would love to have been a fly on the wall of the meeting of the geniuses who concluded, 'You know who can really talk to the angry economically struggling white man? Mitt Romney!" I mean really WTF
posted by angrycat at 1:49 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Actually Sanders does well among young Latino voters also, I shouldn't exclude them. It's primarily African Americans with whom he has problems. But that's a huge part of the Democratic base.
posted by Justinian at 1:49 PM on March 2, 2016


was their a higher youth turnout in primaries that translated into bernie votes?

He's been bringing a lot of young voters out, absolutely - he's won first-time voters every state that has had a large enough group of new voters to report those data. CNN has exit polls for most states here (unfortunately, nothing for some of his strongest wins in caucus states).

Here's his share of first-time voters from all the primaries , with n/a's for states that didn't have enough new voters to even report that data. He won new voters even in states where he did terribly overall, like SC.
- IA: 59%
- NH: 78%
- NV: 53%
- SC: 63%
- AL: n/a
- AR: n/a
- GA: n/a
- TN: n/a
- MA: 72%
- OK: 73%
- TX: 58%
- VT: 92%
- VA: 53%
posted by dialetheia at 1:49 PM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Truman wanted a Civil Rights bill as a vindication of Roosevelt. The South blocked it. How is that the New Deal's fault?

Right, the biggest flaw in the New Deal is that its implementation aligned with white supremacy to raise up (some) white Americans while intentionally excluding (most) black Americans from its benefits. This is the other cornerstone of Ta-Nehisi Coates' arguments for reparations, in addition to his arguments about redlining which I think have received more attention.

The fact that Sanders seems to be repeating the same mistake in taking a class-only (or at least, to be slightly more generous, class-first) approach to righting America's inequalities is worth of criticism. But I don't think a desire to resurrect something akin to New Deal values is inherently reactionary so much as it is, uh, counter-counter-revolutionary.

If we'd gone and perfunctorily voted in a bunch of uninspiring DINOs in 2010 and 2014 we'd be living in a much more progressive country right now.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic? But I'm pretty sure it's factually correct.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:53 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also, while I think Occupy was awesome I don't see why that excused young people from voting in midterms.

It doesn't excuse them, it just gives some indication of why they didn't vote. Most young people don't even consider themselves Democrats - as of 2014, half of Millenials identified as independents. Demanding party loyalty to a party most of them don't even belong to, whether they lean that way or not, is not proving to be a successful way of getting their votes. The party is going to need to move further left to keep them involved, and I'm happy to see that starting to happen now.
posted by dialetheia at 1:54 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yeah, sorry, it wasn't sarcastic. Even a bunch of lame-o centrists would have been way better than the Tea Partiers who started filling up congress.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


i would love to have been a fly on the wall of the meeting of the geniuses who concluded, 'You know who can really talk to the angry economically struggling white man? Mitt Romney!" I mean really WTF


Well, to be honest, the whole "47% of people are moochers" secret recorded conversation does seem kind of quaint right about now.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:56 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Uh, none? Dislike her all you want, but there isn't a Secretary of State who doesn't have Statist blood on their hands, nor a Senator either.

Well, I personally believe that people should be held accountable for their failure in material ways. Again, after her failure to perform due diligence, and giving the Bush administration the AUMF-Iraq, we simply can't take the risk of her making more mistakes of that magnitude.

Bernie told us what would happen. And now there's ISIS...
posted by mikelieman at 1:57 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can guarantee that even with the shittiest of Blue Dogs in the House and Senate we'd have a better country today than we do with the do nothing party in charge.

At a minimum there would be less cover for McConnell about his attempts to block Obama from appointing a Scalia replacement.

Ideological purity is great for some reasons (you can make sure that everyone rows at the same beat) but it can also other a huge number of people.

I don't like a lot of the stances that the centrist Democrats make but in comparison to what the Republicans want to push they are vastly better.
posted by vuron at 1:58 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I'm really hoping for some kind of bombshell (come on, Mittens, get weird), but if the thing tomorrow turns out to be Republican Dad Tells The Kids Why It's Not Cool To Hang Out With The Guys With Armbands Who March Funny then yeah that's pretty much a giant gift basket for Trump, who will remain assuredly un-stumped
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:59 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


But, there is a real suggestion that the economic stagnation of the 70s and the political turmoil of the Vietnam/Civil Rights era were the result of the essential failure of the New Deal, both as an economic and political project. Which makes the attempts to resurrect the New Deal politically reactionary and doomed to failure.

I fail entirely to see the reasoning behind this claim. It's true that Roosevelt was only able to go so far with the New Deal, insofar as the Senate turned against him after the court-packing fight. But how do any of the social programs deserve the blame for the 70s stagflation and the failures of civil rights? Truman wanted a Civil Rights bill as a vindication of Roosevelt. The South blocked it. How is that the New Deal's fault?


the Democratic "solid South" was one of the political pillars of the New Deal and the source of many contradictions within it to ensure the continued maintenance of segregation as a labor policy in the South. but the essence of the New Deal was the assertion that government could manage the tendency of capitalism to crisis but a combination of fiscal policy to ensure adequate demand and regulatory agencies to manage the flow of capital and associated risk. The modern economic era really starts with Nixon abrogating the Bretton-Woods agreement, one of the pre-eminent Keynesian attempts to ensure monetary policy didn't globalize risk. People (on the left) forget that the World Bank and IMF were designed by Keynesians as part of a global system of financial regulation to insure against another global depression, and the transformation of these institutions into instruments of globalizing free flow of capital globally shows how easily government regulation of finance, within a capitalist framework, is corrupted.

finally, the stagflation of the 70s, for a variety of reasons, was not cured by the Keynesian policies that dominated the post-war era. I would argue that this was as much for political reasons as any economic problem. BUt it was this failure which led to the abandonment of labor by the elite of the Democratic party. The article linked above about McGovern imagines the right-ward shift of the party as a reaction to McGovern, rather than the sabotaging of McGovern a sympton of the right-ward lurch of the party. But it's hard to argue, that the New Deal consensus wasn't the dominant political order after WWII and that the crises, both political and economic, of the 70s weren't real.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:59 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Right, the biggest flaw in the New Deal is that its implementation aligned with white supremacy to raise up (some) white Americans while intentionally excluding (most) black Americans from its benefits. This is the other cornerstone of Ta-Nehisi Coates' arguments for reparations, in addition to his arguments about redlining which I think have received more attention.



Yes.
One thing that really helped me to understand this is Tim Wise's film :
(Youtube 1:08:36) White Like Me

It was well worth the hour of viewing and it really made it clear to me how social programs in the US have historically been run with white supremacism built into them.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:00 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Sanders is getting a bigger percentage of new voters but his campaign is not actually increasing their numbers, as he acknowledges:

"Sanders himself said the low turnout in Nevada was a big part of why he lost there. And while he did better in Iowa and New Hampshire, the turnout decline was evident there as well: compared with 2008, Democratic turnout dropped 28 percent in Iowa and 13 percent in New Hampshire.

"The voter turnout was not as high as I had wanted," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "And what I've said over and over again, we will do well when young people, when working-class people people come out. We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:03 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes it is. But step one for a realistic scenario is to stop making the problem worse with more unnecessary interventions so we can eventually back out of problem alliances.

The United States created the current world order. To just leave other countries holding the bag when the US formed the rules and framework is kind of, well, irresponsible.
posted by FJT at 2:04 PM on March 2, 2016


Sanders is getting a bigger percentage of new voters but his campaign is not actually increasing their numbers, as he acknowledges:

Doesn't that imply that Clinton is doing a much worse than average job of mobilizing new voters, then? Plus that was just in NV.
posted by dialetheia at 2:06 PM on March 2, 2016


Doesn't that imply that Clinton is doing a much worse than average job of mobilizing new voters, then? Plus that was just in NV.

Well voter turnout for Democrats has been lower than in 2008 in just about every state I believe, though I could be wrong.

Clinton is certainly doing worse than Sanders at mobilizing new voters, but her approach to getting things done as president is not dependent on it the way that his is.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:12 PM on March 2, 2016


Can someone (non-snarkily) summarize why someone should be excited about Hillary over Bernie? I am not looking for a debate, I honestly don't think I've heard anyone summarize her positives in a way that weren't just "she's more electable, we all assume she's the upcoming Democrat and we all vote Democrat." Like what is she expected to change?

(This is coming from someone who has studiously been avoiding most media coverage and election ads, so I'm not trying to argue that she doesn't have impassioned supporters.)
posted by Phyltre at 2:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton has largely been focused on retail politics currently because apparently that's her style but I have absolutely no doubt that as the GE warms up there will be a serious amount of celebrity razzle dazzle that comes out to drive the new voters into a frenzy.

Make no mistakes you gotta respect Bernie for the way that he's managing to fill big rallies but I really don't think that there is going to be a ton of probably generating enthusiasm for Hillary as things get settled around the nomination.
posted by vuron at 2:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton has largely been focused on retail politics currently because apparently that's her style but I have absolutely no doubt that as the GE warms up there will be a serious amount of celebrity razzle dazzle that comes out to drive the new voters into a frenzy.

She's been doing a lot of the celebrity stuff and it's mostly backfired with the young voters I know. Having Lena Dunham run her instagram page does not constitute millenial outreach.
posted by dialetheia at 2:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can someone (non-snarkily) summarize why someone should be excited about Hillary over Bernie?

Probably not? Excitement isn't how I measure whether to vote for a candidate.
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Hillary Pros (for some value of positive)

Very experienced
4 more years of Obama
Surrounded by a very very experienced team of both Obama and Clinton
Presumably able to twist arms ala LBJ
Potential First Female President (so a positive role model)
Able to use the administrative machinery of the executive office to it's maximum effect
Will be fun to troll the Republicans with
posted by vuron at 2:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


The United States created the current world order. To just leave other countries holding the bag when the US formed the rules and framework is kind of, well, irresponsible.

The Iraq War is what irresponsibility looks like.

But really, the framework the US has made does things like help prop up some of the worst dictators in the world in defense of American imperial interests. It's a foriegn policy of oppression and greed that results in serious backlash. Other countries will find a new order without us forcing the issue. Just because we decided to make the world America's burden doesn't mean we need to keep doing it or it is even all that welcome.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think the representational value of a woman president is fucking huge.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:23 PM on March 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Presumably able to twist arms ala LBJ

I've been thinking about this comparison a lot, actually. LBJ was a terrible person. Really. The reasons a lot of people have given for refusing to support Clinton in the general if Sanders loses would apply in spades to LBJ. And yet he gave us the Civil Rights legislation and expanded the social safety net hugely. He got a lot of great things accomplished.

Would the country really have been better off if a Republican had been President instead? If people had refused to vote for Kennedy because LBJ was scummy and so on? I think clearly it wouldn't.

Do the people who refuse to vote for Clinton think that LBJ should have been kept out of the White House at all costs?
posted by Justinian at 2:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I will note that while I am not tremendously excited about either democratic candidate, I think there is a distinct chance that Hillary will be surprisingly effective against Trump, and it looks like it will be Trump on the Republican side. Taunting smug older white men into embarrassing themselves and looking like fools while they try to destroy her is one of her stronger points, even though she's not great at retail politics overall. See: congressional hearings.
posted by tavella at 2:28 PM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


Can someone (non-snarkily) summarize why someone should be excited about Hillary over Bernie?

i think a lot of the president's job is meeting with other leaders and giving speeches to the american people (and using both things to try to get congress or other government orgs to move in one way or another). i think hillary is a rock star in the big closed door meetings in a way that i don't think bernie can be. i think with her as president we'll miss the awe inspiring speeches that obama gave us, but i don't think bernie would deliver those either. i think she'll be great at diplomacy and back room pressure to move things in the direction she wants. i of course worry about her close ties to wall street and her military ideas, but i think listing that as a huge negative is expecting women to be twice as good. she'll be a competent, statesman, type of president, and she'll protect women's healthcare. of everyone up for the office, she's the best choice on those matters, i think.

do i want someone as far left as bernie (if not further) to sit in the big seat some day? absolutely, yes. i wish we were ready for that now. but it's pretty clear that for a whole host of reasons, bernie is not that dude this time. even though i voted for him - and helped my arkansas county return 45+% support for him - i will be glad to press the button for clinton come november.
posted by nadawi at 2:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [30 favorites]


it still absolutely annoys the fire out of me that anyone supports hillary because they think she'll be some sort of puppet for a man who has already held the office, whether that be obama or her husband.
posted by nadawi at 2:31 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yeah, I don't need to be excited about her, I need her to do her fucking job, and do it well, and that I am 100% certain she will be able to do, barring some catastrophe. No-nonsense competence is maybe not something that will get people cheering at rallies, but it's one of the things I value most in a presidential candidate. And, well, Hillary is the candidate with the most no-nonsense competence. This seems kind of like the bare minimum, and yet. Here we are.
posted by yasaman at 2:33 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


Do the people who refuse to vote for Clinton think that LBJ should have been kept out of the White House at all costs?

I think he should have been kept away from Indochina at all costs.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:35 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Are you referring to me because I totally did not intend for that to be the intent of my statement. I fully expect for her to be her own President but I also acknowledge that she's been an adamant supporter of Obama on a whole host of issues and she has surrounded herself with some of the most experienced people in politics.

One of the criticisms that I heard about Obama following the inauguration was that his team knew how to run a campaign but had absolutely no idea how to govern and that Democrats lost a decent amount of ground during the very limited window in which Obama had more or less free reign to drive through a lot of social change.
posted by vuron at 2:35 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


When are we going to push back against the militarism in the Democratic party? Because with the comparison above to LBJ all I can think about is Vietnam. As was said, LBJ did a lot of good things related to civil rights/voting rights/ etc. But in terms of militarism the democrats were wrong in their actions then and even today there is almost no push back against that sort of aggressiveness within the party. Whenever people go on about that parties being the same (which I don't agree with although I dislike both for different reasons), the pro-war part is hard to argue with.
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, I personally believe that people should be held accountable for their failure in material ways. Again, after her failure to perform due diligence, and giving the Bush administration the AUMF-Iraq, we simply can't take the risk of her making more mistakes of that magnitude.

Bernie told us what would happen. And now there's ISIS...


Sure, you make your own choices. But I think the equivalence that has been set up where it's Saint Bernie vs. Devil Clinton is a poor one. I think it does a disservice to everyone involved, and I think it's incorrect. Bernie Sanders is one of the 100 Senators that govern this nation of ~300 million people. He is, by virtue of his very position, one of the Power Elite. I am certain he has done things that have led to the deaths of Americans. He, and his supporters, may have justifications for those votes, but that does not remove their consequence.

The real problem, though, is that I think that if people expect Saint Bernie (as they expected Saint Obama), they are going to be in for a huge disappointment if he gets elected. Any change he can make on his own will be incremental. His hands will be bloody from killing people all over the world. We don't live in Xanadu, we live in a pretty small fucked up world. I'm not criticizing him for the choices he would have to make, but I don't think a movement that is sainting him and demonizing his opponent is going to feel particularly good about the real politic choices all American presidents must make.
posted by OmieWise at 2:39 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I will note that while I am not tremendously excited about either democratic candidate, I think there is a distinct chance that Hillary will be surprisingly effective against Trump

Yeah, I think Trump is a great opponent for her. I would be worried about her losing if it was one of the establishment guys. She is going to make the rest of the Republican field look like fools when she takes him on. She is going to show them how you handle someone like Trump without being stripped of your dignity. He's not going to get under her skin, she's heard it all already. She's not going to allow Trump to set her agenda. She's not going to lower herself to his level when she attacks him. She is going to run her own campaign and with her own force of personality that matches his. Amateur hour is over.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Just because we decided to make the world America's burden doesn't mean we need to keep doing it or it is even all that welcome.

This right here is I believe the core of it! I believe the current doctrines of interventionism that the US engages in have some of their roots in Manifest Destiny which also had white supremacism built into it.


IDEOLOGY IN MANIFEST DESTINY & MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


But really, the framework the US has made does things like help prop up some of the worst dictators in the world in defense of American imperial interests. It's a foriegn policy of oppression and greed that results in serious backlash. Other countries will find a new order without us forcing the issue. Just because we decided to make the world America's burden doesn't mean we need to keep doing it or it is even all that welcome.

I agree the US has messed things up. But, I don't really see it as a reason to disengage. I see it as a failure to properly engage. I don't see how isolationism could even lead to the possibility of communication and exchange that is absolutely necessary to even have a chance to prevent the previously mentioned abuses. And I think it's another sort of "exceptionalism" when a country closes itself off and decides it's better off alone. A lot of big, powerful countries (like Germany) have done some terrible things, but they redouble their efforts to try to fix things. That's commendable.

And I think the United States is responsible, but I don't think it's going to be that way forever. Eventually another order will take over, and I hope there's enough foresight to make the transition peaceful. I don't see an isolationist US being able to achieve that at all.
posted by FJT at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Taunting smug older white men into embarrassing themselves and looking like fools while they try to destroy her is one of her stronger points, even though she's not great at retail politics overall. See: congressional hearings."

The moment a woman laughs at him in front of an audience, Trump will drop character and show a face repulsive to any human. I think Hillary knows this.
posted by klarck at 2:45 PM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


Mod note: One comment removed; I know this whole process kinda primes folks for airing grievances but let's try keeping on that whole avoiding the Spiral Of Suck thing mentioned previously as far as this degenerating into X vs Y insults and such.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:45 PM on March 2, 2016


I think the comparison LBJ is apt to a certain degree and artificial in most ways.

There is every indication that Hillary is actually a very likable person in small group settings. In contrast LBJ was undeniably an asshole of the worst sort. LBJ was undeniably militaristic but this is also in relationship to the times when the entire US seemed to be trapped in a existential death race with international communism. In retrospect we all know that was utter nonsense but it was the dominant viewpoint of both parties during that point in time.

LBJ was an awful awful man but I have to respect someone that looked at the Civil Rights movement and pushed forward with it despite the fact that he knew that it would lead to the annihilation of the uneasy alliance between Northern pro-labor Democrats and let's be honest Southern Dixiecrats focused on maintaining a racist system that terrorized as sizeable percentage of our fellow citizens. Did he do this because he was a good man? I'm pretty much certain that he did not but part of me is glad that he did it regardless of his intentions.

Is Hillary that sort of awful, the type of awful that conservatives have been preaching about for decades? No I'm pretty sure she's not. But I think that when it comes to a face-off between Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan that Hillary Clinton has their number.
posted by vuron at 2:46 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


The United States created the current world order. To just leave other countries holding the bag when the US formed the rules and framework is kind of, well, irresponsible.

Speaking of the rest of the world, "Europe's Political Center Cannot Hold" by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The National Interest:

--------
Beyond that is the acute threat within Europe to political stability. That stability was based on an unwritten agreement, what was sometimes a far too cozy and smug consensus between ostensibly moderate parties, “center-right” and “center-left.” It’s this consensus that is now being severely challenged from the outside left and outside right by parties and politicians called “extremist” or, much more revealingly, “populist.”

...

When the European democracies were reborn—or reinvented—after 1945, there was a crystal-clear mission, not only to be peaceable and constitutional, but also to thwart extreme politics on either side. Among other legacies, the French Revolution bequeathed to us the potent and beguiling—but often misleading—political metaphor of Left and Right, from when the meeting of the National Assembly the radical bourgeois took their seats to the left of the conservative aristos. This image has always had limited application, and maybe very little in American politics, with its sundry peculiar institutions. If we still do use that metaphor, every important conservative party in Western Europe today stands to the left of the Democrats. But were the Democrats ever a left-wing party in the European sense? In its Rooseveltian heyday the Democrats were a truly weird alliance of organized labor, city bosses, intellectual liberals, the ethnic urban working class and Southern segregationists.

By midcentury, American politics had a Tweedledum and Tweedledee aspect, so that it was hard to distinguish the parties. Dwight Eisenhower was nominated by the Republicans and elected president in 1952, but he might just as well have been nominated by the Democrats. It wasn’t until the conservative movement rose up and conquered the GOP that a truly vivid distinction could be made between the two parties.

In Europe, the journey has if anything been in the opposite direction over the second half of the last century. Conservative parties moved towards the center from the right as socialist parties did from the left. This was a reaction to the events of the first half of the century, when polarization between Left and Right had had such catastrophic consequences. Modern European democracy was a repudiation of all species of totalitarianism, nurtured by two traditions in harness, Christian Democracy and Social Democracy. They both altered their positions or tone after the horrors between 1914 and 1945 that shouldered Right and Left with so much historical baggage to shed, in the form of fascism and Communism.

...

If what is now the European Union has one underlying tendency it’s not socialism (or Social Democracy) but Christian Democracy, a very distinctive tradition dating back to the early years of the last century and partly inspired by the social and political teaching of the Roman Catholic Church—in particular of Pope Leo XIII and his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum condemning not only Marxian socialism, but also the unrestrained free-market capitalism that bred it. ...

After the defeat of the Third Reich, Christian Democracy thus had to clean up its act, and it did so very successfully, eschewing violence and racial hatred while sublimating nationalism into “the European idea.” A brilliant period of economic growth meant that greatly increased material prosperity (which the Americans also enjoyed in the postwar decades) could be combined with a high degree of state-sponsored social security (which they did not enjoy). And this went hand in hand with a “moderate” political consensus.

...

The truly interesting thing about British politics in my lifetime is less the changing balance between the larger parties than their joint eclipse, along with the decline of political participation. At the 1950 general election, turnout was 84 percent, the highest it has ever been. It fluctuated and declined, to 72 percent in 1997, a figure that I among others lamented at the time as a regrettable failure of democracy.

That was Tony Blair’s first victory, and we hadn’t yet realized the nature of his dark mastery, which was not so much to move the Labour Party to the right, true as that was, as to invent a politics which was neither ideologically left-wing nor right-wing, but simply empty of any ideological content at all: to void politics of its content, or take the politics out of politics. A perfectly natural consequence was the collapse in voter participation, from 72 percent turnout in 1997 to 59 percent only four years later.

...

Maybe the truth is that this cozy centrist consensus which for so long governed Europe, and which in many ways was once truly benevolent, was always more vulnerable than it seemed. It worked in good times, but has proved helpless in bad ones. The soi-disant elites dreamed up a single currency, which was always fraught with risk, if boom ever turned to bust or the bubble burst. At the same time, they were lamentably complacent about a level of immigration with which European countries had just about managed, or seemed to manage, but has now becoming a problem on a scale which now threatens the whole edifice of democratic politics, and the consensus of center-right and center-left politics. Across Europe that consensus is cracking; the center is not holding; the ceremony of “moderate” innocence is drowned. We have to pray that no blood-dimmed tide is loosed.

--------

Long story short: inequality and the end of the postwar boom (and neoliberal deregulation, 'natch) are hitting Europe as hard as it's hitting America. Political disruption to follow. Mainline-moderate centrist parties operate best during good economic times. We should take care not to let the Democratic or the Republican Party turn into Blair's Labour.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:48 PM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


And yet [LBJ] gave us the Civil Rights legislation

I don't mean to pick on you at all because you are still right about this, but really it was the civil rights movement that gave us civil rights legislation more than it was LBJ. I seem to remember Clinton and Obama going back and forth about this during the 08 election, actually - Obama had a great line in one of the debates about how LBJ didn't just sit down one day and decide to hand over civil rights, he was essentially forced to by a broad popular movement of activists and protesters led by Dr. King and others. Certainly you need friendly effective allies in government to achieve those changes, but it was the civil rights movement that gave us civil rights.

Yeah, I think Trump is a great opponent for her. I would be worried about her losing if it was one of the establishment guys.

Interesting, I'm more worried about it than I would be if she was up against Rubio. The way that Trump is driving straight at the elite consensus this year could be tough for the elite stand-in candidate - if Trump controls the dialogue the way he has in the Republican party, she'll be the stand-in for every out-of-touch elite who got us into these awful economic and military situations.

Re: foreign policy, I think there's a false dichotomy being set up between 'interventionist' and 'isolationist' - we can be involved, responsible diplomats and leaders without basically taking sides in civil wars and arming whole swaths of people to fight proxy wars. What's happening in Syria is a great example: at the risk of horribly oversimplifying, the US and Russia are essentially having a meta-proxy-war via Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is being fought by different factions within Syria. And we don't do a great job of it, either - just for one example, two factions we recently armed in Syria are now at war with each other. Our intervention in Libya is a similar story to Iraq in that our intervention and support for regime change has given terrorists more of a foothold in the region than they had before. It's simply not true that involvement = responsibility - often it's harmful meddling with unintended consequences at best.
posted by dialetheia at 2:51 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


That's fair, you can replace "gave" with "signed" or whatever about LBJ and Civil Rights.
posted by Justinian at 2:53 PM on March 2, 2016


Obama has been an excellent president. Probably top 5 ever. Hillary would be much the same, at least domestically, I suspect. I'd rather have Bernie as president, but Hillary will be a good president. And I'd rather have Hillary in debates with Trump just to see him cut off at the knees by a woman who is 4x smarter than he is.
posted by persona au gratin at 3:01 PM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


Romney to Lay Out Case Against Trump in Speech Thursday

Can't he be stopped? Don't they realize this will be a 20-minute advertisement for Trump and all Trump has to do is tweet one word ("Loser") during the speech?

What's he going to do, taunt Trump about his hair like Rubio?

I've been treating the non-Trump faction as the non-crazy part of the Republican party, but now I'm not so sure.
posted by mmoncur at 3:03 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ohh totally LBJ was not some benevolent ruler that looked out upon his kingdom and saw "lo there is some humble African Americans in distress let me see what troubles them" who then grants their wishes.

The Civil Rights Movement demanded everything that they got (and more) but I do think that's interesting that LBJ pushed his caucus so heavily when he knew very well that it was the end of the grand coalition that more or less endured since the FDR administration.

Maybe someday we can reassemble a grand coalition that leaves room for everyone instead of maintaining a structure that placed one group permanently at the lowest rung of the social ladder. I think that's the sort of dream that inspired MLK and other civil rights leaders and it's been one that we've struggled to reclaim.

However activist movement like Occupy and BLM and Sanders candidacy are making people in the Democratic party sit up and take notice. It won't be this election cycle but I'm seeing encouraging signs that their is the potential of birthing a brand new movement that has room for economic progressives, minorities, GLBT activist, etc. Now if we can just give everyone a crash course in intersectionality and privilege and community organizing so that rather than talk past each they engage in real meaningful dialogue across all sorts of social/cultural/economic/gender/generational boundaries that would be fucking awesome.

Because the best tool of the oppressor is the ability to get the oppressed to fight over the scraps.
posted by vuron at 3:03 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I get that isolationism isn't an awesome response to the way we've been doing stuff, but if the thesis is that America has the responsibility to keep engaging in world conflicts, shouldn't it be doing so in concert with the UN instead of just up and doing stuff on its own? Not that the UN is perfect or anything but isn't that how it's 'supposed' to work?
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:07 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


LA Times Editorial: "Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States"
Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States. Many people have said it — politicians of both parties, economists, pundits, business leaders — but millions of GOP primary voters don't seem to be listening. Much of the Republican base has taken leave of its senses, a flight blamed alternately on inchoate anger, disgust with inside-the-Beltway candidates and misplaced affection for a plain-speaking cartoon character who often seems to utter whatever nonsense comes into his head. Regardless of the reason for his popularity, the bombastic billionaire continued his soon-to-be unstoppable march toward the nomination Tuesday, racking up resounding victories in primaries across the American South and in the Northeast.

The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government, interacting with the machinery of state only as a supplicant. He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world, and a temperament utterly unsuited to the job. He is a racist and a bully, a demagogue. He has proposed killing the families of terrorists, a violation of international law so blatant that a former CIA director predicted that U.S. troops would refuse to carry out such an order.

"How Hillary Clinton's team is putting together a playbook against Donald Trump"
Hillary Clinton’s sprawling network of operatives and opposition researchers were all set to go with an exhaustively investigated playbook to use in the general election — against Jeb Bush. They also had one for Scott Walker. And Marco Rubio.

But Donald Trump?

Clinton's team had bet they wouldn't need to pull that one from the shelf. Now, putting a Trump playbook together is proving vexing. After Trump and Clinton's sweeping triumphs on Super Tuesday, the prospect of a matchup against the impulsive billionaire prone to angry outbursts, outrageous statements and questionable alliances no longer seems too good to be true.

“I say to people, ‘Be careful what you wish for,’” said David Brock, a longtime Clinton confidant who helps run a coalition of super PACs focused on getting her elected president. “This is very complicated. There is not a typical playbook you can run.”
posted by Celsius1414 at 3:07 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> the bombastic billionaire continued his soon-to-be unstoppable march toward the nomination Tuesday, racking up resounding victories in primaries across the American South and in the Northeast.

Although the alliteration in "bombastic billionaire" is too good to pass up on, I still wish journalists would stop taking Trump's self-evaluation of the size of his fortune at face value. Thankfully John Oliver mentioned that Trump's not actually a billionaire in his recent segment — I believe he said that Trump's got basically the 200 million he started with and that's it. Maybe (he says, hoping against hope) the media pack will follow Oliver and stop referring to Trump as a billionaire.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Our intervention in Libya is a similar story to Iraq in that our intervention and support for regime change has given terrorists more of a foothold in the region than they had before.

I agree there's a long gradient of involvement between interventionism and isolationism. But the Iraq War is not the same as the Libyan intervention.

Military intervention in Libya was not done unilaterally like Iraq. And it wasn't done based on some false accusation of Iraq having WMDs or being somehow involved in 9/11. And finally, all the ground fighting was done by Libyans themselves and there were no soldiers involved.

Yes, Benghazi gets brought up, but it definitely feels like a Republican hack job especially since they just ignore all the terrible shit that happened during the Iraq War.
posted by FJT at 3:11 PM on March 2, 2016


Here are a few of the reasons that, although I voted for Sanders in the primaries, I would be nonetheless be happy and enthusiastic about voting for Clinton in the general:

Clinton on immigration: "We need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship. If Congress won't act, I'll defend President Obama’s executive actions—and I'll go even further to keep families together. I'll end family detention, close private immigrant detention centers, and help more eligible people become naturalized." "I will stand up against any effort to deport DREAMers. Immigrants are vital to our economy.”

Clinton on abortion: "Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion."

Clinton on guns: "More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands."

Clinton on taxes: "The wealthiest pay too little in taxes while the middle class needs more relief. I'm going to fix that. I’ll close corporate tax loopholes and make sure millionaires and billionaires can’t pay lower rates than middle-class families."

Clinton on health care: "I've fought for quality, affordable health care my entire career. As president, I'll defend the Affordable Care Act, build on its successes, and go even further to reduce costs. My plan will crack down on drug companies charging excessive prices, slow the growth of out-of-pocket costs, and provide a new credit to those facing high health expenses." "I'm not going to let them tear up that law, kick 16 million people off their health coverage and force the country to start the healthcare debate all over again." "We have to go after price gouging and monopolistic practices and get Medicare the authority to negotiate."

Clinton on civil rights: "If fighting for equal pay and women's rights is playing the gender card, then deal me in." “My advocacy for the [LGBT] Equality Act is going to be at the top of my list when I'm president." "[My administration will] protect our rights -- women's rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrants' rights, workers rights."

Clinton on crime: "Everyone in America should respect the law and be respected by the law. We need to end mass incarceration, use strategies like police body cameras to improve accountability, increase substance abuse treatment, and aim resources at criminals who pose the greatest threat. And we need to invest in education and job training—the foundations of success." "We have to restore policing that will actually protect the communities that police officers are sworn to protect." "Keeping [nonviolent offenders] behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families and communities." "I will make sure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are not used to buy weapons of war that have no place on the streets of our country." "There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts."

Clinton on the environment: "Climate change is real—no matter what climate deniers say. I've laid out bold national goals to address the threats it poses. As president, I’ll say no to drilling in the Arctic. I’ll stop the tax giveaways to big oil and gas companies. And I’ll make significant investments in clean energy. Our children's health and future depend on it." "Climate change is real. It's hurting our planet and our people. We can't afford a president who ignores the science."

Clinton on education: "As president, I'll work to ensure every child—from every ZIP code—has access to a world-class education, including access to high-quality preschool. We need to strike the right balance on testing—with fewer, fairer and better tests for elementary and secondary school students. And we must support teachers with the training and resources they need."

Clinton on the budget and spending: "Raising Americans' incomes will be my top priority. I'll rebuild our infrastructure, invest in clean energy and manufacturing, create millions of good-paying middle class jobs, and rein in college costs and out-of-pocket health expenses. I'll pay for my proposals by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share."

Clinton on energy: "On my first day as President, I'll set two big goals. I want the U.S. to have half a billion solar panels by 2020. And I want us to generate enough renewable electricity to power every home in America in the next 10 years. With the right investments, we’ll create good-paying jobs and make America the world’s clean energy superpower."
posted by kyrademon at 3:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [60 favorites]


What are the chances of Romney knowing something about Trump that only the extremely rich business elites know and what could it be that would actually hurt Trump? Because just saying he's not a good republican or whatever his plan is only helps Trump in an anti-establishment election. He needs real dirt. Like dead body dirt. And even then I'm not sure whether Trump supporters would care.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:13 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


It's me, I'm excited about Hillary! I've mentioned one reason previously, and even though it seems like I'm kidding there, I'm not, really. The whole fucking world is a boyzone, and politics even more so. We've been getting used to the idea of Madame President since 2008, so maybe it doesn't seem as exciting anymore, but that doesn't make it any less of a massive, earthshaking milestone. It would be a daily reminder to every little girl that nothing is off-limits. She would treat issues like reproductive rights and family leave as priorities instead of vaguely embarrassing topics to be filed under We'll Get To It Eventually. She's charismatic and smart and adept at the actual day-to-day job of presidenting, which is about meeting 500 random people a day and getting your enemies to do shit for you and managing an unfathomably vast institution with aplomb. She spent eight years living in the White House and learning exactly how it works. I think she'll do as good a job as anyone could.
posted by theodolite at 3:13 PM on March 2, 2016 [30 favorites]


> What are the chances of Romney knowing something about Trump that only the extremely rich business elites know and what could it be that would actually hurt Trump?

people already know that Trump's an actual rapist, and that hasn't seemed to dent his popularity.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:14 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


You Can't Tip a Buick: “Although the alliteration in 'bombastic billionaire' is too good to pass up on, I still wish journalists would stop taking Trump's self-evaluation of the size of his fortune at face value. Thankfully John Oliver mentioned that Trump's not actually a billionaire in his recent segment — I believe he said that Trump's got basically the 200 million he started with and that's it. Maybe (he says, hoping against hope) the media pack will follow Oliver and stop referring to Trump as a billionaire.”

Well, Forbes puts him at 4.5 billion, although I think they've said elsewhere that 3 billion of that is a valuation of his "personal brand," so maybe 1.5 billion is safer – still technically billionaire status. Not sure what John Oliver says, but the thing people often say is: he inherited 200 million, and 200 million modestly invested would have put him where he is now. So you can't say that he's a billionaire because of his own personal brilliance. Still, he does seem to be a billionaire.
posted by koeselitz at 3:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


If Mitt spills the beans about the Ritual Sex Murder Rich People Club for the sake of bringing down Trump, he will go down in history as one of our greatest national heroes. Surely not getting invited to Ritual Sex Murder Rich People Club events anymore is a small price to pay for that?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


I keep hearing all this noise about Bernie's supposed failure to connect with African American primary voters, particularly in the south, but it seems to me that his real problem has always been the same: Hillary Clinton's stratospheric popularity. It's not shocking that it's hard for him, no matter how compelling his message. Dialetheia linked to an analysis upthread that his name recognition and favorability among African Americans has been steadily rising to now sit only a few points below Clinton's, and preference for him has been rising in step too, but from an admittedly low base. So clearly he is having some success in selling his message.

Just because he is being trounced in this demographic doesn't mean they aren't sold on him, just that they are sold on Hillary a lot more than him. She has been working closely with this constituency for decades, with the connections and natural comfortability that entails. Being an atheist Jew from the Northeast doesn't mean Sanders can't give a good stump speech in an Alabama church, but he can't make the earnest appeal to a shared faith that Hillary can. People often forget that Hillary's politics is informed by her faith in a way that is very congruent with this constituency. She is as comfortable talking in an African American church in the South as Bernie is in the gymnasium of a liberal arts college in the Northeast. Couple this with the fact that the last time this community remembers full employment, Bill was president. Now consider that she is running as a continuation of the first African American Presidency and it's no mystery that this is the hardest roe for Bernie to hoe.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


Reasons I think Hillary will give Trump fits: she's already shown what it looks like when she's the adult in a room full of petulant Republicans (Benghazi hearing); Trump's biggest stumbles in the debates have come when he was either getting attacked by or going after Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly. As others have said, this isn't Hillary's first time at the rodeo, and you can just tell that Trump is not comfortable with a powerful women who stands up to him.

Reasons I'm concerned: I've basically been totally wrong about Trump for six months, so why start getting stuff right now.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:17 PM on March 2, 2016 [28 favorites]


He needs real dirt. Like dead body dirt.

I agree it would have to be extremely bad blackmail material (the likes of which I won't even speculate about), but the tactic of announcing a public speech 24 hours in advance would be the perfect way to show the blackmailee that you mean business, and also give him time to bow out of the race, citing some made up bullshit about needing to spend more time with his money.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:17 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I get that isolationism isn't an awesome response to the way we've been doing stuff, but if the thesis is that America has the responsibility to keep engaging in world conflicts, shouldn't it be doing so in concert with the UN instead of just up and doing stuff on its own? Not that the UN is perfect or anything but isn't that how it's 'supposed' to work?

Totally agree. With Libya, we should have led a diplomatic offensive to shore up the transitional government after Gaddafi was overthrown. Bring in UN, AU, heck even NATO peacekeepers. Seal the borders and stop the flow of arms. Begin an "Arab Spring Marshall Plan" and send aid to the government for reconstruction. And most importantly: not disband the Libyan army, we did that in Iraq and created the insurgency, the Nationalists did that to the warlords in China and the Communists won, NEVER DISBAND THE DEFEATED ENEMY'S MILITARY
posted by Apocryphon at 3:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I agree, kyrademon, that those positions are steps in the right direction. The problem is that I don't believe her. I think, when push comes to shove, she will support corporate interests over those of the people. I'd like her to release her speech transcripts, and make other good faith efforts beyond mere platitudes to show that she is not beholden to corporate interests and does not place corporate interests on an equal footing with the interests of the people.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Like dead body dirt. And even then I'm not sure whether Trump supporters would care.

"Haven't we all wanted to kill somebody at one time or another? He's just doing what we all wish we could do; kill someone we hate! CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP!"
posted by Talez at 3:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> Well, Forbes puts him at 4.5 billion, although I think they've said elsewhere that 3 billion of that is a valuation of his "personal brand," so maybe 1.5 billion is safer – still technically billionaire status. Not sure what John Oliver says, but the thing people often say is: he inherited 200 million, and 200 million modestly invested would have put him where he is now. So you can't say that he's a billionaire because of his own personal brilliance. Still, he does seem to be a billionaire.

Dang, thanks for the correction. I should factcheck my spout-offery before I spout off...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Because the best tool of the oppressor is the ability to get the oppressed to fight over the scraps.

Frankly, that's what has bothered me most about Clinton's campaign: the way she has set up economic justice as being somehow in opposition to fighting sexism or racism. I don't think I've ever been as angry about feminist rhetoric as I was seeing her say "if we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that solve sexism?" and hearing the crowd reply "NO!!!". Those things do not need to be in opposition to each other, and Sanders has as much in his platform to fight sexism as she does in hers. That's not even to mention the offensive and privileged idea that e.g. doubling a single mom's wages, giving her health care, and sending her kids to college would not do anything meaningful to fight sexism - her choices in the world would be expanded far, far more than if everyone took a sober moment to check their privilege. Ideally we could do both, but as a poor woman, I'd rather have health care so that I could e.g. have a baby than hear privilege-checks or be comforted by the success of rich white women anyday. There's a tokenism to the representational argument in the absence of policy substance that gets to me sometimes. I hope she does more to be an ally for poor women than she has been in the past.

Yes, Benghazi gets brought up, but it definitely feels like a Republican hack job especially since they just ignore all the terrible shit that happened during the Iraq War.

The story in Libya is absolutely not just about Benghazi. I've linked the two-part series that the NYT did on Libya a couple of times, and it paints a very clear picture of the many harmful repercussions across the region stemming from our efforts at regime change.

Clinton on energy: "On my first day as President, I'll set two big goals. I want the U.S. to have half a billion solar panels by 2020. And I want us to generate enough renewable electricity to power every home in America in the next 10 years. With the right investments, we’ll create good-paying jobs and make America the world’s clean energy superpower."

I like a lot of the rhetoric you linked to, but this should strike everyone as being vastly, pathetically short of the kind of commitment we need to fight climate change. No answer on energy that omits the word "pipelines" or "fracking" or "drilling" is adequate, and solar panels are not nearly enough.
posted by dialetheia at 3:18 PM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


I prefer Hillary's economic policy (other than her failure to back $15 minimum wage) because I think our economy is precarious at the moment and I think incremental change is safer for that than major risk taking and experimentation.

I prefer what I think Bernie would do as far as regulatory policy and enforcement of business regulation (increase white collar crime investigation and prosecution, revitalized antitrust policy, toughened SEC enforcement, etc) vs what I think Hillary would do (same old same old). But both of those are guesses.

I predict they will both do equally well to fix, as much as the Executive can, the shitty and inhumane treatment of people of color by the judicial system. I realize neither has been perfect in the past and Hillary worse than Bernie at times, but I believe they both will keep their words on this one. I'm sure some will find that naive.

I prefer Bernie as far as judicial appointments go because it's very important to me that we end the death penalty (a major issue to me but probably not so for many voters).

I prefer Bernie's stance for a less-hawkish foreign policy, but I think Hillary's actual experience with day to day diplomacy and negotiation and decades-long reputation around the world is invaluable and a really important part of her experience. Not sure where to go with that one.

I feel too uninformed about climate change to judge whose policies on that will be most effective. There is part of my that thinks this is all futile at this point and that also things policies might change drastically depending on how drastic the symptoms of bad climate change become.

The Bill C issue bothers me. I have never liked him very much. My dislike has intensified as I got to be Monica's age, and then older, and realized how young she was. But I've also been in thrall to a guy who treated people, especially women, like complete crap, and I've also said shitty things about other women in the heat of jealousy, so I don't feel willing to judge Hillary for not separating herself from him and for acting awfully to women who came forward with affair stories.

Lastly, I think representation is extremely important, and that our failure to elect a woman president has been a daily message to women in this country that we are not good enough. I think some issues important to women that are "invisible" to men (aka that men don't pay attention because they don't make the effort to learn) would be better dealt with by a woman president. I have really disliked the bro vibe running through some of Obama's time in office. I'm ready for the photos of a candidate relaxing on the trail by doing something other than an all male game of basketball. Thinking about how excited I was in 2008, sobbing in Grant Park - I cannot imagine the feeling I would have seeing a woman win the Presidency. I really am just so fucking tired of waiting.

I'm still undecided, and my late primary means I will likely never have to choose. But those are some reasons a person might end up picking Hillary.
posted by sallybrown at 3:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


I agree, kyrademon, that those positions are steps in the right direction. The problem is that I don't believe her. I think, when push comes to shove, she will support corporate interests over those of the people.

I honestly think she'll do both.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


the Nationalists did that in China and the Communists won

Side note, I'm not an expert but I thought the Nationalists lost because the government sucked and they expended most of their energy and troops fighting the Japanese while the Communists waited it out.
posted by FJT at 3:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd like her to release her speech transcripts,

They're not hers to release, but it's not like there's some big huge secret. One of her Goldman Sachs' talks has been on YouTube for 2 years. Knock yourself out.
posted by msalt at 3:22 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I honestly think she'll do both.

I, from a philosophical perspective, do not believe it is possible to do both. But I recognize that I'm an outlier on that.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:24 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Side note, I'm not an expert but I thought the Nationalists lost because the government sucked and they expended most of their energy and troops fighting the Japanese while the Communists waited it out.

One of the reasons the Nationalists sucked was that they dissolved the militaries of the warlords they had defeated, leaving the former soldiers without any compensation or livelihood. They were also very corrupt and had no central payroll system, so many of their own troops went unpaid. So many just joined the Communists. It's not simple about not disbanding militaries so much as it is ALWAYS PAY THE TROOPS, especially before you demobilize (see also the Freikorps in Weimar Germany and much of the history of Rome).
posted by Apocryphon at 3:26 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


They're not hers to release

They are, actually - the contract for the speeches is very specific that she has the rights to the transcripts and can decide if she wants to release them herself. I believe the controversy is over specific closed-door speeches, not just Clinton Foundation events like the one linked, but I could be wrong. I'll have to watch that when I get a chance.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


I agree, melissasaurus. Corporate interests/profit-motivated interests are inherently opposed to "the good of the people". I don't see any way to make a better society with a profit-motivated mindset.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:28 PM on March 2, 2016


It's not all or nothing. I'm sure she'd be friendlier to big business than Sanders but she is not Mitt Romney and I think she actually gives a shit about civil rights.
posted by showbiz_liz at 3:28 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


Lastly, I think representation is extremely important, and that our failure to elect a woman president has been a daily message to women in this country that we are not good enough.

Not only that, but you constantly hear that Hillary specifically is not good enough, despite all she's accomplished and the bullshit and resistance she's had to overcome to get where she is in one piece, that she needs to have done all this and have been on the side of the angels at all times, and to have come this far with her hands bloodless, and her record perfect.

The fact that so many people follow up their issues with her by saying how they're not really sure why, but they just don't like her is the cherry on the shit sundae.

So yeah, I will be fucking thrilled to see her win.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [41 favorites]


I forgot to mention in my above comment a few other things: that African Americans are maybe and understandably more cynical about revolutionary rhetoric than white Democrats, that they are more wary of losing small gains, and that these are all legitimate and compelling reasons Hillary enjoys this support and Bernie supporters need to respect that instead of condescending.

Similarly, I have heard some snide remarks about women wanting Hillary to be president because they just want a woman in the Oval Office and are tired of waiting. That's a perfectly legitimate and compelling reason too, and Bernie supporters are doing him no favours by denying that.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:30 PM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Romney to Lay Out Case Against Trump in Speech Thursday

I'd give Trump a week to fix the economy or else be sentenced to 1 day of rehabilitation on "Monday Night Rehab".
posted by mazola at 3:30 PM on March 2, 2016


Unfortunately Climate Change is going to fuck all of us over and let's be honest nobody in political office is really getting this right.

For instance rolling back climate change is going to require a massive degree of support from third-world and recent industrialized nations. Would pulling out of free trade agreements engender the trust necessary to get China and India and Brazil to say "You know maybe we don't need to push for a Western standard of living". There is still a wealth transfer inherent in our system and until we realize that perhaps the entire world is going to have to settle for less stuff than USians currently have there is going to be problems.

I'd really like to hear someone talk about transforming from a growth-centric economic system to a more or less steady-state economy (I acknowledge the room for growth created through increased productivity) at least until such time that the futurists manage to achieve a post-scarcity economic system or the singularity comes and humans are replaced with godlike AIs.

Long story short, unrolling the whole basis of the capitalist system is incredibly complicated and I don't think that anyone including Sanders is really looking at the entire world economy in a holistic manner and going "hrmm what if we just scrapped the whole thing"
posted by vuron at 3:31 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I hope [Clinton] does more to be an ally for poor women than she has been in the past.


Actually she's done quite a bit for poor women:

Globally, no candidate has done more for women's rights than Secretary Clinton. In her time as Secretary of State, she appointed the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues at the State Department; oversaw the creation of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security; and introduced the Global Health Initiative (GHI), investing $63 billion to help partner countries provide robust maternal and infant health services. Secretary Clinton has worked tirelessly to elevate women's rights as the key towards economic prosperity and global stability. Her public and private initiatives have appropriated millions of dollars towards providing secondary education to young girls around the world, and tackling the obstacles that face at-risk youths.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 3:31 PM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


If you're going to make wild assertions like "...she is not Mitt Romney..." showbiz_liz, I'm going to need to see some proof.
posted by evilDoug at 3:34 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Unfortunately Climate Change is going to fuck all of us over and let's be honest nobody in political office is really getting this right.

That isn't an excuse for her 80-person team to promote fracking around the globe. At the very least, do no harm - she does not pass that test for me. Again, I know that since I work in climate science it might be closer to my heart and a bigger dealbreaker for me than most people, but this is yet another place where I feel like the argument for Clinton is "well, give up on solving that (or even making meaningful progress)."
posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


The fact that so many people follow up their issues with her by saying how they're not really sure why, but they just don't like her is the cherry on the shit sundae.

I used to work in a very male-dominated company. Hearing that always reminds me of reading the interview summaries a lot of male employees sent around after interviewing female candidates for jobs. "We just didn't click." "She didn't seem like a good fit for the company." "I think she would do better somewhere else." "I'm not sure she's right for our office culture." And then at the end of the year, everyone would be so mystified why only 1 out of 6 of us there were female.
posted by sallybrown at 3:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [25 favorites]


Whoever we choose in this election will seem insignificant when the rushing waters of the mighty oceans sweep over our lands in righteous judgement!

Unless we start building walls to keep the "water" out right now.
posted by Tevin at 3:38 PM on March 2, 2016


We'll build a wall and make the water pay for it!
posted by Justinian at 3:39 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]


I look forward to candidate Trump declaring symbolic war against the nefarious Poseidon by hurling a javelin into the sea.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:39 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion:
How can we reconcile the “unlikable” Democratic presidential candidate of today with the adored politician of recent history? It’s simple: Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.
posted by theodolite at 3:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [22 favorites]


Globally, no candidate has done more for women's rights than Secretary Clinton.

I found this to be educational about what Hillary has done for poor women in undeveloped nations.

Thomas Frank - Harpers Magazine: Nor a Lender Be
Hillary Clinton, liberal virtue, and the cult of the microloan

posted by yertledaturtle at 3:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Prancing around on his 'seas horses!' Look at these real horses!"

::tramples the ruins of Alabama on horse-drawn gold-encrusted chariot::
posted by Tevin at 3:41 PM on March 2, 2016




a pretty good take on / diagnosis of the tendency for left organizations to self-marginalize

REG: Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front!
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
posted by kirkaracha at 3:52 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


We pushed fracking in Eastern Europe as a means to g

I'm not certain how you were going to end that sentence, but I honestly don't even care why we pushed fracking in Eastern Europe, even if it was part of some nth dimensional chess about weakening Russian petro-power. This description of how she personally pushed fracking over the mass environmental protests of Romanians and Bulgarians is extremely damning to me:

"The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium."
posted by dialetheia at 3:56 PM on March 2, 2016 [26 favorites]


> "The problem is that I don't believe her. I think, when push comes to shove, she will support corporate interests over those of the people."

I have to admit that I find this somewhat puzzling, since a chunk of the policy positions I posted have little or nothing to do with corporate interests. Bear in mind I'm talking about her vs. Trump/Rubio/Cruz in the general, not her vs. Sanders in the primary. And, for example, LGBT rights are important to me, so I'd rather have the candidate saying, "The Equality Act will be a top priority" than the ones saying "I will specifically appoint Supreme Court Justices who will unmarry hundreds of thousands of people", and I don't see what that has to do with corporate interests.

As to the stuff that does, there's her votes as Senator to look at, but that's a loooong discussion that can get endlessly nitpicked in both directions because of the complexity of various bills.
posted by kyrademon at 3:57 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


Looks like Rubio just lost his biggest base of support: Fox News. Maybe they finally noticed that every mention of Rubio's (obviously false) momentum led to a measurable decrease in their credibility!
posted by dialetheia at 4:01 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


oh god the whole last paragraph of dialetheia's last comment makes me want to die a little. sheeeesh, that's awful.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:02 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I forgot to mention in my above comment a few other things: that African Americans are maybe and understandably more cynical about revolutionary rhetoric than white Democrats, that they are more wary of losing small gains, and that these are all legitimate and compelling reasons Hillary enjoys this support and Bernie supporters need to respect that instead of condescending.

Yeah, this. White people who Join The Revolution have often ended up with an endowed chair at the University of Chicago or whatever.

Black and brown people who Join The Revolution have often ended up endowed with a noose or a bullet.

So under those conditions, people are understandably more cautious about radicalism and are inclined to rely on a personal connection or the endorsement of trusted validators.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:02 PM on March 2, 2016 [15 favorites]




I already can hear Trump's reply to Romney: He's a loser. He lost twice. Why should we listen to him?
posted by persona au gratin at 4:08 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Bear in mind I'm talking about her vs. Trump/Rubio/Cruz in the general, not her vs. Sanders in the primary.

Yeah, I mean, she's obviously better than any Republican. She at least acknowledges that social justice issues exist. My statement was meant in the context of the primary election.

a chunk of the policy positions I posted have little or nothing to do with corporate interests
I disagree; policies even just on social issues (no LGBT employment discrimination for example) have financial impacts for corporations so there will be reasons for corporations to limit the impact of those policies (make it apply only to "large" employers, restrict the means of redress, etc.).
posted by melissasaurus at 4:09 PM on March 2, 2016


Jefferson County (CO) Republicans ignore GOP caucus rules, focus on president
Colorado’s GOP may have cancelled the presidential straw poll, but that didn’t stop some Jefferson County Republicans in Lakewood from trying to weigh in on who their party’s candidate would be.

What many ignored at the GOP caucus I attended at Bear Creek High School was one critical national race these voters could influence — which of roughly 13 Republican U.S. Senate candidates would make it to the ballot. The subject was briefly mentioned, then dropped.
I hope the CO Republican senate clown car continues to fragment support, but after they get a candidate, Senator Bennet's going to have a tough campaign ahead of him.

Record Caucus Crowds Catch Officials Off Guard As Sanders Wins Colorado
Rick Palacio, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, tweeted late Tuesday that overall turnout was at least 121,132 -- breaking the record set in 2008.
Latino Vote Helps Bernie Sanders Surge to Victory in Colorado in Massive Democratic Caucus Turnout
DULCE SAENZ: Absolutely. Well, you know, being from a country like Mexico, where you understand the politics and the corruption and the money involved in that government, I am absolutely concerned about the money being spent in elections, even locally. You know, school board elections cost more and more every time, you know, the politics.
Saenz' point about school boards really hits home for Colorado. In last year's Jefferson County school board recall, Americans for Prosperity and others dumped a ton of cash into the race, trying to preserve conservative, pro-revisionist-history board members. Fortunately, community members voted in candidates with better positions.

It makes sense to me that the potential for grassroots democracy CO demonstrated in that election helped Sanders in the caucus, and I suspect will continue to build successes in the future here in our state regardless of the outcome in the presidential nomination.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ahaha, Carson's OK with continuing to take people's money, he just doesn't want to do any campaigning for it any more.

Totally not grifting, though!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


> "No answer on energy that omits the word 'pipelines' or 'fracking' or 'drilling' is adequate, and solar panels are not nearly enough."

Well, I didn't quote everything she's ever said.

Clinton on pipelines and drilling: "I don't think we need to have a pipeline bringing very dirty oil, exploiting the tar sands in western Canada, across our border." "[There are] a lot more jobs from my perspective on a North American clean energy agenda than you would ever get from one pipeline crossing the border." "[Keystone] is not in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change." "[We need to] reduce the amount of oil consumed in the United States and around the world." "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk of drilling."

She has broken with President Obama's policy to come out against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

She did, though, indeed promote fracking abroad while Secretary of State, and looks likely to continue Obama's fracking policies in general. However, she has also said, "[T]o capitalize on this boom, we have to face head-on the legitimate, pressing environmental concerns about some new extraction practices and their impacts on local water, soil, and air supplies. Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas are particularly troubling. So it’s crucial that we put in place smart regulations and enforce them, including deciding not to drill when the risks are too high."
posted by kyrademon at 4:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


I disagree; policies even just on social issues (no LGBT employment discrimination for example) have financial impacts for corporations so there will be reasons for corporations to limit the impact of those policies (make it apply only to "large" employers, restrict the means of redress, etc.).

I thought there was a lot of evidence that b cause of market forces, LGBT rights were not particularly opposed in corporate America.
posted by OmieWise at 4:16 PM on March 2, 2016


Well, there's a difference between opposing a concept and opposing the implementation of particular policies.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:17 PM on March 2, 2016


NYT works hard to present Democratic primary race as more boring than it is:
"Take this item from the homepage of the New York Times today (3/2/16) summing up Bernie Sanders’ Super Tuesday performance: “Wins for Sanders in Liberal Strongholds.” .. In addition to being boring, this headline has the further demerit of being wrong: Of Sanders’ four Super Tuesday victories, one was in Oklahoma, which hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, more than half a century ago. ... Another victory was in Colorado, a solidly purple state—it voted for Obama twice, but also for George W. Bush twice—and for Bill Clinton only once, in 1992. Before that, it was reliably Republican going back, again, to 1964. Sanders had a 19-point margin of victory.

So why report that Sanders won in “liberal strongholds”? In part, it’s laziness: That’s what you thought was going to happen, so that’s what you report. In fact, that what happened was what was supposed to happen was a major theme of Patrick Healy and Amy Chozick‘s report: “Mrs. Clinton succeeded in containing Mr. Sanders to states he was expected to win, like Vermont and Oklahoma.” How very reassuring! Actually, though, 538 gave Clinton a very slight edge to win Oklahoma, essentially predicting a tie vote—rather than the 19-point blowout Sanders achieved.

538 didn’t predict an outcome in either Colorado or Minnesota, but the last Colorado poll listed by Real Clear Politics (Quinnipiac, 11/11-15/15) had Clinton up by 28 percentage points—47 points better than her actual performance. The latest Minnesota poll (Star Tribune, 1/25/16) had Clinton 34 points ahead—whereas actual caucus-goers there picked Sanders by 24 points. These are surprising turnarounds—in Minnesota’s case, a shift of 58 percentage points in a little over a month. But rather than stressing the surprising and dramatic nature of these outcomes—and the difficulties of predictions in this election season in particular—the New York Times instead chose to mislead its readers by telling them that that’s what was expected all along."

Clinton on pipelines and drilling

Yeah, sorry, I should have been more specific about how a big part of why I don't trust her on climate issues is that she took two whole years to decide that she didn't support Keystone XL, and only came out against it after it was basically off the table anyway. That she won't commit to future pipelines that are still in play, like the Alberta Clipper and Sandpiper pipelines, only helps to confirm that she just waited the issue out rather than taking some concerted stand on the issue.
posted by dialetheia at 4:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]




Yeah, I've been really underwhelmed by the NYT coverage this election cycle.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


dialetheia -- fair enough.

I actually think the chart homonculus linked to, which includes Sanders and Clinton as well as Trump, is a pretty clear representation of a specific instance of the general point I'm trying to make. Is Sanders better than Clinton on the environment? Yes, which is one reason I voted for him in the primary. Is Clinton nonetheless pretty good on the environment? In my opinion, yes. Is she unquestionably lightyears better than the Republican frontrunner, not to mention anyone else who might conceivably get the nod from the Republicans? Abso-friggin-lutely.

Now, I agree that the most arguable part of my analysis there is that I personally look at that chart of Clinton's environmental positions vs. Sanders' and Trump's and see her as "pretty good", which is why I'd be happy to vote for her. Others might look at it and see "not good enough", and be less enthusiastic. (On the third hand, though, even in that case I'd of course still see it as a question of "not good enough" vs. "what the hell are you kidding me that's insane" in the general.)

Again, I did vote for Sanders. I'm just explaining why I would be voting for Clinton happily rather than doing it solely to prevent a Trump presidency. But I'd personally do the latter even if I thought Clinton was a lot worse. I just don't happen to think that, I think she'd be a good president. I'm literally only discussing my enthusiasm level, not my vote.
posted by kyrademon at 4:33 PM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


You guys, I have the inside track on Romney's little "speech" tomorrow; can't divulge the sources without risking the compromise of our timeline but:

Rubio, on stage alone, introduces Romney. A man strongly resembling the 2012 Republican presidential nominee walks out from stage left, wearing a silver jumpsuit, covered in silver bodypaint and carrying a boombox. The assembled crowd of media is silent as it tries to comprehend what is happening. The man takes the mic from Rubio, lays it down on the stage in front of his boombox, starts playing The Black Eyed Peas' "Rock Your Body" and for five minutes does the most incredible robot dancing that anyone has ever seen.

As the song ends, the silver dancer picks up the mic, faces Rubio and says, "That's how it's done, asshole," drops the mic and walks off stage.
posted by indubitable at 4:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thanks for the Fair.org article dialetheia.

This hits close to home, as I'm really frustrated with corporate media (and as a result, myself), because it makes me question my ability to make a fair and impartial assessment of the election cycle. Frustrated, sad, and a little angry.
posted by kyp at 4:41 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm just explaining why I would be voting for Clinton happily rather than doing it solely to prevent a Trump presidency.

No worries! And I'm sorry, I don't mean to needle you personally about it at all - it's just the area in which I find her positions most disappointing of any of her policies, and I think her rhetoric really overstates her demonstrated commitment to those issues. I feel like environmental issues have gotten really short shrift this year, even climate, and so I think it's a contrast worth drawing if only to draw attention to those issues. I 100% agree that her policies are light-years ahead of Trumps (I mean, Sarah Palin running the Department of Energy? Kill me now).
posted by dialetheia at 4:41 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Trump's healthcare reform proposal is out.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:02 PM on March 2, 2016


ok, now i'm pretty sure i'm voting for plies

#fucksalliemae
posted by nadawi at 5:02 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


...although his national referendum of #sweetpwussysatday might not go over so well
posted by nadawi at 5:04 PM on March 2, 2016


I'm not saying your choice of candidate is illegitimate, nadawi, but plies used a URL shortener to save 2 characters and failed to spend the $15.50 to get the domain.
posted by The Gaffer at 5:05 PM on March 2, 2016


Sanders is in a position similar to where Clinton was after Super Tuesday in 2008. The opponent has taken a lead that will be very difficult to overcome because proportional allotment of delegates in the Democratic primaries means he most likely can't win enough states by big enough margins to offset her lead. (In 2008 her supporters kept saying the superdelegates would come around, too.)

Unless something dramatically unexpected happens, the next president will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you're supporting one of their opponents in the primaries, great! But I respectfully submit that you'll get an outcome closer to what you want in the general election if you vote for the candidate who's closer to your ideals than the other. You won't get everything you want, but you'll be less unsatisfied that if the candidate who's farther from your goals wins.

I like Sanders and think he would be a fine president, and I would happily vote for him if he's the nominee. I'm pulling for Clinton, among other reasons, because I have a four-year-old daughter and I want her to grow up knowing a woman can become president.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


hahaha sorry. his instagram features lots of eating (actual not euphemistic) peaches and talking about his love of a certain activity that he celebrates in a hashtag. should've tagged that nsfw
posted by nadawi at 5:08 PM on March 2, 2016


Trump's healthcare reform proposal is out.
Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty.
Holy fuck. That isn't a just loophole. It's like a professionally engineered and deliberately constructed tunnel through the mountain of the tax law that billionaires can route money through.
posted by Talez at 5:08 PM on March 2, 2016 [31 favorites]


I like Sanders and think he would be a fine president, and I would happily vote for him if he's the nominee. I'm pulling for Clinton, among other reasons, because I have a four-year-old daughter and I want her to grow up knowing a woman can become president.

I wonder whether there were many British feminists who said something similar in 1979, and whether they ended up regretting their votes, or, to avoid cognitive dissonance, deciding that they were Tories all along.
posted by acb at 5:09 PM on March 2, 2016 [10 favorites]


It's like a professionally engineered and deliberately constructed tunnel through the mountain of the tax law that billionaires can route money through.

Hey, hey, hey. Some of us are just trying to save up for the eventual brain-to-cyborg transfer process for our grandkids!
posted by FJT at 5:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton's a long goddamn shot from Thatcher, tho
posted by The Gaffer at 5:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


ymmv but I try not to go to the Thatcher comparison, since I think that Clinton is better understood as an asshole like Blair rather than as a total monster like Thatcher.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think her rhetoric really overstates her demonstrated commitment to those issues

Yeah, her coziness with fossil fuel interests is what bothers me the most too. I resent her for the hell she put Keystone XL opponents through while we were suffering up here through the Stephen Harper unseasonably warm winter of discontent. I remember fearing that the fix was in when we all learned about the rigged environmental review she set up with TransCanada lobbyists. Meanwhile, the price of oil is still sky high and Canada is roaring down the highway to petrostate and our local chapter of 350.org has just learned that the review board for the pipeline project through Toronto that we want to lodge an objection to will summarily dismiss any claims related to climate change as irrelevant and I just wanted the Obama administration to give us one small, mostly symbolic victory against the forces of evil.

Of course, she's still miles and miles better than the Margaret Atwood dystopia clownfascism that the GOP is promising.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've seen this comparison a couple times now, so: do Hillary Clinton's stances on issues correspond to Margaret Thatcher's? Or are their names being tied together because they're both women whom people dislike?
posted by sallybrown at 5:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [24 favorites]


The latter and it's not okay.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [37 favorites]


I think it's just offered as a reductio ad absurdum on the idea of voting purely for representation, but yeah, that comparison totally overlooks the fact that her gender isn't the only reason people would be voting for her, by far. I'll admit that I had a similar thought when Madeleine Albright tried to shame women Sanders supporters for not backing Clinton, but that was in response to her specific comments.
posted by dialetheia at 5:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


My familiarity with Thatcher is mainly through the prism of the Irish independence movement, so I reaaaaaaaaallllyyyyy don't see her as similar to Clinton. Like, not even remotely.
posted by sallybrown at 5:16 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty.

Well, I'm not familiar with the inheritance treatment of HSAs offhand, but the other stuff is exactly how things are right now. If you have a qualifying HDHP, your (annually-limited) HSA contributions are tax-deductible, the money is sheltered from any taxation and withdrawals for health-related expenses are tax-free.
posted by indubitable at 5:18 PM on March 2, 2016


Okay, how about Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir?
posted by Apocryphon at 5:19 PM on March 2, 2016


I think that Clinton is better understood as an asshole like Blair rather than as a total monster like Thatcher.

I'd say she's more Nixonian than anything. More liberal than Blair domestically, but prone to paranoia and enthralled to the monotone council of Grima Wormtongue when it comes to foreign policy.

I've seen this comparison a couple times now, so: do Hillary Clinton's stances on issues correspond to Margaret Thatcher's? Or are their names being tied together because they're both women whom people dislike?

I'm pretty sure the latter. I'd say Ted Cruz is the person in this race most like Thatcher. Devoid of empathy and would only be able to control his party through pure terror.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Holy fuck. That isn't a just loophole. It's like a professionally engineered and deliberately constructed tunnel through the mountain of the tax law that billionaires can route money through.

Wait til you see his tax plan.

I'm starting to think that Trump is running for president solely as an estate planning maneuver.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:19 PM on March 2, 2016 [16 favorites]


Are we seriously comparing Hillary Clinton, longtime hardworking solid Democrat with solid liberal to moderate values, to Margaret Thatcher?

And how can an R that calls her "evil" be viewed as "moderate"??

I supported Barack Obama very strongly against Hillary Clinton in 2008. I am so glad he has been our President for the past 7 years and 2 months, and I will miss him very much. We won't see his like again.

But you bet I am going to be very, very pleased when President Hillary Clinton is sworn in (and damned relieved she isn't Trump or Cruz). In a pantsuit, I am sure. We will have our first female President. The Supreme Court decisions will make sense again. We'll have a proven, powerful advocate for women and children in the White House, holding the reins of power. We'll have a President who is smart, courageous, funny, and deeply experienced. And we'll have one that is great at getting good legislation passed, with support from across the aisle. If all the enthusiastic Sanders people stick around and work this election, we might even be able to get President Clinton a chamber or two that is majority Democrat to work with, and take back a bunch of state legislatures and governorships, and thus finally roll back gerrymandering.
posted by bearwife at 5:20 PM on March 2, 2016 [35 favorites]


Poor Kim Campbell, no one ever gets compared to her.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


that comparison totally overlooks the fact that her gender isn't the only reason people would be voting for her

I didn't even say it was the only reason I was voting for her and I'm disappointed at the comparison.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:26 PM on March 2, 2016


Clinton does not compare with Tony Blair either. There may be some parallels to the new labor and DLC world, but Clinton has moved left since then and Blair seems to have moved right.


Regarding fraking. Why does everything get referred to as n-dimensional chess these days? Really it's pretty simple. You can vote for the Democrat or you can let the Republican win. If the Republican wins you are suspending any moves to halt AGW for at least 4 years. A Republican President will silence government scientists and stop EPA efforts to regulate CO2 and coal. So you'd better buck up and get super enthusiastic for Hillary or whomever wins the nomination otherwise you have cooked us all.
posted by humanfont at 5:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Poor Kim Campbell, no one ever gets compared to her.

I am actually struggling to come up with a prominent politician whose party has ever handed a bigger shit sandwich than the Tories gave to Kim Campbell. Maybe Hubert Humphrey, but he brought a lot of that on himself by having Daley coronate him the nominee instead of, you know, actually asking for Democrats to vote for him.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:31 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can vote for the Democrat or you can let the Republican win

It's not that simple at all. Politics are about more than who wins this election. The fact that we need to avoid Trump, which is very real, does not make her environmentally destructive actions disappear. I want all of our politicians to be held accountable and I will continue to have high standards for the people who represent me, thanks. Democrats need to do much better on these issues and I will continue to exert whatever pressure I can to make that happen. That's how politics should work. My vote for Clinton won't matter in the general anyway, but yes, if I lived in a swing state I would absolutely still vote for her, if that satisfies the vote-shaming contingent. That still doesn't mean that she shouldn't do better.
posted by dialetheia at 5:35 PM on March 2, 2016 [13 favorites]


So you'd better buck up and get super enthusiastic for Hillary

Nope.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Campbell is the perfect example of an exhausted political force making the most blatantly cynical ploy to retain/gain power at all cost. I'd compare Palin with her, but Campbell didn't deserve what happened to her. Nor, for very different reasons, did Palin.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:37 PM on March 2, 2016


No, super enthusiastic is not a requirement. Buck up and support, yes, be mindful of why we criticise, yes, but losing as little ground as possible is not grounds for joy, even though Clinton has many and considerable virtues.
posted by The Gaffer at 5:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Sometime ago, someone was asking about how Hillary reacted to Bill Clinton's philandering back in the day. I recommend the book or movie Primary Colors. It was famously written by an anonymous campaign worker. Pretty danged good read, and John Travolta is really good as Bill in the movie.

(Here's a spoiler.... Hillary was humiliated, furious, saddened ... in short, her reaction was human.)
posted by Trochanter at 5:45 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, I'm not familiar with the inheritance treatment of HSAs offhand, but the other stuff is exactly how things are right now. If you have a qualifying HDHP, your (annually-limited) HSA contributions are tax-deductible, the money is sheltered from any taxation and withdrawals for health-related expenses are tax-free.

The proceeds of HSAs are currently entirely taxable to the beneficiary on death. Shifting them to be untaxed? AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE? That basically makes it a billion watt lightbulb to the moths that are the super rich.
posted by Talez at 5:47 PM on March 2, 2016


Wait til you see his tax plan.

Oh yes. I saw that one.
No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
"Jamie Dimon was fired today by JPMorgan Chase with the CEO position being contracted out to Jamie Dimon Inc."
posted by Talez at 5:52 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


>You can vote for the Democrat or you can let the Republican win

>>It's not that simple at all. Politics are about more than who wins this election.


Politics are about more than who wins this election. This election, however, is about who wins this election. And after the conventions, there will be precisely two possible outcomes to this election.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:55 PM on March 2, 2016 [14 favorites]


And after the conventions, there will be precisely two possible outcomes to this election.

Two likely outcomes. But let's face it, people on the left who deny the sad reality of the D-R duopoly consider everyone waking up election day and voting for Jill Stein to be a completely possible outcome and unless they get that they're taking their ball and giving it to Candidate Trump.
posted by Talez at 5:59 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Enthusiasm has never played a large role in my voting experience. I was glad to have a chance to vote for Sanders because he supports a lot of policies I agree with, but I wouldn't call the feeling enthusiasm. At the strongest, I might describe my feelings toward politicians I like such Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as fondness. It's the same way with Democrats I don't like: my feelings just aren't that strong even if I strongly disagree with their policies.

I'm sure part of this personal idiosyncrasy, but I also like to believe that people have different motivations for participating in the process and that we can encourage multiple motivations at the same time.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:00 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


The President that wins this election will get to replace Scalia and probably Ginsberg and maybe one more of the elderly justices. That sets the working majority for the next 20-30 years.
posted by humanfont at 6:01 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


If your candidate manages to lose to Donald Trump the only person to blame is your candidate because they are obviously horrifically incompetent if they can't convince voters they are a better choice.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:02 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


The President that wins this election will get to replace Scalia

That kind of remains to be seen. We're through the looking glass on this one now.
posted by phearlez at 6:03 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


The President that wins this election will get to replace Scalia and probably Ginsberg and maybe one more of the elderly justices. That sets the working majority for the next 20-30 years.


Which is why the choice between the right and the WTF is depressing.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:04 PM on March 2, 2016


The President that wins this election will get to replace Scalia and probably Ginsberg and maybe one more of the elderly justices.

Unless it's a democrat and we're within four years of an election.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:04 PM on March 2, 2016 [20 favorites]


This election, however, is about who wins this election. And after the conventions, there will be precisely two possible outcomes to this election.

And nothing I do in my state is going to meaningfully affect that election even the slightest bit. More to the point, it is asking way too much to order people to refrain from earnest and substantive criticism of any candidate's political record and policies, especially when the primaries are still happening. When/if Clinton is the nominee, I'll probably focus more on local candidates and poverty and environmental activism, which are also part of politics, since my general election presidential vote won't matter. Sanders is a priority for me right now because it represents the best chance in my lifetime to have a truly left-wing candidate represent the Democratic party. When he loses, I will have other, more local political priorities, and that's fine (and probably for the best, given my deep red state).

Honestly the "get in line" stuff is just so counterproductive, it makes me want to not vote out of spite (don't worry I will still vote) - nothing makes me more resentful than being told who I should vote for, much less that I am not supposed to voice substantive criticism of them. The duopoly is a monopoly in my state, so it just doesn't really matter what I do with that election. I would rather prioritize on other things at that point. It's not really that complicated.
posted by dialetheia at 6:04 PM on March 2, 2016 [17 favorites]


No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes.

Wow. I can't imagine how this would be financially sustainable without really substantial spending cuts. This would be around a 10-20% savings right out of the gate for freelancers such as myself. This is the kind of thing that makes you wistfully daydream about what it'd be like to receive that windfall while at the same time, you're fighting a shudder creeping up your spine that you just can't stop as the images of the gutting of what remains of the public sphere that such a cut would entail play in the back of your mind.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:05 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


NOW watch those contributions from big donors roll in...
posted by Trochanter at 6:07 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


How about we just all say we want Trump to lose? I think that's something that nearly everyone can agree upon.
posted by FJT at 6:09 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


Aha. I should have known Senator Sasse's principled stand against Trump wasn't just out of the goodness of his heart: "Anti-Trump Republicans Call for a Third Option"
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, said he would work actively to put forward an “independent Republican” ticket if Mr. Trump was the nominee, and floated Mr. Sasse as a recruit.

“That ticket would simply be a one-time, emergency adjustment to the unfortunate circumstance (if it happens) of a Trump nomination,” Mr. Kristol wrote in an email. It “would support other Republicans running for Congress and other offices, and would allow voters to correct the temporary mistake (if they make it) of nominating Trump.”
Sasse was on Morning Joe the other morning and somehow made Joe seem like only the second-most irritating person in the room. He also kept repeating the mantra about Republicans being the party of Lincoln that we've also seen lately from Paul Ryan. If that becomes the new Republican thing...ugh.

Trump's thoughts on this development? Wait...take a guess first. Okay, here - I bet you got it right!
In a news conference Tuesday night, Mr. Trump dismissed the idea of a rogue Republican ticket: “They’ll just lose everything, and that would be the work of a loser.”
posted by sallybrown at 6:11 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


More to the point, it is asking way too much to order people to refrain from earnest and substantive criticism of any candidate's political record and policies, especially when the primaries are still happening.

Who's asking for that? I'm not. I'm just responding to the people who seem to think there's no daylight between her and Generic Republican.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:12 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


How about we just all say we want Trump to lose? I think that's something that nearly everyone can agree upon.

I'll give him one thing, he does strip away the pretense.

And, I don't know how much more I want him to lose than Cruz.
posted by Trochanter at 6:13 PM on March 2, 2016


But let's face it, people on the left who deny the sad reality of the D-R duopoly consider everyone waking up election day and voting for Jill Stein to be a completely possible outcome and unless they get that they're taking their ball and giving it to Candidate Trump.

there's only like, a dozen swing states
posted by Apocryphon at 6:14 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who's asking for that? I'm not.

Sorry, that was the gist I got from humanfont's comment saying that climate change would be my personal fault if I didn't personally get super excited for Clinton, not your comment. Apologies for inadvertently conflating those comments by responding to both at once!
posted by dialetheia at 6:14 PM on March 2, 2016


He also kept repeating the mantra about Republicans being the party of Lincoln that we've also seen lately from Paul Ryan. If that becomes the new Republican thing...ugh.

Abesplaining?
posted by acb at 6:14 PM on March 2, 2016


I can't imagine how this would be financially sustainable without really substantial spending cuts.

It's not. Tax Policy Center has a good analysis of the plan [pdf]:
The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:16 PM on March 2, 2016


Unless it's a democrat and we're within four years of an election.

Thanks for making me laugh, melissasaurus. Best joke I've heard this week.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:28 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


He also kept repeating the mantra about Republicans being the party of Lincoln that we've also seen lately from Paul Ryan. If that becomes the new Republican thing...ugh.

That's been going on for a while, before Ryan even. I am always torn in my reaction to it. Are they saying hey, we had a republican who was good once - it might happen again!* Or are they saying look, a slot machine has to pay out eventually and we haven't done anything right by you black folks in about 150 years - we're totally gonna jackpot any day now if you just keep with us.

* Personally I think Teddy Roosevelt was pretty good, if flawed, but I think they have a grazing-related grudge there
posted by phearlez at 6:29 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trochanter: " I recommend the book or movie Primary Colors. It was famously written by an anonymous campaign worker. "

It was actually written by Joe Klein, who was a columnist at Newsweek.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


This is going to sound like a canned joke, but literally every time I hear someone say "party of Lincoln" it kicks off an immediate earworm loop of Janet Jackson's "What Have You Done for Me Lately" in my brain for at least an hour.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [12 favorites]


Interesting tweet from Nate Silver:
Average share of late-deciding voters in 13 states with exit polls so far:
Rubio 29%
Cruz 27%
Trump 20%
Kasich 12%

In other words, Trump has trouble closing the sale with voters not with him to begin with. Seems like an under-appreciated data point.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:38 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Enthusiasm has never played a large role in my voting experience.

I've voted in over sixty elections so far and I've probably been enthusiastic about three or four candidates in all that time. For me voting isn't about who I really want, it's about picking who's best among the available choices. And I'm fine with that. I'm just one person and expecting candidates to fit exactly what I want would be pretty self-centered.
posted by octothorpe at 6:39 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


I can't stand it when GOP folks pull that "Party of Lincoln" crap or reference TR. Today's Republican party would drum them both out.
posted by carmicha at 6:40 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


ymmv but I try not to go to the Thatcher comparison, since I think that Clinton is better understood as an asshole like Blair rather than as a total monster like Thatcher.

Hillary was just as much of a Third Way devotee as Bill and Blair back in the day, so they have that in common.

The Third Way International: Throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton and other Democratic Leadership Council figures launched a campaign to take their Third Way ideology global.
posted by homunculus at 6:43 PM on March 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


there's only like, a dozen swing states

There's only like, 435 house seats.
posted by Talez at 6:43 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


sallybrown: "Aha. I should have known Senator Sasse's principled stand against Trump wasn't just out of the goodness of his heart: "Anti-Trump Republicans Call for a Third Option"

FTA:
Spurred by Donald J. Trump’s mounting victories, a small but influential — and growing — group of conservative leaders are calling for a third-party option to spare voters a wrenching general election choice between a Republican they consider completely unacceptable and Hillary Clinton.

"But I repeat myself..."
posted by symbioid at 6:46 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Apocryphon: "By midcentury, American politics had a Tweedledum and Tweedledee aspect, so that it was hard to distinguish the parties. Dwight Eisenhower was nominated by the Republicans and elected president in 1952, but he might just as well have been nominated by the Democrats."

Indeed, Truman approached Eisenhower about running as a Democrat, and apparently Ike took some time to decide what he wanted to run as.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:47 PM on March 2, 2016


reference TR

indeed, TR split from the GOP in 1912, ran third party as Progressive, and finished 2nd to Wilson, beating the sitting President, Taft, his former VP 1905-1909.

I only recently learned that the Progressives were a center-right reform movement more or less, not lefty like the Populists and Socialists before them.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:52 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


There are 1137 Democratic delegates up for grabs between now and March 15. Bernie doesn't hold a lead in any polls for any of those states (but note that Maine hasn't had one run recently). He could be getting closer in NC -- Hillary's lead there was 10 in the last poll -- but Michigan, Ohio, and especially Florida look lost to him.

If he can somehow survive to March 22 while keeping Hillary's lead around 200, then he hits a set of states that should be friendlier to him -- Idaho and Utah, Washington on the 26th, Wisconsin April 5, and then a Northeastern primary April 26. But that's going to be really hard to do without identifying why his message is struggling to get through to people of color and Gen Xers -- groups they have repeatedly said should have affinity for the Sanders message.

If he can't figure out how to pivot the message, I think it may be time to ask how he's going to translate his support to Hillary while not alienating his base or letting her off the hook on progressive policies.
posted by dw at 6:54 PM on March 2, 2016


He also kept repeating the mantra about Republicans being the party of Lincoln that we've also seen lately from Paul Ryan. If that becomes the new Republican thing...ugh.


Check out the link I dropped above to Van Jones confronting one of Trumps deputies. The deputy's whole trip was that the KKK was a liberal organization.
posted by OmieWise at 6:55 PM on March 2, 2016


I can't imagine how this would be financially sustainable without really substantial spending cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:55 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Incidentally: there has been a lot of great commentary in this thread, and I want to thank everyone for their different perspectives. I certainly learned a bit. Thank you.

But.

This thread also featured: misspelling of locations in Middle-earth, the misnaming of a character in Dune, and misquoting of Talking Heads lyrics.

So, you are all officially On Notice.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:59 PM on March 2, 2016 [27 favorites]


Indeed, Truman approached Eisenhower about running as a Democrat, and apparently Ike took some time to decide what he wanted to run as.

That's less an indicator of how close the parties were than an indicator of how apolitical Eisenhower was -- he is known not to have voted at all until at least after WWII, and it's possible that the first person he ever voted for was himself. He decided to be a Republican largely because the GOP front-runner was Robert Taft, an isolationist, and Eisenhower would rather knock Taft out of the running than Adlai Stevenson.

Also, Truman approached Eisenhower in 1948 about running for Vice President as a Democrat, and Eisenhower told him he would only if Douglas MacArthur won the Republican nomination.
posted by Etrigan at 6:59 PM on March 2, 2016 [8 favorites]


And after the conventions, there will be precisely two possible outcomes to this election.

actually, it's very possible it could be thrown to the House to decide.

Not that anybody to the left of Kasich will win that vote.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:00 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server

Could mean nothing...
posted by futz at 7:00 PM on March 2, 2016


the misnaming of a character in Dune

Fuck, I said Lord Harkonnen instead of Baron, didn't I?

*fails cred check, loses 5 HP*
posted by tobascodagama at 7:03 PM on March 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'll let it go. THIS time.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:15 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


If your candidate manages to lose to Donald Trump the only person to blame is your candidate because they are obviously horrifically incompetent if they can't convince voters they are a better choice.

The polls as of right now say Hillary will have no trouble dispatching The Donald. That may change down the road, but thank Jeebus that the electorate in the general election is more sensible than that of the GOP primary. There's a lot of campaigning left, but so far, your hypothetical about her being unable to convince the electorate she's better than Trump appears to be just that -- hypothetical.

That said, tell me -- I get that you hate Hillary's position on several issues, but of those issues, which of those issues are you convinced Trump be better on?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:15 PM on March 2, 2016


of those issues, which of those issues are you convinced Trump be better on?

demonstrably caring about poor white people
posted by an animate objects at 7:17 PM on March 2, 2016


Yeah, when I think of people doing things for poor white folks, I think of the union busting multi-millionaire son of a multi-millionaire.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:26 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


He's kept them from working in shitty low-paying jobs by hiring foreign workers instead.
posted by Etrigan at 7:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump can ignore the wealthy establishment's influence and money. He can say "I don't get along that well with the rich. I don't even like the rich people very much," and people believe it. He can denounce free trade agreements, say he'll protect low income jobs from outsourcing and hordes of invading immigrants, point to the wealthy establishment's fear as a sign of his legitimacy. We've been over a lot of these ideas already. I think as a whole it's fair to say that Trump can convincingly seem to act in the best interests of poor whites even if his manners of action and issued intents are reprehensible.

Maybe Clinton can also convince poor white people that she has a platform for them. What does that platform look like? How is she going to do it?
posted by an animate objects at 7:33 PM on March 2, 2016


The polls as of right now say Hillary will have no trouble dispatching The Donald. That may change down the road, but thank Jeebus that the electorate in the general election is more sensible than that of the GOP primary. There's a lot of campaigning left, but so far, your hypothetical about her being unable to convince the electorate she's better than Trump appears to be just that -- hypothetical.

That said, tell me -- I get that you hate Hillary's position on several issues, but of those issues, which of those issues are you convinced Trump be better on?


My comment had nothing to do with saying Trump is better than her or that she is going to lose to him. I was responding to the idea that a hypothetical loss would be the fault of Jill Stein voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 PM on March 2, 2016


Oh good, I'm glad we're already gearing up to blame the Trump presidency on whoever voted for the other Democrat
posted by theodolite at 7:36 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


I think as a whole it's fair to say that Trump can convincingly seem to act in the best interests of poor whites even if his manners of action and issued intents are reprehensible.

But "convincingly" and "demonstrably" are two very different things. What you seem to be saying is that Trump is better at duping poor whites. That doesn't seem like much of a recommendation.
posted by OmieWise at 7:37 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


Oh good, I'm glad we're already gearing up to blame the Trump presidency on whoever voted for the other Democrat

Pay attention, we've already moved on to blaming the people who didn't vote for the only Democrat left in the race.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:38 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yep Trump friend to poor whites all over the US which is exactly why he wants to end ACA and replace it with an untaxed Health Savings Account because you know poor white people have so much money to put into tax shelters.

The idea that Trump in any way cares about poor people (black or white or brown) is to make sure that they stay out of his properties because they drive down property values and as rubes in his long con.

He appeals to white rage not that he's going to do anything to address the source of that rage.
posted by vuron at 7:55 PM on March 2, 2016 [11 favorites]


Yep Trump friend to poor whites all over the US which is exactly why he wants to end ACA and replace it with an untaxed Health Savings Account because you know poor white people have so much money to put into tax shelters.

You are right, and yet this whole compare-the-policies thing misses how alienated many people are from the political process, and to what extent they consider politician's promises (aka policies) to be always self-serving lies. Trump is obviously an uninformed idiot, but he is genius at communicating "I'm not like the other guys and I agree that the process is rotten," and that message is working.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:21 PM on March 2, 2016 [7 favorites]


Funny how Hillary Clinton must, absolutely must, be lying about everything, but Trump can be taken as truthful on faith when he mouths platitudes about helping The Little Guy.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:24 PM on March 2, 2016 [18 favorites]


and hordes of invading immigrants

"Hordes", seriously?

Are we actually saying that Trump is acting in the best interests of poor whites if in the process he completely shits all over other vulnerable groups?
posted by FJT at 9:06 PM on March 2, 2016


It's not that he's trustworthy or has solutions to any of the problems - he's not and he doesn't - it's that they think he's the only one really even acknowledging the problems (specifically on campaign finance/special interests and jobs), and that automatically grants him more credibility than the other Republicans who are mostly still talking about bootstraps and tax cuts and carpet-bombing instead of jobs. Republican working-class voters are no longer buying that if we just eliminate the capital gains tax, all the jobs will magically come back. Trump supporters think the causes of those problems are our unbalanced trade deals and immigration, not high taxes or regulation or whatever the donor class is telling Rubio and Cruz to sell this year. I absolutely don't agree with that view at all, of course, but that's what his supporters seem to think.

It's kind of a belligerent racist poor man's version of Bill Clinton's old "It's the economy, stupid / feel your pain" thing - the solutions are secondary as long as they feel like he actually understands what their problems are, as long as the other candidates won't even acknowledge them. If Rubio and Cruz didn't have to keep the donor class on their side, maybe they could co-opt his economic message and tone down the overt racism to win his voters back, but Republican ideology and donors don't leave any room for that.
posted by dialetheia at 9:09 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


I almost wish that we could have debates with inline video supplements ala The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight. Imagining Drumpf debating Clinton where Donald spouts his latest position on a topic, and Hillary simply presses "play" to present contradictory footage from the previous week.

I'm sure this is probably a terrible idea on the whole, but it seems like some people won't believe something unless presented with video evidence of it.
posted by strange chain at 9:33 PM on March 2, 2016


Trump supporters think the causes of those problems are our unbalanced trade deals and immigration

Trump's right about this, actually.

Free trade has its own effects that are arguable, but what isn't arguable is the ~$500B/yr trade deficit is stripping money out of the paycheck economy, maybe 10 million jobs right there.

Immigration definitely cuts into the bargaining power of labor, such as it is.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:45 PM on March 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


...buuuuut it adds to the bargaining force.
posted by Miko at 9:47 PM on March 2, 2016


One takeaway from the Trump phenomenon: Yes, the hate for President Obama was definitely about race.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:50 PM on March 2, 2016 [29 favorites]


Trump is acting in the best interests of poor whites if in the process he completely shits all over other vulnerable groups

Imagine being a GOP voter of 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.

Maybe you can't see the bullshit they've been peddling for what it is, but deep down inside there's gotta be something telling how fucked up things have become -- the high cost of needs like housing, education, and health care, and the competition for middle-class jobs.

The GOP's strongest factions have been Walmart voters, white evangelicals, billionaires, and orthodox Jews -- they all come in at ~80%.

Walmart voters and white evangelicals are essentially the GOP at this point, the billionaires just provide the cash to fund the machines that bamboozle everyone susceptible to the conservative message.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:52 PM on March 2, 2016


it adds to the bargaining force

only when the "direct actions" start.

We've got much more of a police state compared to 100+ years ago, so I don't think street action is in the cards any more.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:55 PM on March 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


When Trump lies, he's not always trying to deceive. He does it to demonstrate his ability to act with total impunity. It's a show of pure chutzpah. When he mocks a disabled journalist on stage and then says it didn't happen, or gives a nonsense earpiece reason for failing to disavow a Klan endorsement, he's not expecting anyone to actually believe him - they play those videos all day! And by the time he's released his obviously insincere disavowal, he's already sent the signal: I'm on your side, white brethren, those Hollywood types in the media just are just making me pretend to feel remorse.
posted by theodolite at 10:06 PM on March 2, 2016 [19 favorites]


When Trump lies, he's not always trying to deceive. He does it to demonstrate his ability to act with total impunity. It's a show of pure chutzpah.

Is there any realistic counter to that? Or do you just write those voters off as the bigoted or authoritarian segment that's totally out of play?

How do you get people to stop being afraid?
posted by strange chain at 10:34 PM on March 2, 2016


but what isn't arguable is the ~$500B/yr trade deficit is stripping money out of the paycheck economy, maybe 10 million jobs right there.

That's higher than I expected. $500B/year is a lot but the entire manufacturing sector in the US is already produces about $2 trillion/year, and employs 12 million people. So wouldn't $500B contribute more like 3 million jobs?

Of course, this is super rough, because different industries have different ratios of labor and capital.
posted by FJT at 11:06 PM on March 2, 2016


I think the trick to beating Trump is to point out, over and over: You might think he's acting powerful or dominant, but the fact is, HE'S ACTING LIKE A CHILD. A four-year-old who tries to win arguments by saying "Look how great I am" or "I'm rich!" or saying things to anger people on purpose or calling the other candidates names. Or coming up with flimsy excuses when he's made a mistake. Or pretending those mistakes never happened. Or getting people to watch his speech by telling them "it's a surprise!"

He's a giant orange baby and he shouldn't be in charge of the country.

Now he really might be quite a bit smarter than a child, and quite devious and clever. But this is what the other countries are going to see when they look at us: A country with a giant whining orange baby in charge.

The other republican candidates have tried to fight him by turning into children and doing some name-calling themselves. I'm hoping the democratic candidate will just stand there and act like the grown-up in the room while Trump bloviates. My instinct is that Clinton will be very good at this.
posted by mmoncur at 11:22 PM on March 2, 2016 [5 favorites]


If your candidate manages to lose to Donald Trump the only person to blame is your candidate because they are obviously horrifically incompetent if they can't convince voters they are a better choice.

This needs to be repeated a million times. (And may likely have to be.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:27 PM on March 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


This needs to be repeated a million times. (And may likely have to be.)

Exactly. Sanders is entitled to AA voters as much as Hillary is entitled to economic progressives in the (actual) left, which is to say, "ha ha ha, are you joking?".
They are politicians on the trail. They have two jobs - secure enough funds to visit the next town and get people willing to carry them into the white house. If their strategy tanks, blame the strategists, not the voters.
posted by lmfsilva at 11:52 PM on March 2, 2016 [9 favorites]


But this is what the other countries are going to see when they look at us: A country with a giant whining orange baby in charge.

That has the ability to use the full force and might of the most destructive military ever in history. Not to mention the ability to draw up kills lists. Use drones. Use the CIA and NSA etc...
posted by yertledaturtle at 12:10 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Clinton Again Confronted over 1996 "Superpredator" Comments

On Tuesday during a campaign stop in a coffee shop in Minneapolis, Clinton was confronted by a young Somali-American woman, who asked the former secretary of state about her superpredator comments. The quiet back-and-forth ended with Hillary Clinton growing frustrated and telling the young woman, "Well, why don’t you go run for something then?"
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Is there any realistic counter to that? Or do you just write those voters off as the bigoted or authoritarian segment that's totally out of play?

Support for Trump is in fact correlated with authoritarian outlook. It cuts across party lines, which is why he's getting nominal Democrats to support him too - he's not an orthodox Conservative.
posted by theorique at 3:30 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


If that's the case, then the more we can convince people that Trump is a joke, or a baby, or a cartoon character, or a talking yam, the less they'll see him as "authority". So all of the joking might actually be our only hope.

More seriously, we need to demonstrate that he's incompetent. I keep assuming he'll do that himself but it just isn't happening yet.
posted by mmoncur at 3:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


How do you get people to stop being afraid?

I think you're misreading Trump's supporters. They aren't afraid; they're gleeful. They are happy that there's a comedic figure making the entire political process look ridiculous. It's the result of decades of Republicans telling them that government is useless, and of both parties ignoring their interests to comfort the wealthy. They have so little investment in the political process that they're fine with ruining it. You know who is especially afraid? Politicians of all stripes. The goddamn public (at least the Trump-supporting part of it) is telling them they're irrelevant, and that's a yuge threat to their entire world.

I doubt that Trump would be even remotely good in the office, but a lot of the apocalyptic forecasts here seem pretty hysterical.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


> "there's only like, a dozen swing states"

Well ... maybe.

I have the uneasy feeling that all bets are off this year on things like that, honestly.
posted by kyrademon at 4:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Even business as usual Republicans would be fairly destructive to a lot of people here Kirth,

At a minimum we'd see Republicans dismantle ACA and this is what the Obamacarefacts has to say

"According to the CDC and Census data, for the first three months of 2015 the uninsured rate is 9.2% down from 15.7% before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. For just the 18 -64 demographic the same study shows the uninsured rate at 13% down from 22.3% in 2010 when the ACA was signed into law. These represent the lowest uninsured rates in over 50 years according to the study.

Another highly respected survey from Gallup showed that as of January of 2015 (before the 2015 open enrollment period data) the uninsured rate was 12.9% (average from fourth quarter of 2014). By the second quarter of 2015 the uninsured rate had fallen to 11.4%, down from 11.9% in the first quarter of 2015. This was down from a high of 18% and a low of 14.4% in 2008."


I've heard reports that the uninsured rate has dropped down some since then but let's be honest while there are lots of people that still need coverage and progressives should continue to push for a public option or single payer system Republicans plan on taking away coverage for millions of Americans. I know quite a large number of us live in situations where we have employer provided healthcare and thus we are insulated by the consequences of undoing ACA. But with ACA going away people that do have premiums will probably see those premiums increase.

Millions of people without insurance means millions of people without preventative care with all sorts of downstream impacts.

Another consequence is of course Scalia would be replaced by a Republican and we'd return to the 5-4 majority that continues to try to roll back the New Deal and Great Society advancements.
posted by vuron at 5:42 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


You might think he's acting powerful or dominant, but the fact is, HE'S ACTING LIKE A CHILD. A four-year-old who tries to win arguments by saying "Look how great I am" or "I'm rich!" or saying things to anger people on purpose or calling the other candidates names.

He's basically Tiger Millionaire. Except the kid behind the mask of success isn't basically good-hearted and naive.
posted by Foosnark at 5:43 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]




On Tuesday during a campaign stop in a coffee shop in Minneapolis, Clinton was confronted by a young Somali-American woman, who asked the former secretary of state about her superpredator comments. The quiet back-and-forth ended with Hillary Clinton growing frustrated and telling the young woman, "Well, why don’t you go run for something then?"

Imagine if Bernie had said this.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:04 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think we need to be careful when thinking of or labeling Trump supporters. Republicans fall in line and I'm already seeing that. I live in a snowbird town... think midwestern & rust belt baby boomers & seniors who are middle and upper middle class. Mom winters down here with a bunch of her friends. They are all republicans and politics is all the talk (especially with a few of them, including mom's fox news addicted husband). I'm the "filthy liberal" and they LOVE talk to me about politics to "hear the other side" as most of these folks don't know any democrats - at least no one that would admit to such.

When they first got down here this fall, Trump wasn't taken seriously but "y'know, he's a business man who has skills negotiating." There's one couple who is a bit lower information and I think they were always Trump supporters, but the fact that the others dismissed him so readily shut them up. They're salt of the earth types and appreciate his straight talk. A group of them are from Ohio and one couple is fully for Kasich because, well, they know him (not well, but they're politically active and know state politicians). They like trying to convince me of Kasich's possibilities because he's "so moderate!" Others seem torn between Cruz and Rubio and only a few haven't stated any particular candidate but they're definitely establishment types.

The Rubio & Cruz fans are the most interesting to me. As the months have gone on, I've started to see a big softening towards Trump. Where they couldn't take him seriously and, maybe even thought he was damaging, they're beginning to accept him. "He's not racist! What's racist about building a wall? Some people coming over probably are criminals... the best Mexicans can get jobs in Mexico, so why would they come?" But his real strength is that he's a billionaire business man. If I point to business failings, they talk about recovery and how that's what our country needs. If I talk about his bombastic nature, they'll point out that it's just for the cameras... he couldn't be successful if he acted that way in a board room. "He can bring people together! Thats what executives have to do."

The man is, more than Reagan ever was, Teflon. Nothing can stick to him. And he never elaborates or puts details to his plans, so people can imagine whatever they want it to be. And there is no way to prove them wrong.

I am terrified of the prospects of him in the general. I think he will do incredibly well. And not just because a bunch of racists or ignorant voters. But because fairly intelligent folks, who I would think better of, are already beginning to step in line and find things to like and support about him.
posted by imbri at 6:04 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


On Tuesday during a campaign stop in a coffee shop in Minneapolis, Clinton was confronted by a young Somali-American woman, who asked the former secretary of state about her superpredator comments. The quiet back-and-forth ended with Hillary Clinton growing frustrated and telling the young woman, "Well, why don’t you go run for something then?"

Imagine if Bernie had said this.


Didn't she apologize for those comments? Seems like they're mostly being used as a wedge issue between Bernie and Hillary supporters.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:07 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


But his real strength is that he's a billionaire business man. If I point to business failings, they talk about recovery and how that's what our country needs. If I talk about his bombastic nature, they'll point out that it's just for the cameras... he couldn't be successful if he acted that way in a board room. "He can bring people together! Thats what executives have to do."

Of all the things going on with Trump (authoritarianism, racism, etc.), he's in part the culmination of the cult of the businessman. Having made money in business is considered de facto proof of ability to manage, lead, and get things done, despite all available evidence demonstrating that plenty of successful businessmen are not like that at all.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:10 AM on March 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


holy crap there's another debate tonight? between that and Mittens's speech, what a day
posted by angrycat at 6:13 AM on March 3, 2016


Apart from being just damn rude, Clinton tends to do stuff like that when she hasn't yet found a way to answer a question, which is worrisome here. Realistically the answer is there is no good answer to explain the superpredator comment, but she and her people need to sit down and figure out a way to talk through it, show how she's changed since, and explain what she'll do in the future to ameliorate the harm she and others did.

(On that subject, has anyone read anything insightful about what cultural factors were driving the "crime panic" that ended up resulting in the '94 crime bill? I get that racism was a factor, but why that exact moment in time? I have Michelle Alexander's book on my to-read list but haven't gotten there yet...)
posted by sallybrown at 6:14 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here are a few of the reasons that, although I voted for Sanders in the primaries, I would be nonetheless be happy and enthusiastic about voting for Clinton in the general:
[Long list of Clinton's policy positions snipped]


But Donald Trump supports the exact same policy positions as well!
And also the exact opposite positions!
As well as a couple positions that are somewhere in the middle.

No matter what your political positions, he'll have you covered:

He thinks planned parenthood is a great organization (pro-choice) but they should stop the abortion thing (pro-life).
He denounces the Iraq war (anti-war) but is also for torturing terrorists and killing their families (hawk).
He is against gay marriage except when he isn't.
And so on.

Now, this may be transparent to most people on this list, who base their voting decisions entirely on sound reasoning and their own interests instead of empty propaganda. But unfortunately, for most voters, this is more of a gut decision: "He doesn't seem so bad after all. Just like me, he's also against abortion, for lower taxes and pro gay marriage." Or the exact opposite, depending on where you stand. It's already starting on this list, if you look real closely.

And this is the genius of Donald Trump: He's a blank, empty canvas on which people can project their deepest hopes. He's Obama 2016.
posted by sour cream at 6:14 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


But his real strength is that he's a billionaire business man.

No, his real strength is that he appears ready to actually fight. He just happens to saying stuff that resonate with a lot of people.

If the Democrats had a candidate who actually appeared ready to fight, not just talk, but fight like a they were in a beer brawl, we'd be all over that person. People want that projection of strength.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:17 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's an Open Letter from a Trump supporter up on Scott Adams blog right now,* which is really fascinating (in a bad way). It's transparently treating Trump as the surrogate father type of authoritarian strongman/protector. I recommend reading it, if you can, for what I think is a fairly unfiltered look into how some Trump supporters are thinking.

*Which I'm not going to link to, lest he turn his unblinking eye to Metafilter again.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:19 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


(On that subject, has anyone read anything insightful about what cultural factors were driving the "crime panic" that ended up resulting in the '94 crime bill? I get that racism was a factor, but why that exact moment in time? I have Michelle Alexander's book on my to-read list but haven't gotten there yet...)
Crime was driving the crime panic. I can't even explain what things were like in big cities in the early '90s. Well, yes, I can. In 1991, there were 482 murders in Washington, D.C., a city of just under 600,000 people. That's getting close to one in a thousand residents who were murdered that year, and the carnage was heavily concentrated among young men in black communities. When people talked about young black men being an endangered species, they weren't being all that hyperbolic. And as many people have pointed out, many black leaders supported Bill Clinton's crime bill, because they were burying their children at a horrifying rate. In hindsight, it was a terrible mistake, but at the time people were desperate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


He's Obama 2016.

No.
posted by bluecore at 6:22 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


don't forget the crack epidemic. when i was in the LES in NYC in the early 90s, I'd walk around empty crack vials all over the place every day.
posted by angrycat at 6:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Basically, crack, the murder epidemic, and AIDS all happened at the same time and all intersected in fucked-up, terrible ways. It's weird to me that people don't remember how horrifying the late 80s and early 90s were.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


not that disparate sentencing for crack/powder cocaine and the "super predators" comment were any good at all, but definitely there was crime-related freak-out
posted by angrycat at 6:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the Democrats had a candidate who actually appeared ready to fight, not just talk, but fight like a they were in a beer brawl, we'd be all over that person. People want that projection of strength.

Yeah I feel like I harp on this here, but consider the never-ending thinkpieces that have gone on about how Obama should get visibly angry about stuff and how his being too calm in appearances is a bad thing.
posted by phearlez at 6:31 AM on March 3, 2016


Scott Adams is doing some great analysis of the Trump phenomenon. One of the best recent articles is Super Tuesday (Master Persuader Series).

Excerpt:
Candidates who win primaries usually do a little victory speech the same night. Trump turned his brief remarks into an extended press conference that had all the optics of a sitting president. He called on reporters, took hard questions, and swatted them away like King Kong at the top of the Empire State building.

In other words, he made you think past the sale. Your rational mind knows Trump is not yet president, and yet you observe Trump looking and acting like a sitting president. When it comes to persuasion, visuals beat reason. This was one of Trump’s best 3D chess moves so far.

It was obvious that Trump was trying to showcase his moderate, non-scary side – so the public knows he has one – and by most accounts he succeeded. I thought he succeeded as well. His statements about supporting women’s health in the context of Planned Parenthood funding – against the grain of his own party – were especially powerful.

posted by theorique at 6:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


definitely there was crime-related freak-out

And in a lot of ways it was the root of a turn to the right in major American cities and in their policing. Rudy Giuliani was first elected Mayor of NYC in 1993, and his entire platform was crime and "quality of life" issues. Under his administration, they piloted "zero tolerance" policing and expanded the police force, beginning to build the urban policing trends we see today (and which have resulted in Eric Garners and Fergusons). There is good reason to think that crime didn't diminish as a direct result of these policies, but because of general improvements in the economy, but these policies and their rhetoric were visible and had an influence that is still with us. I don't think you can really understand where we are today with attitudes about social control and policing without remembering the urban crises that ran straight through the late 70s to early 90s, and were certainly promoted and exacerbated by crack, poverty, AIDS, changes to welfare policy, mental hospital closure, etc.
posted by Miko at 6:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yeah, Kevin Drum has written a good bit on the crime thing, if you want to poke around on Mother Jones. Basically, crime rates had risen sharply for several decades, and there was no particular reason to think that was going to stop. That's not to say there wasn't a racial component in the crime bill - of course there was - but it was reasonable to think that Something Needed To Be Done. And as noted above, there was some degree of support from the African-American community (who tended to be the group most impacted by urban crime)

As it happens, crime has sharply declined since, for reasons that aren't entirely clear (Drum has pretty convincingly identified lead as at least a factor). And now we realize we screwed things up. But it wasn't an entirely crazy option at the time.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:41 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


scott adams is hocking his same "i'm a hypnotist" redpill philosophy through the lens of trump. i'd prefer if we kept his bs off of metafilter.
posted by nadawi at 6:50 AM on March 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


Adams is doing the same behavior Christie did: rushing to roll over and show belly to what he perceives as an Alpha male, hoping to gain something close to Alpha status by doing it. It's behavior I shouldn't be surprised by, because a certain kind of man is really susceptible to it, but it makes me shake my head every time.
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on March 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


I'm confused about the "Super Predator" comment and the theory. Maybe someone here can explain it to me. I completely understand that the language and deployment of the language was a racist dog whistle, and Clinton should be ashamed for using it. I also am very much against the way we've incarcerated (particularly) black men. So I see why it's important to repudiate the comment and the framing, and I don't know the specifics of the theory.

But haven't criminologists found that many violent crimes are essentially committed by a small group of people, and that incarcerating those people leads to measurable decreases in crime? Has that been debunked?

I'm not trying to defend the comment, of Clinton's subsequent inability to respond appropriately to questions about it, I'm trying to understand the criminology.
posted by OmieWise at 6:56 AM on March 3, 2016


scott adams is hocking his same "i'm a hypnotist" redpill philosophy through the lens of trump. i'd prefer if we kept his bs off of metafilter.

SA is one of the few pundits (or "pundits") who manages to write on Trump without being overly partisan, GOP Establishment, or weird about it. He's got his own mishugas but he's been pretty on-point regarding the Trump phenomenon before a lot of the officially blessed media came around to it. So his material is relevant material for this thread.
posted by theorique at 6:58 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's behavior I shouldn't be surprised by, because a certain kind of man is really susceptible to it, but it makes me shake my head every time.

Yeah, I find it weird as hell. But certainly in the context of office work I see women engage in it all the time too.
posted by OmieWise at 6:58 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


That is good technique. A Master Persuader says FIRST the thing he wants you to remember. Then he explains why. If you do those things in reverse order – which is a common error – you get a hot mess. Good persuaders start with the conclusion first in this sort of situation. Bad persuaders give the reasoning first and work toward the conclusion.

This is not what Aristotle said. Rule #1 in Rhetoric is nearly everybody in your audience has confidence that you are a good guy. There are seven or eight other rules but they are all minor details compared to that one.
posted by bukvich at 6:58 AM on March 3, 2016


re: HRC and the "go run for something" - I haven't seen footage of this so perhaps I'm being naive but I have to believe this is being taken out of context. Hillary is a FAR TOO savvy politician to be so blatantly dismissive. And what's more, if you remember back to the conversation she had with BLM activists last summer, she struck me as being open to their goals if uncomfortable with their tactics.

"Go run for something" also works as - "clearly you are passionate about your belief. Put that passion to good use! Go in to public service." That was the energy I got from the BLM thing from last summer.

I realize that it's cool to bash on HRC, but she has been playing this game for a very long time. She's a very very smart woman. And people LOVE to take her out of context.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


certainly in the context of office work I see women engage in it all the time too.

I suppose so, sorry for the sexism. It definitely seems like some sort of dominance-theory behavior though.
posted by Miko at 7:00 AM on March 3, 2016


Mitt's speech sounds like it'll be him in an empty field, shouting at the wheat.
Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney thinks "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud" and that he's "playing the American public for suckers," according to prepared remarks provided by Romney to CNN.

Romney, the party's nominee in 2012, will urge Americans "to make the right choices" and not support the GOP front runner during a speech he'll give today at 11:30 a.m. ET at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics Forum. With Dr. Ben Carson bowing out of tonight's Republican presidential debate, Romney will promote the remaining candidates. According to the former Massachusetts governor, "the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront have come from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich."

Romney is expected to remark on some what-ifs about Trump becoming president. "His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president," Romney is expected to say. Romney will also touch on a "twisted example of evil trumping good: "Trump's claims that he admires Russian President Vladimir Putin while calling "George W. Bush a liar."

It is clear that Romney thinks a Trump nomination is troublesome for both the Republican Party and the country. In the wake of Super Tuesday results, Romney will also address what many are presuming the general election will look like: Hillary Clinton vs. Trump.

Pointing to the polls, Romney believes that the current GOP frontrunner "relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself." General election polls, however, say "that he will lose to Hillary Clinton." According to Romney, nominating Trump to represent the Republican Party will only secure Clinton's victory in November. Romney deems Clinton "untrustworthy" and "dishonest." He will tout Clinton's performance as secretary of state and argue that she "compromised our national secrets."

The 2012 nominee is not expected to make any other announcements in his speech today. Romney "understand(s) the anger Americans feel today" but hopes that such anger is "transformed into energy directed for good."
I don't see a way that this makes anybody care. If he appealed to what America is supposed to stand for, and said something about how even he gave into that dark vision of the U.S. with his 47% comments, and said he knows how it is to fail when you underestimate the positive, it would be one thing. But this to me just sounds like things that have already been said on television the past weeks and months. The problem is republican and some other voters are giving in to racist, sexist, anti-islamic and xenophobic ideas. Calling Trump a fraud and a phony without DJ Premier doing the beats and Black Thought, Royce 5'9 and Kendrick on the remix will accomplish nothing. By this time tomorrow it'll be like it never happened.
posted by cashman at 7:01 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


So his material is relevant material for this thread.

there's probably some sort of interesting analysis on trump buried in stormfront, but i think that's inappropriate for the thread too.
posted by nadawi at 7:04 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I love that the GOP thinks Romney is some kind of secret weapon.

On that topic, has anyone else ever wondered about Dubya? He's all but disappeared, even more than ex-presidents normally have done. He's not in the news at all, not even giving commentary. I think he might be just about the only figure with enough traction to make a dent, because so many voters still think of his days in office as relatively good times, despite all reality.
posted by Miko at 7:05 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


If that's the case, then the more we can convince people that Trump is a joke, or a baby, or a cartoon character, or a talking yam, the less they'll see him as "authority". So all of the joking might actually be our only hope.

More seriously, we need to demonstrate that he's incompetent. I keep assuming he'll do that himself but it just isn't happening yet.


Hillary's team will have to be masterful at managing optics in her campaign, because typical lines of attack -- Trump is a complete political neophyte and outsider, he has no political experience, he thinks he'll be Emperor, his ideas are half-baked and all over the map -- are viewed as POSITIVES by his followers. It's like running against a chimp or a seven-year-old; if Trump is painted as an incompetent and a boob, he'll get sympathy points if he even comes close to holding his own in debate. Shouldn't Hillary be able to knock this idiot out of the arena with ease? If she can't demolish him without effort, what does that say about her?

Not that any of that SHOULD matter -- this race should be about credibility and capability, not image. But the judges in the end are the American public and unless Trump says something catastrophic that even he can't shrug off, we don't know what criteria they'll use.
posted by delfin at 7:06 AM on March 3, 2016


Ugh, Scott Adams being quoted on MetaFilter as a thoughtful pundit. This election cycle sucks.

Plus, no shit that's what Trump was doing/attempting. It doesn't take any great insight to see that. Like I said way up thread, he repeated permutations of Democrat over and over too, deploying some cheap salesmen shit out of 1936's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Cutting edge 3D chess, amirite?

I'd rather not see the thoughts of noted misogynist and racist Scott Adams here either.
posted by defenestration at 7:11 AM on March 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


SA is one of the few pundits (or "pundits") who manages to write on Trump without being overly partisan, GOP Establishment, or weird about it.

Yeah, no. He's been talking up Trump with an almost-visible gleam in his eyes for months now. When Trump lost to Cruz in Iowa, he started going off into tinfoil-hat territory.

He's got his own mishugas but he's been pretty on-point regarding the Trump phenomenon before a lot of the officially blessed media came around to it.

Maybe the big shows on the big networks, but there have been a lot of commentators (especially on the left) who have been warning people not to take Trump lightly for months now.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:11 AM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


On that topic, has anyone else ever wondered about Dubya?
I think that Dubya has, probably with the help of a lot of therapy, realized that he is never going to please his father, no matter what he does, and that he hates politics and doesn't want any part of it if there's no way to use it to make Daddy proud. Armed with that insight, he is spending his time playing golf, reading Tom Clancy knock-offs, and playing with his grandkids, and he's not available for comment on anything else.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:12 AM on March 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


I suppose so, sorry for the sexism. It definitely seems like some sort of dominance-theory behavior though.

No need to apologize, not mentioning women engaging in a behavior like this is not sexism by any stretch. I just thought I'd add my own observation.
posted by OmieWise at 7:12 AM on March 3, 2016


I despise Adams as much as anyone, but in the context of social critique, I don't see why we shouldn't talk about him when he's relevant to something. We talk about all kinds of reprehensible people and their reprehensible ideas here. I don't like the notion of saying someone should never be mentioned, even though I can appreciate that his name is bothersome and his ideas can be triggering, and I certainly share the revulsion.
posted by Miko at 7:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Dubya appeared, surfacing from the depths, to endorse his brother. And he seemed pretty much like the same person he was before. Eight years later he didn't seem he gained knowledge with the years, he didn't seem wiser. No lie, he came across like a 10-year-old who just woke up from a nap, happy because they're looking forward to hot dogs and french fries for lunch.
posted by cashman at 7:16 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


On that topic, has anyone else ever wondered about Dubya? He's all but disappeared, even more than ex-presidents normally have done. He's not in the news at all, not even giving commentary. I think he might be just about the only figure with enough traction to make a dent, because so many voters still think of his days in office as relatively good times, despite all reality.

He campaigned a bit with Jeb! in South Carolina, I think. This was right around the time Trump was blasting him with both barrels for 9/11 and the Iraq War. I don't think Dubya wants to step into the ring with the Donald.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:17 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


there's probably some sort of interesting analysis on trump buried in stormfront, but i think that's inappropriate for the thread too.

A mainstream writer of a very popular comic strip, books, and blog, is very, very different from an obscure and aggressively racist web forum.

I didn't see elsewhere the analysis that Trump's press conference was "performing as President" in a new and creative way, in place of the usual old tired "victory speech". Sorry if the source is not an approved one.
posted by theorique at 7:18 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


talking about him is one thing (that i still wish we'd avoid) but can't we draw the line before directly linking to him and quoting huge parts of his hypnotist theories?
posted by nadawi at 7:18 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, if we drew that line, it would be difficult to know what he is saying and find the source the poster is talking about, and if what he is saying is relevant, and if I'd like to stay on top of how and where Trump is gaining cultural traction (so I can use it against him, of course), then it seems helpful enough - at least as much as, say, the insane "patriot" websites many of us have been reading in the Oregon Standoff threads. There are plenty of lousy opinions out there, and occasionally they are something we want to consider here.
posted by Miko at 7:21 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


their ideas aren't very, very different. just because one has managed to cling to fame and build a racist and misogynist audience isn't a compelling reason to pass around his thoughts.
posted by nadawi at 7:21 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


But Adams noticed that Trump was referred to as the President. Before any election even happened! That's deep insight that we need here.
posted by defenestration at 7:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I really don't want to see us start a MeFi blacklist. We should probably either rest it here or, if you think it's something you want to pursue, take it to MeTa.
posted by Miko at 7:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, if we drew that line, it would be difficult to know what he is saying and find the source the poster is talking about, and if what he is saying is relevant

it seems like this comment did a good job of it without linking of reproducing huge chunks. and scott adams isn't just some random website, especially when you also factor in his behavior here.
posted by nadawi at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


nadawi, we could say the same about donald trump
posted by pyramid termite at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Speaking of hypnotist theories, now I want a hot dog and french fries for lunch.
posted by valkane at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Poor Kim Campbell, no one ever gets compared to her.

Just prior to becoming Prime Minister, Campbell was Canada's Minister of National Defence during the Somalia affair. Canadian soldiers had tortured and killed several Somali civilians. Campbell excused their conduct as "youthfull folly."

Even as a child I could see that a lot of the criticism aimed at Campbell was flagrantly sexist, but we could have done a lot better than a torture apologist as our first female Prime Minister. In the same generation we had NDP leader Alexa McDonough and Liberal vice-leader Sheila "I'm nobody's baby" Copps. Either would have been far superior.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


yes, but for better or much worse, trump is a presidential candidate.
posted by nadawi at 7:26 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


it seems like this comment did a good job of it without linking of reproducing huge chunks. and scott adams isn't just some random website, especially when you also factor in his behavior here.

And when his "ironclad" theories don't pan out, he has a tendency to go into crazypants insult mode. This is not a new behavior for him here or on his own blog.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't think that would be allowed here, as the mods have his number, if it were on his blog, we don't have to go there and read it. There's more juice for him in a call to ban any mention of him than just rolling his commentary in to the other stuff Trump supporters are spewing. Does this really warrant a MeTa, or can we move on?
posted by Miko at 7:31 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh lord sorry for starting the Scott Adams thing. I honestly found Adams hawking persuasion theory* less interesting the the letter from the supporter, which was so utterly guileless in looking to Trump as a strong, protective pater patriae that I found it interesting as a window into the Trump supporter mindset. Adams himself I find much less so.

*Although say what you want them to remember first is advice I give lawyers in my office on a weekly basis, and I'd stop if any of them would bother to remember or use it.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:32 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Let's take the objections to Adams as noted, and move on?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:33 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've been thinking about the super-predator thing, and I think it actually gets at some things about Hillary's support among black voters, especially Gen X and older black voters.

The super-predator comment was despicable, and it's not excusable in the context of that time or our time. But it grew out of real engagement with black communities, where people felt a palpable sense of crisis in the early 90s. To put it into context, Chicago is currently considered a very violent city, and last year was considered a pretty violent year. There were 488 murders in Chicago last year. In 1992, there were 943 murders in Chicago, and Chicago wasn't the worst city in the US at the time. As bad as things are in Chicago now, they don't come close to the violence in the early '90s. Many black people thought the rest of the country was either ignoring the carnage in their communities or pointing and laughing. The Clintons were not ignoring it. Their response was a huge mistake, but it reflected the fact that they gave a damn, when a lot of white politicians and their constituents didn't. It came out of actual engagement with black communities. Bernie doesn't have anything to answer for from that era, and his supporters think that's a plus. But it doesn't necessarily play that way for people who remember the time. It seems like indifference, rather than sound policy. And Bernie's relative support for gun rights adds to a perception that this is a guy who was more concerned with his constituents' right to convenient access to their hobbies than with the survival of young black men.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


I'm really sad I can't watch the Romney spectacle live. I'm completely fascinated by it.
posted by angrycat at 7:48 AM on March 3, 2016


(Full disclosure: I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, which was the first election when I was old enough to vote, but voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 because I was so pissed off about welfare reform. I wasn't a big fan of Bill Clinton. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, either, but I think she's the best choice on purely pragmatic grounds.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


ha ha Trump already called Mitt a loser well that was predictable
posted by angrycat at 7:57 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The reason so many Republican voters are flocking to Trump is because they feel betrayed by the snooty rich banker-class Republicans who transparently look down on them as poor rubes and take their votes for granted.

So they're getting MITT FUCKING ROMNEY to give America a stern anti-Trump talking to?

Jesus H.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:59 AM on March 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


ha ha Trump already called Mitt a loser well that was predictable

Must be a day ending in y.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:59 AM on March 3, 2016


This NBC News headline says Mitt Romney to Eviscerate Donald Trump as 'Phony' and 'Fraud'. And I mean, two things occur to me. First is, that is really unnecessarily violent imagery. Romney's going to rip Trump's guts out, really? Isn't Romney really just going to say some unpleasant things about Trump? Second, the Internet age is so weird. We know what Romney's going to say before he says it. The actual speech act is a formality. Seriously if you read the article it's like a time traveller describing what Romney's speech that you haven't heard yet is going to be.
posted by graymouser at 8:03 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


To bring out Mitt, they must be (a) total and complete morons; or (b) trying to stop Trump gaining more support from the doctrinaire conservative set who still hold Romney in somewhat high regard, while giving the base up for lost (at least this year).
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:04 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think it's a little of both. They are still kidding themselves that they can sway some part of the base, but they're also telling the donors not to enable Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:07 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


or (c) they have no better options.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:07 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Hell, what could Romney possibly say that wouldn't make the entire party look like jackasses?

"I know he's a Republican, I know he's saying everything you want to hear, I know he's WINNING, but don't listen to a word he says."

That's some mighty fine desperation they got going on there.
posted by Mooski at 8:08 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


or (c) they have no better options.

If they're trying to turn disaffected Republican voters away from Trump, doing nothing would be a better option than having Mitt Romney make their case.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Not only can we read Romney's speech before he delivers it, we can predict Donald's response. I'm guessing something like:

Romney ran a real low-energy campaign in 2012. Wasn't cut out to Make America Great Again. If people didn't listen to him then, why now? Loser!
posted by nubs at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


For those interested in putting the super predator thing in context, more here. Some takeaways: Hillary has indeed apologized, Bernie was on board at the time for the crime bill too and also doesn't engage well with all questioners.
posted by bearwife at 8:17 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump runs as Independent, Hillary/Bernie become POTUS with ease, Democrats retake the Senate, the Supreme Court is loaded with liberals (including Obama as a 'revenge pick' because of current vacancy), redistricting and Voter ID hurdles dealt with, influx of left-leaning voters from other lands solidify left and centre-left support and voting blocks before 2020, after 2020 election progressive power is consolidated at federal and more state levels and real progressive reform can continue.

I never gave up on the 'hope' thing from 2008 and I'm not giving up on it now.
posted by Wordshore at 8:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Also, here's the exchange in full with the "Why don't you run for something?" summation.
posted by bearwife at 8:21 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Second, the Internet age is so weird. We know what Romney's going to say before he says it. The actual speech act is a formality.

The Master Persuader says the things first that he wants you to remember.
The Master Master Persuader spreads the message on what he is about to say even before he starts speaking.

Romney is about to outtrump Trump!
posted by sour cream at 8:26 AM on March 3, 2016


Also, here's the exchange in full with the "Why don't you run for something?" summation.

Why don't you just say you were wrong? Why don't you just apologize? That would make so much of a difference. "I was wrong. I made a mistake in pushing a tough on crime stance during my husband's Presidency. I've seen the error of my ways." She just has put up such an iron wall of defense against all criticism that it's hard to like her.
posted by dis_integration at 8:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is this the Romney watch-along thread?
posted by benito.strauss at 8:30 AM on March 3, 2016


I'm not wearing these mittens for nothing.
posted by cashman at 8:31 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Something about this feels kind of...hinckley.
posted by cortex at 8:31 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mitt has arrived, to thunderous applause.
posted by cashman at 8:32 AM on March 3, 2016


Why don't you just say you were wrong? Why don't you just apologize? That would make so much of a difference. "I was wrong. I made a mistake in pushing a tough on crime stance during my husband's Presidency. I've seen the error of my ways." She just has put up such an iron wall of defense against all criticism that it's hard to like her.

Yeah, pulling a tu quoque on Bernie is fair game from a horse race standpoint, but it's not a great answer for why voters should forgive Clinton.

(The "full context" of that BLM confrontation still makes Hillary look super uncharitable and condescending, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing it up was.)
posted by tobascodagama at 8:33 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'd like to extend a special thanks to whoever set up the teleprompter and the spotlights such that Mitt has weird horizontal stripes across his face.
posted by cortex at 8:33 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Is he wearing a luchador mask?
posted by zombieflanders at 8:34 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't find a feed on-line. Anybody got one?
posted by benito.strauss at 8:34 AM on March 3, 2016


Mitt Romney is going to say, I am Donald Trump, with better hair, and a ski jacket. I have better handlers, so publicly, it will never appear or sound as if we hold the same values.
posted by Oyéah at 8:35 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why does Romney remind me of Professor Impossible (as voiced by Stephen Colbert)?
posted by My Dad at 8:35 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ahhhh Romney, the good old days. *sigh*
posted by triggerfinger at 8:35 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Romney live.
posted by Mothlight at 8:35 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


benito.strauss: watch on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/live
posted by triggerfinger at 8:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not wearing these mittens for nothing.
posted by cashman at 4:31 PM on March 3 [+] [!]

Something about this feels kind of...hinckley.
posted by cortex at 4:31 PM on March 3 [+] [!]


What I want to know (in a non-pervy way) is is Cortex wearing socks, shoes, neither or both while modding this thread?
posted by Wordshore at 8:36 AM on March 3, 2016


She just has put up such an iron wall of defense against all criticism that it's hard to like her.

Isn't it interesting how many thousands of reasons there are to not like her? So interesting! Especially since so many of those reasons are absolute opposites.

Some people find it hard to like her because she HAS changed her mind on certain issues, and they feel that changing your mind on certain issues over the course of decades means she isn't genuine.

Some people find it hard to like her because she is defending her choices. Which is especially interesting, because she has already apologized for using the wording she used? Like, within the last week, she has apologized.

Some people dislike her for BOTH of these things! She is a fair-weather friend, but also too entrenched. Amazing, how fluid her unlikeability is.

So, Clinton: literally nothing she says is ever right, and her likeability is always the thing under discussion, no matter what she does.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:37 AM on March 3, 2016 [36 favorites]


Not that I was having an easy time making the idea of a Mitt delivering an eviscerating teardown work in my mind, but man this whole Paternal Condescension To College Students approach is even more of a turd in a sock than I'd expected.
posted by cortex at 8:38 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


What I want to know (in a non-pervy way) is is Cortex wearing socks, shoes, neither or both while modding this thread?

Trick question, I don't even work today!
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's...it's not that eviscerating.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


How happy are we that Mitt is currently not our President, on a scale of 1-10? 1 bajillion?

Did Mitt just mention "sexual exploits" or do I have a dirty mind?
posted by sallybrown at 8:41 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


well this week definitely wins the Oscar for week that had the fewest surprises in press conferences then
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did Mitt lift the Trump failures part of his speech directly from that John Oliver segment?
posted by mikepop at 8:43 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


> man this whole Paternal Condescension To College Students approach is even more of a turd in a sock than I'd expected.

Remember, though, we are probably not the intended audience for this speech.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:44 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Romney says 45 bad things about Trump and gets a bit of clapping here or there. Romney says Hillary must not be president - 15 seconds of applause.
posted by cashman at 8:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Romney is delivering his rebuttal to Trump's post-speech insults during the speech itself. This election is... it's a thing.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


> How happy are we that Mitt is currently not our President,...

I'm in year seven of not having John McCain as our President. It's glorious.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Inheritor of massive wealth who complained about Obama saying "you didn't build that" complains that inheritor of massive wealth didn't build that.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:46 AM on March 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Who is the actual audience for the Romney speech, I wonder?

Trump supporters? They'd say: "you had your shot in 2012 and it didn't work. We're trying a different approach."

Cruz/Rubio supporters? They'd say: "we're already trying to stop him."

Democrats? They'd say: "we're not even in your party".
posted by theorique at 8:46 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Mouth foaming nutbars, or chamber of commerce empty suits. America, Free To Choose.
posted by Trochanter at 8:47 AM on March 3, 2016


This is the party of Lincoln
As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to that I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
-- Abraham Lincoln
posted by kirkaracha at 8:47 AM on March 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


I LOOOOVE LOVE LOVE that Mitt to keeps pushing Donald for his tax returns! LOVE. We officially live in Bizarro World!
posted by triggerfinger at 8:47 AM on March 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


He's telling the older cohorts and executive class of the Republican party that Trump is a bad strategy.

It's as much a warning to other money guys in the party to avoid buying into Trump's BS as it's an appeal to the party base to flock to the ABT vote.

These guys are legit afraid of Trump not because they think he'll win but because they think he'll lose in a way that cripples the party.
posted by vuron at 8:47 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Romney is delivering his rebuttal to Trump's post-speech insults during the speech itself. This election is... it's a thing.

Acceleration is here. Time has compressed. We know the content of speeches before they are given and the speeches themselves contain the rebuttals to the responses. The future is the present. All hail king trump. Who shall reign for only a moment, that will last forever.
posted by dis_integration at 8:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm in year seven of not having John McCain as our President. It's glorious.

McCain would have been a ball compared to almost anyone we're going to get this year.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Who is the actual audience for the Romney speech, I wonder?

"Republicans", actually. Most Trump voter hate the party as much as Sanders voter hate the Democratic party.

On preview, what vuron said.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:49 AM on March 3, 2016


Ooh. Romney with the Trump U zinger.
posted by dis_integration at 8:50 AM on March 3, 2016


All of this stuff Romney is saying is correct but they still don't realize that these reasons are EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE WANT HIM.

Trump says he'll go after terrorist family members, these authoritarian fucks CHEER. He says that he'll torture America's enemies, these authoritarian fucks CHEER.

Really cheering. Not Muslims in Jersey on 9/11 cheering.
posted by Talez at 8:51 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Okay, the Trump University line was good. So's the "lousy hat" one. Romney can afford good writers.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:51 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




Of course, all of this is completely undercut by his opening, when he said Trump is still better than Hillary.

If you're still saying people should vote for him in the general then fuck you.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:51 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Just saw somewhere that Christ Christie is now doing a press conference at 1pm? I thought I was going to go to lunch but this is some Lord of the Flies shit happening right now.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:53 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]




He also points out that Hillary will beat him, according to polls, but later says that he's getting a free ride to the White House.
posted by mikepop at 8:54 AM on March 3, 2016


Who is the actual audience for the Romney speech, I wonder?

Golf dads
Ladies who lunch
I-bankers
Rich bourbon-drinking white grandparents who feel vaguely unenthusiastic about the thought of Rubio
People in the business class airport lounge
Wine Spectator subscribers
People who name their houses
Collectors of first edition copies of The Preppy Handbook
posted by sallybrown at 8:55 AM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


Most ridiculous season of The West Wing ever.
posted by Wordshore at 8:56 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


imbri: I think we need to be careful when thinking of or labeling Trump supporters. Republicans fall in line and I'm already seeing that.

Oh, that's what I'm expecting. Trump loves rich people and thinks laws should be written to benefit them; that's all the moneymen in the party really care about. He provides a rich array of subaltern groups to kick and bash and feel superior to; that's all the 'base' really cares about. And the rest of the party, the theoretically sober adults and reliable voters? Well, as we've seen for decades, they talk a big game but they vote for whoever they are told to vote for. The party may be in a panic right now, but within a short time they will embrace the clown and declare him surprisingly serious.
posted by tavella at 8:56 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


These guys are legit afraid of Trump not because they think he'll win but because they think he'll lose in a way that cripples the party.

Which is weird, because the best way to cripple the party is by having the establishment turn loudly against a guy who's super popular with the base.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:57 AM on March 3, 2016


character from 1950s cigarette ad delivers stern lecture; Trump poll numbers plummet
posted by theodolite at 8:57 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Romney accepts Trump endorsement for president

"having his endorsement is a delight; I'm so honored and pleased to have his endorsement"
posted by mikepop at 8:58 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


i thought the speech was good - while not aimed at me - he made it clear how much the republicans can't let hillary into office and then made his case for why he thought trump wouldn't win and made his case that for those who love him for being super racist and anti-immigration are being snowed because romney is sure there's evidence trump doesn't believe those things.

i don't know if it'll work, but i thought it was a good attempt.

(although, just a weird little inside baseball nitpick - i'm a bit surprised that a mormon elder had such a hard time repeating the john adams quote - those tiny jobs of memorization and speech giving are taught to 8 year olds in the church)
posted by nadawi at 8:59 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


character from 1950s cigarette ad delivers stern lecture; Trump poll numbers plummet

Actually, I'm more than a little interested in seeing what the net effect of this little tantrum from the establishment will be, if there is any.
posted by Mooski at 8:59 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mitt's real problem is that the old money American WASP is an endangered species, and no longer an aspirational goal for the next generation of conservative kids.
posted by sallybrown at 9:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


He might be running for for Veep with say, Paul Ryan. He might want the Utah Governor's job. One thing is for sure, Romney is not hero material. Romney might just be making, " normal political sphere face," for Utah, since Utah has been in the news for bigotry against LGBT folks, then the fundamentalists who are in trouble for massive fraud, and then the Mormon slant at the Malheur. I read somewhere about a prophesy that a Mormon president will save the Constitution, when, "It is hanging by a thread." There can't be a Mormon President, if there isn't at least a Mormon Veep.
posted by Oyéah at 9:01 AM on March 3, 2016


> The party may be in a panic right now, but within a short time they will embrace the clown and declare him surprisingly serious.

I'm old enough to remember that happening with Reagan. Some people can just smell power, and they get there early and enthusiastically when it moves.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:01 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm still not going to watch a debate, but I'm interested to see how this pissing contest plays out when I read the recaps tomorrow.
posted by codacorolla at 9:02 AM on March 3, 2016


Most ridiculous season of The West Wing ever.

I feel like this has all been an attempt to make the new season of House Of Cards seem plausible.
posted by zutalors! at 9:02 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


You believe this Mitt is the Chosen One? The one who will bring balance to the Constitution?
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:03 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


there's also the bs the church said about how they are the gold standard of taking care of child sexual assault issues in response to the troubles the boy scouts of america are facing. they've really been mucking it up in the pr department lately.
posted by nadawi at 9:03 AM on March 3, 2016


They're gonna have to have ol' Frank Underwood machine-gunning his political rivals in the streets to make the next season seem larger-than-life. House of Cards: Fury Road.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:04 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Go check out the comments on Mittens' Facebook page. A sampling.

GOLLY WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE FORSEEN THIS

“Seems like there’s a massive groundswell of populist anger from a huge chunk of our constituents who feel ignored and disrespected by the leaders of their party! Better send in THE VERY EMBODIMENT OF EVERYTHING THAT RAGE IS DIRECTED AT to talk some sense into them!”
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:05 AM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


The man of orange marched across the desert, and the Romney followed.
posted by delfin at 9:06 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


My last hope is that Megyn Kelly is somehow able to pull a Couric-on-Palin tonight on Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 9:09 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well McCain already surrendered to Trumpzilla, and Ryan looks to basically be willing to go along for the ride or he's going to be short lived as the warden of the inmates in the house, Romney just put up a pretty mediocre cry for help so it's hard to see who else is going to try to make the case against Trump now.

Bush I? He seems to want to stay outside of the fray
Bush II? Still deeply unpopular
Sith Lord Cheney? He's a backroom brawler

Trump has already neutered most of the establishment which means short of someone coming out and flat out saying that voting for Clinton is better than voting for Trump means I think the establishment have finally lost hold of the ship.
posted by vuron at 9:10 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Most Trump voter hate the party as much as Sanders voter hate the Democratic party

Wait, what?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:11 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


re: HRC and the "go run for something" - I haven't seen footage of this so perhaps I'm being naive but I have to believe this is being taken out of context.

It's worth watching, if only to see how dismissive she is to a young woman of color. One of her aides practically pulls her back at the end, she is so angry at being challenged.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:13 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


The man of orange marched across the desert, and the Romney followed.

On the day I saw Mitt Romney compared to Idris Elba, I wept for the very soul of humanity.
posted by Etrigan at 9:13 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Wait, what?

Yeah, they do.

I think it's a huge mistake to think people are flocking to Trump because he's an authoritarian. They all are, all of the Republican candidates. The reason Trump is so popular is because a big chunk of Republican voters know damn well that the Republican party does not give a single fuck about them or their needs, and Trump is the only one acknowledging that. That is what Trump and Sanders have in common, and the fact that they are both doing so well is a sign that Americans on both sides are sick and tired of being jerked around by rich assholes.

The fact that most Trump supporters are also racist and reactionary and Trump is playing to them doesn't change that, cause, again, all of the Republicans do that. Trump isn't doing so well just because he's saying it louder.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


On the day I saw Mitt Romney compared to Idris Elba

WHAT NO STOP
posted by TwoStride at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 2m2 minutes ago
"I spent my life in the private sector - not quite as successful as this guy" - Mitt Romney, 2012, pointing to Trump

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 5m5 minutes ago
Romney 2012: "Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works, to create jobs"

posted by Trochanter at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Rush is playing a recording of Romney kissing Trump's ass in 2012 the day Trump endorsed him.
posted by bukvich at 9:18 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would totally watch Idris Elba play Mitt Romney in a biopic. I bet he'd do a great job.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


The reason Trump is so popular is because a big chunk of Republican voters know damn well that the Republican party does not give a single fuck about them or their needs, and Trump is the only one acknowledging that. That is what Trump and Sanders have in common, and the fact that they are both doing so well is a sign that Americans on both sides are sick and tired of being jerked around by rich assholes.

The difference, I think (and we'll see come the general), is that Bernie supporters haven't given up on the system while Trump supporters DGAF.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think Trump supporters understand the system. Trump threatened Paul Ryan (he'll pay a price if they don't get along) and talks about raising the wall in Mexico like a dad threatening his children with 5 more days of grounding for mouthing off.

However implausible Bernie's revolution seems to be at the moment, at least the intention is to turn out the vote and support downticket races, not threaten people.
posted by zutalors! at 9:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's going to be a long campaign, but you can save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you make your default assumption whenever you hear a hit on Clinton from the mainstream media that it is false. For those who were around during the 90s you will find that this assumption will be right a lot more than wrong and save you from parroting Republican themes.

You should watch the conversation with the Somali woman yourself before commenting, not rely on second and third party interpretation.

This is in Minneapolis which has a sizable Somali population. The conversation with the woman, who is a political activist, precedes politely, but it is obvious they are not going to come to agreement any more than the people on this site. After some conversation the woman asks if she has spoken to the Somali community. Clinton mentions that she has met and has the endorsement of Abdi Warsame, who is arguably the most prominent member of the Somali community in Minneapolis. He is the first Somali-American to serve on the Minneapolis city council and successfully fought for redistricting to improve the representation of East-Africans.

Then the woman says that Abdi Warsame is no Somali. That's the equivalent of saying that John Lewis is no African-American. And that's when it gets testy. Clinton goes on the defense for Abdi Warsame saying “You know what, dear?” Clinton asked. “You have a different opinion. He is a Somali elected to the City Council. I’m really proud of that.”

So this whole thing is about Clinton's defense of a prominent Somali-American who has fought for the East-African community being disrespected by the questioner. The conversation was quite polite up until that point. The comment on running for office yourself is in response to disparaging a Somali man who had made the struggle to do just that.
posted by JackFlash at 9:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [65 favorites]




The only way this election season could be more entertaining: candidates speak solely in their helium voice.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:34 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thanks, JackFlash.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted. For the fourth time, please don't take this thread down the road of "Bernie supporters suck" vs "Clinton supporters suck". We've done that in a bunch of threads already, it's a point of view that's well explored and makes conversations stall out in total crapitude.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


So this whole thing is about Clinton's defense of a prominent Somali-American who has fought for the East-African community being disrespected by the questioner. The conversation was quite polite up until that point. The comment on running for office yourself is in response to disparaging a Somali man who had made the struggle to do just that.

That is really great context. Thank you.
posted by OmieWise at 9:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Somebody should probably tell Hillary that it's never a good idea to end a sentence directly addressing someone with "dear." The only possible exceptions are if you're 1) the audience's grandmother or 2) a fairy tale villain, and 2) is pretty counterproductive if you're trying to get elected. I mean, if you're going to add a "dear," you may as well open the throttle all the way and say "bless your heart."
posted by Spathe Cadet at 9:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


The only way this election season could be more terrifying: candidates speak solely in their sodium hexafluoride voice
posted by theodolite at 9:37 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


House of Cards: Fury Road

Bring me tankers full of women!
posted by triggerfinger at 9:37 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't think Trump supporters understand the system.

40-odd years of targeted propaganda will do that.

The Republicans worked really, really hard to create an uninformed but impassioned army that could be easily led with substance-free platitudes. And now they're reaping the whirlwind.

I feel bad for Trump voters. They have been used as pawns, and they know it, but they don't know enough to know that Trump sees them as pawns, too. Yeah, they're fucking terrifying racists who must be stopped, but it's not like they just sprung into being that way out of nowhere. It's been fed and encouraged by people who wanted to use them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:37 AM on March 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


> The difference, I think (and we'll see come the general), is that Bernie supporters haven't given up on the system while Trump supporters DGAF.

Fair point. I didn't mean to imply Sanders folk are just like Trump folk, I just wanted to put the alienation Trump voters felt from the Republican party in a way that would resonate with people here.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:41 AM on March 3, 2016


From Mad Magazine: Tale of the Tape.
posted by Wordshore at 9:42 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I feel bad for Trump voters. They have been used as pawns, and they know it, but they don't know enough to know that Trump sees them as pawns, too.

My feeling is that voters supporting Trump because they recognize him as the King of All Trolls (sup Tanizaki) don't feel like pawns because they aren't, really; they know exactly who he is and what he's doing. I bet there's no small number of Trump voters who harbor no illusions about him, and see the disingenuousness as a feature rather than a bug, and while their reasons to fully buy into this remain somewhat unclear to me, they're not stupid and they're not being duped.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:42 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


is pretty counterproductive if you're trying to get elected.

I think Hillary is doing a pretty good job trying to get elected.

There really seems to be a lot of attention paid to how Hillary needs to behave, which is starting to come off as really wearying to me.
posted by zutalors! at 9:43 AM on March 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


There really seems to be a lot of attention paid to how Hillary needs to behave, which is starting to come off as really wearying to me.

More than wearying: sexist. The Republicans are behaving truly truly abhorrently and the level of attention it elicits is maybe just on par with the amount of attention one sentence from Clinton elicits.
posted by OmieWise at 9:46 AM on March 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


yes, I wanted to say sexist but feared being jumped on, thanks OmieWise.
posted by zutalors! at 9:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


These guys are legit afraid of Trump not because they think he'll win but because they think he'll lose in a way that cripples the party.

It can be both.
posted by phearlez at 9:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


FBI agents arrested Jerry DeLemus, co-chair of Veterans for Trump in New Hampshire, on Thursday following his indictment in connection with the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:49 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


You believe this Mitt is the Chosen One? The one who will bring balance to the Constitution?

Well, his mittichlorians are the highest we have ever seen.
posted by phearlez at 9:49 AM on March 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


I just wanted to put the alienation Trump voters felt from the Republican party in a way that would resonate with people here.

Fair enough, but there is a worrying difference in degree. Trump is bringing in many voters who had disengaged from the system altogether, while Bernie really hasn't.

There really seems to be a lot of attention paid to how Hillary needs to behave, which is starting to come off as really wearying to me.

Candidate behavior is crucial in elections. Bernie got the same critique when BLM targetted him.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mentioned it in another thread, but my parents are republican voters and, while they think Trump is ridiculous and would have preferred to vote for Carson (still wtf, I know), they are resigned to voting for him in NY's primary and in the general. Their primary objective is to make sure Clinton doesn't win, and they're willing to vote for whomever is likely to make that happen regardless of their actual policy positions. There is also a deep resentment for the electoral college (they're Rs living in NY), and, with it, a resentment of "the establishment" (which includes Rubio; Cruz they hate for all of the reasons everyone else does including his punchable face). Pretty much anyone who has been in Congress is suspect to them.

I would not underestimate how many republicans are willing to vote for Trump, regardless of his positions or past statements (i.e., the whole "no true conservative" argument is not persuasive). Particularly the Rs in the Great Lakes/Rust Belt region. In my experience, many of these voters are less concerned with social conservatism, think the current Rs in DC have focused too much on that (i.e., sold out to the establishment in order to push social conservatism) and actually want something (or someone) that threatens to change how politics is done - to the extent of bordering on anarchy.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:54 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Jacobin is known for its displeasure of leftist accommodation, so FWIW: The New Republicans
posted by CincyBlues at 9:58 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Christie's livestream
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2016




In the last 24 hours I've had two normal-seeming guys tell me they like Trump and justify it with " he's actually really moderate, it's all just an act."

This honestly kind of terrifies me.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:02 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


n the last 24 hours I've had two normal-seeming guys tell me they like Trump and justify it with " he's actually really moderate, it's all just an act."

This honestly kind of terrifies me.


I think a lot of Trump does is an act. That doesn't mean his actions and words aren't horrifying.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:02 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


And if anyone else wants to be worried about turnout numbers, check out Oklahoma:

The number of R's and D's are about the same.

Primary turn-outs are not.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:05 AM on March 3, 2016


He's inciting violence at his speeches. Yes I do think Cruz and Rubio are better choices, no matter how horrifying they also are. I'm really tired of the argument that Cruz is scarier because he's a fairly competent politician.
posted by zutalors! at 10:06 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I find it just a bit incredible that a Somali-American woman is sexist for questioning HRC on her comments about black people, but to Hillary's credit, she isn't openly calling for the young woman to be beaten for daring to question her authority. So that's a plus, I guess, even if Trump has lowered the bar for critical examination of candidates to this extreme extent.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't think primary turnout means a whole hell of a lot at this point. The R primary is a goddamn circus, with one extremely polarizing frontrunner driving lots of turnout both to vote for and against him. The D primary is a two-person race that's been fairly civil, between two people that most Democrats feel positively toward, and which anyone not closely following the election probably assumes is a lock for Clinton anyway.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


> In the last 24 hours I've had two normal-seeming guys tell me they like Trump and justify it with " he's actually really moderate, it's all just an act."

This honestly kind of terrifies me.


It doesn't really matter because we all live in Canada, but a few of my friends think this whole Trump thing is TEH LULZ; I'm part of an email chain where they're trading memes, and when I sent around an "I don't know guys, check out this sketchy shit"-type email with links to news stories about his white supremacist fans, POC getting roughed up at his rallies, etc., I was told to lighten up.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think a lot of Trump does is an act. That doesn't mean his actions and words aren't horrifying.

The horrifying thing is not so much his actions and words, but rather that seemingly normal people (those are the ones who are supposed to vote for Clinton, remember?) admit to "liking" Trump. In fact, his likability is on an upward trajectory whereas Clinton's is on a downward trajectory. This will continue up to the election with more and more attacks on Clinton. If Trump manages to consolidate the Republican party behind him ("He's not so bad; certainly better than Cruz..."), and he's already got several endorsements from seemingly "normal" Republicans, then he can even let the party do the real dirty work.

Doesn't look to good for Clinton.
posted by sour cream at 10:10 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]



I find it just a bit incredible that a Somali-American woman is sexist for questioning HRC on her comments about black people


It's probably incredible because it didn't happen - no one said she was being sexist.
posted by zutalors! at 10:11 AM on March 3, 2016 [26 favorites]


I find it just a bit incredible that a Somali-American woman is sexist for questioning HRC on her comments about black people, but to Hillary's credit, she isn't openly calling for the young woman to be beaten for daring to question her authority

Having spent a lot of time in the coffee shop in question, the regulars are mostly west bank hippies or 80 year old East African dudes drinking sweet tea. We're not the best ingredients for a violent mob is all I'm saying.
posted by Think_Long at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


That's what I've been saying all along. His celebrity status makes him seem vetted and showbizzy. He's been invited into how many American living rooms for a decade thanks to NBC. He's got a catchphrase, for chrissake. That's why people can think it's all an act. The TV made him respectable. His offenses become the fodder of TMZ and tabloids, not the stuff worthy of social ostracizing. Everyone already expects the entertainment industry to be sordid, yet safe, so people laugh off his rhetoric as an act, excuse his mistakes and lies as a celebrity blowhard being a celebrity.

Trump is every sin of America and of the West, coming to bite us. The man is blowback in human form.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:13 AM on March 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


In the last 24 hours I've had two normal-seeming guys tell me they like Trump and justify it with " he's actually really moderate, it's all just an act."

This honestly kind of terrifies me.


Which part - the possibility that he doesn't mean what he's saying, and will moderate his stances if he's elected, but he will get elected by people who think he's completely serious; or the possibility that he truly does mean what he's saying and he will get elected by voters who think he's more moderate? (Or perhaps something not considered here...)
posted by theorique at 10:14 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wish people would relax about primary turnout. This is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

How Much Does Primary Voter Turnout Matter?

There are several ways to look at this, but here’s the simplest one: The following table shows total turnout in the various presidential primaries from 1972 through 2008 (I’ve eliminated races where incumbent presidents were more or less unopposed).

A few things stand out. First, 2008 was a record-breaking year for both parties. Yet most conservatives will tell you that conservative enthusiasm was down that year, especially without a strong candidate to rally around.

Second, and more importantly, note the second highest turnout in history. That was the Democratic primary in 1988 -- the all-time record holder until the Democrats in 2008. Turnout that year is still higher than any Republican primary on record. As you may recall, that didn’t translate into a particularly good result for Democrats.

In fact, turnout was actually down about 10 percent from 1988 to 1992, when Democrats won the presidency.

There are plenty of other tidbits we can examine: Republican turnout was up substantially in 1992 and 1996, and yet the Republican share of the two-party vote declined. No one remembers Bob Dole firing up the GOP base. In 2000, Republican primary turnout exceeded Democratic primary turnout for the first time ever, and yet Democrats won the popular vote. In 2004, Democratic participation in primaries was lower than at any time since the 1970s, and yet John Kerry came within a few points of winning the presidency.

I don’t think there’s much evidence that high turnout in presidential primaries produces a good result in the general election [...] participation in presidential primaries is driven by close contests with multiple candidates vying for the vote.

posted by showbiz_liz at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I find it just a bit incredible that a Somali-American woman is sexist for questioning HRC on her comments about black people

It's probably incredible because it didn't happen - no one said she was being sexist.


Looking over those comments - to be fair, those two conversations ("what actually happened with the Somali-American questioner" and "why does Hillary get the Tone Argument every six seconds") were kind of running side-by-side there. Not hard to get confused.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2016


I can't believe anyone is still trying to make it sound like "super predator" was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the 90s. Yes, there was a crime wave (driven largely by urban poverty that disproportionately affected Black communities, as Bernie made very clear in his speech against the crime bill) but the idea that (Black) children were born with no empathy and no humanity doesn't seem problematic to you? Especially coming from a Democrat? Really? And yeah, the idea that it's sexist to find the way she treated this young woman problematic is totally ridiculous - Black people all over twitter were upset about that video, are they all sexist and looking for reasons to dislike Clinton? Couldn't it just be that they think she treated that young woman contemptuously (regardless of whether she disagreed with her views about Somali politicians) and think Clinton could give a better accounting of why she now understands that it was a mistake to lend credence to the idea that many Black children were born without empathy and must be "brought to heel" than just "I was wrong to use that word"? People are still quite upset about the super predator thing and they have every right to be. It's not sexist to dislike a politician for giving credibility to the idea that Black children have no empathy and only apologizing for word choice - it's a perfectly reasonable substantive position to take.
posted by dialetheia at 10:15 AM on March 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


I find it interesting that people aren't talking so much about the fraud suit against Trump and Trump University by the NY AG. Based on how long these kinds of suits tend to take, we could have a sitting President lose a fraud case brought against him individually and against his business.

Meanwhile we hear incessant talk about the Clinton emails. Where's the chatter about a fraud case that has already been filed and has survived some initial hurdles?
posted by sallybrown at 10:17 AM on March 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


And if anyone else wants to be worried about turnout numbers, check out Oklahoma: The number of R's and D's are about the same. Primary turn-outs are not.

if anything, those numbers are encouraging - oklahoma republicans, no matter what the coasts seem to think about them, turned out in huge numbers to keep trump from winning their state. go oklahoma!
posted by nadawi at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




Thanks for the facts on primary turnout vs. main election turnout.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2016


" he's actually really moderate, it's all just an act."

Did you ask if they considered it all an act or parts of it? If the latter which parts are an act?
posted by FJT at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2016


Meanwhile we hear incessant talk about the Clinton emails. Where's the chatter about a fraud case that has already been filed and has survived some initial hurdles?

why, it's almost as if clinton is being held to some sort of higher standard...
posted by nadawi at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


At what point is it allowed for the left — for women of color on the left, no less — to ask critical questions about the actions of this self-described progressive candidate, so that they don't get dismissed and marginalized for asking questions of "tone", which are really questions of substance and significance?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


In fact, his likability is on an upward trajectory whereas Clinton's is on a downward trajectory.

Where are you getting this from? Both the HuffPo aggregator (Clinton, Trump) and Gallup show them both pretty stable or both moving towards unfavorable over the last several weeks, depending on how you look at them.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


why, it's almost as if clinton is being held to some sort of higher standard...

The higher standard of being the spouse of a former President, and a long time member of the federal government.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:21 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




The sexism thing re: the Somali-American woman came about because of an in-thread comment about Clinton's tone when she uses words like "dear." It wasn't about anything the woman questioning Clinton said.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:21 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


I find it just a bit incredible that a Somali-American woman is sexist for questioning HRC on her comments about black people

I used the term sexist, and it certainly wasn't in relation to the Somali-American woman. I'm glad the woman said what she said and I think the response from Clinton was a tiny bit tone deaf (see the context above). Nor was my comment in relation to general criticism of a candidate. My comment is pretty specific. I think Hillary is being held to a different standard for her reactions. This does not mean that they are correct, or that her positions are correct, or that she couldn't do one of a hundred things better. It means that when she makes a mistake I believe that she is held to a different standard regarding that.

I'm, frankly, surprised that this would be a controversial sentiment. We know patriarchy is shitty. We know that women are held to a different standard. I can't imagine why it would be different for a woman trying to become President.
posted by OmieWise at 10:22 AM on March 3, 2016 [23 favorites]


I think a lot of Trump does is an act.

I think it probably is too, but as John Oliver said: "You are either racist or you are pretending to be, and at some point, there is no difference there." These two guys said he would vote for him. One of the guys caucused for him. They didn't fit into the stereotype of the average Trump supporter that most people have.They're using his supposed "act" as justification as to why it's actually okay to vote for him. But, as you said, that still doesn't make it okay. Because as someone said upthread, we really just don't know. Maybe he turns out to be a moderate who just plays at being a racist misogynist, maybe not. But if he manages to win over a bunch of moderates by convincing that it's all just a show and they vote for him based on it, and it turns out he really is as extreme as he acts, then we are well and truly fucked. At least with Rubio or Cruz we know what we're dealing with.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can't believe anyone is still trying to make it sound like "super predator" was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the 90s. Yes, there was a crime wave (driven largely by urban poverty that disproportionately affected Black communities, as Bernie made very clear in his speech against the crime bill) but the idea that (Black) children were born with no empathy and no humanity doesn't seem problematic to you? Especially coming from a Democrat?

This doesn't seem like a good faith reading of anything I've seen in this thread. I think everyone who has even touched this issue has been very careful to disavow the things you are talking about.
posted by OmieWise at 10:24 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Yeah, and OmieWise was expanding on my comment - in which someone advising HRC on how to behave "if she wants to get elected" really tripped my frustration meter - I think she knows how to campaign.
posted by zutalors! at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't believe anyone is still trying to make it sound like "super predator" was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the 90s. Yes, there was a crime wave (driven largely by urban poverty that disproportionately affected Black communities, as Bernie made very clear in his speech against the crime bill) but the idea that (Black) children were born with no empathy and no humanity doesn't seem problematic to you?
As I said, it sounds very problematic to me. I'm trying to provide some context for why black voters are, by huge margins, voting for Hillary rather than Bernie.

As I'm sure you know, Bernie also voted for the 1994 crime bill.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The sexism thing re: the Somali-American woman came about because of an in-thread comment about Clinton's tone when she uses words like "dear." It wasn't about anything the woman questioning Clinton said.

And wealthy white older women have been using patronizing language to silence young women of color for a really long time. It's possible that Clinton is both subject to sexist criticism and a user of silencing language.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


The man of orange marched across the desert, and the Romney followed.

If Romney had come out with something to the effect of "Trump has forgotten the face of his father! He is not fit to be dinh; he should command us in nothing. We have not come across the years and the struggles to listen to his childish prattling!" it would have at least been awesomely surreal and I would have liked that. He should have probably said something about forgetting the face of his father in 2012 too, though.
posted by nubs at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


As I'm sure you know, Bernie also voted for the 1994 crime bill.

Oh, lord.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I can't believe anyone is still trying to make it sound like "super predator" was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the 90s.

No one here is saying that.

the idea that (Black) children were born with no empathy and no humanity doesn't seem problematic to you?

Of course it is. No one said it wasn't.

And yeah, the idea that it's sexist to find the way she treated this young woman problematic is totally ridiculous - Black people all over twitter were upset about that video, are they all sexist and looking for reasons to dislike Clinton?

I have not seen anyone, anywhere, imply that this young woman was sexist.

But critique of Clinton's response to this young woman has been revolving around how unlikeable she is, how shrill, how she seems like a scolding grandma, how she shouldn't say "dear" because it makes her sound like your mom, how she shouldn't get upset ever, how unattractive it is when she gets upset, and on and on and on. When people push back against that rhetoric as sexist, it has nothing to do with the young woman who confronted Clinton. At all.

Couldn't it just be that they think she treated that young woman contemptuously (regardless of whether she disagreed with her views about Somali politicians) and think Clinton could give a better accounting of why she now understands that it was a mistake to lend credence to the idea that many Black children were born without empathy and must be "brought to heel" than just "I was wrong to use that word"? People are still quite upset about the super predator thing and they have every right to be. It's not sexist to dislike a politician for giving credibility to the idea that Black children have no empathy and only apologizing for word choice - it's a perfectly reasonable substantive position to take.

I agree completely. But there were people saying she hasn't apologized. While we can debate whether or not her apology was sincere or not, saying she hasn't apologized is simply false. I was pushing back against that claim, not arguing that her apology was top-notch or the end of the discussion.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


I can't believe anyone is still trying to make it sound like "super predator" was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the 90s.

Well, it was an acceptable idea to promulgate in the nineties. As evidenced by Hillary promulgating it.

A lot of black leaders were freaked out about crime too, understandably since it affected their communities disproportionately.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:27 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's possible that Clinton is both subject to sexist criticism and a user of silencing language.

It is also possible that Hillary Clinton was frustrated because the woman claimed that this man is not a real Somali-American and she lost her temper. She's only human.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]




And wealthy white older women have been using patronizing language to silence young women of color for a really long time. It's possible that Clinton is both subject to sexist criticism and a user of silencing language.


but the comment that said that people in this thread were calling the Somali woman sexist was conflating a bunch of comments together into one never-said assertion.
posted by zutalors! at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


A good amount of commentators wish this year would be Trump vs Sanders, because then it would be a battle royale of insurgent populists. But now I'm wondering if Sanders vs Cruz would be more interesting- the battle of true believers. Though Cruz is regarded as untrustworthy and slimy despite being fanatical, so I guess he's pretty complex for a lesser villain.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


roomthreeseventeen: I think a lot of Trump does is an act.

Pretending he reads the Bible was an act. Humoring Sarah Palin was an act. Mocking the reporter wasn't an act, nor was attacking Megyn Kelly for having the gall to be a woman questioning him, nor is any of the xenophobia or implicit racism, I don't think. It was all off the cuff, in the moment, kneejerk. Despite what others think, I don't believe Trump is very quick on his feet, nor is he a very good actor-- you can see it in his eyes during the whole "the Bible is my favorite book" bit-- even Trump doesn't believe what he's saying. What Trump does is reflexively attack, like a junkyard dog snapping at you through a chainlink fence. Usually he goes after looks or wealth, but I don't think any of that's part of the act.
posted by bluecore at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


if anything, those numbers are encouraging - oklahoma republicans, no matter what the coasts seem to think about them, turned out in huge numbers to keep trump from winning their state. go oklahoma!

And in even bigger numbers for Sanders, even - he got more votes in OK than Trump did!

Where's the chatter about a fraud case that has already been filed and has survived some initial hurdles?

Absolutely. The press has given Trump such a free ride, I can hardly believe it. They pretend to be Very Concerned about his racism (which they happily spread all over the country every minute of every day) but only really started getting angry at Trump when he started disrespecting the press. Chris Lehmann had a great piece in The Baffler about the press's ridiculous treatment of Trump recently: "Notably, though, what’s lately exercised our commentariat isn’t so much the old news that the GOP front-runner is a raving bigot. No, it’s that he’s particularly uncouth-to-belligerent in his posturing against them, the caretakers of the tone of the discourse. And in making this self-interested case, our punditocracy reveals a great deal about itself."

Further, after watching some of that "do you disavow" footage from the other day, I'm just totally disgusted with how entirely content-free our media has become. What difference does it make if he gets up there and plays along with the theatre by saying "I disavow"? Would anyone believe he was less racist if he had just said "I disavow"? It's the media's willingness to let him get away with saying all the shit he does as long as he just says "I disavow" when prompted that allows him to keep saying all this shit. I don't want the media playing the "disavow" thing over and over like his greatest crime was to not play along with their dumb theater - I want them doing investigative reports on how white supremacist movements have developed over the last 8 years, I want them pressing him on what he is personally going to do to stop hate crimes happening in his name, I want them doing real reporting on the substantive racism in his platform and rhetoric. The "disavow" game is such empty theater - if it's the best we can do in our media for calling out racism, then the media is a huge part of the problem.

As I'm sure you know, Bernie also voted for the 1994 crime bill.

Yes, as he made clear it was because of the assault weapons ban and the violence against women act, which don't excuse him. But watch that speech - there were other ways of thinking about this issue than "many Black children were born without empathy." The issue was poverty, and that Clinton responded by buying into bullshit about super predators and lobbying to eliminate welfare (which doubled extreme poverty) is a serious reason to question her judgment, much less her commitment to anti-poverty efforts.
posted by dialetheia at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


And wealthy white older women have been using patronizing language to silence young women of color for a really long time. It's possible that Clinton is both subject to sexist criticism and a user of silencing language.

That's a fair thing to pivot to but it's totally not the point the original "dear" comment appeared to be making. I mean the first bullet point was to say that the 68-year-old grandmother running for president should try not to sound like a grandmother.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


why, it's almost as if clinton is being held to some sort of higher standard...

The higher standard of being the spouse of a former President, and a long time member of the federal government.


Anyone running for President of a country should be held to an equally high standard of complying with the country's civil and criminal laws. Actually, that's not even that high of a standard of behavior, it's pretty much a baseline. Someone found legally liable of defrauding a large number of people lacks the integrity to be part of our government in any kind of leadership capacity. But I don't see news organizations obsessing over every daily development in the suit against Trump versus a potential indictment of Hillary that doesn't even exist. I do think that's a double standard.
posted by sallybrown at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


My only point was that when you read that conversation as a transcript, Clinton's "dear" reads as condescending and dismissive, and I would expect her to know that that's how it would come across and not say that. (Particularly when you're speaking to a younger WoC, where it takes on a whole different resonance.) The conversation reads pretty differently, to me, depending on whether you leave in the "dear" or not, and to the extent that she could have just not said it (on preview: yeah, I get that she may have been frustrated), I wish she'd not said it.

As for whether Clinton's getting tone argument bullshit, I mean, I'd be willing to bet that if it were Trump or Sanders saying it, nobody would have any trouble seeing it as a problem, and we'd be calling it sexist to boot.

On preview:

the first bullet point was to say that the 68-year-old grandmother running for president should try not to sound like a grandmother.

In fact, the first bullet point was to say that it was okay if you're speaking to your grandchild. Which she was not.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Anyone running for President should be held to an equally high standard of complying with its civil and criminal laws. Actually, that's not even that high of a standard of behavior, it's pretty much a baseline.

And both of the Clintons have a long history of being investigated for violating the law.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:33 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


But I don't see news organizations obsessing over every daily development in the suit against Trump versus a potential indictment of Hillary that doesn't even exist. I do think that's a double standard.

I think, from the media perspective, the double standard is "this guy brings us ratings, Clinton doesn't, btw we have no integrity anymore."

But, we should remember that we're still in the primary election. Democrats should be able to compare Clinton against the other Democrats running without having to answer for why people aren't criticizing Trump. I am comparing Clinton against Sanders. When we get to the general election, I'll compare the people running in that election.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:35 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't have time for a deep dive, but this is part of what I was talking about in my question about criminology above. DC is moving to pay some criminals with high chances of re-offending to not offend. There are multiple issues here, some of which have to do with access to jobs and stuff, but it's also clear that controlling for people who are most likely to offend can make a big difference. The column is by Petula Dvorak, who is a good and liberal commentator.

Paying criminals not to commit crime may not be so funny after all
[The program is] modeled after one in Richmond, Calif., in the shadow of San Francisco. Richmond had been among the nation’s Top 10 in homicide rates.

After that city started the pay-for-peace plan six years ago, gun-related violence plummeted.

Sure, it could be because that city also got an outside-the-box, new police chief, an openly gay man who pushed community policing beats, held up a Black Lives Matter sign and encouraged rehabilitation over jail. It could be that demographics are changing and the city followed the nationwide drop in crime.

Or it could be because the 68 people picked as Most Likely to Kill in that town were finally singled out. These guys came to the program with a “laundry list of deprivation and dysfunction: high unemployment, fragmented families, inadequate education and a heavy dose of substance abuse,” said the program’s founder, Devone E. Boggan, in a New York Times editorial.

But then someone asked more of them. They took trips to college campuses, and they were forced to make friends with rivals. For every month they attended meetings, listened to mentors, didn’t get in trouble, they got $1,000.

The cash helped pay rent and buy food. But ultimately, it was the attention to them, their futures and their success that kept those guys coming back, that kept them straight. It’s focused attention to their well-being that many never had before.

There’s no punch line. No great one-liner here. Just a lot of hard work and some success.

And even if the optics are bad, that’s got to be worth a try.
posted by OmieWise at 10:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


I'm curious why Stacey Rosana thinks that Abdi Warsame isn't Somali or from the Somali community.

Because it strikes me as an attempt to control or erase someone else's identity or saying someone is "doing X wrong", when there's really no wrong way to do it.
posted by FJT at 10:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


And both of the Clintons have a long history of being investigated for violating the law.

Sick burn! But I'm not sure what that has to do with the point that there is less than deserved attention being devoted to the legal case pending against Trump
posted by sallybrown at 10:38 AM on March 3, 2016 [18 favorites]


But I'm not sure what that has to do with the point that there is less than deserved attention being devoted to the legal case pending against Trump

You aren't sure why someone plagued by investigations who is running for President should be held to a higher standard? Okay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


This thread is so convoluted and we're all talking about 239 different topics, it's getting difficult to follow.

But I definitely agree with the person who said the thing.
posted by lock sock and barrel at 10:41 AM on March 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


The person who said the thing doesn't know what they're talking about.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:42 AM on March 3, 2016 [18 favorites]




"Plagued by investigations" Don't forget the time she murdered Vince Foster!
posted by Chrysostom at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


'Not even my wife knows': secret Donald Trump voters speak out

My wife kind of figured it out when I dressed our baby in the MAGA onesie.
posted by theorique at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2016


You aren't sure why someone plagued by investigations who is running for President should be held to a higher standard? Okay

hilariously, this sentence describes trump and points out the issue with the lack of focus on his legal matters.
posted by nadawi at 10:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


Voting for Trump, it's like eating a yuge orange ortolan! Hide your shame from God as you savor the rich, delectable tell-it-like-it-is populism!
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:46 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


*Walks into Metafilter thread* Hey guys how's it--

*EMBODIMENT OF 1994 NEWT GINGRICH RAGE BLEEDS FROM SCREEN*

*Closes tab* fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
posted by duffell at 10:47 AM on March 3, 2016 [22 favorites]


You should watch the conversation with the Somali woman yourself before commenting, not rely on second and third party interpretation.

Quoted for truth. I put up the links to the two accounts of recent incidents with Clinton being asked by voters of color about the "super predator" remarks she made 20 years ago because they both include video of what happened and a heck of a lot more context.

I despair of getting the U.S. voting public to do this routinely, but it seems to me it would provide a more thoughtful and rational basis for discussion here in MetaFilter if we all took a look at what actually got said, including context, before launching attacks on either Sanders or Clinton.
posted by bearwife at 10:49 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


We know patriarchy is shitty. We know that women are held to a different standard. I can't imagine why it would be different for a woman trying to become President.

Didn't you know? Now that Clinton is running for president, sexism has disappeared, just like racism vanished when Obama became president.

So obviously, all those comments that sound like the standard sexist criticisms of women in power, are really just reasoned evelations of Hillary's electability
posted by happyroach at 10:49 AM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


"Plagued by investigations" Don't forget the time she murdered Vince Foster!

Exactly! The Clintons have been plagued by investigations and literally none of them have ever stuck. So either they're both going around Kilgraving judges or maybe the charges against them are consistently overblown and empty. There's probably a middle ground where they've done some shady stuff but are very good at hiding it. But there's also good reason to exercise a priori skepticism about any allegations of Clinton wrongdoing that don't have to do with Bill's penis.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:51 AM on March 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


You aren't sure why someone plagued by investigations who is running for President should be held to a higher standard? Okay.

C'mon. Can we please try a little harder? This is a heated thread and a heated topic. I am not the most even of commenters on this topic, although I am trying. I really don't think that comments that are basically written as traps are helpful, especially when they seem like deliberate misreadings. And I know we all disagree about a lot of things (or I think I do, who can tell anymore), but I think we agree about more than we disagree about overall. Maybe that could be part of our general approach here.
posted by OmieWise at 10:51 AM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Yes, as he made clear it was because of the assault weapons ban and the violence against women act,

I used this in a back and forth I was having and I got told that the assault weapons ban was not part of the omnibus bill. I was left with my gums flapping.

You may already know it but that bill was a real football. Sanders did vote for a version of the omnibus bill that didn't include the assault weapons ban, but he voted for a separate bill to ban assault weapons that was intended to be folded into the omnibus bill. Then it was, then it wasn't.

Here's a piece on it.

Anyway, if someone says, "Hold on, there was no assault weapons ban in the omnibus bill." It's not that simple at all.
posted by Trochanter at 10:53 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


So...Trump's speaking again. I'm sensing a pattern here.

So, since Trump has an obvious need to personally trample on any speech that calls him out, the Democratic nominee's best strategy might just be to wear him out. At this point, he's got hardly anyone willing to speak up for him, and no one to speak up like him. Both Clinton and Sanders have a ton of charismatic and experienced public speakers that can at least feign affection and energy, so just have one of them go up every couple of hours and say something that gets his goat. Either he sends out some un-likeable and unenthusiastic toady like Christie, or he has to do it himself. It's not something he can keep up for that long.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:53 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Chris Christie press conference update:

He claims "No, I wasn't being held hostage." Then refers to The Donald as "Mr. Trump."

You're not fooling anyone, buddy.
posted by sallybrown at 10:53 AM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


From that Secret Trump Supporters link:
His candidacy is ripping the soul of America apart – we deserve it
I suspect that sentiment is widespread, although the reasoning behind it is diverse.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:54 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just listening to Romney's speech now - I think it's pretty good, excepting the attack on Clintons part. I think Romney's hardly one to criticize a family sitting "at the intersection of money and politics."
posted by zutalors! at 10:58 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The gay Muslim who thinks that Trump will cut off ties with Saudi Arabia and that Clinton will continue America's Mideast foreign policy as usual is interesting.

Here's also "In Minnesota, a Muslim Immigrant Explains Why She Is Supporting Trump" (Christina Capecchi, NYT)
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


From that Secret Trump Supporters link:

His candidacy is ripping the soul of America apart – we deserve it

I suspect that sentiment is widespread, although the reasoning behind it is diverse.


I remember when I used to write really long papers in college, once in a while you'd figure out, my god I was wrong about this thing that's a major theme of this thirty page paper and now I have to go back and slowly pick apart all the work and painstakingly sew it back together and at that moment, just picking up my laptop and throwing it out the window appeared to be the markedly better solution. So I feel for these people. But that's not how it works with countries where millions of people are marginally employed, marginally housed, living paycheck to paycheck, and dependent on basic economic stability to continue to stay alive.
posted by sallybrown at 11:00 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


The superpredator thing is the kind of thing that scares me about the left and politics in general. The willingness to act and to call people to act based on a half baked concept that doesn't even exist. It's the same irrational, desperate, fearful thinking that led us into Iraq. People have this idea that something must be done but miss that sometimes the crisis is manufactured or it's real but you have totally misidentified the causes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:09 AM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Lefties are no more resistant to calls of OMGWTFBBQ! if it comes from the right source.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:11 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The gay Muslim who thinks that Trump will cut off ties with Saudi Arabia and that Clinton will continue America's Mideast foreign policy as usual is interesting.

Yeah. I'm not quite so sanguine about Trump making substantive changes to our foreign policy, but I also can't blame any Arab-Americans for looking at Clinton and going, "Yeaaaaaaaah, no".
posted by tobascodagama at 11:17 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


The issue was poverty, and that Clinton responded by buying into bullshit about super predators and lobbying to eliminate welfare (which doubled extreme poverty) is a serious reason to question her judgment, much less her commitment to anti-poverty efforts.

Here's where Clinton got the info about "super predators." She probably shouldn't have deferred to the social scientists who claimed this phenomenon existed, but I think what is key is that she has with many others now realized how wrong it was, and apologized.

Bill Clinton certainly espoused welfare elimination. But how did Hillary lobby for that? Here's what she lobbied for:

Bill & I, along with members of Congress who wanted productive reform, believed that people able to work should work. But we recognize that assistance & incentives were necessary to help people move permanently from welfare to employment & that successful reform would require large investment in education and training, subsidies for child care and transportation, transitional health care, tax incentives to encourage employers to hire welfare recipients, and tougher child support collection efforts.
The third bill passed by Congress had the support of the majority of the Democrats in the House & Senate. It contained more financial support for moving people to work, offered new money for child care and restored the federal guarantees of food stamps & medical benefits.
The President eventually signed this third bill into law. Even with its flaws, it was a critical first step to reforming our nation's welfare system. I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage.


As for Hillary's commitment to anti-poverty efforts, it is life long, beginning with her work for legal aid and extending to efforts to enhance access to housing, allow mortgage re-negotiation, widely expand heath care, support equal pay for equal work, and reduce global poverty too.
posted by bearwife at 11:20 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't believe HRC on everything, but when she says she will fight for equal pay for equal work, I believe her more than I believe most politicians on anything.
posted by zutalors! at 11:23 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Donald going on about Mitt right now and sometimes I wonder if he's even listening to what he's saying.

Although the spectacle of two uber-rich businessmen going for each others' throats is almost irresistible to me, from a trainwreck perspective.
posted by triggerfinger at 11:24 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Bill & I, along with members of Congress who wanted productive reform, believed that people able to work should work.
And some of us are against tying public assistance to employment at all.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


My last hope is that Megyn Kelly is somehow able to pull a Couric-on-Palin tonight on Trump.

Probably not. She agreed on the evening of Super Tuesday that The Donald was "presidential". He nimbly wins hearts and minds.

But, he might get some questions about his greatest Twitter hits. Can't wait!
posted by Tanizaki at 11:25 AM on March 3, 2016


but to Hillary's credit, she isn't openly calling for the young woman to be beaten for daring to question her authority.

This is the point at which you know that you've crossed the edge from hyperbole to outright blubbering madness.
posted by JackFlash at 11:30 AM on March 3, 2016 [11 favorites]


Welfare reform was to be her main focus in Bill's second term: Mrs. Clinton Plans Active Welfare Reform Role: "First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will spend much of her time and energy on welfare reform in her husband's second term, the White House said Monday." She called welfare mothers "deadbeats" and implied that their children were ashamed of them: "“One day, Rhonda Costa’s daughter came home from school and announced, ‘Mommy, I’m tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing.’ That’s the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare."

Even if her role wasn't central to the passage of that bill (though she did lobby hard for it), she helped sell the idea that poor women on welfare didn't have dignity, which I consider profoundly anti-feminist. My mom received welfare at one point - is she a deadbeat with no dignity? Hillary Clinton said she was in the 90s. Sorry, I'm not going to forgive her extremely damaging, anti-feminist rhetoric.
posted by dialetheia at 11:31 AM on March 3, 2016 [20 favorites]


The issue was poverty, and that Clinton responded by buying into bullshit about super predators and lobbying to eliminate welfare (which doubled extreme poverty) is a serious reason to question her judgment, much less her commitment to anti-poverty efforts.
I think that's actually evidence that the issue wasn't just poverty, because the homicide rate is half of what it was in the early '90s, even as the poverty rate has gone up. I absolutely agree that welfare reform was a travesty, but that's not an excuse to erase or distort the actual tragedies that occurred in American cities in the '80s or '90s. And like I said, that kind of erasure, which cannot be explained without paying attention to race of the victims, is part of Bernie's problem connecting with black voters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:32 AM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]




The timing of Romney's speech is interesting. My first thought was that it would be drowned out by the debate coverage. But I'm in SLC right now and Trump is making an appearance today at the University of Utah, so within the Church of Latter Day Saints world, coverage will certainly juxtapose the two. Callout to the faithful? Plus Michigan overlap: native son's take relative to star of local debate.
posted by carmicha at 11:32 AM on March 3, 2016


Bill Clinton certainly espoused welfare elimination. But how did Hillary lobby for that? Here's what she lobbied for:

Well, that's what she said she lobbied for in her 2003 book. The effects of the law she lobbied for appear to be somewhat removed from those putative aims.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:34 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump is rambling about Romney right now. Sweet holy fuck, that man is completely demented.
posted by homunculus at 11:36 AM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Re: Romney, There's no stopping a Trump nomination at this point, and a lecture from Uncle Mitt certainly isn't going to stall his momentum; Trump's supporters aren't here for Romney. But I don't think Romney was speaking to Trump supporters; he was speaking to mainstream Republicans. (FWIW, I don't think he's doing this for the "greater good of America," except for the sliver of the Venn diagram that overlaps with the "greater good of the Republican Party elite.")

Romney is hoping against hope that he can derail a Trump nomination. Not gonna happen. Silver lining, though: mainstream Republicans speaking against Trump *may* hurt him enough to keep moderate Republicans at home on election day, preventing Trump from getting elected in the general.

Still, I'm not celebrating. A Trump loss is a prologue for things to come, not an ending. If Trump loses, a lot of people will comfort themselves with the lie that the nightmare is over. But there will be more, and worse.
posted by duffell at 11:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump: I could've ask Romney to blow me and he would've.

Almost a direct quote.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I wonder if Romney may have actually got Trump's goat. Turning the whole "you're a loser!" thing back on Trump seems to be the kind of thing that makes him lose his shit.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:40 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


He's turning himself around defending Trump University of all things. Inexplicable why Romney has been the only one to hit him on his actual business record until now, and it's taken this long. That's what he'll lose his shit over, and it's pretty indefensible once you look beyond all the gold sharpie.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:43 AM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


A few tidbits, do not know if they have been posted yet:

The Trouble with Trump for Bankers -American Bankers
...WASHINGTON — In almost any other election cycle, bankers would be celebrating the fact that a Republican candidate has emerged so far in front of the pack and would quickly fall in line behind him. But this has been anything but a normal election cycle, and there are a whole host of reasons that bankers will be at least as reluctant to embrace the outspoken businessman Donald Trump as the Republican establishment has been. Here's why:

Neocons declare war on Trump
Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses and vote for Clinton instead.- Politico


...Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America’s global role he asks, “Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
...

Also a video from a Trump supporter, useful for understanding some of Trump's supporters.
Explaining how some of the media are driving Trump supporters by belittling them.
The media has lost us -Youtube 3:04

I reached out to this guy yesterday and we had a cordial conversation.

Trump has destroyed Fox's credibility with a lot of these people.
posted by yertledaturtle at 11:44 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


"Trump would start world war 3 and lead the nation into economic ruin, but worse than that, he might get a centrist Democrat elected" - GOP Voice of Reason Mitt Romney
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:45 AM on March 3, 2016 [33 favorites]




I played rec soccer for years, and there was a guy in our league who had great skills, but was way too competitive for rec league and was a hothead. I told my teammates to deliberately and obviously foul him at the beginning of the game, nothing big, just throw an elbow. He'd get so pissed off he was useless the rest of the game.

The Democrats should find out everything that pisses Trump off and have surrogates make comments about them. Then in a debate the nominee could subtly refer to them and have him blow his top.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


but to Hillary's credit, she isn't openly calling for the young woman to be beaten for daring to question her authority.

This is the point at which you know that you've crossed the edge from hyperbole to outright blubbering madness.


Not sure if you are aware or not, but that is a reference to something Trump has actually said. I don't think it was an out of the blue serious suggestion Hillary might do that.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:48 AM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Democrats should find out everything that pisses Trump off and have surrogates make comments about them. Then in a debate the nominee could subtly refer to them and have him blow his top.
I think that the Megyn Kelly affair suggests that the answer to that is "women." Women piss him off. It should not be hard to press those buttons.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:49 AM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


I notice a couple of things about Trump that I haven't seen discussed by anyone to date -- 1) the number of unexplored skeletons in his closet, including whatever is in his "unavailable due to audit" returns and the active current flirtation by his son with white supremacists. And, even more importantly, 2) his failure to date to win more than 50% of voting Rs in ANY contest. The best he's done is in Massachusetts, where there is no way he'll take the state in November. In most places, he hasn't cracked 40%.

I think Trump's nomination may lead to the biggest Democratic landslide we've seen, because I think a hell of a lot of Republicans simply will never ever vote for him. I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas finally go blue in the general.
posted by bearwife at 11:50 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]



Drumpf: I could've ask Romney to blow me and he would've.

Almost a direct quote.


Yeah I saw that. This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?
posted by zutalors! at 11:51 AM on March 3, 2016


This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?

I think a lot of the surprise people express about this has to do with the murkiness of "evangelical" identity. We talk about it like we have a shared understanding of what it means, but even among self-described Evangelicals, you'll find strongly contrasting definitions of the term. For one, I think a lot of people see the label "evangelical" as a purely religious identifier, rather than a cultural one. It's both--and for a lot of people (not just "evangelicals"), cultural identity supersedes all else.

All politics is tribal.
posted by duffell at 11:56 AM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I saw some Nate Silver thing about exit polls showing only 48% or Republican voters would be satisfied if Trump was the nominee. Clinton and Sanders were mid 70s and 60s, respectively, for Democrats, IIRC. Seemed like a good sign.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:56 AM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


> This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?

I think people identify as evangelical regardless of whether they're for Jeezus or Jesus.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:59 AM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am glad that Sanders is staying in the race so that he will pull Clinton to the left. So, why are we not talking about policies Clinton should move leftwards on? Like free college. Clinton isn't promising that (and I don't think it could be delivered) but why isn't there an effort to demand promises from that she will do x y and z w/r/t college costs?

The discussion of how she addressed the Somali student does not in any way address anything that Clinton would do as President. Extrapolating that she ended a sentence with 'dear' in a tense conversation shows at worst that she was tone deaf in this instance.
posted by angrycat at 12:07 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas finally go blue in the general.

Don't toy with my heart like this bearwife
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:07 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?

There seems to be a lot of overlap between evangelicals (as defined by self-identification) and the prosperity gospel.

Why Donald Trump’s glitzy style is attracting evangelical voters [WaPo]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:10 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Romney attack was highly debated within the RNC. It narrowly edged out their second place plan to go after Trump claiming he wouldn't be able to be effective on law and order.
posted by phearlez at 12:11 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


So, why are we not talking about policies Clinton should move leftwards on? Like free college. Clinton isn't promising that (and I don't think it could be delivered) but why isn't there an effort to demand promises from that she will do x y and z w/r/t college costs?

She hasn't won the primary yet. Supporting the primary candidate who has those policies functions as that demand.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:15 PM on March 3, 2016 [12 favorites]


Mod note: A few comments deleted. Tanizaki, cut it out.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:16 PM on March 3, 2016


I am impressed by the extent to which Romney brought the hammer. I mean, he and McConnell are basically handing whichever Democratic candidate is the nominee tons of commercial material to run against Trump. Sure, it'll probably harden the positions of the minority of voters who are voting for Troll-God no matter what, but to undecideds, evidence that NOBODY thinks this guy is a good idea, not even his own party, is pretty damning.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:17 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?

My circles are mostly socially conservative Pentecostals, and this week there was a lot of Facebook posts calling out Trump as decidedly not-Christ-like. It kind of came out of nowhere, so I think it was prompted by Super Tuesday, but it was interesting because many of these people were ones who are normally against any sort of liberal/left-ish approach to Christianity, and Trump's sexism and xenophobia has outweighed his conservatism. Especially the sexism.

It'll be fun to see how the nomination shakes out because these are people who see faith as more important than a political party, and while in the past those two have been seen as lining up, interesting things could happen with Trump as the nominee. Sure, they voted for Romney, because Mormon over "maybe a secret Muslim?" is a no-brainer, but if it comes down to Trump vs WASP-y Clinton, I think there would be a lot of reception to the idea of voting against Trump.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 12:20 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump has destroyed Fox's credibility with a lot of these people.

Well, I'm grateful to him for that, if for literally nothing else.

Yeah, I wonder if Romney may have actually got Trump's goat. Turning the whole "you're a loser!" thing back on Trump seems to be the kind of thing that makes him lose his shit.

Could be that sending Romney out was smarter than we gave the GOP credit for. The audience wasn't Trump supporters or independents or anything like that, it was Trump himself.

Maybe if they keep trotting out establishment guys to call him a loser, Trump will just have a heart attack from maintaining an elevated rage level for an extended period of time.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:29 PM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


zutalors!: “This guy is winning with evangelicals? What?”

I'm still very skeptical that he is. We don't have a lot of data. As far as I can tell we only have exit polls from a few caucuses and primaries in which he won only a plurality of evangelicals in any given contest, not a majority. This doesn't seem like an obvious trend to me, yet, although I'm totally open to data showing otherwise.
posted by koeselitz at 12:31 PM on March 3, 2016


It's worth noting that exit polling data (which is where the "evangelical support" figures originated) only asks how people self-identify. National Review (I know, I know--gross) looked at stats on church attendance in counties where Trump performed well, and found an correlation between low church attendance and high support for Trump. It's not for me to say whether someone is a "real Christian" or a "real evangelical," but if you're looking to separate out the cultural & religious aspects of USian evangelical identity, church attendance is a place to start.
posted by duffell at 12:36 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I grew up in wealthy NoVa conservative country and my FB Republican friends (the evangelicals and Mormons) from childhood are mostly quiet about politics or Rubio fans who are #nevertrump, but they really hate Cruz.
posted by zutalors! at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm still very skeptical that he is. We don't have a lot of data. As far as I can tell we only have exit polls from a few caucuses and primaries in which he won only a plurality of evangelicals in any given contest, not a majority. This doesn't seem like an obvious trend to me, yet, although I'm totally open to data showing otherwise.

I don't know. Their other option is Ted Cruz, who is repellent even to many who agree with him. I could see pissed off evangelicals deciding to opt for Trump in a fit of rage. Can't see them going for any of the others.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2016


In other words I was unshocked that Rubio was counting on Northern Virginia votes.
posted by zutalors! at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2016


Romney speech transcript.

I also think it's cleverer than expected: it's not simply an attack on Trump, it's a playbook for further attacks. "Vulgar thin-skinned bully" is a great not-Presidential-material label to stick on Trump, because Trump's responses will inevitably prove it true.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:49 PM on March 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Could be that sending Romney out was smarter than we gave the GOP credit for. The audience wasn't Trump supporters or independents or anything like that, it was Trump himself.

I wrote my college thesis on media coverage of the Vietnam War (and protests against it). One of the deep ironies was that, based on solid polling (and reinforced by electoral results), almost everyone over 25 in America hated anti-war protesters' guts. They always appeared on TV as ragged hippies burning flags, even if 50,000 protesters in suits were marching a block away. After the infamous "police riot" at the 1968 Democratic Convention, which horrified even Walter Cronkite, letters ran 8 to 1 in favor of police.

BUT -- the one older person who the demonstrations worked on was Richard Nixon. They drove him insane with anger and embarrassment, which led to all of the abuses that got him impeached a few years later.
posted by msalt at 12:49 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Martin O'Malley goes after the DNC.

Looks like someone didn't get asked to be Veep.
posted by daq at 12:54 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also think it's cleverer than expected: it's not simply an attack on Trump, it's a playbook for further attacks. "Vulgar thin-skinned bully" is a great not-Presidential-material label to stick on Trump, because Trump's responses will inevitably prove it true.

Furthermore, focusing on the public losses and failures of a thin-skinned bully whose brand relies on the image of being a winner is great strategy, because it humiliates him and provokes him to lash out, as he's been doing.
Trump said he was going to address Romney's speech "quickly" because it was "irrelevant," but he then spent twenty minutes responding to Romney or defending himself.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:58 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Even some people who are quite content to vote for Hillary are pissed off at the DNC this election.
posted by benito.strauss at 12:59 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Martin O'Malley goes after the DNC.

Dateline: 28 August 2015.

Although I doubt Clinton will tap Littlefinger for Veep, this is from back when he thought (and perhaps not wrongly) that if he had more exposure he'd have a better chance at the nomination.
posted by dis_integration at 12:59 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rick Perlstein: Sanders, Clinton, and the Democrats' dilemma: Do Democrats even care about big ideas anymore?:
To me, this history reveals the frustrating paradox at the heart of Sanders’s success. The very thing that makes it so exciting—a Democrat dreaming big dreams and who’s rewarded with burgeoning political success beyond anyone’s prediction but his own—is also what makes for such a stark contrast with the rest of the Democratic Party. The fact is that Sanders is nearly alone. In our generation, the dreamers have been the conservatives in the Republican Party. As one of them, Milton Friedman, put it in a quote made famous by Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, in a crisis, “the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.” ...

My point is not to complain that laws adequate to the crisis have not been passed. I know as well as anyone that the lunatics running the Republican Party have choked the life out of the legislative process. Passing ambitious laws is presently impossible.

My worry is that Democrats don’t even keep the big ideas lying around any more.
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Dateline: 28 August 2015.

Dammit. I thought this was new. Stupid facebook feed.
posted by daq at 1:01 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Old it may be, but given some of the other complaints about the DNC in this thread, I think it's still germane.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:05 PM on March 3, 2016


Although I doubt Clinton will tap Littlefinger for Veep

Man, what is the obsession with dudes' hand sizes in this election...

I know, I know...
posted by Etrigan at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Looking at Romney's speech, he's actually calling for a contested convention:
Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I’d vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.
That's ... quite interesting just in terms of strategy. This GOP civil war has been coming for quite a while, and it's playing out in a way that we've never seen before. The question is whether Trump will run third party when they deny him the R nomination, which would presumably lead to the bluest electoral map we've seen since they switched the Democrats to blue.
posted by graymouser at 1:12 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


i'm trying to think how Trump could go lower than the "on your knees" comment and the only thing I can think of is something related to buttholes
posted by angrycat at 1:12 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


We'll find out.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:14 PM on March 3, 2016 [17 favorites]


Looking at Romney's speech, he's actually calling for a contested convention

And you can bet he'll be there to swoop in and save the day if that happens. He surely wishes he hadn't cleared the way for Jeb Bush 18 months ago. If it really goes to a second ballot at the convention, Romney's name will be on it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:19 PM on March 3, 2016


i'm trying to think how Trump could go lower than the "on your knees" comment and the only thing I can think of is something related to buttholes

I mean, have you heard his sex-chats with Stern? He has no fear of butthole talk.
posted by dis_integration at 1:19 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


He has no fear of butthole talk.

Definitely not winning the Kanye demographic.
posted by melissasaurus at 1:20 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Why are we calling him Littlefinger instead of Carcetti, just because both characters have the same actor?

I grew up in wealthy NoVa conservative country and my FB Republican friends (the evangelicals and Mormons) from childhood are mostly quiet about politics or Rubio fans who are #nevertrump, but they really hate Cruz.

Evangelicals who dislike Trump and hate Cruz? I don't understand the GOP factions anymore. Okay, well I guess Rubio does have a contingent of evangelicals who are voting for him. Maybe evangelicals are divided this year between Trump/Cruz and Rubio based on socioeconomic class.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on March 3, 2016


Romney slipped up in first talking about our great male presidents, then recouped slipping back into non gender specific language afterwards. Hopefully we will miss the mysogyny coming out of the Whitehouse a little longer. Then we will swap out the relentless racism aimed at the President, for brutal mysogyny. The sweet sounds of freedom?
posted by Oyéah at 1:22 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Why are we calling him Littlefinger instead of Carcetti, just because both characters have the same actor?

Yeah, he's really Aiden Gillan. But I like calling him Littlefinger because it's two levels of indirection, like Cockney-rhyming slang. Although both Littlefinger and Carcetti would've won this election already.
posted by dis_integration at 1:27 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Do Democrats even care about big ideas anymore?:

The correct answer is, "it doesn't matter anyway".

If you have big ideas you're a pie in the sky Democrat.
If you have big ideas and they falter, or worse, they're compromised because of blatant obstructionism you're a disappointment.
If you have ideas that are pragmatic you're uninspiring.

It doesn't matter what a Democrat thinks, plans or does. Someone's going to bitch about the road taken and the electorate will take it as a sign not to vote for them. Meanwhile the Republicans keep getting their way by acting like petulant children and the electorate REWARDS THEM FOR IT. "They take a stand" and "at least he has ideas". Never mind it involves consigning millions more into poverty. They just appear forceful and the authoritarian part of our psyche shoots it up like heroin.
posted by Talez at 1:33 PM on March 3, 2016 [15 favorites]


Even some people who are quite content to vote for Hillary are pissed off at the DNC this election.
I actually have yet to run into a grassroots Democrat who's not furious with the DNC, although part of that is that I'm in Iowa, and there is a perception that DWS isn't sufficiently reverential towards Iowa's irrefutable and holy status as First In The Nation. And since I think Iowa being first in the nation is kind of bullshit, I'm not totally sympathetic to that point of view. But my sense is that in general, the DNC is not particularly popular right now.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:34 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


for real though my main takeaway from this thread is that I really want to vote for dialetheia for president.

(I'd offer to put my name under consideration for Secretary of Surreal Marxist Nonsense, but that's not a real office.)
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


m trying to think how Trump could go lower than the "on your knees" comment and the only thing I can think of is something related to buttholes

Trump 2016: No Butt Stuff
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:42 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, Surreal Marxist Nonsense is an administration under the DOT.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:43 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]




If Romney gets his wish for a brokered convention that doesn't nominate Trump he's already threatening to run as a 3rd party.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:47 PM on March 3, 2016


Yeah, Surreal Marxist Nonsense is an administration under the DOT.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it's a department in the CIA.
posted by dis_integration at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Trump running as a third party would guarantee a Democrat in the White House. There's zero reason for him to do that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2016


In other news: Michael Bloomberg is rock-hard right now.
posted by duffell at 1:48 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Trump 2016: Blow Me
posted by Existential Dread at 1:49 PM on March 3, 2016


Trump running as a third party would guarantee a Democrat in the White House. There's zero reason for him to do that.
Trump has no loyalty to the Republican party. None. He might prefer to have a Democrat in the White House rather than letting the Republicans get away with screwing with him.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:50 PM on March 3, 2016 [29 favorites]


I liked when Romney criticized Trump for only listening to polls that support his image of himself. Pot, kettle, etc.

Oh and it was pretty good too when Romney said calling W. a liar was a twisted example of evil.
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:51 PM on March 3, 2016


Also, I think the Republicans probably know that if they have a brokered convention, they will lose the White House. I think that losing the White House may not be their worst case scenario.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:52 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


The correct answer is, "it doesn't matter anyway".

I could see that, for sure. The whole point of Perlstein's piece, though, is that it doesn't matter until it suddenly does. He argues that Democrats have been too short-term in their thinking since the 1980s, comparing them to a corporation that only cares about its quarterly earnings instead of its long-term trajectory:

"After the traumas of the Reagan years, that was how the Democrats began to go about things, too: they grabbed desperately at whatever initiative—or abandoned whatever initiative—they felt it would take to nose enough “swing voters” temporarily into their column to garner 50 percent plus one in the next election. But a swing voter is like a short-term shareholder—ready to sell the next time some other blandishment comes along."

And he makes a good point that historically, things have felt extremely deadlocked and hopeless before, until suddenly something gives way and those big ideas become possible again. The example from 1963 demonstrates how quickly conventional-wisdom hopelessness can turn around:

"Immediately the reader thunders back at the historian: Don’t you understand what you’re asking? Don’t you understand how badly Washington is broken? Isn’t it a fantasy that if we just elect principled progressives they can break the legislative stalemate? Isn’t that “Green Lanternism”—the currently fashionable term for liberals demanding too much of their politicians, or for idealists who don’t understand, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently put it, “How Change Happens”?

But change happens when it’s made to happen, and historians understand that sometimes history turns on a narrow pivot.

In 1963, the most widely read and influential book in Washington, The Deadlock of Democracy, complained that the congressional process in the United States, especially the prospects for progressive legislation, were worse than any time in our history. Many of the reasons cited in the 1960s are identical to the ones we perceive now. We see the radically undemocratic nature of America’s constitutional system, where senators from states representing 10 percent of the population can filibuster any law favored by senators from the 90 percent; the ideological gerrymandering that renders the House of Representatives unresponsive to the people’s will; and the roadblock of a conservative majority in Congress (in those days, a coalition of Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans).

Then, the next year, 1964, the floodgates opened, inaugurating a decade of superjumbos."

He could do more to develop an argument about what, exactly, happened in 1964 to change that situation, but I think it's a good counterpoint to the idea that big progressive change is impossible. Often change is implemented incrementally, and I don't mean to diminish those changes, but sometimes it's more like punctuated equilibrium. His argument is that we need to have big ideas ready in case the political ground shifts under our feet (which isn't to say that it's somehow inevitable, only that history shows that it's absolutely possible, even when everyone agrees that it feels hopeless).

for real though my main takeaway from this thread is that I really want to vote for dialetheia for president.

:3 aw, shucks! Consider yourself appointed! Cabinet positions for everyone in this thread!

posted by dialetheia at 1:52 PM on March 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


Also, I think the Republicans probably know that if they have a brokered convention, they will lose the White House. I think that losing the White House may not be their worst case scenario.

That might work out for them. Get everyone who is a moderate or a GOP-Trump nut to come out and vote, and while they split the vote for the White House, they probably win everything down ticket, and Clinton gets nothing done for four years.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:53 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]




This, from 2009 [Pew Research Center], might shed some light on the change in predictability of the Evangelical label in voting. In between all the mega church leader's mentions of his invitation to Davos, there's this:
The second signature issue of our church we started in 1993, 10 years later, and it is called Celebrate Recovery. Celebrate Recovery is a Bible-based recovery program. It’s similar to AA but it’s built on the actual words of Jesus. It began in 1993. In our church alone we’ve had over 13,000 people go through recovery. We’re talking about addictions and you name it. You couldn’t name a problem we haven’t dealt with in our church over those years – 13,000. Now thousands of churches around the world use Celebrate Recovery. It is the official recovery program in 17 state prison systems here in America. It’s in Russia – it’s an official program in Russia – and many, many other countries use this.
The Recovery Voter label may be a political demographic parties are tracking. I have noticed a shift in the Republican rhetoric on wall building from immigrants to keeping drugs out.
posted by Emor at 2:03 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Get everyone who is a moderate or a GOP-Trump nut to come out and vote, and while they split the vote for the White House, they probably win everything down ticket, and Clinton gets nothing done for four years.

McConnell is already signaling that GOP Senate candidates won't be called to task for campaigning against Trump. It probably is more important for them to hold the Senate than beat Hilary. If it's Hilary for 4 years, the precedent is already established that a Republican Congress doesn't have to govern. They'll take it as a mandate to obstruct everything Hilary does for 2-4 more years and try to regain unified control again in 2020, hell, it WILL be a mandate if that happens. Voters are stupid, and there's zero evidence that Republicans have paid even the smallest price for their total war against the middle class, women, minorities, and functioning government under Obama. They won huge in 2010, lost no real ground in 2012 outside of the White House, and won huge again in 2014, all the while picking up side victories in nearly every state house.

Without a Democratic landslide and retaking the Senate and the White House, they'll continue to do what they've been doing, because the American people will have told them that there's nothing at all wrong with that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:04 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


My main takeaway form this thread - and to be fair it's in conjunction with reading Jane Mayer's devastating book Dark Money -- is that the right is brilliant at getting the left to do its work for it.

It's made me vow to stop criticizing Sanders and much more defensive of Clinton. I'd like to see the country a lot further left than where Clinton and the DNC are likely to take it (or where Sanders is likely to take it tbh) but that's stuff I can best affect by actually getting involved with the DNC and local politics once we've safely steered past the prospect of a Republican presidency.

I mean, I get that people who have been politically active to the left of the democratic party are tired of feeling like people are telling them to shut up and get in line and be happy with what they get. It's just weird that all the energy for reforming the system comes right at the time where it can do the most real, immediate damage to people living at or below the poverty line, immigrants, people of color and women who need abortions.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:06 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie Sanders Verified account
‏@BernieSanders

The people of Detroit know the real cost of Hillary Clinton's free trade policies.


Hey! A little offense. Nice.
posted by Trochanter at 2:07 PM on March 3, 2016


A Surprise Visit from the First Lady! I am just posting this because it's awesome.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


OMG that little boy who rushes into the arms of FLOTUS
posted by angrycat at 2:24 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


If the goal is winning the white house there's zero tactical reason for the republican party to send out Romney to plea for a brokered convention.
posted by cmfletcher at 2:25 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Quoted for truth.

The Republicans are in virtually open revolt. The incumbent (Democratic) President is popular, for sound policy reasons - he has a concrete track record that we can point to and campaign on. The presumptive Democratic nominee was a popular cabinet-member a few years ago (remember the meme of her in black shades trash-texting from her blackberry?). This should be a cake-walk. Sure, a cake-walk with a healthy debate, regardless of who the nominee ends up being. But as in many other instances, if the Ds lose this election, we fucking well deserve to.

(Also - you want Bernie's policies adopted in this country? Then you need to overturn Citizen's United. And that requires electing a Democratic president. Full stop. It'll still take generations, but that is the first indisputable step.)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


How can anyone support a candidate who gives a press conference in which he talks about a former Governor and nominee for President on his knees and so on? Don't give me any bullshit about fear for the future and the economy leaving them behind. That has nothing to do with support for someone who behaves this way.
posted by Justinian at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think maybe the left would handle national-level electoral politics better if we thought of voting for president less in terms of who we want to lead the country and more in terms of who we want to continually protest against.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


Ray Walston, Luck Dragon: Trump 2016: No Butt Stuff

Kanye for VP?
posted by bluecore at 2:42 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


How can anyone support a candidate who gives a press conference in which he talks about a former Governor and nominee for President on his knees and so on?

Some people juggle geese really like bullies.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:47 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


How can anyone support a candidate who gives a press conference in which he talks about a former Governor and nominee for President on his knees and so on? Don't give me any bullshit about fear for the future and the economy leaving them behind. That has nothing to do with support for someone who behaves this way.

I think there are a couple things going on there:
* A lot of people really are scared. They couldn't really elucidate what they're scared *of*, but the media's been selling them on general terror for years now. They would like to appoint a leader who makes the other guys scared instead. (Hence liking bullies.)

* We also have a lot of assholes in this country, who believe that is genuinely acceptable behavior and are tired of the rest of us making them behave like adults. Some of this is just backlash against the general arc of social progress.
posted by mordax at 2:49 PM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think maybe the left would handle national-level electoral politics better if we thought of voting for president less in terms of who we want to lead the country and more in terms of who we want to continually protest against.

In my darker moments I suspect that Sanders is so popular on metafilter because he has the greatest potential to be a disappointment. You can't do that with a candidate you already hate.

Then Kate Beaton posts another comic, and all is right with the world again.
posted by happyroach at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I can't believe the GOP can be so bad at this. I mean it makes sense after decades of deliberate dumbing down and rovian reality-manipulation, but still. Trotting Romney out is hilarious. Mitt Romney is the personification of all the things about the Republican establishment that's got their redmeat base pledging fealty to Trump in the first place. The stink of desperation is getting thick in the air.

MOAR POPCORN PLZ
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:52 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I love the smell of GOPsweat in the morning. Smells like victory.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:54 PM on March 3, 2016


It's just weird that all the energy for reforming the system comes right at the time where it can do the most real, immediate damage to people living at or below the poverty line, immigrants, people of color and women who need abortions.

There was much more energy for reform in 2008 I think, hope and change got Obama elected. The much more dangerous element in 2016 is apathy and disgust among the formerly energized.

Trump's success doesn't just make me disgusted with Republicans, it makes me disgusted with our system of government. It makes me disgusted with the two party system which leverages him to put a gun to my head to try and make me vote for the "only other option." It makes me disgusted with our media which is so idiotic and untrustworthy that it has poisoned our national conversation beyond repair. Even the satirists can't save us now, they can't admit this situation is just in no dimension beyond gallows humor funny anymore.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:54 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I think Sanders' popularity stems from disillusionment at Obama's administration. So in 2020 we'll be rallying around a left-wing radical, then in 2024 a Leninist, and in 2028 a Stalinist...
posted by Apocryphon at 2:56 PM on March 3, 2016


Do you guys think the GOP establishment got together in some organized way and decided to send out Mittens? I don't. I think he acted mostly on his own and that the GOP just doesn't work in that sort of organized way in the middle of a primary contest. I see multiple centers of power that aren't coordinating their efforts.
posted by Area Man at 2:58 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


I could totally be wrong about this, but my sense is that Bernie and his supporters aren't actually hurting an eventual Clinton candidacy. I think they're making her a sharper, better candidate than she would be if she were coasting to the nomination, and they're making her conscious of where some of her weaknesses are at a point when she can still try to address them. I often find Bernie's supporters unpleasantly sanctimonious, arrogant, and naive but I don't think they're doing any lasting political damage. And if Hillary loses, it's not going to be because of Bernie or the people who support him.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:59 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


I see multiple centers of power that aren't coordinating their efforts.

That's entirely possible, but it just goes further towards making me wonder how (and be glad that) they can be so inept.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:03 PM on March 3, 2016


> I think Sanders' popularity stems from disillusionment at Obama's administration. So in 2020 we'll be rallying around a left-wing radical, then in 2024 a Leninist, and in 2028 a Stalinist...
posted by Apocryphon at 2:56 PM on March 3 [+] [!]


todo: run for president in 2032 on a Hoxhaist platform. Bunkers for everyone!
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:06 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


How can anyone support a candidate who gives a press conference in which he talks about a former Governor and nominee for President on his knees and so on?

At the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy, I think at least part of the blame is due to the increasing normalization of crass, hateful, and abusive online discourse, especially as displayed in popular, mainstream social media outlets with little-to-no moderation. The fact that you need look no further than the comments section of your local newspaper or TV news website to read the kind of vile, unapologetic racism typically reserved for neo-Nazi message boards and that absolutely nothing is done about it by site administrators only serves to legitimize that kind of hate spew over time.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:10 PM on March 3, 2016 [21 favorites]


I often find Bernie's supporters unpleasantly sanctimonious, arrogant, and naive but I don't think they're doing any lasting political damage.

The only fair reason to characterize us this way is if you're confident that these words are unique to Bernie supporters. Ironically I think the most offensive of these is the notion that Sanders' campaign isn't doing any damage to the system. He is an independently crowdsourced candidate who's handily won a half dozen states against the biggest political juggernaut in the country/world! How does that new precedent not excite the hell out of everyone?

Woe indeed befall us if the status quo emerges from this campaign unabated and the left is cast aside again. The wealth gap is growing a lot faster than average global temperatures....
posted by an animate objects at 3:11 PM on March 3, 2016 [18 favorites]






How to Watch Tonight's Republican Debate Online

What You Need to Know About the 11th GOP Debate

Matt Taibbi hasn't updated the Official GOP Debate Drinking Game Rules, so I assume the previous ones still stand.
posted by homunculus at 3:11 PM on March 3, 2016


Oh god, is this the debate thread?
posted by an animate objects at 3:13 PM on March 3, 2016


WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PAGEWEIGHT!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:15 PM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Gabriel Sherman: Trump Goaded Bloomberg Into Planning a Presidential Campaign. Here’s Why He Probably Won’t Run.
Last spring, Trump wrote a scathing letter complaining about negative coverage of him by Bloomberg Politics and had it hand-delivered to Bloomberg’s Upper East Side townhouse. Afterward, said one high-level Bloomberg source, Bloomberg issued an edict to ensure opinion journalists at Bloomberg View didn’t write columns that included personal attacks on Trump. “If you were putting Donald Trump in your piece, you would get special scrutiny,” the source says. Even a relatively mild reference to “P. T. Barnum” was cut.

Bloomberg’s political reporters weren’t allowed to write much about their boss’s political ambitions either (which caused the Washington news editor to quit in January). This became more and more difficult as his political activities began to ramp up. A few weeks after Trump announced in November that he wanted to create a “deportation force” to go door-to-door arresting immigrants, Bloomberg instructed advisers to conduct a poll to test the viability of a run. What they found encouraged him. “There is such anger towards that system that anytime there’s an alternative it’s beating the Establishment,” says Schoen. “If you run against both extremes and you run in the center, it’s competitive.”
posted by zombieflanders at 3:17 PM on March 3, 2016


So Mitt is claiming that he did the speech because otherwise he wouldn't be able to look his grandkids in the eyes.

This is what it has come to. Donald Trump has made me feel a little respect for Mitt Fucking Romney. DAMN YOU TRUMP DAMN YOUR UNTANNED EYELIDS!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:19 PM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh god, is this the debate thread?

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PAGEWEIGHT!


We could take it to the Ghostbusters thread. It might actually help to improve the mood in there.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:20 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


Oh god, is this the debate thread?

I just assumed. Any thread is fine with me, like here or here, or wherever PROD_TPSL declares it.
posted by homunculus at 3:23 PM on March 3, 2016


see i don't know how much i can stand tuning into these things, hear Trump sound like a gibbering idiot, hear the GOP crowd boo him, and then read polls a few days later that show that he's doing well

like, I'm afraid a few weeks later there will be pieces written about how the on the knees comment was some sort of strongman genius stroke.
posted by angrycat at 3:23 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]




Soundtrack for tonight's debate: Assück - Anticapital

It's like the 80s all over again!
posted by Existential Dread at 3:29 PM on March 3, 2016


Watching a GOP debate is one of those things I believe I'll be required to do if I am very bad and there really is a hell and I get sent there. While I still have autonomy, no way.

I also switch away from any station which is interviewing Adolf the Donald, Demon Cruz, or Empty Plastic Rubio.
posted by bearwife at 3:30 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ironically I think the most offensive of these is the notion that Sanders' campaign isn't doing any damage to the system.
I think it could change the system, but it would have to be through a sustained, long-term strategy that was a lot more sophisticated about how the system works and where the potential paths to change are located. I don't think that winning the presidency in 2016 is that path. I think that change is hard, and it's long-term, and it can't be done on a computer in your warm, dry home. I hope that Bernie's supporters will figure out a way to work for real, sustained reform in a way that MoveOn and OFA didn't manage to do. We'll see. But I think the important thing is what happens after the election, because this election is not going to be a revolution regardless of whether Bernie wins. The only way it could be a revolution is if Trump wins, and that's because his supporters are willing to resort to tactics that I would like to think all of us would repudiate.

I truly, truly don't care whether you think what I have to say is offensive, for what it's worth.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:35 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


On the other hand, thinking about this Romney thing, maybe it's desperate but strategic. Maybe it's a line in the sand, because clearly with him going all in against Trump, there's no walking back from that (if he is positioned as the voice of the GOP establishment).

So if it is actually the voice of the GOPe here, they've realized a) Trump is the nominee, bar epic ratfucking in a convention b) the GOP as it exists is doomed or at the very least transformed beyond recognition as a result of this insurgency c) they're going to lose the general pretty much any way you end up slicing it d) time to carve out the cancer, let the GOP split into two, and hold on to what they can in damage control mode.

Or, you know, maybe not. It's just so much schadenfreuderiffic fun to watch, and wonder what's going through their minds.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:37 PM on March 3, 2016


I often find Bernie's supporters unpleasantly sanctimonious, arrogant, and naive but I don't think they're doing any lasting political damage.

What could be more sanctimonious than Clinton shedding crocodile tears over artful smears when virtually all the bullshit campaign shenanigans during this campaign originate in her faction? What could be more arrogant than uttering a series of blatantly obvious deceits regarding the transcripts of her (probable) pandering to the financial sector? What could be more naive than to think that old, tired, triangulated neo-liberal axioms provide a reasonable foundation from which to deal with the serious crises to come during the next four years?

When the economy blows out again, and we get ineffective palliatives once again, there will be an awful lot of people who will reflect: "Gee whiz, maybe that Sanders guy was on to something?"

That said, I think that Clinton deserves a pass on this ambush politics incident. Having participated in a couple of those kind of moments during my wild and woolly days of youth, I can honestly say that you get one moment of startling someone, and many months of feel like a heel for being so brash. Lots of pain, very little gain.
posted by CincyBlues at 3:42 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]




ARGH I'M GOING TO MISS THE DEBATE

I think this is getting SO interesting. I think the GOP is for sure behind Mitt speaking out now. And I actually think this could be really good for Mitt. The part of the GOP that isn't backing Trump doesn't really like ANY of the other candidates and Rubio/Cruz et al have had a long slog. Enter Mitt, looking well-rested and kind of above the fray and I can see how he might look really appealing right now to a party looking for a hero. If they can manage to get a contested convention and elect a different candidate, Trump will run as an independent and they'll lose some of the Trump true believers but there's still a long time left until the election and everyone is only just now pulling out there big guns - both the GOP and the Democrats. Trump is weak on so many points - it just hasn't been exploited yet. There's plenty of time to smear him so that by the time of the election he looks like a joke and is relegated to history with Sarah Palin.

In the meantime, we'll have a Rubio or (if it's even possible, idk about this part) a very presidential-looking, already-vetted Romney waiting in the wings as the GOP candidate and we may see an actual close election.

Just fascinating.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:44 PM on March 3, 2016


Oh god, is this the debate thread?

You know, we don't all have to do this to ourselves every time. There's only a debate thread if we make it happen.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:44 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


This mutual bashing of Hillary and Sanders supporters on Metafilter needs to stop. Both candidates and campaigns bring a lot to the table. And starting no later than in a few months we all need to come together to defeat whichever nightmare the Rs have nominated and aim to take back Congress and our state legislatures and governorships.
posted by bearwife at 3:48 PM on March 3, 2016 [29 favorites]


already-vetted Romney

Once he releases those tax returns...
posted by peeedro at 3:50 PM on March 3, 2016


I'm going to dinner tonight with three friends - two republicans and one other democrat. Maybe I can get them to agree to a debate debate over dinner. yeah. I'm gonna float it. Bonus if me and the other democrat can have a Hillary/Bernie meta-debate.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:50 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


> This mutual bashing of Hillary and Sanders supporters on Metafilter needs to stop.

Counterproposal: The Clinton supporters should bash Clinton supporters, while the Sanders supporters should bash Sanders supporters.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh god, is this the debate thread?

Y'all have made your 2300-comments-in-two-days bed, now you have to liveblog in it.
posted by cortex at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2016 [35 favorites]


The hyperlinks are starting to jump around in my browser. It's tripppppppppyy
posted by Existential Dread at 3:57 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Y'all have made your 2300-comments-in-two-days bed, now you have to liveblog in it.

So asking Democrats to change our affiliation to Republican and vote for Rubio won't fix it?
posted by Talez at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2016


how the on the knees comment was some sort of strongman genius stroke.

Maybe it was an indirect reference to one of the previous movies he was in, Home Alone 2. He's trying to get 90s kids votes.
posted by FJT at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2016


CPAC Attendees Aren't Sure Why People Think Donald Trump Is Racist

"What did he do for [people] to think he’s racist?" said Michael Nabjer, a Trump supporter from South Texas who was dressed head to toe in "Make America Great Again" gear.

When presented with some of the possible answers to that question, Nabjer offered his own assessment of Trump's character.

"I don’t think he’s racist," he said. "How did the man become a billionaire if he would treat people disrespectfully?"

--------

This is what I was saying about how his celebrity nature makes him seem socially acceptable by default, people think his past public persona and personal success do not compute with the idea that he's secretly a hooded Kleagle. On the other hand, maybe people who aren't posting continuously on this thread are just very, very uninformed about what's going on and who he is. Speaking of Klansmen, maybe David Duke and Louis Farrakhan are endorsing him because they're unaware that his daughter, grandchildren, and in-laws are Jewish, and that he's claimed to be very pro-Israel.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]




I really don't think that the protesters are going to deliberately goad Trump supporters into violence because they want to make Trump look bad. That seems like a bizarre suggestion, to be honest. But I agree that it's probably only a matter of time before there's very serious violence at a Trump rally.

Meanwhile, one of the people who assaulted the protester in Louisville has been preemptively kicked out of the Marines.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:07 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm 100% in the bag for Bernie, but I'll show up at the polls in November and hold my nose and vote for Secretary Clinton if that's what it comes to. And I'm sure trying to stay positive in the sense that I don't want to attack Clinton supporters. Y'all have good reasons for supporting her, and I don't think the world would end or anything silly like that if she was elected. It's just my nature to dream, and Bernie inspires me to do that more than Hillary does.
posted by wintermind at 4:16 PM on March 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Here's a great thread from "NeutralPolitics" on Reddit: Why Isn't Bernie Sanders Doing Well With Black Voters?

Not trying to make a case for either candidate myself, but I think it did a great job of answering the question. One caveat: it repeats the now-discounted myth that black voters in 2008 pushed CA's Prop 8 (banning gay marriage) to victory, which isn't the case.

(Didn't know if I could make an FPP based on a Reddit thread, otherwise I would've.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:18 PM on March 3, 2016


> "538: Republican Voters Kind Of Hate All Their Choices"

I have a point of agreement with republican voters this year!

I kind of hate all their choices, too.
posted by kyrademon at 4:19 PM on March 3, 2016 [14 favorites]


Bernie's twitter account today - lots of tweets about climate change.
posted by yertledaturtle at 4:21 PM on March 3, 2016


Debate prediction: Trump plays nice to Megyn Kelly tonight so people go, "Awww, see? He's not so mean to women." Watch, it'll happen. Well, if he can keep his temper. Hopefully Megyn Kelly presses him to get the mask to slip.
posted by bluecore at 4:35 PM on March 3, 2016


Mitt's real problem is that the old money American WASP is an endangered species, and no longer an aspirational goal for the next generation of conservative kids.

If conservative kids don't aspire to being Richie Rich these days, what do they aspire to being? Gangsta-themed alpha-bros à la Shkreli? Bay Area disruptive-innovation Objectivists? Or just Nietzschean apex-predators, beyond good and evil, let alone noblesse obligé?
posted by acb at 4:37 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


a huge number of the conservative young adults i know are defined first and foremost by being blue collar. their dream status symbols look very different than romney's purchases.
posted by nadawi at 4:44 PM on March 3, 2016


My read of the Romney speech, taking it somewhat seriously as a strategic move by the establishment:

(1) The only way for Republicans to stop Trump at this point is a contested convention.
(2) If Trump comes in with over 50%, it's over. If he comes in with under 50%, as things currently stand the bandwagon effect will also lead to a win on the first or second ballot. Goldwater came in with 40% and won the first ballot by a landslide, despite a concerted effort to stop him.
(3) Even if they manage to stop Trump at the convention, without anything further, that would so alienate the Trump supporters that they would likely either sit out the general or support an independent run.
(4) Therefore, the only way to avoid this is to lay the groundwork now, starting with this speech:
   (a) establish the alternative convention strategy well in advance (presumably, that Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich supporters should go for whichever is in the lead come the convention) so it's ready to go when the convention comes, rather than being a last-minute failure like 1964.
   (b) shift the overton window such that these strategies are not just expected, but considered fair and natural, so that Trump supporters (or at least, the media amplifiers) consider this not cheating but merely losing fairly, in order to minimize excessive Trump-voter defections.
(5) Trump's response, of course, is to threaten to take his voters and go home if he is denied at the convention, destroying the party for 2016.
(6) Romney's implicit promise -- backed up by his bridge-burning insults -- is that the establishment, too, is ready to destroy the party rather than cede it to Trump.

The end result is probably a contested convention that Trump wins fairly easily. On the other hand, it's always possible that something happens to take him down just a few notches, and the Republican establishment might as well be ready with a strategy that will work in that case.
posted by chortly at 4:47 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm not gonna be satisfied with this debate unless Mitt Romney runs on stage and does this.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:48 PM on March 3, 2016


An aside, perhaps as a conclusion to my political involvement here for the time being --

Sanders brought me into the political discourse in the first significant way. When Obama first ran I was trying to reconcile my conservative upbringing with increasingly complicated perspectives as a junior in high school, such that a coin toss could've seen me voting for McCain. I didn't because wasn't old enough that November. I paid little attention in 2012 when I could barely handle my role as a college student and none of the Republicans ever seemed competitive.

I may be one of the younger participants in these conversations. I'm not sure if anyone else is in their early-to-mid 20's but I feel ever like an immigrant to the world of grown up discourse. It's been one of my favorite places, but the assumptions and timbre are foreign to my life experiences otherwise.

As much as I can process it emotionally, I comprehend my naïveté. I believe it when you tell me I've got a lot of heartbreak to look forward to in the world, that change for the better is scarce and earnest hope scarcer. I recognize that big systems change slowly, so slowly even that they're outpaced by the diseases we infect them with.

I admire how well sourced and semantically rigorous much of this discourse is. Beyond admiration even, Mefi's served a role model to my own yet un-formed intellectual development. You should recoil, perhaps you do, that a person might be raised here but I'm willing to say it's contributed uniquely to my personhood.

I'm a choreographer/dancer and you all have no idea how to talk about the arts, but you're very good at politics. You're also very good, in my experience these past few years, at justice. I've been taking the ideological devices I see in use here and using them elsewhere. I believe I can make myself an effective, productive citizen by thinking and speaking well. I am very lucky I found a place like this one to learn those skills.

I just wanted to express my gratitude and interject a little context for mine among the voices echoing Bernie Sanders' spiel. I think I'm pretty much done for participation now; it's begun to feel toxic and I have literally nothing to add besides an excitement for Bernie that's increasingly irrelevant.

The kids, for the record, aren't alright. I don't mean you have to worry about us, just wish you'd listen a little more closely when we express panic because we're tough as nails and we've seen it all. We don't express panic or elation without pretty good reason. We've been online, you'll note, with all the wars and gore and fear and everything in our faces 24/7/365 for multiple years now. A lot of us are just as afraid of complacent, corrupt, war-hungry Democrats as we are of the GOP because foxes in the hen house and all that. My enemies can't hurt me like my friends can.

Anyway, whenever I get a chance to support somebody with as much integrity and daring as Bernie's got I hope I will have enough financial stability to lend a hand. I don't expect it ("savings" and "career" aren't even in my vocabulary,) but I'll dream about it sometimes.

Thanks all! Good luck in November.

no, I don't live in a swing state
posted by an animate objects at 4:51 PM on March 3, 2016 [55 favorites]


Jamelle Bouie: Let Hillary Win
Rather than ask Republicans to reject Trump because he’s immoral, Romney (and other Republicans) harp on one particular point: Trump will lose the election. “A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president,” said Romney “But a Trump nomination enables her victory.”

This is the unshielded exhaust pipe of the elite Republican argument against Trump—the fatal flaw that undermines the entire structure. First, there’s the fact that if the core objection is partisan—to stop Hillary Clinton—then Romney is a terrible messenger. As the GOP nominee in 2012, he didn’t just lose to Barack Obama, he lost badly, in an election that the party sold as a cakewalk, where Americans would welcome Republicans as liberators from a failed administration. They were wrong. And now, Republican voters believe Trump is their best chance to beat Democrats in the fall. After all, he’s a fighter. Just look at his response to Romney’s speech, mocking Romney for seeking his support: “I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.”

Instead of making the morality of the case subordinate to the electoral calculation, Romney and other anti-Trump Republicans need to make the election subordinate to morality. If Trump is more than a threat to the GOP—if he, as Romney says would lead this nation “into the abyss”—then Republicans need to say they’re willing to lose the election, and hand the Oval Office to Hillary Clinton, if it means stopping Trump. They don’t have to endorse Clinton, but they need to say that, if Trump is the nominee, they will not support him. It’s the only step that might shatter Trump’s coalition, or—in the fall—keep party unity from giving Trump a fighting chance, ending his viability as a general election candidate.

It is a terrible choice to have to make for the party men and women of the GOP. But if Romney is right—if Trump is a threat to American democracy itself—then it’s the only weapon they have left.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:56 PM on March 3, 2016 [9 favorites]


Y'all have made your 2300-comments-in-two-days bed, now you have to liveblog in it.

It's only fitting that we honor His Orangeness with our yuuuuuuuuuuuuuugest thread.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:01 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


(1) Trump is a better example of "the old money American WASP" than Mitt Romney. He and others like him are just jealous of everything he has gotten away with.
(2) Anybody who tells you The Donald isn't MORE dishonest than The Hillary is not just mistaken, they are LYING to you. Trump's BRAND is All Lies; all you have to do is purchase any Trump Branded Product.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:06 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Eventually a Trump Rally Is Going to Boil Over. But When?

There are a lot of ways this I could see this happening. For one: with all the open-carry enthusiasts at any given Trump rally, all it takes is one gun accidentally firing. Several people draw their guns, giddy at the prospect of being the "good guy with a gun" of popular myth, and empty their clips in the direction of whoever they think the bad guy is, which causes several others to pull out their guns and fire back. In a misguided attempt at calming the crowd, still others fire their guns into the air, and are promptly shot in response.

In case anybody thinks this is funny (it isn't), note that in this scenario, there's basically no chance the crowd allows anybody who isn't white to walk out alive.
posted by duffell at 5:10 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


well, gosh, have we all forgotten that there's a substantial portion of americans who WANT to be lied to?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:11 PM on March 3, 2016


Trump is under Secret Service protection, no guns are allowed at the rallies.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:13 PM on March 3, 2016


I'm a choreographer/dancer and you all have no idea how to talk about the arts

Sit down, Fosse.

j/k. It's great that you're engaged. Don't let us silverbacks sour you. And it will seem like we're trying at times.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:13 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Trump is under Secret Service protection, no guns are allowed at the rallies.

Huh. I could've sworn I read something just the other day about the high number of gun-toting rally attendees. Maybe from earlier in the primary season?

Anyway, that's good news. Sorry if I sent anyone's blood pressure skyrocketing.
posted by duffell at 5:16 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Blast from the past: when Newt Gingrich was on a roll in 2011, MeFi did notice Trump's presence.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:27 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Come on, that kind of cartoonish imagining isn't helping. Dislike Trump's supporters all you like (no, really - all you like), but we have a duty to the truth, and even people you dislike aren't the killbots from Futurama.
posted by The Gaffer at 5:27 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


A lot of us are just as afraid of complacent, corrupt, war-hungry Democrats as we are of the GOP because foxes in the hen house and all that. My enemies can't hurt me like my friends can.

I'm tenish years older than you but hear you on this - Howard Dean was my youthful progressive hope in 2004 - for different values of progressive at a different time. But at that time it seemed like all the Democrats were frozen in place by 9/11 and Dick Cheney.

I guess it's a feature of getting older that you read things from people younger and think "same as it ever was" but, that's still a really great comment that you wrote.
posted by zutalors! at 5:33 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Come on, that kind of cartoonish imagining isn't helping.

Yeah, you're right. And honestly, I think I owe it to myself to not think about Donald Trump for awhile, because this clearly isn't good for my mental and emotional health. I'm going to remove this thread from my activity and go buy some ice cream.
posted by duffell at 5:35 PM on March 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


I know the best Ice Cream place!
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know the best Ice Cream place!

facepalm.gif
posted by duffell at 5:38 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


oh fuck i forgot watching the debate meant watching Fox
posted by angrycat at 5:40 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Please let Christie just stand behind Trump the entire debate with that look on his face again
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:45 PM on March 3, 2016 [24 favorites]


If any meme is capable of damaging The Trump Mystique, this one might.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:46 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I brought beer. Anyone in favor of moving debate commentary over to the Cruz Bad Lip Reading Thread? This one is pushing 2k and starting to get wobbly.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:46 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I gavel that motion.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 5:53 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]




Do you guys think the GOP establishment got together in some organized way and decided to send out Mittens?

Oh, without a doubt. Nothing is chance, and he's the last guy to go off book.

I think the Republicans probably know that if they have a brokered convention, they will lose the White House. I think that losing the White House may not be their worst case scenario.

It seems clear now that they know there's no hope of winning the White House either way, so they don't want to sell out what legitimacy they have left - retreating temporarily in favor of the long game. What does seem certain, and is interesting for the long game, is that their old coalition isn't going to hold together any more. It's gotten so that to win with that coalition, what they need in a successful candidate has become such a specific package of people who do have this and don't offend those and aren't too much that - it's getting harder and harder for them to find someone their base can agree on, and they've lost the populist bloc pretty well, clearly. So either way, it's a time for reformulation. This has been talked about for a few years now, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to party leaders - I think they may have been blinded by some hope Rubio could pull it out. Smattering of coverage I've run across over the last few years: Can the GOP Be a Party of Ideas? Can the Republicans be Saved from Obsolescence? Trump to GOP: You're Fired.

My Gen X Hillary problem: I know why we don’t “like” Clinton.

What you mean "we," kemosabe?
posted by Miko at 5:54 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't know if I can bring myself to watch the clown car. I'm definitely going to need beer.
posted by zug at 5:54 PM on March 3, 2016


I like the cosplayer with the Sean Connery accent in this CPAC segment.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:54 PM on March 3, 2016


I'm a superfan of Megyn Kelly only in this context.
posted by zutalors! at 6:01 PM on March 3, 2016


Great comment, an animate objects. It made me flash back to my own politically formative years in 2004 - I was a political science major in Portland going to school full-time and canvassing for Kerry in most of my spare time. I worked my ass off that year, mostly talking to young people but also doing door-to-door canvassing, trying to get them to sign up to vote for Kerry. I had terrible luck with it because Kerry had very little to argue for him beyond that he wasn't Bush, and that experience taught me that young people (and a lot of older people for that matter) simply do not respond well to political negativity, no matter how bad the other guy was. They just tuned out because there isn't anything positive to grab onto, only a bunch of negativity - even when they knew Bush was bad.

It wasn't that they were Nader voters or whatever, they weren't being ideologically purist - they just didn't care and weren't motivated by voting against someone, so they didn't show up to vote. I was one of the people arguing hardest that the Nader voters were ruining everything (my first presidential vote was cast for Gore in 2000) but after that experience, I started to understand how valuable it is to have someone to vote for, not just to vote against. Young people (and a lot of older people who aren't engaged in the political process, too) just tune out when there isn't anything to vote for. I wish it weren't true, and I spent so so so long trying every rational argument about how Bush would be terrible and Kerry could fix some of those problems, but it just rarely worked.

I had so much to lose from Bush's re-election, too - I was forced to drop out of college for the second time right after he won because I couldn't get student loans to keep going to school since he had privatized so much of the system and cut off most of the subsidized loan funding. Bush's re-election felt like the difference between getting to keep going to college and having to drop out (and in fact I did have to drop out and couldn't afford to go back to finish my degree, this time in environmental science, until five years later). The lesson I learned from that experience is that the sooner we have to start arguing about the Supreme Court or how important it is to keep the other guys out, the worse our chances are in November, because if that's our best and only argument we aren't going to be able to motivate people no matter how true it is.

I know people are going to respond with a bunch of "but they should vote anyway" comments, and I don't disagree at all - I just feel bitterly realistic about the fact that people, and especially Democratic-leaning poor and young people, tune out of politics when it's relentlessly negative. At the end of the day, it's a politician's job to know how to appeal to voters, and when all Democrats have is duty-shaming, we are going to be screwed. It's not like Kerry couldn't have built a positive argument for himself, either, is the awful thing - if he'd just put together a couple of policies to help young people and poor people, had some kind of coherent vision for his presidency besides just "Bush is terrible, surely everyone can see that," I feel like he probably could have won and young people might have shown up for him. But he didn't, and they didn't, and Bush won.

Now whenever I start hearing the "but the Supreme Court!" argument, all I can think back to is thousands of young people staring blankly back at me when I tried to use that on them and get an awful sinking feeling in my stomach. Much as I wanted it to, it just didn't work because it wasn't motivating. It might have been rationally convincing, but it didn't keep them involved in the process enough to even show up to vote. It's an incredible contrast with my time canvassing for Obama, too, when I had all sorts of great stuff to say about what his vision for the country was, how he wanted to change things, etc etc. People were motivated by that, they had something to believe in, he had a positive argument for his candidacy - and I saw what a huge difference that made. I don't think I had to mention the Supreme Court once when I canvassed for Obama because there were so many other things to talk about. That's the kind of campaign I think that Democrats need to run to get people involved - the people who are disconnected from the political process tend to skew more liberal, and they're the people we need to turn out. I know it seems unfair because Republicans just show up to vote in lockstep, but they're a different group of people, and my experience with infrequent voters is that no amount of pleading and rational argument will get infrequent Democratic voters motivated to vote in the absence of a positive, coherent vision for the country.
posted by dialetheia at 6:03 PM on March 3, 2016 [28 favorites]


"Donald, you've been called a misogynist by Mitt, can you respond with substance, and not attacks"

Donald: "Mitt sucks, and we'll make great trade deals"
posted by cashman at 6:05 PM on March 3, 2016


There's been a lot of talk about the potential implosion of the GOP's coalition, and I found this tweet-thread on the topic interesting.

If it ends up happening (and the same thing was predicted back in '08, remember), the Democratic Party's coalition will necessarily end up rebalancing itself as well, and there's no guarantee the realigned parties won't be just as horrifying and awful.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:05 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Debate thread here.
posted by zug at 6:06 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trump: Vote for me, I'm hung like a horse.
posted by homunculus at 6:07 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


HOLY FUCK
posted by angrycat at 6:07 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Debate thread here.

Okay, thanks.
posted by homunculus at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2016


Youtube stream for debate

Well thank gods for that, b/c Fox is fucked. The youtube ads, I could do without.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2016


THERE IS SOMETHING GRODY ON TED CRUZ'S LIP
posted by Lyme Drop at 6:26 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


My Gen X Hillary problem: I know why we don’t “like” Clinton.

What you mean "we," kemosabe?


It's a terrible headline, but it's a -fantastic- article. Really spoke to me as a Gen X'er who was pretty down on Clinton in 2008 and who now believes she's going to be a great president.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:37 PM on March 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


it's a -fantastic- article

Oh, I read the article! That was my response to the article. I remember everything she recalls, and I agree that it was shitty and reflect sexism. But I don't agree that's "why I don't like Hillary" or why I didn't vote for her in the primary. I just felt a stronger obligation to take the moment to cast a vote in support of my own political philosophy for the first time ever. I'm sure she represents some views GenXers have on Hillary, just not mine.
posted by Miko at 6:44 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, that's a great article.
posted by OmieWise at 6:48 PM on March 3, 2016


I wish HRC hadn't picked Fight Song for her campaign music - now I have Katy Perry in my head 24/7.
posted by zutalors! at 6:49 PM on March 3, 2016


IS there a rodeo going on behind the camera in that room?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:51 PM on March 3, 2016


But Katy Perry didn't do Fight Song Rachel Platten did
posted by vuron at 6:54 PM on March 3, 2016


ugh why do I always think it's katy

anyway don't like it
posted by zutalors! at 6:57 PM on March 3, 2016


Oh, I read the article! That was my response to the article.

Heheh, apologies. Well, that article really speaks to my experiences in so many ways. At 43, I'm coming up against the first sexist and ageist barriers that I just can't seem to overcome the way I did previously (by just working harder than everyone else in the room). So when I see the amazing amount of crap Clinton has had to deal with because of her gender and age, I finally "get it" in a way that I would not have eight years ago. I'm pretty ashamed of my too easy dismissal of Clinton in 2004. I voted for Obama twice and I'm proud of my votes, but I realize now that Clinton deserved a more fulsome evaluation of her career and capabilities than I gave her eight years ago.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:58 PM on March 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Ted Cruz ate a booger during the debate. The debate started off in the high school locker room talking about dick sizes and then moved to the elementary school cafeteria.
posted by humanfont at 7:37 PM on March 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Can someone explain the dick joke thing? I'm not watching - I think this TV debate thing is a complete boondoggle, good only for the networks who are pulling in unprecedented ad revenue.
posted by Miko at 8:06 PM on March 3, 2016


Trump is under Secret Service protection

If he's under Secret Service protection, he's gotta have a codename.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 8:07 PM on March 3, 2016


"Golden Parachute"?
posted by PROD_TPSL at 8:09 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


If he's under Secret Service protection, he's gotta have a codename.

Apparently they call him "Mogul."
posted by dialetheia at 8:10 PM on March 3, 2016


"Julius" Do you guys have those?
posted by Trochanter at 8:11 PM on March 3, 2016


Never mind, I Googled and found a great picture of Trump displaying his hands. Heh.
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on March 3, 2016


CNN Headline: Donald Trump Defends Size of His Penis

Fuck yah.
posted by Trochanter at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Can someone explain the dick joke thing?

The "small hands" thing came up (I can't even remember why) and Trump replied:

He held up his hands to the audience. "Look at those hands. Are they small hands?

"He referred to my hands, 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."


So that was a new low point.
posted by dialetheia at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Can someone explain the dick joke thing? I'm not watching - I think this TV debate thing is a complete boondoggle, good only for the networks who are pulling in unprecedented ad revenue.


"He's like 6'2'' which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2". Have you seen his hands?" Rubio said during a rally in Roanoke, Virgina. "You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them. You can't trust them."


Trump referenced the implied dick joke and said there was no problem there.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:14 PM on March 3, 2016


Trump referenced the implied dick joke and said there was no problem there.

But, of course, he never implied anything with his comments about Megyn Kelly's blood back at the first debate, that was only us sick, twisted folks who thought that.
posted by nubs at 8:16 PM on March 3, 2016


I wish HRC hadn't picked Fight Song for her campaign music - now I have Katy Perry in my head 24/7.

For the first half of that comment my brain flashed to the Marilyn Manson song and briefly, subconsciously, with this election being what it is, I was all "sure, that makes sense".
posted by jason_steakums at 8:16 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


The penis thing was surreal and provided proof that Bill Clinton did not actually remove all dignity from the highest office.

The ending, however, was a sad display of defeat and deflated all the energy from the preceding two hours.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:20 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Huffpo front page giant headline: Cock Fight

fuck yah again
posted by Trochanter at 8:33 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wish HRC hadn't picked Fight Song for her campaign music

Shoulda gone with the Motorhead cover of God Save the Queen?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:52 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Lo-Fidelity All Stars, "Battleflag"
posted by Chrysostom at 9:38 PM on March 3, 2016


Frankly, what was hilarious to me was Donald Trump defending the size of his hands. He really, really does not want people thinking he has small hands. Which is hilarious.
posted by koeselitz at 10:24 PM on March 3, 2016 [3 favorites]


Frankly, what was hilarious to me was Donald Trump defending the size of his hands. He really, really does not want people thinking he has small hands.

Trump's behaviour over comments about the size of his hands has me wondering if it's something he was bullied/teased for when he was in school, honestly (trying to armchair-psychoanalyse someone at a distance is a fool's game, but...he's been sending Graydon Carter random pictures of his hands with notes that say "look, not small!" for over 20 years, so there's something that pretty seriously affects him there, it seems like).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:37 PM on March 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm 5'11 with 10-inch hands. The only logic conclusion?

Silva/YOURNAMEHERE 2016.
posted by lmfsilva at 10:59 PM on March 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


All the giggles and laughs about dick size seems like madness, while drinking water supplies are poisoned and those right-wing clowns want to dismantle the EPA, and no one blinks. Absolute madness.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:41 PM on March 3, 2016 [16 favorites]


Also madness: everyone is making dick size jokes, as if that is what passes for "playing dirty" and "getting tough" in this idiotic campaign, when everyone on stage is surely aware that Donald Trump is a brutal rapist.
posted by koeselitz at 12:18 AM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Can someone explain the dick joke thing?

Fox news abandoned all pretense of neutrality and launched a protracted assault on Trump's incoherently stated policies. Even so, no one is going to be talking about that tomorrow because OMG penis.

Trump's crassness is a strategic choice.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:49 AM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also madness: everyone is making dick size jokes, as if that is what passes for "playing dirty" and "getting tough" in this idiotic campaign, when everyone on stage is surely aware that Donald Trump is a brutal rapist.

Ivana later denied that he raped her. It's hard to get any serious media frenzy going on about that when she denies it, the Republicans don't want to talk about it, and the Democrats have the issue of a non-withdrawn accusation of rape against Bill Clinton they don't want to talk about.

Honestly, it's terrifying how willing people are to put less faith in rape accusations when they are aimed at someone who they identify with. It's a pattern that comes up over and over on universities, in churches, at schools, in politics, business, entertainment, the military, FAMILIES...everywhere. No matter how many times it's proven somone you think is a good person could commit that crime, people don't seem to really internalize it. I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe in saints anymore.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:58 AM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


zero chance I will vote for HRC.
posted by telstar at 1:05 AM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


fascinating. thanks for that.
posted by andrewcooke at 1:37 AM on March 4, 2016 [16 favorites]


He also kept repeating the mantra about Republicans being the party of Lincoln that we've also seen lately from Paul Ryan. If that becomes the new Republican thing...ugh.


Check out the link I dropped above to Van Jones confronting one of Trumps deputies. The deputy's whole trip was that the KKK was a liberal organization.


The Daily Show just had a great segment ripping this apart. One of Noah's highlight moments as host so far I think. Check it out if you are burnt out on this stupidity.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:13 AM on March 4, 2016


Radio Sweden: Americans in Sweden reflect on presidential primary
posted by XMLicious at 2:19 AM on March 4, 2016


Just popped back in to say that after last night's debate, this thread's title is eponysterical.
posted by duffell at 3:40 AM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Just popped back in to say that after last night's debate, this thread's title is eponysterical.

Oh, crap. I'm already annoyed at self for going with a lazy and obvious option for the title of this post. This just compounds my lack of imagination and general rubbishness at doing post titles; there are literally hundreds of MeFi's who can, and do, much better post titles. Going to ask the mods if it can be changed.
posted by Wordshore at 3:51 AM on March 4, 2016


I kinda wish Trump would start wearing one of those Happy Face buttons like The Comedian from The Watchmen.
posted by valkane at 5:47 AM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


"What the hell happened to us? What happened to the American Dream?"

"What hpppened to the American Dream? It came true. You're looking at it."
posted by entropicamericana at 6:18 AM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Republicans being the party of Lincoln

If you have to go back 150 years to find someone in your party who helped a minority, I'd say that's not something to be proud of.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:30 AM on March 4, 2016 [22 favorites]


BREAKING NEWS: Jim Webb is still an asshole.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:05 AM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


All the giggles and laughs about dick size seems like madness, while drinking water supplies are poisoned and those right-wing clowns want to dismantle the EPA, and no one blinks. Absolute madness.

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 3h3 hours ago
Just curious: is there anyone who still doubts that the U.S. is well into late-stage imperial collapse?
posted by Trochanter at 8:14 AM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]


me: “Also madness: everyone is making dick size jokes, as if that is what passes for 'playing dirty' and 'getting tough' in this idiotic campaign, when everyone on stage is surely aware that Donald Trump is a brutal rapist.”

Drinky Die: “Ivana later denied that he raped her. It's hard to get any serious media frenzy going on about that when she denies it...”

Aha, but this is where you're wrong – although that's a common misconception. This is her full statement after settling the divorce with Donald:
During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest.
So here's the rub – she doesn't deny that it happened. She doesn't even say it wasn't rape. She actually affirms that the event she had described in her deposition really happened, affirms that it was as joyless and crude as she'd described, and affirms that she felt violated. The entire point of her statement seems to be that, when she says it was "rape," she wants people to know that she means that as a description of her sense of violation, rather than "in a literal or criminal sense." In other words, it was rape; it just wasn't "literal or criminal rape."

If there's a better instance of a distinction without a difference, I can't think of one. She wants to call it rape, and makes it utterly clear that he violated her, but only wants to point out that she will not be pursuing it as a criminal matter and considers the case closed.

I know it would probably be shitty to bring that back up; I know she doesn't deserve to be re-victimized over this, and frankly I hope this Trump nonsense goes away soon, since I'm sure there's some Republican somewhere who's scheming over how to use this. But it's worth remembering what her words were, and what they weren't. Frankly, I think it was very brave and very noble for her to affirm again in her statement that he violated her, to be completely honest on that point, even as she must have been forced to make the statement for fear of further legal repercussions. It would have been much easier just to deny the whole thing, but she didn't.

In any case, some reporters brought it up last July, which prompted Trump's pressman first to insist ridiculously that it's impossible for a husband to rape a wife – apparently the bonds of marriage give a husband the right to do whatever he wants – and second to make bombastic legal threats ("You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet…") Clearly 'The Trump Organization' knows this is a point of vulnerability.

“... the Republicans don't want to talk about it, and the Democrats have the issue of a non-withdrawn accusation of rape against Bill Clinton they don't want to talk about.”

Yeah, I think that's unfortunately true. And part of the reason why Republicans don't want to talk about it is because I think there's this general feeling that everybody has skeletons in the closet, that if (say) Rubio said this then all bets would be off as far as stuff Trump couldn't bring up about his personal life. Still, it's weird to me that somebody from the RNC doesn't sit down quietly with John Kasich and suggest that he bring it up in a debate, just to have it out there and talked about.

As for the Democrats, though – I don't know if they would bring it up. I really feel like they're itching to, actually. I know they obviously can't have Hillary bring it up herself – no candidate can, they'd be concerned about being involved in the whole thing – but we live in the era of super PACs. It would take very little effort to make sure that a good chunk of the population of the US saw ads pointing out the rape story, ads which don't have Clinton's name on them at all, and which she has no responsibility for or control over. I have a feeling there are people waiting for late in the general election to do just that.
posted by koeselitz at 8:15 AM on March 4, 2016 [18 favorites]




it's also important to keep in mind that the distinction ivana makes - the same distinction that trump's lawyer made a few months ago - is the legal aspect. depending on where they were when it happened (and when it happened), raping your wife was not necessarily illegal. the legal matter of rape doesn't always cover whether rape occurred. i feel like ivana has been very clear that her at the time husband violated her in a way that all of us would describe as rape today.
posted by nadawi at 8:36 AM on March 4, 2016 [8 favorites]


(Yeah, the Daily Beast article mentions that, while New York used to have a "marital rape exemption," it was struck down in 1984. It is rather shocking and sad that it was struck down so late; but it was five years the rape happened in 1989. I'm not sure if there were other exemptions, though; there might have been.)
posted by koeselitz at 8:43 AM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


we also don't know that it occurred in new york, do we?
posted by nadawi at 8:49 AM on March 4, 2016


Ah, that's a good point.
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2016




This time they'll be facing towards the convention.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:25 AM on March 4, 2016 [18 favorites]


Cleveland seeking to buy riot gear for Republican National Convention

Sometimes I feel like we're living in Immortan Joe's origin story.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:40 AM on March 4, 2016 [17 favorites]


And to think, conventions only used to need riot gear to contain the Free Speech Zone.
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


We live in interesting times.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:58 AM on March 4, 2016


Before Loudly Denouncing Trump, Romney Quietly Reactivated Campaign Committees

last month Romney quietly filed with the Federal Election Commission, reactivating his Presidential campaign organizations, Romney for President, Inc. and Romney Victory, Inc. By reactivating his campaign committees, Romney will now be able to collect campaign contributions and coordinate fundraising activities with other organizations.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:42 AM on March 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


Oh god, I can't even imagine the carnage at the convention if they end up handing the nomination to Romney again, of all people. Conservatives barely stomached voting for him last time, especially running with their lead technocrat Paul Ryan - running a pure big-money guy was basically thumbing their noses at the religious/movement/identity-conservative base. It would be a catastrophe for them this year, not to even mention making all those Trump voters who are so furious about "not having a say in what government does" apopleptic by essentially disenfranchising them. I mean, I know backroom party dealing at conventions was a pretty common thing back in the day, but I feel like that kind of thing is much harder to pull off without looking like huge assholes in the internet age.
posted by dialetheia at 11:48 AM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I sort of feel like laughing until I cry but then the crying becomes hysterical sobbing but then comes back around to laughter but by that point I'm in the fetal position rocking gently back and forth? Anybody else?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:49 AM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


(I do suspect that this was, and is, a just-in-case thing rather than a strong intention to run again, but even so, LOL FOREVER)
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:50 AM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Romney-Rubio. Has legs.
posted by Miko at 11:52 AM on March 4, 2016


You know that part in Pride and Prejudice, where it turns out Jane is going to marry a rich guy and her mom says "I was sure you could not be so beautiful for nothing!" ?

I feel like Romney has that thing with his haircut and jawline. Like, he can't believe he looks so much like a politician for nothing. SURELY THIS FAUX-GRAVITAS BELONGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AMERICA, ARE YOU LISTENING TO MEEEEEEEEEEEE
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


I just got a fundraising email from the Clinton campaign, subject line: "last night's dumpster fire"

They've found the right tone to respond to all this, I think
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:54 AM on March 4, 2016 [14 favorites]


last month Romney quietly filed with the Federal Election Commission, reactivating his Presidential campaign organizations, Romney for President, Inc. and Romney Victory, Inc. By reactivating his campaign committees, Romney will now be able to collect campaign contributions and coordinate fundraising activities with other organizations.

I was wondering if Romney's wade into the fray wasn't a means for him to try to backdoor a run. I don't know enough about the ins & outs of this, though; can he show up at the convention and get the delegates to come to him without being any part of a primary?
posted by nubs at 11:55 AM on March 4, 2016


I sort of feel like laughing until I cry but then the crying becomes hysterical sobbing but then comes back around to laughter but by that point I'm in the fetal position rocking gently back and forth? Anybody else?

No, I'm in the depths of an ether binge. It helps.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:00 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Based on my brief reading, nubs, it seems like that would depend on what the rules are for the convention ballots. In theory, if the ballots had a write-in option, Romney could be written in. But I don't know if write-ins are possible on the convention ballots.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:10 PM on March 4, 2016


Romney-Rubio. Has legs.

Ha, for establishment Republicans and thinkpiece authors, maybe. The base would be furious. Rubio's only base is in the media that won't stop talking him up as the Savior of Conservatism at every turn.
posted by dialetheia at 12:12 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Ha, for establishment Republicans and thinkpiece authors, maybe. The base would be furious.

Yeah, my Republican parents thought it was hilarious that they trotted out Romney yesterday. The direct quote was, IIRC: "Nobody even liked him the first time."
posted by melissasaurus at 12:16 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Romney-Rubio.

Rubio, shmubio. This is Bob Dole's time to shine!
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:19 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


Rick Perlstein on Romney vs. Trump: “Mr. Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are more worthless than a degree from Trump University.” Just like yours, Mr. Romney. Just like yours.
posted by dialetheia at 12:20 PM on March 4, 2016


Rubio, shmubio. This is Bob Dole's time to shine!

Look, I didn't exhume and reanimate this head of Barry Goldwater and sew it onto Newt Gingrich's shoulder for nothing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:27 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


WaPo: White mortality rates correlated with Trump votes: It is nonetheless striking that Trump’s promise to "Make America Great Again" has been most enthusiastically embraced by those who have seen their own life's prospects diminish the most — not [only] in terms of material wealth, but in terms of literal chances of survival."
posted by dialetheia at 12:33 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Maybe we could give Herbert Walker a lil ringydingy. He's still got four years of eligibility left, right?
posted by Existential Dread at 12:35 PM on March 4, 2016




tobascodagama: "Based on my brief reading, nubs, it seems like that would depend on what the rules are for the convention ballots. In theory, if the ballots had a write-in option, Romney could be written in. But I don't know if write-ins are possible on the convention ballots."

The rules are baroquely complex, but I believe that except on the first ballot, most delegates are free to vote for whom they wish, whether or not that person was formally a candidate.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:46 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's the thing about Rubio: the GOP knows at this point they've lost the election. Rubio may not be popular with "the base," if the GOP can be said to have a "base" any more, but of the present possibilities he does best with young conservatives and people with more education and income. So if they're looking to retain some scrap of credibility with the voters representing the future of their party, he's really the best pick. A sacrificial lamb? Yes. But there would be some strategy to putting him in front in some way that makes sense, at the least.
posted by Miko at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2016


Or hey, Jimmy McMillan is running!
posted by Miko at 1:25 PM on March 4, 2016


If Paul Ryan stepped in at the convention to Save The Day Again, who would become Speaker? Even in the highly unlikely case of his being able to unify the party in time for the general, we'd be witnessing a total meltdown in the House Republican caucus right in that little window of time when most Americans are actually paying attention....
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:31 PM on March 4, 2016


I think Kasich has a very good chance of winning Ohio but Rubio is going to struggle in Florida. If Trump wins both those states it is over and he is the nominee. If he loses both those states nobody is going to have a majority of delegates at the convention.

I'm not sure what happens if Kasich wins Ohio but Trump wins Florida. I suspect it means that Trump will very probably have a majority of delegates. So I find myself in the unenviable position of rooting for Little Marco in Florida.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


we'd be witnessing a total meltdown in the House Republican caucus right in that little window of time when most Americans are actually paying attention....

oh please oh please oh please
posted by Existential Dread at 1:34 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Hang on, is it technically illegal to hold a House seat and the Presidency?

Prime Minister Paul Ryan?
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:35 PM on March 4, 2016


Yeah, you can't do that.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Presented without comment:

The key to understanding this election cycle—and its energetic locus, Trump—is to accept that we are not dealing with an ordinary man, bound by the rules of decorum and the presupposition of coherence. I have another idea. I propose that Donald Trump is the personification of a Norse god named Loki.
posted by crazy with stars at 1:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


those sneaky founders they thought of everything
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:49 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I really don't get the Rubio fixation. I know the idea was 'Hey we've got our own minority dude who rose from state senate to junior senator JUST LIKE SOMEONE ELSE...' But at every turn he has been so lacking. You just know they've had the best and brightest working with him on communication skills and talking points but that just made him a bot. The media is really focused on looks, he's got the same empty appeal of Palin (before we realized she was nuts).
There is no there, there.
posted by readery at 2:03 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


So, Bernie tweeted that the fact that Romanians have better Internet speeds than the US was unacceptable. Romanians were a little put off, and three of them wrote a BernieSpeedTest so you can compare your speeds to Romania's.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:06 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Your speed is 13.90 Mbps
Your internet is 3.6 times slower than Bucharest's average"

Whee.
posted by pemberkins at 2:25 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Same (slow, creaky) boat here.

"Your speed is 8.91 Mbps
Your internet is 5.6 times slower than Bucharest's average"
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 2:31 PM on March 4, 2016




Checked twice.
Your speed is 0.62 Mbps
Your internet is 80.7 times slower than Bucharest's average
Your speed is 0.93 Mbps
Your internet is 54.0 times slower than Bucharest's average

Wow! And I live in Silicon Valley. If this test is accurate - damn.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


I got 30 mbps, 1.8 slower than Bucharest. I pay for double that speed, but don't ever seem to reach it. Edit to say, doh...forgot I was on mobile, on the slow router. The wired systems are faster than Bucharest, but I'm paying a lot of money for a fiber connection.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 3:23 PM on March 4, 2016


Your speed is 7.08 Mbps
Your internet is 7.1 times slower than Bucharest's average

I pay for 50Mbps via Comcast.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:30 PM on March 4, 2016


Your speed is 28.59 Mbps
Your internet is 1.7 times slower than Bucharest's average
posted by gaspode at 3:33 PM on March 4, 2016


And yeah, I pay for double that speed.
posted by gaspode at 3:33 PM on March 4, 2016


We pay for AT&t U-verse High Speed. 45 Mbps. I know it's a ripoff. But every experience I have of changing providers is very unpleasant.
posted by yertledaturtle at 3:38 PM on March 4, 2016


> The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders: The names of Berta Cáceres’s murderers are yet unknown. But we know who killed her.

Remembering Berta Cáceres, Assassinated Honduras Indigenous & Environmental Leader
posted by homunculus at 4:00 PM on March 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


So, Bernie tweeted that the fact that Romanians have better Internet speeds than the US was unacceptable.

LOLRomanians? That seems a bit beneath him. As if God forbid an Eastern European country is better than the US in anything? That's slouching toward American exceptionalism.
posted by msalt at 4:50 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


LOLRomanians? That seems a bit beneath him. As if God forbid an Eastern European country is better than the US in anything? That's slouching toward American exceptionalism.

I don't know, I see it more as puncturing American exceptionalism - like "maybe, just maybe, we aren't actually the best at everything and could learn something from other countries." But the tone is tricky, and I could definitely see either reading.
posted by dialetheia at 5:03 PM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Kind of a bizarre tweet. All it tells me is that (a) Romania is awesome in at least one way, and (b) Bernie's worried about Internet speeds at a time when lots of people are worried about food and jobs and a giant fascist racist baby is on the verge of taking over the country. Whichever staffer runs his twitter needs to work on messaging strategy.

I actually use the Internet rather heavily for a living and rely on it, and I'm reasonably happy with the speed. There are some things I'm not happy about --net neutrality and such--but speed isn't a hot-button issue even for me.
posted by mmoncur at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, it is the country where Transylvania comes from.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't say that it's my number one (or number fifty) issue, but American internet access is exceptionally crappy: we pay more than people in almost any other country for service that is worse than people's in almost any other developed country. Sorta like medical care, and for similar reasons: corporate profits come before the common good. I don't think it's a non-issue, and it actually seems kind of in Bernie's wheelhouse, especially if you think that internet access is a basic part of modern infrastructure, which I kind of think it is.

The Romania thing was probably not the best way to put it, but the basic point is not wrong.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:14 PM on March 4, 2016 [14 favorites]




“maybe, just maybe, we aren't actually the best at everything and could learn something from other countries”

Except that it usually works like “sure, the (French/Japanese/Romanians) are better at (work-life balance/fast trains/fast internet), but that's socialism and we don't need any of that here, no sirree!” (possibly followed by a story a friend of a friend recounted about terrible things that happen in these godless socialist countries)
posted by acb at 5:28 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Romania thing was probably not the best way to put it, but the basic point is not wrong.

I can understand the Romanians being put off by the remark, but almost any other country could be the stand-in. We literally invented the internet and having anyone outpace us is an embarrassment.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:38 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Your speed is 8.80 Mbps
Your internet is 5.7 times slower than Bucharest's average


I pay for 50 Mbps from Comcast.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:39 PM on March 4, 2016


American internet access is exceptionally crappy

In Northern New England - VT, NH, ME - this is absolutely not a trivial issue. These states are still working on rural connectivity. There are entire regions where the economic disadvantages they are already experiencing are exacerbated by nonexistent, poor or slow connections. This becomes a big issue when the state is trying to attract business, attract competitive students to its state and community colleges, and prevent population drain. It's a serious hindrance to progress. I think Bernie's probably more aware of this as an issue than people in other regions might be.
posted by Miko at 6:10 PM on March 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


> Eventually a Trump Rally Is Going to Boil Over. But When?

Trump gives supporters permission to be violent with protesters: If you hurt them I’ll defend you in court
posted by homunculus at 6:15 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


All it tells me is that (a) Romania is awesome in at least one way, and (b) Bernie's worried about Internet speeds at a time when lots of people are worried about food and jobs and a giant fascist racist baby is on the verge of taking over the country.

Have you heard basically anything else he's said over the course of the campaign?
posted by Etrigan at 6:17 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


nobody,not even the rain,has such small hands
posted by kirkaracha at 6:23 PM on March 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


More about these monopolies not fulfilling their contract contracts any more than they're fulfilling their social ones.
posted by Trochanter at 6:24 PM on March 4, 2016


Trump gives supporters permission to be violent with protesters: If you hurt them I’ll defend you in court

Is he going to get himself arrested? That would be historic, wouldn't it?
posted by Trochanter at 6:40 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Your speed is 8.80 Mbps
Your internet is 5.7 times slower than Bucharest's average

I pay for 50 Mbps from Comcast.


I don't tweet but this should be a tweeting trend.

#ActualSpeed or something: your actual speed versus the speed you pay for and your provider.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:45 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Er, I'm not sure I'd trust that "Bernie Speed Test". It gives me 30Mbps, speedtest.net gives me 1.1 Gbps which should be more accurate given where I'm testing from.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:47 PM on March 4, 2016


I've read that a lot of ISPs detect when you're connecting to speedtest.net and unthrotte your connection so you think your internet is faster than it usually is.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:53 PM on March 4, 2016 [15 favorites]


I feel like that should be a joke.
posted by Trochanter at 7:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


In Northern New England - VT, NH, ME - this is absolutely not a trivial issue. These states are still working on rural connectivity. There are entire regions where the economic disadvantages they are already experiencing are exacerbated by nonexistent, poor or slow connections. This becomes a big issue when the state is trying to attract business, attract competitive students to its state and community colleges, and prevent population drain. It's a serious hindrance to progress. I think Bernie's probably more aware of this as an issue than people in other regions might be.


It is also an issue here in MN. Northern New England isn't the only part of the country with remote rural regions. Not by a long shot. I remember Iowa running fiber optic cable throughout the state in the 90s, but that was unusual.
posted by Area Man at 8:57 PM on March 4, 2016


I stand corrected, I live in rural Utah and assumed internet was equally available everywhere... We must be lucky here.
posted by mmoncur at 9:45 PM on March 4, 2016


“maybe, just maybe, we aren't actually the best at everything and could learn something from other countries”

Tone in tweets is hard, of course, but his tweet reads a lot more to me like
"People, our broadband is so bad we're worse than friggin Romania. Whaaaaaaa?"

Bernie's worried about Internet speeds at a time when lots of people are worried about food and jobs and a giant fascist racist baby is on the verge of taking over the country.

Exactly. No doubt there are lots of rural areas with weak connectivity, for obvious practical reasons, though I think the rural electrification and telephone service in the US are pretty remarkable. I'm guessing there are plenty of areas in the Carpathians that don't have fiberoptic to everyone's door either.

But honestly, this seems like more pandering to his upper middle class, educated base that is so excited about "yay, legal pot and free college!"
posted by msalt at 10:26 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


But honestly, this seems like more pandering to his upper middle class, educated base that is so excited about "yay, legal pot and free college!"

... in what way does free college help his "educated" base? It helps poor kids who couldn't afford to go to college otherwise. As someone who had to drop out of college twice for financial reasons before I could finally finish my degree, I vehemently disagree. The idea that free college is solely an upper-middle-class concern is ridiculous - it would be a huge boon for social mobility for people like me and for everyone.

The majority of his platform is aimed at improving life for working people, the middle class, and the poor. Raising the minimum wage to $15 would vastly improve the lives of people who are just barely scraping by. Serious investments in rebuilding our infrastructure would create jobs and help to prevent future Flint crises. Single payer health care would be an incredible boon to the poor - somewhere around 1 in 4 people can't afford to get care even though they have insurance. I don't understand where anyone is getting this idea that he appeals only to upper middle class people. Is that why he won Oklahoma by 10 points?
posted by dialetheia at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


... in what way does free college help his "educated" base?

I use the term educated broadly, meaningpeople who attended good elementary schools and high schools as well as colleges, kids with educated parents who expect them go to college and with any luck graduate or professional school.

Sanders' program would give Donald Trump's kids free college as well as a poorer student. if Sanders was concerned with those who can't afford college, the better solution would be expanded need-based grants (which might cover room and board as well as just tuition, and might also include private schools to avoid the 2-tier class system his approach would create). But that would not appeal to his affluent white base nearly as much.

I don't understand where anyone is getting this idea that he appeals only to upper middle class people. Is that why he won Oklahoma by 10 points?

Bernie's base is young whites from small states, and his support is much lower among those with only high school education or less. Oklahoma has a higher percentage of whites and a much lower percentage of African Americans than the states all around it. its population is also much younger than the US as a whole, 33.9 years vs. 37.2.
posted by msalt at 11:06 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Politifact rates as completely false: Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership

But the article seems to say the opposite? Or not?
posted by futz at 11:07 PM on March 4, 2016


Oh wait, that article is old. Sorry folks.
posted by futz at 11:12 PM on March 4, 2016


Sanders' program would give Donald Trump's kids free college as well as a poorer student. if Sanders was concerned with those who can't afford college, the better solution would be expanded need-based grants.

There's an old saying that programs for the poor become poor programs. The most popular programs are those that are universal, regardless of income, like Social Security and Medicare (even though there are certain income testing reductions involved).

When you create a program just for the poor it becomes a political football, especially considering racial resentments. And it really doesn't save much money to eliminate rich beneficiaries because there is only a tiny percent of them, so why bother. The resentment toward the rich getting the same benefits has never come close to the resentment of just poor people alone getting benefits so don't play their game. Make your social programs universal.
posted by JackFlash at 11:26 PM on March 4, 2016 [34 favorites]


somewhere around 1 in 4 people can't afford to get care even though they have insurance.

You are citing a CDC study that predates Obamacare. Things have improved drastically since then. The people at most risk now are those unfortunate enough to live in Republican states that have refused to implement free federal money for Medicaid expansion out of pure political spite.
posted by JackFlash at 11:33 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]


There's an old saying that programs for the poor become poor programs. The most popular programs are those that are universal, regardless of income ...

I take your point, but making them universal results in affluent people capturing and gaming them. Also, in this case, Sanders' proposal would in fact create a double barrier for truly low-income students.

Very likely all existing government aid would disappear (Pell grants, etc.) in order to fund the program, and private aid for scholarships would also decline. Yet "free" applies only to tuition at state schools.

Great for middle class parents, not so good for people facing $15,000 or more for room and board at a state school, especially when those existing sources of scholarships dry up. It would also basically make public schools poor kids schools, and private schools the upper class schools. Which dovetails into your point about poor programs.
posted by msalt at 11:37 PM on March 4, 2016


I'm curious, since the two are sometimes compared: Would the Sanders' college plan provide free tuition for foreign students, like how it's done in Germany?
posted by FJT at 11:46 PM on March 4, 2016


making them universal results in affluent people capturing and gaming them.

The rich haven't captured or gamed Social Security and Medicare to any significant extent and they are the most popular government programs ever created. Your criticisms are directed at implementation details but the program doesn't have to be structured in a way that is disadvantageous to the poor any more than Social Security or Medicaid. Unfortunately Sanders hasn't really provided any clear details which is one of the criticisms from economists, but that doesn't necessarily mean Sanders' aspirations are impossible. They just have to be worked out.
posted by JackFlash at 11:52 PM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]


Bernie's base is young whites from small states, and his support is much lower among those with only high school education or less. Oklahoma has a higher percentage of whites and a much lower percentage of African Americans than the states all around it. its population is also much younger than the US as a whole, 33.9 years vs. 37.2.

Not true in Oklahoma - he won the majority of people with anything less than a postgraduate education (they went for Clinton) and people in all income categories. In many states, Clinton is the one with the wealthy educated white base. Look at Massachusetts: Sanders won 59% of non-college graduates, Clinton won 54% of college graduates. Sanders won 56% of people making less than $100k, Clinton won 59% of those making $100k or more. Same in Nevada - Sanders won the majority of those without college educations, Clinton won the majority of those with college educations. It's true that he has not done nearly as well with Black people, nobody would deny that, but it's simply not true that he's only successful among young white people with college educations. He's done better with non-white voters outside of the south, winning closer to 40% of those voters in OK and MA. I wish there were entrance polls for Colorado and Minnesota - the margin of his win would suggest he did very well with most groups there, as well. In any event, he isn't just winning rich white people - Clinton is the one whose white base is more affluent and educated, for the most part. It's oversimplifying his coalition to overlook his support among poorer and less-educated people.

As for Pell grants, I got maximum Pell grants every year I went to school and it only paid for half of my tuition at a public university. Free tuition would have been much better. I have no idea why you assert that all other sources of scholarships would dry up - many (most?) scholarships are established for tax reasons, there are other incentives to provide scholarships than paying for just tuition. We would largely just be making up for the huge disinvestment in public education that states have undergone under the last 30 years or so anyway, which has shifted the burden of ensuring an educated, competitive workforce onto students. As for private universities, if anything, free public college would likely put downward pressure on rapidly increasing tuitions. I agree with all of JackFlash's points about means-testing - it's a poor strategy for long-term survival and protection of social benefits.

Student loan debt is not something that entitled kids whine about or whatever, it's becoming a structural problem for our economy - it exceeds credit card debt (which is also exorbitantly high due to stagnant wages) and is now second only to mortgage debt. Young people aren't buying houses or starting families because they are buried in debt. There are also serious race and class disparities in student debt loads. People without college degrees are even worse off - 22% of millenials with only a high school education are living in poverty, compared to 15% of Gen-Xers in 1995, 12% of late boomers in 1986, or 7% of early boomers in 1979. A college education is increasingly necessary to make a decent living, just like a high school education was decades ago - every argument we're having about free college could just as easily be applied to free high school education. Should we start means-testing that and charging people for high school?

We absolutely need to make improvements at the K-12 and pre-K level to ensure that every student can get an education that would allow them to be successful in college, too. Obama's 2008 plan to provide universal pre-K education to every child would be a great thing to revive. But K-12 is obviously more difficult because so much of that is under the purview of local school districts, not the federal government. A comprehensive plan to reform K12 education is the sort of 'superjumbo' program that Rick Perlstein was arguing for in that piece about how Democrats need more big ideas - I would love for Sanders to come up with that plan off the cuff, but that's the sort of complex "pie-in-the-sky" idea we need our best policymakers working on and arguing for over the next few years so that when the moment is right, the program is ready for someone to pick up (sort of like single-payer health care, which has been around long enough to become familiar and fairly well-established).
posted by dialetheia at 1:30 AM on March 5, 2016 [21 favorites]


Five states vote or caucus today, and several more over the next week or so. There's a clean and (until it fills with comments) fast loading new thread here.
posted by Wordshore at 2:12 AM on March 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thanks for the fresh and well-constructed new thread, Wordshore!
posted by adrianhon at 3:36 AM on March 5, 2016


I just want to tell you good luck, we're all counting on you.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:01 AM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


I found this unposted comment hiding in a tab. It's late but still relevant:

This description of how she personally pushed fracking over the mass environmental protests of Romanians and Bulgarians is extremely damning to me
Jacobean: In the build-up to today’s contests, Sanders mounted a late-in-the-game offensive in three states — Oklahoma, Colorado, and Minnesota. Each of these states has been severely affected by the fracking industry in recent years, a reality not lost on the democratic socialist candidate."

The Sanders campaign allocated a portion of its tightly rationed television budget to run anti-fracking ads in Colorado and Minnesota. And while visiting Oklahoma on Friday, the Sanders campaign released a statement putting his position on fracking in the starkest terms possible.
Bernie won those three states.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:29 AM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


You know how many surrogates Sanders has sent to Mississippi or Louisiana, two states with dire poverty and large African-American populations and upcoming primaries (LA today, Miss. Tuesday), and energy industry-created problems galore, especially in the latter (although you'e also had tremors in Miss. near fracking areas)? Zero.

Hillary Clinton's campaign at least sent Bill to make the rounds.
posted by raysmj at 10:55 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mild clarification: Sanders did speak in Kenner LA (to a mostly white audience in suburban NOLA) way, way back in July. If he really wants to have a 50-state campaign, though, or lead progressives to victory in Congress while he's prez... Well, fundraising won't be any easier when you're president, nor will it be easier to send a team or surrogates down when it most counts--not months before, but just before an election day. Too many distractions, other obligations. I've been skeptical of this plan from the beginning, because it hardly makes any sense to change Congress from the White House down. You're better off organizing a campaign outside of the White House. I salute him for bringing attention to many issues, but ignoring states deemed unwinnable is weird here, and doesn't excite me at all.
posted by raysmj at 11:42 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Dialethia: I'm very much enjoying this very substantive discussion. Take that, Reddit!

Not true in Oklahoma - he won the majority of people with anything less than a postgraduate education (they went for Clinton) and people in all income categories.

Bernie has more money than Hillary and poured resources into Oklahoma, a tiny state, because the demographics favored him. I think you'd agree, right? The fracking angle is interesting, too.

But despite his money and focus advantage, he won OK by only 10%, which represented 35,000 voters (he won 174,054 to 139,338). I think we should both be careful about extrapolating too much from these numbers.

Aside from Massachusetts, an upset win for Hillary that really undercuts Sanders' rationale, this was by far the smallest margin of any Super Tuesday primary among Democrats. Meanwhile, Hillary was winning much larger states by 58 points, 43 points, 33 points, 32 points and 29 points. So these results may reflect allocation of resources more than demographics, which would explain the even (though small) margins across demographics slices.

In many states, Clinton is the one with the wealthy educated white base. Look at Massachusetts: Sanders won 59% of non-college graduates, Clinton won 54% of college graduates. Sanders won 56% of people making less than $100k, Clinton won 59% of those making $100k or more.

These numbers are distorted by the fact that Bernie's base is so young. His real base is currently in college right now. So they will appear as "non-college graduates" and "making less than $100K" but that doesn't change my point. They're still kids of high income college grad families. Many of them, like Bernie, will make more than $100K after they goof around for a few years in internships and idealistic or fun jobs that their economic class gives them the luxury to pursue.

If you look at High School or less instead of non-college, you neatly remove this distortion, and find that Hillary is strongest with HS or less and Grad school education, Bernie is strongest in the middle. He does not have blue collar support, which is peculiar for someone whose main message is income inequality.
posted by msalt at 2:15 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted. Please don't paraphrase others' statements in ways that change their meaning, and then argue against the point you wrote on their behalf. It also isn't helpful to paraphrase others' comments to make them into personal insults; it's unnecessarily fighty in a thread that's already contentious.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:02 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Please don't paraphrase others' statements in ways that change their meaning, and then argue against the point you wrote on their behalf

That's, like, Mefi's favorite sport.

posted by chimaera at 4:31 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Aside from Massachusetts, an upset win for Hillary that really undercuts Sanders' rationale

That's totally untrue, she was expected to win by much more - the latest polling had her up 10 points, and she beat Obama by 12 there in 2008. What it does is upset the rationale that only rich people vote for Sanders - in MA, rich people carried Clinton to her win. The "larger"/"smaller" state stuff is totally nonsensical - what difference does size make? Clearly the issue in those "larger" states was race. I completely concede that Sanders has not made the headway with Black voters that I would have liked, and that on the whole, Black voters seem to prefer Clinton. But taking those results and using them to argue that Sanders can't win blue-collar voters even when he did in other states is silly.

Bernie has more money than Hillary and poured resources into Oklahoma, a tiny state, because the demographics favored him. I think you'd agree, right?

It's interesting how you dismiss states he won just because he campaigned there. All you've shown is that when people get to hear what Sanders has to say, in many states they like it more than they like Clinton's platform. It's also funny how he "only" won by 10% - nearly every pundit predicted that Clinton would win Oklahoma.

So they will appear as "non-college graduates" and "making less than $100K" but that doesn't change my point. They're still kids of high income college grad families.

Citation, please. I'm the first in my family to go to college and most of the Sanders supporters I know here are also from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. If you have data to back up that assertion, I'd like to see it (and only looking at Southern states where race and religion are very likely playing a larger role than income given the different results in other states doesn't really count if you're making a more universal claim).
posted by dialetheia at 4:42 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


Mefi's favorite sport is fencing

No it isn't!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2016 [7 favorites]


Nice parry.
posted by box at 5:00 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Looks like Elizabeth Warren is getting some heat from Sanders fans who were disappointed with her lack of endorsement of him.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:31 PM on March 5, 2016


(especially before the Mass. primary, where it could have really mattered, especially since it was so close)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:32 PM on March 5, 2016


(and only looking at Southern states where race and religion are very likely playing a larger role than income given the different results in other states doesn't really count if you're making a more universal claim).
I'm confused by this logic. If states with big black populations are voting differently than states with overwhelmingly white populations, why does that mean that we should discount the states with substantial black populations?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:41 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


Looks like Elizabeth Warren is getting some heat from Sanders fans who were disappointed with her lack of endorsement of him.

Screw those guys. This is the other reason a lot of people don't like Bernie: his acolytes are assholes. Warren's endorsement is hers to give or withhold as she pleases. She doesn't owe Bernie a damned thing, but Bernie's folks are ready to tear her down anyway.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:45 PM on March 5, 2016 [8 favorites]


Screw those guys.

I really don't understand this response. Why is Warren above criticism? If she wants to maintain her aura as a progressive*, she needs to take progressive positions.

The thing that the right understands about politics that the center-left in this country does not is that when a politician doesn't do what you want, you flip out. That moves him or her towards your position by letting him or her know there's a cost to not doing your bidding, and increases the chances that your position will get implemented. That's good politics. The alternative is not holding his or her feet to the fire and vigorously hoping he or she will carry out your program. The last few decades showcases the failure of that kind of politics for the center-left in this country.

* I've really never understood her appeal as a progressive, but maybe that's just me...
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:07 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Out of curiosity, is there anyone in national politics other than Bernie Sanders who you would consider a progressive?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:11 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Louisiana projected for clinton...NBC
posted by futz at 6:22 PM on March 5, 2016


I'm confused by this logic. If states with big black populations are voting differently than states with overwhelmingly white populations, why does that mean that we should discount the states with substantial black populations?

Oh not at all! I apologize if I even implied that. I think Clinton deserves a ton of credit for her success with Black voters, and I don't mean to dismiss that (or those states) at all. I just think that looking at aggregated Super Tuesday results about overall success among working-class vs. upper-class voters is going to lead to misleading conclusions, especially since states that he won like CO and MN weren't even included in those due to the lack of entrance polls. He has generally won working-class voters in whiter states and lost them in less-white states so far, is all, and arguing that he doesn't do well with working-class voters overall based on results that disproportionately weight those southern states is going to lead to misleading conclusions (especially when many of his winning states don't have entrance polls and thus aren't included in those statistics).
posted by dialetheia at 6:26 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, it's all relative I guess; some are more than others. The point is that I don't think anyone can seriously claim that Hillary is more progressive than Sanders. As far as names of progressives in national politics, I dunno, Ralph Nader? Norman Solomon? Jill Stein?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:27 PM on March 5, 2016


What has Jill Stein ever been elected to? Only a Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative, I see, upon doing a search. She also received a whopping 32,816 votes out of 2,287,407 in the the 2010 Mass. gubernatorial election. To be considered a significant force in national politics, I don't think it's out of line to say that the person should at least come close to winning a significant election of some sort.
posted by raysmj at 7:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


I really don't understand this response. Why is Warren above criticism?

she's not (even though she had no directive to endorse someone at this point), but some of bernie's supporters finding the next nearest woman and lashing out at her isn't really the best look considering the stereotypes about some of his supporters. also from everything i've read her endorsement wasn't likely to help him to a win in her state which makes the attacks seem even more petty.
posted by nadawi at 7:13 PM on March 5, 2016 [6 favorites]


I was asked to name people involved in national politics who I thought were progressive, and I did. If you want to shit on them, that's your business. Granted, the left doesn't have much representation in powerful national offices. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the American electoral system is bought and paid for by capital. It's also probably why certain people are so enthused about Bernie, since he represents (in their eyes), at least, a rare chance to propel the left to the presidency.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:35 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Alan Grayson might count as progressive, although he always struck me as kind of a jerk. But jerks can be progressives too! There isn't a strong base of elected politicians who could be legitimately called progressive today. The Democratic party has worked pretty hard to make sure of that, ever since Clinton's realignment of the party through the Democratic Leadership Council.
posted by dis_integration at 8:08 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the American electoral system is bought and paid for by capital.

Really doesn't take a ton of capital to run for local office. The left needs to put in the work in the trenches.
posted by Miko at 8:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know too much about his record but isn't Keith Ellison pretty progressive?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 PM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Really doesn't take a ton of capital to run for local office. The left needs to put in the work in the trenches.

You do have to get through the Democratic party's gatekeeping, though. Just for example: "The Missouri Democratic Party is trying to block several Democratic candidates – who are also Ferguson movement leaders – from using a campaign tool called the Voter Activation Network (VAN)."
posted by dialetheia at 8:57 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]


The other experience that comes to mind re: the left winning legislative office was supporting progressive grassroots candidate Steve Novick in his Oregon Senate primary campaign in 2008. He almost pulled off an upset against the DSCC's chosen candidate, Jeff Merkley, but ended up losing after the DSCC poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the primary to defeat him. Don't get me wrong, I like Jeff Merkley - I might point to him and Ron Wyden as good examples of progressives in current elected office, at least on most issues - but it was a heartbreaker to work hard on a left grassroots campaign only to have the DSCC pour so much money into the race to defeat the grassroots.
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


You do have to get through the Democratic party's gatekeeping, though.

No, you don't, and I'm not sure why you'd accept that. You can work with a local Democractic party if you want to, but especially at the city/town level, the party organization becomes less and less relevant and grassroots campaigning tends to be completely sufficient. It is entirely not necessary to run on a party ballot for local office. Also, at the local level, "gatekeeping" often means very little.

I'd be more sympathetic to this point if I saw more people actually trying it. At least those in the article are doing something rather than just kvetching about it being hard to do something. In my own city, amazingly wonderful under-50 progressive candidates have done very well getting onto city council and establishing a turnaround majority in under 5 years, mainly through the advocacy efforts of one enthused member who galvanized the others. I would prefer to see a lot more of that and a lot less of "it's too hard to oppose the party!" Get the office, then oppose, shift, restructure, or leave the party, and start building a stronge progressive network. Get into the trenches. Do some actual work. It's not going to change by magic, wishful thinking, or a single major-office hero saving everything for everyone. It happens by work.
posted by Miko at 9:17 PM on March 5, 2016 [4 favorites]


Sounds a lot like what the Working Families Party is already doing with some success: "The Working Families Party’s agenda—frankly redistributionist and devoted to social equality—targets a class of Democratic elected officials who, in the view of many liberals, seem to listen more to their moneyed donors than to the left-wing rank and file. Aggressive, tactical, and dedicated to winning, the WFP would like to force Democrats—and the country—to become more liberal by mobilizing the party base, changing the terms of the debate, and taking out centrist incumbents in primaries. ... In the Empire State, where it was founded, the WFP is undeniably influential. It’s a force in city politics, but also makes its presence felt in the state legislature."
posted by dialetheia at 10:16 PM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


The thing that the right understands about politics that the center-left in this country does not is that when a politician doesn't do what you want, you flip out.

The Republican Party is in disarray because of the very real costs of catering to the crazies. I don't think throwing more tantrums like the Tea Party is what the left needs to do to succeed.

I vote for old boring tactics such as voter registration, get out the vote and figuring out how to get the base to vote in non-presidential years.
posted by msalt at 12:04 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Diathlethia:

The "larger"/"smaller" state stuff is totally nonsensical - what difference does size make? Clearly the issue in those "larger" states was race.

Source? Feels like you're waving away an obvious fact: Sanders has struggled in any state with substantial population density. Massachusetts is a neighboring state with a ton of college students, 82.6% white, and only 8.3% Black, yet Bernie lost. The fact that pre-election polls showed he would lose even worse -- which is debatable -- doesn't make his loss more impressive.

Maybe Bernie has soaked up a small state mentality living in Vermont? Who knows why, but it's a striking fact of his campaign to date. Winning Nebraska and Kansas, losing Louisiana? Check. And those smaller states have fewer blue collar voters than, say, Massachusetts.

Citation, please. I'm the first in my family to go to college and most of the Sanders supporters I know here are also from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds. If you have data to back up that assertion [that Sanders' base is affluent college students], I'd like to see it

No offense but those are anecdata of course. There's no data I can find breaking down affluent vs less affluent college students. But I showed that despite Bernie's very well-documented support among young voters, Hillary does better among HS or less education compared to some college or college grads. Are you seriously arguing that college students are not more affluent that HS grads or dropouts as a group?

One thing very evident to me is that the Sanders campaign, while tackling the need for legal pot, free college tuition (without means testing) and fast wifi, has been next to silent on either civil rights issues or labor issues (which is indirect proof of what he considers his base). I googled transcripts of Democratic debates and checked the first five that came up -- Feb. 11th, Feb. 5th, Jan. 17th, Dec. 19th, and Nov. 14th.

Bernie Sanders did not mention unions once in five debates. To be precise, he mentioned the Soviet Union once, and credit unions twice, but not labor unions.

What evidence do you have that Bernie appeals to blue collar voters?
posted by msalt at 1:02 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


What evidence do you have that Bernie appeals to blue collar voters?

His platform?
Our nation’s infrastructure is collapsing, and the American people know it. Every day, they drive on roads with unforgiving potholes and over bridges that are in disrepair. They wait in traffic jams and ride in railroads and subways that are overcrowded. They see airports bursting at the seams.

For too many years, we have dramatically underfunded the physical infrastructure that our economy depends on. That is why I have proposed the Rebuild America Act, to invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our infrastructure. It would be paid for by closing loopholes that allow profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes by, among other things, shifting their profits to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens.

Importantly, the Rebuild America Act will support more than thirteen million good-paying jobs – jobs that our economy desperately needs.

— Senator Bernie Sanders
posted by mikelieman at 1:26 AM on March 6, 2016


Bernie's platform doesn't prove than anyone likes him. He has stuff in there aimed at African American voters too, I'm sure.

Frankly, this seems like pretty obvious pandering to his strategic target, as is "free college and legal pot yay!" Sanders has said he was the only person who didn't get high in the 1960s.
posted by msalt at 1:46 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]




Tumblr urls are rando insta stuff
posted by infini at 4:08 AM on March 6, 2016


What evidence do you have that Bernie appeals to blue collar voters?

A Clear Trend: Union and Progressive Bosses Favor Clinton; Their Members Want Sanders
Every major union or progressive group that let its members decide who they want to endorse in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary have selected Bernie Sanders, while all of Hillary Clinton’s major endorsements have come from groups in which the leadership decides.

“It’s perhaps the clearest example yet of Clinton’s powerful appeal to the Democratic Party’s elite, even as support for Sanders explodes among the rank and file,” reports Zaid Jilani at The Intercept
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:57 AM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


If the only message you pick up from Sanders is 'free college and legal pot' then I don't think you've been paying sufficient attention.
posted by localhuman at 6:07 AM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


You do have to get through the Democratic party's gatekeeping, though.
And this is, fundamentally, where you lose me. Yes, it is hard to run for local office without the backing of the local Democratic establishment. But you are supporting a candidate who is running on a platform of political revolution. He says he is going to take on really entrenched power structures, which the most powerful people and institutions in our society will fight tooth and nail to uphold. He is going to have to do that despite having a House which is gerrymandered to ensure a reactionary majority, despite having Supreme Court decisions that guarantee the unchecked influence of money on politics, and despite the fact that many members of his own party are people whom his supporters think are personifications of evil, corruption, and everything that is bad in the world. You think this task is going to be easier than winning a city council seat without the backing of the local party? If you found that too demoralizing, what makes you think you are up for the unbelievably huge challenges you would face after Bernie won the election? Because I promise you, what would come after a Bernie win would be much harder than winning the election itself.

I am certainly more aligned with Bernie's political positions than with Hillary's. I also want a flying pony, but I am not going to vote for someone running on a flying-ponies-for-everyone platform unless that person can give me some indication of how that's going to be accomplished.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:26 AM on March 6, 2016 [5 favorites]


First I'm saying why is Glenn Beck on ABC on Stephanopoulos? Why are they giving this guy attention? And then he gets on there and says Trump is dangerous, and like Hitler. Last I'd seen of this dude he was widely written off as wacko, and here HE is, also saying Trump is evil. 2016 may be the weirdest year.
posted by cashman at 6:27 AM on March 6, 2016


the mormons are making a weird showing late in the campaign...
posted by nadawi at 6:34 AM on March 6, 2016


Sounds a lot like what the Working Families Party is already doing with some success:

Just to note that their relative success, and the success of the Conservative Party on the right, would probably only transfer to the IIRC two other states that use fusion balloting like NY.

tl;dr: WFP can (and usually does) nominate the same person as the Democratic candidate; in the general election the votes for John Smith (D) and John Smith (WFP) are all just votes for the candidate John Smith and get added up. This is a weird way to run elections.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:28 AM on March 6, 2016


tl;dr: WFP can (and usually does) nominate the same person as the Democratic candidate; in the general election the votes for John Smith (D) and John Smith (WFP) are all just votes for the candidate John Smith and get added up. This is a weird way to run elections.

If a party in NY can get a specific number of votes, they can stay on the ballot without another petition drive, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY... So, I guess the baseline number of votes WFP gets from people who would rather not hold their noses and vote the DEM line is sufficient...

I can tell you, on more than on occasion has my vote gone that way.

tl:dr; The DNC has failed to meet my expectations, so why not pull the WFP lever?
posted by mikelieman at 7:32 AM on March 6, 2016


The difference isn't about retaining ballot access, it's that fusion balloting allows minor parties (and voters) to have their electoral cake and eat it too instead of having to worry about all the usual strategic-voting concerns. It's much easier for WFP or Con to get a vote because I can vote for them *without switching my candidate*.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:50 AM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


American Spring
posted by infini at 11:08 AM on March 6, 2016


It's interesting how you dismiss states he won just because he campaigned there. All you've shown is that when people get to hear what Sanders has to say, in many states they like it more than they like Clinton's platform. It's also funny how he "only" won by 10% - nearly every pundit predicted that Clinton would win Oklahoma.

Arrgh.

1. Actually the late polls in Oklahoma suggested Bernie had a strong chance of winning -- even as the final Sooner Poll showed Hillary by 9. 538 called it for Bernie two days earlier.

2. The Oklahoma Democratic Primary is open. The Republican primary is closed. And there are a substantial number of independents registered in OK. So you had a lot of conservatives who refuse to identify with the GOP who could only vote in the Dem primary and voted for Bernie. You COULD argue that it was because Bernie appeals to conservatives, but 8% of the final total in OK went to candidates you've never heard of. There was a strong anti-Hillary strain in the voting. It's notable that Hillary came close to winning Oklahoma City and was within a point in Tulsa. The 8% mostly came from rural parts of the state where Cruz and Trump ran strong.

So don't look at OK as some sort of magical breakthrough for Bernie. The conditions were unlike most anywhere else in the country.
posted by dw at 11:09 AM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Every major union or progressive group that let its members decide who they want to endorse in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary have selected Bernie Sanders, while all of Hillary Clinton’s major endorsements have come from groups in which the leadership decides.

Did you actually read the article? (Your link was some aggregator.) I don't know what the Intercept is, but when you look at their evidence, it's a huge stretch.
"every major union ... that let its members decide" turns out to be one single union, the Communication Workers. Bernie's biggest supporter, the Nurses Union, endorsed him by executive committee decision.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been endorsed by at least 8 major unions including the SEIU, AFCSME and the two big teachers unions.

Sanders hasn't said boo about unions in this campaign, either. I googled Democratic debate transcripts, and in the five that came up, Bernie didn't mutter the word union once (unless you count "credit union" and "Soviet Union" which doesn't even exist anymore).
posted by msalt at 11:52 AM on March 6, 2016


So don't look at OK as some sort of magical breakthrough for Bernie. The conditions were unlike most anywhere else in the country. ..You COULD argue that it was because Bernie appeals to conservatives

Huh? He did win among conservatives in OK according to exit polls. And he just won even bigger in Kansas and Nebraska.

Re: the working class, I'm not sure if we're moving goalposts to only mean a particular segment of poor people, and I'm not interested in bothering to argue against just-so stories about all of his young supporters being rich in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. The evidence we have indicates that he does better with white people with less education and lower incomes overall, whether you want to argue that young people shouldn't count toward those numbers or not. But here are some links about Sanders' support for and among labor, as well as some arguments that his coalition is broader than just rich white educated people. One other place to explore is e.g. the Reuter's tracking poll - you can sort by income and race and all sorts of things. Sanders has been leading by quite a bit among white people who make less than $25k and less than $50k, as well as less-educated white people.

The Sanders coalition is not what we thought it was: " he fared best with economically downscale voters and won over a number of blue-collar cities and towns that had been Clinton redoubts in her 2008 campaign. In so doing, Sanders essentially flipped the '08 script, in which Clinton's main challenger, Barack Obama, relied disproportionately on higher-income voters and those with college degrees."

Bernie Sanders is making gains with less-affluent whites: "But his coalition has evolved over the last few months. He now fares much better among less affluent whites than Mr. Obama did eight years ago, suggesting he’s attracting a group that traditionally supports more moderate establishment candidates, someone like Hillary Clinton. If confirmed in the voting, it would vindicate his hope of building a progressive coalition based more on class than the coalitions put together by liberal predecessors."

As for labor, I'm not surprised worker's rights don't come up in corporate debates - climate change has barely come up either and it's one of Sanders' biggest stump speech points. You could try listening to one of the hundred videos of his 1 1/2 hour stump speech though - he covers all sorts of ground in his usual address. But here are some links anyway:
Bernie Sanders' issue page on worker's rights
Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, deserves labor endorsement
Bernie Sanders' relationship to unions
Unions are Sanders' biggest campaign contributors, in stark contrast to Clinton
Machinist union members outraged by Hillary Clinton endorsement, prefer Sanders
His $15 minimum wage support (Clinton only supports $12) and single-payer health care (Clinton says it's impossible) have been two of unions' highest policy priorities - Fight for $15 in particular has been one of the most successful union policy pushes in recent years, thanks in part to SEIU. That isn't even to mention TPP, strongly opposed by unions, which Sanders opposes and Clinton calls "the gold standard of trade agreements."
Bernie Sanders gets group endorsements (incl. unions) when members decide
AFGE Union members outraged by Clinton endorsement

Finally, re: running for office, I was responding to a comment saying that it didn't require much capital to run for office at all. At no point did I say anything about how it was too hard or impossible, I just wanted to push back on this privileged idea that running for office is easy and anyone can do it with few roadblocks. Those Ferguson organizers being shut out by the Democratic party is a good example of how less privileged people will have less success with that approach. As important as it is to tell everyone how much work they need to be doing, it would also be nice to see some attention to things we could do to open things up so that people do feel like they could run for office even if they aren't more privileged in terms of money, connections, and time. I don't know anyone who would deny that people with more money, connections, and time will be more successful at that game. We've also talked a fair amount about how gender and generational differences have made a difference in how established party folks respond to newcomers. Yes, of course, people can get past that, but it doesn't make anything easier to ignore it. Besides, I believe Sanders did exactly what everyone is lecturing the left to do here anyway: worked his way up from smaller elections all the way from Burlington, VT to Congress to the presidency.
posted by dialetheia at 11:53 AM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


I can't believe we're even questioning whether Bernie Sanders is more pro-union than Clinton. He has been walking picket lines for decades. She sat on the board of one of the most anti-union companies in the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she's changed her stated position now (though her super PAC still takes massive donations from the Walton family). But it's disingenuous to say that someone who only "found labor" in the past decade could be more pro-union than someone who's been living and breathing workers rights for their whole life.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:27 PM on March 6, 2016 [10 favorites]


Looks like Elizabeth Warren is getting some heat from Sanders fans who were disappointed with her lack of endorsement of him.

Ooh, is this the part where we start talking about how Warren is too ignorant, poorly educated or religious to vote in her own best interest? Shall we get someone in to talk about how she deserves to be patronized?
posted by happyroach at 12:34 PM on March 6, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh come on. A lot of progressives were legitimately disappointed that Warren didn't take more of an active role here by endorsing. It isn't just about gender, for crying out loud - before Sanders started running, she was the chosen figurehead of the Occupy wing of the party - does no one remember all the Draft Warren stuff? It wasn't ridiculous to think that she might endorse, or to be disappointed with her for not endorsing. I was disappointed - I wanted her to run more than Sanders, and I was surprised she didn't take more of an active role here. I think I understand her reasons, and I absolutely don't condone people making misogynist comments to or about her in any context, but people wanted her to endorse because they saw her as one of the leaders of this movement, not because they're telling her about her own best interests or whatever.
posted by dialetheia at 12:39 PM on March 6, 2016 [8 favorites]


dialetheia: The evidence we have indicates that he does better with white people with less education and lower incomes overall, whether you want to argue that young people shouldn't count toward those numbers or not.

I'm arguing that college students are technically lower income (usually zero income) and "less education" because by definition they don't have a college degree yet, which doesn't mean they are lower class. This is his core group by all accounts, and it skews statistics.I showed you results from 12 states where Hillary is stronger with HS or less education.

The sources you list are interesting, and thanks for those. Neither accounts for students though, and they discuss only Iowa and New Hampshire, which were pro-Bernie outliers. He didn't win especially with lower income voters in New Hampshire, he won with every group across the board. Since NH, Hillary has been the clear leader with low-income and low-education voters, e.g. in Nevada, and in South Carolina, where she dominated: 82%-18% among those making less than $30,000.

You can't ascribe all of that to race either, as there are plenty of poor whites in the state and that was her highest margin of any income group. And why shouldn't Black voters count in a discussion of the working class, anyway? The New Yorker noted that she beat Sanders in the Appalachian counties of Virginia, pretty much the archetype of white poverty, and that he has been dramatically weak in urban areas, the home of the working class.

Bottom line: as the New Yorker says, "The narrowness of Sanders’s appeal, and particularly his failure to move minority voters, is the central flaw in his candidacy. But the romp in Minnesota—Lake Wobegon territory—also suggests the scale of his achievement. Improbably, Sanders has managed to ignite the dream of democratic socialism among the serene parts of the country. He has radicalized the above-average."
posted by msalt at 12:46 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


As for labor, I'm not surprised worker's rights don't come up in corporate debates

Boy, that's an easy hand-wave away. Except, Hillary and Martin O'Malley did discuss unions in those debates.

Sanders has talked about income inequality for roughly half his time in the debates; are you really arguing that he had no opportunity to bring up unions in all that time?

Or does Bernie think unions aren't part of the solution to income inequality? Because it's pretty clear that the problem he describes coincides almost exactly with the decline of the labor movement.
posted by msalt at 12:49 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here's Bernie's new 5-minute documentary on farm workers rights.

If you are legitimately questioning whether Bernie Sanders is pro-union, then I think we live in different spheres of reality. And I say this as a person who has walked many picket lines, majored in labor relations in college, and worked for the national office of a large labor union.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:57 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bernie Sanders on labor unions and the middle class
Interview with Bernie Sanders on labor unions
Bernie Sanders explains unions to young people
Bernie Sanders on union-busters
And here's his stump speech, since it seems you haven't seen it

Honestly I will never understand this argument that Clinton, who sat on the Walmart board as they fought to destroy unions, supports trade agreements like TPP until they become politically disadvantageous, and goes back on her word when she promises unions that she'll oppose trade deals, is somehow better on labor issues than Sanders, who has been a staunch supporter of labor unions his entire life. Talk about cherry-picking.
posted by dialetheia at 1:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [9 favorites]


If you legitimately are questioning whether Bernie Sanders is pro-union, then I think we live in different spheres of reality.

I could say the same thing about Hillary.

Is Bernie pro-union? Sure, in a vague, "that's nice" way. But he's not talking about it in debates, or making any proposals on the subject a big part of his campaign. He was a carpenter for years. Did he join the union?
posted by msalt at 1:05 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sanders writes op-ed on free trade in today's Detroit Free Press: "Since I have been in Congress, I’ve helped lead the opposition to these trade agreements. Not only did I vote against them, I stood with workers on picket lines in opposition to them. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton sided with corporate America and supported almost all of them."
posted by dialetheia at 1:11 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


Is Bernie pro-union? Sure, in a vague, "that's nice" way. But he's not talking about it in debates, or making any proposals on the subject a big part of his campaign. He was a carpenter for years. Did he join the union?

The way you're pushing FUD about Sanders' support of unions is just bizarre to watch. In reality, it's clear that Sanders has been as big of a supporter of unions in Congress as anyone. What's the source of this angst about it? Just google Bernie Sanders and Unions and you'll get story after story after story, like this one.
posted by dis_integration at 1:22 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


dialetheia: Bernie Sanders on labor unions and the middle class
Interview with Bernie Sanders on labor unions
Bernie Sanders explains unions to young people
Bernie Sanders on union-busters
And here's his stump speech, since it seems you haven't seen it


Thanks for the links. No offense, but I'm not going to watch hours of Bernie's campaign videos hoping to find evidence for the point you're trying to prove. I was amused to see that two of your videos are from 2007, and another from 2011. Kind of underlines my point that this is not a significant part of his current campaign.

I did find a transcript of his hour-long stump speech. Ctrl-F "union" -- not found. Same result for "labor" and "unions."
posted by msalt at 1:22 PM on March 6, 2016




He was a carpenter for years. Did he join the union?

Let's see.... looks like yes.
posted by dialetheia at 1:24 PM on March 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


Some more picketing.. And then I'll stop with this.
posted by dis_integration at 1:25 PM on March 6, 2016 [3 favorites]


No offense, but I'm not going to watch hours of Bernie's campaign videos hoping to find evidence for the point you're trying to prove.

With all of the points others have raised about Hillary's questionable record on labor, none of which you've taken any interest in responding to directly, I think the burden of proof is on you at this point. She's collected more endorsements from large labor unions because she's the chalk favorite to win the nomination and they're making the same pragmatic / electability calculations that many voters are. That doesn't mean she has any actual labor bona fides to speak of, and her position with Wal*Mart and flip-flopping on TPP are major strikes against her that you haven't bothered to acknowledge or try to explain away.

You've made some good points about Bernie's failure to make in-roads among some classes of voters, but your goalpost-moving and yeah-butting is raising bad faith bells to me. Labor largely supports Hillary in 2016, but Sanders has supported labor for much longer than that.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:36 PM on March 6, 2016 [15 favorites]


No offense, but I'm not going to watch hours of Bernie's campaign videos hoping to find evidence for the point you're trying to prove.

It has become a derail at this point.
posted by futz at 1:39 PM on March 6, 2016


Bernie Sanders On Workers Rights (Cmd+F "union" = 19 results found.)

Bernie Sanders on Union and Worker Co-ops

In June 2015, the South Carolina AFL-CIO passed a resolution supporting his presidential candidacy. Erin McKee, President of the South Carolina AFL-CIO, said in a press release: “Nobody in a very long time has stood up for working people and labor like Bernie Sanders has.”

[...]

In his very first term in Congress back in 1992, Bernie introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a comprehensive bill designed to empower unions to more easily organize and negotiate with employers. He did not give up on the bill despite strong Republican opposition as he re-introduced the bill every two years for nearly a decade.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:40 PM on March 6, 2016 [7 favorites]


No offense, but I'm not going to watch hours of Bernie's campaign videos

(link to CSPAN): Bernie Sanders on labor unions and the middle class ( Bernie Sanders: Labor Unions and the American Middle Class (6/25/2007) )

There is no way, in good-faith, to classify CSPAN coverage of the Senate on legislative policy 9 years ago as a campaign video.
posted by mikelieman at 2:02 PM on March 6, 2016 [6 favorites]


The anti-TPP /FTA ideas are just as terrible as Trump's wall.
posted by humanfont at 3:05 PM on March 6, 2016


mikelieman: There is no way, in good-faith, to classify CSPAN coverage of the Senate on legislative policy 9 years ago as a campaign video.

You mean the video clip of "an epic speech by Bernie" posted to YouTube in July by Catholics4Bernie? Seems pretty campaigny to me. The point though is that they had to find something from 9 years ago, not from this campaign. But futz is right, this is becoming a derail.

TonyCPSU: Labor largely supports Hillary in 2016, but Sanders has supported labor for much longer than that.

Sure, and I am not trying to argue that Hillary's record is as liberal as Bernie's (though she also joined picketers outside Donald Trump's hotel in 2015).

What I am saying is that he is not making unions an issue in this debate, not in his stump speech that I was challenged to check, nor in the debates. it's similar to civil rights. He has a great record on affirmative action, etc. but he's not making it an issue in this race. That matters, and I think it's affecting vote results.
posted by msalt at 5:50 PM on March 6, 2016


And I think you're failing to distinguish between empty pandering to unions and supporting substantive labor issues, like single-payer health care, $15 minimum wage, and opposing free trade agreements.
posted by dialetheia at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2016 [12 favorites]


I believe Sanders did exactly what everyone is lecturing the left to do here anyway: worked his way up from smaller elections all the way from Burlington, VT to Congress to the presidency.

I'm aware of that, of course. It's ironic indeed. I wonder if the message will sink in, but I doubt it.
posted by Miko at 9:36 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


> The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders: The names of Berta Cáceres’s murderers are yet unknown. But we know who killed her.

huh, the top 5 'most popular' articles in the nation right now...
  1. Democrats and Republicans Are Quietly Planning a Corporate Giveaway—to the Tune of $400 Billion - "key leaders of the Democratic Party—including the president—are getting on board with Republicans"
  2. The Clinton Email Bernie Sanders Should Bring Up in Sunday’s Debate - "In supporting a free-trade deal with Colombia, she claimed workers there would have better rights than Americans. Does that include being murdered by death squads?"
  3. The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders - "I’m tempted to end this post with a call on Bernie bros and sisters to hold Hillary Clinton responsible and to ask, when possible in town halls and meet and greets, if she ever met Cáceres, or if she is still proud of the hell she helped routinize in Honduras. But, really, Cáceres’s assassination shouldn’t be reduced to the idiocy of American electoral politics. All people of goodwill should ask Hillary Clinton those questions."
  4. These Journalists Dedicated Their Lives to Telling Other People’s Stories. What Happens When No One Wants to Print Their Words Anymore? - "In the past year, workers have voted to unionize at Gawker, Vice, Salon, and ThinkProgress, affiliating with the Writers Guild of America East, AFL-CIO. In January, The Huffington Post’s management voluntarily recognized the WGAE to represent 262 employees."
  5. Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote - "Now Hillary is running again. This time she’s facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand. What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work? No. Quite the opposite."
posted by kliuless at 10:04 PM on March 6, 2016 [1 favorite]


Apparently Bernie didn't support the auto industry bailout. Also in last night's debate he said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
posted by humanfont at 3:43 AM on March 7, 2016


some background to that (black v white poverty) here.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:07 AM on March 7, 2016


Apparently, humanfont is not a fan of context.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:21 AM on March 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


Charles Blow: The End of American Idealism
[Watching the GOP debate] I kept thinking with dread, “One of these men might actually be the next president” — either the demagogue from New York, the political arsonist from Texas or the empty suit from Florida. (I see no path for the governor from Ohio.)

In another political season, liberals might greet such a prospect with glee. But this is not that season.

On the Democratic side, the leading candidate is a hawkish political shape shifter, too cozy with big money, whose use of a private email server has led to an F.B.I. investigation, and who most Americans don’t trust.

(Around two-thirds of Americans don’t trust either party’s front-runner.)

Her lone opponent is a self-described democratic socialist who seeks to cram sweeping generational changes — hinged on massive systemic disruptions and significant tax hikes — into a presidential term. And he says that he will be able to do this with the help of a political revolution, one that has yet to materialize at the polls.
posted by OmieWise at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2016


huh, the top 5 'most popular' articles in the nation right now...

That list really surprised me and I wondered where you got it. On revisit I realized you meant The Nation. It looked like you were just italicizing "the nation," as in the US, for emphasis. Heh.
posted by Miko at 7:51 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yeah, The Nation supporting Sanders over Clinton is less than shocking.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:19 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also in last night's debate he said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.

There were several aspects to that gaffe. Perhaps the most striking was using the word "ghetto," which in recent decades is pretty much only used as a racist adjective meaning "poverty-lifestyle" or "low-class" by clueless suburbanites. As in, "She added the free milk to her espresso to make some kind of ghetto latté."
posted by msalt at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


That line was almost deliberately constructed to offend both the black people it was presumably meant to court (not all of them live in ghettos) and the working-class white people he's spent much of his time courting up until now (many of them know quite well what it is to be poor, even if they don't have the extra burden of being black in America).

It's kind of a typical liberal/progressive gaffe. The classic stereotype of an ivory tower progressive is someone who examines problems and tries to solve them without directly involving affected communities in that process, and Bernie surely didn't need to look any more like one of those.

I don't think it matters in the long run, though.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:52 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


That line was almost deliberately constructed to offend both the black people it was presumably meant to court (not all of them live in ghettos) and the working-class white people he's spent much of his time courting up until now (many of them know quite well what it is to be poor, even if they don't have the extra burden of being black in America).

Maybe. Maybe not.
posted by zarq at 9:48 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


That article, is it quietly calling for a basic income (e.g., replacing means-tested welfare with direct payments to low-income folks)?

I wonder if that could be sold as "Social Security For All". I imagine that it would be wildly popular. So of course we will be told that it can never happen.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:00 AM on March 7, 2016


Zarq's article is a thought-provoking read. of course, it is perception, not reality, that the white working classes/middle classes aren't receiving benefits (somewhat old numbers, but still, doubt it's changed much). It's just that there is such a very poor understanding of what "welfare" means, and who gets it. One person's "earned entitlements" are another's "welfare." That's at least as much a rhetorical issue as anything - Democrats have done a poor job showing people what government is actually doing for them. And I think this really downplays the race issue; people think that recipients of welfare programs like SNAP and housing benefits are mostly minority (they're not), and Republicans easily exploit this cultural wedge.

It is worth considering, though. I can see the very real resentment - and to some degree, sympathize - with people who work very hard, work extra hours, work one, two jobs, sacrifice time with their families or time off, to stay afloat or get ahead. It is hard to survive today, especially with a family. There is plenty of fuel for resentment in that. Point really is, it should be much easier for everyone to thrive.

I am so behind a guaranteed basic income. I don't think we'll see it for decades, if at all. I'm afraid the "job" based economy will have to collapse even further to get us there. I am certain it will over time, through technology alone, though it's not a happy prospect because we'll probably be stupid enough to make it hurt to the maximum before doing anything about it.
posted by Miko at 10:13 AM on March 7, 2016


mostly minority (they're not)

Poorly phrased, meant that the plurality of recipients by racial category is white.
posted by Miko at 10:15 AM on March 7, 2016


Re: the auto bailout, the WaPo has a better explanation here. The way that was administered was more complicated than the way it was presented last night. Sanders supported the auto bailout but voted against releasing TARP funds to the Bush administration, some of which were for a separate, hastily added auto bailout, because he did not support the blank check to Wall Street. It just highlights the way they used that auto bailout money as a carrot to force Democrats into supporting the TARP financial services bailout. As Michael Moore points out, that bailout didn't save or create a single job in Flint.
posted by dialetheia at 10:31 AM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


As Michael Moore points out, that bailout didn't save or create a single job in Flint.

So the bailout didn't save every job in the auto industry. It just saved 200,000 or so. Are you saying they should have just kissed all those jobs goodbye?

Sanders supported the auto bailout but voted against releasing TARP funds to the Bush administration, some of which were for a separate, hastily added auto bailout, because he did not support the blank check to Wall Street.

And that just demonstrates the danger of ideological purity. In the real world compromises have to be made. The compromise TARP bill that Clinton signed actually did save hundreds of thousands of auto jobs. The purist bill that Sanders backed never passed.

So it seems that Sanders was willing to destroy and ruin thousand of workers lives in order to stick it to Wall Street.

My more charitable guess is that Harry Reid told Sanders that his vote wasn't needed for this bill and gave Sanders permission to cast his vanity vote. The less charitable interpretation is that Sanders was willing to toss peoples lives away in the name of ideological purity.
posted by JackFlash at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


So it seems that Sanders was willing to destroy and ruin thousand of workers lives in order to stick it to Wall Street.

I don't get this apparent notion that the bills that come before Congress are the only bills that can come before Congress, or even that they aren't in fact written by Congress (or at least should be). The fact that Sanders didn't support a bill doesn't mean that he didn't want a bill that did much the same, without certain repugnant aspects to it.
posted by Etrigan at 11:16 AM on March 7, 2016 [10 favorites]


And what is your alternative? That dictator Sanders can pass any bill that he likes? Just wanting a bill doesn't save any jobs. Passing a bill saves jobs.
posted by JackFlash at 11:27 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


They could have passed this separate bill that he did support: "Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different: (Sanders) "The problem is if you don't act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls."
posted by dialetheia at 11:29 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


The could have but he didn't have the votes to do so. So Sanders' posturing was worthless. Wishes are not actions.
posted by JackFlash at 11:33 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Factcheck.org calls it "quite a stretch" to say he voted against the auto bailout anyway, given the way it unfolded - the auto bailout wasn't even part of what was pitched with respect to that second TARP disbursement:

"Clinton referred to a bill that came up in January 2009, but that measure was mostly about bailing out failing financial institutions and reducing home foreclosures, not about saving the auto industry, as Clinton claimed.
The Senate vote on Jan. 15, 2009, was on a measure that would have blocked the Treasury Department from gaining access to the second half of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. President-elect Obama urged Senate Democrats to allow the release of the second $350 billion — which included an additional $4 billion already promised to automakers by Bush. But Obama made no mention at the time of using TARP to provide any more money for the automakers.
In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama’s chief economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, promised that Obama would devote $50 billion to $100 billion of the $350 billion to “a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis.”
The only mention of possible aid to automakers came almost as an afterthought, in the second to last paragraph. Summers wrote: “Firms in the auto industry … will only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability.”
posted by dialetheia at 11:36 AM on March 7, 2016


So it seems that Sanders was willing to destroy and ruin thousand of workers lives in order to stick it to Wall Street.

He didn't want to vote for what he felt was a bad bill that kicked the can down the road, and was supporting an alternative bill that he thought was better.

I don't think he was posturing. I think he was legitimately trying to do what he felt was right.
posted by zarq at 11:37 AM on March 7, 2016 [8 favorites]


The fact that Sanders didn't support a bill doesn't mean that he didn't want a bill that did much the same, without certain repugnant aspects to it.

It does, necessarily, mean he thinks that those bad things are more important than the good things it would do. If he didn't think that, he would have voted for it. Either that or he is literally irrational.

I mean, the likely truth is that he wanted TARP to pass, just for it to pass with other people's votes. But it already had more than 70 votes, so he got to have his preferred policy outcome (between that and the status quo) while being seen to oppose it. Surprise surprise, dealing with collective action problems like this is one reason legislators have parties and leadership.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:38 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


The could have but he didn't have the votes to do so. So Sanders' posturing was worthless. Wishes are not actions.

Actions were already taken. Additional actions that help one constituency but harm others are not moral imperatives, and Sanders' role as an independent caucusing with the Democrats was precisely to hold down the left edge of the debate. If he isn't out there working for the maximum possible good (call it "posturing" if you like) then the Democrats to his right have less space to operate in, and the end result would have been much worse.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:40 AM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


I think he was legitimately trying to do what he felt was right.

Sure, but what he felt was right didn't save one job. The compromise bill is the one that saved jobs. That is what is dangerous about ideological purity.
posted by JackFlash at 11:42 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sure, but what he felt was right didn't save one job. The compromise bill is the one that saved jobs.

Because that's the one that passed. It doesn't imply anything about the one he supported.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:48 AM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


The one he wanted to pass is irrelevant. It would never pass in the Senate so it was a useless bill. Sanders refused to vote for the bill that could pass the Senate.
posted by JackFlash at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2016


If a bill that doesn't pass is irrelevant, then isn't a vote against a bill that does pass also irrelevant?
posted by Etrigan at 11:54 AM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


It would never pass in the Senate so it was a useless bill.

It would have had a far greater chance of passing if the bailout bill failed. That is what is dangerous about having no ideology.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:57 AM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can argue imaginary alternate history all day. The fact remains that Clinton voted for the bill that save GM and Chrysler and Sanders voted against it.
posted by JackFlash at 12:24 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't think he was posturing. I think he was legitimately trying to do what he felt was right.

I think in light of the comments about Clinton here, it's perfectly legitimate to look at Sander's actions in the worst possible way. So, we can simply assume he was playing with people's lives in order to score ideological points
posted by happyroach at 12:27 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Again, it wasn't even sold to the Senate as an auto bailout bill at the time, so you're the one being counterfactual - that is what happened with some of those funds once they were released, but the letter Clinton describes mentioned auto companies only as part of a comprehensive restructuring, and it was an afterthought to the bank relief that was the point of that funding.
posted by dialetheia at 12:31 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


Arguing backwards from outcomes is how wacky conspiracy theories get formed.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't think he was posturing. I think he was legitimately trying to do what he felt was right.


I think he was motivated by anger at Wall Street, which may have blinded him to the practical effects of his vote against TARP. His immediate response last night, 7 years later, was immediate and visceral anger.
posted by msalt at 12:45 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I am of no fixed opinion in regards to this matter.
posted by y2karl at 12:48 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:01 PM on March 7, 2016 [7 favorites]


Born to be Mild (Bob Newhart)
posted by msalt at 1:14 PM on March 7, 2016


JackFlash: "You can argue imaginary alternate history all day."

Ooh, let's do one where Eisenhower accepts the Democratic nomination in '52!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:24 PM on March 7, 2016


it wasn't even sold to the Senate as an auto bailout bill at the time

Not only that, the law is written explicitly as emergency support for the financial industry, it wasn't intended to provide funds for the auto industry. From wikipedia:
On December 19, George W. Bush announced that he had approved the bailout plan, which would give loans of $17.4 billion to U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, stating that under present economic conditions, "allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action."[82] Bush provided $13.4 billion now, with another $4 billion available in February 2009. Funds would be made available from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[83] General Motors would get $9.4 billion, and Chrysler $4 billion.[84]

However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to “financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. It was also argued that providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions".[85] On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding.[citation needed]
And to address that final "citation needed", here's Bush explaining that an auto bailout bill couldn't make it through congress so the executive branch will "step in" and provide funds "drawn from the financial rescue package congress approved earlier this fall [2008]".

The automotive bailout bill died in the senate despite Sander's support. The entire automotive bailout program, as it actually occurred, was made up whole cloth by the executive branch by dipping into the TARP program's very deep pockets. Voting against TARP and voting against the auto bailout are apples and oranges.
posted by peeedro at 1:36 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


which may have blinded him to the practical effects of his vote against TARP

Which, considering TARP passed and became law, were precisely zero.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:40 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Bloomberg Out.

So, that's one less thing to worry about.
posted by schmod at 2:11 PM on March 7, 2016 [6 favorites]


Politifact rates her claim about the gun industry being protected from all liability as false, too - maybe this is why Sanders seemed a little confused about what exactly she was claiming in that exchange.
posted by dialetheia at 2:12 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


in other news, I wonder how happy the cast of SNL was to do that "Racists for Trump" commercial after having to play with that deranged yam earlier this year.
posted by angrycat at 2:44 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


>>which may have blinded him to the practical effects of his vote against TARP
>Which, considering TARP passed and became law, were precisely zero.

By that logic, his vote against the Iraq War AUMF had no effect either, but he can't stop talking about it. Are you saying that Bernie was posturing by voting against TARP because he knew it would pass anyway -- but might have done differently if it mattered?

This race is between a purist and a pragmatic candidate who compromises to accomplish more. It's disingenuous to disavow the practical effects of that difference by saying his stances have no practical effect, because that's exactly the argument against him.

And the auto bailout bill he wanted to pass failed, arguably because he is not good at compromising and making deals. That too is a practical effect.
posted by msalt at 4:14 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


For the umpteenth time, it wasn't an auto bailout bill, it was TARP, which as peeedro explained did not even include language about the auto bailout, and your "arguable" assertion that he is "not good at compromising and making deals" is based on zero evidence whatsoever. I'm sure his "not being good at compromising" is why he was able to get the landmark VA bill through.
posted by dialetheia at 4:31 PM on March 7, 2016 [11 favorites]


By that logic, his vote against the Iraq War AUMF had no effect either,

It had no practical effect, that's correct. However, it absolutely had a rhetorical and strategic effect, as I acknowledged above in reference to his holding down the left pole of the TARP debate. It's really not hard to distinguish between these two different effects unless your argument depends on not being able to distinguish them.

I also love the unstated assumption that getting to a deal is "accomplish[ing] more." Take it away, John Cole:
Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.
There is absolutely a time for deal-making, but there is a strategic importance to having people in your caucus who hold down your side's maximalist position.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:58 PM on March 7, 2016 [5 favorites]


With all due respect, if you have to type "for the umpteenth time" it might be a good idea to consider not typing what comes next. It's a good sign you might be getting a little close to the discussion for perspective, as others have noted.

My comment is very clear on the difference between TARP and the separate auto bailout bill; that's precisely my point in fact. As for the VA, opinions differ, but there is basically nothing before Congress that has more bipartisan support than helping veterans.
posted by msalt at 6:00 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


there is basically nothing before Congress that has more bipartisan support than helping veterans.

Thanks. I needed a laugh today.
posted by Etrigan at 6:08 PM on March 7, 2016 [15 favorites]


Had TARP failed as Sanders wanted most of you working at the time would not have received your next paycheck. Companies couldn't get commercial paper to handle short term obligations like payroll. Companies with cash were not sure if their bank accounts would be frozen by expected bank runs.
posted by humanfont at 6:27 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


Tarp actually saved my job at the time. Funds disbursed through a federal agency under TARP bridged our short-term investment income loss until we could reconfigure. That saved a lot of hardship. I was all for actually a New New Deal with WPAs and CCCs, but the TARP had visible positive effect for me and others.
posted by Miko at 6:45 PM on March 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


I really would like to know more about his intent in voting against TARP. If it was more of a way to speak out, knowing that it would pass despite his vote, that's one thing. But if he would have done whatever he could to stop TARP (as in, he would have vetoed it had he been President), that's disqualifying to me, as far as my vote goes.
posted by sallybrown at 6:47 PM on March 7, 2016


I really would like to know more about his intent in voting against TARP.

This is his press release from Oct 2008, it details his opposition to the bill. In part:
"If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people."

Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million year and individuals earning over $500,000 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.
This is his press release from Jan 2009:
"Today I voted to withhold more funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I have deep respect for President-elect Obama and I very much appreciate the difficult job he has in trying to remedy the economic damage done by the Bush administration's reckless policies.

"Nonetheless, I have strong reservations about continuing this bailout without strong taxpayer protections written into law. I also object to using middle-class taxpayer money to bail out the exact same financial institutions whose greed and recklessness led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

"Furthermore, we need a major investigation into how this financial crisis occurred and who exactly was responsible."
Some other ones:
Sanders Requests Investigation Into the Financial Crisis
Why Not Fire Failed Tycoons?
Senate Approves Ban on Bailed-Out Banks Replacing Laid-Off Americans with Foreign Workers
Where Did $2 Trillion Go?
posted by melissasaurus at 7:10 PM on March 7, 2016 [9 favorites]


This seems relevant with respect to the TARP issue. I don't know all the ins and outs here, nor do I have any special access to Sanders' intentions or to what he knew or believed at the time, but it looks to me from the linked press release that his issue was not with the bailout as such but with the way the bailout was being funded and managed.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:10 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


I lost my job along with 20 other co-workers regardless. Also about 3 million other people as well. But good thing the financial system was kept intact!
posted by localhuman at 7:12 PM on March 7, 2016 [3 favorites]


TARP should have been passed, but it needed to be structured to have far more strings attached and to have real long-lasting benefits for US homeowners, small businesses, and displaced workers. It was rushed through by the Bush administration as an all-or-nothing solution that amounted to taking our entire economy hostage. The fact that banks were able to crash the economy with hardly any real consequences isn't just wrong - it creates moral hazard because now they know that taxpayers will bail them out, no strings attached, no matter what happens.

I'm glad it saved a few jobs, but I lost my first career (title insurance officer) along with everyone else in our office to that crash, and half of my friends lost their homes. There was no bailout for us.

Felix Salmon, Judging TARP
TARP: hugely unpopular, mixed benefits
TARP after three years: it made things worse, not better
Where TARP went wrong
Bank bailout didn't increase small business lending as had been promised
Paulson lied to Congress about TARP
Secrets and lies of the bailout
Neel Kashkari, TARP administrator and now head of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, says banks are still too big to fail and pose systemic risks to our economy

TARP: the long goodbye: "But three mistakes were made in the implementation of TARP. First, there was no need to be so excessively generous to the financial executives (and their boards) at the institutions that had to be saved. ... Second and closely related, the Obama administration missed the opportunity to change the structure and the incentives of Wall Street when it had the chance, at the very beginning of 2009. ... Third, by the time the administration put forward its financial reform ideas, the big banks were back on their feet – and ready to throw huge numbers of lobbyists and unlimited cash into the fight to preserve their right to take inordinate risk and to mismanage their way into disaster."
What did TARP accomplish?: "There is no question that passing TARP was an essential element in restoring confidence. ... But if any country provides unlimited government support for its financial system, while not putting orderly bankruptcy-type procedures in place for insolvent large institutions, and refusing to take on serious governance reform and downsizing for major troubled banks, it would be castigated by the United States and come under pressure from the I.M.F. At the heart of every crisis is a political problem — powerful people, and the firms they control, have gotten out of hand. Unless this is dealt with as part of the stabilization program, all the government has done is provide an unconditional bailout. ..The implementation of TARP exacerbated the perception (and the reality) that some financial institutions are “too big to fail.” This lowers their funding costs, enabling them to borrow more and to take more risk. The consequences appear in your tax bill and your job prospects."
posted by dialetheia at 7:19 PM on March 7, 2016 [14 favorites]


Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million year and individuals earning over $500,000 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.

Well, that was certainly not about to happen.
posted by Miko at 9:00 PM on March 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really would like to know more about his intent in voting against TARP.

We should probably assume the worst. That he would gladly cripple the entire economy for decades, throw tens of millions of people out of work, in order to take a poke at Wall Street.

Well, that was certainly not about to happen.

And so, it was a cynical, calculated political stunt then, designed to get applause from his base, without actually risking anything. At least that's better than actually being serious.
posted by happyroach at 9:06 PM on March 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's not too impressive, no. It's not even consistent with his own statement about who should bear the cost of the bailout.

And it didn't stand a chance of going anywhere, nor did any serious attempt to penalize the banking sector, and the reason is that one angry guy, however correct he may be in spirit, cannot do anything while standing alone among 534 other people. Which, circularly, is my main concern with this whole campaign. It's trying to build the top of a pyramid before you build the base.
posted by Miko at 9:12 PM on March 7, 2016 [10 favorites]




And so, it was a cynical, calculated political stunt then, designed to get applause from his base, without actually risking anything. At least that's better than actually being serious.

If fighting for what you believe is right, even if it's not possible yet, is cynical and calculated, does that make accepting the status quo because it's possible now idealistic and full of imagination? Like supreme court minority dissents, protest votes have value. They make possible future thought about an issue, thought more in line with what was once impossible but good.
posted by dis_integration at 5:43 AM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Thought is great, action is better.
posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Thought is great, action is better.

I think that depends largely on what the action is.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:20 AM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Vote Ralph Wiggum for president because he is what America needs!

We tried that in 2000 and again in 2004, it didn't work out so hot.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:32 AM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]




I think that depends largely on what the action is.

Well of course. Simple point is just that airing ideas is just that, airing ideas. Until it results in changed action it really doesn't do anything.
posted by Miko at 10:28 AM on March 8, 2016


Well of course. Simple point is just that airing ideas is just that, airing ideas. Until it results in changed action it really doesn't do anything.

Laws are thoughts put to paper. In a functioning society with the rule of law, the political thoughts of the legislature are political actions. Similarly, the political thoughts of a single member of that legislature, expressed in a public forum, are a kind of action.

In other contexts, all rational actions are preceded by thought. Thought prepares the way for action and makes it possible. In some streams of western philosophical tradition, an action is not an action unless it is preceded by thought. It's an impulse otherwise, more reaction than action. More specifically, thought and action stand in a dialectical relationship to each other. The field of the imaginary determines the range of possible action, while the outcome of actions (which are always unpredictable), help inform the field of the imaginary. Especially when "airing ideas" goes on in the public sphere, it is never merely the airing of ideas, but at the very least a way of influencing future action. Hence why hate speech is dangerous. If Trump goes around saying it's not only fine to waterboard, but just dandy to "much worse", this is not just the airing of ideas, but is, rather, by influencing the thinking of others about torture, a kind of political action. The same goes for other kinds of thinking in the public sphere. You cannot just separate ideas from action.
posted by dis_integration at 10:53 AM on March 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, here's a thought, or an airing of ideas. Is this one equally as meaningless until followed by action?
posted by localhuman at 11:23 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


What would have happened if S. Amdt. 5685 to H.R. 1424 had failed to pass? Wouldn't the Senate have generated and voted on an alternative in pretty short order? Serious question: Was there some special time constraint such that if the Senate had delayed long enough to draft and vote on a new bill, the consequences would have been dire? I don't have a clear enough memory of the events to know. Supposing that the bill didn't need to be passed that very day, then it seems worth asking what would have happened in the Senate had the bill failed with Sanders in the Nay column. We're probably imagining a close vote if we're imagining that it failed to pass. So, it's worth noting that in addition to Sanders, Feingold and Wyden -- two strongly progressive Democrats -- both voted Nay. Suppose, then, that there had been a progressive contingent large enough to kill the bill. The question, then, would be this: Would those interested in passing the bailout be more likely to net enough votes to pass it (adding new Yea votes while not adding too many new Nay votes) by moving the bill to the right or to the left?

I'm happy to agree that Sanders was not going to get everything that he wanted by voting Nay on the bill. But I think it's at least possible that if the bill failed with him voting Nay, the eventual bailout bill would have been better than the one that actually passed. Moreover, even in the case where it is clear that the bill will pass despite the "protest vote," such a vote might be a good idea insofar as it clearly signals what it will take to get that vote for relevantly similar bills in the future. To me, that all looks like neither cynical playing to the base nor empty rhetoric, but actual politics.

Stepping back, let's remember where we're at in the discussion. The worry expressed by sallybrown above, for example, was that Sanders would have killed the bill if he could and that that would be disqualifyingly poor judgment. The response was that Sanders wasn't opposed to the bailout as such but that he was opposed to details about how the bailout was funded and about what oversight controls would be in place. Now, you all might disagree -- and if so, I'd like to hear why -- but it seems to me that Sanders did not display poor judgment here but was trying to get the best possible bailout bill with some eye toward possible future bailout bills. Had he been President, he might very well have threatened a veto had he thought it would produce a better bill. As President, would he have vetoed even if he thought that he couldn't have gotten a better bailout bill? Even if doing so would have sunk the possibility of any bailout at all? My guess is that no, he wouldn't have done that. But it strikes me as a great question. One that someone should ask him at a debate or town hall.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:25 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


guys i'm worried about david brooks again

The opening paragraph, to get a feel for whether this is a Brooks column worth getting a headache over:
It’s 2 a.m. The bar is closing. Republicans have had a series of strong and nasty Trump cocktails. Suddenly Ted Cruz is beginning to look kind of attractive. At least he’s sort of predictable, and he doesn’t talk about his sexual organs in presidential debates!
It's 2 a.m. Do you know where your political party is?

Also... David Brooks, was this deliberate: "... strong and nasty Trump cocktails ... his sexual organs..." ?
posted by dis_integration at 11:50 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Did Twitter's Exec Censor #WhichHillary in advance of Key Primaries? Twitter users speak out

This story is a week old but I missed it.
posted by futz at 11:52 AM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Laws are thoughts put to paper

Oy vey.

was trying to get the best possible bailout bill with some eye toward possible future bailout bills

I can't agree. That proposal was completely unserious and there was not a hope in hell of its passing. It was a statement, not an attempt to get a better bailout plan to pass.
posted by Miko at 11:58 AM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's the text of his proposal (which seems like it was actually just a speech), and Mother Jones on "the problem" with it, from 2008.
posted by Miko at 12:06 PM on March 8, 2016


Miko, you're not carefully reading what I wrote. I've agreed that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted. I'm sure he knew that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted. So, his proposal must have had some other purpose. I've offered one: signalling. And I've offered a story in which there is a serious political dimension to what look like outlandish proposals. Reiterating that there was no hope of the bill passing is not engaging what I wrote.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


I've said it before and I'll say it again: David Brooks needs to suck it up and come out as a moderate Democrat.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


there is basically nothing before Congress that has more bipartisan support than helping veterans

NRSC Deletes Tweet Saying Double Amputee Dem Doesn't 'Stand' For Vets
posted by zombieflanders at 12:40 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


He could start a new movement! Alongside Reagan Democrats and soccer moms could be the elusive 'David Brooks Democrat'
posted by localhuman at 12:41 PM on March 8, 2016


I re-read your comment, carefully, Jonathan Livengood, and I don't see anywhere you said that. You had a lot of convoluted hypotheticals in there, but the central point is that none of them were ever going to happen, or were even close to being able to happen, and a politician as astute as Sanders knew that. It was clear it was going to pass. If it signalled anything, it signalled resistance, which is fine, and we might agree that it was just a posture with a message and not an attempt to improve the bill; but his alternative proposal was unserious, as should be very clear.

Was there some special time constraint such that if the Senate had delayed long enough to draft and vote on a new bill, the consequences would have been dire?

Yes. It was the beginning of the final quarter of the year, and had the bill not passed, half a dozen or more major banks were going to collapse, leaving their lenders holding mountains of bad debt and tying up the entire American economy. The government had already negotiated individual bailouts for AIG, Lehman, and Freddie MAC, and this was an attempt to forestall the rest of the dominoes from falling, and it was urgent.
posted by Miko at 12:46 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


'David Brooks Democrat'

It'll be the most Beltway thing since, well, Marco-mentum.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh wait. You did say that, buried at the end of your second paragraph after a lot of alternative history, but I think it is the only realistic thing in your entire comment. I don't disagree with it, I'm merely saying, yes, that's all it is, a protest vote. Neither the vote nor the accompany speech was a serious proposal for improving a second hypothetical "eventual" bill.
posted by Miko at 12:49 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


If anyone hasn't read Aaron Ross Sorkin's book about the bailout, Too Big To Fail, I highly recommend it. I don't know how anyone can read that and come away thinking that the TARP plan was the best course of action, that anything about its passage was honest (or in some cases arguably even legal), or that progressives like Sanders, Feingold, and Wyden were wrong to oppose it (which helped define the leftward edge of what was possible, contra arguments that all protest is meaningless unless it directly results in legislation). I don't understand why people grant the banks' framing - it was an international emergency and if it didn't get passed our economy would collapse, but somehow it is 'unrealistic' to expect that we couldn't use that very urgency to extract concessions from the very bankers who desperately needed it to pass? It doesn't add up. The few concessions that did end up in the bill turned out to be largely toothless, just as Wyden, Feingold, and Sanders argued - it did little to halt foreclosures and even less to restart small business lending.

My problem with the TARP passage wasn't the existence of protest votes, it was the fact that the rest of the Senate essentially gave the hostage-takers everything they wanted with very few strings attached. It should have been passed, but more senators should have stood with Feingold, Cantwell, Wyden, Sanders, Dorgan, and others to demand real concessions from the banks in exchange for passage. Even though the situation was as urgent as they say (and there is still some question about that, regardless of how Lehmann fell - economists from the NY Fed and MIT wrote a paper indicating that the interbank lending freeze was overblown), that should have been a perfect opportunity to demand concessions for the middle class who were hardest hit by the mortgage & credit crises and the recession that followed.
posted by dialetheia at 1:04 PM on March 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


If it signalled anything, it signalled resistance, which is fine, and we might agree that it was just a posture with a message and not an attempt to improve the bill; but his alternative proposal was unserious, as should be very clear.

I don't see how it's "unserious" to stake an ideological claim just because it doesn't change the outcome of a single vote. It helps keep the centrists on your side anchored roughly to the party's platform and ensures that the next time a similar issue comes up you'll have credibility if the direction that was chosen hasn't solved the problem under consideration, or has made it worse. Legislators aren't automatons, they're people with principles that shift over time, and it's comforting for them to know they'll have their flank covered.

Barbara Lee was the lone vote against the 2001 AUMF, but a majority of Democrats voted against the 2002 version. Sure, the situations were different, and I can't prove that Lee's vote helped any one of those Democrats vote their conscience, but I do know that nobody wants to be the first to push against the prevailing consensus, so having someone who will reliably do so and break the seal for other to follow along seems much more valuable than any single vote out of 100 or 435 is.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:27 PM on March 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


He could start a new movement! Alongside Reagan Democrats and soccer moms could be the elusive 'David Brooks Democrat'

Yeah, but only if a taxi driver or Applebee's patron suggests the idea to him.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:29 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I wonder why David Brooks has never taken a side job driving a taxi -- that way he could come up with whatever ideas he wants.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


the rest of the Senate essentially gave the hostage-takers everything they wanted with very few strings attached. It should have been passed, but more senators should have stood with Feingold, Cantwell, Wyden, Sanders, Dorgan, and others

Solution: Different senators. Method: action at state and local level.

I don't understand why people grant the banks' framing - it was an international emergency and if it didn't get passed our economy would collapse,

It would have meant you go to the ATM and nothing comes out. Your paycheck doesn't arrive. Your credit card doesn't work. That's not a myth promulgated by banks.
posted by Miko at 1:57 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I agree with what you say, tonycpsu. We are both saying it was a "send a message" proposal, not a "this can be implemented now" proposal. It was never going to pass. That is why I call it "unserious." I can see quibbling with my word choice - but it was not, at the moment, at all viable and Sanders definitely knew that. Was there a long game? Of course. But let's not pretend it would have been written up as a bill and gotten out of committee, let alone passed.
posted by Miko at 2:01 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


It would have meant you go to the ATM and nothing comes out. Your paycheck doesn't arrive. Your credit card doesn't work. That's not a myth promulgated by banks.

For crying out loud, I know exactly what it was about - I was unemployed that whole time after I was laid off from my housing-industry job during the mortgage crisis, and I followed every drop of that news extremely closely. The point is that the urgency should have created space to demand more concessions, not fewer. It wasn't like they didn't need those votes, either - conservatives and liberals both opposed TARP and they had to scramble to get those votes together. If more senators had demanded more concessions, as Sanders and the other progressive senators did, we would have been much better off, which is the opposite of what you argued (which seemed to be that everyone should have just gone along with it because they weren't going to get a better deal). Again, while it's not a perfect account, I really recommend that Aaron Ross Sorkin book.

Solution: Different senators. Method: action at state and local level.

Since your argument started with "Sanders was 'unserious' to oppose the bailout" I'm not sure what your point is. He's not allowed to oppose the banks with his vote unless he has a supermajority, or what? Again, without opposition from Sanders, Wyden, Cantwell, Feingold, etc. the banks would have been able to get away with even more, there would have been less cover for other senators to oppose it, and the leftward edge of the debate would have moved to the right. I understand that you seem to have a very transactional view of politics, but I don't understand why you don't see the value in defending the leftward edge of the debate and deride it as 'unserious' if you also grant that more left-wing senators would have been beneficial. If Sanders' vote had been 100% necessary to pass the bill, if he was the last guy standing in the way, it would be one thing to deride his vote and his counterproposal. But as others have already explained at length, it is ultimately in the broader Democratic caucus's best interest to have people holding down the leftward edge of a debate - that's why the whip usually makes sure that people can vote in accordance with their base and conscience if they have the votes they need otherwise. To call Sanders 'unserious' for being one of the many left-wing senators who demanded more concessions seems very short-sighted.
posted by dialetheia at 2:24 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


If more senators had demanded more concessions, as Sanders and the other progressive senators did, we would have been much better off, which is the opposite of what you argued

Solution: Different Senators, etc.

Since your argument started with "Sanders was 'unserious' to oppose the bailout"


That was not my argument. Mine is a narrower point: that his specific proposal for a five-year surtax on all families making over a million dollars was an unserious proposal. There are many things wrong with that basic idea, as should be obvious, and it had absolutely no chance of becoming a bill, et alone passing. Saying that that proposal was just a statement is not the same as saying Sanders was unserious to oppose the bailout, or should we say, that particular bailout plan. So you don't need to convince me that there needed to be contention about the particulars of the bailout plan. My point is just that Sanders did not advance a serious alternative proposal, choosing instead to, as tonycpsu might say, sketch out a farther left position. Well, farther left only if you rule out state banking.
posted by Miko at 2:34 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


There was a danger in trying to load up TARP with extra measures that regulations created in the heat of the moment to punish or change the financial industry would hinder efforts to stabilize things. The flaws in TARP were numerous, but nothing that big and quickly done is going to be flawless. TARP wasn't the only bill in the pipeline. Later we saw Dodd Frank and other measures pass.
posted by humanfont at 2:43 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


....and on review of the whole interchange, I think there's a larger point that I'm coming from when I call that proposal out, which keeps getting danced around: there is simply not enough legislative support for policies reflecting a leftist point of view. There is not now, and there has not been for a long time. Sanders' actual work to improve the bill was probably helpful (without having the time or interest to figure out exactly what contributions he made to changing it). But that should be separated from the proposal under discussion, which was theatre. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's recognize it. Further, even had it been an awesome and well-developed proposal, it would not, could not have won sufficient support because of the makeup of Congress and its economic entanglements. And if there is a long game there, or if he is helping to flank centrists, what of it if even all those centrists added cannot achieve a large-scale economic win over the ensuing decade?

Sanders' candidacy, however brilliant and strategic we might think him, cannot change that. Only we can change that. We can rail against Congress until we're blue in the face, and we can praise people for flanking out leftward positions and all sorts of political machinations, but until we actually have a concrete plan to go about changing our representation materially, we will remain just as impotent as he and the other 10 were then. That is why I disdain all these hypotheticals and think pieces - they don't matter. It's overthought. All that really matters is the ground - developing a deeper bench to advance the left legislatively. Almost anything else - rhetorical strategies unconnected to electoral strategies, purer-than-thou posturing, anger, online slacktivism - is basically a waste of time and effort. Nothing changes until we change representation at all levels.
posted by Miko at 2:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, farther left only if you rule out state banking.

This is actually a great demonstration of the power of the leftward edge of the debate - if there had been someone in the room advocating for nationalization of not just the banks' toxic liabilities but also their assets, which is what many economists were actually arguing for at the time and which was largely successful in Iceland, maybe Sanders' 'unserious' proposal would have looked a lot more serious.

The funny thing is that TARP barely made a dent in the crisis, anyway - almost all of the real action of the bailout happened within other parts of Treasury and the Federal Reserve, which not only bought up $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and $750 billion in credit default swaps, but also lent a cumulative total of nearly $15 trillion to the banks. Most of it was paid back, but I'm sure everyday Americans and the broader economy would have benefited far more from $15 trillion in 0% loans.

There was a danger in trying to load up TARP with extra measures that regulations created in the heat of the moment to punish or change the financial industry would hinder efforts to stabilize things.

...because the banks would have let the entire US economy crash before they accepted any conditions or responsibility. You're probably even right, god help us, but it's an indication of the extent of regulatory capture that banks can take our economy hostage like that and we've put few laws in place to prevent it happening again (Dodd-Frank helps some, but when even Neel Kashkari is saying the banks still need to be broken up, there are still real systemic problems that their regulatory capture is preventing us from fixing).

Nothing changes until we change representation at all levels.

And how do you expect that to change without changing public opinion through the sorts of activism you deride as pointless? Sanders has done more to move the Overton window to the left than anyone in my lifetime. Certainly far more than Clintonian triangulation ever did. This is a precursor to that kind of change - people who want access to his donor base and enthusiasm are now learning that they need to watch their left flank and not move too far to the right. The success he's had running his campaign solely on small donations is a powerful demonstration that voters are absolutely fed-up with campaign finance corruption, which will meaningfully impact future races and hopefully make some politicians think twice about accepting wheelbarrows full of cash from corporate interests. All of this stuff moves the needle for future campaigns in a way that will make it easier to run to the left, whether he wins or not.
posted by dialetheia at 2:54 PM on March 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


maybe Sanders' 'unserious' proposal would have looked a lot more serious.

No, that really wouldn't help it. I mean, let's be real.

Sanders has done more to move the Overton window to the left than anyone in my lifetime

The practical effect of this remains to be seen. The much-ballyhood "Overton Window" does not vote in Congress.

All of this stuff moves the needle for future campaigns in a way that will make it easier to run to the left, whether he wins or not.

This may be true, if the right candidates materialize. But the disintegration of the right and the obvious and total failure of neoliberal economics is also a big, maybe bigger factor in making it easier to run to the left. So I hesitate to give any individual too much credit.
posted by Miko at 2:58 PM on March 8, 2016


Miko, I think "playing the long game" is an acceptable characterization, but the word "unserious" has (along with related phraseology) a very distinct connotation when talking about progressive policies. It's almost a badge of honor among lefties to have one's proposals considered "unserious", because "seriousness" is what gave us a lot of the worst policies we're forced to live with today, so I sort of bristled at that characterization, especially since, as you've now acknowledged, there is strategic value in taking a position even if that position never results in a significant change to the bill under consideration at that time.

But yeah, there's no appetite in Congress for leftist policy, so it's really about damage control -- Sanders and other solid progressives are really just trying to hold onto the status quo and minimize the damage the GOP can do. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, and I'm glad we seem to agree on that.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


let's be real

Oy vey.

Get real, say the Very Serious People. Good things will Never Happen (tm).
posted by dis_integration at 3:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


> The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders: The names of Berta Cáceres’s murderers are yet unknown. But we know who killed her.

Berta Cáceres murder: Honduras blocks sole witness from leaving country

Honduran Activist Berta Cáceres Died in Gustavo Castro Soto's Arms; Now His Life is in Danger
posted by homunculus at 4:00 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Connotations aside,the point was a narrow one: it was not a serious proposal, as in, an earnestly offered proposal. It was not expected to pass even by its proponent. It had no possibility of passing as a proposal. That's all.
posted by Miko at 4:36 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


The state media of the corrupt regime that governs Qatar isn't to be trusted in its criticism of Clinton. Neither is the circular firing squad that is The Nation.

The current President of Honduras was elected in 2014 long after Clinton left office. Referring to his government as the Clinton back regime is absurd. The idea that she's repsonsible for the decades of violence in Honduras is also compete nonsense.
posted by humanfont at 4:48 PM on March 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


I know nothing about RNC voting procedure, but this is interesting - not least because Trump may end up as the only candidate on the Republican convention ballot.
RNC Rule 40 may create an absurd undemocratic result, and should be changed
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:45 PM on March 8, 2016


I think you might see them change that rule if Trump were the only candidate to qualify but still did not have a majority of delegates (though he is doing well tonight).
posted by Chrysostom at 6:46 PM on March 8, 2016


Looks like Sanders is taking Michigan, 63 delegates to Hillary's 53, Clinton Missouri, 28 delegates to Sanders' 1.
posted by Miko at 8:38 PM on March 8, 2016


Ignoring super delegates and focusing on a majority of regular delegates Sanders needed to win 53% of remaining delegates as of this morning to capture the nomination. Today his take was 44% of the delegates up for grabs.
posted by humanfont at 8:45 PM on March 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


That's Mississippi, not Missouri. MO is one of the March 15 states.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:57 PM on March 8, 2016


My mistake, sorry.

Because it's popping around my feed tonight and this is as good a place as any: Confessions of a Republican - an LBJ 1964 commercial exploiting fissures in the GOP.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on March 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Connotations aside,the point was a narrow one: it was not a serious proposal, as in, an earnestly offered proposal. It was not expected to pass even by its proponent. It had no possibility of passing as a proposal. That's all.

By this logic neither would decades of legislation on labor rights, civil rights, women's rights or gay rights. Behind all the "serious" legislation that addressed those issues there are mountains of "unserious" motions, amendments and bills.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:45 AM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]


Because it's popping around my feed tonight and this is as good a place as any: Confessions of a Republican - an LBJ 1964 commercial exploiting fissures in the GOP.

Goldwater Trump similarities aside, this commercial is such an amazing piece of mid century stage acting. The speech patterns, the phony stutter, the gestures and, most of all the cigarettes, the long drawn out way he takes the pack out, the cigarette, then the lighter, talking the whole time. It's so perfect. Did John Cassavetes direct this?
posted by dis_integration at 5:17 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]



By this logic neither would decades of legislation on labor rights, civil rights, women's rights or gay rights. Behind all the "serious" legislation that addressed those issues there are mountains of "unserious" motions, amendments and bills.


I am certain that's true, but that still has no bearing on the fact that it was not intended as a viable proposal expected to pass. That's what "narrow point" means. It was rhetoric.
posted by Miko at 6:28 AM on March 9, 2016


Donald Trump mouth eyes
posted by numaner at 7:10 AM on March 9, 2016


Goldwater Trump similarities aside, this commercial is such an amazing piece of mid century stage acting.

Has there been an iconic political ad in the past decade or two? A truly iconic one, on the order of the "Daisy" ad? Or even something like this? I feel like all of the political ads I've seen in my adulthood have had the production values and narrative sophistication of late night informercials.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:41 AM on March 9, 2016


Has there been an iconic political ad in the past decade or two?

Sanders' "America" ad may qualify, if he ends up winning.
posted by Etrigan at 7:48 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


The will.i.am "Yes We Can" video was a free political ad for Barack Obama in 2008. It won an Emmy award for "Best New Approaches in Daytime Entertainment."
posted by zarq at 8:01 AM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]


Has there been an iconic political ad in the past decade or two?

I think you could easily re-rerun this one with some simple overdubbing in just two or three spots. The scratchy audio and Mad Men aesthetic would, I think, play really well in the bright chaos of cable TV.

Sanders' "America" ad may qualify

It is a warm and fuzzy ad, but tbh it is not terribly original in style, which I think you'd need to be considered iconic. It follows squarely in a central tradition of election ads: smiling people, smiling candidate shaking hands, pleasant song.
posted by Miko at 8:19 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


Has there been an iconic political ad in the past decade or two?

This is for a state-level race, but it was really something: Prostitutes Over Patriots
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:33 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


That Carly Fiorina "demon sheep" ad from when she ran for Senate is... well, iconic might be one word for it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:33 AM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]


The Willie Horton ad?
posted by drezdn at 9:57 AM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]


That sheep ad is just crazy. I hadn't seen it before.
posted by OmieWise at 10:19 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Willie Horton ad?

Hm, borderline on the date, but I'll count it. But was that iconic because of the ad itself, or was it iconic because of the issue?

I guess I was mostly thinking of ads that are "iconic" for some kind of aesthetic merit, like Confessions and Daisy could be said to possess. I don't know if Confessions had any effect on the '64 campaign, but damned if it isn't a well-crafted piece of work.

(Fun bonus fact, according to Wikipedia, apparently Al Gore was the first person to mention the furlough program during the campaign.)
posted by tobascodagama at 10:30 AM on March 9, 2016


Sanders' "It's Not Over" ad (the one where they gave creative control over to Erica Garner) is pretty great.
posted by Weeping_angel at 10:37 AM on March 9, 2016 [4 favorites]


There's the Swift Boat Ad and the 2am ad. Maybe not quite iconic, though.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:38 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


That 3 AM ad is actually a great example of what I was asking about, thanks. It's basically just a riff on the Daisy ad, updated for modern sensibilities, but it's operating on a narrative level that most political ads don't attempt.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:51 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think Reagan's Morning in America would qualify as iconic.
posted by zutalors! at 10:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


True!

(Also, that "It's Not Over" ad by Erica Garner is pretty amazing.)
posted by tobascodagama at 10:58 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


well, I think it takes some time for something to qualify as "iconic."
posted by zutalors! at 11:25 AM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Garner ad is powerful.
posted by Miko at 11:35 AM on March 9, 2016


Reagan's Bear in the Woods (or "The Bear") ad is at least semi-iconic, and also totally weird.
posted by raysmj at 11:54 AM on March 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


That Carly Fiorina "demon sheep" ad from when she ran for Senate is... well, iconic might be one word for it.

what the hell did I just watch
posted by zarq at 12:40 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]


The unrestricted id of the Republican Party in the Obama era, that's what you just watched.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:41 PM on March 9, 2016 [5 favorites]


(If anybody needs a bizarre political ad chaser to the Carly Fiorina monstrosity, may I recommend Mike Gravel?)
posted by tobascodagama at 12:42 PM on March 9, 2016 [3 favorites]


Uhh... Re that Gavel ad, let me just refer you to zarq's comment above.
posted by OmieWise at 12:57 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


Reagan's Bear in the Woods yt (or "The Bear") ad is at least semi-iconic, and also totally weird.

that's some Tim and Eric shit there
posted by zutalors! at 1:23 PM on March 9, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mike Gravel explains "The Rock" video.

It really doesn't explain much. I think maybe he was the target of a prank.
posted by Miko at 2:48 PM on March 9, 2016


You know, I can totally imagine him filming that ad thinking that someone would do a voiceover on top of it but they just kind of... forgot to write or record the voiceover.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:13 PM on March 9, 2016


He says it's not an ad, it's an art project from a couple of digital media arts grad students, and that part of the point is that it disrupts what people expect from a political figure (including the expectation that it's an ad).

His explanation video is long and rambly (since it seems to be an impromptu press conference) but the basic points seem to be: they wanted him to make long, silent eye contact to emphasize that it wasn't an ad or a normal piece of political communication, then throw the rock in the water to show that a single action reverberates outward, then walk away so that people would think about their own place in relation to the world. That's him explaining it, which is likely a bit more muddled than the art students, and I'm not sure it's all that successful as a piece, but I'm a proud proponent of more high weirdness, so I approve that message.
posted by klangklangston at 11:43 AM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]


Reagan's Bear in the Woods (or "The Bear") ad is at least semi-iconic, and also totally weird.

Is the Bear Russia? The Bear's Russia, right? Or is Reagan the Bear? I think the Bear's Russia but I'm not sure.
posted by dis_integration at 1:08 PM on March 10, 2016


The real threat is, of course, the Russian Bear.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:09 PM on March 10, 2016


Surprisingly, the bear takes a shit in the woods, then pulls off his mask to reveal that it's really the Pope. Shoulda seen it coming.
posted by msalt at 5:15 PM on March 10, 2016 [4 favorites]


Which is almost from an early The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers ( and there's a title that has expanded its meaning...) where in Freewheelin' Frank, when asked if he would like to smoke a joint, replies 'Are bears Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?' -- a line that often comes to mind still, after all these years.
posted by y2karl at 12:18 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]



Is the Bear Russia? The Bear's Russia, right? Or is Reagan the Bear? I think the Bear's Russia but I'm not sure.


I think the Bear's Russia but then what's with "if there is a bear?" I think it's "Russia's Nuclear Threat." I think that's the bear. If there is a bear.
posted by zutalors! at 12:20 PM on March 11, 2016


Well, sometimes there's a bear.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:09 PM on March 11, 2016


Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:17 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Not a particular taste treat either way, I would imagine.
posted by y2karl at 4:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older And the award for wtf-ery in award show production...   |   2:35 - "What do you think this is? Real life?" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments